What is the ruling of Islamic Law on a menstruating woman (ḥā'iḍ) reciting the Islamic ruqyah (Qur'anic/spiritual healing)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is permissible for a person in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity), or a menstruating woman (ḥā'iḍ), or a woman in postpartum bleeding (nufasā'), to recite for the purpose of ruqyah (spiritual/Qur'anic healing), even if this includes some verses of the Noble Qur'an — whether recited from memory or by looking at the Muṣ-ḥaf (the physical copy of the Qur'an) without touching or carrying it — provided that the intention behind the recitation is ruqyah, protection (taḥṣīn), and remembrance (dhikr), not the intention of tilāwah (Qur'anic recitation as an act of worship in itself). This remains permissible even if what is recited is an entire sūrah, such as Sūrat al-Mulk.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "It is lawful for a person in janābah to utter its [the Qur'an's] remembrances and other content — such as its admonitions, its narratives, and its rulings — so long as it is not with the intention of [reciting] Qur'an. [This is] like his saying upon mounting [a vehicle]: 'Glory be to Him Who has subjected this to us, and we could never have accomplished this [by ourselves]' [Sūrat az-Zukhruf: 13] — meaning, [could never have] been capable of it — or upon a calamity: 'Indeed we belong to Allah, and indeed to Him we shall return'... In fact, my teacher, ash-Shihāb ar-Ramlī, issued a fatwā that even if he recited the entire Qur'an without the intention of [reciting] Qur'an, it would be permissible." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 1/P.217] And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on water present on the floor of a toilet/bathroom?
The default ruling is the purity of this water present on the bathroom floor. If one is certain or strongly suspects its impurity, then one washes whatever part of the body or clothing this impure water has touched. If one doubts its impurity, the default is purity, and we do not rule it impure based on mere doubt. And Allah the Almighty 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.
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.
