What is the ruling of Islamic Law on a father shaking hands with his son’s wife after she has been divorced three times?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The wife of one’s son is among the women permanently prohibited to the husband’s father as soon as the marriage contract is concluded, based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: “Prohibited to you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster mothers, your foster sisters, your wives’ mothers, and your stepdaughters under your guardianship [born] of your wives with whom you have consummated marriage. But if you have not consummated marriage with them, there is no sin upon you. [Also prohibited are] the wives of your sons who are from your loins, and that you take [in marriage] two sisters simultaneously, except for what has already occurred. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.” [al-Nisāʾ/23]
This prohibition begins once the son’s marriage contract with his wife is complete, and it remains in force even if the son separates from her before consummation or before any seclusion (khalwah) with her. It is therefore permissible for the father to shake her hand and to be alone with her, provided there is no fitnah (temptation) and no suspicion.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (p. 204): “It is forbidden to marry… the wives of one’s fathers and of one’s sons. All of these women become prohibited by the mere contract, … all of that being a permanent prohibition.” End quote, with slight adaptation. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the Islamic ruling on the Udhiyah (sacrificial offfering)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) is a Confirmed Sunnah (Sunnah Mu’akkadah) for every adult Muslim of sound mind who possesses the financial means, whether they are a resident, a traveler, or a pilgrim (Haj). This is based on the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: 'When the ten days [of Dhu al-Hijjah] begin and one of you desires to offer a sacrifice, let him not touch [cut] anything of his hair or skin' [Narrated by Muslim].
The point of evidence (Wajh al-Dalalah) here is that the Prophet ﷺ linked the sacrifice to the individual's will and desire by saying, 'and one of you desires.' This indicates that it is not obligatory (Wajib); had it been mandatory, he would have simply said, 'let him not touch his hair until he sacrifices' [without making it conditional upon desire].
Furthermore, it is narrated that Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes refrain from offering the sacrifice out of fear that people might mistakenly view it as an obligatory duty [Narrated by al-Bayhaqi and others with a good (Hasan) chain of transmission]. And Allah the Exalted 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.
