My brother works in a conventional bank and gave me one of the gifts distributed to bank employees — what is the ruling on accepting it?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
There is no objection to accepting such gifts, because the physical gift itself does not carry any inherent prohibition — unlike stolen property. Sin does not transfer or extend to the one who receives the gift, for Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "And no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another." [Al-Anʿām/164]
The evidence for this is that the Prophet ﷺ himself ate from the food of the Jews, conducted transactions with them, and purchased from them — and it is well known that their wealth was intermingled with ribā. Similarly, the wealth of conventional ribā-based banks is a mixture of the lawful and the unlawful.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states: "It is not forbidden to transact with one whose wealth is predominantly unlawful, nor to eat from it — as al-Nawawī affirmed in al-Majmūʿ." [Tuḥfat al-Muḥtāj, Vol. 9/P.389] And Allah the Almighty knows best.
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 on one who vowed not to speak to a certain person, then forgot his vow and spoke to him?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Whoever swears an oath or makes a vow to abstain from something has a choice: if he wishes, he may keep to his vow, or if he wishes, he may offer the expiation of an oath (kaffārat yamīn). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “The expiation for a vow is the expiation for an oath.” Narrated by Muslim. This type of vow is called a nadhr al-lajāj (a vow made in stubbornness or anger).
If a person makes a vow and then forgets it, nothing is due from him, for forgetfulness is among the excuses that lift legal responsibility (taklīf) from a Muslim. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Actions are judged only by intentions, and every person will have only what he intended.” [Narrated by al-Bukhārī]. There is no intention for the one who forgets or errs. It is also based on the report: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned for my Ummah mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are compelled to do.” Narrated by Ibn Mājah and others, and graded authentic by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim.
It is stated in ʿUmdat al-Sālik (p. 243), one of the books of the Shāfiʿī school: “Whoever swears, [for example], ‘I will not enter the house,’ and then enters it forgetfully, ignorantly, under compulsion, or being carried, he does not break his oath.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
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.
