My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is a person rewarded for refraining from all that breaks their fast when required to do so, and is it considered a valid fast?
If a person eats or drinks thinking that Fajr has not yet arrived, but then someone informs them that Fajr had already begun, they must refrain from eating for the rest of the day and make up the fast later.
If they observe the required restraint (imsak), they will be rewarded for obeying the command because fulfilling an obligation brings reward.
However, this is not considered a valid fast in terms of rulings. For example:
● It is not disliked (makruh) for them to use a miswak after noon.
● They are not encouraged to hasten the breaking of the fast at sunset.
● Other fasting-related rulings do not apply to them.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on sitting between the two prostrations, and what is the ruling on the dhikr recited during it?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Sitting between the two prostrations (al-jalsah bayna al-sajdatayn) is one of the pillars (arkān) of the prayer, while the dhikr recited during it is Sunnah according to the Shāfi'ī scholars. It is recommended (mustahabb) to say what was narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say between the two prostrations in the night prayer: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warzuqnī, warfa'nī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, provide for me, and raise me)." If one were to say a different supplication instead, such as "Rabbi ighfir lī" (My Lord, forgive me), the prayer would still be valid.
If the worshipper omits this dhikr between the two prostrations, whether intentionally or out of forgetfulness, their prayer remains valid and nothing is required of them, though they miss the reward of following the Sunnah. Leaving it out does not necessitate the prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw).
It is stated in Hāshiyat al-Bājūrī 'alā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim 'alā Matn Abī Shujā' (Vol.1/P.298): "The eleventh — i.e., of the eighteen pillars — his statement: 'sitting between the two prostrations,' meaning even in a supererogatory (nafl) prayer... his statement: 'with the supplication that has been narrated concerning it,' meaning: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warfa'nī, warzuqnī, wahdinī, wa 'āfinī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, raise me, provide for me, guide me, and grant me well-being). Al-Ghazālī added: 'wa'fu 'annī' (and pardon me). Al-Mutawallī also added: 'Rabbi hab lī qalban taqiyyan, naqiyyan min al-shirk, bariyyan lā kāfiran wa lā shaqiyyan' (My Lord, grant me a heart that is God-fearing, pure from associating partners with You, innocent, neither disbelieving nor wretched)."And Allah, the Most High, 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.
