What is the Islamic ruling on the Udhiyah (sacrificial offfering)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The Udhiyah (sacrificial offering) is a Confirmed Sunnah (Sunnah Mu’akkadah) for every adult Muslim of sound mind who possesses the financial means, whether they are a resident, a traveler, or a pilgrim (Haj). This is based on the statement of the Prophet ﷺ: 'When the ten days [of Dhu al-Hijjah] begin and one of you desires to offer a sacrifice, let him not touch [cut] anything of his hair or skin' [Narrated by Muslim].
The point of evidence (Wajh al-Dalalah) here is that the Prophet ﷺ linked the sacrifice to the individual's will and desire by saying, 'and one of you desires.' This indicates that it is not obligatory (Wajib); had it been mandatory, he would have simply said, 'let him not touch his hair until he sacrifices' [without making it conditional upon desire].
Furthermore, it is narrated that Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) would sometimes refrain from offering the sacrifice out of fear that people might mistakenly view it as an obligatory duty [Narrated by al-Bayhaqi and others with a good (Hasan) chain of transmission]. And Allah the Exalted knows best.
I vowed to give a specific charity if a certain matter came to pass — what is the ruling on giving that charity before the matter is realised?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Fulfilling a vow (nadhr) is obligatory, in accordance with the word of Allah the Almighty: "And let them fulfil their vows." [Al-Ḥajj/ 29] And the saying of our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ: "Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him; and whoever vows to disobey Him, let him not disobey Him." (Reported by al-Bukhārī.)
The Shāfiʿī scholars distinguished between a financial vow (nadhr mālī) and a bodily vow (nadhr badanī). They permitted the fulfilment of a financial vow to be brought forward — before the stipulated condition is met — but did not permit the same for a bodily vow, which may only be fulfilled after the condition has actually been realised.
Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is permissible to bring forward the fulfilment of a financial vow before the condition stipulated in it is met — such as saying: 'If I am healed, I vow to free a slave' or 'to give such-and-such in charity' — just as it is permissible to pay zakāh in advance. This is unlike a bodily vow, such as fasting." [Asnā al-Maṭālib, vol. 4/P.246]
Imām al-Bājūrī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Like expiation other than fasting, a financial vow — such as saying: 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave for the sake of Allah,' or 'If Allah heals my sick one, I vow to free a slave on the Friday following the recovery' — it is permissible to bring it forward before the recovery in the first case, and before the Friday following the recovery in the second case." [Ḥāshiyat al-Bājūrī ʿalā Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim, Vol.2/P.596] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on fasting?
Fasting in Ramadan is an individual obligation (Fard ‘Ayn) upon every mature, sane Muslim who is capable of fasting.
Fasting can also be recommended (Mustahabb), such as voluntary fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, fasting on the Day of Arafah for those not performing Hajj, and fasting on Ashura.
Fasting can be prohibited (Haram), such as fasting on the two Eid days, the Day of Doubt (Yawm al-Shakk), and the Days of Tashreeq.
Some types of fasting are disliked (Makruh), such as singling out Friday or Saturday for fasting without a specific reason and fasting on the Day of Arafah for a pilgrim.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on compensating the patient in case of medical error on the part of the treating physician?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The foundational principle is that every mistake issued by a physician that causes harm to another due to his negligence or lack of expertise obligates him to guarantee liability and compensate the harmed party. The Sharia maxim, in this regard, states: "The direct actor is liable."
Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "As for if he was skilled but his hand committed an error—such as exceeding the proper limit of incision, cutting in an incorrect site, cutting with an instrument that inflicts excessive pain, or cutting at an unsuitable time—he is liable, because it is destruction (Itlaf) whose liability does not differ between intent and mistake, thus resembling the destruction of property; and because it is a prohibited act, so he guarantees liability for its secondary effects." [Al-Mughni].
However, if the physician performed what was necessary in the most complete manner and took all measures of care and caution, but complications occurred that could not be avoided according to specialists, then no liability rests upon him.
Shaykh al-Islam Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "The cupper and the circumciser bear no liability if they have not been negligent, and likewise the veterinarian if he bleeds an animal and it perishes." [Rawdat al-Talibin].
Al-Khattabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I know of no disagreement that if the practitioner transgresses and the patient perishes, he is liable. Anyone who undertakes knowledge or practice he does not know is a transgressor; so if perishing arises from his action, he is liable for the blood-money (Diyah) while capital retaliation (Qisas) is dropped from him, because he did not act independently without the patient's permission. And the physician’s offense in the view of the generality of jurists is borne by his agnates ('Aqilah*)."* [Ma'alim al-Sunan].
If negligence or transgression is established against the physician, it is necessary to compensate the patient or seek forgiveness from him. And Allah Almighty knows best.
