عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(119): “Ruling on Trading with Cellular Phone Card“

Date Added : 02-11-2015

 

Resolution No.(119): “Ruling on Trading with Cellular Phone Cards“

Date: 1/3/1429 AH, corresponding to 9/3/2008 AD.

 

All perfect praise be to Allah The Lord of The Worlds, and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

The board received the following question:

A trader was asked to provide cellular phone cards that equal (500) JDs, then sell them by installments over one year with 20% as a profit. He has the following questions:

1- Is trading with cellular phone cards illegal?

2- Is it permissible to specify a certain percentage of profit, in general?

Answer: All success is due to Allah

1- It is permissible to trade with cellular phone cards because it is a kind of sale against a benefit. This is supported by the fact that these cards have a certain expiry date, and become useless after that date. Moreover, possession of such cards is tantamount to possession of a benefit, which is using the web of the telecommunications company that issued them for a specific period. One who has possession of a benefit may make it in the possession of someone else in return for a compensation, even if that compensation was more than the one against which he had possessed that benefit in the first place. However, cellular phone cards differ from paper money so as for people to say that they may not be sold for more than their actual value.

 

2- It is permissible to specify a certain margin of profit, whether for cellular phone cards, or any other commodity, because doing does not contradict the rules of Islamic Sharia.

And Allah Knows Best.

 

Head of the Iftaa` Department, The Grand Mufti of Jordan, Dr. Nooh Al-Qodat

Vice Head of the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

Sheikh AbdulKareem Al-Khasawneh/ Member

                                               Sheikh Sa`eid Hijjawi/ Member

                                               Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa/ Member

                                               Judge Sari Attieh/ Member

                                               Dr. Abdulrahamn Ibbdah/ Member

                                               Dr.Mohammad Oklah Al-Ibraheem/ Member

                                               Sheikh Na`eim Mujahid / Board Executive Secretary

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

"I told my family at night: 'I will fast tomorrow as qaḍā' (a make-up fast),' but I forgot to make the intention before sleeping. Is my fast valid?"

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
 
The intention is obligatory in acts of worship. For obligatory fasting, the required intention is to resolve to fast during the night [before dawn]. Its proper locus is the heart, while verbalizing the intention out loud in acts of worship is a sunnah — so that the tongue may align with the heart. If the intent behind the statement in question was the intention to fast, then it is valid; but if the intent was merely to inform someone, or reflected hesitation or doubt, then it is not valid.
 
It is stated in *Bushrā al-Karīm* (Vol.1/P.216): "It is a sunnah to verbalize the intention — that is, whatever has already been intended in the heart, whether an obligatory or a voluntary act — such as specifying the number of rak‘ahs, just before the opening takbīr — so that the tongue may assist the heart, and because this is further removed from whispered doubts (waswasah), and in order to accommodate the view of those who held it obligatory in every act of worship that requires an intention (even though this is a minority position), by analogy with Ḥajj."
 
Accordingly: if the intention to fast arose in your heart before the second adhān [i.e., before Fajr], then your fast is valid.
 
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?

 

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More