Is a person rewarded for refraining from all that breaks their fast when required to do so, and is it considered a valid fast?
If a person eats or drinks thinking that Fajr has not yet arrived, but then someone informs them that Fajr had already begun, they must refrain from eating for the rest of the day and make up the fast later.
If they observe the required restraint (imsak), they will be rewarded for obeying the command because fulfilling an obligation brings reward.
However, this is not considered a valid fast in terms of rulings. For example:
● It is not disliked (makruh) for them to use a miswak after noon.
● They are not encouraged to hasten the breaking of the fast at sunset.
● Other fasting-related rulings do not apply to them.
What is the ruling on fasting?
Fasting in Ramadan is an individual obligation (Fard ‘Ayn) upon every mature, sane Muslim who is capable of fasting.
Fasting can also be recommended (Mustahabb), such as voluntary fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, fasting on the Day of Arafah for those not performing Hajj, and fasting on Ashura.
Fasting can be prohibited (Haram), such as fasting on the two Eid days, the Day of Doubt (Yawm al-Shakk), and the Days of Tashreeq.
Some types of fasting are disliked (Makruh), such as singling out Friday or Saturday for fasting without a specific reason and fasting on the Day of Arafah for a pilgrim.
Is it permissible to offer mandatory prayer while sitting?
All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds, and may His Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions. Standing up is a pillar in the mandatory prayer and the prayer is not valid without it unless one cannot do it. As for Nafila (supererogatory prayer), one can perform it in the state of sitting even if he/she can stand, but his/her reward is half the reward of the person who prays while standing if he/sh has no legal excuse for such an act. And Allah Knows Best.
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.
