Is it permissible for one who sacrifices on behalf of another, with the latter's permission, to eat from the sacrifice?
It is permissible for someone who sacrificed on behalf of another with their permission to eat from it with their permission, and they stand in their place (act as their representative) in distributing it.
It is stated in Nihayat al-Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (Vol.8/P.141): "And he—meaning the one sacrificing on his own behalf, provided he has not apostatized—has the right to eat from a voluntary sacrifice and his sacrificial gift; rather, it is recommended. As for an obligatory sacrifice, it is forbidden for him to eat from it, whether it was designated as such initially or as a liability in his dhimmah. And excluded by what has preceded is if he sacrifices on behalf of another, or if he apostatized, then it is not permissible for him to eat from it, just as it is absolutely impermissible to feed a disbeliever from it."(The text I found indicates the impermissibility of eating) ???
And it is stated in Hashiyat al-Jamal ‘ala Sharh al-Manhaj (Vol.5/P.262): "If a person offers a sacrifice on behalf of a living person with their permission, does he act as their representative in distributing it—on the grounds that permission to sacrifice is permission to distribute it—or does it depend on their explicit permission? This requires consideration, but the first view is not far-fetched." And Allah the Almighty knows best.
How to perform the witr prayer in terms of connection (wasl) and separation (fasl)?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
The Witr prayer has several forms that vary in terms of virtue:
The First Form: Separating every two units (rak‘ah) with a Tashahhud and a Taslim (salutation). This is superior to connecting the units, even if it is only a single rak‘ah. This is based on the Hadith of ‘Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her): 'The Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to pray eleven units between the end of the ‘Isha prayer and dawn, performing the Taslim after every two units and performing Witr with a single unit.' (Related by al-Bukhari & Muslim).
The Second Form: Connecting the units with only one final Tashahhud at the very end.
The Third Form: Connecting with two Tashahhuds—meaning reciting the Tashahhud before the final unit without performing the Taslim, then standing to complete the final unit. This form is considered the lowest in rank so that the Witr prayer remains distinct from the obligatory Maghrib prayer, as stated in the Hadith: 'Do not make the Witr resemble the Maghrib prayer.' (Narrated by Al-Daraqutni, who stated its narrators are trustworthy).
It is stated in Bushra al-Karim Sharh al-Muqaddimah al-Hadramiyyah: 'It is permissible to connect [the Witr] with one Tashahhud in the final unit—which is better—or with two Tashahhuds in the last two units, as both methods are established in Sahih Muslim from the actions of the Prophet ﷺ. In the connected method, more than two Tashahhuds are prohibited. Furthermore, separating (al-Fasl) is better than connecting (al-Wasl) if the number of units is the same, because the Hadiths supporting it are more numerous and it involves more devotional actions.' 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 someone who eats or drinks while uncertain about the arrival of dawn, then later finds out that dawn had not yet broken?
If a person does this, their fast remains valid, as it is confirmed that they ate during the night. Similarly, if someone eats while uncertain and remains unsure whether they ate before or after dawn, their fast is still valid. This is based on the maxim of Sharia Law, which states: "Certainty is not removed by doubt." Certainty, here, is the presence of night, and the doubt concerns the arrival of dawn. Therefore, one relies on certainty and disregards doubt.
