Is it permissible to appoint a proxy for the sacrificial offering outside Jordan?
In the name of Allah; all praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to appoint a proxy—whether an individual or a charitable organization—to perform the sacrificial slaughter (Udhiyah) on one’s behalf, even if it is carried out in a country other than that of the donor. This is conditional upon the proxy’s adherence to the established requirements of the Udhiyah, including the animal’s age, its freedom from physical defects, the designated timing of the slaughter, and the proper distribution of the meat.
However, it is preferable for the one offering the sacrifice to perform the slaughter personally, in order to attain the full reward and blessings of the act. And Allah (Exalted be He) knows best.
Is it permissible for me to eat from the animal that I slaughtered for Allah to protect my family?
It is permissible to eat from the non-vowed animal sacrifice, and the person is rewarded based on the amount of meat that he had given to the poor. However, there is no evidence in Islamic Sharia indicating that slaughtering an animal protects one`s family, but it is a way for thanking Allah, The Almighty, for his grace.
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.
Which is better for a traveler: fasting or breaking the fast?
Fasting is better, unless it causes hardship—in that case, breaking the fast is better.
