Does the fast become invalid if water from rinsing the mouth reaches the stomach while performing ablution?
If water reaches the stomach without the fasting person exceeding normal rinsing or being excessive, their fast remains valid.
However, if they exceed the normal practice or exaggerate in rinsing, causing water to enter the stomach, their fast is invalid.
This is because excessiveness in rinsing is prohibited for a fasting person, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Exaggerate inhaling water during ablution, except when you are fasting." [Narrated by the Four Imams]
Transgression (Ta‘addi) refers to rinsing the mouth more than three times, while exaggeration (Mubalaghah) includes gargling, drawing water deep into the nasal passages, or filling the mouth with water in an unusual manner.
I have a date farm, and the dates come in different categories, and within each category there are different sizes. How is zakāh paid on the yield?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the yield reaches the niṣāb (the minimum threshold for zakāh to become obligatory) — which is five awsuq (plural of wasq), equivalent to (611) kg — then zakāh becomes obligatory upon it, at a rate of one-tenth ('ushr) if irrigated by rainwater (i.e., naturally, without the use of machinery), or one-twentieth (half of the 'ushr) if irrigated using machinery/equipment.
If the yield of dates consists of different varieties, then zakāh should be paid from each variety according to its respective proportion. If this proves difficult, it is permissible to pay from a medium-quality variety [representative of the average].
It is stated in Ḥāshiyatā Qulyūbī wa ‘Umayrah (Vol.2/P.22): "Different varieties are combined together [for the purpose of calculating the niṣāb] — such as the various types of dates, the various types of raisins, and so on — and zakāh is paid from each type according to its respective proportion. However, if this becomes difficult due to the large number of varieties and the small quantity of each individual type, then zakāh should be paid from a medium-quality variety among them — neither the best nor the worst — out of consideration for both sides [the giver and the poor recipient]. If one goes to the trouble of paying from each variety according to its proportion, this is also permissible." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What are the conditions for a valid Udhiyah?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
First: The age of the animal must meet the Sharia requirements. These requirements vary depending on the type of sacrifice:
Camels: Must have completed five years and entered their sixth.
Cows: Must have completed two years and entered their third.
Goats: Must have completed two years and entered their third. As for Sheep, they must have completed one year and entered their second.
Some scholars have permitted goats that have completed one year and entered their second.
The Hanafi school, along with an opinion in the Maliki school, permits sacrificing sheep that are at least six months old, provided they are healthy and physically substantial. According to the Shafi’i school, it is permissible if the sheep sheds its front teeth (ajdha') before reaching one year [Al-Iqna’, by Al-Shirbini (Vol.2/P.588)].
Second: Soundness and freedom from defects. The animal must be free from any defect that causes a decrease in its meat or market value. This is based on the hadith narrated by Al-Bara' bin 'Azib, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"Four [defects] are not permissible in sacrifices: A one-eyed animal whose blindness is evident, a sick animal whose illness is evident, a lame animal whose lameness is evident, and an emaciated animal that has no marrow in its bones." [Reported by Abu Dawood and Al-Tirmidhi, who graded it as authentic].
These defects are detailed as follows:
Evident Lameness: It is not permissible to sacrifice a lame animal if the lameness is severe enough to prevent it from walking to the pasture or seeking food, as this leads to a decrease in its meat. However, slight lameness that does not hinder its grazing is overlooked.
Evident Blindness (One-eyed): It is not permissible to sacrifice a sheep, cow, or camel that has a white film over its eye blocking light, or one that has lost an eye entirely. Weak vision that does not affect its ability to eat does not prevent the sacrifice from being valid.
Evident Illness: An animal with a clear sickness that prevents it from eating or moving is not valid. This includes severe mange (Jarab) that spoils the meat.
Extreme Emaciation: An animal so thin that there is no marrow left in its bones is invalid. The standard for emaciation that invalidates the sacrifice is that which spoils the quality of the meat to the point that people would find it undesirable even in times of plenty.
Additional Considerations:
These are the defects mentioned in the Prophetic tradition, and any defect that causes emaciation or reduces the meat or value is compared to them by analogy. This includes animals that are mentally unstable (diseased), those with mange, or those with a missing ear. In contrast, a slit or pierced ear does not affect the validity of the sacrifice. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible to fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for the missed fasts of Ramadan?
● If a person missed fasts due to a valid excuse, they may fast the six days of Shawwal before making up for Ramadan fasts, because qada (makeup fasts) in this case can be delayed, while the six days of Shawwal must be observed within Shawwal.
● However, if a person missed fasts without a valid excuse, they must make up for the missed fasts immediately after Eid, before fasting the six days of Shawwal. If they fast the six days first, it is valid, but they must still make up for the missed Ramadan fasts afterward.
It is also permissible to combine the intention of qada (makeup fasts) and the six days of Shawwal in one fast. However, it is better to fast them separately, as this increases the reward and avoids scholarly disagreement regarding combining intentions.
