I hired a private tutor for my son through an academy that sends teachers [to families] and takes a percentage [of their pay]. At the start of the [new] school year, I arranged directly with that same teacher, without the academy's knowledge. What is the ruling on this?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The ruling on this matter depends on knowing the specific terms of the agreement and contract concluded with the academy. If the agreement stipulates that no arrangement may be made with any of the students except through the academy itself, then it is not permissible for you to breach the terms of this contract, based on the words of our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Muslims are bound by their conditions." (Related by al-Bukhārī)
However, if the agreement pertains only to teaching a specific subject, and the agreement concludes once that subject is finished, then there is no objection to arranging with the teacher to teach other subjects after the contract period has ended, outside of the academy.
Whatever the case maybe, the teacher must uphold the terms of his contract with the academy. And Allah, the Exalted, 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.
Who is required to give fidyah for fasting?
Fidyah—feeding one needy person for each missed fasting day—is required for:
1. Those who are permanently unable to fast, such as:
○ Elderly men and women who are too weak to fast.
○ People with chronic illnesses that have no hope of recovery.
2. Pregnant or breastfeeding women who break their fast out of fear for their child (fetus or infant).
3. A person who delays making up Ramadan fasts (qada) until the next Ramadan begins, without a valid excuse.
4. The estate of a deceased person who had missed obligatory fasts and had the ability to make them up but did not do so.
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.
