What is the ruling on a woman who learns of her divorce or her husband's death after her *ʿiddah* has ended? And does the *ʿiddah* of a woman who abandoned mourning (*iḥdād*) for the whole period of the *ʿiddah*, or part of it, still end, even though she knew that abandoning it is forbidden?**
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The waiting period of a widow who is not pregnant is four months and ten days, based on the saying of Allah Almighty (which means): “And those of you who die and leave wives behind, they shall wait concerning themselves for four months and ten days” [al-Baqarah/234]. If she is pregnant, her ʿiddah ends with the delivery of her child. The ʿiddah is calculated by lunar months and begins from the date of death.
If her ʿiddah ends before she learns of her husband’s death, or of his divorcing her, she does not observe the ʿiddah upon learning of it, because her ʿiddah has already ended.
It is stated in al-Bayān fī Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī (Vol.11/p.41), one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “If a man divorces his wife, or dies while he is absent from her, her ʿiddah is from the time of the divorce or from the time of death. If she does not know of the divorce or the death until her ʿiddah period has ended, then her ʿiddah has ended. If she learns of it before the end of the ʿiddah period, she completes her ʿiddah counting from the time of the divorce or death.”
As for a woman who abandoned mourning throughout the ʿiddah while knowing that it is forbidden, she is sinful, although her ʿiddah has nonetheless ended. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.
I bought an apartment, and I am saving money to pay the remaining balance of its price — is zakāh obligatory on this money?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Zakāh is obligatory on all saved/hoarded wealth. Once the total wealth reaches the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah— equivalent to the value of 85 grams of pure 24-karat gold) and a full ḥawl (lunar year) has elapsed over it, zakāh becomes obligatory at a rate of (2.5%) — even if the wealth is earmarked for basic future needs, and even if the wealth's owner is in debt. Debt does not prevent the obligation of zakāh, nor is it deducted when calculating the zakāh due, based on the general and unrestricted wording of all the Qur'anic verses commanding zakāh, which draw no distinction between someone in debt and anyone else.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone possesses exactly the niṣāb, and owes an equivalent amount in debt, zakāh remains obligatory on what is in his possession, and the debt does not prevent this obligation" — meaning, the obligation of zakāh on what is presently in his possession.
The ḥawl (annual cycle) recognized for zakāh, as well as for the other sharī‘ah obligations that Allah, the Exalted, has imposed upon Muslims, is the Hijrī (lunar) year. And Allah, the Exalted, 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.
