What is the due amount of food in expiation for perjury?
It is feeding ten indigent persons: 600 grams (for each) of the average food of your families such as rice, and it is permissible, according to Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal, to give that amount in money if it was more useful to them.
What is the ruling on a person in a state of major impurity (junub) or a menstruating woman (ha'id) reciting the Quran from memory?
It is not permissible for a menstruating woman, a postpartum woman, or a person in a state of major impurity to recite anything from the Quran, whether from memory, from the Quran, from a phone, or a computer. It is also not permissible for them to touch the Quran, based on what was reported from Ali bin Abi Talib that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not prevented from anything regarding the Quran except major impurity (janabah). (Reported by al-Tirmidhi who said it is a hasan sahih hadith). Menstruation and postpartum bleeding are analogous to major impurity (janabah) as they are all major impurities (hadath akbar).
For those mentioned, it is permissible to mention Allah and supplicate even with verses from the Quran, provided they do not intend them as recitation of the Quran, but intend them as remembrance (dhikr) or supplication (du'a). And Allah the Almighty knows best.
What is the ruling on doubting whether one or two prostrations were performed?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a worshiper is in doubt regarding the number of units (rak'ahs) or prostrations (sajdahs) performed, he must build upon the minimum (i.e., assume the lower number) and perform the prostration of forgetfulness (Sujud al-Sahw) before the Salam at the end of the prayer. This is based on the report from ‘Ata’ ibn Yasar that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'When anyone of you is in doubt about his Salat (prayer) and does not know how many he has prayed, three or four (Rak'at) he should cast aside his doubt and base his prayer on what he is sure of. Then, he should perform two prostrations before Taslim (salutation). If he has prayed five Rak'at, they will make his Salat (prayer) an even number for him and if he has prayed exactly four, they (i.e. two prostrations) will be humiliation for the devil..' (Narrated by Abu Dawud).
It is stated in Al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'If one doubts [whether he performed] a bowing (ruku’), a prostration, or a rak'ah, he must perform it and prostrate [for forgetfulness], even if the doubt is removed before the Salam—unless the doubt is removed before he performs what would potentially be an addition. Thus, if he doubts whether he prayed three or four, he is obligated to build upon the minimum.' And Allah the Exalted 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.
