What is the ruling on the prayer of one who said "Subḥāna Rabbiya al-ʿAẓīm" in prostration (*sujūd*) and forgot to correct it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Saying “Subḥāna Rabbiya al-ʿAẓīm” in bowing (rukūʿ) and “Subḥāna Rabbiya al-Aʿlā” in prostration (sujūd) is one of the hayʾāt (non-essential sunnahs) of the prayer. Whoever omits it, whether deliberately or by forgetfulness, or replaces it with another remembrance (dhikr), his prayer is valid and he does not perform sujūd al-sahw. Shaykh al-Islām Imam al-Nawawī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Our school holds that one does not prostrate for omitting the audible or silent recitation, the tasbīḥ, and the rest of the hayʾāt.” [al-Majmūʿ, Vol.4/p.127]
If he performs sujūd al-sahw for something that does not call for it, his prayer is invalidated, because he introduced a prostration of forgetfulness without a cause, and he must repeat the prayer. The exception is one who did so out of forgetfulness or ignorance, whether because he recently entered Islam or because he lives far from scholars; he is excused and his prayer is not invalidated.
It is stated in Mughni al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.417): “It is stated in al-Anwār: If he does something that does not call for sujūd al-sahw, thinking that it does, and then prostrates, his prayer is not invalidated if he is ignorant because he recently entered Islam or because he is far from scholars.”
Since this issue is hidden from the laity, as it is among the subtleties of knowledge, and the laity 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 the issue is not invalidated. As for after knowing it, the prayer is invalidated.
Whoever realizes while still in the prayer that his prostration was out of place, it is sunnah for him to perform sujūd al-sahw. And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?
If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.
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.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
