Is a person rewarded for refraining from all that breaks their fast when required to do so, and is it considered a valid fast?
If a person eats or drinks thinking that Fajr has not yet arrived, but then someone informs them that Fajr had already begun, they must refrain from eating for the rest of the day and make up the fast later.
If they observe the required restraint (imsak), they will be rewarded for obeying the command because fulfilling an obligation brings reward.
However, this is not considered a valid fast in terms of rulings. For example:
● It is not disliked (makruh) for them to use a miswak after noon.
● They are not encouraged to hasten the breaking of the fast at sunset.
● Other fasting-related rulings do not apply to them.
If someone fasts on the White Days with the intention of making up for missed fasts (qada), will they receive the reward for both voluntary and obligatory fasting?
Making up missed obligatory fasts (qada) is mandatory, and the intention for qada must be specified.
If a person makes up their missed Ramadan fasts on the White Days, they must intend qada, but they may also intend to fast the White Days, and Allah willing, they will receive the reward for both.
This is similar to entering a mosque and praying an obligatory prayer, where the person also earns the reward of Tahiyyat al-Masjid (greeting the mosque) if they intend both.
● If the person missed their fasts due to a valid excuse, they may wait and fast on the White Days.
● However, if they missed the fasts without a valid excuse, they must make up the fasts immediately and should not delay them until the White Days.
Is it incumbent on a father to cover the marriage costs of his son if the latter couldn`t afford them?
The son should seek the help of his relatives in order to convince his father to do the aforesaid, and the father should make sure that his son doesn`t commit fornication through helping him to get married, and Allah will reward him for doing so.
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.
