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.
Is it permissible for the children of a deceased father to settle his debt from the Zakah (obligatory charity) money due on them?
It is impermissible to use the Zakah of one`s money for settling the debts of the deceased. However, children should settle the debts of their deceased parents out of filial piety. And Allah Knows Best.
What is the meaning of the Prophetic statement that a boy is held in pledge (murtahan) for his 'aqīqah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The first interpretation: That if the boy dies in infancy without an 'aqīqah having been performed on his behalf, he will not intercede for his parents on the Day of Resurrection. This is the position of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, and Imam al-Khaṭṭābī concurred with him, stating: "The finest of what has been said regarding this matter is the position adopted by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal." — [Fatḥ al-Bārī by Ibn Ḥajar,{Vol.9/P.594]
The second interpretation: That the child is likened to a pledged object (marhūn) — one from which full benefit and enjoyment cannot be derived until it is redeemed. A blessing is only made complete upon the one blessed when they fulfil the obligation of gratitude (shukr), and the prescribed expression of gratitude for this particular blessing is what the Prophet ﷺ established as Sunnah — namely, the slaughtering of the 'aqīqah on behalf of the newborn as an act of thankfulness to Allah the Almighty and as a supplication for the wellbeing and safety of the child. This is the position of Mullā 'Alī al-Qārī. See: [Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ Sharḥ Mishkāt al-Maṣābīḥ, Vol.7/P.2688]
And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on one who wiped over his leather socks (*khuff*) while resident and then traveled, or wiped while traveling and then became resident? And likewise, what is the ruling on one who incurred a minor ritual impurity (*ḥadath aṣghar*) while resident, then traveled and wiped while traveling?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever wipes over his leather socks (khuffayn) while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, before a day and a night have passed in both cases, completes the wiping period of a resident. If he wipes while resident and then travels after a day and a night have passed, he must remove the socks, because the period has ended. Likewise, if he wipes while traveling and then becomes resident after a day and a night have passed, he must remove them as well.
Whoever breaks his wuḍūʾ while resident and then wipes while traveling takes the ruling of a traveler as regards the duration of wiping, so long as he does not become resident. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.15): “If he wipes over both [socks] or one of them while resident and then travels, or wipes while traveling and then becomes resident, or doubts whether he began the wiping while traveling or while resident, he completes only the wiping period of a resident. But if he broke his wuḍūʾ while resident and wiped while traveling, he completes the period of a traveler, whether or not the full time of a prayer had passed over him while resident.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
