عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(177): "Does the Indemnity Insurance Paid to the Killed`s Heirs Suffice as a Diyah" .

Date Added : 02-11-2015

Resolution No.(177)(9/2012) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"Does the Indemnity Insurance Paid to the Killed`s Heirs Suffice as a Diyah"
Date: 8/8/1433 AH, corresponding to 28/6/2012 AD.

 

All praise is due to Allah, peace and blessings be upon Prophet Mohammad and upon his family and companions:

During its fifth session held on the above given date, the Board reviewed the following question:

Is it permissible to collect the indemnity insurance and does it suffice as a Diyah (Blood money)?

After prolonged deliberations, the Board came up with the following opinion:

If the effective regulations stipulate that the insurance company pays the indemnity insurance to the guardians of the victim and that it should be tantamount to the Diyah estimated in Sharia, then it is suffices, whether it was called an indemnity, or a Diyah.

However, if the indemnity insurance was less than the prescribed amount of the Diyah, then it is permissible for the guardians of the killed to claim the difference because it is an obligation on the killer.

Accordingly, there is no harm that the guardians of the killed accept the indemnity insurance, because Allah has granted them the right to receive the Diyah, which is indicated in the following verse: "Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake, (Compensation is due) : If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased’s family, unless they remit it freely." {An-Nisa`/92}. Therefore, it doesn`t matter whether it was paid by the insurance company, charitable people, or the killer`s Aqila (Male relatives from his father`s side). And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the General Iftaa` Board, His grace the Mufti General of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh

Sheikh Sa`ied Hijjawi/ Member

Prof. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi/ Member

Prof. Mohammad Al-Khwdah/Member

Prof. Abdul N`nassir Abu-Al-bas`sal/Member

Dr.Yahia Al-Boutoosh/Member

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh/ Member

Dr. Mohammad Az`zoubi/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to eat from an Udhiyah slaughtered on behalf of a deceased person?

Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon our Master the Messenger of Allah.
 
It is permissible to eat from the sacrifice (uḍḥiyyah) that is offered on behalf of a deceased person. This is the madhhab (school of thought) of the Hanbalis. In this case, the heirs take the place of the deceased as if he were alive, with the same rights to eat from it, give it in charity, and offer it as a gift.
 
It is stated in Maṭālib Uli al-Nuhā (Vol.2/P.472): "Offering a sacrifice on behalf of a deceased person is better than offering one on behalf of a living person, because the deceased is unable (to perform deeds) and is in need of reward. It is to be treated like a sacrifice on behalf of a living person in terms of eating, giving charity, and giving gifts." And Allah Almighty knows best.

Does the fast become invalid if water from rinsing the mouth reaches the stomach while performing ablution?

If water reaches the stomach without the fasting person exceeding normal rinsing or being excessive, their fast remains valid.
However, if they exceed the normal practice or exaggerate in rinsing, causing water to enter the stomach, their fast is invalid.
This is because excessiveness in rinsing is prohibited for a fasting person, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Exaggerate inhaling water during ablution, except when you are fasting." [Narrated by the Four Imams]
Transgression (Ta‘addi) refers to rinsing the mouth more than three times, while exaggeration (Mubalaghah) includes gargling, drawing water deep into the nasal passages, or filling the mouth with water in an unusual manner.

What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks thinking that the night is still present, then realizes that dawn has broken?

Whoever eats or drinks thinking that the night is still present, then later discovers that dawn has broken, must refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day out of respect for the sacred month. However, they must make up that day after Ramadan, and there is no sin upon them.

Is it incumbent on a husband to pay the alimony of his wife if she had left him and stayed at her parent`s without his permission?

When a wife leaves her house, and stays at her parent`s without asking her husband, she is considered a Nashiz (wife who refuses to abide by her husband’s orders), and so she doesn`t deserve an alimony.

See More