What is the meaning of the Prophetic statement that a boy is held in pledge (murtahan) for his 'aqīqah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The first interpretation: That if the boy dies in infancy without an 'aqīqah having been performed on his behalf, he will not intercede for his parents on the Day of Resurrection. This is the position of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and Imam al-Khaṭṭābī concurred with him, stating: "The finest of what has been said regarding this matter is the position adopted by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal." — [Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar,{Vol.9/P.594]
The second interpretation: That the child is likened to a pledged object (marhūn) — one from which full benefit and enjoyment cannot be derived until it is redeemed. A blessing is only made complete upon the one blessed when they fulfil the obligation of gratitude (shukr), and the prescribed expression of gratitude for this particular blessing is what the Prophet ﷺ established as Sunnah — namely, the slaughtering of the 'aqīqah on behalf of the newborn as an act of thankfulness to Allah the Almighty and as a supplication for the wellbeing and safety of the child. This is the position of Mullā 'Alī al-Qārī. See: [Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, Vol.7/P.2688]
And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on one who sees moisture on his clothes and doubts whether it is semen or pre-seminal fluid (madhy)?
Whoever finds moisture upon waking from sleep and doubts whether it is semen or madhy, and cannot distinguish between them, he may choose between them and act according to his choice. If he wishes, he can consider it semen and perform the ritual bath, or consider it madhy, perform ablution, and wash what it has soiled. This is because if he fulfills the requirement of one of them, he is definitively free from it, and the default is his innocence from the other. And Allah the Almighty 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.
Is it permissible for a wife to give her money to her family as a charity, or a gift without asking her husband, or seeking his consent?
The wife has the right to give her money as a charity, or a gift to her family, or to other people after consulting her husband out of respect, and this is the meaning of treating on footing of kindness and equity. Therefore, if he wanted to stop her from helping her family, then there is no harm in not telling him.
