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.
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.
What is the ruling on making up missed fasts from many years?
A Muslim must make up for any missed fasts, as they are a debt owed to Allah. The Prophet ﷺ said:
"The debt owed to Allah is more deserving of being fulfilled." [Narrated by Muslim]
Whoever has missed fasts must make them up as long as they are alive and capable of fasting.
What is the ruling on men wearing rings (those made of silver and of other metals, such as iron), and are there conditions for men wearing rings?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is sunnah for men to wear a silver ring on the right hand, following the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) took a silver ring and had “Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh” engraved on it. He said: “I have taken a ring of silver and had ‘Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh’ engraved on it, so let no one engrave the like of its engraving.”
It is a condition that the silver ring not exceed the size customary in the local norm (ʿurf). If it does, that is extravagance (isrāf). A ring made of a metal other than silver, such as iron or copper, is permissible to wear without disapproval (karāhah), except gold, which is forbidden (ḥarām) for a man to wear.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.586): “It is permissible, without disapproval, to wear a ring of iron or lead. It is sunnah for a man to wear a silver ring on the little finger of his right or left hand. Wearing it on the right is better, and it is permissible on the left, and on both together.”
It is also stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.97): “It is lawful for him, that is, the man, and likewise the khunthā (person of indeterminate sex), indeed all the more so, to wear a ring of silver, by consensus (ijmāʿ), because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a ring of silver, narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim). Wearing it is in fact sunnah, whether on the right or the left, though the right is better according to the sound position, as stated in the chapter on clothing in al-Rawḍah… The Shāfiʿī jurists did not specify the permitted size of the ring, and they probably relied on custom (ʿurf), that is, the custom of that country and the habit of people of his standing in it. Whatever exceeds that is extravagance, as they said regarding a woman’s anklet. This is the reliable position (al-muʿtamad).” And Allah Almighty knows best.
