Must a person refrain from eating for the rest of the day if they break a fast of a vow (nadhr) or a make up fast (qada)?
Whoever observes a vowed fast (nadhr) or a makeup fast (qada) is prohibited from breaking it without a valid excuse. If they break it without a legitimate reason, they are sinful.
However, they are not required to refrain from eating for the rest of the day, because such restraint is only required out of respect for the month of Ramadan, not for other types of fasting.
Is it permissible for a wife to boycott (not to attend to his different needs) her husband?
It isn`t permissible for the woman to boycott her husband unless he is the reason behind that, and it is recommended that both spouses seek the advice of righteous people to make reconciliation.
Does the use of suppositories, enemas, or hemorrhoid creams affect the validity of fasting?
Enemas and suppositories inserted through either of the two private passages invalidate the fast. This ruling is based on the statement of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him): "Breaking the fast occurs from what enters (the body), not from what exits." [Reported by Al-Bayhaqi in As-Sunan Al-Kubra]
His generalization regarding anything entering the body indicates that it invalidates fasting, whether it is nutritious or not, as even non-nutritious substances resemble food in form.
It is recommended to use them before Fajr or after Iftar. However, if a person must use them while fasting, they should continue refraining from food and drink for the rest of the day and make up for that day later.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
