What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. 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 the prayer of one who said "Subḥāna Rabbiya al-ʿAẓīm" in prostration (*sujūd*) and forgot to correct it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Saying “Subḥāna Rabbiya al-ʿAẓīm” in bowing (rukūʿ) and “Subḥāna Rabbiya al-Aʿlā” in prostration (sujūd) is one of the hayʾāt (non-essential sunnahs) of the prayer. Whoever omits it, whether deliberately or by forgetfulness, or replaces it with another remembrance (dhikr), his prayer is valid and he does not perform sujūd al-sahw. Shaykh al-Islām Imam al-Nawawī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Our school holds that one does not prostrate for omitting the audible or silent recitation, the tasbīḥ, and the rest of the hayʾāt.” [al-Majmūʿ, Vol.4/p.127]
If he performs sujūd al-sahw for something that does not call for it, his prayer is invalidated, because he introduced a prostration of forgetfulness without a cause, and he must repeat the prayer. The exception is one who did so out of forgetfulness or ignorance, whether because he recently entered Islam or because he lives far from scholars; he is excused and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Mughni al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.417): “It is stated in al-Anwār: If he does something that does not call for sujūd al-sahw, thinking that it does, and then prostrates, his prayer is not invalidated if he is ignorant because he recently entered Islam or because he is far from scholars.”
Since this issue is hidden from the laity, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laity are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of the issue is not invalidated. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated.
Whoever realizes while still in the prayer that his prostration was out of place, it is sunnah for him to perform sujūd al-sahw. And Allah Almighty knows best.
