What is the ruling of Islamic Law on one who died owing debts and left no wealth? Is it obligatory upon the heirs to settle these debts?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general rule is that if a person dies owing rights to other people, such as debts, these are settled from his estate, if he left any wealth, before the estate is divided. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The believer's soul is suspended by his debt until it is settled for him.” Graded ḥasan by al-Tirmidhī. Repayment of debts takes precedence over the heirs’ right to inheritance.
If the deceased left no estate, or left wealth that was insufficient to cover his debts, it is not obligatory for the heirs to pay from their own wealth, but it is recommended for them to do so, because the deceased’s dhimmah (legal liability) remains occupied by the debt. It is reported in some narrations that he remains held in suspension until his debt is paid, and it is not part of filial righteousness for a child to leave his father’s dhimmah burdened with debt.
All of the children may contribute to settling the debt on behalf of their father and cooperate in doing so, even in installments, according to their ability. And Allah Almighty knows best.
A pregnant woman has iron deficiency. When she showers, she becomes very tired and feels cold. What is the ruling on tayammum in this situation?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
One should not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) as a substitute for the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing) so long as it remains possible to use water — for example, by heating the water, warming the place where the bathing takes place, or taking other similar precautions. However, if such measures prove ineffective, or are simply not possible to carry out, and performing ghusl [with cold water] would result in severe harm, then tayammum becomes permissible in that case, due to genuine inability to use water on account of the harm that would result, as described in the question. That said, she must make up (qaḍā') the prayers she performed using this tayammum.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm: "One should not perform tayammum on account of cold unless warming the limbs fails to remove the aforementioned harm, and no means are available to heat the water — such as a vessel, firewood, or fire — and one fears [that using cold water would result in] any of the harms mentioned earlier in the discussion on illness: danger to life, loss of function in a limb, the onset or worsening of an illness, delayed recovery, or the [visible bodily] blemish mentioned in that discussion on illness. In such a case, tayammum becomes permissible due to the harm involved, but the prayer must still be made up afterward (qaḍā'). If, however, warming the body proves effective, or the means to heat the water are available, or none of the aforementioned harms are feared — then tayammum is not permissible, even if using the water causes some degree of discomfort or pain, since mere discomfort alone does not permit resorting to tayammum." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on a menstruating woman (ḥā'iḍ) reciting the Islamic ruqyah (Qur'anic/spiritual healing)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is permissible for a person in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity), or a menstruating woman (ḥā'iḍ), or a woman in postpartum bleeding (nufasā'), to recite for the purpose of ruqyah (spiritual/Qur'anic healing), even if this includes some verses of the Noble Qur'an — whether recited from memory or by looking at the Muṣ-ḥaf (the physical copy of the Qur'an) without touching or carrying it — provided that the intention behind the recitation is ruqyah, protection (taḥṣīn), and remembrance (dhikr), not the intention of tilāwah (Qur'anic recitation as an act of worship in itself). This remains permissible even if what is recited is an entire sūrah, such as Sūrat al-Mulk.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "It is lawful for a person in janābah to utter its [the Qur'an's] remembrances and other content — such as its admonitions, its narratives, and its rulings — so long as it is not with the intention of [reciting] Qur'an. [This is] like his saying upon mounting [a vehicle]: 'Glory be to Him Who has subjected this to us, and we could never have accomplished this [by ourselves]' [Sūrat az-Zukhruf: 13] — meaning, [could never have] been capable of it — or upon a calamity: 'Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we shall return'... In fact, my teacher, ash-Shihāb ar-Ramlī, issued a fatwā that even if he recited the entire Qur'an without the intention of [reciting] Qur'an, it would be permissible." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 1/P.217] And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on combining more than one intention in the prayer, such as combining the *sunnah* of wuḍūʾ with the pre-Dhuhr *sunnah*, or combining the *sunnah* of greeting the mosque (*taḥiyyat al-masjid*) with the pre-Dhuhr *sunnah*?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Combining two intentions in a single act of worship, which some jurists call the “overlapping of acts of worship”, has several cases and precise rules. These can be consulted in the books of legal maxims, such as al-Manthūr fī al-Qawāʿid al-Fiqhiyyah by al-Zarkashī and al-Ashbāh wa’l-Naẓāʾir by al-Suyūṭī. Among the most important of these rules:
First: If all of the acts of worship that one wishes to combine under one intention are obligatory, the intentions do not overlap. An example is combining the intention of the obligatory ʿAṣr prayer with that of the obligatory Dhuhr prayer. The intentions do not overlap in this case.
Second: If the two acts are specified supererogatory prayers (nawāfil muqayyadah) that are aimed at in themselves because of a particular time, occasion, or cause, or if they are an obligatory prayer and a specified supererogatory prayer, the intentions again do not overlap. An example is the Duha prayer, which may not be combined with, for instance, the regular sunnah of Dhuhr.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm: “Whatever is not, in meaning, an absolute voluntary prayer, such as the Duha sunnah… is not subsumed under another. Rather, if he intends something else along with it… the prayer is not validly entered. This is because combining two obligations, two specified supererogatory prayers, or an obligation and a specified supererogatory prayer invalidates the prayer in cases not built upon overlapping, as ritual purification (ṭahārah) is.”
Third: If the two acts are absolute voluntary prayers (nawāfil muṭlaqah), or one of them is, where the texts of the Sharīʿah show that the aim of the voluntary act is to fill the time with worship, then overlapping of intentions is permissible. An example is the obligatory Dhuhr prayer together with the sunnah of greeting the mosque (taḥiyyat al-masjid). And Allah Almighty knows best.
