What is the ruling on a woman who learns of her divorce or her husband's death after her *ʿiddah* has ended? And does the *ʿiddah* of a woman who abandoned mourning (*iḥdād*) for the whole period of the *ʿiddah*, or part of it, still end, even though she knew that abandoning it is forbidden?**
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The waiting period of a widow who is not pregnant is four months and ten days, based on the saying of Allah Almighty (which means): “And those of you who die and leave wives behind, they shall wait concerning themselves for four months and ten days” [al-Baqarah/234]. If she is pregnant, her ʿiddah ends with the delivery of her child. The ʿiddah is calculated by lunar months and begins from the date of death.
If her ʿiddah ends before she learns of her husband’s death, or of his divorcing her, she does not observe the ʿiddah upon learning of it, because her ʿiddah has already ended.
It is stated in al-Bayān fī Madhhab al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī (Vol.11/p.41), one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “If a man divorces his wife, or dies while he is absent from her, her ʿiddah is from the time of the divorce or from the time of death. If she does not know of the divorce or the death until her ʿiddah period has ended, then her ʿiddah has ended. If she learns of it before the end of the ʿiddah period, she completes her ʿiddah counting from the time of the divorce or death.”
As for a woman who abandoned mourning throughout the ʿiddah while knowing that it is forbidden, she is sinful, although her ʿiddah has nonetheless ended. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible for a woman to uncover her face while performing Umrah (minor Hajj)?
The woman while in a state of Ihram (ritual consecration) is obligated to uncover her face and hands, but at the same time permitted to let her head-covering garment drape from her head down over her face when non-Mahram (i.e., marriageable) men pass by her. And Allah Knows Best.
What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
