What does "All the deeds of the son of Adam are for him, except fasting" mean?
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Allah, the Almighty, said: 'Every deed of the son of Adam is for him, except for fasting; it is for Me, and I shall reward for it." [Agreed upon]
This means:
● Every deed of the son of Adam may be affected by showing off (riyaa’), except fasting, because only Allah knows whether a person is truly fasting or not.
● The reward for all deeds is known—one good deed is multiplied tenfold—except fasting, as only Allah knows its true reward.
If a woman becomes pure from menstruation shortly after Fajr in Ramadan, what is required of her?
If a woman becomes pure (from menstrual period) after Fajr, even shortly after, it is recommended (but not obligatory) for her to refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day. However, she must make up for that day after Ramadan.
She will be rewarded for both refraining from eating (imsak) and making up the fast (qada) since she was menstruating for part of the day.
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.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
