Is it permissible to fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for the missed fasts of Ramadan?
● If a person missed fasts due to a valid excuse, they may fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for Ramadan fasts, because qada (makeup fasts) in this case can be delayed, while the six days of Shawwal must be observed within Shawwal.
● However, if a person missed fasts without a valid excuse, they must make up for the missed fasts immediately after Eid, before fasting the six days of Shawwal. If they fast the six days first, it is valid, but they must still make up for the missed Ramadan fasts afterward.
It is also permissible to combine the intention of qada (makeup fasts) and the six days of Shawwal in one fast. However, it is better to fast them separately, as this increases the reward and avoids scholarly disagreement regarding combining intentions.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on kissing while fasting?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is prohibitively disliked (makrūh taḥrīman) for a husband to engage in foreplay with or kiss his wife during the daylight hours of Ramaḍān if doing so stirs his desire. If pre-seminal fluid (madhī) is released as a result, the fast is not invalidated; however, if seminal fluid (manī) is released, the fast is broken.
Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: "It is prohibitively disliked to kiss — whether on the mouth or elsewhere — for one whose desire is stirred, whether man or woman, to the extent that he fears it may lead to intercourse or ejaculation. Embracing, touching, and similar acts without a barrier carry the same ruling as kissing in this regard, because such acts expose the act of worship to being corrupted — and as the two Ṣaḥīḥs record: 'Whoever circles around a protected boundary is liable to fall into it.'"
He further added: "It is preferable for one whose desire is not stirred — even if he is a young man — to refrain from such acts as well, so as to close the door entirely. For he may believe his desire has not been aroused when in fact it has. Moreover, it is Sunnah for the fasting person to abstain from all desires without exception." — Summarised with minor adaptation from [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
My brother works in a conventional bank and gave me one of the gifts distributed to bank employees — what is the ruling on accepting it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no objection to accepting such gifts, because the physical gift itself does not carry any inherent prohibition — unlike stolen property. Sin does not transfer or extend to the one who receives the gift, for Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." [Al-Anʿām/164]
The evidence for this is that the Prophet ﷺ himself ate from the food of the Jews, conducted transactions with them, and purchased from them — and it is well known that their wealth was intermingled with ribā. Similarly, the wealth of conventional ribā-based banks is a mixture of the lawful and the unlawful.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is not forbidden to transact with one whose wealth is predominantly unlawful, nor to eat from it — as al-Nawawī affirmed in al-Majmūʿ." [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 9/P.389] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
