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.
What are the key differences between the 'aqīqah and the uḍḥiyyah?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The following are the key differences between the 'aqīqah and the uḍḥiyyah:
First: The 'aqīqah is slaughtered as an act of drawing closer to Allah the Almighty and expressing gratitude for the blessing of a newborn child. The uḍḥiyyah, on the other hand, is slaughtered as an act of drawing closer to Allah and expressing gratitude to Him specifically during the days of slaughter (ayyām al-naḥr).
Second: The 'aqīqah is performed on the seventh day from the birth of the newborn, whereas the uḍḥiyyah is performed on Eid al-Aḍḥā and its time extends for three days after the Eid.
Third: The 'aqīqah is performed once in a lifetime for the newborn, whereas the uḍḥiyyah is recommended every year for the one who is financially capable to offer it.
Fourth: It is Sunnah for the one intending to offer the uḍḥiyyah to refrain from cutting his hair and nails until after he has slaughtered. This is not a Sunnah for the one intending to perform the 'aqīqah.
Fifth: It is Sunnah for the 'aqīqah to be cooked and distributed to the poor in its cooked form. The uḍḥiyyah, by contrast, must be distributed as raw meat. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible to sacrifice imported livestock (Such as Romanian, Australian, etc.)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
As long as the sheep meets the prescribed Sharia age and is free from disqualifying defects, it is valid for sacrifice regardless of its country of origin. Therefore, it is permissible to offer sacrifices from various sources, such as: Romanian, Australian, Spanish, Indian, Sudanese, local (Baladi) livestock, and others. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
