Is Zakah (obligatory charity) due on the money saved for marriage?
Zakah is due on the money saved for marriage if it reached the Nissab (minimum amount liable for Zakah), and a whole lunar year had lapsed over possessing it.
How to perform the witr prayer in terms of connection (wasl) and separation (fasl)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The Witr prayer has several forms that vary in terms of virtue:
The First Form: Separating every two units (rak‘ah) with a Tashahhud and a Taslim (salutation). This is superior to connecting the units, even if it is only a single rak‘ah. This is based on the Hadith of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray eleven units between the end of the ‘Isha prayer and dawn, performing the Taslim after every two units and performing Witr with a single unit.' (Related by al-Bukhari & Muslim).
The Second Form: Connecting the units with only one final Tashahhud at the very end.
The Third Form: Connecting with two Tashahhuds—meaning reciting the Tashahhud before the final unit without performing the Taslim, then standing to complete the final unit. This form is considered the lowest in rank so that the Witr prayer remains distinct from the obligatory Maghrib prayer, as stated in the Hadith: 'Do not make the Witr resemble the Maghrib prayer.' (Narrated by Al-Daraqutni, who stated its narrators are trustworthy).
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'It is permissible to connect [the Witr] with one Tashahhud in the final unit—which is better—or with two Tashahhuds in the last two units, as both methods are established in Sahih Muslim from the actions of the Prophet ﷺ. In the connected method, more than two Tashahhuds are prohibited. Furthermore, separating (al-Fasl) is better than connecting (al-Wasl) if the number of units is the same, because the Hadiths supporting it are more numerous and it involves more devotional actions.' 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 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.
