What is the ruling on ablution if vaginal discharge is expelled, and is it impure?
If these discharges exit from the external genitalia (apparent part of the vagina), they are not impure and do not invalidate ablution. If they exit from the internal part, they are impure and do invalidate ablution. If it is uncertain whether they are from the internal or external part, they are not impure and do not invalidate ablution.
The apparent part is what becomes visible when sitting, and what the husband's penis reaches during intercourse is considered part of the apparent. The internal part is what is beyond that. And Allah the Almighty 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 obtaining financing from Islamic banks by bringing invoices in prior arrangement with the seller, then taking the cash after the financing is approved — with the purpose of settling debts and buying a car?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It appears from the transaction described that its underlying purpose is to obtain cash through resorting to a legal artifice (ḥīlah/tawarruq-style trick), and it is not permissible to engage in such trickery or to coordinate with the various parties merely to obtain liquidity. This is because such artifices bring the sale closer in reality to a ribā-based (usurious) transaction, even if it outwardly appears otherwise.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Do not commit what the Jews committed, thereby making lawful what Allah has made unlawful through the flimsiest of tricks." This was related by Ibn Baṭṭah in his book Ibṭāl al-Ḥiyal (p. 47), and many scholars have graded it as ḥasan (sound/acceptable).
We have already explained the impermissibility of engaging in such deceptive dealings with Islamic banks in Fatwa No. 516, so please refer to it. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What are the conditions for a valid Udhiyah?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
First: The age of the animal must meet the Sharia requirements. These requirements vary depending on the type of sacrifice:
Camels: Must have completed five years and entered their sixth.
Cows: Must have completed two years and entered their third.
Goats: Must have completed two years and entered their third. As for Sheep, they must have completed one year and entered their second.
Some scholars have permitted goats that have completed one year and entered their second.
The Hanafi school, along with an opinion in the Maliki school, permits sacrificing sheep that are at least six months old, provided they are healthy and physically substantial. According to the Shafi’i school, it is permissible if the sheep sheds its front teeth (ajdha') before reaching one year [Al-Iqna’, by Al-Shirbini (Vol.2/P.588)].
Second: Soundness and freedom from defects. The animal must be free from any defect that causes a decrease in its meat or market value. This is based on the hadith narrated by Al-Bara' bin 'Azib, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
"Four [defects] are not permissible in sacrifices: A one-eyed animal whose blindness is evident, a sick animal whose illness is evident, a lame animal whose lameness is evident, and an emaciated animal that has no marrow in its bones." [Reported by Abu Dawood and Al-Tirmidhi, who graded it as authentic].
These defects are detailed as follows:
Evident Lameness: It is not permissible to sacrifice a lame animal if the lameness is severe enough to prevent it from walking to the pasture or seeking food, as this leads to a decrease in its meat. However, slight lameness that does not hinder its grazing is overlooked.
Evident Blindness (One-eyed): It is not permissible to sacrifice a sheep, cow, or camel that has a white film over its eye blocking light, or one that has lost an eye entirely. Weak vision that does not affect its ability to eat does not prevent the sacrifice from being valid.
Evident Illness: An animal with a clear sickness that prevents it from eating or moving is not valid. This includes severe mange (Jarab) that spoils the meat.
Extreme Emaciation: An animal so thin that there is no marrow left in its bones is invalid. The standard for emaciation that invalidates the sacrifice is that which spoils the quality of the meat to the point that people would find it undesirable even in times of plenty.
Additional Considerations:
These are the defects mentioned in the Prophetic tradition, and any defect that causes emaciation or reduces the meat or value is compared to them by analogy. This includes animals that are mentally unstable (diseased), those with mange, or those with a missing ear. In contrast, a slit or pierced ear does not affect the validity of the sacrifice. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
