What is the ruling on someone who possesses cash reaching the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for zakah), and then uses part of it to purchase gold before the ḥawl (lunar year) is complete — must he pay zakāh on all of it [combined], or only on the remaining cash, excluding the gold?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Gold acquired for hoarding and saving is subject to zakāh once it reaches the niṣāb (minimum threshold liable for Zakah) — when combined with any cash held — and once a full ḥawl (lunar year) has elapsed over it. The starting point for calculating this ḥawl is the ḥawl of the paper currency [used to purchase it], which had already reached the niṣāb and was then used to purchase the gold.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.78): "As for someone who sells silver in exchange for gold, or vice versa, zakāh remains obligatory upon it, since he builds [the calculation of] its ḥawl upon [the ḥawl established at the time of] the original transaction [i.e., when the wealth was first acquired]."
This has already been explained in detail in Fatwa No.
2670 — please refer to it.
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
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.
A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
A woman made a wig for herself from her own [previously shed] hair, which she wears on her head after having lost her hair [due to hair loss]. Is this permissible?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Since the hair belongs to the woman herself, the wig can be removed during the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing), and part of the head can still be wiped during wuḍū' (ablution), there is no sharī‘ah objection to making this wig — provided she does not appear wearing it in front of non-maḥram men (Any males outside a woman's immediate family whom she is permitted to marry under Islamic law), since it is not permissible for them to look at a woman's detached hair.
It is stated in Rawḍat aṭ-Ṭālibīn wa ‘Umdat al-Muftīn: "Whatever it is not permissible to look at while still attached [to the body] — such as the male genitalia, a free woman's forearm, the hair of her head, and a man's pubic hair, and similar matters — it remains unlawful to look at even after it has been detached [from the body], according to the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ)." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
