What is the ruling of Islamic Law on selling gold or silver in installments or for a differed price?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is prohibited (haram) to sell gold or silver in installments or for a deferred price; rather, immediate hand-to-hand exchange (Taqabud) is mandatory, otherwise, it is considered usury (Riba). The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Gold for gold, silver for silver, wheat for wheat, barley for barley, dates for dates, and salt for salt—like for like, hand to hand. Whoever increases or asks for an increase has engaged in Riba; the receiver and the giver are the same in this regard.' (Narrated by Muslim). Furthermore, when exchanging new gold for used gold, they must be of equal weight, or it falls into Riba.
The permissible solution (al-makhraj) is for the merchant to purchase the used gold for cash first, and then sell the new gold for cash in a separate transaction. However, the price must be paid during the sitting of the contract (Majlis al-Aqd) for both deals. Alternatively, the jeweler may take the used gold with the intent of remodeling or repairing it, and then charge a fee for the craftsmanship or repair work. And Allah the Exalted knows best."
I read the Qudsī ḥadīth: "Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ and does not perform ablution has shown me harshness; whoever performs ablution and does not pray has shown me harshness; whoever prays and does not supplicate to Me has shown me harshness; and whoever supplicates to Me and I do not answer him, then I have been harsh to him, and I am not a harsh Lord." What is the authenticity of this ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
This ḥadīth was mentioned by al-Ṣaghānī (may Allah have mercy on him) in al-Mawḍūʿāt (p. 43), where he said: “Among them is their saying: ‘Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ and does not perform ablution has shown me harshness; whoever performs ablution and does not pray has shown me harshness; (whoever prays and does not supplicate to Me has shown me harshness); and whoever supplicates to Me and I do not answer him, then I have been harsh to him, and I am not a harsh Lord.’”
Al-ʿAjlūnī (may Allah have mercy on him) cited what al-Ṣaghānī said in Kashf al-Khafāʾ (Vol.2/p.264). And Allah Almighty knows best.
My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
A man led the people in prayer as imam, and at the end of the prayer he performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because he had omitted a short *sūrah* after al-Fātiḥah. What is the ruling on his prayer and that of those praying behind him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the Shāfiʿī school, it is sunnah to recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah in the prayer. One who omits it has a valid prayer, and no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is prescribed for omitting it. If someone performs sujūd al-sahw for its omission while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. But one who is ignorant of the ruling, or who did so out of forgetfulness, his prayer is not invalidated, because this is among the matters that are obscure to people, and ignorance of it is not restricted to those who recently entered Islam.
Shaykh al-Islām al-Shams al-Ramlī said in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj (Vol.2/p.70): “The remaining sunnahs are not compensated for by prostration, such as the remembrances (adhkār) of bowing and prostration, that is, the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-iftitāḥ) and the sūrah, in accordance with the base rule, because they are not of the same nature as what has been reported [as compensable]. If one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to ignorance. As for the objection raised that the ignorant person does not know that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed, and whoever knows it knows its place, this is refuted by denying such a necessary connection, for the ignorant person may hear only that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed before the salām, and so assume that it applies to every sunnah and is not restricted to its prescribed place.”
This is among the matters that are obscure, in which the mukallaf is excused for ignorance, as stated by al-Shabrāmallisī in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.70).
However, if the imam prostrates, and the follower (maʾmūm) presumes that his imam’s prostration is for a reason for which one does not prostrate, it is not permissible to follow him in it, so long as the follower knows the ruling.
Accordingly, the prayer of one who did not recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah is valid, and sujūd al-sahw is not prescribed for it. Whoever prostrates out of ignorance or forgetfulness, his prayer is valid, because this is among the issues hidden from the general public. But whoever prostrates while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.
