What is the ruling of Islamic Law on someone who wakes up in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity) near the very end of the prayer's designated time, during cold weather — should he heat water in order to perform ghusl, even though the prayer's time will expire as a result, or should he perform tayammum instead?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the water is cold, and cannot be used due to fear of harm that is not ordinarily tolerable, or that would result in illness, then in this case it becomes obligatory to heat the water — even if heating it causes the time for Fajr to expire — and no sin is incurred in doing so, due to his valid excuse. He may not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) instead, since water remains available [and merely needs to be heated].
Imam Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) said: "He was asked regarding a person who, if he were to use cold water, would experience harm that permits tayammum, and who has access to something with which he could heat the water — but if he heats it, the prayer's time will expire. Is it obligatory for him to heat it even if the time expires, or should he pray with tayammum within the prescribed time? He answered that it is obligatory for him to heat the water, even if the time for that particular obligatory prayer expires." [Fatāwā ar-Ramlī, Vol.1/P.98]
Imam al-Bājūrī (raḥimahullāh) said in his Ḥāshiyah on Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim (Vol.1/P.173): "And if he fears [harm] from using cold water, and is currently unable to heat it, but knows of a place where firewood is available, such that if he were to go there he would not return until after the prescribed time has expired — what appears [to be the correct position] is that it is obligatory for him to go and seek the firewood, even if the time expires as a result, as this is the position ultimately settled upon by ar-Ramlī, and as related from him by Ibn Qāsim." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on the ablution of one who washes his arms from the wrist to the elbows?
In the school of Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), washing the arms (hands) is achieved by washing the arms completely, from the fingertips to the elbows. Washing only the palms at the beginning is insufficient, as washing them at the beginning is a Sunnah, but after washing the face, it becomes obligatory (fard). The person performing ablution must wash his palms along with the arms after washing the face. If he does not wash his palms, his ablution is invalid and not correct. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty 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.
