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.
Is the multiplication of reward for prayer in the sanctuaries of Makkah and Madīnah limited to the obligatory prayer, or does it include the voluntary prayer as well?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no difference between the obligatory (farḍ) and the voluntary (nafl) prayer in the ḥadīth on the multiplication of reward in the two Sanctuaries (al-Ḥaramayn), because the authentic ḥadīths are unrestricted and general in wording. It is therefore not permissible to restrict or specify them without evidence. Shaykh al-Islām Imam al-Nawawī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Our school holds that the superiority of prayer in the two mosques of Makkah and Madīnah is not limited to the obligatory prayer, but includes both the obligatory and the voluntary.” [al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, Vol.8/p.476]
The multiplication of reward applies to whoever prays in al-Masjid al-Ḥarām or anywhere within the sanctuary (ḥaram). Al-Shirwānī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The more correct view according to al-Nawawī is that the multiplication of the prayer’s reward covers the whole sanctuary, and is not limited to the mosque, nor to Makkah itself.” [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj with the glosses of al-Shirwānī and al-ʿAbbādī, Vol.10/p.95]. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on eating or drinking forgetfully during the day in Ramadan or during voluntary fasting?
Whoever eats or drinks forgetfully while fasting, whether in an obligatory or voluntary fast, should continue their fast, for it is Allah who has provided them with food and drink. There is no difference between obligatory and voluntary fasting in this ruling.
My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
