Is it acceptable to perform the Aqiqah for a male child by slaughtering and distributing the first sheep, and bringing the second one cooked from the restaurant?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to slaughter the first sheep with the intention of Aqiqah (the newborn's sacrificial offering) and distribute it entirely [uncooked], and to slaughter the second sheep and have it cooked at a restaurant to bring home for the household. However, it must be noted that it is obligatory to give some portion of the Aqiqah in charity to the poor, even if it is a small amount, though it is preferable to send the food cooked to them.
Buying a pre-cooked, ready-made sheep from a restaurant does not suffice as an Aqiqah. However, if an agreement is made with the restaurant to explicitly slaughter a sheep with the intention of Aqiqah for the newborn, and then cook it afterward, this is permissible.
In conclusion, slaughtering the sheep and distributing it with the intention of Aqiqah is permissible, and through it, the foundational prophetic tradition (Sunnah) is fulfilled. As for simply buying a cooked sheep from a restaurant that was not specifically slaughtered with the intention of Aqiqah, it will not count as such. Conversely, if the restaurant owner is commissioned (Wakala) to handle both the slaughtering and the cooking as an Aqiqah, it is valid. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What are the conditions that must be met for the 'aqīqah to be valid?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The 'aqīqah is like the recommended uḍḥiyyah in terms of the type of animal, its age, and its required characteristics — since it is a recommended slaughter and therefore resembles the uḍḥiyyah in its rulings.
It is agreed upon without any difference of opinion that the 'aqīqah is not valid with any animal other than livestock (al-na'am — camels, cattle, and sheep). Likewise, an animal with a disqualifying defect — such as obvious illness, lameness, or blindness in one eye — does not suffice, as has previously been explained in the rulings of the uḍḥiyyah. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Must a woman seek her husband's permission to fast a make up fast (qada)?
● If there is ample time to make up for the missed fasts, a woman should seek her husband's permission before fasting.
● However, if the time is running out—such as when only the remaining days of Sha'ban are sufficient to complete the qada—she does not need his permission and must fast, because Allah’s command takes precedence over the husband's consent.
Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
