Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, 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 on swearing a false oath by the Holy Quran?
Swearing a false oath by the Holy Quran dips the oath-taker in Hellfire, and one who had done so should turn to Allah in repentance, seek His forgiveness, give back rights to whom they belong, and pay the oath expiation.
What is the correct point at which to raise the hands when standing up for the third rak‘ah (after the middle tashahhud)?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Raising the hands while saying the takbīr [when rising for the third rak‘ah] is a recommended sunnah, and omitting it does not affect the validity of the prayer. The proper time for this is after rising from the middle tashahhud, once one has fully stood up.
It is stated in I‘ānat aṭ-Ṭālibīn (Vol.1/P.158): "His statement, 'and rising from the first tashahhud' — meaning, this manner [of raising the hands] is also a sunnah when he rises from the first tashahhud, that is, when he stands upright from it.
Consider [the question]: when precisely does the raising of the hands begin? Is it at the very start of rising from the first tashahhud, or after he has reached the minimum position of rukū‘ [i.e., once fully upright]? The apparent, [correct] view is the latter — even though the outward wording [of the text] might suggest the former — because at the very start of his rising, he is still relying on both hands [to push himself up, and therefore cannot yet raise them]."
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik (p. 53): "If his prayer extends beyond two rak‘ahs, he sits after them in the iftirāsh position, recites the tashahhud, and sends blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ alone, without [mentioning] his family [at this point]. He then stands while saying the takbīr, supporting himself with his hands; and once he has stood upright, he raises them level with his shoulders." And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
