What is the ruling on doubting whether one or two prostrations were performed?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a worshiper is in doubt regarding the number of units (rak'ahs) or prostrations (sajdahs) performed, he must build upon the minimum (i.e., assume the lower number) and perform the prostration of forgetfulness (Sujud al-Sahw) before the Salam at the end of the prayer. This is based on the report from ‘Ata’ ibn Yasar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'When anyone of you is in doubt about his Salat (prayer) and does not know how many he has prayed, three or four (Rak'at) he should cast aside his doubt and base his prayer on what he is sure of. Then, he should perform two prostrations before Taslim (salutation). If he has prayed five Rak'at, they will make his Salat (prayer) an even number for him and if he has prayed exactly four, they (i.e. two prostrations) will be humiliation for the devil..' (Narrated by Abu Dawud).
It is stated in Al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'If one doubts [whether he performed] a bowing (ruku’), a prostration, or a rak'ah, he must perform it and prostrate [for forgetfulness], even if the doubt is removed before the Salam—unless the doubt is removed before he performs what would potentially be an addition. Thus, if he doubts whether he prayed three or four, he is obligated to build upon the minimum.' And Allah the Exalted 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.
What should someone do if they fasted for 30 days in their country, then traveled to a place where people are still fasting?
If a person completes 30 days of fasting in their country and then travels to another country where people are still fasting, they should continue fasting with them until they observe Eid. Even if they have already completed 30 days, he/she should abstain from eating and drinking and join the people of that country because he/she has now become part of that community.
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.
