What is the ruling on performing istinja' after passing wind from the anus?
Ablution is invalidated by passing wind from the anus, even without a smell. Only ablution becomes obligatory from it. Istinja' is not obligatory nor recommended. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
The Jurisprudential Significance of the Ḥadīth: "Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr Prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking..."
"Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking: 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-ḥamdu yuḥyī wa yumītu wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr' ten times — ten good deeds will be recorded for him, ten bad deeds will be erased from him, he will be raised ten levels, he will spend that day in protection from everything disliked and guarded from the devil, and no sin will be able to befall him on that day except associating partners with Allah" — does this noble ḥadīth apply to the imam, and what is meant by "extraneous speech"?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite, immediately after the final salām, the specific remembrance reported in the sunnah to be said before turning away from one's place of prayer. The imam then leaves his praying spot, and the act of "turning" is fulfilled when the imam faces the congregation — even without physically leaving his spot — by positioning his right side toward them and his left side toward the qiblah, and this applies even while he is engaged in supplication.
Al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tuḥfah (Vol.2/P.105): "It is most virtuous for the imam, once he has given the salām, to rise from his place of prayer immediately afterward." He adds that an exception must be made for the remembrances that are specifically required to be recited before he turns away. He then notes, citing Sharḥ al-ʿUbāb: "Yes, an exception to this rising immediately after the salām applies to the Fajr prayer, due to the authentic report that the Prophet ﷺ, when he prayed Fajr, would remain seated until the sun rose." He further cites, from al-Khādim, the ḥadīth concerning one who recites, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer while still in the position of crossing his leg to rise: "Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah..." and the rest of the well-known ḥadīth. He comments that this makes explicit that this particular remembrance is to be recited before the worshipper turns his legs to leave, and the same applies to Maghrib and ʿAṣr, as reported in those contexts as well.
What is meant by "speech" in the relevant ḥadīth is extraneous worldly speech that is not called for after the prayer and for which there is no legitimate excuse. The remembrances reported to be recited upon concluding the prayer, however, do not fall under this category of extraneous speech, since they are themselves required by the sharīʿah.
Al-ʿAllāmah ʿAlī al-Shabrāmalsī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Nihāyah (Vol.1/P.551): "If someone greets a person with salām while he is occupied with reciting this remembrance [i.e., 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh...'], should he return the greeting — without this causing him to forfeit the promised reward, since he is engaged in an obligatory matter — or should he delay returning the greeting until he finishes, this being a legitimate excuse for the delay?" He continues: "I say: the more likely view is the former, and the prohibition on speech is to be understood as applying to extraneous speech for which there is no legitimate excuse. Based on this, should the worshipper give precedence to this remembrance ('Lā ilāha illā Allāh...') or to reciting Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ ('Qul huwa Allāhu aḥad')? This requires consideration, though it is not unlikely that the remembrance takes precedence, given that the Lawgiver urged hastening to it through his words 'while crossing his leg.' This is not considered ordinary speech, since it is not extraneous to what is required after the prayer."
Accordingly, it is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite this remembrance and to give it precedence over the other remembrances of the prayer, ensuring it is said before they move from their place. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on eating or drinking forgetfully during the day in Ramadan or during voluntary fasting?
Whoever eats or drinks forgetfully while fasting, whether in an obligatory or voluntary fast, should continue their fast, for it is Allah who has provided them with food and drink. There is no difference between obligatory and voluntary fasting in this ruling.
