Is it required to fast consecutively when making up missed fasts?
● It is preferable to fast consecutively when making up missed fasts if they were missed due to a valid excuse.
● However, if the fasts were missed without a valid excuse, then fasting consecutively is obligatory, because making up the missed fasts in this case must be done immediately.
Separating the makeup fasts goes against the obligation of immediacy, but if someone does so, their fasts will still be valid. However, they will be sinful for delaying without a valid reason.
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.
What is the ruling on doubting whether one or two prostrations were performed?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a worshiper is in doubt regarding the number of units (rak'ahs) or prostrations (sajdahs) performed, he must build upon the minimum (i.e., assume the lower number) and perform the prostration of forgetfulness (Sujud al-Sahw) before the Salam at the end of the prayer. This is based on the report from ‘Ata’ ibn Yasar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'When anyone of you is in doubt about his Salat (prayer) and does not know how many he has prayed, three or four (Rak'at) he should cast aside his doubt and base his prayer on what he is sure of. Then, he should perform two prostrations before Taslim (salutation). If he has prayed five Rak'at, they will make his Salat (prayer) an even number for him and if he has prayed exactly four, they (i.e. two prostrations) will be humiliation for the devil..' (Narrated by Abu Dawud).
It is stated in Al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'If one doubts [whether he performed] a bowing (ruku’), a prostration, or a rak'ah, he must perform it and prostrate [for forgetfulness], even if the doubt is removed before the Salam—unless the doubt is removed before he performs what would potentially be an addition. Thus, if he doubts whether he prayed three or four, he is obligated to build upon the minimum.' And Allah the Exalted knows best.
I`m keeping a plot of land (10 Dunums) for my children. Is it liable for Zakah?
Praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds.
Land that is purchased with the intention of ownership and personal benefit—meaning to retain it for use and not for trade—is not subject to zakāh, as such property is not considered from trade commodities (ʿurūḍ al-tijārah).
It is stated in Al-Ḥāwī al-Kabīr:
“If it is property and one intends it for trade, then zakāh is due upon it; but if he intends it for personal possession, then no zakāh is due upon it.” And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
