Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on the prayer of zawal?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended (sunnah) to pray four rakʿāt — either with a single tasleem or as two separate sets of two rakʿāt — immediately following the sun's decline from its zenith (zawāl). This prayer is distinct from the regular Sunnah prayer of Ẓuhr (sunnat al-ẓuhr al-rātibah), as explicitly stated by the Shāfiʿī jurists.
It is mentioned in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj: "The prayer of zawāl is offered after the sun's decline — so were one to perform it before that, it would not count. It consists of two or four rakʿāt and is distinct from the Sunnah of Ẓuhr, as is evident from the fact that it is mentioned separately after the regular Sunnah prayers, and it becomes a make-up prayer (qaḍāʾ) if a long period of time passes by customary reckoning... Al-ʿAlqamī stated: 'Scholars refer to this as the Sunnah of Zawāl, and it is distinct from the four rakʿāt that constitute the Sunnah of Ẓuhr.' Our shaykh said: Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿIrāqī stated that among those who explicitly affirmed its recommendation was al-Ghazālī in al-Iḥyāʾ, in the chapter on devotional litanies, noting that there is no tasleem between them — meaning there is no break between each pair of rakʿāt."
The time of the sun's decline (zawāl) marks the very beginning of the time for the Ẓuhr prayer.
And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Does vomiting during the day in Ramadan break the fast?
Intentional vomiting is one of the nullifiers of fasting; whoever vomits deliberately breaks their fast.
However, if vomiting occurs involuntarily, the fast remains valid as long as nothing returns to the body cavity (jauf). If anything is swallowed back, the fast is invalidated.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever is overcome by vomiting does not have to make up the fast, but whoever induces vomiting deliberately must make it up." [Narrated by Abu Dawood and At-Tirmidhi]
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
