What is incumbent upon the one offering the sacrifice if, after slaughtering the animal, they discover that one of its internal organs is damaged or diseased?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The presence of disease or defect in the internal organs of a sheep does not affect the validity of the sacrificial animal, unless the disease leads to the animal becoming emaciated and its meat becoming corrupted.
It is stated in al-Iqnā' (2/590) by Imam al-Shirbīnī: "The third disqualifying condition: an animal with a manifest illness — meaning one whose illness visibly results in emaciation and corruption of its meat. However, if the illness is minor and does not produce such effects, it doesn`t affect the validity of the sacrificed animal." And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on one who vowed not to speak to a certain person, then forgot his vow and spoke to him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever swears an oath or makes a vow to abstain from something has a choice: if he wishes, he may keep to his vow, or if he wishes, he may offer the expiation of an oath (kaffārat yamīn). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The expiation for a vow is the expiation for an oath.” Narrated by Muslim. This type of vow is called a nadhr al-lajāj (a vow made in stubbornness or anger).
If a person makes a vow and then forgets it, nothing is due from him, for forgetfulness is among the excuses that lift legal responsibility (taklīf) from a Muslim. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Actions are judged only by intentions, and every person will have only what he intended.” [Narrated by al-Bukhārī]. There is no intention for the one who forgets or errs. It is also based on the report: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my Ummah mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do.” Narrated by Ibn Mājah and others, and graded authentic by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (p. 243), one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “Whoever swears, [for example], ‘I will not enter the house,’ and then enters it forgetfully, ignorantly, under compulsion, or being carried, he does not break his oath.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
"If the fidyah becomes obligatory upon a pregnant or nursing woman because she broke her fast out of fear for her child, is it obligatory from her own wealth, or from her husband's wealth?"
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The fidyah (ransom/compensation payment for breaking the fast) is obligatory from the wife's own wealth, and is not obligatory upon the husband unless he voluntarily chooses to pay it on her behalf.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/P.174): "If the two [the pregnant woman and the nursing mother] fear for the child alone — such as a pregnant woman fearing miscarriage, or a nursing mother fearing that her milk supply would decrease, thereby endangering the child — then both the qaḍā' (making up the missed fast) and the fidyah become obligatory upon them, to be paid from their own wealth." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is it permissible to fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for the missed fasts of Ramadan?
● If a person missed fasts due to a valid excuse, they may fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for Ramadan fasts, because qada (makeup fasts) in this case can be delayed, while the six days of Shawwal must be observed within Shawwal.
● However, if a person missed fasts without a valid excuse, they must make up for the missed fasts immediately after Eid, before fasting the six days of Shawwal. If they fast the six days first, it is valid, but they must still make up for the missed Ramadan fasts afterward.
It is also permissible to combine the intention of qada (makeup fasts) and the six days of Shawwal in one fast. However, it is better to fast them separately, as this increases the reward and avoids scholarly disagreement regarding combining intentions.
