What is the ruling on purchasing sacrificial animals and authorizing their slaughter via telephone?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is preferable for the one offering a sacrifice (udhiyah) to slaughter the animal himself, in adherence to the Sunnah, or to be present at the slaughter if possible.
It is valid to authorize a butcher to purchase a sacrificial animal on his behalf and slaughter it, regardless of whether the animal is owned by the butcher or the butcher is acting as an agent in its sale—according to the Hanbali school—provided that the butcher specifically designates and purchases the animal for the person offering the sacrifice before slaughtering it. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who possesses cash reaching the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah), and then uses part of it to purchase gold before the ḥawl (lunar year) is complete — must he pay zakāh on all of it [combined], or only on the remaining cash, excluding the gold?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Gold acquired for hoarding and saving is subject to zakāh once it reaches the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for Zakah) — when combined with any cash held — and once a full ḥawl (lunar year) has elapsed over it. The starting point for calculating this ḥawl is the ḥawl of the paper currency [used to purchase it], which had already reached the niṣāb and was then used to purchase the gold.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.78): "As for someone who sells silver in exchange for gold, or vice versa, zakāh remains obligatory upon it, since he builds [the calculation of] its ḥawl upon [the ḥawl established at the time of] the original transaction [i.e., when the wealth was first acquired]."
This has already been explained in detail in Fatwa No.
2670 — please refer to it.
And Allah, the Exalted, 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.
