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.
Is it permissible to slaughter a single sheep with the combined intention of both the uḍḥiyyah and the 'aqīqah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to Shaykh al-Islām Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, it is not permissible to combine the intention of the uḍḥiyyah and the 'aqīqah in a single animal, as each of the two has a distinct and separate cause that differs from the other.
However, Shaykh al-Islām Imam al-Ramlī permitted the combining of both intentions in a single animal — and this position offers a degree of latitude and ease. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on someone who wakes up in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity) near the very end of the prayer's designated time, during cold weather — should he heat water in order to perform ghusl, even though the prayer's time will expire as a result, or should he perform tayammum instead?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the water is cold, and cannot be used due to fear of harm that is not ordinarily tolerable, or that would result in illness, then in this case it becomes obligatory to heat the water — even if heating it causes the time for Fajr to expire — and no sin is incurred in doing so, due to his valid excuse. He may not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) instead, since water remains available [and merely needs to be heated].
Imam Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) said: "He was asked regarding a person who, if he were to use cold water, would experience harm that permits tayammum, and who has access to something with which he could heat the water — but if he heats it, the prayer's time will expire. Is it obligatory for him to heat it even if the time expires, or should he pray with tayammum within the prescribed time? He answered that it is obligatory for him to heat the water, even if the time for that particular obligatory prayer expires." [Fatāwā ar-Ramlī, Vol.1/P.98]
Imam al-Bājūrī (raḥimahullāh) said in his Ḥāshiyah on Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim (Vol.1/P.173): "And if he fears [harm] from using cold water, and is currently unable to heat it, but knows of a place where firewood is available, such that if he were to go there he would not return until after the prescribed time has expired — what appears [to be the correct position] is that it is obligatory for him to go and seek the firewood, even if the time expires as a result, as this is the position ultimately settled upon by ar-Ramlī, and as related from him by Ibn Qāsim." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
A woman made a wig for herself from her own [previously shed] hair, which she wears on her head after having lost her hair [due to hair loss]. Is this permissible?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Since the hair belongs to the woman herself, the wig can be removed during the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing), and part of the head can still be wiped during wuḍū' (ablution), there is no sharī‘ah objection to making this wig — provided she does not appear wearing it in front of non-maḥram men (Any males outside a woman's immediate family whom she is permitted to marry under Islamic law), since it is not permissible for them to look at a woman's detached hair.
It is stated in Rawḍat aṭ-Ṭālibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn: "Whatever it is not permissible to look at while still attached [to the body] — such as the male genitalia, a free woman's forearm, the hair of her head, and a man's pubic hair, and similar matters — it remains unlawful to look at even after it has been detached [from the body], according to the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ)." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
