Someone wiped over his shoes after wearing them in a state of purity, then took them off and prayed without them?
Ablution is not invalidated by taking off leather socks or shoes after wiping over them. However, whoever takes them off after wiping must wash his feet only. If he prayed without washing his feet, he must wash his feet and repeat the prayer. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the meaning of the Prophetic statement that a boy is held in pledge (murtahan) for his 'aqīqah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The first interpretation: That if the boy dies in infancy without an 'aqīqah having been performed on his behalf, he will not intercede for his parents on the Day of Resurrection. This is the position of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and Imam al-Khaṭṭābī concurred with him, stating: "The finest of what has been said regarding this matter is the position adopted by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal." — [Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar,{Vol.9/P.594]
The second interpretation: That the child is likened to a pledged object (marhūn) — one from which full benefit and enjoyment cannot be derived until it is redeemed. A blessing is only made complete upon the one blessed when they fulfil the obligation of gratitude (shukr), and the prescribed expression of gratitude for this particular blessing is what the Prophet ﷺ established as Sunnah — namely, the slaughtering of the 'aqīqah on behalf of the newborn as an act of thankfulness to Allah the Almighty and as a supplication for the wellbeing and safety of the child. This is the position of Mullā 'Alī al-Qārī. See: [Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, Vol.7/P.2688]
And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on sacrificing a castrated animal or one with a missing tail?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to sacrifice a castrated sheep; as it has been established that the Prophet (peace be upon him) sacrificed:
"...two large, fat, horned, white-and-black, castrated rams (Mawju'ayn—meaning having crushed testicles)." [Narrated by Ibn Majah in his Sunan].
It is not permissible to sacrifice an animal that is missing its tail, or udder due to being cut off. This is in contrast to an animal that was naturally born without a tail, or udder; such an animal is valid for sacrifice. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
