What is the ruling on swallowing phlegm while fasting?
If a fasting person intentionally swallows phlegm, their fast is invalid, as it is possible to avoid it.
However, if they swallow it unintentionally, their fast remains valid.
Phlegm is impure and should be avoided.
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.
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 offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
