Can a menstruating woman listen to the Quran from the radio or television?
Yes, a menstruating woman is allowed to listen to the Quran from the radio or television. What is forbidden for her is reciting the Quran and touching the Mus-haf, but listening is permissible—in fact, it is an act of worship.However, she should not repeat along with the Qur’an or try to keep pace with it.
What are the conditions for a valid Udhiyah?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
First: The age of the animal must meet the Sharia requirements. These requirements vary depending on the type of sacrifice:
Camels: Must have completed five years and entered their sixth.
Cows: Must have completed two years and entered their third.
Goats: Must have completed two years and entered their third. As for Sheep, they must have completed one year and entered their second.
Some scholars have permitted goats that have completed one year and entered their second.
The Hanafi school, along with an opinion in the Maliki school, permits sacrificing sheep that are at least six months old, provided they are healthy and physically substantial. According to the Shafi’i school, it is permissible if the sheep sheds its front teeth (ajdha') before reaching one year [Al-Iqna’, by Al-Shirbini (Vol.2/P.588)].
Second: Soundness and freedom from defects. The animal must be free from any defect that causes a decrease in its meat or market value. This is based on the hadith narrated by Al-Bara' bin 'Azib, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"Four [defects] are not permissible in sacrifices: A one-eyed animal whose blindness is evident, a sick animal whose illness is evident, a lame animal whose lameness is evident, and an emaciated animal that has no marrow in its bones." [Reported by Abu Dawood and Al-Tirmidhi, who graded it as authentic].
These defects are detailed as follows:
Evident Lameness: It is not permissible to sacrifice a lame animal if the lameness is severe enough to prevent it from walking to the pasture or seeking food, as this leads to a decrease in its meat. However, slight lameness that does not hinder its grazing is overlooked.
Evident Blindness (One-eyed): It is not permissible to sacrifice a sheep, cow, or camel that has a white film over its eye blocking light, or one that has lost an eye entirely. Weak vision that does not affect its ability to eat does not prevent the sacrifice from being valid.
Evident Illness: An animal with a clear sickness that prevents it from eating or moving is not valid. This includes severe mange (Jarab) that spoils the meat.
Extreme Emaciation: An animal so thin that there is no marrow left in its bones is invalid. The standard for emaciation that invalidates the sacrifice is that which spoils the quality of the meat to the point that people would find it undesirable even in times of plenty.
Additional Considerations:
These are the defects mentioned in the Prophetic tradition, and any defect that causes emaciation or reduces the meat or value is compared to them by analogy. This includes animals that are mentally unstable (diseased), those with mange, or those with a missing ear. In contrast, a slit or pierced ear does not affect the validity of the sacrifice. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on wiping the front of the head beneath the ḥijāb, and is it permissible to wipe over the ḥijāb if it was put on while in a state of purification (wudu`)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is permissible to wipe the front portion of the head (nāṣiyah) with the fingertips. It is likewise sufficient to place a wet hand over a head covering (ḥijāb), provided the moisture actually reaches the hair beneath it — if it does not, it does not suffice. A head covering is not treated in the same manner as leather socks (khuff) and may not be wiped over in lieu of the head itself.
Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Majmūʿ (Vol.1/P.407): "If a person is wearing a turban and does not wish to remove it — whether for a valid reason or otherwise — he should wipe the entire front portion of the head... The same ruling applies to whatever a woman wears on her head. If, however, he confines himself to wiping over the turban without wiping any part of the head itself, this does not suffice — and there is no disagreement among us on this point." He further states: "A woman is like a man in the manner of wiping the head... She should insert her hand beneath her head covering so that the wiping falls upon the hair itself. If she places her wet hand over her head covering, our scholars stated: if the moisture does not reach the hair, it does not suffice her." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
