Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(148)"Rulings on some Examples of Lawyers` Work"

Date Added : 02-11-2015

Resolution No.(148)(13/2010) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies: "Rulings on some Examples of Lawyers` Work"
Date: 2/9/1431 AH, corresponding to 12/8/2010 AD.

 

During its ninth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the following question:
What is the ruling of Sharia on a lawyer`s work in the following cases:
First Case: When the lawyer concludes a contract with accident-damaged people and  persons who have insurance, where he buys the case from them for a certain price in return for taking everything that he manages to collect from the insurance company?
Answer: This case is similar to purchasing debt, which is claimed by an accident- damaged person, from the insurance company. It is forbidden for two reasons:
First: The lawyer pays an advanced sum of money to the damaged person so as to collect a larger deferred sum from the insurance company. This is forbidden usury because Allah, The Almighty, says(which means), " O ye who believe! Fear God, and give up what remains of your demand for usury, if ye are indeed believers."{Al-Baqarah/278}.
 Second: This transaction is aleatory because the lawyer pays a certain sum and doesn`t know how much he will collect from the insurance company, and this forbidden.
Second Case: When the lawyer concludes a contract with the accident-damaged persons like in the first case, but he gets 25% or more or less, out of whatever sum he manages to collect from the insurance company?
Answer: The Board believes that this is permissible in accordance with the view of the Hanbalite jurists who permit specifying a certain percentage as a fee out of a profit.
Third Case: When the lawyer concludes a deal with a man of wealth whereby the latter founds  a law firm to the former in return for a percentage from the revenues of particular cases?
Answer: The Board believes that this is permissible on basis of partnership as is the view of the Hanbalite jurists. Therefore, the revenues should be divided between the two partners as agreed. However, if the wealthy person fully equips that law firm and collects his money as a rent paid by the lawyer, then this is acceptable as agreed by the Muslim scholars. And Allah knows best.

 

Head of the Iftaa` Board, The Grand Mufti of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, His Grace Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh
Vice Head of the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Hilayel
Dr. Yahia Al-Botoosh/ Member
His Eminence, Sheikh Sa`ied Hijjawi/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Essa
Judge Sarrie Attieh
Dr. Abdulrahman Ibbdah/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Oklah/ Member
Dr. Abduln`nassir Abu Al Bass`al/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member
Dr. Mohammad Al-Gharaibeh/ Member
Executive Secretary of the Iftaa` Board, Dr. Ahmad Al-Has`sanat

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Someone wiped over his shoes after wearing them in a state of purity, then took them off and prayed without them?

Ablution is not invalidated by taking off leather socks or shoes after wiping over them. However, whoever takes them off after wiping must wash his feet only. If he prayed without washing his feet, he must wash his feet and repeat the prayer. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on sitting between the two prostrations, and what is the ruling on the dhikr recited during it?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Sitting between the two prostrations (al-jalsah bayna al-sajdatayn) is one of the pillars (arkān) of the prayer, while the dhikr recited during it is Sunnah according to the Shāfi'ī scholars. It is recommended (mustahabb) to say what was narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say between the two prostrations in the night prayer: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warzuqnī, warfa'nī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, provide for me, and raise me)." If one were to say a different supplication instead, such as "Rabbi ighfir lī" (My Lord, forgive me), the prayer would still be valid.
If the worshipper omits this dhikr between the two prostrations, whether intentionally or out of forgetfulness, their prayer remains valid and nothing is required of them, though they miss the reward of following the Sunnah. Leaving it out does not necessitate the prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw).
It is stated in Hāshiyat al-Bājūrī 'alā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim 'alā Matn Abī Shujā' (Vol.1/P.298): "The eleventh — i.e., of the eighteen pillars — his statement: 'sitting between the two prostrations,' meaning even in a supererogatory (nafl) prayer... his statement: 'with the supplication that has been narrated concerning it,' meaning: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warfa'nī, warzuqnī, wahdinī, wa 'āfinī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, raise me, provide for me, guide me, and grant me well-being). Al-Ghazālī added: 'wa'fu 'annī' (and pardon me). Al-Mutawallī also added: 'Rabbi hab lī qalban taqiyyan, naqiyyan min al-shirk, bariyyan lā kāfiran wa lā shaqiyyan' (My Lord, grant me a heart that is God-fearing, pure from associating partners with You, innocent, neither disbelieving nor wretched)."And Allah, the Most High, knows best.

What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

Does using a respiratory device (oxygen) affect the validity of fasting?

Using an oxygen device does not affect the validity of fasting because oxygen is a gas with no physical substance.
However, if medicinal substances with physical particles are added to the oxygen, its use would break the fast, as it enters the body cavity through a natural passage.