As for those who fast, here is a heartfelt advice that will help you fulfill this noble and blessed act of worship, which Allah the Almighty has made one of the pillars of Islam.
When Ramadan arrives, and you step onto its threshold, it is fitting for you to remember a great blessing that Allah, the Most Exalted and Majestic, has bestowed upon you. This blessing is that He has granted you life to witness the month of Ramadan.
How many hearts longed and yearned to experience Ramadan, but fate intervened, and their time came to an end. They are now beneath the earth, buried under dust and soil. They had wished to witness it, but their time was cut short.
If Allah, may He have mercy on you, has allowed you to set foot into the sacred days of Ramadan, then praise Him abundantly. Let your tongue and heart proclaim:
اللهم لك الحمد أن بلغتني شهر رمضان لا أحصي ثناءً عليك جلَّ شأنك
"O Allah, all praise belongs to You for allowing me to reach Ramadan. I can never praise You enough as You deserve. How exalted is Your Majesty!" Once this blessing settles in your heart, and you recognize and acknowledge it, Allah will grant you even more. The first step of gratitude is the first step toward receiving Allah’s mercy, for no servant expresses gratitude for a blessing except that Allah increases it for them.
The believer’s heart moves with sincere gratitude, and from their tongue flows true thankfulness, especially when they reflect upon those deprived of this opportunity. They remember their brothers and sisters suffering in hardship, those lying on hospital beds, prevented by illness and ailments from fasting and standing in prayer.
When you feel your strength, when you see your body healthy and well, adorned with the blessing of sound health, then remember the grace of Allah upon you. Thank Allah for allowing you to witness Ramadan, and ask Him to aid you in obedience and turning back to Him in sincerity.
Fasting in Ramadan is one of the pillars of Islam, and it has been prescribed for great reasons, the most important of which is the piety of Allah, the Almighty. Allah has made fasting obligatory upon seeing the crescent of Ramadan. Among the issues related to the sighting: it is established by the testimony of a just Muslim man. One of the questions is whether the sighting of the crescent is specific to each country, or whether all Muslims must fast upon the sighting of the crescent in any country. Scholars have differed on this issue, as detailed in this material.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds. May peace and blessings be upon the most noble of prophets and messengers, our master Muhammad, and upon his family and companions, all of them.
To proceed: The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "The Book of Fasting." The definition of the book and the terminology used by the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, has been explained earlier. The meaning of his saying: "The Book of Fasting" is that he will mention a number of issues and rulings related to the act of fasting. After he has concluded the explanation of the rulings of prayer and the rulings of zakat, he began explaining the rulings of fasting.
This arrangement is based on the teachings of the Shari'ah, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) placed zakat alongside prayer and followed it with fasting, as is stated in the hadith of ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in the authentic collections.
Fasting in the Arabic language: Its original meaning is "to withhold" or "to restrain." For example, one says, "He fasted from speaking" if he refrained from it, and "He fasted from traveling" if he stopped. "He fasted from eating and drinking" if he refrained from both.
The root meaning of fasting in the Arabic language is restraint or withholding. This is reflected in Allah’s words:
فَقُولِي إِنِّي نَذَرْتُ لِلرَّحْمَنِ صَوْمًا فَلَنْ أُكَلِّمَ الْيَوْمَ إِنسِيًّا
"Say, 'Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful a fast, so I will not speak today to any man'" (Maryam, 19:26), meaning to abstain from speaking. They also say, "The horses fasted," meaning they refrained from neighing.
An example of this can be found in the poet's words:
خيل صيام وخيل غير صائمة تحت العجاج وأخرى تعلك اللُجم
"Horses fasting, and others not, Under the dust, some gnaw the lot."
In this, the term "horses fasting" means they are refraining from neighing.
As for fasting in Shari'ah, it is defined as a specific abstention by a specific person with a specific intention.
When the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, say "fasting is a specific abstention," it is because "abstention" (إمساك) can be used in a general sense. For example, one might say: "He abstained," which could mean refraining from anything—whether eating, drinking, speaking, or traveling. However, when we say "specific abstention," it implies that this abstention is restricted to certain acts, namely refraining from the desires of the stomach and private parts. Thus, the fasting person abstains from food, drink, and anything similar, as well as from sexual desires. This is rooted in Allah's words in the Hadith Qudsi: "He leaves his food, drink, and desires for My sake."
Therefore, the essence of fasting is abstention from these things, and thus the scholars used the phrase "specific abstention" to avoid ambiguity, which could arise if they had simply said "abstention from invalidators" (things that break the fast).
From a specific person: This refers to the person who is accountable [before Allah] (المكلف), and a child is trained in fasting, as mentioned in the hadith of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), where they would encourage children to play until midday. Fasting is not obligatory for the child, as they are not yet accountable, but it is obligatory for the one who is accountable, and this will be clarified later.
With a specific intention: The intention (niyyah) has two meanings. The first is the intention of worship and seeking closeness to Allah through sincere actions. This is what the scholars call ikhlaas (sincerity), meaning that the intention is pure and directed solely towards Allah, not for any worldly gain.
When the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, say "with a specific intention," they are not referring to ikhlaas (sincerity) because the act of worship is inherently understood. In the context of defining fasting, the purpose is clear: it refers to whether one intends the obligatory fast (such as the fast of Ramadan, or the expiation for an oath or killing) or the voluntary fast (such as the fast of 'Ashoorah, 'Arafah, or Mondays and Thursdays).
Thus, when they say "with a specific intention," they mean to determine what kind of fast the person intends in accordance with the Shari'ah—whether it is a specific obligation, such as Ramadan, or an expiation, or a voluntary fast. For example, if the intention is to fast for Ramadan, then it is a specific obligation, while fasting on 'Ashooraa' or for the Mondays and Thursdays is a specific voluntary act.
The scholars also clarify that if a person’s intention for fasting is for physical health, like fasting to strengthen the body or lose weight, this does not count as a Shar'i fast, since it is not done for the sake of Allah. However, if someone intends to fast one day and break their fast the next (such as intermittent fasting), and the intention for the health benefits is secondary or incidental, it does not affect the validity of the fast as long as the primary purpose is for worship, as Allah says:
وَإِذْ يَعِدُكُمُ اللَّهُ إِحْدَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ أَنَّهَا لَكُمْ وَتَوَدُّونَ أَنَّ غَيْرَ ذَاتِ الشَّوْكَةِ تَكُونُ لَكُمْ
"And when Allah promised you one of the two groups would be yours, and you wished that the one without soldiers would be yours" (Al-Anfaal, 8:7). Scholars have explained that if a worldly intention occurs as a secondary purpose, it does not detract from the primary intention of worship.
The intended meaning is that the true essence of fasting in Shari'ah is specific to this particular form.
Allah, the Almighty, made fasting obligatory through His Book, the Quran, and on the tongue of His Messenger, peace be upon him. The Muslim community has unanimously agreed that fasting during Ramadan is one of the obligatory acts of worship prescribed by Allah.
As for the evidence for its obligation from the Book of Allah, His statement:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ
"O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting" (Al-Baqarah, 2:183). The word "decreed" (كُتِبَ) means "obligated". So, when Allah says, "decreed upon you is fasting," it means that fasting has been made obligatory and required.
The Sunnah also affirms the obligation of fasting, as in the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Fast when you see it (the crescent) and break your fast when you see it." In Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim, it is narrated from 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: "Islam is built on five pillars: the testimony that there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establishing the prayer, giving the zakat, and fasting in Ramadan." In this hadith, the Prophet explicitly mentioned fasting during Ramadan as one of the core pillars of Islam.
Additionally, in the Musnad of Ahmad, it is narrated that a man with disheveled hair entered the masjid of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and asked about Islam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied: "That you testify that there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, give the zakat, and fast during Ramadan."
These texts clearly indicate that fasting during Ramadan is obligatory. The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, have agreed that fasting in Ramadan is a fundamental pillar of Islam and one of the obligatory acts that Allah has commanded His slaves to observe.
Initially, fasting on the day of 'Ashooraa' was made obligatory for the people. Then, fasting on the day of 'Ashooraa' was abrogated by fasting during the month of Ramadan. Some scholars have said that, rather, fasting three days every month (the white days) was made obligatory first, and then it was abrogated by fasting in Ramadan. The correct view is the first one, which is that people were initially required to fast on the day of 'Ashooraa' as an obligation. This is supported by the hadith of Mu'aawiyah in the Saheeh, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ascended the pulpit and said: "Indeed, Allah has made it obligatory for you to fast this day at this time." So, fasting on the day of 'Ashooraa' was made obligatory, and then it was abrogated by fasting in the month of Ramadan.
This kind of abrogation is one of the types of abrogation, specifically abrogating the lighter (lesser) with the heavier. Abrogation is divided into two categories:
Abrogation with a replacement can either be:
An example of an equal replacement is the abrogation of the direction towards al-Quds (Jerusalem) with the direction towards the Ka'bah, as both are acts of Qiblah (direction of prayer), even though the virtue of the Ka'bah is greater than that of al-Quds. This is referred to as abrogation with an equal replacement.
Abrogation of the lighter with the heavier was rejected by some scholars of usool (principles), who argued that Shari'ah is a law of mercy and that the lighter should not be abrogated by the heavier. However, the correct view is that the lighter can be abrogated by the heavier, as evidenced by the obligation of fasting during the month of Ramadan. Originally, fasting was required for just one day, and it was abrogated with a requirement of fasting for thirty days. Allah made it obligatory for people to fast an entire month, which serves as proof that abrogating the lighter with the heavier is permissible.
It is also possible for the heavier to be abrogated by the lighter, which happens often, as in the case of a single person fighting ten, then being replaced by the ruling of fighting two people instead.
The abrogation of fasting 'Ashooraa' is considered by scholars as an example of the abrogation of the lighter with the heavier, as it was replaced by the obligation of fasting for thirty days (with Ramadan), which is heavier than fasting just one day.
The obligation to fast during the month of Ramadan was established in the second year of the Hijrah, specifically on the second day of Ramadan. It is said that this occurred two nights after the month of Sha'ban in the second year. Allah made fasting in the month of Ramadan obligatory for the Muslims, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fasted nine full Ramadans. This second year was also the year in which the Battle of Badr took place.
The scholars have said that Allah, the Almighty, prescribed fasting during Ramadan for great and noble purposes, the greatest and most significant of which is the sincerity it cultivates towards Allah’s Noble Face. When a person becomes accustomed to something and it becomes a habit for them, their soul gets trained to either pursue good or evil, depending on what they have been accustomed to. If they are accustomed to good, they will incline toward good; but if they are accustomed to evil (Allah forbid), they will incline toward evil.
One of the greatest wisdoms and most honorable aspects of fasting is that it trains a person to be sincere in worship to Allah alone. The reason for this is that fasting is one of the most concealed acts of worship. A person may appear to be fasting in front of others, but they could secretly break their fast in private. Therefore, when a person fasts, they are essentially being trained by this act of worship to seek only the pleasure of Allah. For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reported a Hadith Qudsi in which Allah, the Exalted, says: "All the deeds of the son of Adam are for him, except fasting; it is for Me, and I will reward for it." The scholars have explained that the phrase "it is for Me" means that fasting is an act performed purely for the sake of Allah, without any external display.
The secret to a person’s strength lies in overcoming their own desires. If you want to see a person who is truly strong and able to worship with ease and comfort after the help of Allah, look at one who has mastered their desires and made their soul obedient to them, not the other way around. Allah, the Almighty, alluded to this in His words:
وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَى
"And as for the one who feared the position of his Lord and restrained his soul from desire" (an-Naazi'aat, 79:40). When your soul is under your command and not the other way around, you have gained much goodness, and your soul will respond to obedience to Allah. You command it, and it obeys. However, the disaster occurs when the situation is reversed, and the soul controls you rather than the other way around.
It is as if, when a person fasts, their soul is placed under their control. The soul desires the pleasures of eating, drinking, and intimacy, yet the person restrains it and prevents it. This strengthens the person’s mastery over their own self. This principle applies to many acts of worship. For example, a person may desire sleep, but when the call to Fajr prayer comes, they leave the comfort of their sleep and obey the command of Allah. They conquer their own desires, and once they conquer themselves, their soul becomes more responsive to other commands throughout the day.
Similarly, when the desire for food and drink arises, Allah's command to abstain from them during fasting comes, and the person obeys. Then the desire for wealth arises, and Allah's command to give zakat comes, so the person gives it. Likewise, the desire for family, children, and homeland arises, and the command to leave them behind and travel to perform the Hajj to Allah’s Sacred House comes, and the person goes.
When a person removes their soul from following their desires and brings it under their control, they can command it, and it obeys. They can forbid it, and it refrains.
Therefore, people are divided into three categories: the first category is those whose desires are under their command, and they are the happy ones. Allah refers to these fortunate ones in His words:
وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَى * فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ هِيَ الْمَأْوَى
"And as for the one who feared the position of his Lord and restrained his soul from desires, indeed, Paradise will be their refuge." (An-Naazi'aat, 79:40-41).
The Second Category: Those whose desires overpower them. Allah, the Almighty, alluded to this category in His saying:
أَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَهَهُ هَوَاهُ
"Have you seen the one who has taken as his god his own desire?" (Al-Furqaan, 25:43). This person, may Allah protect us, does not care where they perish in the valleys of this world. Therefore, you may find some people of desires, when you advise them, saying, "My brother, this is forbidden, it is not allowed," respond with: "I know it is forbidden and not allowed, but I cannot leave it."
What they mean by saying they cannot leave it is that they have reached a point where they command their soul, but it does not obey. Their desires now command them, and their passions dictate their actions. May Allah grant us safety and health.
The Third Category: These are the ones who mix good deeds with bad ones. For these people, the matter lies with Allah, the Almighty. If He punishes them, it is by His justice; if He pardons them, it is by His pure grace. These are the ones who sometimes overpower their desires, and other times their desires overpower them. They are the ones who mix good deeds with bad ones. When their desires are controlled, they are on the right path, but when their desires control them, they are on the wrong path.
Thus, none of them is secure from death coming to them while they are following their desires, nor from it coming while they are obeying their Lord. Therefore, people like this are in danger, unless Allah, the Almighty, embraces them with His mercy.
The point is: Fasting nurtures the ability to control desires, so that the soul becomes responsive to guidance. The scholars have said that the one who abstains from food, drink, and lawful intimacy (which Allah has made permissible for him) is more capable, by Allah's grace, of restraining himself from the unlawful. If a person can refrain for thirty days from food, drink, and sexual desire, he will, by the will of Allah, be able to avoid the forbidden when his desires call him toward it.
Fasting brings much benefit. It reminds the rich of the poor and needy. When a person experiences hunger and thirst, even if he knows that at the end of the day he will find food and drink, it causes him to remember the poor who have no access to food or drink. This is why it is said that fasting has a great benefit for the individual in making them remember the vulnerable, especially if they are among the rich and wealthy.
The wealthy may forget their weaker and poorer brothers because of their abundance. As Allah says:
كَلَّا إِنَّ الإِنسَانَ لَيَطْغَى * أَنْ رَآهُ اسْتَغْنَى
"No! Indeed, man transgresses * When he sees himself self-sufficient." (Al-Alaq, 96:6-7). When a person feels wealthy, they become arrogant. But when they experience hunger and thirst like the poor do, it compels them to remember and show compassion toward those in need.
Fasting reminds us of Allah, the Exalted, and of the Hereafter. For this reason, some of the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, would weep when midday approached, as they would recall the moment when they stand before Allah, the intensity of the heat, and the great thirst of the people on the plains of the Day of Judgment.
For these great wisdoms and noble goals, Allah, the Almighty, legislated fasting and declared it a means to attain the greatest and most beloved thing to Him, which is taqwa (God-consciousness). Allah, the Exalted, said:
كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ
"Fasting has been prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you, that you may attain taqwa." (Al-Baqarah, 2:183). This means: He has made fasting a means to achieve taqwa. There is nothing that a person can carry from this world more beloved to Allah than taqwa, as He says:
وَتَزَوَّدُوا فَإِنَّ خَيْرَ الزَّادِ التَّقْوَى
"And take provisions, but indeed, the best provision is taqwa." (Al-Baqarah, 2:197).
