عربي
Home


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board


Resolutions of Iftaa' Board

Resolution No.(255): "Ruling on Waving/Forgiving a Portion of Debt against early Settlement"

Date Added : 15-05-2018

Resolution No.(255)(8/2018)  by the Board of Iftaa`, Research and Islamic Studies

"Ruling on Waving/Forgiving  a Portion of Debt against early Settlement"

Date: 3/Sha`ban/1439 AH, corresponding to 19/4/2018.

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 fifth session held on the above date, the Board reviewed the letter sent from the Minister of Awqaf, Holy Sites and Islamic Affairs, Dr. Abdulnaser Abulbasal, and it read as follows:

Could your grace approve of presenting what Muslim jurists call "Da`wa Ta`ajjal" {i.e. when the creditors "waive or forgive" a portion of the debt in return for early settlement of the rest of the money} and the mechanism  of its application to the Iftaa` Council, and consider the potential of its applicability on Islamic finances granted by the Hajj Fund.

After deliberating, the Board decided what follows:

Waiving a portion of debt in what`s called "Debt Contracts" in return for early settlement is called by Muslim jurists "Da` wa Ta`ajjal" i.e. when the creditors "waive or forgive" a portion of the debt in return for early settlement of the rest of the money." In this regard, there are five cases:

First: Waiving a portion of debt is conditioned in the original contract. In this case, this is considered Riba (interest and/or usury). It is like making two transactions combined in one bargain, and this is forbidden since The Prophet (PBUH) said: "If anyone makes two transactions combined in one bargain, he should have the lesser of the two or it will involve usury." {Related by Abi Dawud}.

Second: Waiving a portion of the debt against early settlement of the rest of the money is agreed upon after having concluded the original contract. In fact, the majority of the Muslim scholars have forbidden this based on the preponderant opinion of the four schools of thought.

On the other hand, Ibn Abbas, may Allah bless them both, Al-Nokha`i, Ibn Serene and Zufar permitted waving a portion of the debt against early settlement of the rest of the money based on the narration of Ibn Abbas (May Allah Be Pleased with them) narrated: "Where it is stated that when the Prophet (PBUH) wanted to make Bani An-Nadeer leave Madinah, they said to him: "O` Messenger of Allah! You ordered us to leave although we haven`t collected our money from debtors because the time of settlement isn`t due yet." He (PBUH) said: "Da`oo wa Ta`ajjaloo" i.e. "waive or forgive" a portion of that debt in return for immediate settlement of the rest of your money by debtors." {Related by Al-Hakim, but Al-Baihaqi considered it a weak narration}. Because usury is addition against delay in settlement, it totally harms the debtor and differs from "Da`oo wa Ta`ajjaloo" where both parties (Creditor and debtor) benefit from that transaction. The latter view was adopted by the International Islamic Fiqh academy in its resolution No. (66), but stipulated that no prior agreement was reached to that end.

Third: The waiving pertains to the debts which the debtor has failed to settle on time. In this case, it is permissible to waive/forgive a portion of that debt against early settlement of the rest of the money in order to be cleared from the debt.

Fourth: The waiving wasn`t conditioned by the contracting parties; rather, it was a donation/gift from the creditor because the debtor had settled the rest of the money or the deferred payments earlier than agreed in the original contract.

Resolution No.(61) of the Iftaa` Board stated: "It is permissible for the bank to relieve the (Asker) from a portion of the value of the Murabaha, as it sees fit, taking into account the special circumstances that he is experiencing. This is provided that this waiver isn`t a regular practice of the bank or was conditioned in the Murabaha contract in the first place……"

Fifth: It is permissible for the debtor to give the creditor a commodity against his debt, even if its value was less than that of the debt, and this was permitted by the majority of the Muslim scholars. For further details, please refer to the books {Bedayat Al-Mojtahid by Ibn Roshd & Al-Qawaneen Al-Fiqhia by Ibn Al-Jazzi}.

