What is the ruling on making up the regular pre-Dhuhr *sunnah* (*al-sunnah al-rātibah al-qabliyyah*) for one who missed it in the Dhuhr prayer?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Every timed supererogatory prayer (nāfilah) is recommended (mandūb) to be made up if its time passes. As for a nāfilah that precedes the obligatory prayer, performing it before the farḍ is a matter of proper etiquette (adab); if it is prayed after the farḍ, it is still considered adāʾ (performed within its time). If the time of the farḍ has ended, it is recommended to make up (qaḍāʾ) the nāfilah for one who did not pray it.
Whoever misses the sunnah before Dhuhr, whether with an excuse or without one, it is recommended for him to pray it after the obligatory Dhuhr prayer, within the time of Dhuhr, even at its end, and it counts as adāʾ, not qaḍāʾ. It is also recommended for one who missed the pre-Dhuhr sunnah to pray it before the post-Dhuhr sunnah, in observance of the proper order. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.60): "What precedes the obligatory prayer has the same time as the obligatory prayer, and performing it before the farḍ is a matter of etiquette; after it, it is adāʾ. What follows the farḍ has its time begin with the performance of the farḍ and end with the end of its time."
If the time of Dhuhr has ended, it is recommended for him to pray both the pre- and post-Dhuhr sunnahs, and they count as qaḍāʾ for both. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (1/61): "Every timed nafl, such as the ʿĪd prayer, Duha, Witr, and the regular rawātib of the obligatory prayers, if it is missed, it is recommended to make it up forever." And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it required for a discerning child to make the intention at night if they wish to fast?
If a discerning child wishes to fast during Ramadan, they must make the intention at night because intention is one of the pillars of fasting, even though fasting is not obligatory for them.
Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. 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.
