09 · Fatwa Request — Shariah Brief to the Supervisory Board

The gate. Formal request to the Shariah Supervisory Board (Chair: Mufti Ismail Desai) for a reasoned ruling on the structure. Flow 3 (Waqf donations) and payment for waqf contributions must not open until this fatwa is issued.

To: Shariah Supervisory Board · From: EVA DAVA EOOD (digiwaqf) · Date: [ ]

---

1. Summary of the structure being ruled on

digiwaqf intends to establish the first fully digital waqf financing Muslim technology founders.

Full documents attached: 00–08, 10–13.

2. Questions on which a ruling is requested

A. Collecting funds before the Waqf exists

1. Is it permissible to collect platform-building donations (Flow 2) now — irrevocable sadaqah used for development, legal and incorporation costs — while the Waqf does not yet exist, and to state that they are non-refundable if the project fails?
2. May these be characterised as sadaqah jariyah, given they build the vehicle that will later produce perpetual benefit? If not, what characterisation is correct?
3. Is it permissible to collect Flow 3 (funds intended as future waqf corpus) and hold them temporarily in a conventional Bulgarian company on segregated ledgers (with a single bank account but separate accounting) before the waqf is constituted?
4. Is the fallback acceptable — if the Waqf cannot be established, the donor elects (A) return or (B) redirect to a reputable Islamic charity (default (B) after 30 days' silence)?
5. Must Flow 3 funds be held in an Islamic (non-interest-bearing) account from the outset, and may any incidental bank interest arise — and if so, how must it be purified?

B. The waqf itself

6. Does the intended structure satisfy the conditions of a valid waqf — perpetuity (ta'bid), irrevocability, defined corpus and beneficiaries — when constituted as a Labuan waqf foundation under a civil-law-style statute rather than a classical deed?
7. Is a cash waqf with the corpus invested in sukuk and Islamic ETFs permissible, and is spending only the yield while preserving principal correct?
8. Is the beneficiary class — Muslim technology founders — a valid waqf purpose (public benefit / maslaha)?

C. U21C and its remuneration

9. Is it permissible for U21C, a separate for-profit company owned by investors, to manage the Waqf and be paid from the Waqf's assets/income under Wakala (agency for ujrah) or Mudarabah?
10. Which fee forms are permissible, and on what basis: (a) a fee on incoming donations (e.g. 5% of each deposit); (b) an annual management fee (e.g. 2% of corpus); (c) a performance fee / carry (e.g. 20% of gains); (d) transaction fees on asset purchase/sale; (e) a compliance fee on grant issuance? In particular: is a carry on the appreciation of waqf capital permissible, given the corpus is irrevocable and the manager bears no capital risk?
11. Is there a cap or fairness constraint the Board would impose on aggregate fees charged to a waqf?
12. Is the conflict acceptable — the founder controls both the administrator (EVA DAVA) and U21C — and what safeguards (independent Mutawalli, SSB veto, observer) does the Board require?

D. The investor instrument (SAFE)

13. Is a SAFE — no interest, no repayment obligation, converting into ordinary equity of U21C (profit and loss) — permissible as a form of Musharakah?
14. Are a valuation cap and a discount (e.g. 20%) permissible, or do they introduce impermissible gharar or a guaranteed advantage?
15. Is it permissible that EVA DAVA (a conventional Bulgarian company with other, unrelated businesses) is the counterparty until U21C exists?

E. Grants and Qard Hasan

16. Confirm the permissibility and correct form of Type A Hibah (non-refundable grant) and Type B Qard Hasan (interest-free loan) — doc 11.
17. For Qard Hasan: may the Waqf recover only the principal? May it charge an actual-cost administrative fee, and if so on what basis and cap? May it take security/collateral? How should default and forgiveness be handled?
18. May funding be staged against milestones, and may undrawn tranches be cancelled?

