What are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.
How many rak‘ahs are there in Tarawih prayer?
The most complete form of Tarawih prayer consists of twenty rak‘ahs, excluding Shaf‘ and Witr. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, both past and present, and it is the practiced tradition in the two Holy Mosques.
However, Tarawih is valid with any even number of rak‘ahs, even two rak‘ahs, as long as it is performed with the intention of Qiyam al-Ramadan.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on making up missed voluntary prayers?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended for a Muslim to make up any missed voluntary prayers — whether the regular Sunnah prayers (rawātib), the witr prayer, or his personal devotional routine (wird). As for voluntary prayers that are tied to a specific cause or occasion — such as the eclipse prayers (kusūf and khusūf) — these are not made up once their time has passed.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: "The correct view in our school is that making up the regular voluntary prayers is recommended." [Al-Majmūʿ, Vol. 4/P.43] And Allah the Almighty 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.
