A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is a person who forgot to make up missed fasts until the next Ramadan began required to pay expiatory compensation (Fidyah) alongside the makeup fast (Qada')?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever forgets to make up missed fasts of Ramadan (Qada') until the following Ramadan begins incurs no sin, pursuant to the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my nation their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and that which they are coerced into doing." [Narrated by Ibn Majah, and Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra]
Furthermore, such an individual is not obligated to pay a expiatory compensation (Fidyah). It is stated in Bushra Al-Karim (p. 580)—one of the authoritative Shafi'i jurisprudential texts: "As for delaying it [the makeup fasts] due to a valid excuse—such as travel, breastfeeding, forgetfulness, or ignorance of the prohibition of delay (even for one living among scholars)—no Fidyah is required. This is because delaying performance during the actual month is permissible due to these excuses; hence, delaying makeup fasts is even more permissible, even if it continues for years."
And Allah Almighty knows best.
How should a person who is afflicted with continued major ritual impurity (incontinence of urine, bleeding outside the monthly period) perform ablution?
Such a person should make ablution for every prayer after its due time and after removing impurities from their body and outfit, and should place a fresh diaper whenever needed so as for the impurity not to spread out. They should also perform prayer immediately even if incontinence of urine continued, and should repeat the aforementioned for every obligatory prayer, then perform optional prayer as much as they want.
What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
