What is the ruling on the white discharge (*Al-Qassat al-Bayda'*) if it is in a very small amount—is it considered a sign of purity?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Among the signs of purity (Tahr) for a woman is the white discharge (Al-Qassat al-Bayda'), which is a clear, pure white fluid, regardless of whether it is minimal in quantity, or complete dryness (Jafaf), wherein secretions cease entirely such that if a white cotton cloth is inserted, it comes out completely clean. Once a woman observes either of these two signs, she has attained ritual purity.
Furthermore, another sign of purity is when the duration of the menstrual period exceeds the maximum limit of menstruation, which is fifteen days. If it exceeds this period, it becomes evident that she is experiencing non-menstrual bleeding (Istihadah).
Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
What is the correct point at which to raise the hands when standing up for the third rak‘ah (after the middle tashahhud)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Raising the hands while saying the takbīr [when rising for the third rak‘ah] is a recommended sunnah, and omitting it does not affect the validity of the prayer. The proper time for this is after rising from the middle tashahhud, once one has fully stood up.
It is stated in I‘ānat aṭ-Ṭālibīn (Vol.1/P.158): "His statement, 'and rising from the first tashahhud' — meaning, this manner [of raising the hands] is also a sunnah when he rises from the first tashahhud, that is, when he stands upright from it.
Consider [the question]: when precisely does the raising of the hands begin? Is it at the very start of rising from the first tashahhud, or after he has reached the minimum position of rukū‘ [i.e., once fully upright]? The apparent, [correct] view is the latter — even though the outward wording [of the text] might suggest the former — because at the very start of his rising, he is still relying on both hands [to push himself up, and therefore cannot yet raise them]."
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 53): "If his prayer extends beyond two rak‘ahs, he sits after them in the iftirāsh position, recites the tashahhud, and sends blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ alone, without [mentioning] his family [at this point]. He then stands while saying the takbīr, supporting himself with his hands; and once he has stood upright, he raises them level with his shoulders." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
