Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. 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.
What is the ruling on someone who possesses gold with the intention of saving/hoarding it, and owns nothing else — is he obligated to sell a portion of it in order to pay the zakāh due on it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Zakāh becomes immediately obligatory on cash, and likewise on gold — that which is not designated for a woman's personal adornment— once both reach the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah) and a full ḥawl (lunar year) has passed over them. It is not permissible to delay payment when it is genuinely possible to pay — meaning, when the wealth and the eligible recipients are both available. It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.129): "Zakāh is obligatory immediately once it becomes feasible to pay it, meaning when the wealth and the eligible recipients are both present."
The one paying zakāh must discharge the obligatory zakāh due on saved (hoarded) gold either from the gold itself, or from its equivalent monetary value, in the event that no other funds are available — since paying from the gold itself is the original default (al-aṣl). It becomes permissible to pay from other funds instead only because zakāh is built upon the principle of ease and leniency, as stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib (Vol.1/p.366): "When a full ḥawl has elapsed on wealth other than trade goods... zakāh attaches to the actual asset itself (al-‘ayn), and the poor effectively become partners in it — even, for example, [becoming partners] in camels through the value of a sheep [owed as zakāh on them]... Paying from other wealth is permitted only because zakāh is built upon the principle of ease and leniency."
Accordingly: the one paying zakāh must discharge it either from the actual saved gold itself, or by selling a portion of the gold equal to the amount of zakāh owed. He may also borrow money to pay the zakāh, or pay the zakāh in installments before the ḥawl is complete [as an advance payment]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is a wife considered divorced if her husband refused to go to bed with her (for sexual intercourse) for two months?
A wife doesn`t get divorced no matter for how long her husband refuses to have sex with her, and she had better go to court.
