Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(104): “Ruling on the Medical Insurance of those Working for the American Jordanian Company for Apparel (Jordache)“

Date Added : 28-10-2015

 

Resolution No.(104) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

“Ruling on the Medical Insurance of those Working for the American Jordanian Company for Apparel (Jordache)“

Date: 5/4/1427 AH, corresponding to 3/5/2006 AD.

 

 

 

 

Question:

What is the Sharia ruling as regards the medical insurance of the workers of the American Jordanian Company for Apparel (Jordache) at the general clinics?

Answer: All success is due to Allah.

The Board is of the view that medical insurance is a branch of cooperative insurance, which is considered from the bare contracts. This contract isn`t affected by the contributors` ignorance as regards its benefit to them because they are contributors. Moreover, it isn`t risky, usurious or aleatory. 

Taking the above medical insurance into consideration, we realize that it takes the same ruling as cooperative insurance, which is an insurance with an institution that cares about workers, and isn`t a traditional insurance company. However, the Board recommends adjusting the maximum of age: (until  fifty) to become (as long as he works for the company).

The Board also recommends deleting article (14) of the draft agreement so as for the medical insurance to become effective through that institution`s commitment to cover the workers medical care during the period assigned in the draft. Based on that, the medical insurance included in the future draft agreement becomes permissible from the view point of Sharia. And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

Iftaa` Board

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

Dr. AbdulMajeed Al-Salaheen

Dr. Abdukareem Al-Khasawneh

Dr. Yousef Ghyzaan

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

Sheikh Sae`id Hijjawi

Sheikh Nae`im Mujahid

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on using snuff, inhaled vapor, or menthol rub (Vicks) during the day in Ramadan?

Using snuff, inhaled vapor, or menthol rub (Vicks) invalidates the fast because these substances enter the lungs through inhalation, and the lungs are considered part of the body cavity (jauf).
Whoever uses them must refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day out of respect for the sacred month and make up for that day after Ramadan.
However, if it is merely a scent and none of its substance reaches the body cavity, it does not break the fast.

What are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.

 
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks thinking that the sun has set, then realizes that it has not yet set?

Whoever eats or drinks believing that the sun has set, then later discovers that it has not yet set, their fast is invalid, and they must make up that day after Ramadan. It is not permissible to break the fast before confirming sunset—either by seeing it, through personal reasoning, or by relying on the statement of someone trustworthy in their religious commitment.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.