Thus, if fasting increases taqwa, it means that it enhances two things:
In the beginning, when fasting was made obligatory, a person would fast from dawn until sunset. Once the sun set, they could break their fast. However, if they slept—even if only for a moment after sunset—eating and drinking became forbidden to them until the following day. This was the original ruling of fasting. Later, Allah made it easier for the believers by saying:
أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ لَيْلَةَ الصِّيَامِ الرَّفَثُ إِلَى نِسَائِكُمْ
"It has been made lawful for you to have relations with your wives during the nights of fasting" (al-Baqarah, 2:187), and also:
وَكُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكُمُ الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنَ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ مِنَ الْفَجْرِ
"And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread of night" (Al-Baqarah, 2:187).
The reason for this change is related to the story of a companion who fainted after coming home from his work in the fields. When he returned at the end of the day, he asked his wife for food. She went to prepare it for him, but he was overcome by exhaustion and fell asleep. When she returned, she found him asleep and exclaimed, "Woe to you! You slept?" The next day, he woke up feeling drained and collapsed by midday. Allah, in His mercy, alleviated this difficulty for His servants, which is an example of the abrogation of the more difficult ruling with the lighter one.
Allah made the fasting obligation easier by allowing it to be from the true dawn until sunset, and this remains the established ruling for this ummah until the Day of Judgment.
In previous nations, fasting meant abstaining from speech, as mentioned by Maryam when she said:
إِنِّي نَذَرْتُ لِلرَّحْمَنِ صَوْمًا فَلَنْ أُكَلِّمَ الْيَوْمَ إِنسِيًّا
"Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful a fast, so I will not speak today to any man" (Maryam, 19:26). There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding the Ayah:
كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ
"Fasting has been prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you" (Al-Baqarah, 2:183). Some scholars say that the similarity in the Ayah refers to the obligation of fasting itself, meaning that we were made obligated to fast just as those before us were, even though there is a difference in the details of fasting. Other scholars say that initially, the fasting obligation was the same as the one for the People of the Book, but later it was abrogated.
His statement: "The fast of Ramadan is obligatory by the sighting of its crescent"—this obligation that the author points out is in the sense of it being a mandatory act, for which one will be rewarded for fulfilling it and punished for neglecting it. If someone intentionally breaks their fast during Ramadan, even if it is for just one day, they will not receive the reward of that day, even if they fast for the rest of their life.
This means that Allah will not grant them the reward for that day, even if they fast the entire year. However, they must make up that day, because Allah has made fasting the entire month obligatory upon us, and this obligation is not lifted without evidence. As for the hadith: "Whoever breaks a day of Ramadan, even if they fast for the rest of their life, they will not make up for it," it is meant as a warning and is expressed in an exaggerated manner, which is common in similar sayings, such as the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "Hajj is 'Arafah," which does not mean that 'Arafah is the only part of the pilgrimage.
This means that Hajj is not only performed in 'Arafah alone, but this statement is made in an exaggerated manner. Similarly, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "The fast of the whole year will not make up for the fast of a day that was broken intentionally," it means that if someone deliberately breaks their fast, they will not earn the reward of that day, regardless of how much they fast afterward. However, if someone breaks their fast due to a valid excuse, and they make up for the missed day, it is as if they have fasted the entire month of Ramadan. This is because there was an excuse for their breaking the fast.
If there is no valid excuse, Allah will not grant them the same reward as someone who was excused.
As for the notion that the obligation is completely lifted, this is a weak opinion and contradicts the basic principle. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) clearly taught us that duties and obligations are mandatory and that the rights of Allah are a debt upon the person. As mentioned in the authentic hadith: "The debt of Allah is most deserving of being paid." This is a clear and explicit text indicating that if a person neglects an obligation, they have a debt to Allah that must be fulfilled. Therefore, even if the person fails to perform their duty, they are still obligated to make up for it. Thus, the original rule remains that the person must be held accountable for making up the missed fast of Ramadan.
And his statement: "Ramadan" — scholars differ in their interpretation of its origin. Some scholars say that it is derived from the Arabic word "ramdha" (الرمضاء), which refers to intense heat. The reason for this is that the Arabs used to call this month in the Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era) "نائق" referring to the ninth month in the lunar calendar. When the fasting of Ramadan was prescribed by Allah, it coincided with a year of intense heat and hardship, and thus it came to be called Ramadan.
The second opinion is that it is named Ramadan because it "burns away" or "eradicates" sins. There is a hadith from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him) in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is reported to have said: "Ramadan is named as such because it burns away sins," meaning: it burns and removes them, but this is a weak hadith, and it contains a narrator who is known to be a liar, so it cannot be relied upon.
The third opinion is that Ramadan is one of the names of Allah Almighty. There is also a weak hadith to support this view.
The most correct of these opinions is the first one: that Ramadan was named after "الرمضاء" (intense heat) because when Allah made fasting obligatory, it coincided with a time of intense heat.
And in his statement, "Fasting Ramadan is obligatory," there are two opinions among the scholars. Some scholars say: It is not permissible to say, "Ramadan has come," "Ramadan has passed," or "Ramadan is halfway through." They argue this based on the hadith that was previously referenced: "Do not say: Ramadan has come, for it is one of the names of Allah." However, this hadith is weak.
The correct view is that it is permissible to say, "Ramadan has come," "Ramadan has passed," or "Ramadan is halfway through," because the Sunnah indicates the permissibility of this. Imam al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) even included this in his Saheeh. The evidence for its permissibility is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in the Saheeh, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "When Ramadan enters, the doors of Paradise are opened."
Furthermore, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said in an authentic hadith: "Whoever fasts Ramadan with faith and seeking reward, his past sins will be forgiven." Similarly, he said: "Whoever stands in prayer during Ramadan with faith and seeking reward, his past sins will be forgiven." Based on these texts, it is clear that it is permissible to say: "Ramadan has come," "Ramadan has passed," or "Ramadan is halfway through." There is no harm in using such expressions. However, some scholars recommend adding the word "month" (shahr) and saying "the month of Ramadan," because Allah specifically refers to it as a month:
شَهْرُ رَمَضَانَ الَّذِي أُنزِلَ فِيهِ الْقُرْآنُ
"The month of Ramadan, in which the Qur'an was revealed..." (Al-Baqarah 2:185). They said: It is preferable to add the word "month," and this is considered an act of completeness and recommendation, not something obligatory or mandatory.
The statement "Fasting Ramadan is obligatory upon the sighting of its crescent" (with the "bā’" indicating causality) means that fasting becomes obligatory because of the sighting of the crescent. Months can be divided into solar months and lunar months. The lunar months consist of twelve months, which make up the lunar year. These are the months upon which Shar'i rulings are based, and not on solar months. Shari'ah arranges its rulings based on the lunar months.
For example, the waiting period ('iddah) of a woman who is beyond the age of menstruation (post-menopausal) is three months, and this is based on lunar months. Similarly, the waiting period of a widow is four months and ten days, and this is also based on lunar months, not solar months. Likewise, the two consecutive months of fasting required for expiation in cases such as killing, wrongful divorce (dhihaar), or engaging in sexual relations during the day in Ramadan are to be counted using lunar months, not solar months.
Lunar months are divided into two categories: complete months, which have thirty days, and incomplete months, which have twenty-nine days. The difference between a complete and incomplete month is one day, which is referred to as the "Day of Doubt" (يوم الشك). The reason for this distinction is that the moon has different phases and stages. If the sun sets before the moon does, it indicates that the crescent for the new month has already appeared, signaling the start of the next month. In this case, the position of the moon belongs to the new month. However, if the moon sets before the sun, it means the moon is still in the current month, and that month will complete its full cycle, making it a 30-day month.
Therefore, it is only possible to confirm the beginning of a lunar month by one of two signs:
Allah, the Exalted, refers to the moon’s phases:
وَالْقَمَرَ قَدَّرْنَاهُ مَنَازِلَ حَتَّى عَادَ كَالْعُرْجُونِ الْقَدِيمِ
"And the moon, We have set for it phases, until it returns like an old date stalk." (Ya-Sin 36:39). The moon has its stages and degrees, and if the sun sets before the moon, it indicates the completion of the month and the start of the next one. However, if the moon sets before the sun, it still has one stage left, and the month will complete 30 days.
Once these two signs are confirmed, it is determined that the month is complete, and the obligation to fast Ramadan is established. If the crescent is sighted on the 30th night, this confirms that Ramadan has begun. The evidence for this is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Fast when you see it (the crescent) and break your fast when you see it."
The "laam" in the phrase (لرؤيته) is causal, meaning the sighting of the crescent is the cause for the obligation of fasting. Thus, when the crescent is sighted on the 30th night, it is established that Ramadan has entered, and according to scholars, there is a detailed discussion about whether the witness of the sighting must be a trustworthy person or if any witness is accepted.
If the crescent is not sighted, there are two possible scenarios:
The First Scenario: The sky on the 30th night is clear, meaning it is free from clouds or any obstruction like dust or smoke. The clear sky is one where the moon should be visible, and there are no atmospheric obstructions preventing the sighting of the crescent. If the sky is clear and the sighting of the crescent is possible, but we still do not see it, then by consensus (Ijmaa'), the night is considered to be part of Sha'ban, not Ramadan, and it will not be regarded as the beginning of Ramadan.
The Second Scenario: The sky is not clear, meaning it is cloudy or there is dust or smoke in the air that prevents the sighting of the moon. This could occur, for example, when there is a sandstorm, wind carrying dust, or even smoke from a fire, all of which obstruct the view of the sky. In such cases, if there is any obstruction—whether clouds, dust, or smoke—scholars have two opinions:
- The First Opinion: Some scholars, including the Hanafi, Maaliki, Shaafi'ee, and Dhaahiri, as well as a group of Hadith scholars, hold that if the sky is cloudy or there is dust, we complete the month of Sha'ban as 30 days. This opinion is based on the consensus of these scholars, meaning that if the crescent is not visible on the 30th night—whether due to a clear sky or an obstructed one—the ruling is the same. They consider the month of Sha'ban to be complete with 30 days. They support this view with the authentic Hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If the crescent is obscured (due to clouds), then complete the number (of Sha'ban)."
- The Second Opinion: Other scholars may have different views, but the majority support the first opinion that when the crescent is obscured, whether due to clouds, dust, or smoke, we complete the month of Sha'ban as 30 days. The reasoning is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly instructed: "If the crescent is obscured, then complete the number of days." Thus, if the moon is not visible due to any obstruction, we complete the month of Sha'ban with 30 days.
This hadith, "If the crescent is obscured, then complete the number of days," supports the idea that if the moon is not sighted because of something blocking the view (such as clouds or dust), we continue the month as if it were 30 days, and Ramadan does not begin until the crescent is clearly seen.
The second evidence: They argue that the default assumption for a month is that it is 30 days long unless there is evidence to indicate that it is shorter. The principle in Shari'ah is that the status quo should be maintained unless there is a clear proof to the contrary. Therefore, if we are uncertain whether Ramadan has begun or not, and since the default is that a month has 30 days, we must complete the month of Sha'ban with 30 days. This is based on the principle that the default is to continue as is unless something proves otherwise.
The second opinion: Others argue that if the sky is cloudy or there is dust (called قتر), the day should still be observed as part of Ramadan, and fasting on that day should be considered as part of Ramadan. This is the position of imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) and some of his followers. They maintain that if the sky is cloudy or there is dust, fasting on that day should be counted as part of Ramadan, since it is possible that it is indeed the start of Ramadan. They base this on the hadith: "If the crescent is obscured, then estimate it for yourselves." They interpret the word "estimate" (i.e., اقدروا) to mean to approximate or make a judgment in the absence of clear sighting, and they argue that this means we should treat the day as part of Ramadan, even if we are uncertain.
They further explain that the term "اقدروا" in the hadith implies narrowing or restricting something, and from it is the Almighty’s saying:
وَقَدِّرْ فِي السَّرْدِ
"And [he] made a narrow measure in the weaving..." (Saba’ 34:11), which refers to Daawud (peace be upon him) making a tight fitting for armor. The term "qaddir" here means to make something tight or narrow, thus indicating that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If the crescent is obscured, then estimate it," he meant that we should consider Sha'ban as 29 days rather than 30 and enter into Ramadan.
They also point out the hadith from the Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "We are an illiterate nation..." This statement needs reflection because the description of the nation of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as "illiterate" is an honor, not a deficiency. Contrary to what some might assume today, illiteracy is not inherently a sign of deficiency. There is a difference between ignorance and illiteracy: a person can be illiterate yet knowledgeable. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was illiterate, yet he was the most knowledgeable person on the face of the earth. Allah says:
هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الأُمِّيِّينَ
"It is He who sent among the unlettered a messenger..." (Al-Jumu'ah 62:2). The term "illiterate" here refers to a noble status, not a deficiency. Thus, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) described the Muslim Ummah as "illiterate," it is a reference to a special honor.
Therefore, it is more appropriate to say: "Eradication of ignorance," rather than saying "Eradication of illiteracy," to avoid the misconception that it is a sign of deficiency. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "We are an unlettered Ummah; we neither write nor calculate the month like this." The narrator said: He gestured with his hands three times, meaning: thirty days, and (like this) means he pointed three times. Then he clenched his thumb on the third time, meaning: the month can be thirty or twenty-nine days.
The scholars of the second opinion said: When he said, "The month is like this and like this," it means that the certainty is that the month is twenty-nine days, and the doubt is regarding the thirtieth. So, according to them, the default is that the month is twenty-nine days, and the completion of the month is on the twenty-ninth day, with the thirtieth being uncertain. They said, therefore, that people must fast on this day because it might be part of Ramadan.
The view that is more strongly supported, and Allah knows best, is that of the majority: that if clouds or fog prevent people from sighting the moon, they are not required to fast on the thirtieth day. The proof for this is the prohibition in the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar in the Saheehs: "Do not precede Ramadan with fasting a day or two." This indicates that we do not fast on the day of doubt, and this is a prohibition of something impermissible. If it is established that the default is that the month has thirty days, as stated in the authentic hadith where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Fast when you see it (the crescent) and break your fast when you see it. If it is obscured, then complete the count as thirty," this is a clear text. Therefore, the opinion that the month is completed with thirty days is stronger, as it relies on the default, and as for the narration "Then estimate it," the term "estimate" can have two meanings: First, it might mean to restrict.
The second interpretation is that it might refer to calculation. You would say, "Estimate it," meaning: calculate this thing for me, explain its reality, and give me its value and amount in numbers and calculation. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Estimate it for him," and the matter was one of calculation, his statement was understood to refer to calculation. The rule is: "The context of the hadith indicates its meaning." Since the hadith is based on calculation, and we have two meanings for the term "estimate": one meaning is restriction, and the other is calculation, we interpret it as meaning calculation. This is because the principle in usool is that if a hadith is ambiguous between two meanings, one that contradicts other texts and one that aligns with them, we must prefer the meaning that aligns with other texts.
Therefore, when we have the hadith: "Complete the count to thirty," the intended meaning of "Estimate it" is explained as: "Give Sha'ban its due," meaning: complete the count of Sha'ban. Thus, the narration of postponing (the beginning of Ramadan) aligns with the narration of completing (the count of Sha'ban). Based on this, if clouds or fog prevent us from sighting the moon on the thirtieth night, we complete the count of Sha'ban to thirty days.
The sighting of the crescent moon is an important matter that people should maintain, as Shar'i rulings depend on this sighting. From this, scholars have said that the sighting of the crescent moon for the months—such as Ramadan, Dhul-Hijjah, and similar months—is considered a fard kifaayah (communal obligation). If the people of a town neglect it, then all of them are considered to have fallen short.
Laxity in observing the crescent moon is considered an undesirable practice, and it is important for students of knowledge to revive this Sunnah. Until recently, people would go out into the desert on the twenty-ninth day and the night of the thirtieth to revive this practice. It would be beneficial if they consult experts and learn the positions of the moon before it sets in the days leading up to the sighting, so they can have knowledge and awareness. After that, they should go out to sight the crescent and understand its phases and positions to be able to confirm it, because if they do not do so, the moon may appear but not be seen by the people, causing the right of Allah, the Almighty, to be lost. The fasting of these days depends on this sighting.
Based on this, scholars have said that people should not be negligent about the sighting of the crescent moon. If they are negligent or busy, it is recommended to appoint people, even with compensation, to fulfill this task. This is because if there is no one to perform a communal obligation, it becomes permissible to pay someone to fulfill it, in order to establish the right of Allah, the Almighty, to fast the prescribed days.
