What is the ruling on a person in a state of major impurity (junub) walking or eating before performing the ritual bath?
It is from the Sunnah for a Muslim to hasten to perform the ritual bath for major impurity. However, if he delays it, he does not sin provided he does not miss the prayer. It is permissible for the junub to walk, eat, drink, and sleep. It is recommended for him to perform ablution before these actions to reduce the state of impurity, although the best is for him to perform the ritual bath. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
A man led the people in prayer as imam, and at the end of the prayer he performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because he had omitted a short *sūrah* after al-Fātiḥah. What is the ruling on his prayer and that of those praying behind him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the Shāfiʿī school, it is sunnah to recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah in the prayer. One who omits it has a valid prayer, and no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is prescribed for omitting it. If someone performs sujūd al-sahw for its omission while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. But one who is ignorant of the ruling, or who did so out of forgetfulness, his prayer is not invalidated, because this is among the matters that are obscure to people, and ignorance of it is not restricted to those who recently entered Islam.
Shaykh al-Islām al-Shams al-Ramlī said in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj (Vol.2/p.70): “The remaining sunnahs are not compensated for by prostration, such as the remembrances (adhkār) of bowing and prostration, that is, the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-iftitāḥ) and the sūrah, in accordance with the base rule, because they are not of the same nature as what has been reported [as compensable]. If one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to ignorance. As for the objection raised that the ignorant person does not know that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed, and whoever knows it knows its place, this is refuted by denying such a necessary connection, for the ignorant person may hear only that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed before the salām, and so assume that it applies to every sunnah and is not restricted to its prescribed place.”
This is among the matters that are obscure, in which the mukallaf is excused for ignorance, as stated by al-Shabrāmallisī in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.70).
However, if the imam prostrates, and the follower (maʾmūm) presumes that his imam’s prostration is for a reason for which one does not prostrate, it is not permissible to follow him in it, so long as the follower knows the ruling.
Accordingly, the prayer of one who did not recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah is valid, and sujūd al-sahw is not prescribed for it. Whoever prostrates out of ignorance or forgetfulness, his prayer is valid, because this is among the issues hidden from the general public. But whoever prostrates while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
I vowed to give a specific charity if a certain matter came to pass — what is the ruling on giving that charity before the matter is realised?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) is obligatory, in accordance with the word of Allah the Almighty: "And let them fulfil their vows." [Al-Ḥajj/ 29] And the saying of our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Him, let him not disobey Him." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
The Shāfiʿī scholars distinguished between a financial vow (nadhr mālī) and a bodily vow (nadhr badanī). They permitted the fulfilment of a financial vow to be brought forward — before the stipulated condition is met — but did not permit the same for a bodily vow, which may only be fulfilled after the condition has actually been realised.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is permissible to bring forward the fulfilment of a financial vow before the condition stipulated in it is met — such as saying: 'If I am healed, I vow to free a slave' or 'to give such-and-such in charity' — just as it is permissible to pay zakāh in advance. This is unlike a bodily vow, such as fasting." [Asnā al-Maṭālib, vol. 4/P.246]
Imām al-Bājūrī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Like expiation other than fasting, a financial vow — such as saying: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave for the sake of Allah,' or 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave on the Friday following the recovery' — it is permissible to bring it forward before the recovery in the first case, and before the Friday following the recovery in the second case." [Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim, Vol.2/P.596] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
