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 read the Qudsī ḥadīth: "Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ and does not perform ablution has shown me harshness; whoever performs ablution and does not pray has shown me harshness; whoever prays and does not supplicate to Me has shown me harshness; and whoever supplicates to Me and I do not answer him, then I have been harsh to him, and I am not a harsh Lord." What is the authenticity of this ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
This ḥadīth was mentioned by al-Ṣaghānī (may Allah have mercy on him) in al-Mawḍūʿāt (p. 43), where he said: “Among them is their saying: ‘Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ and does not perform ablution has shown me harshness; whoever performs ablution and does not pray has shown me harshness; (whoever prays and does not supplicate to Me has shown me harshness); and whoever supplicates to Me and I do not answer him, then I have been harsh to him, and I am not a harsh Lord.’”
Al-ʿAjlūnī (may Allah have mercy on him) cited what al-Ṣaghānī said in Kashf al-Khafāʾ (Vol.2/p.264). And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on performing Tahajjud after the Witr?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible for one who has prayed the Witr to perform voluntary (Nafl) prayers after it. However, it is preferable for the Witr to be the final prayer of the night. Therefore, if a person is confident that they will wake up during the night for Tahajjud, it is recommended for them to delay the Witr until after the Tahajjud. Conversely, if one fears they may not wake up, they should perform the Witr before sleeping.
Al-Khatib al-Shirbini (may Allah have mercy on him) stated: 'It is not disliked (Makruh) to perform Tahajjud after the Witr, but it is not recommended to do so intentionally.' [Mughni al-Muhtaj, Vol. 1/P.454]. And Allah the Exalted knows best."
Is it permissible for the guardian to give Sadaqa (voluntary charity) from the money of the orphans?
It is impermissible for the guardian to donate from the money of the orphans because he is entrusted with the safekeeping of that money, and is prohibited from donating it.