If the crescent is not sighted with clear skies on the thirtieth night, they should fast the following day: This is agreed upon by consensus. This day is known as the Day of Doubt, and fasting on this day is prohibited. It is called the Day of Doubt because its night could either belong to Ramadan or to Sha'ban, and the day itself could either be part of Ramadan and thus require fasting, or it could be part of Sha'ban. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited fasting on this day, as stated in the authentic collections of Hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) from the narration of Abu Hurayrah: "Do not precede Ramadan with fasting a day or two, except for a man who regularly fasts; let him fast." In another narration, 'Ammaar ibn Yaasir (may Allah be pleased with him) and his father reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever fasts on the day of doubt has disobeyed Abu'l-Qaasim (the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." This shows that fasting on the Day of Doubt is forbidden.
The scholars are unanimous in the original ruling that fasting on this day is disliked, though there is a difference of opinion regarding whether it is haram. 'Aa'ishah and Asmaa' (may Allah be pleased with them) considered it permissible, and they were excused for not knowing about the hadith where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited fasting on the Day of Doubt. Some scholars opined that it is permissible but disliked, though the apparent meaning of the hadith is that it is haram, and fasting on this day is not allowed. Some scholars even said that a person would earn sin rather than reward if they fasted on this day.
This is the correct view, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Do not precede Ramadan with fasting a day or two," which is a prohibition, and the general principle is that a prohibition indicates something is forbidden. The scholars said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited fasting on the Day of Doubt because it is a gateway to extremism and overzealousness. Additionally, it resembles the practices of the People of the Book, who were commanded to fast a specific number of days, but then added extra days, thus innovating in their religion. This act of adding is based on doubt and whispers.
Some scholars argue that the prohibition of fasting on the Day of Doubt is to avoid introducing doubts and misgivings into people's practices, building the religion on uncertainty. The day is not actually part of Ramadan, but people may fast it thinking it is Ramadan. This is supported by the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "Except for a man who regularly fasts; let him fast." This indicates that the exception applies if the person did not intend to fast because of Ramadan, but rather because of their regular fasting routine. This is the preferred opinion.
The correct view is that it is not permissible to fast on the Day of Doubt, and that fasting on this day is haram based on the apparent meaning of the prohibition, unless it coincides with a person’s regular fasting, such as if someone regularly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays, and the Day of Doubt happens to fall on a Monday or Thursday, in which case they may fast without issue. Similarly, if someone regularly fasts every other day and breaks their fast on the twenty-ninth day, and the thirtieth day is uncertain but it is confirmed not to be part of Ramadan, then if they wish to fast it, there is no harm.
Thus, if a person has a habit of fasting or has made a vow to fast, they can fast without issue. As for other cases, it remains prohibited, in line with the general ruling.
If obstructed by clouds or fog, it is clear in the madhhab that fasting is required: The term "obstructed" refers to something preventing the sighting of the moon. If clouds, fog, smoke (such as from a fire), or dust (such as a sandstorm) block the view of the crescent, particularly if it is in the western direction, then according to the apparent position of the madhhab [of imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him], fasting is still required.
However, the correct view, as held by the majority of scholars, is that fasting is not required in this case, in accordance with the authentic hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as discussed earlier.
If sighted during the day, it counts for the coming night: The crescent can be sighted during the day, either before or after midday. There is a difference of opinion among the early scholars regarding the sighting of the crescent during the day. Some said that if the crescent is sighted before midday, the fast for that day is obligatory, and if it is sighted after midday, it counts for the following night. Others said that whether the sighting occurs before or after midday, it counts for the upcoming night. This latter view is the correct one and is followed by the Hanbali, Shaafi'ee, and some of the Maaliki scholars, may Allah have mercy on them all.
The reasoning behind this is that if the crescent is seen during the day, whether before or after midday, it is considered to be for the upcoming night. The general principle in this matter is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Fast when you see it [the crescent]." This indicates that the sighting and fasting are based on the night, not the day, because fasting on a day when the crescent is seen during daylight is not possible. Thus, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Fast when you see it," it implies that the sighting refers to the night, as fasting is meant for the night following the sighting, not the day of the sighting itself.
If the crescent is sighted during the day, there is no doubt that it is closer to the following night than the previous one, based on the calculation of the start of the month, not its end.
The statement: "If the people of a country see the crescent, it is obligatory for everyone in that country to fast."
If the crescent moon is sighted by the people of a particular country, it becomes obligatory for everyone in that country to fast. For example, if the crescent is seen in Makkah, all the people of Makkah must fast, and similarly, if it is seen in Madinah, all the people of Madinah must fast, and so on for other regions. When the crescent is sighted in a particular place, the people of that place are obligated to fast.
However, the question arises when there are different regions, such as when the crescent is sighted in the East. Should the people in the West fast based on the sighting in the East or not? The scholars have three opinions on this matter:
The first opinion: Each region is responsible for its own sighting. For instance, the people of the Arabian Peninsula should rely on their own sighting. If they see the crescent, they are obligated to fast, but the people of Shaam, West, or East are not obligated by their sighting. The ruling is based on the sighting in each specific region. This view is supported by a narration from ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him). He said that when Khabeeb ibn 'Uday (a companion) came from Shaam, ibn 'Abbaas asked him, "When did you see the crescent?" Khabeeb replied, "We saw it on Friday night." Ibn 'Abbaas replied, "But we saw it on Saturday night." Khabeeb then asked, "Should we not rely on your sighting?" Ibn 'Abbaas responded, "No, this is how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed us."
This hadith indicates that the sighting of each country is independent and should be followed by the people of that particular region. This opinion is supported by the correct narration from ibn 'Abbaas and the principle that the moon's sighting varies depending on the location, as the moon's phases differ from region to region, and the distance between two places can sometimes be as much as two days apart. Therefore, it is difficult to obligate the people of the East to fast based on the sighting of the people of the West.
When there is a difference in the sighting, it indicates that it is not possible to consider them as being in the same place. If we say that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) meant with his statement "Fast upon its sighting" in a general sense, it would mean that all the people of the earth should fast based on the sighting of one country, or even one village. This is undoubtedly not intended, because it could be the 28th of the month in one country in the East, and the 30th in a country in the West, with a two-day difference between them. It would be impossible to tell the people of the 28th day to fast based on the sighting of those further away. Thus, they said that each country must rely on its own sighting.
The second opinion: The sighting of one country is binding for everyone. They used the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) "Fast upon its sighting and break your fast upon its sighting." They argued that this shows that the sighting of one place applies to all, implying that the sighting is universal.
The third opinion: The opinion of differentiation stated that if places are close to one another and share the same conditions, then the sighting of one country applies to all. They argued that when places are in the same vicinity, it is possible to obligate them to follow the general rule of "Fast upon its sighting."
The preferred opinion—by the will of Allah—is that each region or country follows its own sighting, because when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said "Fast upon its sighting," he intended that the sighting of an individual in one country applies to all the people of that country, not to everyone on earth. It is clear that the day in one place may be night in another, and vice versa. Moreover, places can differ by one or two days. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the hadith of "Fast upon its sighting" applies universally.
The scholars have stated that generalizations may be specified by sensory evidence. The scholars of usool illustrate this with the Almighty’s saying:
تُدَمِّرُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ بِأَمْرِ رَبِّهَا
"It destroys everything by the command of its Lord" (al-Ahqaaf, 46:25). They said that this general statement is restricted by sensory evidence because it does not mean that everything was destroyed; for example, it did not destroy the earth. Even though the Ayah says,
تُدَمِّرُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ
"It destroys everything" (al-Ahqaaf, 46:25), which is a general statement, it is nonetheless restricted by what we can observe and the reality of existence.
Similarly, the sensory evidence in this case is important here because we cannot say that the sighting of one country is a sighting for everyone. This is a common mistake, and a lot of confusion arises around this issue. For example, you find that Muslims in the eastern parts of the world are divided into about three groups: one group says, "We fast with such and such country," another group says, "We fast with such and such country," and a third group says, "We do not fast with any country, but we fast based on our own sighting."
The correct position, based on the texts and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), which resolves this dispute, is that the people of each country are obligated to follow their own sighting. If they see the crescent moon, they should fast accordingly, and this applies to all who see it. However, if they do not see the crescent moon, they should continue with the usual count and complete the 30 days of Sha'ban, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Fast upon its sighting and break your fast upon its sighting." If the crescent is obscured, then each country should rely on its own sighting.
For example, the people of the East and the people of the West may both sight the crescent, and if it is confirmed by both, then it is accepted. But if it is not confirmed, they should complete the count, and all is well. If we were to say that the sighting of one country is binding for others, it would cause disputes, with people asking: "Should we follow this country or that country?" "Should we rely on this sighting or that one?" This would lead to many divisions.
What becomes clear from the Sunnah, especially the hadith of ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "O Allah, grant him understanding of the religion and teach him the interpretation," is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) clarified this by saying: "No, this is how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed us." Thus, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made it clear that each region or area should follow its own sighting. For example, the people of the Levant should fast based on their own sighting, and the people of the Hijaaz should fast based on their own sighting. This is the interpretation of the hadith: "Fast upon its sighting and break your fast upon its sighting." This explanation removes the confusion, and if they see the crescent, they should follow that sighting. If they do not see it, they should complete the 30-day count.
Question:If a person dies with some days of fasting owed from Ramadan, and they missed those fasts without a valid excuse, can their heirs fast on their behalf?
Answer:: ... If a person dies and has missed some fasts, whether intentionally or unintentionally, their guardian or heir should fast on their behalf. This is based on the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who said: "Whoever dies and has a fast owed, let his guardian fast on his behalf." This indicates that it is legislated for the guardian to fast on behalf of the deceased, regardless of whether the deceased missed the fasts intentionally or unintentionally. And Allah knows best.
The Ruling on Someone Who Missed Days of Ramadan and Does Not Know the Number
Question: A man missed some days of fasting in Ramadan in the past, and he does not know how many days he missed. How should he make up for them?
Answer: If a person missed some days of fasting in Ramadan and does not know how many days were missed, he should estimate the number of days and make an approximation. For example, we might ask him: "Do you think it was ten days?" If he says "more," we ask, "Was it twenty days?" If he says "more," we continue asking until we reach an estimate. For instance:
If he says "fifty is too many," we ask: "Was it forty?" If he says "too little," we then settle on forty-five days.
This process of estimating is what the scholars refer to as "relying on estimation." When it is not possible to know the exact number, the person is required to make an educated guess. This is because, in Shari'ah, when exact knowledge is unattainable, estimation is treated as certainty. This principle is based on the concept of "الخرص" (estimation) in matters such as determining the yield of date palms or in business transactions like "المزابنة", where it is difficult to know exactly what is inside a bunch of dates. This is part of the mercy and ease Allah has granted to His servants. And Allah knows best.
Question: What is the ruling if a person has sexual intercourse with his wife during the day while fasting a voluntary fast?
Answer: Regarding intercourse during fasting, scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) have two opinions. Some say that if a person engages in intercourse while fasting, whether it is a mandatory or voluntary fast, a kaffaarah (expiation) is required. Others say that the ruling for voluntary fasting is less strict, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The one fasting voluntarily is the master of his own soul." This means that if the person who is fasting voluntarily decides to break their fast by engaging in intercourse, especially if they had already made the intention to break the fast, they are not required to do anything. This is in line with the apparent meaning of the hadith, similar to if they had eaten or drunk. And Allah knows best.
|
Question: Is it permissible for someone who has missed days of fasting from Ramadan to fast the six days of Shawwaal before making up for the missed fasts?
Answer: There is no harm in fasting the six days of Shawwaal before making up the missed fasts of Ramadan. The reason for this is that the make-up fasts (Qadhaa') of Ramadan are considered to be part of other days, as the Almighty says:
فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ
"And [due to] a specified number of days" (al-Baqarah 2:184). Based on this, the phrase "whoever fasts Ramadan" refers to the majority of the month, and therefore, if a person fasts the six days of Shawwaal before completing the Qadhaa' of Ramadan, their fast is still valid. This is because, in essence, they would have fasted thirty-six days in total.
If we were to say that the Qadhaa' must be completed first—let's assume, for example, the person missed ten days—then we would advise them to fast those ten days and then the six days of Shawwaal. The reasoning would be that, after fasting the ten days of Qadhaa', they would be considered to have completed the fast of Ramadan. However, if we accept that the qada and Shawwaal are similar, we could say that if they fast the ten days of Shawwaal, they have fulfilled their obligation just as if they were fasting Ramadan. This principle can be extended to other months as well, such as fasting in Rajab or Jumaada, because fasting the six days of Shawwaal would be considered like fasting Ramadan, regardless of when it is done.
Therefore, 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: "If I had missed any days of Ramadan, I would not make up for them except in Sha'ban," and she used to fast on the Day of Arafah as well, according to a narration in al-Muwatta'. This indicates that the phrase "whoever fasts Ramadan" refers to the general act of fasting, whether it's the original fast of Ramadan or a make-up fast.
If we were to take this ruling literally, it would mean that a woman who is postpartum or menstruating would be deprived of this reward, because she may miss the entire month of Ramadan and have no opportunity to fast the six days of Shawwaal. But based on the general principle from the hadith, it is understood that the fasting of Ramadan or its equivalent (the make-up fasts) is acceptable at any time during the year.
Therefore, as per the apparent meaning of the hadith and the understanding of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), there is no distinction between Shawwaal and other months in terms of fasting the six days.
Additionally, when we look at the underlying meaning, as in the hadith of Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him), we find that the reward for fasting the six days of Shawwaal is equivalent to fasting the entire year. If we multiply the reward of each day by ten, the total becomes 360 days, which aligns with the full year. Thus, it makes no difference whether one fasts these six days before or after completing the Qadhaa'.
And Allah knows best.
Question: What is the ruling on the discharge of madhy (pre-seminal fluid) during the day in Ramadan?
Answer: Madhy (pre-seminal fluid) can occur in two cases:
1. When a person causes it intentionally: This happens when the individual excites their desires by looking at something or engaging in actions that stir their passions, leading to the release of madhy. In this case, it reduces the reward of fasting, as it is considered "اللغو" (something frivolous) that affects the reward of the fast. However, this does not invalidate the fast itself, unless semen (المني) is released. If semen is released, then the fast is broken, whether it occurred through direct physical contact with the wife or through masturbation (which is prohibited, may Allah protect us).
- If the release of semen is due to masturbation, there are two rulings: 1. The fast is invalidated. 2. The person incurs a sin for violating the prohibition of masturbation.
As for the invalidation of the fast due to masturbation, it is based on the apparent understanding of the hadith, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in a Hadith Qudsi: "He leaves his food, drink, and desires." The term "desires" is general, meaning all desires, and this includes actions such as masturbation. It is wrong for some to say that masturbation is permissible during Ramadan or that it does not affect the fast. There is no doubt that someone who issues such fatwas lacks the piety and fear of Allah that would prevent them from leading people into doubtful matters.
A scholar who assumes the responsibility of issuing fatwas and guiding people should do so with piety and should protect others from crossing the limits set by Allah. They must especially be cautious in matters where there is scholarly difference, as these issues could potentially harm the people's religion. Allowing people to indulge in their desires, especially in cases that lead to impermissible acts, could lead them down a dangerous path.
This is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The one who grazes near the protected pasture is about to enter it." The scholars said the least degree of this is doubt. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said: "Whoever falls into doubtful matters falls into what is unlawful." This highlights that without piety and fear of Allah, one may easily slip into what is impermissible.
Therefore, it is not permissible to open the door for people to engage in such actions, like saying that masturbation is permissible because it is not actual intercourse, or that smoking is permissible because it is not actual eating or drinking, and that it does not break the fast. All of these—may Allah grant us safety and well-being—are burdens and responsibilities upon the one who endorses them. A student of knowledge should pay attention to the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whomever Allah intends good for, He gives him understanding of the religion." True understanding requires careful consideration of the rulings and a precise understanding of the objectives of Shari'ah and its intended goals.
It is not sufficient to say, "I don't know of any specific text, and I see no harm in this, so it's permissible because there is no clear indication of its prohibition." This may be the person's limited understanding, but if they were to contemplate as deeply as those who are more knowledgeable, more pious, and more God-fearing than them, they would find the matter clear. For example, pleasure is attained through masturbation just as it is through intercourse, though the pleasure in intercourse may be more intense and complete. However, the pleasure is still felt in masturbation.
