I wish to purchase an online account (a gaming account), and its ownership will be transferred to me. However, my friend will purchase it on my behalf, and I will repay him in deferred installments with an added profit margin to account for the installment sale. What is the ruling of Islamic Law on this transaction?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The ruling on selling electronic games depends on the ruling of the game itself: if the game is permissible, then selling it is likewise permissible. However, if the game contains Sharia violations that render playing it impermissible, then selling it in that case is neither valid nor permissible. Therefore, we advise the necessity of reviewing the Sharia guidelines for electronic games set forth in Fatwa No. (3369).
Accordingly, if the game is permissible, a person may purchase it, take legal possession of it, and subsequently sell it in deferred installments for a price higher than its purchase price. The General Iftaa' Department has permitted dealing through Murabaha, while emphasizing the necessity of observing the Sharia conditions required for this transaction; please refer to Fatwa No. (2861). And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on performing ṭawāf on the upper floors of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām, given that these floors are situated above the level of the Ka‘bah, and that the one performing ṭawāf passes by certain barriers, such as pillars and walls, during the ṭawāf?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There are numerous conditions for the validity of ṭawāf (circumambulation around the Ka‘bah), among them: that the one performing ṭawāf be inside the Masjid (al-Masjid al-Ḥarām) — even if the Masjid has been expanded, so long as the expansion does not extend out into al-ḥill (land outside the sanctuary boundaries). It suffices for the ṭawāf to be performed in the airspace of the Masjid or upon its roof, even if that roof is higher than the Ka‘bah (the House) itself.
Al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "It [ṭawāf] is valid upon the roof of the Masjid, even if the roof of the Masjid is higher than the House — just as prayer [is valid] upon Mount Abū Qubays despite its elevation above the House. This is the relied-upon (mu‘tamad) position." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.246]
The validity of the tawaf isn`t affected by the pillars and walls standing between the one performing ṭawāf and the House, since the condition is only that the person performing ṭawāf be within the boundaries of the Masjid and outside the boundaries of the Ka‘bah itself.
Ash-Shirbīnī said: "It [ṭawāf] is valid inside the Masjid, even if it is expanded, and even if a barrier stands between the one circumambulating and the House — such as a water-supply structure (saqāyah) or pillars (sawārī)." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 2/P.246]
Accordingly, ṭawāf performed on the upper floors is valid, and the presence of barriers such as pillars and walls during the ṭawāf does not affect its validity. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "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]." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
