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.
Is a person who forgot to make up missed fasts until the next Ramadan began required to pay expiatory compensation (Fidyah) alongside the makeup fast (Qada')?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever forgets to make up missed fasts of Ramadan (Qada') until the following Ramadan begins incurs no sin, pursuant to the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him): "Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my nation their mistakes, their forgetfulness, and that which they are coerced into doing." [Narrated by Ibn Majah, and Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra]
Furthermore, such an individual is not obligated to pay a expiatory compensation (Fidyah). It is stated in Bushra Al-Karim (p. 580)—one of the authoritative Shafi'i jurisprudential texts: "As for delaying it [the makeup fasts] due to a valid excuse—such as travel, breastfeeding, forgetfulness, or ignorance of the prohibition of delay (even for one living among scholars)—no Fidyah is required. This is because delaying performance during the actual month is permissible due to these excuses; hence, delaying makeup fasts is even more permissible, even if it continues for years."
And Allah Almighty knows best.
My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
My brother works in a conventional bank and gave me one of the gifts distributed to bank employees — what is the ruling on accepting it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no objection to accepting such gifts, because the physical gift itself does not carry any inherent prohibition — unlike stolen property. Sin does not transfer or extend to the one who receives the gift, for Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." [Al-Anʿām/164]
The evidence for this is that the Prophet ﷺ himself ate from the food of the Jews, conducted transactions with them, and purchased from them — and it is well known that their wealth was intermingled with ribā. Similarly, the wealth of conventional ribā-based banks is a mixture of the lawful and the unlawful.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is not forbidden to transact with one whose wealth is predominantly unlawful, nor to eat from it — as al-Nawawī affirmed in al-Majmūʿ." [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 9/P.389] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
