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 a suitor (khāṭib) going out alone with his fiancée before the marriage contract is concluded?
It is unlawful for a suitor, prior to the marriage contract , to do anything that would be unlawful for any non-maḥram man — including touching his fiancée, being secluded with her (khalwah), or seeing her without her complete sharī‘ah-compliant covering — even after the recitation of al-Fātiḥah (This is a cultural custom to seek Allah's blessing (barakah) and mark mutual consent) and the family's approval [of the engagement]. This is because the engagement, without the formal marriage contract, does not render unlawful matters permissible. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who combines two prayers as an early combination (jam‘ taqdīm), and then arrives at his place of residence during the time of the second prayer — is he obligated to repeat it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Whoever combines Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr while traveling — that is, before he has reached the built-up boundaries of his hometown [upon returning] — his combination (jam‘) of the two prayers remains valid, even if he arrives at his place of residence before the time for the second prayer has actually begun. This is because the combination was already validly completed with its proper conditions fulfilled, and he is not obligated to repeat the second prayer [upon arrival].
A traveler is permitted to make use of the concessions of shortening (qaṣr) and combining (jam‘) prayers once the distance of travel reaches (81 km) or more, provided that his journey is a permissible one, and that he begins shortening and combining only after actually setting out on the journey and passing beyond the built-up limits of the city in which he resides. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
