What is the ruling on making up missed prayers during prohibited times?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to make up (qada’) missed prayers at any time, even during the periods when prayer is generally prohibited. The prayers that are forbidden and considered invalid during these times are 'absolute voluntary prayers' (nafl mutlaq)—which have no specific cause—and voluntary prayers whose cause follows the prayer itself, such as the Sunnah of entering Ihram or the Sunnah of the Istikharah prayer. Furthermore, no prayer is considered disliked (makruh) during these prohibited times when performed within the Meccan Sanctuary (Makkah al-Mukarramah).
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim (Vol.1/P.181), one of the Shafi’i texts: 'It is not forbidden to perform prayers that have a cause that is not delayed (i.e., the cause is preceding), such as making up a missed prayer (fa’itah)—even if it was a voluntary one—and the funeral prayer (janazah); or a cause that is simultaneous, such as the prayer for rain (istisqa’) or the eclipse prayer (kusuf)... and the Sunnah of wudu, the greeting of the mosque (tahiyyat al-masjid), the Sunnah of circumambulation (tawaf), the Sunnah of arrival, and the prostrations of recitation (tilawah) or thankfulness (shukr). These mentioned prayers and their like are not forbidden provided that one does not specifically intend (ta'ammud) to perform them during the disliked time because it is a disliked time. If one does so intentionally, it becomes forbidden, even if it is a mandatory makeup prayer that is due immediately; because in that case, one is acting in defiance of the Sharia. This is in contrast to when one does not specifically seek out that time, even if the prayer happens to fall within it, or if one seeks it for another purpose—such as delaying a funeral prayer to that time so that a larger number of people may pray over the deceased; in such cases, it is permissible and valid... And it is forbidden to perform prayers with no cause at all, like absolute nafl, or those with a delayed cause, such as the Istikharah prayer, the prayer for Ihram, the prayer for a need (hajah), the prayer before leaving the house, or the prayer before execution; because their causes occur after the prayer itself.' And Allah the Exalted knows best."
Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
Is vomit among the nullifiers of Wudu (ablution)?
Vomit does not nullify Wudu, but it is a Najaasah (impurity) that requires rinsing the mouth and washing whatever became dirty by it since the prayer becomes valid only after the removal of Najaasah. And Allah Knows Best.