That is why, when a person masturbates, they do not intend to fall into haram. From here, scholars have said that it is permissible in situations of necessity—not because it is inherently permissible, but as a means of choosing the lesser of two harms. They would say: "If someone fears for themselves from falling into zina (fornication or adultery), should they masturbate?" They would answer: "Yes, they may." However, if they do so, they are committing a sin, but it is a lesser sin compared to committing zina. Some have misunderstood that permission to masturbate in the case of fearing zina means it is permitted in all cases, which is a misinterpretation of the words of the noble scholars (may Allah have mercy on them).
There are examples of this: if a person is faced with the choice between a small haram and a large haram, they would, without a doubt, choose the lesser haram. However, even in this case, they would still be sinning with the lesser haram. The point is, when the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) said that someone who fears zina may masturbate, they did so as a means of avoiding the greater harm, not because it is legislated, permissible, or lawful in the religion of Allah.
Thus, if semen is released, the person is considered to have broken their fast. And Allah knows best.
May Allah send His blessings, peace, and grace upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and all his companions.
|
Among the rulings related to Ramadan is knowing its beginning and end, which is linked to the sighting of the crescent moon. However, the verification and implementation of this are tied to the characteristics of the person who reports the sighting, such as their justice and similar qualities. Based on this, different rulings follow.
The scholar has clarified these rulings in this section, mentioning who is obligated to fast, who is excused and allowed to break their fast, and who’s fast is invalid among those who are excused, along with other related issues regarding those who are excused from fasting.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings be upon the noblest of the prophets and messengers, our master Muhammad, and upon his family and companions.
To proceed: The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Fasting is valid based on the testimony of a just person, even if a woman."
This means that the month of Ramadan can be confirmed by the sighting of the moon by just one individual. The term just refers to someone who avoids major sins and generally refrains from minor sins.
A just person is one who avoids major sins—such as murder, adultery, drinking alcohol, and other such grave sins—and generally avoids minor sins. We say "generally avoids minor sins" because it is not possible for anyone to be completely free from minor sins. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) alluded to this in his hadith: “If You forgive, O Allah, You forgive all, and how many of Your slaves have not committed even a minor sin?”
The word "جماً" means something abundant, and "any slave of Yours who has not committed the 'اللمم' (the minor sins)" is a rhetorical expression, implying that no one is free from minor faults.
Thus, it is not possible for a person to be free from minor sins. Some examples of minor sins include actions like inappropriate glances, though scholars differ in categorizing them. For instance, looking at a private part is considered more serious than looking at the face, and so on.
The point is that if a person avoids minor sins most of the time, they are considered just. However, if someone persists in minor sins and regularly engages in them, they would not be considered just. This is why it is said, "There is no major sin with repentance, and no minor sin with persistence."
Minor sins can lead to the destruction of a person, just as large mountains are made of small pebbles. The destruction of a person can come from the accumulation of minor sins.
Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Do not look at your sin, but look at the One you have disobeyed." If a person reflects on the greatness of Allah, even minor sins will seem enormous in their eyes. But if they disregard this and view them as insignificant, those minor sins could lead to their ruin. We ask Allah for safety and well-being.
The just person is one who generally avoids minor sins and refrains from committing major sins. If someone behaves in this manner, they are considered just, and their testimony is accepted. This is the type of person whose testimony is relied upon, as indicated by Allah’s words:
وَأَشْهِدُوا ذَوَي عَدْلٍ مِنْكُمْ
"And take for witnesses two witnesses from among you who are just" (at-Talaaq, 66:2) and:
مِمَّنْ تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ
"from those whom you approve of as witnesses" (al-Baqarah, 2:282). Only a just person is acceptable as a witness.
When it is said "a just witness," it means that if someone who is not just bears witness, their testimony will not be accepted. A person who is not just is one who commits major sins, whether they are verbal, like being a slanderer or someone who engages in gossip frequently—such a person’s testimony is not accepted. These are examples of verbal major sins. As for physical major sins, they include actions like drinking alcohol or committing adultery. Therefore, if someone engages in such major sins, their justice is lost, and their testimony is rejected.
The reason for this, as scholars explain, is that if a person is bold enough to commit such major sins, it is even more likely that they would be bold enough to lie. Hence, the existence of such a major sin is an indication that the person is not trustworthy. If they are not trustworthy in the matters of Allah, they are even less trustworthy regarding the rights of people.
As for the Hanafi scholars, they made a distinction when it comes to the faasiq (one who is sinful), and they divide the faasiq into two categories:
1. A faasiq who is suspected of being dishonest due to their actions: This includes someone known for lying or regularly committing major sins.
2. A faasiq who is not suspected of dishonesty due to their actions: This includes someone who may drink alcohol, but is not known for lying. You may find someone who, though they are not particularly religious, is extremely dutiful to their parents and keeps their promises without lying or cheating. Such a person may outwardly appear to have some flaws but is trustworthy in their heart and actions.
Thus, the Hanafi scholars emphasize the importance of honesty. If a person is known for their truthfulness, even if they are known to commit sins like drinking alcohol or committing adultery, their testimony is accepted, because their truthfulness outweighs the suspicion of dishonesty. They argue that the suspicion of dishonesty is not strong enough to reject their testimony.
However, the majority opinion is that the testimony of someone whose honesty is in question is not accepted. This is based on Almighty’s words:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا
"O you who have believed, if a disobedient person comes to you with information, investigate" (al-Hujuraat, 49:6). This Ayah commands us to verify and investigate the information provided by such individuals, implying that their testimony is not directly accepted. Thus, the correct opinion is the one held by the majority, which is that the testimony of a person whose integrity is questionable is not accepted, whether or not their truthfulness seems likely.
This is a matter that was mentioned by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and also referenced by ibn Farhoon in at-Tabsirah and by at-Tarabaulsī, who wrote Mu‘īn al-Aḥkām on the methods of judicial practice. The issue is as follows: If something occurs in a place where you cannot easily find a just person, or if finding a just person is very difficult, and then witnesses from that place—whose people are corrupt—come forward, should their testimony be accepted or not?
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah clarified that if corruption is widespread and prevalent, the testimony of the best of the corrupt should be accepted, meaning those known for truthfulness or those who are generally disciplined.
In fact, the statement of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah forms a strong basis, as the need for it is real. These are referred to as the issues of widespread public hardship, and they are derived from the well-known principle that: when the situation tightens, it is made easier; and when it becomes easier, it may become more restrictive.
Therefore, when people are in ease and the just ones are abundant, the scope for testimony should be narrow. However, when the situation is the opposite—where the just ones are few—the scope for accepting testimony should be widened, and we accept the testimony of the best among the corrupt.
If a single person comes and testifies that they saw the Ramadan crescent, should fasting begin or not? Scholars have two opinions on this matter:
The majority hold that the testimony of one person is accepted, and they argue that this is not considered testimony in the Shar'i sense, but rather a report (الخبر), because testimony in Shar'i matters usually requires multiple witnesses. The Shari'ah generally accepts a number of witnesses.
Based on this, they say the testimony of one person is accepted, citing the hadith of ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), who saw the moon and informed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the Prophet commanded the people to fast. This shows that the testimony of a single person is sufficient for the beginning of Ramadan. There is also the hadith of the Bedouin who testified before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the Prophet asked him: “Do you testify that there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah?” He replied, "Yes," and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed Bilaal to announce to the people that they should fast the following day. However, this hadith is weak, whereas the hadith of ibn 'Umar is stronger and has been authenticated by several scholars, including al-Haakim. It shows that the testimony of a single person can establish the beginning of Ramadan.
If we accept that the testimony of one person is considered a report rather than a formal Shar'i testimony, then the testimony of a woman would also be accepted. If a woman testifies that she saw the crescent, her testimony would be accepted, but in the context of a report, not a Shar'i testimony. The difference between the two is that Shar'i testimony requires a certain number of witnesses and must be confirmed by a judge in a court. The testimony would then establish the fact (e.g., the beginning of Ramadan).
Similarly, the testimony would be given using the phrase, "I testify that I saw the moon," and the description of the sighting must be clear and free from any suspicion.
It is also required for testimony to be given by a male witness, and the minimum number of witnesses must be two. A female's testimony is not accepted in most cases. However, there are two exceptions: if it concerns financial matters or matters related to money, a woman's testimony is accepted; but in other matters, women's testimonies are not accepted. This is based on a divine wisdom from Allah, the Almighty. The proof for this is that in the Ayah of light (Surah an-Noor), Allah commands that four witnesses be brought for accusations of adultery, and if a woman’s testimony had been accepted, He would have said "or eight." However, in the verse from Surah al-Baqarah regarding financial matters, the Almighty says:
فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّنْ تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ
"If two men are not available, then a man and two women from those whom you approve as witnesses." (Al-Baqarah, 2:282).
This places two women in the same position as one man, and the Almighty further explains:
أَنْ تَضِلَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ
"So that if one of them errs, the other can remind her" (al-Baqarah: 282), indicating that the testimony of two women is equivalent to one man’s testimony. This shows that the woman’s testimony, when it concerns financial matters, is accepted, but the reasoning for it being in this way is based on the specific wisdom of Allah.
The reason for this is that Allah created women with a more emotional nature. They have a natural tenderness and softness that plays a crucial role in maintaining harmony in the world. The world would not function properly if both men and women had the same qualities. Allah, in His wisdom, placed the emotional and nurturing qualities in women, so they could care for children and family. This softness, though complete in some contexts, is lacking in others, such as in testimony.
When a woman argues with a man, for instance, she may speak a few words, begin to cry, and become overwhelmed by emotion, preventing her from continuing. This is due to Allah's wisdom in creating her with this emotional nature, which is also part of her unique role as a mother and nurturer. She possesses compassion and affection for her children that a man cannot match, which is divinely designed.
Testimony requires careful deliberation and patience. Witnesses often have to describe disturbing scenes, like blood, limbs, or injuries. Because women are generally more emotionally sensitive, they may not be able to bear such traumatic sights. Upon seeing such things, they may panic or even become psychologically affected, which could influence their testimony. This is why women are not allowed to testify in matters other than financial ones.
This is the position of the majority of scholars, and it is supported by the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. If women’s testimony in non-financial matters were accepted, Allah would have explicitly stated that women could substitute men in such cases. Therefore, the correct view is that women’s testimonies are restricted to financial matters and things directly related to them.
An example of matters in which a woman’s testimony is accepted, even though it may not be purely financial, includes testimony concerning a will. For example, if a woman testifies that the deceased left a will giving a specific portion of their wealth to someone, this testimony is valid because it pertains to wealth, even though it is not a direct financial transaction. Such testimony is considered equivalent to financial matters and is valid for what is called "testimony in matters related to wealth."
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "And if they fasted for thirty days based on the testimony of one person and did not see the moon, or if they fasted due to clouds, they should not break their fast."
The author continues explaining the rulings related to the sighting of the moon. After discussing the rules for confirming the beginning of Ramadan, he now turns to the issue of its conclusion. The general rule is that the end of Ramadan is marked by the completion of the full 30 days of fasting. This is because, if people fast for 30 days, the month is considered complete, and then the month of Shawwaal begins.
The second sign (or condition) for the end of Ramadan is when two just witnesses testify to the sighting of the Shawwaal moon. If two just witnesses testify to having seen the moon of Shawwaal, people will break their fast, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If two just witnesses testify, then break your fast; if they testify to the beginning of Shawwaal, then fast." This means that the testimony of two just witnesses is required to confirm the end of Ramadan and the beginning of Shawwaal.
However, there is a question here: What if only one just witness testifies, and the people complete 30 days of fasting, but the moon is not seen? Scholars say that this is a sign that the testimony was mistaken. Therefore, they must complete the full 30 days to account for the error in the testimony.
In the case where there is cloud cover on the 30th night of Sha'ban, and the moon cannot be seen, the opinion held by the author (according to the established madhhab) is that fasting should be observed that day. While the correct view is that fasting is not required in this case, if people fasted and completed 30 days of fasting, then looked for the moon on the night of the 1st of Shawwaal and did not see it, this would indicate that the month of Sha'ban was indeed complete. Therefore, they should complete 30 days of Ramadan and not break their fast.
In this situation, the author mentions two possibilities:
1. A single just witness testifies, and based on this, Ramadan is entered. After completing 30 days, they look for the moon on the night of Shawwaal and do not see it. This error in the testimony of the one witness becomes evident. Since a mistake by a single witness is more likely than by two witnesses, they are required to complete 30 days of fasting as a precaution. This is a general principle: some scholars take extra caution when concluding Ramadan compared to when they begin it. Therefore, in this case, they complete the 30 days to ensure certainty in their fasting.
2. The second case involves fasting due to cloud cover. This is considered a weaker opinion, although the correct stance is that if there is cloud cover on the night of the 30th of Sha'ban, the full 30 days of Sha'ban should be completed, and Ramadan should not be broken.
The author says: "And if someone sees the Ramadan or Shawwaal moon alone, his testimony is rejected, or if he sees the Shawwaal moon, he fasts."
This is a derived issue based on the testimony of one witness. If a person sees the moon of Ramadan (or Shawwaal) and testifies, but his testimony is rejected, and he is certain that he saw the moon, then his own conviction is that Ramadan has begun. However, according to the apparent ruling in Shari'ah, Ramadan has not started. The question then arises: Should this person fast on that day or not?
There are different opinions among the scholars on this matter:
First Opinion: Some scholars say that fasting should be obligatory for him because he is certain that Ramadan has begun, and he has seen the moon. He is obliged to act upon what he is certain of, as Allah has commanded fasting for those who see the moon. Since he has witnessed it and is certain that this night is part of Ramadan, there is no reason to exempt him from fasting, and thus he must fast.
Second Opinion: Others argue that the judgment is based on the consensus of the Muslim community. They refer to the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) where he said, "Fast when you see it (the moon), and break your fast when you see it." They say that just as if the people did not see the moon together, even though Ramadan has actually started, the individual’s testimony is not sufficient to establish the beginning of Ramadan. Therefore, they would not require him to fast because, in the Shar'i ruling, it is not considered Ramadan yet.
Third Opinion: Another view differentiates between the start and the end of Ramadan. According to this view, the start of Ramadan obligates fasting, but the end does not necessarily require breaking the fast as a precaution. This opinion is considered one of the stronger opinions—differentiating between the beginning and the end of Ramadan—because the beginning is established by the testimony of one witness, which is considered more of a report rather than formal testimony in court.
Thus, if someone sees the Ramadan moon alone—whether as a traveler or alone in another place—there is a consensus that he must fast, even if Ramadan has not been officially established by others. This is because the beginning of Ramadan is accepted on the basis of the testimony of one person.
As for the end of Ramadan, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Your fast is when you fast." This ties the matter to the collective practice of the Muslim community. Therefore, in terms of ending the fast, we do not say that an individual should break their fast alone. Instead, they must follow the community of Muslims, because breaking the fast is done collectively, unlike the beginning of Ramadan. Thus, we affirm that the individual has a certain obligation to fast on the first day of Ramadan, because they are certain of the moon sighting. However, we do not obligate them to break their fast when it comes to the end of Ramadan, because breaking the fast is tied to the community. They will break their fast if the sighting is confirmed by others, and if their testimony is accepted. They will not break their fast if their testimony is rejected, or if they are the only witness whose testimony is not accepted.
There is an opinion that says the person should break their fast in private, but the more widely accepted and stronger position, based on the Sunnah, is that the matter should follow the practice of the community. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted the testimony of ibn 'Umar alone for the beginning of Ramadan and then made the fasting obligatory for the whole community based on ibn 'Umar’s testimony. Therefore, it is more appropriate to obligate the person who sees the moon alone to fast, but not to allow them to break the fast alone. Regarding the end of Ramadan, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) referred the matter to the community when he said: "Your fast is when you fast." Thus, breaking the fast is for the entire Muslim community. This is similar to the example of someone who sees the Dhul-Hijjah moon on Thursday night, but others do not. Then, when the people eventually perform their Hajj rituals later, we would say that their individual standing is not valid, as standing on the plains of 'Arafah is for the community, not an individual. So, it is valid for one to fast alone, but not to break the fast alone.
