عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(34): “Ruling on the Investments of the Social Security Fund for Education through Depositing Funds in Usurious Banks or Purchasing Stocks“

Date Added : 28-10-2015

 
Resolution No.(34): "Ruling on the Investments of the Social Security Fund for Education through Depositing Funds in Usurious Banks or Purchasing Stocks"

Date: 28/11/1413 AH corresponding to 20/5/1993 AD.

The Board has received the following question:

What is the ruling of Sharia on the investments of the Social Security Fund for education, where funds are deposited in the Housing Bank against an interest, stocks are purchased from Jordan-Gulf Bank and General Arabia Insurance Company, development bonds are purchased from Jordan`s Central Bank, debenture bonds of Water Authority are purchased from Jordan`s Central Bank, and stocks are purchased in the Arab International Hotels Company?

Answer: All success is due to Allah.

The Board is of the view that purchasing stocks in a usurious institution is forbidden because it involves employing the invested money in forbidden activities, and this applies to purchasing funds in Jordan-Gulf Bank, development bonds issued by the Central Bank, and debenture bonds of the Water Authority from the Central Bank.

As regards depositing funds in a usurious bank against an interest, such an activity is forbidden as well, and this applies to depositing funds in the Housing Bank against an interest.

However, the permissibility of purchasing shares in companies in general depends on the nature of the activity of such companies, so if the activity is lawful, then purchasing the shares is lawful; if not ,then it isn`t. And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice Dr.Nooh Al-Qodaat

Acting Mufti General, Sheikh Saeid Hijjawi

Mufti General of Jordanian Armed Forces: Mhamood Shwayat

             Dr. Abdassalam Al-Abbadi

Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

   Dr. Yousef Ghizaan

           Dr. Mahmood Al-Sartawi

             Dr. AbdulAziz Al-Khaiyaat

            Dr. Ibrahim Khash-shaan

       Sheikh Ratib Az-zahir

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on someone who insults or deceives others while fasting?

Insulting or deceiving others is forbidden (haram) and diminishes the reward of fasting.
The Prophet ﷺ warned against deception, saying: "Whoever deceives is not one of us." [Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi]
However, their fast remains valid despite the sin.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

"If the fidyah becomes obligatory upon a pregnant or nursing woman because she broke her fast out of fear for her child, is it obligatory from her own wealth, or from her husband's wealth?"

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The fidyah (ransom/compensation payment for breaking the fast) is obligatory from the wife's own wealth, and is not obligatory upon the husband unless he voluntarily chooses to pay it on her behalf.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/P.174): "If the two [the pregnant woman and the nursing mother] fear for the child alone — such as a pregnant woman fearing miscarriage, or a nursing mother fearing that her milk supply would decrease, thereby endangering the child — then both the qaḍā' (making up the missed fast) and the fidyah become obligatory upon them, to be paid from their own wealth." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More