What is the ruling on one who vowed not to speak to a certain person, then forgot his vow and spoke to him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever swears an oath or makes a vow to abstain from something has a choice: if he wishes, he may keep to his vow, or if he wishes, he may offer the expiation of an oath (kaffārat yamīn). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The expiation for a vow is the expiation for an oath.” Narrated by Muslim. This type of vow is called a nadhr al-lajāj (a vow made in stubbornness or anger).
If a person makes a vow and then forgets it, nothing is due from him, for forgetfulness is among the excuses that lift legal responsibility (taklīf) from a Muslim. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Actions are judged only by intentions, and every person will have only what he intended.” [Narrated by al-Bukhārī]. There is no intention for the one who forgets or errs. It is also based on the report: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my Ummah mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do.” Narrated by Ibn Mājah and others, and graded authentic by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (p. 243), one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “Whoever swears, [for example], ‘I will not enter the house,’ and then enters it forgetfully, ignorantly, under compulsion, or being carried, he does not break his oath.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on offering the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) using the wealth of a minor or a legally incompetent person (safīh)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible for the guardian (walī) of an orphan or a legally incompetent person (safīh) to offer the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) on behalf of the minor or the safīh using their wealth, because the guardian is charged with exercising caution over their wealth and is prohibited from giving any of it away voluntarily, and the udḥiyah is a voluntary act of charity (tabarru'). The guardian may, however, offer the sacrifice using his own personal wealth. And Allah, the Most High, 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.
Is it required to fast consecutively when making up missed fasts?
● It is preferable to fast consecutively when making up missed fasts if they were missed due to a valid excuse.
● However, if the fasts were missed without a valid excuse, then fasting consecutively is obligatory, because making up the missed fasts in this case must be done immediately.
Separating the makeup fasts goes against the obligation of immediacy, but if someone does so, their fasts will still be valid. However, they will be sinful for delaying without a valid reason.