A question may arise: How do we judge by the apparent act and ignore the inner truth? The answer is that Shari'ah judges by the outward appearance and leaves the inner truth and intention to Allah. For example, if a man (Allah forbid) sees a woman committing adultery and testifies to it, or if two or three men testify that they saw her commit adultery, and she denies it when brought before a judge, the three witnesses will be punished for slander. Allah says:
فَأُوْلَئِكَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْكَاذِبُونَ
"They are liars in the sight of Allah" (an-Noor, 24:13). Although they are truthful in reality, they are considered liars based on the outward appearance. The judgment is made based on the apparent evidence, while the truth of the matter is left to Allah alone.
One of the examples of this is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "You dispute before me, and perhaps some of you are more eloquent in presenting their argument than others, so I might judge in favor of the one whose argument I hear more clearly." This indicates that the ruling based on outward appearances does not validate the inner truth, just as the inner truth does not override the outward ruling. This is why Shari'ah differentiates between situations: in matters where the Shar' accepts the testimony of a single witness, such as the sighting of the moon to mark the beginning of Ramadan, the person who sees it alone is still obligated to fast, even if they are the only one in a desert, for example, because the ruling is based on the visible testimony.
However, for the end of Ramadan, the Shari'ah specifies the need for two witnesses, and no exceptions have been made as in the case of the beginning of Ramadan. The exception for accepting the testimony of a single witness only applies to the beginning of Ramadan, as mentioned in the hadith of ibn 'Umar, where the testimony of one person was accepted. But for the end of Ramadan, no such exception has been stated, so the ruling remains based on the assumption that the month is complete. Therefore, they say that the matter is tied to the Muslim community, as the text affirms the necessity of community consensus.
In the case of the end of Ramadan, the text affirms the importance of the community, while in the case of the beginning, the text allows for the testimony of a single individual. Hence, there was a relaxation regarding the beginning but no such relaxation regarding the end, which is what scholars refer to as the precautionary approach (مذهب الاحتياط).
This is rooted in the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever avoids doubtful matters has cleared himself for his religion and honor." And in his statement: "Leave what causes you doubt for what does not cause you doubt."
In the case of the beginning of Ramadan, when the text allowed the testimony of one person, we exercised caution by saying that the person must fast. This precautionary approach advises fasting, as opposed to telling the person to break their fast, which could lead to mistakenly breaking a day of Ramadan. But for the end of Ramadan, we say they should continue fasting. Therefore, the precautionary measure in this case is based on the original principle of the Shar', which prioritizes avoiding doubt and suspicion.
Fasting is obligatory on every Muslim who is accountable and capable. "Obligatory" means it is a duty ordained by Allah. The kaafir is not required to fast in the same sense because their fast is not valid unless they first fulfill the essential foundation of faith, which is the declaration of Tawheed. If a person fasts for a lifetime but has not believed in the Oneness of Allah, their fast is not considered valid. Almighty says:
وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَى مَا عَمِلُوا مِنْ عَمَلٍ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ هَبَاءً مَنْثُورً
"And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as dust scattered." (Al-Furqaan, :23). Thus, the kaafir’s fasting or acts of worship are not accepted unless they embrace Islam.
If a person converts to Islam during the month of Ramadan, they are required to fast the remaining days, but they are not required to make up the fasts that have already passed. If a person converts during the day, they must fast the rest of that day and make up the fast later. This ruling is based on the hadith of the Day of 'Ashooraa', which was narrated by Mu'aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and is found in the Saheeh: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "On the day of 'Ashooraa', Allah has made fasting on this day obligatory. If anyone of you starts the day fasting, they should complete their fast. But if they start the day having eaten or drunk, they should abstain for the rest of the day."
Thus, if a person becomes Muslim even just before sunset, they must fast the rest of that day and make it up later. However, they are not required to make up the fasts from before their conversion because the fasts that occurred before they embraced Islam are considered separate (disconnected) from those after. Therefore, the obligation to fast is only for the remaining part of the day, but the missed days from before Islam are not obligatory to make up.
And his saying: "on every accountable Muslim", it is a condition after embracing Islam that the person must be accountable. Accountability is established through reason and maturity. So, when it is said "accountable," this implies that the person is both sane and has reached puberty. Fasting is not obligatory on a child, nor is it obligatory on a 'mentally ill' (مجنون).
As for the child, the Sunnah encourages training them to fast once they are capable of doing so. This is reflected in the narration of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) where he said: "They used to train the children to fast, and they would give them toys to play with when they were young." However, the child should only be asked to fast if they are capable of doing so without harm. If a child is too young and fasting would cause them harm, even for part of the day, then they should not be forced to fast. Forcing them may lead to resentment of the worship, and potentially cause them to dislike it. If the child can bear it, they will become accustomed to it and love it, just as guardians are instructed to encourage their children to pray from the age of seven, to help them get used to the worship and train them. Therefore, a child can be trained in fasting from an early age, like a ten-year-old or eleven-year-old, or even younger if they enjoy the worship and are used to it. If the child does fast, the guardian should encourage and support them, because this will help achieve the goal of the Shari'ah, which is to make the child love worship and become accustomed to it.
As for the mad person, we do not require them to fast, whether they were mad from birth or if they became mad later. Similarly, if an elderly person begins to lose their mind and becomes confused, or if madness comes upon them while fasting, we do not hold them to the fast for that day, whether their 'mental illness' is continuous or intermittent.
If the person’s 'mental illness' (جنونه) is intermittent, meaning they become mad in the middle of Ramadan, they are not required to make up the fast for the part of the month they were mad. However, the part of the month when they were sane and able to fast is obligatory upon them. If they regain their sanity after that, they are not required to make up the entire month if they were 'mentally ill' throughout the month, because during their 'mental illness' (جنونه), they are not accountable.
Is a person who faints considered to be in the same condition as a 'mentally ill' person, or like someone who is sleeping? This is similar to cases where people suffer from brain death. Some individuals may remain in this condition for a month, two months, or even an entire year, and some may continue for several years while being kept alive by machines, even though their brain has ceased functioning. A person in this situation is not required to fast, and their guardians are not required to make up the fast for them, nor are they required to feed the poor on their behalf. This is because fasting was never obligatory on them in the first place. If doctors have confirmed that they have lost their mental faculties, they are not obligated to fast, nor are their guardians obligated to make up the fast for them or to feed others on their behalf, since they are not accountable for fasting.
As for intermittent 'mental illness', the ruling is as we mentioned earlier: if the person regains consciousness, they are required to fast. If they regain consciousness during the day, they must make up the fast for that day. As for the days during which they were sane, they are required to fast those days.
The term "able" (قادر) means that it is a requirement for a person to be able to fast. This excludes the sick person, as a sick person is not obligated to fast if they are unable to do so. Whether they are completely unable, such as fearing death, or the illness causes significant hardship and difficulty if they were to fast.
There are two types of illness:
The first type: The doctors declare that fasting would be life-threatening. This is the case with certain illnesses such as kidney failure, where doctors may confirm that if the person stops drinking water, they will die. Similarly, this applies to someone with heart disease or someone who has recently undergone surgery and requires continuous medication. Such individuals are required to break their fast because engaging in actions that would lead to death is not permissible in Islam.
Scholars have stated that if someone were to refrain from eating something like a dead body out of necessity, and they died because of that, they would be considered to have killed themselves, may Allah protect us, because they knowingly took actions that would lead to their demise.
Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) pointed out this principle: It is not permissible for a Muslim to engage in actions that would cause harm to themselves or lead to their death. Allah says:
وَلا تُلْقُوا بِأَيْدِيكُمْ إِلَى التَّهْلُكَةِ
"And do not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands" (al-Baqarah, 2:195). Therefore, it is not part of Allah’s religion or His Shari'ah to oblige a person to fast in a way that would lead to their destruction. For this reason, fasting is exempted for those who are ill, due to the significant hardship involved. So, it is even more reasonable to exempt someone from fasting if there is a genuine fear for their life.
On this basis: If the illness is severe to the point where the person fears for their life, they should not fast. However, if the person experiences difficulty and hardship due to the illness, they are given the choice between fasting or breaking their fast. It is better for them to break their fast, as this aligns with taking advantage of Allah's concessions. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reproached a man who made fasting difficult for himself, saying: "It is not righteousness to fast while traveling," meaning when it causes hardship and difficulty.
If, however, the person is able to fast without difficulty or hardship during their illness, the basic rule is that they must fast, and no concession is given in this case. For example, if someone breaks their arm but the fracture does not prevent them from fasting, they are required to fast unless they experience intense pain that requires medication to ease the pain. In this case, some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) have allowed using pain-relievers to avoid hardship. Allah says:
وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ
"And He has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty" (al-Hajj, 22:78).
Thus, the person must be capable of fasting. If they are capable, they are obliged to fast. The evidence for the requirement of ability is Almighty's statement:
لا يُكَلِّفُ اللَّهُ نَفْسًا إِلَّا وُسْعَهَا
"Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear" (al-Baqarah, 2:286), and the Prophet’s saying: "Take from the deeds what you are able to do." He also said, "The person who is planting and not able to continue will neither have a back (strength) nor a land (place)." The meaning here is that someone who fasts while incapable will ultimately harm themselves, or they will perform the act of worship with difficulty, fatigue, and frustration, which could result in a harm greater than if they had simply not fasted.
And he says: "When the testimony of the moon sighting is established during the day, abstaining (from eating or drinking) and making up the fast become obligatory for anyone who, by that time, has become eligible for the fast."
Testimony (Bayyinah): The term is derived from "البيان," which means clarity or explanation. It is said that "the dawn became clear" when its light appeared. The term "البينة" refers to clear evidence or proof that establishes the truth of a claim, revealing the facts.
For example, if two people argue before a judge, with one claiming a debt (e.g., "I am owed 1,000 riyals by so-and-so"), and the other denies it, the plaintiff may bring forward two reliable witnesses. In this case, the witnesses' testimony is considered "البينة"—clear proof that establishes the truth of the claim. Prior to the testimony, the defendant might have been telling the truth or might have been lying. The principle in Shari'ah is that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. When the two witnesses testify, their evidence clarifies the truth of the matter, showing that the claim of the plaintiff is true.
The term "الظهور الغلبة" (appearing victorious) is in the Almighty's statement:
فَأَصْبَحُوا ظَاهِرِينَ
"And they became evident (victorious)" (as-Saff, 61:14). This means that their claim was shown to be true, as the evidence in favor of the plaintiff became clear. Before the testimony, the truth was unclear, but once the witnesses testified, it was revealed that the plaintiff was correct. Therefore, "البينة" refers to evidence that clarifies and reveals the truth.
Thus, when testimony regarding the sighting of the moon is established (whether by the testimony of two just witnesses or other credible means), it obliges the Muslims to begin fasting, even if this testimony occurs during the day. Those who are eligible for fasting are then required to refrain from eating or drinking, and they must also make up the fast afterward.
The original form of testimony (البينة) is through the testimony of two just witnesses, based on the established criteria. However, testimony can also come from a single woman, as in cases such as testimony regarding breastfeeding. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "How is it when it has been said?!"—indicating that the testimony of a single woman was accepted in certain circumstances. For example, if a woman says, "I breastfed you and so-and-so," it is then established that the person is her sibling. Similarly, if a midwife—who is the person assisting in childbirth—testifies that a newborn cried immediately after birth, then this indicates the newborn's life. A newborn and a fetus only inherit if it is confirmed that they were alive at birth, and this is proven if they lived for at least a moment after birth. If the child was born dead, they inherit nothing. To establish inheritance, it must be confirmed that the child cried or showed signs of life at birth. There is a difference of opinion among scholars on this matter, but if a single woman testifies that the child cried at birth, her testimony is accepted in this case due to necessity, just as the testimony of a wet nurse is accepted.
These are instances where the testimony may be limited or incomplete. Therefore, bayyinah is typically two just witnesses testifying in the proper manner, stating that they saw the moon the previous night. If the people did not see the moon and broke their fast on the 30th of Sha'ban, but then the testimony of two witnesses is presented, saying they saw the moon the night before, the judge would order the people to fast, based on this testimony.
The proof for this is the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "Indeed, Allah has obligated upon you the fast of this day (meaning the day of 'Ashooraa'). So whoever among you has fasted, let him complete his fast, and whoever is breaking his fast, let him refrain for the remainder of the day." Those who broke their fast did so initially thinking that fasting was not obligatory, and they were certain that they were breaking their fast without violating any obligation. At first, fasting was optional, not compulsory. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed them to refrain for the rest of the day, this shows that the people of a town may be excused for breaking their fast if they did not see the moon in the beginning of the day, due to their lack of knowledge. However, once they knew and were certain that it was the start of Ramadan, they were no longer excused for continuing to break their fast. Thus, they are required to refrain from food and drink for the rest of the day, in accordance with the apparent meaning of the hadith narrated by Mu'aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).
Then they are required to make up for this day because the general rule in Shari'ah is that "there is no consideration for a clearly mistaken assumption". That is, an assumption that has been proven to be wrong should not be taken into account. In this case, they initially assumed that Sha'ban was complete, but it became clear that this assumption was incorrect, and it was confirmed that this day was part of Ramadan. We excuse them because when a person is excused for a reason, they are only required to do what is necessary in that situation.
They were allowed to break their fast in the beginning of the day due to their lack of knowledge, but once the reason for their ignorance was removed and they realized that this was indeed the beginning of Ramadan, they returned to the obligation of completing the fast for the rest of the day. Therefore, it is required for them to fast for the rest of the day, and they are also required to make up for this day. This is because Allah has made fasting the entire month of Ramadan obligatory, as He said:
فَمَنْ شَهِدَ مِنْكُمُ الشَّهْرَ فَلْيَصُمْهُ
"So whoever of you sights the month, let him fast it" (al-Baqarah, 2:185). These people are thus obligated to fast the entire month of Ramadan, and this day is part of Ramadan, so there is no reason to waive it.
Some scholars said that they are not required to make up the day, and instead, they should just refrain for the rest of the day without making up for it, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not instruct the companions to make up the day of 'Ashooraa'. This opinion is considered weak, and the majority hold that they must make up the day. The reason for its weakness is as follows: Firstly, the hadith of Mu'aawiyah can be addressed in two ways. The first point is that it is possible that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed them to make up the day, and it is also possible that he did not. Silence in narration does not necessarily indicate a lack of obligation, as is well known in the principles (of jurisprudence). Based on this, they said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) may have remained silent because it was known by default that they were required to make up the day.
The second perspective is that there is a distinction between the initiation of legislation (i.e., when a new ruling is introduced) and the continuation of an established ruling. The scholars argue that, during the incident of 'Ashooraa', the ruling was not fully established for the entire community, whereas for Ramadan, the fasting of the full month is a clear and ongoing obligation. Therefore, there is a difference between the situation on 'Ashooraa', where the legislation was suspended and did not require the fast to be made up, and the situation in Ramadan, where the obligation to fast for 30 days is established.
Thus, they concluded that it is obligatory for them to make up the day because, in general, they are required to fast thirty days of Ramadan, unlike those who were fasting on 'Ashooraa', as they were not initially obligated to do so. Therefore, there is a difference between being obligated to fast a day when the testimony of the moon sighting is established, and the lack of a specific command from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to make up the day of 'Ashooraa'.
The statement "and the obligation of making up for anyone who became eligible for it during the day" means that if a person wakes up intending to fast on a day of doubt (the 30th of Sha'ban), and it later becomes clear that this day is indeed part of Ramadan, they must make up the fast. This is because the person fasted with a doubtful intention. A doubtful intention does not negate the certainty required for fasting in Ramadan. If a person says, "It could be Ramadan, and it could be Sha'ban, so I will fast: if it is Ramadan, it is an obligatory fast, and if it is Sha'ban, it is a voluntary fast," their intention is not solely for an obligatory fast (since they included the possibility of fasting as a voluntary act). Therefore, their intention was not purely for the obligatory fast, and the intention for a voluntary fast was mixed in. The correct intention for the obligatory fast should be exclusive and unambiguous. Therefore, they are obligated to make up the day.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) emphasized the importance of intention in fasting, saying: "Whoever does not make the intention for fasting the night before, there is no fast for him," as narrated by Maymoonah, which is a saheeh hadith. Since we are required to make the intention for the fast the night before, the intention must be specifically for the obligatory fast, not uncertain or mixed. Since the person intended with doubt, their intention was not valid according to the proper Shar'i criteria, and thus the majority of scholars require them to make up the fast for that day. This is what is meant by the statement that "making up the fast is obligatory for all in this case."
