Question:

Can someone make a condition that when I die, your debt to me is forgiven? [Question Published as Received]

The Fatwa

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

The Answer

The Fiqh of The Answer

The concept of Waṣiyyah (bequeathing) in Islamic law pertains to a voluntary bequest that an individual can make regarding the distribution of their wealth after their passing. It grants the person the authority to designate up to a third of their wealth to recipients who are not among their legal heirs. This allocation can be executed without necessitating the approval of the legal heirs. The foundation for this concept is rooted in various Islamic sources and has been unanimously acknowledged by Jurists.

Within the context of drafting a will involving a third of one’s wealth, scholars such as Imām al-Qudūrī (d.428  AH) and al-Marghīnānī (d.593 AH), alongside numerous other jurists, have stipulated that the Waṣiyyah can be formulated within this boundary. Furthermore, they recommend that an individual may choose to bequeath without necessarily employing the entire one-third allocation.

The Fuqahā’ have concurred on the permissibility of conditional debt relief upon the creditor’s death. This form of debt absolution mirrors a bequest, wherein an individual articulates their intention for the donation or gifting of their wealth.

Prominent jurists such as  Ibn ‘Abīdīn (d.1252 AH), and others have referenced the passage from the Khāniyyah (d.592 AH), which explicitly states, “If one were to state, ‘Upon my demise, you are absolved from the debt,’ this would indeed be deemed permissible, as it aligns with the scope of a bequest.” This legal ruling verbatim also found in the ‘Uyūn al-Masāil of al-Samarqandī (d.373 AH).

All forms of ‘Ibrā’ (relieving debt) involve Tamlīk (transfer of ownership), as forgiveness of debt means gifting the amount owed to the debtor. Hence, their liability would decrease as a result. It is not permissible to make Tamlīk conditional in exchange contracts (Muʿawaḍāt), as this involves Gharar. Gharar exists as there is uncertainty when this will occur, and this can cause dispute. The Sharīʿah principles pertaining to transactions are designed to reduce disputes and mitigate high risk circumstances.

The only exception to conditional ‘Ibrā’ which incorporates Tamlīk is when it is pertaining to forgiveness on the death of the creditor, as that performance can be interpreted as Waṣiyyah. This is a form of Tamlīk after death and is a Tabarruʿ (gratuitous performance). There is no concept of dispute, as there is only one party living, the debtor, it involves only unliteral transfer of ownership, and the creditor has a right to unilaterally transfer up to one-third of estate to whomsoever he wants beyond his legal heirs.

However, when ‘Ibrā’ is conditioned upon the death of the debtor, that is a form of Tamlīk in the future, and is not a form of Waṣiyyah for the creditor. Rather, it is a form of Tamlīk in the life of the creditor. Therefore, this cannot be interpreted as Waṣiyyah, and will operate according to the Qiyās and logic of the principles of Tamlīk, where such a performance is prohibited.

And Almighty Allah Alone Knows Best

Maulana Ammar Y Badat
Trainee Mufti

Reviewed and approved by
Mufti Faraz Adam
Darul Iftaa Muadh ibn Jabal
www.darulfiqh.com 

DISCLAIMER:

The views and opinions expressed in this answer belong only to the author and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of any institutions to which he may be affiliated.

Arguments and ideas propounded in this answer are based on the juristic interpretations and reasoning of the author. Given that contemporary issues and interpretations of contemporary issues are subjective in nature, another Mufti may reach different conclusions to the one expressed by the author. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure total accuracy and soundness from a Shari’ah perspective, the author is open to any correction or juristic guidance. On the event of any juristic shortcomings, the author will retract any or all of the conclusions expressed within this answer.

The Shari’ah ruling given herein is based specifically on the scenario in question.  The author bears no responsibility towards any party that acts or does not act on this answer and is exempted from any and all forms of loss or damage.  This answer may not be used as evidence in any court of law without prior written consent from the author.  Consideration is only given and is restricted to the specific links provided, the author does not endorse nor approve of any other content the website may contain.

م: (ثم تصح) ش: أي الوصية في الثلث م: (للأجنبي في الثلث من غير إجازة الورثة لما روينا) ش: أشار إلى وجه الاستحسان من المنقول والمعقول م: (وسنبين ما هو الأفضل فيه إن شاء الله تعالى) ش: أي في فعل الوصية أو في قدر الوصية، أشار بذلك إلى ما قال بعد ورقة بقوله: ويستحب أن يوصي الإنسان بدون الثلث.

