What is the ruling on the follower (*maʾmūm*) reciting Sūrat al-Fātiḥah behind the imam?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
In our school of Islamic thought, the Shāfiʿī school, reciting al-Fātiḥah is obligatory in every rakʿah of the prayer for the imam, the follower (maʾmūm), and the one praying individually (munfarid), because it is one of the pillars (arkān) of the prayer. Whoever does not perform it, his prayer is invalid, whether the prayer is silent (sirriyyah) or audible (jahriyyah), based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “The prayer of the one who does not recite the Opening of the Book (Fātiḥat al-Kitāb) is invalid.” Agreed upon.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik, one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “He recites al-Fātiḥah in every rakʿah, whether he is the imam, the follower, or the individual worshipper.”
The jurists of the other schools hold a different opinion, which was previously explained in Fatwa no. (
3169); please refer to it. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible to offer mandatory prayer while sitting?
All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of The Worlds, and may His Peace and Blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all of his family and companions. Standing up is a pillar in the mandatory prayer and the prayer is not valid without it unless one cannot do it. As for Nafila (supererogatory prayer), one can perform it in the state of sitting even if he/she can stand, but his/her reward is half the reward of the person who prays while standing if he/sh has no legal excuse for such an act. And Allah Knows Best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