However, if a person saw the crescent alone and intended to fast Ramadan, and then joined others who were already fasting in the morning, and later it was confirmed by testimony that the day was indeed part of Ramadan, their fast would be valid, and they would not need to make it up.
The statement "and similarly, a menstruating or postpartum woman who becomes clean" means that if a woman who is menstruating or postpartum becomes pure during the day of Ramadan, she is required to fast for the remainder of the day and make up the fast later. This is because a menstruating or postpartum woman is exempt from fasting while she is in a state of menstruation or postpartum bleeding. The general principle in Shari'ah is that what is permitted due to a valid excuse becomes invalid once the excuse is removed.
For example, it is permissible for a person to ask for help if they are in need, but once that need is met (e.g., if they are given enough to fulfill their need), it is no longer permissible for them to continue asking, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Until he has enough to sustain him." Once the need is met, the situation returns to the original rule, where asking is prohibited.
In the same way, a menstruating or postpartum woman is permitted to break her fast due to the excuse of menstruation or postpartum bleeding. Once the excuse is removed (i.e., she becomes pure), she must return to the original ruling and resume fasting for the remainder of the day. She is also required to make up that day after Ramadan.
Similarly, a traveler who arrives at their destination during Ramadan, having been permitted to break their fast due to travel, is required to fast the remainder of the day once they have arrived and the condition of travel has ended. This is similar to the instruction the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave regarding the Day of 'Ashooraa', where those who had broken their fast were instructed to continue fasting for the rest of the day.
Therefore, the ruling for the traveler, the menstruating woman, and the postpartum woman is the same as the ruling for fasting on the Day of 'Ashooraa', as mentioned in the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There is no reason to differentiate based on reasoning or other considerations. Hence, the original ruling indicated by the Hadith about the Day of 'Ashooraa' remains applicable. This is the view of the majority of scholars, and it is the strongest and most just opinion, as it aligns with the original principle. The strongest Shar'i opinions are those that are supported by the original rule.
The original principle is that one is obligated to refrain (from eating and drinking) during this month, as it is the month of fasting. Therefore, there should be no distinction between complete and incomplete parts of the day. If someone is allowed to eat or break their fast under certain circumstances, such as during travel or illness, and then the situation (such as illness, menstruation, or travel) ends, they are then required to return to the original obligation of fasting for the remainder of the day. The month is called the "month of fasting" because fasting is the primary act during it. If a person was permitted to eat due to illness, travel, menstruation, or postpartum bleeding, once these excuses are removed, they must return to the original rule, which is to refrain (from eating or drinking).
And regarding the statement "and a traveler who arrives while still fasting": this means that if a person travels and arrives during the day, they are required to fast for the remainder of the day. It was permitted for them to break their fast while traveling, [as Allah says]:
فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ
"So whoever of you is ill or on a journey, then an equal number of other days [should be fasted]" (al-Baqarah, 2:184). Thus, the sick and the traveler are excused during their illness or travel, but once the travel or illness ends, they return to the original rule and are required to fast for the remainder of the day.
The Ruling for Those Who Break Their Fast Due to Old Age or an Illness That Cannot Be Cured
And he said: "And whoever breaks their fast due to old age or an illness that cannot be cured, must feed a poor person for each day." This is the second category of people who are permitted to break their fast during the month of Ramadan: the person who is suffering from an illness that is not expected to be cured, or an elderly person who is too weak to fast.
As for the person suffering from an illness that is not expected to be cured, such as someone with kidney failure or a chronic disease that makes it impossible for them to refrain from food and drink, they are required to provide food for the poor. They are shifted from fasting to feeding the poor, in accordance with Almighty's words:
وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ
"And upon those who are able to fast but with hardship, they have [the option of] fidya, the feeding of a poor person" (al-Baqarah, 2:184). There is also a qiraa'ah that says,
وعلى الذين يطَيّقونه
and in a qiraa'ah:
وعلى الذين يَطوّقونه
The meaning of this is that such people experience difficulty and strain and push themselves beyond their capacity to fast. Allah has obligated upon them the option to feed a poor person instead of fasting.
These individuals are not required to fast, neither as a performance of the fast nor as a missed fast to make up. The fasting obligation is lifted from them entirely. For the person who has an illness that cannot be cured, they cannot transition to fasting again, as their illness is permanent. Similarly, the elderly person who is no longer able to fast is in the same situation: they may break their fast and are not required to make it up. These two categories are permitted to break their fast without any need to make it up because Allah has obligated them to feed the poor instead of fasting, as indicated by the verse in Surah al-Baqarah.
And concerning the phrase "Feed a poor person for each day": The method of feeding the poor can vary. If the person chooses, they may arrange for food each day and give it to a poor person. Alternatively, they can gather food for thirty poor people at the end of the month of Ramadan and feed them all at once, or provide the food to all thirty in one go. However, if the person collects food from the start of Ramadan and distributes it across thirty days, intending this as a replacement for the full month, it would not be valid. The feeding must occur after breaking the fast for each day, not before. Therefore, if someone wishes to feed a poor person for each day, they must do so after dawn (after the time for fasting is over). They are required to feed the poor after they have fasted for the day. It is not permissible to feed the poor before the fast is broken, even if it is before the appearance of the true dawn.
And the feeding must occur after dawn because at that time, the obligation to feed becomes incumbent upon the person. If they feed before this time, it is considered voluntary feeding (نافلة) and not obligatory (فريضة), because Allah has not yet obligated the feeding. This is similar to the situation where someone prays before the appointed time; it would not count as a valid prayer. Therefore, the time of fasting is what matters, and when the time for fasting begins, the feeding for that day becomes due. If they wanted to feed earlier, it would not count as fulfilling the obligation, and it would be considered voluntary, not obligatory.
If someone delays and feeds for all thirty days in one go, there are two possible scenarios:
1. They may gather food for thirty days and give it to one poor person.
2. They may gather food for thirty days and distribute it among thirty poor people.
If they distribute food to thirty poor people, it is sufficient. However, giving the food for thirty days to a single poor person would only count for one day, as each day requires its own separate feeding. Therefore, they must feed thirty poor people if the month is complete, or twenty-nine if the month is shorter.
The preferred and better option is to feed one poor person each day. However, if someone delays and feeds at the end of Ramadan, it will still count, but the question arises whether they incur a sin for delaying. Some scholars say they incur a sin for the delay, even though the feeding itself is valid. Others allow the delay but argue that the view that they incur a sin is reasonable and strong. Based on this, it is recommended that they feed a poor person for each day they missed, ideally on the day of that missed fast.
Fasting in Ramadan is obligatory upon every Muslim who is accountable and capable. Those who are unable to fast may break their fast and make up for it after Ramadan. Among those who are excused in Ramadan are: the menstruating woman, the woman in postpartum bleeding, the sick person, the traveler on a journey that permits shortening prayers, and the pregnant or nursing women if they fear for their own health or the health of their child.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the noblest of the prophets and messengers, our master Muhammad, and upon his family and companions. After that:
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Fasting is recommended for a sick person if it does not harm them, and for a traveler who is shortening their prayers."
It is recommended to break the fast for a sick person, as Allah says:
فَمَنْ كَانَ مِنْكُمْ مَرِيضًا أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ
"So whoever among you is ill or on a journey, then an equal number of other days should be fasted" (al-Baqarah, 2:184). Allah commanded that during illness and travel, a person may opt to break their fast. However, is this permission given as an obligation or as a choice? Scholars have two opinions:
- The majority of scholars say that a person who is ill or traveling may choose to fast or not, depending on their condition. This is the view of the majority, including the four imams.
- Some scholars said that it is not valid for a traveler to fast, and if they fast while traveling, their fast is invalid and they must make up the fast later. Because of Allah says: {فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ} (al-Baqarah, 2:184), which means that the traveler is required to break their fast, and their fast should be made up on other days. This is the view of the madhhab of Dhaahiriyyah.
The correct view is that of the majority, because the Sunnah explains and clarifies the Qur'an. The Prophet (peace be upon him) traveled with his companions, and Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reported: "Some of us fasted and some of us did not. The fasting ones did not criticize those who broke their fast, nor did those who broke their fast criticize those who fasted."
Also, it is reported in Saheeh that 'Amr ibn Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him) asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "I am able to fast while traveling." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied: "If you wish, you may fast, and if you wish, you may break your fast." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave him the choice, and did not command him to break his fast, which shows that a person is given the choice in this matter.
However, if a person experiences hardship and difficulty while traveling, they are permitted to break their fast, and in some cases, it may even become obligatory for them to do so. This is because when the Prophet (peace be upon him) fasted until he reached "كراع الغميم", a place between Makkah and Madinah, which is closer to Makkah than Madinah, the fast became very difficult for the travelers with him. "كراع الغميم" is near the sea and closer to the direction of 'Asfaan. The distance between Madinah and 'Asfaan is approximately seven or eight stages (a stage being a day’s journey). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fasted all this time, but when the heat became intense and the fast became difficult for the companions, he broke his fast and told them that some people were still fasting. He said: "Those are the disobedient ones, those are the disobedient ones."
This was because the day was extremely hot and burdensome on the travelers. Therefore, it was advisable for them to take advantage of Allah’s concession. Continuing to fast in such conditions would have been harmful and difficult for the soul. Based on this, scholars differentiate in the case of the traveler: if the travel is burdensome and exhausting, making fasting difficult for them, they should break their fast. Some scholars even consider it obligatory in such cases. However, if the difficulty does not reach the level of hardship, the traveler is given the choice to either fast or break the fast.
The third situation is when a person travels while feeling comfortable—like in the case of modern means of transportation—where they don't experience hardship or difficulty. Is it permissible for them to break their fast?
The answer is yes, it is permissible for them to break their fast. This is because the Shari'ah has attached the concession to the general case, and the principle in usool is that exceptions (like concessions for fasting) are not made based on rare situations. Rare situations, like a traveler being completely at ease, do not override the general rule. In fact, traveling inherently involves two types of hardship: one is external and the other internal.
The external hardship is the physical exhaustion from the journey, such as the difficulty of traveling, the discomfort of traveling long distances, and the unfamiliarity of being away from home. The internal hardship is the psychological burden of being away from family, home, and familiar surroundings, which can be mentally exhausting even if the person seems comfortable physically.
The Shari'ah has granted the concession to break the fast based on the mere fact of being a traveler. So, whether the traveler is comfortable or not, they are still given the option to fast or break their fast. There is no distinction between someone who is comfortable and someone who is not, because the concession is based on the travel itself, not on the person’s state of ease.
Thus, it is incorrect for someone to object to a traveler who is comfortable breaking their fast. This is a mistake, because Allah has permitted travelers to break their fast, and He did not differentiate between travelers. No one has the right to object to a traveler’s choice to break their fast, even if they are feeling completely at ease, because Allah has allowed them to do so.
We say that the traveler has the choice: they can fast or break their fast. However, if the traveler is comfortable, it is preferable for them to fast, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself fasted while traveling. Fasting would also absolve them of any responsibility, and it is better to clear one’s conscience early rather than delay it. It’s always better to relieve oneself of responsibility in the present, as we cannot guarantee what will happen later. Therefore, scholars say it is best for the traveler to fast and not to break their fast.
And his statement: "And a traveler who shortens the prayer." This means that it is permissible for a traveler to break their fast under the condition that their journey qualifies as a journey of shortening (القصر). A journey of shortening is one in which the distance traveled is at least the distance that a camel would cover in a day and night, which is approximately between 75 to 80 kilometers.
So, if someone intends to travel to a town or city that is between 75 and 80 kilometers away from their current city, they are allowed to break their fast. However, if the distance is shorter than that—like 60 or 70 kilometers—they are not allowed to break their fast, even if the difference is very small, such as a kilometer or half a kilometer.
Some recent scholars have questioned this, asking how the distance for travel is determined. For example, why would someone traveling to a city 74 kilometers away not be allowed to break their fast, but someone traveling to a city 75 kilometers away would be? We respond that this is a differentiation made by the Shari'ah.
When 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbaas was asked about shortening the prayer while traveling from Makkah to places like Mar adh-Dhahraan and al-Jumoom, he replied that it was not permitted, but it was allowed to shorten the prayer when traveling to Jaddah, 'Asfaan, and Taa'if. He (may Allah be pleased with him) permitted shortening to Jaddah, as it was the distance of a full day's journey, as well as Taa'if, which also met the distance requirement, and 'Asfaan, which was between Makkah and the distance of a full day's travel (a "stage" in terms of journey).
Similarly, ibn 'Umar would shorten his prayers when traveling to his farm in Waadi Reem, which was over 70 kilometers from Madinah, a distance equivalent to a full stage of travel.
Based on this, we say: Allah, Blessed and Exalted, has permitted a traveler to break their fast. However, we do not allow fasting to be broken on every journey unless that journey is considered valid in the Shari'ah. A valid journey in the Shari'ah is one that covers the distance of a day and night of travel. The proof for considering this in the Shari'ah is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel a day's journey and night."
If anything less than the distance of a day's travel and night were considered a journey, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would have said: "It is not permissible for a woman to travel a day," or "It is not permissible for a woman to travel a night," or "It is not permissible for a woman to travel during the day," or even, "It is not permissible for a woman to leave the city." But since he specified "a journey of a day and night," the scholars have understood that the Shari'ah defines travel as the distance covered in a day and night.
Therefore, anyone who intends to travel from their city to a place that is at least a day and night's journey away (approximately 75 to 80 kilometers) is permitted to shorten their prayer and break their fast.
Additionally, it is a condition for this journey to not be one of disobedience, as one is not allowed to break their fast during a sinful journey, since it is not a valid journey in the Shari'ah. However, if the journey involves hardship and difficulty, the traveler is permitted to break their fast on the basis of necessity, not because it is a journey.
The fundamental principle here is that the Shari'ah has not allowed such a journey, so it is treated as if the person is not traveling. They are only permitted to shorten their prayer and break their fast if the journey is one that the Shari'ah recognizes as valid. As for journeys that are not recognized by the Shari'ah, such as those involving sin, severing family ties, or disobedience to religion, the person is not permitted to take the concessions of fasting or shortening their prayers, as we discussed in the chapter on the prayer of the traveler.
"And if a person intends to fast a day and then travels during it, they are permitted to break their fast." This is the view of the majority of scholars, may Allah have mercy on them: If a person resides and then travel happens to occur during the day, they are allowed to break their fast. It is not required for the traveler to have made the intention of traveling the night before. If travel occurs during the day, it is permissible for them to break their fast as soon as they leave the city.
The basis for this ruling is that Allah, the Almighty, says:
أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ
"or on a journey" (al-Baqarah, 184). He described the person as being "on a journey." Some of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) allowed breaking the fast even within the city. Some scholars also held that breaking the fast depends on the intention, but this view is considered weak because it contradicts the Quranic text and the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
The clear text from the Quran describes a person as being on a journey, and a person is not considered a traveler until they actually depart. The reality of "journeying" is confirmed by leaving the outermost limits of the city. So, once you leave the city's boundaries, it becomes permissible for you to break your fast. However, if you are still within the city, you are not yet considered a traveler.
Therefore, it is said that a person is not permitted to break their fast unless they have passed the outer limits of the city. We have clarified the criteria for leaving the city in the section on the prayer of the traveler in the book of prayer. The condition is that once a person leaves the city, they are considered to be traveling, and the issue of whether or not they can see the buildings and structures is secondary.
It is narrated from some Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), like Abu Basrah al-Ghifaari (may Allah be pleased with him), who broke his fast while still seeing the buildings. The scholars explained this by saying that when he said "this is from the Sunnah," his intention was that it is not a condition to be completely out of sight of the buildings. There are two issues here:
1. Leaving the city.
2. Once you've left the city, is it required to no longer see any signs of the buildings, meaning you must be far enough that you can't see the urban area anymore? Or is it enough to simply leave the city?
The apparent meaning of the narration from Abu Basrah is that when he was on his ship on the Tigris River, he could still see the buildings, indicating that the allowance to break the fast is not invalidated by the sight of buildings. This view is supported by the majority of scholars: the important factor is leaving the city, and it does not matter if you can still see buildings. The allowance to break the fast is given once you have left the city, and it is not required that you cannot see the buildings anymore.
