Resolutions of Iftaa' Board



Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(96): "Dissolution of a Christian Woman`s Marriage Contract with Christian Husband upon her Conversion to Islam"

Date Added : 08-02-2018

Resolution No.(96) by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies: "Dissolution of a Christian Woman`s Marriage Contract with Christian Husband upon her Conversion to Islam"

Date: 18/12/1426 AH, corresponding to 18/1/2006 AD.

 

 

 

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.

The Board reviewed the letter sent from the Chief Justice to His Eminence the Grand Mufti (17/8/2006) with which was enclosed the letter of the General Manager of Civil Status & Passports Department along with other documents originally addressed to the Chief Justice. The letter read as follows:

Mr. (S), a Moroccan man married to Mrs. (O) according to a Certificate of Sharia Court Marriage (8/8/2005) issued by the Sharia Court of Salt City, submitted a request to obtain a civil record and a family register, enclosing a parentage confirmation certificate (11/8/2005) for his children (Rami, Ramzi, Mohammad and Randa). It is worth pointing out that Rami was born on February the 2nd, 1988. It was made clear to the Board, based on records, that the wife (O), formerly Christian and  registered included in the civil record of her first husband, holds an Ecclesiastical Marriage Dissolution Certificate (10/12/1988).

Based on the above facts, it was made clear that the parentage confirmation certificate contradicts with the provisions of article (22) of the Civil Status Law (9/2001). This article states: "To the exclusion of articles (19), (20), and (21), the clerk is banned from mentioning the name of the father or mother or both, even if he was asked to do so in any of the following two situations:

One: They are within the prohibited degree of marriage

Two: The mother is married to another man for Rami was born during her being married to another man.

Answer:

It was made clear to the Board, based on Mrs. (O) certificate of conversion to Islam issued from the Sharia Court of Salt City (No. 53/93/7, 8/8/2005) in which she confirmed having embraced Islam for over twenty years, and since the majority of the Muslim scholars have agreed that separation is expedited between the non-Muslim spouses once the wife embraces Islam and the husband maintains his faith without the latter`s refusal to convert to Islam contrary to the Hanafie school of thought (Madhab). Accordingly, and opting for the view of the majority of the Muslim scholars, the marriage contract of Mrs. (O) with her former Christian husband (R) is considered dissolved upon her conversion to Islam twenty years ago. Since she visited the Iftaa` Dept. on November 16th, 2005 and submitted a petition in which she clarified that she had observed Iddah (Waiting period after death of husband or getting divorced) of her already dissolved marriage contract and wasn`t pregnant and her Iddah had ended before her second marriage to a Muslim husband and since both (S & O)mutually confirmed that their marriage contract was concluded on October 13th, 2005 with their mutual consent based on a Certificate of Sharia Court Marriage issued by the Sharia Court of Salt City (No. 67/8/65, 8/8/2005), the dissolution of her first marriage contract with her Christian husband on basis of the Ecclesiastical Marriage Dissolution Document issued by the Greek Orthodox First Instance Court (Amman, 10/12/1988) is pointless because that contract has already been dissolved. On this basis, Rami, born 21/2/1988, was the fruit of a valid marriage contract between Mrs. (O) and Mr. (S), and his father is Mr. (S) as confirmed by the Parentage confirmation certificate issued by the Sharia court of Salt city (No.144, 11/8/2005). And Allah Knows Best.

 

 

 

Iftaa` Board

Chairman of the Iftaa` Board, Chief Justice, Izzaldeen Al-Tamimi

Dr. AbdulMajeed Al-Salaheen

Dr. Abdulsalam Al-Abbadi

Dr. Ahmad Hilayel

Dr. Yousef Ghyzaan

Dr. Wasif Al-Bakhri

Dr. Abdukareem Al-Khasawneh

Sheikh Sae`id Hijjawi

Sheikh Nae`im Mujahid

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

What is the ruling on swimming while fasting?

Swimming while fasting is disliked (makruh) due to the risk of water entering the body cavity (jauf) through the nose, ears, or mouth, which would break the fast.
Ramadan is a month of tasbeeh (glorifying Allah), not Sibaha (swimming).

What is the ruling on praying seated due to severe obesity, given that I experience hardship in performing the prayer — especially when rising from the ground after sujūd to perform the next rak‘ah?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Standing, when one is able to do so, is a pillar of the prayer. However, whoever would experience severe, intolerable hardship, or fears harm to himself or to a limb due to obesity, or finds that standing causes him to lose his khushū‘ (humble focus and concentration) in prayer, then there is no objection to his praying seated on a chair or on the ground, performing rukū‘ (bowing) and sujūd (prostration) through gesture — provided that the gesture for sujūd is made lower than that for rukū‘. Whoever is able, at any point, to properly perform any one of these pillars, is obligated to perform it in full; for omitting it is a concession that applies only in cases of genuine inability. The Prophet ﷺ said: "When I command you to do something, do of it whatever you are able." (Related by al-Bukhārī). As the scholars of fiqh have established: what remains possible is not waived on account of what is difficult.
The criterion for determining genuine inability, as chosen by Imam al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (raḥimahullāh), is that the worshipper experiences hardship that causes him to lose his khushū‘.
As for voluntary (nafl) prayer, there is no objection to performing it while seated, even if one is able to stand. However, rukū‘ and sujūd must still be performed [in their proper physical form] by anyone who is able to do so. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the ruling on the cessation of blood after (40) days from delivery, but later continued sporadically during two days of Ramadan?

Once postpartum bleeding (Nifas) ceases, and the woman is certain that it won`t reoccur, then she becomes ritually pure and so she is free to make Ghusl (purificatory bath), pray, and fast. If the bleeding reoccurs before fifteen days from its cessation, and before the end of (60) days after delivery, then the ruling on postpartum bleeding is effective, and her fasting and prayer are null and void, thus she must make up the fasting that she missed and not the prayer during those particular days.

What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.