What is the ruling of Islamic Law on a fictitious marriage for the purpose of obtaining citizenship?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no such thing in our noble sharīʿah as a "nominal" or "fictitious" marriage or divorce. Marriage and divorce are among the sacred ordinances of Allah, and it is not permissible to manipulate them or use them as a stratagem to obtain worldly gains.
The foundational purpose of a marriage contract is the permanence and continuity of the relationship between the spouses — to establish a family, and to bring forth righteous offspring. So sacred is this bond that Allah the Almighty Himself described it as a solemn covenant (mīthāq ghalīẓ), saying {what means}: "And if you wish to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount of wealth, do not take any of it back. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin? And how could you take it while you have gone in unto each other and they have taken from you a solemn covenant?" [Al-Nisāʾ/ 20–21]
Accordingly, it is not permissible to resort to manipulation and deception in contracts that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has described as a "solemn covenant" — all for the sake of material and worldly benefit. Marriage is built upon permanence and does not admit of a fixed time limit. If a time limit is stipulated in the contract, the contract is rendered invalid by the consensus of the jurists. Similarly, marriage is impermissible when there exists a mutual, concealed intention to limit its duration — even if no time limit is explicitly mentioned in the contract — for this constitutes a form of unlawful circumvention of the sharīʿah. This is to say nothing of the lying and deception that such conduct involves, the prohibition of which needs no elaboration. Lying, deception, and fraud for the purpose of obtaining worldly gains are among the gravest of sins.
If, however, the marriage contract is first concluded in a valid sharʿī manner and then registered civilly, it is sound and fully valid. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on giving Zakat al-Fitr in cash?
The default ruling is that Zakat al-Fitr should be given as the staple food of the land. In Jordan, for example, the staple food is wheat or rice, and the amount of Zakat al-Fitr is 2,500 grams per person. It is easy to give this amount of rice to the poor and needy, and this is the correct ruling according to all Islamic schools of thought.
However, Hanafi scholars have permitted giving Zakat al-Fitr as monetary value, considering it more beneficial for the poor and easier for the giver.
What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
