What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?
If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.
What is the ruling on performing istinja' before every ablution?
Istinja' is not from the conditions for the validity of ablution. It is only obligatory for prayer when there is impurity from urine or stool on the private part, or if there is fear of the impurity spreading to the body or clothing. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on the colored discharges that appear one or two days before the menstrual cycle?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Colored discharges carry the same Islamic ruling as blood, whether they appear at the beginning or the end of the menstrual period. This remains true even if the discharge is intermittent—appearing for some days and stopping for others before returning—provided that the total duration does not exceed fifteen days nor fall short of a day and a night (24 hours). This is because the minimum duration of menstruation (Hayd) is one day and a night, while its maximum duration is fifteen days. Furthermore, the minimum period of purity (Tuhr) between two menstrual cycles is fifteen days, and there is no maximum limit for it. And Allah the Exalted knows best."
What is the ruling on waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
