What is the ruling on making up the regular pre-Dhuhr *sunnah* (*al-sunnah al-rātibah al-qabliyyah*) for one who missed it in the Dhuhr prayer?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Every timed supererogatory prayer (nāfilah) is recommended (mandūb) to be made up if its time passes. As for a nāfilah that precedes the obligatory prayer, performing it before the farḍ is a matter of proper etiquette (adab); if it is prayed after the farḍ, it is still considered adāʾ (performed within its time). If the time of the farḍ has ended, it is recommended to make up (qaḍāʾ) the nāfilah for one who did not pray it.
Whoever misses the sunnah before Dhuhr, whether with an excuse or without one, it is recommended for him to pray it after the obligatory Dhuhr prayer, within the time of Dhuhr, even at its end, and it counts as adāʾ, not qaḍāʾ. It is also recommended for one who missed the pre-Dhuhr sunnah to pray it before the post-Dhuhr sunnah, in observance of the proper order. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik wa ʿUddat al-Nāsik (Vol.1/p.60): "What precedes the obligatory prayer has the same time as the obligatory prayer, and performing it before the farḍ is a matter of etiquette; after it, it is adāʾ. What follows the farḍ has its time begin with the performance of the farḍ and end with the end of its time."
If the time of Dhuhr has ended, it is recommended for him to pray both the pre- and post-Dhuhr sunnahs, and they count as qaḍāʾ for both. It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (1/61): "Every timed nafl, such as the ʿĪd prayer, Duha, Witr, and the regular rawātib of the obligatory prayers, if it is missed, it is recommended to make it up forever." And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible to make ablution without answering the call of nature after waking up?
Washing front and back openings (Istinjaa`) is not a condition for the validity of ablution because it is done to remove Najaasah (impurity), thus if there is no Najaasah, there is no need for that, and then it is permissible to make ablution without answering the call of nature. However, prayer is invalidated if there is Najaasah on the anus ,or the front opening, so it (Najaasah) must be removed for the prayer to become valid, and not the ablution.
What is the ruling on men wearing rings (those made of silver and of other metals, such as iron), and are there conditions for men wearing rings?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is sunnah for men to wear a silver ring on the right hand, following the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). It is reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Anas ibn Mālik (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) took a silver ring and had “Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh” engraved on it. He said: “I have taken a ring of silver and had ‘Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh’ engraved on it, so let no one engrave the like of its engraving.”
It is a condition that the silver ring not exceed the size customary in the local norm (ʿurf). If it does, that is extravagance (isrāf). A ring made of a metal other than silver, such as iron or copper, is permissible to wear without disapproval (karāhah), except gold, which is forbidden (ḥarām) for a man to wear.
It is stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.1/p.586): “It is permissible, without disapproval, to wear a ring of iron or lead. It is sunnah for a man to wear a silver ring on the little finger of his right or left hand. Wearing it on the right is better, and it is permissible on the left, and on both together.”
It is also stated in Mughnī al-Muḥtāj (Vol.2/p.97): “It is lawful for him, that is, the man, and likewise the khunthā (person of indeterminate sex), indeed all the more so, to wear a ring of silver, by consensus (ijmāʿ), because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) took a ring of silver, narrated by the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhārī and Muslim). Wearing it is in fact sunnah, whether on the right or the left, though the right is better according to the sound position, as stated in the chapter on clothing in al-Rawḍah… The Shāfiʿī jurists did not specify the permitted size of the ring, and they probably relied on custom (ʿurf), that is, the custom of that country and the habit of people of his standing in it. Whatever exceeds that is extravagance, as they said regarding a woman’s anklet. This is the reliable position (al-muʿtamad).” And Allah 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.
