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.
Is it permissible for one who sacrifices on behalf of another, with the latter's permission, to eat from the sacrifice?
It is permissible for someone who sacrificed on behalf of another with their permission to eat from it with their permission, and they stand in their place (act as their representative) in distributing it.
It is stated in Nihayat al-Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (Vol.8/P.141): "And he—meaning the one sacrificing on his own behalf, provided he has not apostatized—has the right to eat from a voluntary sacrifice and his sacrificial gift; rather, it is recommended. As for an obligatory sacrifice, it is forbidden for him to eat from it, whether it was designated as such initially or as a liability in his dhimmah. And excluded by what has preceded is if he sacrifices on behalf of another, or if he apostatized, then it is not permissible for him to eat from it, just as it is absolutely impermissible to feed a disbeliever from it."(The text I found indicates the impermissibility of eating) ???
And it is stated in Hashiyat al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh al-Manhaj (Vol.5/P.262): "If a person offers a sacrifice on behalf of a living person with their permission, does he act as their representative in distributing it—on the grounds that permission to sacrifice is permission to distribute it—or does it depend on their explicit permission? This requires consideration, but the first view is not far-fetched." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on using the *subḥah* (prayer beads) to count during *tasbīḥ* and *dhikr*?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is recommended to use the ordinary or electronic subḥah (prayer beads or counter) to count tasbīḥ, dhikr, and istighfār, because it helps one to remember Allah. Many reports have been transmitted from the Companions and the Followers (tābiʿūn) showing that they continued to use strings of date pits as an aid to dhikr and tasbīḥ.
It is one of the lawful means of worship. Indeed, what is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), namely that he counted tasbīḥ on his right hand, shows that it is permissible to count tasbīḥ with whatever helps a Muslim keep track of the number. There is therefore no basis for calling it an innovation (bidʿah), and we know of no jurist who said so.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote a dedicated treatise on the subject titled al-Minḥah fī al-Subḥah, printed within al-Ḥāwī li’l-Fatāwī (vol. 4–6).
Shaykh al-Islām Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: Does the subḥah have a basis in the Sunnah? He replied: “Yes, and al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī wrote on this. Among the evidence is what is authentically reported from Ibn ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with them both): ‘I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) counting tasbīḥ on his hand.’ Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Tirmidhī also narrated: ‘Hold fast to tasbīḥ, tahlīl, and taqdīs, and do not be heedless, lest you forget the affirmation of Allah’s oneness (tawḥīd). Count them on the fingertips, for they will be questioned and made to speak.’ Counting tasbīḥ with pebbles, date pits, and a knotted string has also been reported from a group of the Companions and those after them. Some scholars held that counting on the fingertips is better than the subḥah, based on the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar. Others distinguished, saying: if the one reciting is safe from miscounting, counting on the fingertips is better; otherwise the subḥah is better.” [al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā, Vol.1/p.152]. And Allah Almighty knows best.
