Should a prayer performer who forgets to offer the middle Tashahod (saying ash-hadu anala ilaha ila-alah) offer Sujood As-Sahw (prostration of forgetfulness)?
He/she should offer two prostrations of forgetfulness at the end of the prayer. And Allah Knows Best.
My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
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.
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.
