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.
If a traveler settles or a sick person recovers while fasting, is it permissible for them to break their fast?
● If a sick person starts the day fasting and then recovers during the day, they must complete their fast.
● If a traveler starts the day fasting and then settles (returns or stops traveling) during the day, they must also complete their fast.
● It is forbidden for both of them to break their fast because the concession (rukhsah) is no longer valid once its reason disappears.
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.
Is it permissible for one to shake hands with his uncle`s daughter?
No, it isn`t because he is a non-Mahram (Marriageable) to her.
