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 Jumu‘ah (Friday) prayer for a traveler, and what are the conditions for it to be waived from him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Jumu‘ah (Friday) prayer is not obligatory upon a traveler, whether on a long or short journey, provided that — according to the Shāfi‘ī school — he departs from his place of residence before the time for Fajr prayer begins, and that he does not intend to stay in the place he travels to for four days or more, excluding the day of arrival and the day of departure. If he intends to stay longer than that, he may not make use of the travel concession simply by arriving in that town. If he begins his journey after the adhān for Fajr has already been called, then Jumu‘ah prayer remains obligatory upon him, whether in his own town or in any town where Jumu‘ah is being held.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm (Vol.1/p.383), from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "Jumu‘ah [prayer] is not obligatory upon a traveler on a permissible journey, whether long or short, if he departs from his place of residence before Fajr."
A "short journey" refers to travel covering a distance shorter than that of a long journey — that is, less than (81 km). The traveler begins to be entitled to travel concessions once he passes beyond the built-up limits of his town. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is "Bismillāhir-Raḥmānir-Raḥīm" a verse (āyah) of Sūrat al-Fātiḥah?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The basmalah ("Bismillāhir-Raḥmānir-Raḥīm") is, without question, a verse (āyah) of the Noble Qur'an, and according to the Shāfi‘ī school, it constitutes a verse of Sūrat al-Fātiḥah itself. Al-Fātiḥah is a pillar of the prayer, and it consists of seven verses, of which the basmalah is one. The prayer is not valid without reciting it, nor if any of the Fātiḥah's verses, letters, or shaddahs (consonant doublings) are omitted or altered.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm (Vol.1/p.202), from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "The basmalah is a complete verse of it [i.e., of al-Fātiḥah] in practice — and it suffices, for this to be established, that there be strong probability (ẓann), especially given that this has come very close to certainty (yaqīn), due to the consensus (ijmā‘) of the Companions on its inclusion in the muṣ-ḥaf [the written text of the Qur'an] in its script, despite their extreme diligence in excluding from it anything that did not genuinely belong to it — to the point that they even [carefully regulated] its diacritical dots and vowel markings." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
