Is fidyah required for someone who breaks their fast due to a valid excuse?
● If the excuse is permanent, such as a chronic illness with no hope of recovery or old age, then fidyah is required. This means feeding one needy person for each missed fasting day.
● However, if the excuse is temporary, such as menstruation, postnatal bleeding, or a temporary illness, then only making up the missed fasts (qada) is required, and fidyah does not apply.
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 praying behind a disliked Imam?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is mildly disliked (Makruh Tanzihan) for a man—other than the permanent designated Imam (Imam Ratib)—to lead people in prayer if the majority of them dislike him due to a religiously blameworthy reason (Amr Madhmum Shar‘an), such as associating with open sinners (Fussaq), for example. As for the followers who dislike him, the prayer behind him is not disliked for them. However, if less than the majority dislike him, or if the majority dislike him for a reason that is not religiously blameworthy, then his leading the prayer is not disliked. And Allah the Exalted knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?
If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.
