What is the waiting period ('Iddah) for a woman whose husband has passed away, and what is the ruling on her wearing gold?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The waiting period ('Iddah) for a woman whose husband has passed away is four months and ten days for one who is not pregnant. As for a pregnant woman, her waiting period lasts until she gives birth. It is obligatory for her to remain in the marital home, only leaving for a necessity. During this time, it is prohibited (Haram) to display any form of adornment on the body or clothing; this includes wearing kohl, gold, all types of perfume, and dyeing the hair. Likewise, it is prohibited to receive a direct marriage proposal or to marry during this period.
It was narrated by Umm 'Atiyyah that the Prophet ﷺ said: 'We were forbidden to mourn for a deceased person for more than three days, except for a husband, for whom the mourning period is four months and ten days. During this time, we were not to use kohl, nor wear perfume, nor wear dyed clothing except for garments made of 'Asb (coarsely dyed yarn). We were, however, granted a concession at the time of purification—when one of us bathed following her menses—to use a small amount of Kust (costus) or Azfar (fragrant substances). We were also forbidden from following funeral processions.' (Narrated by Al-Bukhari). 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 is the ruling on the ablution of one who touches women prohibited to him by a temporary prohibition (mahram bi-hurma mu'aqqata)?
It is prohibited to touch a woman who is temporarily prohibited (meaning one whom it becomes permissible to marry after the impediment is removed, such as the wife of a brother or paternal uncle). Touching her without a barrier invalidates ablution. 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.
