Is it recommended (mustaḥabb) for the one offering a voluntary sacrifice (uḍḥiyyat taṭawwuʿ) to eat from its meat?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is highly recommended (Mustahabb) for the person offering a voluntary Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) to eat from its meat, but it is not an obligatory requirement (Wajib). Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "So eat of them and feed the needy who do not beg and the beggar. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may be grateful." (Al-Hajj/ 36)
"So eat of them": This directive is an encouraging recommendation, not a binding command.
The Qani’ (the needy who do not beg): Refers to a poor person who refrains from asking people for help out of dignity.
The Mu’tarr (the beggar): Refers to a poor person who explicitly asks others for assistance. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
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.
What should a person who was favored from Allah with a newborn, but couldn`t afford an Aqeeqah, do?
Aqeeqah (the sheep slaughtered on the seventh day from the child`s birth) is a desirable Sunnah for the financially able since Allah, The Exalted, charges not a soul beyond its capacity. Therefore, if the father couldn`t afford the Aqeeqah before the end of his wife`s confinement, then it isn`t due on him, and if he was able to afford it later on, then it is permissible, but if he didn`t until the child reached puberty, the latter can offer the Aqeeqah himself.
