I have a brother who is harsh in his dealings [with me], and many problems have occurred between us, and I do not intend to reconcile with him. What is the ruling of Islamic Law on that?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible for a Muslim to abandon or boycott his fellow Muslim brother for more than three days. This is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: "It is not lawful for a Muslim to forsake his brother for more than three [days], meeting each other but one turns away and the other turns away, and the better of the two is the one who initiates the greeting (salam)." (Reported by al-Bukhari.)
A Muslim must strive to end such estrangement (hajr), so as not to fall under the prohibition mentioned in the hadith. If he takes the initiative to reconcile but the other party does not respond, then there is no sin upon him. We remind [ourselves] of the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "And let them pardon and overlook. Do you not wish that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (An-Nur/22). And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law if the follower (maʾmūm) stands up for the third rakʿah out of forgetfulness while the imam has sat for the middle tashahhud?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the imam sits for the tashahhud while the follower (maʾmūm), out of forgetfulness, stands up for the third rakʿah, he is obliged to return to his sitting position, since following the imam is obligatory. In this case, no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is required of him. If, however, he fails to return, his prayer is rendered invalid.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "If the follower stands up alone out of forgetfulness, he is obliged to return, since following the imam is obligatory... If he does not return, his prayer is rendered invalid, due to his departure from what is obligatory." [Asnā al-Maṭālib,Vol.1/P.190] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
If the bleeding ceases after 40 days following childbirth, but then returns intermittently during two days of fasting, what is the ruling?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whenever the post-natal bleeding (Nifas) ceases and the woman is certain it will not return, she has become pure; therefore, she must perform the ritual bath (Ghusl) and resume praying and fasting. However, if the blood returns within fifteen days of its cessation and before sixty days have passed since the delivery, the ruling of Nifas applies once again. Consequently, any fasting or prayer performed during that interval of purity is rendered invalid; she must make up for the missed fasts of those days, but she is not required to make up for the prayers. And Allah the Exalted knows best.
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.
