What are the key differences between the 'aqīqah and the uḍḥiyyah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The following are the key differences between the 'aqīqah and the uḍḥiyyah:
First: The 'aqīqah is slaughtered as an act of drawing closer to Allah the Almighty and expressing gratitude for the blessing of a newborn child. The uḍḥiyyah, on the other hand, is slaughtered as an act of drawing closer to Allah and expressing gratitude to Him specifically during the days of slaughter (ayyām al-naḥr).
Second: The 'aqīqah is performed on the seventh day from the birth of the newborn, whereas the uḍḥiyyah is performed on Eid al-Aḍḥā and its time extends for three days after the Eid.
Third: The 'aqīqah is performed once in a lifetime for the newborn, whereas the uḍḥiyyah is recommended every year for the one who is financially capable to offer it.
Fourth: It is Sunnah for the one intending to offer the uḍḥiyyah to refrain from cutting his hair and nails until after he has slaughtered. This is not a Sunnah for the one intending to perform the 'aqīqah.
Fifth: It is Sunnah for the 'aqīqah to be cooked and distributed to the poor in its cooked form. The uḍḥiyyah, by contrast, must be distributed as raw meat. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on purchasing a home through conventional commercial banks for those living in the West?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The ruling of Islamic Law on purchasing a home through usurious/interest-bearing loans was previously detailed in Fatwa No. (
760). Its summary affirms the prohibition of purchasing homes through interest-bearing loans, based on the general foundational principle of the strict prohibition of Riba (usury). This is the position we hold in devotion to Allah Almighty, and it is the religious edict we convey to the people.
As for considering the specific circumstances of a particular country or individual, the questioner must personally consult scholars whom they trust within their country of residence. And Allah 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 of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
