What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on ablution without istinja' after sleep?
The sleep of one whose buttocks are not firmly seated on the ground invalidates ablution. Whoever wakes up and wants to pray must perform ablution only. Istinja' is not a condition for the validity of ablution, because it is for removing impurity from the private part. If there is no impurity on the private part, then istinja' is neither obligatory nor recommended. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on participating in the prize draws (raffles) that commercial stores hold for their customers?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no objection to participating in the prize draws (raffles) that commercial stores hold for their customers, provided that the buyer's intention in purchasing is not merely to enter the competition without any need for what is bought — rather, the purchase must be genuinely intended for the item itself, and one must not pay more than the item's fair market price. This is because paying an amount above the market price would effectively be paying a fee to enter the prize draw, which would render it a form of gambling (qimār).
These prizes are, in essence, gifts that businesses offer through a random drawing (qur'ah) to those who purchase from them, as a means of encouraging sales, without the customer bearing any additional monetary cost for participation. So long as the aforementioned conditions are met, there is no objection to benefiting from the prize offered by the store, as it is considered a lawful prize from the viewpoint of Islamic Law.
It is stated in the resolutions of the "Jordanian Iftaa' Board" (Resolution No. 47), in the context of outlining the conditions for permissible prizes: "The price of the ticket [or item purchased] for the sake of the prize must not exceed its original price, so that there is no payment of money in exchange for participation in the draw." And Allah, the Most High, 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.
