What is the ruling on one who vows to fast a specific or non-specific year? Are the two Eids, the days of Tashreeq, Ramadan, and the days of menstruation and postnatal bleeding included in them? And do these days break the consecutiveness if it was intended?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
If someone makes a vow (Nadr) to fast a specific, designated year, this vow does not include the days of Eid, the days of Tashreeq (the three days following Eid al-Adha), Ramadan, or the days of menstruation (Hayd) and postnatal bleeding (Nifas). Furthermore, there is no requirement to make up (Qada) these specific days.
However, if someone vows to fast a year that is not specifically designated (i.e., any twelve-month period) and stipulates that the fasting must be consecutive, they are bound by that condition. They must not fast on the days of Eid, during Ramadan, or during menstruation, but they are required to make up these days afterward—with the exception of the days of menstruation and postnatal bleeding, which do not need to be made up.
It is stated in Hashiyat al-Bajuri ‘ala Sharh Ibn Qasim ({Vol.2/P.606): 'If one vows to fast a specific year, the Eid, Tashreeq, Ramadan, and days of menstruation or postnatal bleeding are not included. This is because Ramadan does not accept any fast other than its own, and the others do not accept fasting at all. Therefore, they do not enter into the vow, and no makeup is required for them because they are legally excluded—contrary to Al-Rafi’i regarding menstruation and postnatal bleeding.
If one vows to fast a non-designated year: if they stipulated consecutiveness (Tatuabu’) in their vow, they must fulfill it; otherwise, they are not bound to it. Consecutiveness is not broken by the days that do not enter into the specific year vow (Eid, Tashreeq, Ramadan, menstruation, and postnatal bleeding). However, one must make up the days missed—excluding the time of menstruation and postnatal bleeding—immediately following the end of the year. As for the time of menstruation and postnatal bleeding, it is not made up, contrary to Ibn al-Rif’ah, who argued that it must be made up just like Ramadan.' And Allah the Exalted 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.
"I told my family at night: 'I will fast tomorrow as qaḍā' (a make-up fast),' but I forgot to make the intention before sleeping. Is my fast valid?"
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The intention is obligatory in acts of worship. For obligatory fasting, the required intention is to resolve to fast during the night [before dawn]. Its proper locus is the heart, while verbalizing the intention out loud in acts of worship is a sunnah — so that the tongue may align with the heart. If the intent behind the statement in question was the intention to fast, then it is valid; but if the intent was merely to inform someone, or reflected hesitation or doubt, then it is not valid.
It is stated in *Bushrā al-Karīm* (Vol.1/P.216): "It is a sunnah to verbalize the intention — that is, whatever has already been intended in the heart, whether an obligatory or a voluntary act — such as specifying the number of rak‘ahs, just before the opening takbīr — so that the tongue may assist the heart, and because this is further removed from whispered doubts (waswasah), and in order to accommodate the view of those who held it obligatory in every act of worship that requires an intention (even though this is a minority position), by analogy with Ḥajj."
Accordingly: if the intention to fast arose in your heart before the second adhān [i.e., before Fajr], then your fast is valid.
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
