What is the ruling on praying seated due to severe obesity, given that I experience hardship in performing the prayer — especially when rising from the ground after sujūd to perform the next rak‘ah?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Standing, when one is able to do so, is a pillar of the prayer. However, whoever would experience severe, intolerable hardship, or fears harm to himself or to a limb due to obesity, or finds that standing causes him to lose his khushū‘ (humble focus and concentration) in prayer, then there is no objection to his praying seated on a chair or on the ground, performing rukū‘ (bowing) and sujūd (prostration) through gesture — provided that the gesture for sujūd is made lower than that for rukū‘. Whoever is able, at any point, to properly perform any one of these pillars, is obligated to perform it in full; for omitting it is a concession that applies only in cases of genuine inability. The Prophet ﷺ said: "When I command you to do something, do of it whatever you are able." (Related by al-Bukhārī). As the scholars of fiqh have established: what remains possible is not waived on account of what is difficult.
The criterion for determining genuine inability, as chosen by Imam al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (raḥimahullāh), is that the worshipper experiences hardship that causes him to lose his khushū‘.
As for voluntary (nafl) prayer, there is no objection to performing it while seated, even if one is able to stand. However, rukū‘ and sujūd must still be performed [in their proper physical form] by anyone who is able to do so. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is it obligatory to have the intention for each day of fasting, or is one intention sufficient for the whole month?
The intention is obligatory for each day of Ramadan because each day is an independent act of worship separate from the others.
The intention must be made at night before the break of dawn, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Whoever does not intend fasting at night, there is no fast for him." [An-Nasa’i]
And he also said: "Whoever does not firmly resolve to fast before dawn, there is no fast for him." [At-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, and An-Nasa’i]
Whoever wakes up and eats Suhoor while mindful of fasting has made the intention. Likewise, one who firmly intends at any moment during the night to fast the next day has also fulfilled the intention.
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.
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.
