Which holds greater virtue: The Udhiyah (Sacrificial Offering) or giving its value in Charity (Sadaqah)?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) holds greater virtue than donating its monetary value to the poor and needy. This is because the sacrifice is a prominent, manifest ritual among the sacred symbols of Islam. Allah Almighty says: "That [is so]. And whoever honors the symbols of Allah - indeed, it is from the piety of hearts." (Al-Hajj: 32)
Furthermore, there are numerous authentic and explicit Hadiths highlighting its immense reward. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) consistently offered this sacrifice, as did the Righteous Caliphs after him. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
A pregnant woman has iron deficiency. When she showers, she becomes very tired and feels cold. What is the ruling on tayammum in this situation?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
One should not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) as a substitute for the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing) so long as it remains possible to use water — for example, by heating the water, warming the place where the bathing takes place, or taking other similar precautions. However, if such measures prove ineffective, or are simply not possible to carry out, and performing ghusl [with cold water] would result in severe harm, then tayammum becomes permissible in that case, due to genuine inability to use water on account of the harm that would result, as described in the question. That said, she must make up (qaḍā') the prayers she performed using this tayammum.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm: "One should not perform tayammum on account of cold unless warming the limbs fails to remove the aforementioned harm, and no means are available to heat the water — such as a vessel, firewood, or fire — and one fears [that using cold water would result in] any of the harms mentioned earlier in the discussion on illness: danger to life, loss of function in a limb, the onset or worsening of an illness, delayed recovery, or the [visible bodily] blemish mentioned in that discussion on illness. In such a case, tayammum becomes permissible due to the harm involved, but the prayer must still be made up afterward (qaḍā'). If, however, warming the body proves effective, or the means to heat the water are available, or none of the aforementioned harms are feared — then tayammum is not permissible, even if using the water causes some degree of discomfort or pain, since mere discomfort alone does not permit resorting to tayammum." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is a person rewarded for refraining from all that breaks their fast when required to do so, and is it considered a valid fast?
If a person eats or drinks thinking that Fajr has not yet arrived, but then someone informs them that Fajr had already begun, they must refrain from eating for the rest of the day and make up the fast later.
If they observe the required restraint (imsak), they will be rewarded for obeying the command because fulfilling an obligation brings reward.
However, this is not considered a valid fast in terms of rulings. For example:
● It is not disliked (makruh) for them to use a miswak after noon.
● They are not encouraged to hasten the breaking of the fast at sunset.
● Other fasting-related rulings do not apply to them.
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.
