There are olive trees within the precincts of the mosque, and my father covers the costs of electricity, water, and other needs of the mosque. Is it permissible for him to take the olive harvest?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If trees and fruit-bearing crops are planted in a mosque for the mosque itself, they may only be spent on the mosque’s interests. If they were planted for the public way (musabbalah), that is, for the general public, then any Muslim who enters the mosque may eat from them. If the planter’s intention is unknown, they are treated like those dedicated for public use, wherever custom has so run.
It is stated in Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/p.295): “The fruit of a tree planted for the mosque within it is not freely permitted without compensation. Rather, the imam spends its equivalent value on the mosque’s interests. The tree left its planter’s ownership here without any verbal declaration because of the evident indication. The case of planting it for the mosque excludes planting it as musabbalah, in which case eating from it without compensation is permissible, and likewise if his intention is unknown, where custom has so run. The tree may be uprooted from the mosque if the imam sees fit. Indeed, if he makes the plot a mosque while a tree stands in it, the imam may uproot it, even if the endower included it within the endowment (waqf).”
The father is a donor (mutabarriʿ), so he is not entitled to take anything in return for his donation to the mosque.
The Ministry of Awqāf is the body that supervises the affairs of endowments, so it must be consulted and the Sharīʿah and administrative instructions regulating such matters must be considered. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who combines two prayers as an early combination (jam‘ taqdīm), and then arrives at his place of residence during the time of the second prayer — is he obligated to repeat it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Whoever combines Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr while traveling — that is, before he has reached the built-up boundaries of his hometown [upon returning] — his combination (jam‘) of the two prayers remains valid, even if he arrives at his place of residence before the time for the second prayer has actually begun. This is because the combination was already validly completed with its proper conditions fulfilled, and he is not obligated to repeat the second prayer [upon arrival].
A traveler is permitted to make use of the concessions of shortening (qaṣr) and combining (jam‘) prayers once the distance of travel reaches (81 km) or more, provided that his journey is a permissible one, and that he begins shortening and combining only after actually setting out on the journey and passing beyond the built-up limits of the city in which he resides. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is a woman sinful if she fasts out of shyness from her family while menstruating or in postnatal bleeding?
It is forbidden for a woman who is menstruating or in postnatal bleeding to abstain from food and drink with the intention of fasting. If she fasts out of shyness, she is sinful, as her fast is not valid.
However, if she refrains from eating and drinking without intending to fast, it is not forbidden, but she unnecessarily burdens herself without need.
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.
