A woman made a wig for herself from her own [previously shed] hair, which she wears on her head after having lost her hair [due to hair loss]. Is this permissible?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Since the hair belongs to the woman herself, the wig can be removed during the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing), and part of the head can still be wiped during wuḍū' (ablution), there is no sharī‘ah objection to making this wig — provided she does not appear wearing it in front of non-maḥram men (Any males outside a woman's immediate family whom she is permitted to marry under Islamic law), since it is not permissible for them to look at a woman's detached hair.
It is stated in Rawḍat aṭ-Ṭālibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn: "Whatever it is not permissible to look at while still attached [to the body] — such as the male genitalia, a free woman's forearm, the hair of her head, and a man's pubic hair, and similar matters — it remains unlawful to look at even after it has been detached [from the body], according to the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ)." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Which holds greater virtue: The Udhiyah (Sacrificial Offering) or giving its value in Charity (Sadaqah)?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) holds greater virtue than donating its monetary value to the poor and needy. This is because the sacrifice is a prominent, manifest ritual among the sacred symbols of Islam. Allah Almighty says: "That [is so]. And whoever honors the symbols of Allah - indeed, it is from the piety of hearts." (Al-Hajj: 32)
Furthermore, there are numerous authentic and explicit Hadiths highlighting its immense reward. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) consistently offered this sacrifice, as did the Righteous Caliphs after him. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
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.
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.
