What is the ruling on someone who intends to travel to Jeddah for two days — must he enter iḥrām from his place of residence [i.e., before passing the mīqāt]?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Whoever is firmly resolved in his intention to perform ‘Umrah before setting out on his journey, it is unlawful for him to pass beyond his country's mīqāt (the designated boundary point for entering the state of iḥrām) without entering iḥrām. If he does so, he must return to the mīqāt to enter iḥrām from there, provided he has not yet begun performing the rites of the pilgrimage — in which case nothing further is required of him. However, if he does not return, he must offer a sacrifice (sheep/goat), to be distributed among the poor of the Ḥaram.
It is stated in at-Tanbīh fī al-Fiqh ash-Shāfi‘ī (p. 71): "Whoever, intending to perform the rites [of ‘Umrah or Ḥajj], passes beyond the mīqāt and enters iḥrām only after it, must offer a sacrifice. However, if he returns to the mīqāt before beginning any of the rites, the sacrifice is waived from him."
Accordingly: whoever is firmly resolved in his intention to perform ‘Umrah before setting out on his journey must enter iḥrām at the mīqāt of his country through which he passes. Whoever fails to do so, passing beyond the mīqāt without entering iḥrām, and does not return, has sinned, and must repent to Allah, the Exalted; and he must offer a sacrifice, to be distributed among the poor of the Ḥaram. And Allah, the Exalted, 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 waiving a debt owed by a debtor and counting it toward zakāh?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Waiving a debt owed by a debtor, with the intention of counting it toward zakāh, does not fulfill the zakāh obligation. Rather, it constitutes an ordinary act of charity, for which Allah rewards the giver generously — since one of the conditions for the validity of zakāh is that the person paying it must form the intention of zakāh at the actual moment the wealth is paid out. In this case, the debt has already been established as a standing obligation upon the borrower, so it is not valid to simply redirect the intention toward zakāh after the fact.
It is preferable, instead, for the creditor to first collect the debt from the debtor, and then return to him the amount of money he is required to pay as zakāh — or a portion of it — if the debtor happens to fall under one of the eight categories that Allah, the Exalted, has commanded be given from zakāh.
It is stated in ‘Umdat as-Sālik, from the books of the Shāfi‘ī school: "If someone gives [money] to a poor person, stipulating that the recipient return it to him in payment of a debt owed to him, or says, 'I am making what you owe me into zakāh, so take it [as such]' — this is not valid. But if he gives it to him with the [unstated] intention that the recipient will use it to repay him, or says, 'Repay what you owe me, so that I may [then separately] give it to you as zakāh,' or the debtor himself says, 'Give it to me, so that I may [then] repay you with it' — this is valid, and there is no binding obligation for the recipient to actually fulfill this [informal understanding]." 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.
