What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible for a woman to uncover her face while performing Umrah (minor Hajj)?
The woman while in a state of Ihram (ritual consecration) is obligated to uncover her face and hands, but at the same time permitted to let her head-covering garment drape from her head down over her face when non-Mahram (i.e., marriageable) men pass by her. And Allah Knows Best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on sitting between the two prostrations, and what is the ruling on the dhikr recited during it?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Sitting between the two prostrations (al-jalsah bayna al-sajdatayn) is one of the pillars (arkān) of the prayer, while the dhikr recited during it is Sunnah according to the Shāfi'ī scholars. It is recommended (mustahabb) to say what was narrated from Ibn 'Abbās (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say between the two prostrations in the night prayer: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warzuqnī, warfa'nī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, provide for me, and raise me)." If one were to say a different supplication instead, such as "Rabbi ighfir lī" (My Lord, forgive me), the prayer would still be valid.
If the worshipper omits this dhikr between the two prostrations, whether intentionally or out of forgetfulness, their prayer remains valid and nothing is required of them, though they miss the reward of following the Sunnah. Leaving it out does not necessitate the prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw).
It is stated in Hāshiyat al-Bājūrī 'alā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim 'alā Matn Abī Shujā' (Vol.1/P.298): "The eleventh — i.e., of the eighteen pillars — his statement: 'sitting between the two prostrations,' meaning even in a supererogatory (nafl) prayer... his statement: 'with the supplication that has been narrated concerning it,' meaning: 'Rabbi ighfir lī, warhamnī, wajburnī, warfa'nī, warzuqnī, wahdinī, wa 'āfinī' (My Lord, forgive me, have mercy on me, make good my deficiencies, raise me, provide for me, guide me, and grant me well-being). Al-Ghazālī added: 'wa'fu 'annī' (and pardon me). Al-Mutawallī also added: 'Rabbi hab lī qalban taqiyyan, naqiyyan min al-shirk, bariyyan lā kāfiran wa lā shaqiyyan' (My Lord, grant me a heart that is God-fearing, pure from associating partners with You, innocent, neither disbelieving nor wretched)."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.
