I have a brother who is harsh in his dealings [with me], and many problems have occurred between us, and I do not intend to reconcile with him. What is the ruling of Islamic Law on that?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
It is not permissible for a Muslim to abandon or boycott his fellow Muslim brother for more than three days. This is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: "It is not lawful for a Muslim to forsake his brother for more than three [days], meeting each other but one turns away and the other turns away, and the better of the two is the one who initiates the greeting (salam)." (Reported by al-Bukhari.)
A Muslim must strive to end such estrangement (hajr), so as not to fall under the prohibition mentioned in the hadith. If he takes the initiative to reconcile but the other party does not respond, then there is no sin upon him. We remind [ourselves] of the saying of Allah, the Exalted: "And let them pardon and overlook. Do you not wish that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (An-Nur/22). 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.
What are the legal and religious consequences for a charitable organization in the event that a sacrificial animal is damaged or spoiled after slaughter?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Charitable organizations entrusted with slaughtering sacrificial animals (uḍḥiyyah) and distributing their meat on behalf of their owners are obligated to safeguard the meat from spoilage, damage, theft, and any other harm. This is because such organizations act as agents (wukalā') on behalf of those offering the sacrifice, and an agent holds what is entrusted to them in trust (amānah) — whether they receive a wage for their work or act on a voluntary basis.
If the sacrificial animal is damaged after slaughter during the processes of packaging, transportation, or storage due to negligence or oversight — whether on the part of the organization's own staff overseeing the operation, or on the part of third parties contracted by the organization such as transport or shipping companies — then liability falls upon the negligent party, who is required to compensate for the value of the sacrifice. It is not permissible to cover such compensation from the organization's other donor funds.
However, if the damage to the sacrificial animal occurs without any negligence in its preservation and storage on the part of any party involved in the transportation, shipping, or storage process, and is instead attributable to force majeure circumstances beyond their control, then no financial liability is borne by any party in such a case. And Allah Almighty knows best.
Are school exams a valid excuse for breaking the fast in Ramadan?
School and university exams are not considered a valid excuse for breaking the fast, as most students take their exams while fasting without experiencing extreme hardship. Fasting does not conflict with exam preparation, and a Muslim seeks strength in obedience to Allah for both worldly and spiritual matters.
