What is the ruling on performing the Witr prayer as a single rak`ah?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is permissible to perform the Witr prayer as a single unit (rak‘ah). It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that a man asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ about the night prayer, and the Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied: 'The night prayer is offered two by two (mathna mathna). If one of you fears the approach of dawn, let him pray a single rak‘ah to make what he has prayed odd-numbered (Witr) for him.' (Related by al-Bukhari & Muslim)). However, limiting the prayer to only one rak‘ah is considered 'contrary to the preferred way' (Khilaf al-Awla).
It is stated in Al-Minhaj al-Qawim Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah (p. 137): 'The minimum of Witr is one rak‘ah, but limiting it to that is contrary to what is best.'
The most complete form of Witr is eleven units, while the minimum level of 'perfection' is three units. It is stated in ‘Umdat al-Salik (p. 60): 'The minimum of Witr is one rak‘ah, and its maximum is eleven, performing the taslim (salutation) after every two units. The lowest level of perfection is three units with two separate taslims (meaning 2+1).' And Allah the Exalted knows best.
What is the ruling on a person who insists on praying in a specific spot and becomes angry if someone else prays there?
ruling on a person who persists in praying in a specific spot and becomes angry if someone else occupies it
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Our Master the Prophet ﷺ forbade a man from habitually claiming a specific spot in the mosque as a camel claims its place (to sit); scholars consider this to be among the disliked matters (Makruhat). It is therefore obligatory to advise this individual that whoever arrives at a spot first has the most right to it. And Allah the Exalted knows best.
I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
