What is the ruling on someone who is uncertain whether he omitted one of the ab‘āḍ of the prayer, such as being uncertain whether he omitted the first tashahhud?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The ab‘āḍ include the middle tashahhud and the qunūt in Fajr prayer — for which sujūd as-sahw (the prostration of forgetfulness) is prescribed if left out. Whoever is uncertain, during the prayer, whether he omitted one of these elements, should proceed on the assumption that he did not perform it, and should perform sujūd as-sahw accordingly.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 63): "If he is uncertain... whether he omitted a specific ab‘āḍ element, or whether he performed sujūd as-sahw, or whether he prayed three or four rak‘ahs — he proceeds on the assumption that he did not do it, and performs sujūd as-sahw."
The original principle (al-aṣl) for someone uncertain about [having performed] the first tashahhud is that he assumes he did not perform it. And Allah, the Exalted, 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.
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.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on applying perfume before entering the state of ihram
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Applying some perfume (ṭīb) before entering the state of iḥrām does not affect the validity of the Ihram, even if its trace remains after the iḥrām has begun. Indeed, it is sunnah for the pilgrim performing Ḥajj or ʿUmrah to perfume himself before iḥrām.
The scholar Nawawī al-Jāwī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The third of them is applying perfume to the body shortly before it, that is, before iḥrām, whether the one entering iḥrām is male or otherwise, young or old, married or unmarried. The recommendation applies after performing the ritual bath (ghusl), and it is fulfilled with any perfume whatsoever, though the best is musk, mixed with rose water or the like. There is no objection to the perfume remaining on the body after iḥrām; however, if a woman becomes bound by the mourning observance (iḥdād) after entering iḥrām, she must remove it. As for perfuming the garment, it is merely permissible, not recommended, according to the reliable position (al-muʿtamad). But if one removes his perfumed garment while the scent is still present in it and then wears it again, he is liable for the fidyah (expiation).” [Nihāyat al-Zayn, Vol.1/212]. And Allah Almighty knows best.
