How many rak‘ahs are there in Tarawih prayer?
The most complete form of Tarawih prayer consists of twenty rak‘ahs, excluding Shaf‘ and Witr. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, both past and present, and it is the practiced tradition in the two Holy Mosques.
However, Tarawih is valid with any even number of rak‘ahs, even two rak‘ahs, as long as it is performed with the intention of Qiyam al-Ramadan.
What is the ruling on discharging one's zakāh obligation through the provision of a specific benefit (manfa‘ah) — such as performing a surgical operation for a patient, or providing housing to a tenant, and counting the value of this service as zakāh?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is obligatory to pay zakāh from the actual asset (‘ayn al-māl) upon which zakāh is due, except in the case of zakāh on trade goods ('urūḍ at-tijārah), which is paid based on their monetary value. In all cases, zakāh must be given in the form of tamlīk (a full transfer of ownership), based on the words of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic (which mean): "Zakāh expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy, and for those employed to collect [zakāh], and for bringing hearts together [for Islam], and for freeing captives [or slaves], and for those in debt, and for the cause of Allah, and for the [stranded] traveler — an obligation [imposed] by Allah. And Allah is Knowing and Wise" [at-Tawbah/60]. The letter "lām" (لِ) in this verse — as in "lil-fuqarā'" ("for the poor") — indicates possession/ownership (lām al-milk).
It is not permissible to fulfill one's zakāh obligation by providing a benefit or service (manfa‘ah) — such as housing, education, or medical treatment — in place of the zakāh itself. This is because zakāh must be paid as wealth (māl) that is transferred into the ownership of the poor recipient, whereas such services are intangible benefits that are not, in themselves, capable of being formally transferred in ownership (ghayr qābilah lit-tamlīk). And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who is uncertain whether he omitted one of the ab‘āḍ of the prayer, such as being uncertain whether he omitted the first tashahhud?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The ab‘āḍ include the middle tashahhud and the qunūt in Fajr prayer — for which sujūd as-sahw (the prostration of forgetfulness) is prescribed if left out. Whoever is uncertain, during the prayer, whether he omitted one of these elements, should proceed on the assumption that he did not perform it, and should perform sujūd as-sahw accordingly.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 63): "If he is uncertain... whether he omitted a specific ab‘āḍ element, or whether he performed sujūd as-sahw, or whether he prayed three or four rak‘ahs — he proceeds on the assumption that he did not do it, and performs sujūd as-sahw."
The original principle (al-aṣl) for someone uncertain about [having performed] the first tashahhud is that he assumes he did not perform it. 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.