This distinction between the sight of buildings and the act of leaving the city is important. It is different from the issue of intention. What supports the idea that the Shari'ah has allowed for travel-related concessions is that two allowances are granted: 1. Shortening the prayer. 2. Breaking the fast.
Both are acts of worship, and yet it is agreed upon that one does not shorten their prayer while inside the city, even if their intention is to travel. An example of this is when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prayed the Dhuhr prayer in the city as four rak'ahs, despite intending to travel for the farewell pilgrimage. He later prayed two rak'ahs for the 'Asr prayer at Dhul-Hulayfah, indicating that even though he intended to travel, he did not shorten the prayer while still in the city. Likewise, in the case of fasting, if a person wakes up intending to travel, they are not allowed to break their fast unless they have left the city and passed the urban area in the manner described in the section on the prayer of the traveler.
The statement: "And if a pregnant or breastfeeding woman breaks her fast out of fear for themselves, they should make up the fast without needing to feed anyone." means that they are required to make up the missed day but do not need to provide food for the poor.
There are three possible situations regarding the fasting exemption for pregnant and breastfeeding women:
- If the fear is for their own health or for both their health and the child’s, they are allowed to break their fast and only need to make up the missed day, without needing to feed anyone, because the excuse is directly related to their own condition.
- However, if they fear for the child alone (and not for themselves), then they must both make up the day and feed a poor person for each missed day. This is based on the apparent meaning of the Ayah from al-Baqarah:
وَعَلَى الَّذِينَ يُطِيقُونَهُ فِدْيَةٌ طَعَامُ مِسْكِينٍ
And upon those who are able to fast, a ransom of feeding a poor person." (2:184).
- Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) held the view that this ruling applies to pregnant and breastfeeding women, stating that the pregnant woman must feed a poor person if she breaks her fast out of fear for her child. However, the majority of scholars disagree with this view, and they maintain that if the woman breaks her fast due to fear for her own health or for both her health and the child’s, she only needs to make up the fast without having to feed anyone, just like the traveler or the sick person, because the excuse is directly related to her.
- If the woman fears for the child alone and not for her own health, then both feeding and making up the missed fast are required. The reason for feeding in this case is due to the separation of the excuse (i.e., the concern for the child), while the need to make up the fast is because the day of fasting was obligatory for her in the first place.
The statement "And for their children, they must make up the fast and feed a poor person for each day." refers to situations where the concern is for the child. Sometimes, the breastfeeding woman's health may be fine, and she could fast, but she fears that if she does, her child may suffer from lack of milk. In such a case, her reason for breaking the fast is tied to the child, not her own health.
Similarly, the pregnant woman might be able to fast herself but fears that fasting may harm the child (for example, if a doctor advises her not to fast because it may harm the baby). In this case, her fear is for the child and not herself, and the excuse is thus separate from her own health.
The author mentions the case of a person who becomes insane (i.e., mentally ill) or faints while fasting. The scenario is as follows: A person intends to fast for a religious obligation such as the fast of Ramadan, a vow, or an expiation (kaffaarah). However, if they wake up and are unconscious throughout the day or if they become insane and do not regain their sanity until after sunset, their fast is invalidated due to this unconsciousness or insanity.
The reason for this, as explained by scholars, is that the intention (niyyah) is nullified, and the person's ability to make a conscious decision is lost. While there are cases where the legal status of a person in a state of unconsciousness or insanity is maintained, such as in matters of Islam or apostasy, this issue is different. In the case of fasting, if the person becomes unconscious or insane, they cannot maintain their fast, as the intention and consciousness are integral to the fast.
As for the statement "not if they sleep the entire day", scholars have differed regarding a person who sleeps throughout the entire day while fasting. Some scholars say that the fast remains valid even if the person sleeps from dawn until sunset. This opinion is based on the premise that sleep does not invalidate the fast, unlike insanity or fainting. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not rule that fasting would be invalidated by sleep, and there is consensus that certain types of sleep — such as sleep between Dhuhr and 'Asr, or a short nap (qayloolah) — do not break the fast. The difference of opinion arises in cases where the person sleeps for most of the day or the entire day.
A group of scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, affirmed the distinction between insanity, fainting, and sleep, stating that sleep does not invalidate the fast, unlike insanity and fainting. Some scholars argued that if a person sleeps for most or all of the day, their fast is invalid. This is because the sleep that is accepted in fasting is the usual, normal sleep, and if the sleep deviates from the norm (e.g., sleeping the majority of the day), it is considered similar to insanity or fainting, thus invalidating the fast.
Regarding the statement "and the one who faints is only required to make up the fast", it is agreed by scholars that a person who is insane is not required to make up the fast. For instance, if someone experiences intermittent insanity and is insane from dawn until sunset, their fast is not valid, even if they attempted to fast, and they are not required to make up that day's fast.
As for the one who faints, scholars have two opinions: Some scholars say that the one who faints is to be treated like a person who is insane, and therefore, they are not required to make up the fast, nor is their fast valid. Other scholars say that the one who faints is similar to someone who is sleeping, and their fast remains valid.
The correct view, which is more likely — and Allah knows best — is that the one who faints is treated like the insane, and thus they must make up the fast, and their fast is not valid.
Regarding what is commonly referred to nowadays as "bed death" or "brain death," where a person loses consciousness and only has heartbeats, and doctors diagnose brain death, such a person is not considered accountable (مكلف) for fasting. They are not required to make up the fast or have someone fast on their behalf, nor are their family members required to feed the poor on their behalf. The [Shar'i] responsibility is lifted once brain death is confirmed by doctors.
His statement: “It is obligatory to specify the intention at night for each obligatory fasting day.”
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) begins with this statement to clarify the issues and rulings related to the fasting person’s intention. The reason for this is that fasting is an act of worship, and an act of worship is not valid without an intention. Clarifying the rulings of worship that require an intention necessitates explaining the ruling on intention, its limits, and its conditions.
Fasting is divided into two types: obligatory fasting and voluntary fasting. Both types are not valid without an intention. If a person were to abstain from food as a form of protest and continued this abstention for an entire day, we would not consider him to be fasting, neither voluntarily nor obligatorily, because he did not intend to draw closer to Allah with this abstention. Similarly, if someone refrains from food and drink to lose weight or out of fear that eating and drinking might harm their body, even if they continue for a whole day, we do not consider them to be fasting. This is because they did not intend to worship and draw closer to Allah.
As for fasting that Allah has obligated upon the accountable person, it is not valid nor acceptable unless the intention is made at night. The evidence for this is the saying of the Almighty:
وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ
“And they were not commanded except to worship Allah, [being] sincere to Him in religion.” (Al-Bayyinah, 98:5) and the Almighty said:
فَاعْبُدِ اللَّهَ مُخْلِصًا لَهُ الدِّينَ
“So worship Allah, being sincere to Him in religion.” (Az-Zumar, 39:2)
The implication of this noble Ayah is that Allah has commanded sincerity in worship for His sake alone. Sincerity depends on intention, and there is no valid worship without intention. Since fasting is an act of worship, it is not valid without an intention.
As for the evidence from the Sunnah, it is the narration of the Mother of the Believers, Hafsah (may Allah be pleased with her), who reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever does not make the intention at night, there is no fast for him.” In another narration: “Whoever does not gather the intention at night, there is no fast for him.”
The implication of this hadith is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) declared the fast invalid if the person did not make the intention at night.
It is also established in the Saheehayn from the hadith of 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Actions are judged by intentions.” And fasting is an action [so it is judged by the intention].
Another piece of evidence from the Sunnah is the Hadith Qudsi, where Allah Almighty says: “Every action of the son of Adam belongs to him, except fasting; it is for Me, and I will reward it. He leaves his food, drink, and desires for My sake.” The phrase “He leaves his food, drink, and desires for My sake” means that the person intends to fast seeking closeness to Allah. This shows that fasting is valid only if the person intends to refrain from food and drink for the sake of Allah.
For this reason, scholars have given fasting a special status. Some of the Shaafi'ee fuqahaa'—based on one opinion in the madhhab of imam ash-Shaafi'ee—have stated that fasting is better than prayer. The reason for this is the hadith where Allah says: “Except fasting, it is for Me, and I will reward it.” They argued that the best and most beloved deeds to Allah are those done with sincerity (ikhlaas), which is at the core of fasting. Since fasting is fundamentally about sincerity, it is considered superior to prayer in this regard.
However, the correct opinion is that prayer is better than fasting. This is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Be upright and you will not be able to do it all, but know that the best of your actions is prayer.” And as is established in the two Sahihs from the narration: “I asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): 'Which deed is the most beloved to Allah?' He replied: 'Prayer at its proper time.'”
Fasting is divided into two categories: obligatory (الفريضة) and voluntary (النافلة).
1. As for the obligatory, it is not valid except with one intention.
2. As for the voluntary, there are two opinions among the scholars:
- Some scholars say that it is necessary to make the intention for voluntary fasting during the night. For example, if you want to fast on Monday or Thursday in order to draw closer to Allah, you must make the intention to fast on the night before each of those days, i.e., the night of Monday and the night of Thursday.
- However, a group of scholars holds that it is valid to fast voluntarily without making the intention the night before, and this is the correct opinion. The evidence for this is found in the hadith of Umm'ul-Mu’mineen (the Mother of the Believers) 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). She reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Do you have anything to eat?” She replied, “No.” He said, “Then I will fast.” This was during the day, which indicates that it is permissible to start a voluntary fast during the day, without having to make the intention the night before.
Thus, if you wake up on Monday and are unaware that it is Monday, and someone tells you after Fajr prayer (before you eat anything): "Today is Monday," and you then say, "In that case, I will fast," your fast is valid.
Similarly, if you wake up and find there is no food, and you had already entered the day after Fajr without eating anything, and you then decide, “In that case, I will fast for the rest of the day,” your fast is valid and accepted. This is because it was the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the hadith of 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) clarifies and overrides the hadith of Hafsah (may Allah be pleased with her).
In conclusion: The general rule is to make the intention the night before, as he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever does not make the intention at night, there is no fast for him.” However, the fasting of voluntary days is an exception to this, as established by the hadith of 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), which allows the person to initiate the fast after Fajr without prior intention.
The statement: "It is obligatory to determine the intention at night for each obligatory fasting day."
There are several issues related to the intention in fasting:
The first issue: The obligation of intention: It is mandatory, and the evidence for its obligation is derived from both the Kitaab and Sunnah.
The second issue: The difference between obligatory and voluntary fasting: In obligatory fasting, one must establish the intention at night (before dawn). In voluntary fasting, it is permissible to form the intention during the day, even if one did not intend to fast the night before.
The third issue: If we say that the intention must be established at night, it is known that the night of fasting begins at sunset. The question is: Is the intention valid as soon as the sun sets, or is it only considered valid if made after midnight?
First opinion: Some scholars argue that the intention must be formed after midnight, because a person does not truly enter the next night until after midnight. They support this by drawing an analogy with the Tawaaf al-Ifaadah on the night of 'Eid al-Adha, which is valid only after midnight and not before, based on the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) permission for women to leave after midnight. Similarly, they argue that the intention for fasting must be formed after midnight, and the reference point is the second half of the night, not the first.
And a group of scholars said—this is the second opinion: It is permissible to establish the intention as soon as the sun sets on the previous day. This is based on the apparent meaning of the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the hadith of Umm'ul-Mu’mineen Hafsah: "Whoever does not establish the intention at night..." A person is considered to have "spent the night" and "established the intention" from the time after sunset. Therefore, they said that if a person makes the intention after sunset, it is valid and sufficient. This is the correct opinion: If a person intends to fast before midnight—whether in the first or second half of the night—their intention is valid and acceptable.
The benefit of this difference of opinion is as follows: If a person intends to fast in the first half of the night but then falls asleep before the second half and wakes up after the Fajr adhaan, then according to the first opinion, which requires intention in the second half of the night, the fast would not be valid. However, according to the second opinion, the fast would be valid. Based on this, it is necessary to have the intention set overnight, whether it occurs in the first half or the second half of the night.
The fourth issue: Specification (تعيين): Since we have established that intention is obligatory, it means that in your heart, you intend to fast that day as an act of devotion to Allah Almighty. This is the essence of intention. However, beyond the intention, there is another aspect called specification (تعيين).
Specification means defining whether your fast is obligatory or voluntary. If it is obligatory, you must specify whether it is a Ramadan fast, an expiatory fast (kaffaarah), or a fast due to a vow (النظر). This specification should be part of your intention.
For example, if you are in Ramadan, your intention should be to fast the next day as part of Ramadan. If you are fasting as an expiation, you must specify whether it is for breaking a fast through intercourse, for unintentional killing, for dhihaar (a form of prohibited divorce-like statement), or for any other form of expiation.
In summary, the purpose of specification is to determine whether your intention is for an obligatory or voluntary fast. If it is obligatory, you must then specify whether it is for Ramadan, a vow, an expiation, or any other required fast. The meaning of specifying the intention is to clearly define the purpose of the obligatory fast if it is indeed obligatory.
And if the fast is voluntary: is it a specific voluntary fast, such as fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, the white days of each month (13th, 14th, and 15th), the day of 'Ashooraa', or the day of 'Arafah? Or is it a general voluntary fast, where one fasts simply as an act of devotion to Allah Almighty without intending a specific day for that voluntary fast?
This is what the author refers to regarding the issue of specification (تعيين)—just as when you pray four units (rak‘ahs) of an obligatory prayer, you must specify whether it is for Dhuhr, 'Asr, or 'Ishaa'. Similarly, scholars state that one must specify their fast just as they must specify the obligatory prayer.
His statement: "For every obligatory fast, specification of the fast itself is required, not merely the intention of obligation."
This ruling applies to Ramadan. Some scholars have said that if Ramadan begins, one can make the intention at the start of the month to fast all thirty days, and that would be sufficient. This is the madhhab al-Hanafiyyah, may Allah have mercy on them. They argue that since the time of Ramadan does not allow for any other type of fast, the intention automatically applies to Ramadan. According to them, making a single intention at the beginning of the month is sufficient for the entire month, as the intention cannot be directed toward anything other than Ramadan. Thus, they hold that there is no need to renew the intention every night.
However, the correct opinion is that of the madhhab of the majority (jumhoor), based on the general statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Whoever does not establish the intention at night, there is no fast for him.”
This hadith clearly indicates that the intention must be set each night for the fast to be valid. This ruling applies to obligatory fasts, as we have mentioned, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not differentiate between the fast of Ramadan and other obligatory fasts.
His statement: "Not merely the intention of obligation"
This means that if a person simply intends to fast out of obligation in a general sense, it does not suffice. If one merely intends "a mandatory fast," it could refer to Ramadan, an expiatory fast (kaffaarah), a fast for expiation of killing, dhihaar (a prohibited form of divorce-like statement), an oath, or a vow.
For this reason, scholars say that it is not sufficient for someone to simply think: "I intend to fast today because it is an obligatory fast." Instead, one must specifically determine whether it is a fast for Ramadan, an expiation, a vow, or something else. If the intention is vague, it does not fulfill the requirement; the person must clearly specify the type of obligatory fast they are observing.
The statement: “Voluntary fasts are valid with an intention made during the day, whether before or after midday (الزوال).”
A voluntary fast is the opposite of an obligatory fast, referring to any fast that is not required. This includes both specific voluntary fasts and general voluntary fasts.
A specific voluntary fast is one observed on particular days due to their virtue or because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recommended them. Examples include fasting on Mondays and Thursdays, the white days (13th, 14th, and 15th of each lunar month), the Day of 'Ashooraa', and the Day of 'Arafah.
A general voluntary fast, on the other hand, is one that a person observes without having a particular day in mind, purely as an act of devotion to Allah. For instance, if someone wakes up on a very hot day and recalls the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Whoever fasts one day for the sake of Allah, Allah will distance his face from the Hellfire by seventy years,” they may decide to fast that day simply for the sake of Allah, without intending it as a specific recommended fast.
For both specific and general voluntary fasts, it is permissible to form the intention during the day. If a person did not realize that it was the Day of 'Ashooraa' or the Day of 'Arafah but later in the day (after Fajr) found out and decided to fast—as long as they had not eaten or drunk anything—their fast is valid. This is because a voluntary fast does not require the intention to be established the night before, unlike an obligatory fast, which does require the intention before Fajr.
