What is the ruling of Islamic Law on continuity (muwalah) in the ritual bath?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Continuity (muwālāh) means washing each part of the body immediately after the previous one, without leaving a gap long enough for the first part to dry before the second is washed. According to the Shāfiʿī school, continuity is a recommended act (sunnah) in both the ritual bath (ghusl) and ablution (wuḍūʾ) — it is not obligatory.
It is stated in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj: "Likewise, continuity in the ritual bath is recommended, just as it is in ablution."
Accordingly, continuity in the ritual bath is a sunnah. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible to agree with a butcher to purchase the meat of an animal after it has been slaughtered — for instance, by buying the meat of a sheep at a price determined by the weight of its meat following slaughter, at a fixed rate per kilogram? And what is the ruling if the animal is being purchased with the intention of it being an uḍḥiyyah (sacrificial offering)?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible to sell livestock in the manner of pricing each kilogram of meat after slaughter at a fixed rate, because the meat within the animal prior to slaughter is unseen and unknown. This leads to jahālah (ignorance of the subject matter) and gharar (contractual uncertainty), both of which are among the invalidating factors in sales transactions.
However, it is permissible for the buyer to issue a promise to purchase the meat of the animal after slaughter at a specified price per kilogram, with the actual sale being concluded at the time of weighing the meat — at which point both the quantity of the goods and the total price become known. There is no Sharī'ah objection to this arrangement.
The jurists have stipulated that for a sale to be valid, both countervalues must be present and observable. Al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states:
"It is valid to sell a heap of grain whose total measure is unknown to both contracting parties at a rate of one sā' per dirham. This sale is valid because the subject of sale is present and observable, and ignorance of the total price is not harmful since it is known in detail — and uncertainty is thereby lifted."— [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.355]
As for the uḍḥiyyah, the 'aqīqah, and vowed blood sacrifices (al-dam al-mandhūr) — full ownership of the animal must be established prior to slaughter. It is not valid for such animals to be slaughtered while still in the ownership of the butcher. Rather, the animal must be purchased alive and then slaughtered with the intention of uḍḥiyyah or the like. And Allah 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.
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.
