What is the ruling on water present on the floor of a toilet/bathroom?
The default ruling is the purity of this water present on the bathroom floor. If one is certain or strongly suspects its impurity, then one washes whatever part of the body or clothing this impure water has touched. If one doubts its impurity, the default is purity, and we do not rule it impure based on mere doubt. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on selling sacrificial animals (udhiyah) described with specific attributes and authorizing an agent to slaughter them?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Selling sacrificial animals (udhiyah) that are described with specific attributes is permissible. This falls under the category of a salam sale (forward sale) if conducted using the terminology of salam, and under the category of a regular sale if not using the terminology of salam.
As for authorizing the seller to slaughter the sacrificial animal, the basic principle is that it is permissible, because the agent (wakil) stands in the place of the principal (muwakkil) in achieving his objective. This is a contract that the principal (the buyer) is entitled to perform himself, so authorizing another (the seller) to do so on his behalf is valid.
However, it is a condition for authorization to slaughter that the intention (niyyah) is present either at the time of slaughter or at the time of handing over the sacrificial animal to the agent. The basic principle is that the sacrificial animal must be specifically designated, as it is an act of worship. It is not required to designate it at the time of slaughter; rather, it is valid to do so before that.
It is permissible for the principal either to delegate the intention to the agent or to formulate it himself when authorizing the agent to slaughter. However, the sacrificial animal must be designated, even if at the time of slaughter, by the agent.
It is obligatory to designate the sacrificial animals so that each person offering a sacrifice receives his own specific animal. Therefore, charitable organizations and companies must take this into consideration and establish a specific mechanism that ensures no mixing of sacrificial animals occurs, so that each person offering a sacrifice receives his own designated animal. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Someone wiped over his shoes after wearing them in a state of purity, then took them off and prayed without them?
Ablution is not invalidated by taking off leather socks or shoes after wiping over them. However, whoever takes them off after wiping must wash his feet only. If he prayed without washing his feet, he must wash his feet and repeat the prayer. And Allah the 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.
