What is the ruling of Islamic Law on kissing while fasting?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is prohibitively disliked (makrūh taḥrīman) for a husband to engage in foreplay with or kiss his wife during the daylight hours of Ramaḍān if doing so stirs his desire. If pre-seminal fluid (madhī) is released as a result, the fast is not invalidated; however, if seminal fluid (manī) is released, the fast is broken.
Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: "It is prohibitively disliked to kiss — whether on the mouth or elsewhere — for one whose desire is stirred, whether man or woman, to the extent that he fears it may lead to intercourse or ejaculation. Embracing, touching, and similar acts without a barrier carry the same ruling as kissing in this regard, because such acts expose the act of worship to being corrupted — and as the two Ṣaḥīḥs record: 'Whoever circles around a protected boundary is liable to fall into it.'"
He further added: "It is preferable for one whose desire is not stirred — even if he is a young man — to refrain from such acts as well, so as to close the door entirely. For he may believe his desire has not been aroused when in fact it has. Moreover, it is Sunnah for the fasting person to abstain from all desires without exception." — Summarised with minor adaptation from [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is an animal that results from crossbreeding between two types of livestock (an'ām) valid [for sacrifice]?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
An animal that results from crossbreeding between two types of livestock (an'ām) is valid [for sacrifice], with consideration given to the higher of the two required ages. Thus, in the case of an animal crossbred between sheep (ḍa'n) and goats (ma'z), only one that has reached two years of age is valid [for sacrifice]. And Allah, the Most High, 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.
