Is an elderly or chronically ill person required to pay additional fidyah if they delay it beyond the first year?
An elderly person or someone permanently unable to fast must pay fidyah by feeding one needy person for each missed day.
However, if they delay paying fidyah beyond the first year, no additional fidyah is required.
This differs from someone who delays making up missed Ramadan fasts (qada) without a valid excuse until the next Ramadan begins—such a person is required to pay an additional fidyah for the delay.
What is the ruling on swearing an oath by the Prophet ﷺ, and does such an oath take effect according to Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, requiring expiation upon its breach?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Swearing an oath by a created being is disliked (makrūh) in our Shāfiʿī school. Shaykh al-Islām Imām al-Nawawī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "Swearing by a created being is disliked — such as swearing by the Prophet, the Kaʿbah, Jibrīl, the Companions, or the Prophet's family. Al-Shāfiʿī, may Allah have mercy upon him, said: 'I fear that swearing by other than Allah the Almighty may constitute an act of disobedience.' The scholars of the school explained this to mean: that is, something forbidden and sinful — indicating that he had some hesitation in the matter. Al-Imām stated: the established position of the school is that it is categorically not forbidden, but rather disliked. Furthermore, whoever swears by a created being, his oath does not take effect and no expiation (kaffārah) is required if he breaks it." [Rawḍat al-Ṭālibīn wa ʿUmdat al-Muftīn, Vol. 11/P.6]
According to the Ḥanbalī school, however, expiation becomes obligatory upon one who swears by our master the Prophet ﷺ and then breaks his oath. Imām al-Bahūtī al-Ḥanbalī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "No expiation is required for swearing by other than Allah the Almighty, even if the oath is broken — because expiation was made obligatory for swearing by Allah and His attributes, out of reverence for His names, and nothing else is equal to Him in this regard... except in the case of swearing by our Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, for expiation becomes obligatory when one swears by him and then breaks the oath. This was explicitly stated in the narration of Abū Ṭālib, because he is one of the two conditions of the two testimonies of faith by which a disbeliever becomes a Muslim. Ibn ʿAqīl held the view that swearing by any of the other prophets, peace and blessings be upon them all, carries the same ruling." [Sharḥ Muntahā al-Irādāt, Vol. 3/P.441]. And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on a fictitious marriage for the purpose of obtaining citizenship?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no such thing in our noble sharīʿah as a "nominal" or "fictitious" marriage or divorce. Marriage and divorce are among the sacred ordinances of Allah, and it is not permissible to manipulate them or use them as a stratagem to obtain worldly gains.
The foundational purpose of a marriage contract is the permanence and continuity of the relationship between the spouses — to establish a family, and to bring forth righteous offspring. So sacred is this bond that Allah the Almighty Himself described it as a solemn covenant (mīthāq ghalīẓ), saying {what means}: "And if you wish to replace one wife with another and you have given one of them a great amount of wealth, do not take any of it back. Would you take it in injustice and manifest sin? And how could you take it while you have gone in unto each other and they have taken from you a solemn covenant?" [Al-Nisāʾ/ 20–21]
Accordingly, it is not permissible to resort to manipulation and deception in contracts that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has described as a "solemn covenant" — all for the sake of material and worldly benefit. Marriage is built upon permanence and does not admit of a fixed time limit. If a time limit is stipulated in the contract, the contract is rendered invalid by the consensus of the jurists. Similarly, marriage is impermissible when there exists a mutual, concealed intention to limit its duration — even if no time limit is explicitly mentioned in the contract — for this constitutes a form of unlawful circumvention of the sharīʿah. This is to say nothing of the lying and deception that such conduct involves, the prohibition of which needs no elaboration. Lying, deception, and fraud for the purpose of obtaining worldly gains are among the gravest of sins.
If, however, the marriage contract is first concluded in a valid sharʿī manner and then registered civilly, it is sound and fully valid. 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.
