What is the ruling on wiping over socks?
It is not permissible to wipe over most common socks today because the conditions for wiping are not met. The concession was reported for wiping over leather socks (khuff) and socks (jowrab) with conditions: They must be thick, not allowing poured water to penetrate, enable one to walk in them, be worn while in a state of purity (from ablution), cover the entire foot up to the ankles (meaning covering the protruding ankle bones), and not be torn. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
If a person enters a mosque and finds the congregation in the final tashahhud, which is more virtuous — joining them or waiting for a second congregation to catch the opening takbīr (takbīrat al-iḥrām)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If a worshipper finds a congregation that is about to finish its prayer, and he hopes to catch the entire prayer from the beginning with another congregation, it is more virtuous for him to pray with this first congregation and then repeat the prayer with the second one — provided he does not intend to confine himself to a single prayer. If, however, he intends to perform only one prayer, then it is more virtuous for him to wait for the second congregation rather than joining the first, so that he may attain the reward of congregational prayer for every single rakʿah.
Al-Khaṭīb al-Sharbīnī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "If members of a congregation enter the mosque while the imam is in the final tashahhud, al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn held that it is recommended for them to join him in prayer, and that they should not delay in order to form a second congregation. Al-Mutawallī, however, affirmed the opposite view, and al-Qāḍī's own statement elsewhere supports this latter position, which is the relied-upon view. In fact, it is more virtuous for a person who has missed part of the prayer with one congregation, and who hopes to catch another congregation with whom he can attain the entire prayer within its proper time, to delay so that he may catch it in full with them. This applies when he intends to confine himself to a single prayer; otherwise, it is more virtuous for him to pray with the first group and then repeat the prayer with the others." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj,Vol. 3/P.186] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
Is Zakah (obligatory charity) due on owned land?
Zakah is due on the land used as an article of merchandise and was originally bought for that end. Zakah is due on it at the end of every lunar year. Its value is estimated, and (2.5%) of the total value of all such lands owned by the questioner is given as Zakah. However, no Zakah is due on the land used for building a house, or an agricultural purpose.
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.
