What is the ruling on applying perfume while fasting?
Applying perfume does not break the fast. However, it is better to avoid it, as fasting is a practice of simplicity and restraint, while perfume is a form of luxury.
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.
"I told my family at night: 'I will fast tomorrow as qaḍā' (a make-up fast),' but I forgot to make the intention before sleeping. Is my fast valid?"
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The intention is obligatory in acts of worship. For obligatory fasting, the required intention is to resolve to fast during the night [before dawn]. Its proper locus is the heart, while verbalizing the intention out loud in acts of worship is a sunnah — so that the tongue may align with the heart. If the intent behind the statement in question was the intention to fast, then it is valid; but if the intent was merely to inform someone, or reflected hesitation or doubt, then it is not valid.
It is stated in *Bushrā al-Karīm* (Vol.1/P.216): "It is a sunnah to verbalize the intention — that is, whatever has already been intended in the heart, whether an obligatory or a voluntary act — such as specifying the number of rak‘ahs, just before the opening takbīr — so that the tongue may assist the heart, and because this is further removed from whispered doubts (waswasah), and in order to accommodate the view of those who held it obligatory in every act of worship that requires an intention (even though this is a minority position), by analogy with Ḥajj."
Accordingly: if the intention to fast arose in your heart before the second adhān [i.e., before Fajr], then your fast is valid.
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
