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.
Is a person who forgot to make up missed fasts until the next Ramadan began required to pay expiatory compensation (Fidyah) alongside the makeup fast (Qada')?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever forgets to make up missed fasts of Ramadan (Qada') until the following Ramadan begins incurs no sin, pursuant to the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my nation their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and that which they are coerced into doing." [Narrated by Ibn Majah, and Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra]
Furthermore, such an individual is not obligated to pay a expiatory compensation (Fidyah). It is stated in Bushra Al-Karim (p. 580)—one of the authoritative Shafi'i jurisprudential texts: "As for delaying it [the makeup fasts] due to a valid excuse—such as travel, breastfeeding, forgetfulness, or ignorance of the prohibition of delay (even for one living among scholars)—no Fidyah is required. This is because delaying performance during the actual month is permissible due to these excuses; hence, delaying makeup fasts is even more permissible, even if it continues for years."
And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on using the *subḥah* (prayer beads) to count during *tasbīḥ* and *dhikr*?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is recommended to use the ordinary or electronic subḥah (prayer beads or counter) to count tasbīḥ, dhikr, and istighfār, because it helps one to remember Allah. Many reports have been transmitted from the Companions and the Followers (tābiʿūn) showing that they continued to use strings of date pits as an aid to dhikr and tasbīḥ.
It is one of the lawful means of worship. Indeed, what is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), namely that he counted tasbīḥ on his right hand, shows that it is permissible to count tasbīḥ with whatever helps a Muslim keep track of the number. There is therefore no basis for calling it an innovation (bidʿah), and we know of no jurist who said so.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote a dedicated treatise on the subject titled al-Minḥah fī al-Subḥah, printed within al-Ḥāwī li’l-Fatāwī (vol. 4–6).
Shaykh al-Islām Imam Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked: Does the subḥah have a basis in the Sunnah? He replied: “Yes, and al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Suyūṭī wrote on this. Among the evidence is what is authentically reported from Ibn ʿUmar (may Allah be pleased with them both): ‘I saw the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) counting tasbīḥ on his hand.’ Ibn Abī Shaybah, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Tirmidhī also narrated: ‘Hold fast to tasbīḥ, tahlīl, and taqdīs, and do not be heedless, lest you forget the affirmation of Allah’s oneness (tawḥīd). Count them on the fingertips, for they will be questioned and made to speak.’ Counting tasbīḥ with pebbles, date pits, and a knotted string has also been reported from a group of the Companions and those after them. Some scholars held that counting on the fingertips is better than the subḥah, based on the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar. Others distinguished, saying: if the one reciting is safe from miscounting, counting on the fingertips is better; otherwise the subḥah is better.” [al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrā, Vol.1/p.152]. And Allah Almighty knows best.
The imam recited a verse containing a prostration of recitation (*sajdat al-tilāwah*) but did not prostrate. After the imam's *salām*, a follower (*maʾmūm*) performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because the imam had not performed the prostration of recitation. Is it permissible to go against the imam in this way?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
There is no sin on the imam if he omits the prostration of recitation (sujūd al-tilāwah), even deliberately. The maʾmūm (the one following the imam) is obliged to follow the imam in the prayer, so if the imam does not perform the prostration of recitation, it is not permissible for the follower to prostrate, because the imam is appointed only to be followed.
If the follower introduces a prostration after the imam’s salām but before his own salām, in a case where there is no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw), his prayer is invalidated if he knew it to be prohibited. Otherwise, he is excused on account of his ignorance and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Imām al-Jamal ʿalā Fatḥ al-Wahhāb: “His statement: ‘So the omission of the hayʾāt (the non-essential sunnahs of the prayer) is not compensated for by prostration; if one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to his ignorance.’”
Since this issue is one that is hidden from the laymen, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laymen are excused for ignorance of whatever is of such a nature, and their act of obedience is not invalidated because of it, it may be said that the prayer of one who has not acquired knowledge of this issue is not invalidated, with the necessity of learning the rulings remaining. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.