م: (قال) ش: أي القدوري: م: (ولا تجوز) ش: أي الوصية م: (بما زاد على الثلث) ش: وهذا عند وجود الورثة بإجماع أهل العلم عند عدم إجازة الورثة، ويجوز عند إجازتهم م: (لقول النبي – عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ -) ش: أي لقول النبي – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – م: (في حديث سعد بن أبي وقاص – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ -: «الثلث والثلث كثير» ش: هذا الحديث أخرجه الأئمة الستة في كتبهم عن سعد بن أبي وقاص قال: «قلت: يا رسول الله: إن لي مالا كثيرا، وإنما ترثني ابنتي، أفأوصي بمالي كله؟ قال: لا، قال: فالثلثين؟، قال: لا، قال: فبالنصف؟ قال: لا، قال: فبالثلث؟ قال: الثلث والثلث كثير» . ( البناية شرح الهداية )

مَطْلَبٌ قَالَ لِمَدْيُونِهِ إذَا مِتّ فَأَنْتَ بَرِيءٌ – (قَوْلُهُ وَكَذَا بِمَوْتِهِ إلَخْ) فِي الْخَانِيَّةِ: لَوْ قَالَ لِمَدْيُونِهِ إذَا مِتّ فَأَنْتَ بَرِيءٌ مِنْ الدَّيْنِ جَازَ وَيَكُونُ وَصِيَّةً، وَلَوْ قَالَ: إنْ مِتَّ أَيْ بِفَتْحِ التَّاءِ لَا يَبْرَأُ وَهُوَ مُخَاطَرَةٌ كَإِنْ دَخَلْتَ الدَّارَ فَأَنْتَ بَرِيءٌ لَا يَبْرَأُ اهـ. — (كَمَا لَا يَصِحُّ) تَعْلِيقُ الْإِبْرَاءِ عَنْ الدَّيْنِ بِشَرْطٍ مَحْضٍ كَقَوْلِهِ لِمَدْيُونِهِ: إذَا جَاءَ غَدٌ أَوْ إنْ مِتَّ بِفَتْحِ التَّاءِ فَأَنْتَ بَرِيءٌ مِنْ الدَّيْنِ أَوْ إنْ مِتَّ مِنْ مَرَضِك هَذَا أَوْ إنْ مِتُّ مِنْ مَرَضِي هَذَا فَأَنْت فِي حِلٍّ مِنْ مَهْرِي فَهُوَ بَاطِلٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ مُخَاطَرَةٌ وَتَعْلِيقٌ (إلَّا بِشَرْطٍ كَائِنٍ) لِيَكُونَ تَنْجِيزًا كَقَوْلِهِ لِمَدْيُونِهِ: إنْ كَانَ لِي عَلَيْك دَيْنٌ أَبْرَأْتُك عَنْهُ، صَحَّ وَكَذَا إنْ مِتُّ بِضَمِّ التَّاءِ فَأَنْتَ بَرِيءٌ مِنْهُ أَوْ فِي حِلٍّ جَازَ وَكَانَ وَصِيَّةً. [ حاشية ابن عابدين ]

إبراء المدين إبراء معلقاً على موت الدائن – ١٢١٨.وإن قَالَ: إن مت أنا فأنت في حل فإن هذا جائز لأن هذا وصية. [ عيون المسائل ]

قَوْلُهُ: (وَلَوْ قَالَ إنْ مِتّ إلَخْ) عَزَاهُ فِي مُخْتَصَرِ الْقُنْيَةِ لِبَعْضِ الْكُتُبِ، ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يَكُونَ عَدَمُ الْبَرَاءَةِ إذَا فُتِحَ التَّاءُ أَخْذًا مِمَّا فِي الْفُصُولِ وَغَيْرِهِ، لَوْ قَالَ لمديونه: إِن مت بِفَتْح التَّاء فَأَنت برِئ لَا تَصِحُّ لِأَنَّهُ تَعْلِيقٌ بِخَطَرٍ اه: أَيْ وَالْإِبْرَاءُ لَا يَصِحُّ تَعْلِيقُهُ، بِخِلَافِ الْوَصِيَّةِ كَمَا مَرَّ، وَبِهِ ظَهَرَ الْفَرْقُ بَيْنَ الضَّمِّ وَالْفَتْحِ وَالْمُرَادُ بِالْخَطَرِ هُنَا التَّعْلِيقُ عَلَى مَعْدُومٍ مُتَرَقَّبِ الْوُقُوعِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ لَا بُدَّ مِنْ وُقُوعِهِ كالموت ومجئ الْغَدِ، وَاحْتَرَزَ بِهِ عَمَّا لَوْ عَلَّقَ الْإِبْرَاءَ بِشَرْط كَائِن كَقَوْل لِمَدْيُونِهِ إنْ كَانَ لِي عَلَيْك دَيْنٌ فَقَدْ أَبْرَأْتُك عَنْهُ فَإِنَّهُ يَصِحُّ كَمَا مَرَّ فِي آخِرِ كِتَابِ الْهِبَةِ.  [ تكملة حاشية ابن عابدين قرة عيون الأخيار ]