What is the ruling on Jumu‘ah (Friday) prayer for a traveler, and what are the conditions for it to be waived from him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Jumu‘ah (Friday) prayer is not obligatory upon a traveler, whether on a long or short journey, provided that — according to the Shāfi‘ī school — he departs from his place of residence before the time for Fajr prayer begins, and that he does not intend to stay in the place he travels to for four days or more, excluding the day of arrival and the day of departure. If he intends to stay longer than that, he may not make use of the travel concession simply by arriving in that town. If he begins his journey after the adhān for Fajr has already been called, then Jumu‘ah prayer remains obligatory upon him, whether in his own town or in any town where Jumu‘ah is being held.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm (Vol.1/p.383), from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "Jumu‘ah [prayer] is not obligatory upon a traveler on a permissible journey, whether long or short, if he departs from his place of residence before Fajr."
A "short journey" refers to travel covering a distance shorter than that of a long journey — that is, less than (81 km). The traveler begins to be entitled to travel concessions once he passes beyond the built-up limits of his town. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who is uncertain whether he omitted one of the ab‘āḍ of the prayer, such as being uncertain whether he omitted the first tashahhud?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The ab‘āḍ include the middle tashahhud and the qunūt in Fajr prayer — for which sujūd as-sahw (the prostration of forgetfulness) is prescribed if left out. Whoever is uncertain, during the prayer, whether he omitted one of these elements, should proceed on the assumption that he did not perform it, and should perform sujūd as-sahw accordingly.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 63): "If he is uncertain... whether he omitted a specific ab‘āḍ element, or whether he performed sujūd as-sahw, or whether he prayed three or four rak‘ahs — he proceeds on the assumption that he did not do it, and performs sujūd as-sahw."
The original principle (al-aṣl) for someone uncertain about [having performed] the first tashahhud is that he assumes he did not perform it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
