What is the ruling of Islamic Law on following the actions of the imam in prayer and how this following is achieved?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The follower (ma'mum) is required to follow his imam in the actions of the prayer. This "following" (mutaba'ah) means that the follower performs each action of the prayer after the imam has begun it but before he has finished it. For example, the follower bows (in ruku') after the imam has reached the position of bowing, then rises after the imam has risen. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "The imam is only appointed to be followed, so when he says the takbir, say the takbir; and when he bows, then bow; and when he prostrates, then prostrate" (agreed upon, i.e., reported by both al-Bukhari and Muslim).
It is stated in Mughni al-Muhtaj (1/505): "Among the conditions of valid congregational prayer (iqtida') is following the imam in the actions of the prayer... meaning that following the imam is obligatory in the physical actions of the prayer, not in its verbal utterances... Complete following (kamal al-mutaba'ah) is achieved when the follower's beginning of an action comes after the imam's beginning of that same action, while the follower's beginning of the action precedes the imam's completion of it" — end of quote, with slight paraphrasing.
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling on the ablution of one who touches his wife without a barrier?
In the Shafi'i school, a man's ablution is invalidated by touching his wife if their skins meet (in any place) without a barrier, whether the touch is intentional or accidental. An exception to this is touching hair, teeth, or nails; these do not invalidate ablution. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
I broke my oath and am now obligated to pay the expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn). Would it be valid to fulfill this by inviting the poor and needy to a meal for them to eat from?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
The expiation for a broken oath (kaffārat al-yamīn) is given to the poor (fuqarā') and needy (masākīn), and it must be given in the form of ownership (tamlīk) transferred to them of the required amount — namely, one mudd of the staple food of the locality, or its equivalent monetary value. It isn`t valid to invite the poor or needy to a meal prepared for them to eat from, as this does not constitute "ownership" (tamlīk) but merely "permission to partake" (ibāḥah).
Imam al-Shirbīnī (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "What is intended is that ownership be transferred to them; therefore, providing them with lunch or dinner [as a meal to eat from] isn`t valid." [Summarized from Mughnī al-Muhtāj,Vol. 5/P.50]. 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.
