The Jurisprudential Significance of the Ḥadīth: "Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr Prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking..."
"Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking: 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-ḥamdu yuḥyī wa yumītu wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr' ten times — ten good deeds will be recorded for him, ten bad deeds will be erased from him, he will be raised ten levels, he will spend that day in protection from everything disliked and guarded from the devil, and no sin will be able to befall him on that day except associating partners with Allah" — does this noble ḥadīth apply to the imam, and what is meant by "extraneous speech"?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite, immediately after the final salām, the specific remembrance reported in the sunnah to be said before turning away from one's place of prayer. The imam then leaves his praying spot, and the act of "turning" is fulfilled when the imam faces the congregation — even without physically leaving his spot — by positioning his right side toward them and his left side toward the qiblah, and this applies even while he is engaged in supplication.
Al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tuḥfah (Vol.2/P.105): "It is most virtuous for the imam, once he has given the salām, to rise from his place of prayer immediately afterward." He adds that an exception must be made for the remembrances that are specifically required to be recited before he turns away. He then notes, citing Sharḥ al-ʿUbāb: "Yes, an exception to this rising immediately after the salām applies to the Fajr prayer, due to the authentic report that the Prophet ﷺ, when he prayed Fajr, would remain seated until the sun rose." He further cites, from al-Khādim, the ḥadīth concerning one who recites, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer while still in the position of crossing his leg to rise: "Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah..." and the rest of the well-known ḥadīth. He comments that this makes explicit that this particular remembrance is to be recited before the worshipper turns his legs to leave, and the same applies to Maghrib and ʿAṣr, as reported in those contexts as well.
What is meant by "speech" in the relevant ḥadīth is extraneous worldly speech that is not called for after the prayer and for which there is no legitimate excuse. The remembrances reported to be recited upon concluding the prayer, however, do not fall under this category of extraneous speech, since they are themselves required by the sharīʿah.
Al-ʿAllāmah ʿAlī al-Shabrāmalsī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Nihāyah (Vol.1/P.551): "If someone greets a person with salām while he is occupied with reciting this remembrance [i.e., 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh...'], should he return the greeting — without this causing him to forfeit the promised reward, since he is engaged in an obligatory matter — or should he delay returning the greeting until he finishes, this being a legitimate excuse for the delay?" He continues: "I say: the more likely view is the former, and the prohibition on speech is to be understood as applying to extraneous speech for which there is no legitimate excuse. Based on this, should the worshipper give precedence to this remembrance ('Lā ilāha illā Allāh...') or to reciting Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ ('Qul huwa Allāhu aḥad')? This requires consideration, though it is not unlikely that the remembrance takes precedence, given that the Lawgiver urged hastening to it through his words 'while crossing his leg.' This is not considered ordinary speech, since it is not extraneous to what is required after the prayer."
Accordingly, it is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite this remembrance and to give it precedence over the other remembrances of the prayer, ensuring it is said before they move from their place. And Allah the Almighty 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.
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.
There are olive trees within the precincts of the mosque, and my father covers the costs of electricity, water, and other needs of the mosque. Is it permissible for him to take the olive harvest?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If trees and fruit-bearing crops are planted in a mosque for the mosque itself, they may only be spent on the mosque’s interests. If they were planted for the public way (musabbalah), that is, for the general public, then any Muslim who enters the mosque may eat from them. If the planter’s intention is unknown, they are treated like those dedicated for public use, wherever custom has so run.
It is stated in Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj (Vol.6/p.295): “The fruit of a tree planted for the mosque within it is not freely permitted without compensation. Rather, the imam spends its equivalent value on the mosque’s interests. The tree left its planter’s ownership here without any verbal declaration because of the evident indication. The case of planting it for the mosque excludes planting it as musabbalah, in which case eating from it without compensation is permissible, and likewise if his intention is unknown, where custom has so run. The tree may be uprooted from the mosque if the imam sees fit. Indeed, if he makes the plot a mosque while a tree stands in it, the imam may uproot it, even if the endower included it within the endowment (waqf).”
The father is a donor (mutabarriʿ), so he is not entitled to take anything in return for his donation to the mosque.
The Ministry of Awqāf is the body that supervises the affairs of endowments, so it must be consulted and the Sharīʿah and administrative instructions regulating such matters must be considered. And Allah Almighty knows best.
