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 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.
A pregnant woman has iron deficiency. When she showers, she becomes very tired and feels cold. What is the ruling on tayammum in this situation?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
One should not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) as a substitute for the obligatory ghusl (ritual bathing) so long as it remains possible to use water — for example, by heating the water, warming the place where the bathing takes place, or taking other similar precautions. However, if such measures prove ineffective, or are simply not possible to carry out, and performing ghusl [with cold water] would result in severe harm, then tayammum becomes permissible in that case, due to genuine inability to use water on account of the harm that would result, as described in the question. That said, she must make up (qaḍā') the prayers she performed using this tayammum.
It is stated in Bushrā al-Karīm: "One should not perform tayammum on account of cold unless warming the limbs fails to remove the aforementioned harm, and no means are available to heat the water — such as a vessel, firewood, or fire — and one fears [that using cold water would result in] any of the harms mentioned earlier in the discussion on illness: danger to life, loss of function in a limb, the onset or worsening of an illness, delayed recovery, or the [visible bodily] blemish mentioned in that discussion on illness. In such a case, tayammum becomes permissible due to the harm involved, but the prayer must still be made up afterward (qaḍā'). If, however, warming the body proves effective, or the means to heat the water are available, or none of the aforementioned harms are feared — then tayammum is not permissible, even if using the water causes some degree of discomfort or pain, since mere discomfort alone does not permit resorting to tayammum." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
If a woman becomes pure from menstruation before the Fajr Adhan in Ramadan, is she required to fast?
If a woman becomes pure (from menstrual period) before the Fajr Adhan, she must fast, as the impediment preventing her from fasting has been removed. The Sharia maxim in this regard states: "When the impediment is removed, the obligation returns."
She should then make the intention to fast before Fajr and perform ghusl (ritual purification) for prayer, whether before or after Fajr.
