عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(251)"Wakalah(Authorization) for Buying a Vehicle from an Organization that Provides Funding is Legally Sound"

Date Added : 19-02-2018

Resolution No.(251) (2/2018) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies:

"Wakalah(Authorization) for Buying a Vehicle from an Organization that Provides Funding is Legally Sound"

Date: 11/Jumada Al-Awwal/1439 AH, corresponding to 28/1/2018.

 

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

During its 2nd session held on the above date, the Board reviewed a question sent by one of the citizens in which he stated: I have bought a training vehicle through direct funding from the Development and Employment Fund (DEF). Actually, law stipulates that this vehicle must be registered in the name of a driving school owner. Unfortunately, shortly after the registration, the owner of that school passed away while there were payments to be covered. As is customary, once the owner passes away, the (DEF) exempts him/her from the remaining payments. The problem is that I`m the one who has been covering the payments, not the owner of the driving school although the vehicle is registered in his name. Do the remaining payments get dropped? Who is the beneficiary of this loan? Do the remaining payments belong to the deceased i.e. do I have to pay them to his heirs, or what?

After deliberating, the Board arrived at the following:

The framing of this issue differentiates between three cases:

Case 1 : Using Wakalah(Authorization)to buy real estate. This is when the owner of the driving school doesn`t buy the training vehicle for himself; rather, the true buyer had authorized him to do so. The Sharia maxim, in this regard, states that the authorized must act in the best interest of the authorizer. This is reflected in the following statement by Al-Subkhi: "Every authorized must act in the best interest of his/her authorizer." {Al-Ashbah Wa An-Nada`r}. In this case, the authorized-owner of the driving school-isn`t obliged to register the car in the name of the authorizer, nor to inform the party funding that transaction (Vehicle) that he`s just an authorized person, and not the true owner. Therefore, that Wakalah is legally sound. It was stated: "In a sales contract, it is not conditioned that the commodity must be registered in the name of the authorizer……and ownership of that commodity remains that of the authorized." [Durar al-Hukkam Shareh Majalat Al-Ahkam].

On this basis, if the seller-DEF-decided to reduce the price of the commodity (Vehicle), then that should be in the best interest of the authorizer as well. Therefore, if the (DEF) exempted the owner of the driving school from covering the rest of the payments, then the authorizer gets exempted and the latter isn`t obliged to pay the rest of the vehicle`s price to the heirs of the former. 

Case 2: A sales contract between the owner of the driving school (Seller) and the vehicle driver (Buyer). The agreement reached by the owner of the driving school with the (DEF) is a buy contract to his benefit, and not a power of attorney.

Case 3: The contract is a mere financial loan with usurious interest,  and not a Murabaha contract.

The ruling of Sharia on cases 2 & 3 differs from that on case 1.In these two cases (2&3), the owner of the vehicle must pay the remaining part of the vehicle`s price to the heirs of the owner of the driving school.

However, the Board has concluded from the above question that it is a Wakalah (Case 1). Therefore, the true owner of the vehicle (Authorizer) is exempted from paying any amount to the heirs of the driving school owner. And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

Chairman of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh, Member

Prof. Abdulnaser Abulbasal,  Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Khair Al-Esa, Member

Dr. Majid Darawsheh, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member

 

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on wiping the front of the head beneath the ḥijāb, and is it permissible to wipe over the ḥijāb if it was put on while in a state of purification (wudu`)?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is permissible to wipe the front portion of the head (nāṣiyah) with the fingertips. It is likewise sufficient to place a wet hand over a head covering (ḥijāb), provided the moisture actually reaches the hair beneath it — if it does not, it does not suffice. A head covering is not treated in the same manner as leather socks (khuff) and may not be wiped over in lieu of the head itself.
Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Majmūʿ (Vol.1/P.407): "If a person is wearing a turban and does not wish to remove it — whether for a valid reason or otherwise — he should wipe the entire front portion of the head... The same ruling applies to whatever a woman wears on her head. If, however, he confines himself to wiping over the turban without wiping any part of the head itself, this does not suffice — and there is no disagreement among us on this point." He further states: "A woman is like a man in the manner of wiping the head... She should insert her hand beneath her head covering so that the wiping falls upon the hair itself. If she places her wet hand over her head covering, our scholars stated: if the moisture does not reach the hair, it does not suffice her." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the correct point at which to raise the hands when standing up for the third rak‘ah (after the middle tashahhud)?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Raising the hands while saying the takbīr [when rising for the third rak‘ah] is a recommended sunnah, and omitting it does not affect the validity of the prayer. The proper time for this is after rising from the middle tashahhud, once one has fully stood up.
It is stated in I‘ānat aṭ-Ṭālibīn (Vol.1/P.158): "His statement, 'and rising from the first tashahhud' — meaning, this manner [of raising the hands] is also a sunnah when he rises from the first tashahhud, that is, when he stands upright from it.
Consider [the question]: when precisely does the raising of the hands begin? Is it at the very start of rising from the first tashahhud, or after he has reached the minimum position of rukū‘ [i.e., once fully upright]? The apparent, [correct] view is the latter — even though the outward wording [of the text] might suggest the former — because at the very start of his rising, he is still relying on both hands [to push himself up, and therefore cannot yet raise them]."
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 53): "If his prayer extends beyond two rak‘ahs, he sits after them in the iftirāsh position, recites the tashahhud, and sends blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ alone, without [mentioning] his family [at this point]. He then stands while saying the takbīr, supporting himself with his hands; and once he has stood upright, he raises them level with his shoulders." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

Is it obligatory to have the intention for each day of fasting, or is one intention sufficient for the whole month?

The intention is obligatory for each day of Ramadan because each day is an independent act of worship separate from the others.
The intention must be made at night before the break of dawn, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Whoever does not intend fasting at night, there is no fast for him." [An-Nasa’i] 
And he also said: "Whoever does not firmly resolve to fast before dawn, there is no fast for him." [At-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, and An-Nasa’i]
Whoever wakes up and eats Suhoor while mindful of fasting has made the intention. Likewise, one who firmly intends at any moment during the night to fast the next day has also fulfilled the intention.

What is the ruling on forgiving a tenant next month's rent, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh al-māl?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It does not fulfill the obligation to count the rent owed on a house, or a portion of it, in lieu of zakāh. Rather, it is necessary to first transfer ownership of the zakāh amount to the poor person directly; only afterward may he be asked to pay the rent [from that money].
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 112): "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]."
We would also remind [the reader] of the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ: "The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim: he does not wrong him, nor does he abandon him [to harm]. Whoever attends to the needs of his brother, Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, will attend to his needs. Whoever relieves a Muslim of a hardship, Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, will relieve him of one of the hardships of the Day of Resurrection. And whoever conceals [the faults of] a Muslim, Allah will conceal him on the Day of Resurrection." (Agreed upon). And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

See More