What is the ruling on someone who dies while having missed fasts?
● If a person dies before having the opportunity to make up the missed fasts—such as someone whose excuse (e.g., illness) persisted until their death—then no makeup fast (qada), fidyah, or sin applies to them.
● However, if they had the ability to make up the fasts but did not do so before passing away, the missed fasts must be compensated by giving a mudd of food for each missed day from their estate.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever dies while having a month’s fast due, one needy person should be fed per day on their behalf." [Narrated by At-Tirmidhi]
Additionally, a guardian (wali) may fast on their behalf, as the Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever dies while having missed fasts, their guardian should fast on their behalf." [Narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim]
In another narration: "If they wish." This indicates that both feeding the needy and fasting on behalf of the deceased are permissible options.
A man led the people in prayer as imam, and at the end of the prayer he performed a prostration of forgetfulness (*sujūd al-sahw*) because he had omitted a short *sūrah* after al-Fātiḥah. What is the ruling on his prayer and that of those praying behind him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
According to the Shāfiʿī school, it is sunnah to recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah in the prayer. One who omits it has a valid prayer, and no prostration of forgetfulness (sujūd al-sahw) is prescribed for omitting it. If someone performs sujūd al-sahw for its omission while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. But one who is ignorant of the ruling, or who did so out of forgetfulness, his prayer is not invalidated, because this is among the matters that are obscure to people, and ignorance of it is not restricted to those who recently entered Islam.
Shaykh al-Islām al-Shams al-Ramlī said in Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj ilā Sharḥ al-Minhāj (Vol.2/p.70): “The remaining sunnahs are not compensated for by prostration, such as the remembrances (adhkār) of bowing and prostration, that is, the opening supplication (duʿāʾ al-iftitāḥ) and the sūrah, in accordance with the base rule, because they are not of the same nature as what has been reported [as compensable]. If one prostrates for any of them deliberately, his prayer is invalidated, unless he is excused due to ignorance. As for the objection raised that the ignorant person does not know that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed, and whoever knows it knows its place, this is refuted by denying such a necessary connection, for the ignorant person may hear only that sujūd al-sahw is prescribed before the salām, and so assume that it applies to every sunnah and is not restricted to its prescribed place.”
This is among the matters that are obscure, in which the mukallaf is excused for ignorance, as stated by al-Shabrāmallisī in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.70).
However, if the imam prostrates, and the follower (maʾmūm) presumes that his imam’s prostration is for a reason for which one does not prostrate, it is not permissible to follow him in it, so long as the follower knows the ruling.
Accordingly, the prayer of one who did not recite a sūrah after al-Fātiḥah is valid, and sujūd al-sahw is not prescribed for it. Whoever prostrates out of ignorance or forgetfulness, his prayer is valid, because this is among the issues hidden from the general public. But whoever prostrates while knowing the ruling and remembering it, his prayer is invalidated. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on selling sacrificial animals (udhiyah) described with specific attributes and authorizing an agent to slaughter them?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Selling sacrificial animals (udhiyah) that are described with specific attributes is permissible. This falls under the category of a salam sale (forward sale) if conducted using the terminology of salam, and under the category of a regular sale if not using the terminology of salam.
As for authorizing the seller to slaughter the sacrificial animal, the basic principle is that it is permissible, because the agent (wakil) stands in the place of the principal (muwakkil) in achieving his objective. This is a contract that the principal (the buyer) is entitled to perform himself, so authorizing another (the seller) to do so on his behalf is valid.
However, it is a condition for authorization to slaughter that the intention (niyyah) is present either at the time of slaughter or at the time of handing over the sacrificial animal to the agent. The basic principle is that the sacrificial animal must be specifically designated, as it is an act of worship. It is not required to designate it at the time of slaughter; rather, it is valid to do so before that.
It is permissible for the principal either to delegate the intention to the agent or to formulate it himself when authorizing the agent to slaughter. However, the sacrificial animal must be designated, even if at the time of slaughter, by the agent.
It is obligatory to designate the sacrificial animals so that each person offering a sacrifice receives his own specific animal. Therefore, charitable organizations and companies must take this into consideration and establish a specific mechanism that ensures no mixing of sacrificial animals occurs, so that each person offering a sacrifice receives his own designated animal. And Allah Almighty 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.
