Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on men wearing rings (those made of silver and of other metals, such as iron), and are there conditions for men wearing rings?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is sunnah for men to wear a silver ring on the right hand, following the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) took a silver ring and had “Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh” engraved on it. He said: “I have taken a ring of silver and had ‘Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh’ engraved on it, so let no one engrave the like of its engraving.”
It is a condition that the silver ring not exceed the size customary in the local norm (ʿurf). If it does, that is extravagance (isrāf). A ring made of a metal other than silver, such as iron or copper, is permissible to wear without disapproval (karāhah), except gold, which is forbidden (ḥarām) for a man to wear.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.586): “It is permissible, without disapproval, to wear a ring of iron or lead. It is sunnah for a man to wear a silver ring on the little finger of his right or left hand. Wearing it on the right is better, and it is permissible on the left, and on both together.”
It is also stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.97): “It is lawful for him, that is, the man, and likewise the khunthā (person of indeterminate sex), indeed all the more so, to wear a ring of silver, by consensus (ijmāʿ), because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a ring of silver, narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim). Wearing it is in fact sunnah, whether on the right or the left, though the right is better according to the sound position, as stated in the chapter on clothing in al-Rawḍah… The Shāfiʿī jurists did not specify the permitted size of the ring, and they probably relied on custom (ʿurf), that is, the custom of that country and the habit of people of his standing in it. Whatever exceeds that is extravagance, as they said regarding a woman’s anklet. This is the reliable position (al-muʿtamad).” 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.
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.
