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.
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 of Islamic Law on obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on one who died owing debts and left no wealth? Is it obligatory upon the heirs to settle these debts?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general rule is that if a person dies owing rights to other people, such as debts, these are settled from his estate, if he left any wealth, before the estate is divided. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The believer's soul is suspended by his debt until it is settled for him.” Graded ḥasan by al-Tirmidhī. Repayment of debts takes precedence over the heirs’ right to inheritance.
If the deceased left no estate, or left wealth that was insufficient to cover his debts, it is not obligatory for the heirs to pay from their own wealth, but it is recommended for them to do so, because the deceased’s dhimmah (legal liability) remains occupied by the debt. It is reported in some narrations that he remains held in suspension until his debt is paid, and it is not part of filial righteousness for a child to leave his father’s dhimmah burdened with debt.
All of the children may contribute to settling the debt on behalf of their father and cooperate in doing so, even in installments, according to their ability. And Allah Almighty knows best.
