Is it permissible to eat from an Udhiyah slaughtered on behalf of a deceased person?
Praise be to Allah, and prayers and peace be upon our Master the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to eat from the sacrifice (uḍḥiyyah) that is offered on behalf of a deceased person. This is the madhhab (school of thought) of the Hanbalis. In this case, the heirs take the place of the deceased as if he were alive, with the same rights to eat from it, give it in charity, and offer it as a gift.
It is stated in Maṭālib Uli al-Nuhā (Vol.2/P.472): "Offering a sacrifice on behalf of a deceased person is better than offering one on behalf of a living person, because the deceased is unable (to perform deeds) and is in need of reward. It is to be treated like a sacrifice on behalf of a living person in terms of eating, giving charity, and giving gifts." And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who possesses cash reaching the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah), and then uses part of it to purchase gold before the ḥawl (lunar year) is complete — must he pay zakāh on all of it [combined], or only on the remaining cash, excluding the gold?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Gold acquired for hoarding and saving is subject to zakāh once it reaches the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for Zakah) — when combined with any cash held — and once a full ḥawl (lunar year) has elapsed over it. The starting point for calculating this ḥawl is the ḥawl of the paper currency [used to purchase it], which had already reached the niṣāb and was then used to purchase the gold.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.78): "As for someone who sells silver in exchange for gold, or vice versa, zakāh remains obligatory upon it, since he builds [the calculation of] its ḥawl upon [the ḥawl established at the time of] the original transaction [i.e., when the wealth was first acquired]."
This has already been explained in detail in Fatwa No.
2670 — please refer to it.
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is it incumbent on a husband to pay the alimony of his wife if she had left him and stayed at her parent`s without his permission?
When a wife leaves her house, and stays at her parent`s without asking her husband, she is considered a Nashiz (wife who refuses to abide by her husband’s orders), and so she doesn`t deserve an alimony.
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?
If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.
