What is the ruling on the use of an inhaler by a *muḥrim* (a person in the state of *iḥrām*)? [An inhaler is a medicinal device used for inhalation, containing various herbal ingredients.]؟
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible for the muḥrim (a person in the state of iḥrām) to use incense (bakhūr), sprays, and inhalers that contain aromatic substances for the purpose of treatment, because the intention is medical treatment, not the use of perfume (taṭayyub). No expiation (fidyah) is required of him for doing so.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī ʿalā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.2/p.455): “That which is intended for eating or for medical treatment, even if it has a pleasant scent, such as apples, spikenard (sunbul), and the various fragrant spices such as mastic (muṣṭakā), is not forbidden, and no fidyah is due for it, because what is intended for eating or treatment carries no fidyah.”. And Allah Almighty 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.
I work overtime after regular working hours and may become occupied with my phone or the work computer for personal matters — what is the ruling on this?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is obligatory upon an employee to abide by the instructions and regulations governing overtime hours, and equally obligatory to uphold honesty and avoid all forms of deception and dishonesty. Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, be mindful of Allah and be with the truthful." [Al-Tawbah/ 119]
Whoever is assigned to work overtime must be present at his workplace — even if he has no specific tasks to carry out at that time. In such a case, he should strive as best he can to spend that time in a manner that benefits the institution he works for. If there is genuinely no work for him to do, there is no objection to occupying his time with something beneficial — such as reciting the Holy Qurʾān, reading, or listening to educational lessons — provided he has already completed all the responsibilities assigned to him.
If, however, he does have work to complete, he must spend that time fulfilling it. He may attend to phone calls or other personal matters to the extent that is customarily acceptable, as long as this does not result in delaying or postponing his work. If he delays his work on account of personal preoccupations, the wages he received for that wasted time are not lawfully his to keep, and he is obliged to return the equivalent amount to the institution by whatever means available to him. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
