What is the ruling on reciting the Noble Qur’an during menstruation?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is impermissible for a woman in menses, a woman in postnatal bleeding, or a person in a state of major ritual impurity to recite any part of the Noble Qur’an with the intention of recitation, even from a mobile phone or a computer, and even if the recitation is from memory. It is narrated on the authority of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) “was not prevented, or he said kept back, from the Qur’an by anything except janābah (major ritual impurity).” It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd and al-Tirmidhī, who said: “Ḥasan ṣaḥīḥ.”
Janābah and menstruation are one and the same in that both constitute a major ritual impurity. Just as a woman is commanded by Allah Almighty to pray, fast, and recite the Noble Qur’an during her period of purity, she is likewise commanded to refrain from these during the period of her excuse.
For further reference, see the fatwas: (Fatwas of Shaykh Nūḥ, Fatwa no. 27) and (
248). And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?
If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.
What is the Islamic ruling on one who was unable to fast and then regained the ability?
He is not required to make up the fast (Qada) even if he becomes capable of it; whether he regained the ability to fast after paying the fidya (feeding a needy person for each day of missed fasting) or before it, because he was liable for paying it in the first place, so it remains binding upon him. However, if he delayed paying it beyond the first year, nothing is required of him due to the delay. If he is unable to pay it, it does not remain as a debt upon him. 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.
