Is the multiplication of reward for prayer in the sanctuaries of Makkah and Madīnah limited to the obligatory prayer, or does it include the voluntary prayer as well?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no difference between the obligatory (farḍ) and the voluntary (nafl) prayer in the ḥadīth on the multiplication of reward in the two Sanctuaries (al-Ḥaramayn), because the authentic ḥadīths are unrestricted and general in wording. It is therefore not permissible to restrict or specify them without evidence. Shaykh al-Islām Imam al-Nawawī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Our school holds that the superiority of prayer in the two mosques of Makkah and Madīnah is not limited to the obligatory prayer, but includes both the obligatory and the voluntary.” [al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, Vol.8/p.476]
The multiplication of reward applies to whoever prays in al-Masjid al-Ḥarām or anywhere within the sanctuary (ḥaram). Al-Shirwānī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The more correct view according to al-Nawawī is that the multiplication of the prayer’s reward covers the whole sanctuary, and is not limited to the mosque, nor to Makkah itself.” [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj with the glosses of al-Shirwānī and al-ʿAbbādī, Vol.10/p.95]. And Allah Almighty knows best.
A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on brown discharge before the menstrual period? Is it considered part of menstruation (Hayd)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Dusky discharge (Kudrah), reddish discharge (Humrah), and yellowish discharge (Sufrah) are all considered menstruation (Hayd) if they occur during the time of the menstrual cycle. If their duration exceeds a day and a night, and the period persists from the first sight of the discharge until the cessation of the menstrual blood—provided the total duration does not exceed fifteen days—then all of it is menstruation. However, if the duration exceeds fifteen days, then the discharge is not considered menstruation, but rather chronic irregular bleeding (Istihadah). And Allah the Exalted knows best.
What is the ruling on waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
