What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wearing energy stones?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no objection to a woman adorning herself with precious and semi-precious stones — such as ruby, carnelian, or the like — so long as these are stones that women customarily wear as adornment.
As for what are known as "energy stones," if they are used with the intention of seeking remedy and healing, then such matters are governed by experimentation and scientific study — which either establishes that they have a tangible effect or does not — and all of this operates by the permission and will of Allah, Glorified and Exalted. If studies or practical experience do establish that such stones carry a beneficial effect upon human health, then there is no objection to using them. They are, after all, part of Allah's creation, much like medicinal substances extracted from plants or derived from other created things — provided that the Muslim does not believe that the stone itself is the source of benefit or harm. It is nothing more than a means among the many means that Allah has placed in this world, and the reality of all affairs belongs to Allah alone. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible for a pious Muslim woman to stay with her husband who had quit praying out of laziness?
Quitting prayer is one of the major grave sins that come after disbelieving in Allah, but the wife of such a person isn`t considered divorced, rather, she should exert all her efforts in order to bring him back to the way of Islam. However, if his sin is likely to lure her from the way of Islam, then she had better separate from him by lawful means such as Mokhal`aa (When a wife pays a compensation for her husband in return for divorcing her). Moreover, if she exercises patience, and remains steadfast on her faith, then there is no harm in doing that.
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.
I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
