What is the ruling of Islamic Law on wudu (ablution) when there is an adhesive substance on the hand that is difficult to remove?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The general principle is: if what is applied to the limbs of wudu' (ablution) does not form a barrier substance preventing water from reaching the skin, then the wudu' is valid despite its presence. However, if these substances prevent water from reaching the skin, the wudu' is not valid with their presence, and they must be removed so that water reaches the hair or skin without any barrier.
Shaykh al-Islam, the Imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "If there is wax, dough, henna, or similar substances on some of his limbs [of wudu'], and this prevents water from reaching any part of the limb, then his purification (tahara) is not valid — regardless of whether the amount is much or little. But if there remains on the hand or elsewhere only the trace and color of the henna, without its substance [i.e., the physical residue itself], or the trace of a liquid oil such that the water touches the skin of the limb and flows over it, though it does not remain [as a barrier] — then his purification is valid." [Al-Majmu' , Vol.1/P.529]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
How to perform the witr prayer in terms of connection (wasl) and separation (fasl)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The Witr prayer has several forms that vary in terms of virtue:
The First Form: Separating every two units (rak‘ah) with a Tashahhud and a Taslim (salutation). This is superior to connecting the units, even if it is only a single rak‘ah. This is based on the Hadith of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray eleven units between the end of the ‘Isha prayer and dawn, performing the Taslim after every two units and performing Witr with a single unit.' (Related by al-Bukhari & Muslim).
The Second Form: Connecting the units with only one final Tashahhud at the very end.
The Third Form: Connecting with two Tashahhuds—meaning reciting the Tashahhud before the final unit without performing the Taslim, then standing to complete the final unit. This form is considered the lowest in rank so that the Witr prayer remains distinct from the obligatory Maghrib prayer, as stated in the Hadith: 'Do not make the Witr resemble the Maghrib prayer.' (Narrated by Al-Daraqutni, who stated its narrators are trustworthy).
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'It is permissible to connect [the Witr] with one Tashahhud in the final unit—which is better—or with two Tashahhuds in the last two units, as both methods are established in Sahih Muslim from the actions of the Prophet ﷺ. In the connected method, more than two Tashahhuds are prohibited. Furthermore, separating (al-Fasl) is better than connecting (al-Wasl) if the number of units is the same, because the Hadiths supporting it are more numerous and it involves more devotional actions.' And Allah the Exalted knows best."
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks thinking that the sun has set, then realizes that it has not yet set?
Whoever eats or drinks believing that the sun has set, then later discovers that it has not yet set, their fast is invalid, and they must make up that day after Ramadan. It is not permissible to break the fast before confirming sunset—either by seeing it, through personal reasoning, or by relying on the statement of someone trustworthy in their religious commitment.
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.