In conclusion, waiving/forgiving a portion of the deferred debt, upon request of debtor or creditor, in return for early settlement of the rest of the money is permissible, and isn`t Riba so long as it wasn`t conditioned in the original contract. And Allah Knows Best.

Chairman of Iftaa` Board,

Grand Mufti of Jordan,

Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh

Sheikh Abdulkareem Al-Khasawneh, Member

Dr. Ahmad Al-Hasanat, Member

Dr. Majid Darawsheh, Member

Sheikh Sa`eid Al-Hijjawi, Member

Judge Khalid Woraikat, Member

Dr. Mohammad Al-Zou`bi/ Member

Prof. Abdullah Al-Fawaaz/ Member

 

Decision Number [ Previous | Next ]


Summarized Fatawaa

Is it permissible to give Zakah (obligatory charity) to one`s poor sister, or brother?

It is permissible for one to give the Zakah to his poor sister, or brother if providing for them isn`t due on him, and the sister doesn`t receive sufficient provision from whomever that is due on. And Allah Knows Best.

What is the ruling on someone who dies while having missed fasts?

● If a person dies before having the opportunity to make up the missed fasts—such as someone whose excuse (e.g., illness) persisted until their death—then no makeup fast (qada), fidyah, or sin applies to them.
● However, if they had the ability to make up the fasts but did not do so before passing away, the missed fasts must be compensated by giving a mudd of food for each missed day from their estate.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever dies while having a month’s fast due, one needy person should be fed per day on their behalf." [Narrated by At-Tirmidhi]
Additionally, a guardian (wali) may fast on their behalf, as the Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever dies while having missed fasts, their guardian should fast on their behalf." [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
In another narration: "If they wish." This indicates that both feeding the needy and fasting on behalf of the deceased are permissible options.

Is it permissible for one who sacrifices on behalf of another, with the latter's permission, to eat from the sacrifice?

It is permissible for someone who sacrificed on behalf of another with their permission to eat from it with their permission, and they stand in their place (act as their representative) in distributing it.
 
It is stated in Nihayat al-Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (Vol.8/P.141): "And he—meaning the one sacrificing on his own behalf, provided he has not apostatized—has the right to eat from a voluntary sacrifice and his sacrificial gift; rather, it is recommended. As for an obligatory sacrifice, it is forbidden for him to eat from it, whether it was designated as such initially or as a liability in his dhimmah. And excluded by what has preceded is if he sacrifices on behalf of another, or if he apostatized, then it is not permissible for him to eat from it, just as it is absolutely impermissible to feed a disbeliever from it."(The text I found indicates the impermissibility of eating) ???
 
And it is stated in Hashiyat al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh al-Manhaj (Vol.5/P.262): "If a person offers a sacrifice on behalf of a living person with their permission, does he act as their representative in distributing it—on the grounds that permission to sacrifice is permission to distribute it—or does it depend on their explicit permission? This requires consideration, but the first view is not far-fetched." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the meaning of the Prophetic statement that a boy is held in pledge (murtahan) for his 'aqīqah?

All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The first interpretation: That if the boy dies in infancy without an 'aqīqah having been performed on his behalf, he will not intercede for his parents on the Day of Resurrection. This is the position of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and Imam al-Khaṭṭābī concurred with him, stating: "The finest of what has been said regarding this matter is the position adopted by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal." — [Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar,{Vol.9/P.594]
The second interpretation: That the child is likened to a pledged object (marhūn) — one from which full benefit and enjoyment cannot be derived until it is redeemed. A blessing is only made complete upon the one blessed when they fulfil the obligation of gratitude (shukr), and the prescribed expression of gratitude for this particular blessing is what the Prophet ﷺ established as Sunnah — namely, the slaughtering of the 'aqīqah on behalf of the newborn as an act of thankfulness to Allah the Almighty and as a supplication for the wellbeing and safety of the child. This is the position of Mullā 'Alī al-Qārī. See: [Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, Vol.7/P.2688]
And Allah Almighty knows best.

See More