F. Success Sadaqah (the key question)

19. Success Sadaqah — after reaching profitability, a funded startup is invited to give back into the Waqf. To remain permissible we intend it to be strictly voluntary, non-contractual, unenforceable, and not a condition of receiving funding. Does the Board agree this is required?
20. Specifically: would any binding or conditional give-back attached to a Qard Hasan constitute riba (a benefit stipulated on a loan)? We assume yes — please confirm.
21. May we publish a suggested benchmark (e.g. "X% of profit after break-even") as a moral aspiration, or does even a published benchmark risk being construed as a stipulated condition?
22. May a non-binding pledge of intent be signed at grant time, and may we publicly recognise those who honour it?

G. Donor status, votes and the community layer

The mechanic on which a ruling is requested is set out in full in doc 13. In summary: status is recomputed daily from contributions over a rolling 365 days; each round issues a pool of votes sized by status; donors spend votes to signal a preference among already-vetted applicants; unspent votes expire at round close and the pool is re-issued next round; votes are never bought with money, are non-transferable, carry no economic value, and the SIC decides (doc 08 §B4).

23. The principle. Are status tiers (Silver/Gold/Diamond) and badges driven by donation size permissible, given they carry no financial rights — or does tying spiritual charity to status and gamification raise a concern of riya (ostentation)? If permissible, what conditions would the Board require?
24. Advisory votes by donation size. Are advisory votes allocated by donation size permissible, given the final decision rests with the SIC, votes carry no economic value, and they cannot be sold, gifted or redeemed?
25. Weighting — the amplification question. A Diamond donor receives 10× the votes of a Regular donor at 20× the weight — an aggregate signal roughly 200× larger. Is such amplification of the wealthy donor's voice acceptable in the allocation of charitable funds, or must the weighting be capped, compressed, or removed (one donor, one voice)?
26. The specific parameters. Does the Board approve the table above — thresholds, vote counts and weights — or set different values? (We note two oddities for the Board's attention: Gold sits at only 2× Silver, against 5×/10× steps elsewhere; and Silver and Gold carry equal weight, differing only in vote count.)
27. Rolling window / revocability. Status is recomputed daily over a rolling 365 days and therefore decreases if giving stops. Is it permissible to withdraw standing earned by past sadaqah — or should a gift, once given, earn recognition permanently, with only the votes being periodic?
28. Expiry. Unspent votes expire at round close ("use it or lose it"). Is this manufactured urgency acceptable given the underlying act is charity, or does it pressure donors in a way the Board would restrict?
29. Cross-flow entitlement — we consider this the sharpest question. Under doc 13 §3, contributions to Flow 2 (which build the platform) earn votes, and those votes influence how the Waqf's money is allocated to founders. Is it permissible for influence over waqf distributions to be earned by a contribution that never entered the waqf? If not, must voting be restricted to Flow 3 donors once Flow 3 opens — and what should Flow 2 donors receive in the interim?
30. Reputation. A separate cumulative, cross-round Reputation score grants perks only — badges, priority, eligibility to serve as a non-voting independent observer (doc 08 §B7) — and never extra votes. Is this separation sound and are the perks permissible?
31. Publicity and anonymity. May we publish live vote counts, a ranked leaderboard of applicants, and a public Founders' Wall naming donors? Does named public recognition cross into riya — and should an anonymous-giving option that does not forfeit the vote be mandatory rather than optional?

H. Screening & purification

32. Confirm the negative screen (doc 10) is complete and correct.
33. For corpus investments, do you require AAOIFI-style financial ratio screens in addition to activity screens, and what purification method applies to any non-compliant income?

I. Marketing conduct

34. Is our public framing acceptable — no guaranteed returns, honest risk, "not yet a licensed waqf, not Shariah-certified", and the strict separation of sadaqah from the SAFE?

3. What we ask the Board to issue

1. A reasoned fatwa addressing A–I;
2. Any conditions or modifications required for compliance;
3. Confirmation of the gates the Board controls (doc 08 §A5);
4. The annual Shariah audit scope.

4. Undertaking

We will not open Flow 3, will not accept waqf contributions, and will not disburse any grant, until the Board has ruled. We will implement all required modifications before launch and will not represent the project as Shariah-certified until the Board permits.

For EVA DAVA EOOD / digiwaqf: __________ · [name] · [date]