What is the ruling on Jumu‘ah (Friday) prayer for a traveler, and what are the conditions for it to be waived from him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Jumu‘ah (Friday) prayer is not obligatory upon a traveler, whether on a long or short journey, provided that — according to the Shāfi‘ī school — he departs from his place of residence before the time for Fajr prayer begins, and that he does not intend to stay in the place he travels to for four days or more, excluding the day of arrival and the day of departure. If he intends to stay longer than that, he may not make use of the travel concession simply by arriving in that town. If he begins his journey after the adhān for Fajr has already been called, then Jumu‘ah prayer remains obligatory upon him, whether in his own town or in any town where Jumu‘ah is being held.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm (Vol.1/p.383), from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "Jumu‘ah [prayer] is not obligatory upon a traveler on a permissible journey, whether long or short, if he departs from his place of residence before Fajr."
A "short journey" refers to travel covering a distance shorter than that of a long journey — that is, less than (81 km). The traveler begins to be entitled to travel concessions once he passes beyond the built-up limits of his town. 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.
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.
What is the ruling on entering the toilet with something containing the remembrance of Allah?
It is disliked to bring into the toilet anything containing a reminder of Allah, such as the Quran or a sacred name (like the name of Allah, Muhammad, etc.). If one does that, etiquette dictates that he conceal it so it is not visible while entering the toilet, either by cupping his hands over it, putting it in his pocket, or inside his shirt if it is a necklace or ring. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
