عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(231): "The Legitimacy of the Arab Agreement on Banning Human Cloning"

Date Added : 04-01-2017

Resolution No. (231) by the Board of Iftaa', Research and Islamic Studies:

"The Legitimacy of the Arab Agreement on Banning Human Cloning"

Date (22/Rabee' Al-Aoal /1438 AH) corresponding to (22/12/2016 AD)

 

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

On its twelfth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the question of his Excellency the Minister of Islamic  Awqaf, Islamic Affairs and Holy Places Dr. Wa`el Arabiat, and it reads as follows:

I have enclosed the memorandum of the General Secretariat of the Arab League No.(3/2984), (12/10/2016 AD), including the report and the recommendations issued by the concerned committee, during its sixth session held from the 28th to the 29th of Sept. 2016, as well as  representatives from the Ministries of Justice, Health, Interior and Official Religious Affairs in the Arab countries, in order to prepare the draft of the Arab agreement on banning human cloning. Could your Grace clarify the legal ruling on the articles of the aforementioned agreement? 

After prolonged deliberations, the Board decided what follows:

In light of scholar`s consensus that safeguarding human dignity from aggression or degradation is a legal obligation and the earlier resolutions issued by the Iftaa` Board and the Islamic Fiqh Academies, the articles of the aforementioned agreement don`t violate the rules of Islamic Law (Sharia). And Allah Knows Best.

 

Chairman of the Iftaa Board,  Sheikh Abdulkareem  Al-Khasawneh

Vice–chairman Prof. Ahmad Hilayel                Prof. Abed Al-Naser Abu Al-Basal           

Sheik Sa`eed Hijjawee / Member          Sheik Ghalib Al-Rbaba'h / Member

Dr. Muhammad Khaar Al-Aisaa' / Member                Judge Khaled Woraikat /Member

Dr. Muhammad Al-Khalyla / Member           Dr. Muhammad Al-Zouby / Member               

 

 

 

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

If the bleeding ceases after 40 days following childbirth, but then returns intermittently during two days of fasting, what is the ruling?

 
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Whenever the post-natal bleeding (Nifas) ceases and the woman is certain it will not return, she has become pure; therefore, she must perform the ritual bath (Ghusl) and resume praying and fasting. However, if the blood returns within fifteen days of its cessation and before sixty days have passed since the delivery, the ruling of Nifas applies once again. Consequently, any fasting or prayer performed during that interval of purity is rendered invalid; she must make up for the missed fasts of those days, but she is not required to make up for the prayers. And Allah the Exalted knows best.

What is the ruling on public street water if it gets on a person's clothes or body?

The default ruling is that public street water is pure (tahir). If one is certain of its impurity (najasa), then a small amount that gets on the lower part of a person's clothes or body is overlooked (excused). And Allah the Almighty knows best.

How should a person who is afflicted with continued major ritual impurity (incontinence of urine, bleeding outside the monthly period) perform ablution?

Such a person should make ablution for every prayer after its due time and after removing impurities from their body and outfit, and should place a fresh diaper whenever needed so as for the impurity not to spread out. They should also perform prayer immediately even if incontinence of urine continued, and should repeat the aforementioned for every obligatory prayer, then perform optional prayer as much as they want.

Is it permissible for the guardian to give Sadaqa (voluntary charity) from the money of the orphans?

It is impermissible for the guardian to donate from the money of the orphans because he is entrusted with the safekeeping of that money, and is prohibited from donating it.

See More