What is the ruling of Islamic Law on sitting between the two prostrations, and what is the ruling on the dhikr recited during it?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Sitting between the two prostrations (al-jalsah bayna al-sajdatayn) is one of the pillars (arkān) of the prayer, while the dhikr recited during it is Sunnah according to the Shāfi'ī scholars. It is recommended (mustahabb) to say what was narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say between the two prostrations in the night prayer: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warzuqnī, warfa'nī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, provide for me, and raise me)." If one were to say a different supplication instead, such as "Rabbi ighfir lī" (My Lord, forgive me), the prayer would still be valid.
If the worshipper omits this dhikr between the two prostrations, whether intentionally or out of forgetfulness, their prayer remains valid and nothing is required of them, though they miss the reward of following the Sunnah. Leaving it out does not necessitate the prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw).
It is stated in Hāshiyat al-Bājūrī 'alā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim 'alā Matn Abī Shujā' (Vol.1/P.298): "The eleventh — i.e., of the eighteen pillars — his statement: 'sitting between the two prostrations,' meaning even in a supererogatory (nafl) prayer... his statement: 'with the supplication that has been narrated concerning it,' meaning: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warfa'nī, warzuqnī, wahdinī, wa 'āfinī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, raise me, provide for me, guide me, and grant me well-being). Al-Ghazālī added: 'wa'fu 'annī' (and pardon me). Al-Mutawallī also added: 'Rabbi hab lī qalban taqiyyan, naqiyyan min al-shirk, bariyyan lā kāfiran wa lā shaqiyyan' (My Lord, grant me a heart that is God-fearing, pure from associating partners with You, innocent, neither disbelieving nor wretched)."And Allah, the Most High, 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.
I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Does the Obligatory Ritual Bath (Ghusl) Suffice in Place of Ablution (Wuḍūʾ)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The more prudent course is to perform ablution (wuḍūʾ) after the ritual bath (ghusl), so as to exit the difference of scholarly opinion and because the sufficiency of the ritual bath in place of ablution is contingent upon a number of conditions and requirements being met. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
