I read the Qudsī ḥadīth: "Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ and does not perform ablution has shown me harshness; whoever performs ablution and does not pray has shown me harshness; whoever prays and does not supplicate to Me has shown me harshness; and whoever supplicates to Me and I do not answer him, then I have been harsh to him, and I am not a harsh Lord." What is the authenticity of this ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
This ḥadīth was mentioned by al-Ṣaghānī (may Allah have mercy on him) in al-Mawḍūʿāt (p. 43), where he said: “Among them is their saying: ‘Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ and does not perform ablution has shown me harshness; whoever performs ablution and does not pray has shown me harshness; (whoever prays and does not supplicate to Me has shown me harshness); and whoever supplicates to Me and I do not answer him, then I have been harsh to him, and I am not a harsh Lord.’”
Al-ʿAjlūnī (may Allah have mercy on him) cited what al-Ṣaghānī said in Kashf al-Khafāʾ (Vol.2/p.264). 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 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.
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.
