What is the ruling if a postpartum woman becomes pure before forty days; are acts of worship obligatory upon her, and is she permissible for her husband?
If the postpartum woman becomes definitely pure before forty days, she must perform the ritual bath and perform acts of worship as a pure woman does. What was prohibited for her also becomes permissible, so she becomes permissible for her husband after her bath. The minimum duration for postpartum bleeding is a moment (an instant), and its usual maximum is forty days. Reaching forty days is not a condition; rather, it is sufficient for the blood to stop or to see the white discharge (qassa bayda'). 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.
Is it permissible for household members to pool money for the Udhiyah and gift it to one of them?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible for members of a household to pool their money together and gift the total amount to one individual among them so that he may offer the sacrifice (Udhiyah). In this case, the family members receive the reward for giving charity (Sadaqah), and the one performing the sacrifice includes them in the spiritual reward (Thawab).
Furthermore, slaughtering a single sheep (on one's own) is considered religously better than participating as one of seven people in the sacrifice of a cow or a camel. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
My brother works in a conventional bank and gave me one of the gifts distributed to bank employees — what is the ruling on accepting it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no objection to accepting such gifts, because the physical gift itself does not carry any inherent prohibition — unlike stolen property. Sin does not transfer or extend to the one who receives the gift, for Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." [Al-Anʿām/164]
The evidence for this is that the Prophet ﷺ himself ate from the food of the Jews, conducted transactions with them, and purchased from them — and it is well known that their wealth was intermingled with ribā. Similarly, the wealth of conventional ribā-based banks is a mixture of the lawful and the unlawful.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is not forbidden to transact with one whose wealth is predominantly unlawful, nor to eat from it — as al-Nawawī affirmed in al-Majmūʿ." [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 9/P.389] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
