Is an elderly or chronically ill person required to pay additional fidyah if they delay it beyond the first year?
An elderly person or someone permanently unable to fast must pay fidyah by feeding one needy person for each missed day.
However, if they delay paying fidyah beyond the first year, no additional fidyah is required.
This differs from someone who delays making up missed Ramadan fasts (qada) without a valid excuse until the next Ramadan begins—such a person is required to pay an additional fidyah for the delay.
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.
Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
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.
