What is the ruling on the cessation of blood after (40) days from delivery, but later continued sporadically during two days of Ramadan?
Once postpartum bleeding (Nifas) ceases, and the woman is certain that it won`t reoccur, then she becomes ritually pure and so she is free to make Ghusl (purificatory bath), pray, and fast. If the bleeding reoccurs before fifteen days from its cessation, and before the end of (60) days after delivery, then the ruling on postpartum bleeding is effective, and her fasting and prayer are null and void, thus she must make up the fasting that she missed and not the prayer during those particular days.
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.
Does the fast become invalid if water from rinsing the mouth reaches the stomach while performing ablution?
If water reaches the stomach without the fasting person exceeding normal rinsing or being excessive, their fast remains valid.
However, if they exceed the normal practice or exaggerate in rinsing, causing water to enter the stomach, their fast is invalid.
This is because excessiveness in rinsing is prohibited for a fasting person, as the Prophetﷺ said: "Exaggerate inhaling water during ablution, except when you are fasting." [Narrated by the Four Imams]
Transgression (Ta‘addi) refers to rinsing the mouth more than three times, while exaggeration (Mubalaghah) includes gargling, drawing water deep into the nasal passages, or filling the mouth with water in an unusual manner.
Which is better for a traveler: fasting or breaking the fast?
Fasting is better, unless it causes hardship—in that case, breaking the fast is better.
