What is the ruling of Islamic Law on performing ṭawāf on the upper floors of al-Masjid al-Ḥarām, given that these floors are situated above the level of the Ka‘bah, and that the one performing ṭawāf passes by certain barriers, such as pillars and walls, during the ṭawāf?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There are numerous conditions for the validity of ṭawāf (circumambulation around the Ka‘bah), among them: that the one performing ṭawāf be inside the Masjid (al-Masjid al-Ḥarām) — even if the Masjid has been expanded, so long as the expansion does not extend out into al-ḥill (land outside the sanctuary boundaries). It suffices for the ṭawāf to be performed in the airspace of the Masjid or upon its roof, even if that roof is higher than the Ka‘bah (the House) itself.
Al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "It [ṭawāf] is valid upon the roof of the Masjid, even if the roof of the Masjid is higher than the House — just as prayer [is valid] upon Mount Abū Qubays despite its elevation above the House. This is the relied-upon (mu‘tamad) position." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.246]
The validity of the tawaf isn`t affected by the pillars and walls standing between the one performing ṭawāf and the House, since the condition is only that the person performing ṭawāf be within the boundaries of the Masjid and outside the boundaries of the Ka‘bah itself.
Ash-Shirbīnī said: "It [ṭawāf] is valid inside the Masjid, even if it is expanded, and even if a barrier stands between the one circumambulating and the House — such as a water-supply structure (saqāyah) or pillars (sawārī)." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 2/P.246]
Accordingly, ṭawāf performed on the upper floors is valid, and the presence of barriers such as pillars and walls during the ṭawāf does not affect its validity. 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.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on someone who wakes up in a state of janābah (major ritual impurity) near the very end of the prayer's designated time, during cold weather — should he heat water in order to perform ghusl, even though the prayer's time will expire as a result, or should he perform tayammum instead?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
If the water is cold, and cannot be used due to fear of harm that is not ordinarily tolerable, or that would result in illness, then in this case it becomes obligatory to heat the water — even if heating it causes the time for Fajr to expire — and no sin is incurred in doing so, due to his valid excuse. He may not resort to tayammum (dry ablution) instead, since water remains available [and merely needs to be heated].
Imam Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) said: "He was asked regarding a person who, if he were to use cold water, would experience harm that permits tayammum, and who has access to something with which he could heat the water — but if he heats it, the prayer's time will expire. Is it obligatory for him to heat it even if the time expires, or should he pray with tayammum within the prescribed time? He answered that it is obligatory for him to heat the water, even if the time for that particular obligatory prayer expires." [Fatāwā ar-Ramlī, Vol.1/P.98]
Imam al-Bājūrī (raḥimahullāh) said in his Ḥāshiyah on Sharḥ Ibn Qāsim (Vol.1/P.173): "And if he fears [harm] from using cold water, and is currently unable to heat it, but knows of a place where firewood is available, such that if he were to go there he would not return until after the prescribed time has expired — what appears [to be the correct position] is that it is obligatory for him to go and seek the firewood, even if the time expires as a result, as this is the position ultimately settled upon by ar-Ramlī, and as related from him by Ibn Qāsim." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
Is it permissible for a woman to shake hands with her brother-in-law?
It is forbidden for the woman to shake hands with her brother-in-law because he isn`t a Mahram (unmarriageable) of hers.
