What is the ruling on doubting whether one or two prostrations were performed?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a worshiper is in doubt regarding the number of units (rak'ahs) or prostrations (sajdahs) performed, he must build upon the minimum (i.e., assume the lower number) and perform the prostration of forgetfulness (Sujud al-Sahw) before the Salam at the end of the prayer. This is based on the report from ‘Ata’ ibn Yasar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'When anyone of you is in doubt about his Salat (prayer) and does not know how many he has prayed, three or four (Rak'at) he should cast aside his doubt and base his prayer on what he is sure of. Then, he should perform two prostrations before Taslim (salutation). If he has prayed five Rak'at, they will make his Salat (prayer) an even number for him and if he has prayed exactly four, they (i.e. two prostrations) will be humiliation for the devil..' (Narrated by Abu Dawud).
It is stated in Al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'If one doubts [whether he performed] a bowing (ruku’), a prostration, or a rak'ah, he must perform it and prostrate [for forgetfulness], even if the doubt is removed before the Salam—unless the doubt is removed before he performs what would potentially be an addition. Thus, if he doubts whether he prayed three or four, he is obligated to build upon the minimum.' And Allah the Exalted 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.
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 on a latecomer who joins the imam during the standing position of the first rakʿah but was unable to complete the recitation of al-Fātiḥah?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If a latecomer (masbuq) joins the prayer while the imam is standing, he should begin reciting Sūrat al-Fātiḥah immediately, without pausing to recite the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-istiftāḥ) or the seeking of refuge (taʿawwudh). If the imam bows before he completes al-Fātiḥah, he follows the imam into the bow and leaves whatever remains of al-Fātiḥah — the imam bears it on his behalf.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (p. 47): "If a latecomer finds the imam standing and is confident that he has enough time to recite the taʿawwudh and al-Fātiḥah in full, he may do so. If he is uncertain, he should neither recite the opening supplication nor the taʿawwudh, but rather begin directly with al-Fātiḥah. If the imam bows before he completes it, he follows him into the bow — provided he had not already begun the opening supplication or the taʿawwudh. If he had begun either of them, he continues reciting al-Fātiḥah for as long as he spent on them." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
