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.
Does the intention (niyyah) of the principal (muwakkil) suffice for the sacrifice (dhabḥ) of the udhiyyah?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person appoints an agent (wakīl) to perform the slaughter (dhabḥ) on their behalf, the intention (niyyah) of the principal (the one appointing the agent) suffices, and there is no need for the agent to have this intention himself. In fact, even if the agent is unaware that he is performing the sacrifice on someone's behalf as an udhiyyah (sacrificial offering), this does not affect its validity. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
Is it incumbent on a husband to pay the alimony of his wife if she had left him and stayed at her parent`s without his permission?
When a wife leaves her house, and stays at her parent`s without asking her husband, she is considered a Nashiz (wife who refuses to abide by her husband’s orders), and so she doesn`t deserve an alimony.
Is the father a Mahram (Non-marriageable) to his son`s mother-in-law?
The father is a non-Mahram (Marriageable) to his son`s mother-in-law, so it is impermissible for them to look at each other, or to have a seclusion (Khalwah).
