What is the ruling on making up the regular *rawātib* (sunnah) prayers together with a missed obligatory prayer?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is obligatory to make up (qaḍāʾ) a missed obligatory prayer (farḍ). As for the timed supererogatory prayers (al-sunan al-muʾaqqatah) or the regular rawātib prayers, it is recommended (mandūb) to make them up, even if a long time has passed. Ibn Ḥajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his Fatāwā: "It is established in our school that it is sunnah to make up the timed voluntary prayers, by night or by day, even if congregation is not prescribed for them, whether much time has passed or little."
Accordingly, it is recommended to make up the sunan together with the obligatory prayer. And Allah Almighty knows best.
________________________________________
Note on terminology: Al-nawāfil al-muʾaqqatah (timed voluntary prayers) refers to supererogatory prayers tied to a specific time or cause, such as the rawātib (regular prayers before and after the obligatory ones), Duha, and the like. The ruling given here reflects the Shāfiʿī position.
What is the ruling on combining (jam‘) and shortening (qaṣr) prayers when travel is repeated on a daily basis?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
A traveler is permitted to avail himself of the concessions of shortening and combining prayers once the distance of his journey reaches (81 km) or more. This is on condition that his journey is a permissible one, and that he begins shortening and combining only after setting out and passing beyond the built-up limits of the city in which he resides, or beyond the administrative boundaries of the area where he lives.
Accordingly, if the distance between one's workplace and one's place of residence reaches the distance upon which the concession of combining and shortening depends, then combining and shortening are permissible once he leaves the built-up area, even if this travel is repeated on a daily basis.
Ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "It is permissible to combine Ẓuhr and ‘Aṣr, either as an early combination (taqdīm) in the time of the first, or as a delayed combination (ta'khīr) in the time of the second; and likewise Maghrib and ‘Ishā' — either early, in the time of the first, or delayed, in the time of the second — during a long, permissible journey, in following [the Prophet's practice]. As for the delayed combination, it is established in the two Ṣaḥīḥs from the ḥadīth of Anas and Ibn ‘Umar (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum). As for the early combination, Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Bayhaqī graded it ṣaḥīḥ from the ḥadīth of Mu‘ādh, and at-Tirmidhī graded it ḥasan." [Quoted with slight abridgment from Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.1/p.529]
The conditions for combining and shortening have already been explained in Fatwa No. 14 and Fatwa No. 842. And Allah, the Exalted, 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.
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.
