What is the ruling on eating or drinking forgetfully during the day in Ramadan or during voluntary fasting?
Whoever eats or drinks forgetfully while fasting, whether in an obligatory or voluntary fast, should continue their fast, for it is Allah who has provided them with food and drink. There is no difference between obligatory and voluntary fasting in this ruling.
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.
My father has debts and asked me to repay them years ago, and I promised him I would do so upon his death — is it permissible for me to go back on my promise given that I am unable to repay them, especially since he refuses to contribute to repayment on the grounds that the debt has become my responsibility by virtue of my promise?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The established principle is that a father's debt is to be repaid from his own wealth, if he possesses sufficient means. As for the promise made by the son to repay it on his father's behalf, fulfilling such a promise is strongly recommended, and breaking it is considerably disliked. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Fulfilling a promise is emphatically recommended, and breaking it is severely disliked. The evidences for this from the Qurʾān and the Sunnah are well known." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn,Vol. 2/P.278] Shaykh al-Islām Imām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī, may Allah have mercy upon him, further states: "The reason fulfilling a promise is not obligatory and breaking it is not forbidden is that a promise is in the nature of a gift, and a gift does not become binding except upon receipt." [Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib,Vol. 2/P.487]
Given that the son does not possess the financial means to fulfil his promise to his father, breaking this promise falls beyond his capacity — and Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear. Since the father himself possesses sufficient wealth to settle his own debt, repayment must be made from his own funds. Should he pass away before doing so, the debt is to be settled from his estate. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
I work overtime after regular working hours and may become occupied with my phone or the work computer for personal matters — what is the ruling on this?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is obligatory upon an employee to abide by the instructions and regulations governing overtime hours, and equally obligatory to uphold honesty and avoid all forms of deception and dishonesty. Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, be mindful of Allah and be with the truthful." [Al-Tawbah/ 119]
Whoever is assigned to work overtime must be present at his workplace — even if he has no specific tasks to carry out at that time. In such a case, he should strive as best he can to spend that time in a manner that benefits the institution he works for. If there is genuinely no work for him to do, there is no objection to occupying his time with something beneficial — such as reciting the Holy Qurʾān, reading, or listening to educational lessons — provided he has already completed all the responsibilities assigned to him.
If, however, he does have work to complete, he must spend that time fulfilling it. He may attend to phone calls or other personal matters to the extent that is customarily acceptable, as long as this does not result in delaying or postponing his work. If he delays his work on account of personal preoccupations, the wages he received for that wasted time are not lawfully his to keep, and he is obliged to return the equivalent amount to the institution by whatever means available to him. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
