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.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, and is it permissible to slaughter the ewe if one knows it is pregnant?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a person slaughters a ewe and it turns out to have been pregnant, the fetus becomes lawful (ḥalāl) by virtue of its mother's slaughter (tabaʿan li-ummihā).
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/P.158): "A fetus found dead [after the mother's slaughter], or found alive but in a state resembling that of a slaughtered animal [i.e., dying shortly after], becomes lawful — whether or not it had grown fur — provided it is found in the womb of a mother that was lawfully slaughtered, whether her slaughter was by cutting the throat, or by an arrow or hunting dog sent after her. This is based on the ḥadīth: 'The slaughtering of the fetus is [effected by] the slaughtering of its mother' [narrated by al-Tirmidhī, who graded it ḥasan, and by Ibn Ḥibbān, who graded it ṣaḥīḥ] — meaning that the slaughter which rendered the mother lawful renders the fetus lawful as well, by virtue of following her; and because the fetus is one of her constituent parts, and her slaughter renders lawful all of her parts."
This ruling differs, however, from the case of one who knows from the outset that the ewe is pregnant [and intends to sacrifice her specifically as the udḥiyah while pregnant] — in which case, according to the Shāfi'ī school, she does not fulfill the requirement of a valid sacrifice.
It is stated in Ḥāshiyat al-Bujayrimī 'alā al-Khaṭīb (Vol.4/P.335): "A pregnant animal does not fulfill the requirement [of a valid sacrifice], and this is the authoritative position (al-mu'tamad), because pregnancy diminishes the quality of the meat. As for why such an animal is nevertheless counted as complete [i.e., fully valid] in matters of zakāh, that is because the intent there is reproduction (nasl), not the quality of the meat.". And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
Is it Sunnah to cook the meat of the 'aqīqah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is Sunnah not to distribute the meat of the 'aqīqah raw. Rather, it is recommended to cook it with something sweet — such as raisins or honey — as a good omen and expression of hope for the sweetness of the newborn's character and conduct throughout their life. And Allah Almighty knows best.
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.
