What is the ruling on performing istinja' after passing wind from the anus?
Ablution is invalidated by passing wind from the anus, even without a smell. Only ablution becomes obligatory from it. Istinja' is not obligatory nor recommended. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the recommended supplication (Du'a) upon breaking the fast, and is it recited before or after breaking it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is recommended (Mustahabb) for a fasting person to recite upon breaking the fast—that is, immediately after eating or drinking—the supplication: "Allahumma laka sumtu wa 'ala rizqika aftartu" (O Allah, for You I have fasted, and with Your provision I have broken my fast).
This is because our master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), used to say this. The narration was recorded by Abu Dawud with a good (Hasan) chain of transmission, albeit in a Mursal form (a narration where a Successor reports directly from the Prophet). Shaykh al-Islam Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (may Allah have mercy upon him) stated: "Its Mursal status is inconsequential, as it pertains to virtuous deeds (Fada'il); furthermore, it was connected (Mawsul) through another chain of transmission." [Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, Vol.3/P.425]
It is also recommended to recite: "Dhahaba al-dhama'u wa ibtallat al-'uruqu wa thabata al-ajru in sha' Allah" (The thirst has gone, the veins are moistened, and the reward is confirmed, if Allah wills).
This was recorded by Abu Dawud with a good (Hasan) chain. Our leading jurists (Imams) have explicitly stated that it is recommended for the fasting person to combine both supplications.
Imam al-Bajuri (may Allah have mercy upon him) stated:
"And his saying following his breaking of the fast—that is, it is recommended to say: 'O Allah, for You I have fasted, upon Your provision I have broken my fast, in You I have believed, to You I have submitted, and upon You I have relied. The thirst has gone, the veins are moistened, and the reward is confirmed, if Allah wills. O You of vast bounty, forgive me. Praise be to Allah Who aided me so that I fasted, and provided for me so that I broke my fast. O Allah, grant us success in fasting, enable us to stand in night prayer during it, and aid us in it while people sleep, and admit us to Paradise in peace.'" [Hashiyat al-Bajuri, Vol.1/P.562]
Furthermore, the fasting person may supplicate with whatever good he or she wishes, for the supplication of a fasting person is answered. Al-Bayhaqi recorded on the authority of Anas ibn Malik that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Three supplications are not rejected: the supplication of a parent for his child, the supplication of a fasting person, and the supplication of a traveler." And Allah 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.
What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