The statement: “If one intends: ‘If tomorrow is Ramadan, then my fast is obligatory,’ it does not count.”
This is one of the rulings related to intention. Intention is obligatory in fasting, and it must meet certain conditions, including specificity and timing, according to the detailed rulings of scholars. Some scholars do not require the intention to be in the second half of the night but state that it must be made at any time during the night, whether in the first or second half. This is known as the condition of timing.
Another condition is certainty. Certainty means that the intention must be firm and free of hesitation. For example, if someone on the night of the 30th of Sha‘ban says: “If tomorrow is Ramadan, then I intend to fast as an obligation; and if it is not Ramadan, then it will be a voluntary fast,” this is considered a hesitant intention. In their heart, they are uncertain, thinking: “I will wake up fasting; if it turns out to be Ramadan, then it is my obligatory fast, and if not, then it is a voluntary fast.”
This type of indecisive intention invalidates the fast. Doubt and hesitation in forming the intention render it invalid because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Actions are only by intentions.”
The essence of intention is that it must be firm. If a person hesitates in their intention, then in reality, they have not truly intended the fast. As a result, they are neither considered to have established an obligatory fast nor a voluntary one.
If the person wakes up and discovers that the day is part of Ramadan, their nighttime intention was not fully directed toward Ramadan, so it is invalid. If they wake up and the day is not Ramadan, their fast could be considered voluntary, but only according to those who allow fasting on the Day of Doubt—and we have already clarified that this is not permissible.
In summary, hesitation in forming the intention invalidates it. If someone asks: “On the night of the 30th, I made the intention, saying: ‘If tomorrow is Ramadan, this is my obligatory fast, and if it is still Sha‘ban, then it is a voluntary fast for the sake of Allah.’ Then I woke up and found that it was Ramadan. Is my fast valid?”
The answer is: You must make up the fast because having a valid intention is a condition for the fast’s validity, as established by the Kitaab and Sunnah. Secondly, your intention was not made in the correct manner according to Shari'ah, and since hesitation invalidates the intention, it is as though you had not intended the fast at all.
The statement: “Whoever intends to break their fast has broken it.”
This is a matter of scholarly dispute. Some scholars argue that intending to break the fast during the day is similar to hesitation in the intention. If a person decides to break their fast, it is as though they have become uncertain about their fast.
Others say that such a person is not merely hesitant but has actually invalidated and revoked their intention. Based on this, their fast becomes invalid, and this is the view chosen by the author (may Allah have mercy on him).
However, some scholars hold that the mere intention to break the fast is overlooked. They cite the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Indeed, Allah has pardoned my Ummah for what they think to themselves, so long as they do not speak of it or act upon it.”
According to this view, since the person only thought about breaking the fast but did not actually say or do anything, their fast remains valid.
In response to this argument, other scholars clarify that this hadith refers to matters that are invalidated by speech or action. However, in this case, the invalidity (of the fast) is related to an act of the heart—namely, the revocation of intention. Since it is the heart’s decision that determines the validity of the fast, this hadith does not apply to the matter in dispute, as is evident.
The question: Is it required to fast the three days consecutively when observing the expiation for breaking an oath?
This is a matter of scholarly dispute. The reason for the difference of opinion lies in whether an irregular (شاذة) recitation [of the Qur'an] can be used as a basis for Shar'i rulings. Some scholars believe that irregular recitations establish Shar'i rulings, and this is the stronger of the two opinions.
The reason for this view is that in the recitation of ibn Mas‘ood (may Allah be pleased with him) [the Ayah in Surah al-Maa'idah regarding the expiation for breaking an oath is recited as]:
فصيام ثلاثة أيام متتابعات
“Then fasting three consecutive days.” Since this recitation includes the condition of consecutiveness, those who accept irregular recitations as evidence argue that fasting the three days consecutively is obligatory.
However, some scholars reject this position. They argue that irregular recitations are not to be accepted—either as the Qur’an or as a source for Shar'i rulings—because they contradict the final recitation (العرضة الأخيرة) that Angel Jibreel reviewed with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
And if the recitation is irregular, they say that it is neither confirmed as Qur'an nor as Sunnah. Since it is not established as either, it does not necessitate the establishment of a Shar'i ruling. This is the view of the madhhab of the majority.
On the other hand, imam Ahmad and a group of scholars in the principles hold that Shar'i rulings can be established based on irregular recitations.
An example of this issue is the hadith narrated by 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her): “Among the things revealed to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was that ten known breastfeedings establish kinship (mahram status), then it was abrogated to five. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) passed away while it was still recited as part of the Qur'an.”
This is an irregular (الشاذة) recitation, and in fact, it is a recitation that was abrogated.
Her statement, “It was still recited as part of the Qur'an,” means that some of the Companions continued to recite it and believed it to still be part of the Qur'an, as they were unaware that it had been abrogated in the final review.
This is the intended meaning of her words: “It was still recited as part of the Qur'an.”
This situation occurred frequently because the Companions would recite verses that had been abrogated, either due to their lack of knowledge of the abrogation or because these Ayat were not included in the final review (العرضة الأخيرة), in which Jibreel reviewed the Qur'an with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) twice in the last year of his life.
Based on this, we can say that irregular recitations have two aspects:
The first aspect is whether they are considered part of the Qur'an, which can only be established through Tawaatur under strict conditions, such as conformity with Arabic linguistic rules, along with other criteria outlined by scholars of Qiraa'aat. Since these recitations do not meet these conditions, they are not recognized as Qur’anic text.
The second aspect is whether they can be used as a basis for Shar'i rulings. Since these recitations contain explicit rulings, they require recognition as valid sources for deriving Shari'ah. Just as khabar al-Aahaad can establish a Shar'i ruling even though it does not reach the level of Tawaatur, an irregular recitation that has been transmitted through Aahaad can also establish a Shar'i ruling, even if it does not meet the conditions to be considered part of the Qur'an.
This view was championed by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in his Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, where he provided a valuable and insightful discussion on the topic. He also extensively addressed the issue of the five breastfeedings, explaining it thoroughly as was his custom (may Allah have mercy on him).
Ibn Taymiyyah established that irregular recitations have two aspects:
1. Whether they are part of the Qur'an
2. Whether they establish Shar'i rulings
Regarding whether they are part of the Qur'an, he stated that we only worship Allah through what has been established by Tawaatur, which is the final review presented to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
As for whether they establish Shar'i rulings, he held that they do necessitate the establishment of Shar' rulings. Based on this, he concluded that fasting the expiation for breaking an oath must be consecutive, meaning a person must fast three consecutive days.
And Allah knows best.
Question: Should two witnesses be punished if their testimony is later found to be incorrect, whether in determining the beginning or end of the month?
Answer: A witness is not to be punished (تعزير) unless it is proven that they deliberately lied or gave false testimony. This is established in one of two ways:
- The witness admits to the judge that they intentionally gave false testimony. For example, if a person comes forward and confesses that they falsely testified against someone, claiming they committed an act they did not do, then their own admission establishes that they were a false witness.
- If this admission is made, Shar'i consequences follow. The first consequence is the nullification of any ruling that was based on their false testimony.
There is, however, a scholarly dispute regarding whether a ruling based on false testimony should be nullified if the witness recants after the ruling has been issued but before its execution. Some scholars argue that the ruling should still be enforced because when the witness initially testified, they were deemed trustworthy and just. Once they retract their testimony, their credibility becomes questionable, and it is unclear whether they are telling the truth in their retraction. Therefore, their initial testimony should be upheld, as it was accepted when they were considered trustworthy. According to this view, the ruling remains valid.
The correct opinion, which is the view of the madhhab of the majority, is that if the witness confesses to giving false testimony, then the ruling must be nullified.
The second matter: He is punished (التعزير), and the punishment varies depending on the individual. Some individuals are disciplined verbally, while others may receive physical punishment.
For those disciplined verbally, this includes reprimanding and scolding. This applies to individuals known for their good character and uprightness who may have made a one-time mistake. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Pardon those of good character for their lapses, except in cases of prescribed punishments." In such cases, the judge may show leniency, and the punishment may be limited to a verbal reprimand, as some people feel deep shame and regret when scolded. In fact, some individuals are more hurt by harsh words than by physical punishment. The judge may reprimand and rebuke them in a way that shames them for their actions.
For those who require physical punishment, the judge may order them to be flogged. For example, they may receive ten lashes in front of the public, or the flogging may take place at the entrance of the masjid in front of others, serving as a form of public humiliation and a deterrent to others.
As for the third ruling: It is public shaming (التشهير), which involves parading the false witness through the marketplace. The righteous predecessors (may Allah have mercy upon them) supported and issued rulings on this practice.
This form of public shaming includes making an announcement as the person is led through the marketplace. A caller may declare: “Shaykh so-and-so sends his greetings and informs you that we have found this person to be a false witness—do not believe him!” This humiliates the person, discourages them from repeating such behavior, and warns others against committing a similar offense.
If witnesses are later found to be mistaken, they are neither punished nor labeled as false witnesses (شهود زور). Their testimony may have been given in good faith, as mistakes in testimony are possible. A person may believe they saw the new moon, but in reality, they misjudged what they saw. In such cases, it remains uncertain whether they made a genuine mistake or intentionally lied.
Since there is room for interpretation and a possibility that they were sincere but mistaken, it is not permissible to accuse them of lying or punish them as long as there is a valid explanation for their mistake.
Therefore, if a reasonable justification for their error is found, they are not punished, nor is their testimony declared false (شهود زور). Their testimony remains valid because they were deemed trustworthy and just when they gave it, and the judge ruled based on their credibility. The only exception is if the witness themselves confesses that they deliberately lied. If a person admits: "I knowingly gave false testimony so that people would fast incorrectly," then they are equally guilty as any other false witness and will be treated accordingly. And Allah knows best.
Question: Is breaking the fast based on the actual sunset or the Maghrib adhaan? What should one do if they see the sun set but the adhaan is delayed, especially considering the command to hasten the breaking of the fast?
Answer: If a person is in a city where they cannot directly observe the sunset, they should rely on the Adhaan. This is based on the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Eat and drink until ibn Umm Maktoom calls the Adhaan.”
Here, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) made the Adhaan a sign for the beginning of the night. Therefore, when the Adhaan is given, it is permissible for a fasting person to break their fast.
However, if a person is in a location where they can see the sun and confirm its setting, then the ruling is based on the hadith: “When the night approaches from here and the day retreats from there, the fasting person may break their fast.” If a person sees the arrival of the night and the departure of the day and is familiar with the signs of sunset, they may break their fast.
Simply assuming that the sun has set, however, requires careful verification. Allah the Almighty states:
ثُمَّ أَتِمُّوا الصِّيَامَ إِلَى اللَّيْلِ
“Then complete the fast until the night.” (Al-Baqarah, 2:187) The phrase "until the night" means that one must continue fasting slightly into the night. Some scholars clarify this by saying that one should wait for the faint yellowish glow in the sky to disappear after sunset to ensure that the sun has fully set.
Therefore, confirming sunset requires knowledge and experience. A person should not simply assume, "The sun is almost hidden; therefore, I can break my fast." Rather, they must have a proper understanding of how to verify sunset correctly. If a person is certain—based on the correct signs—that the sun has completely set, they may break their fast. And Allah knows best.
Question: If someone is making up missed fasting days from Ramadan and engages in intercourse, is expiation (kaffaarah) required?
Answer: The issue of breaking a makeup fast of Ramadan through intercourse is a matter of scholarly dispute.
Some scholars argue that making up a fast carries the same rulings as the original Ramadan fast. According to this view, breaking a makeup fast is equivalent to breaking a fast in Ramadan itself, because Allah the Almighty says:
فَعِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ
“Then an equal number of days are to be made up [later].” (Al-Baqarah, 2:184) Since Allah equated making up the missed fasts with fasting in Ramadan, they argue that if a person engages in intercourse while fasting a makeup fast, they must not only make up the fast but also offer expiation (kaffaarah)—just as they would if they had done so during Ramadan itself.
Other scholars hold that expiation is only required for intercourse that occurs during the month of Ramadan itself. They cite the hadith where a man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying: “I am ruined! I am ruined!” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked, “What has ruined you?” The man replied, “I had intercourse with my wife during Ramadan.” The scholars argue that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explicitly mentioned Ramadan, and the requirement of expiation (kaffaarah) was applied only to fasting in Ramadan itself.
Since there is no clear evidence requiring expiation for a fast outside of Ramadan, they maintain that no kaffaarah is required for breaking a makeup fast, because one is not obligated to assume liability unless there is explicit evidence requiring it.
They said: Other fasts should not be equated with Ramadan, because the default principle is that a person is not held accountable unless there is clear evidence obligating them. This opinion is stronger from a rational and evidential standpoint, while the first opinion is more cautious. And Allah knows best.
Question: I find it difficult to understand how someone could fast thirty-one days if their testimony of sighting the moon was rejected and they fasted based on their own sighting. This seems to contradict the hadith: “We are an unlettered nation; we do not write or calculate. The month is either twenty-nine or thirty days.” How is this issue resolved?
Answer: If a person fasts thirty-one days, it naturally follows that if they saw the crescent moon on the 30th night, they would continue fasting that day as part of Ramadan. However, regarding the thirty-first day, which is supposed to be 'Eid for the rest of the community, it is no longer treated as 'Eid for them. Instead, they are obligated to remain in line with the community.
There is a difference between saying that the month of Ramadan consists of thirty-one days and saying that a person is obligated to fast an additional day in adherence to the community. An example of this is someone who begins fasting in a city that started Ramadan a day later, then travels to another city that began Ramadan earlier. This person is required to follow the ruling of the city where they are currently residing when breaking their fast. Since a Muslim is obligated to remain with the collective body of Muslims, it may result in them fasting thirty-one days.
In this case, they must fast on the thirty-first day, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Your breaking of the fast is on the day when the people break their fast.” This means that the day of 'Eid is determined by the majority of Muslims, and so the extra day is not treated as a distinct part of Ramadan but rather as a necessary consequence of following the Muslim community.
In other words, we do not originally mandate fasting thirty-one days as a general rule, but in this specific and unique case, it is required to maintain unity with the Muslim community. The general principle is that when there is an exception to a fundamental rule, it does not negate the rule itself.
Therefore, while the fundamental ruling is that a month is either twenty-nine or thirty days, in this particular situation, there is a specific text indicating that a person should not break their fast on the thirtieth day if the community has not yet declared 'Eid. Thus, this ruling is upheld for a wisdom intended by Shari'ah, which is to maintain unity with the Muslim congregation.
Exceptions to general principles do not contradict or invalidate those principles. These exceptions arise due to specific reasons and serve particular legal objectives in Shari'ah. Therefore, in this case, the person must continue fasting on the thirtieth day, which for them would be the thirty-first day, and they must adhere to the Muslim community’s decision. This is required because of a higher objective in Shari'ah.
The late father (may Allah have mercy on him) used to say that Shari'ah places great emphasis on unity and adherence to the Muslim community. Much of the suffering and hardship that befall people are caused by division and deviating from the collective body of Muslims. Islam instills in the believer a strong sense of belonging to the Muslim community and discourages any form of isolation or divergence from it.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whatever part of the prayer you catch, perform it.” A person might enter the masjid and find the imam in the final tashahhud, moments before ending the prayer. Despite this, they are still obligated to join the prayer, because it is not permissible to separate oneself from the congregation of Muslims. As long as the congregation is still in prayer, the individual is religiously required to join, as indicated by the Prophet’s words: “Whatever part you catch, pray it.”
Another example is when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was leading prayer at al-Khayf in Mina and noticed two men standing aside who had not prayed with the congregation. He commanded: “Bring them to me!” Then he asked them, “Are you not Muslims?” Though their appearance and presence in the masjid indicated that they were Muslims, they replied: “Yes, O Messenger of Allah, but we had already prayed with our people.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then instructed them: “If you both attend the masjid, then pray with the people.” Similarly, when another man did not pray, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked him: “Are you not a Muslim?” The man replied: “Yes, but I was in a state of major impurity and had no water.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed him: “Use clean earth (perform tayammum), for it will suffice you.”
This is part of the authentic hadith narrated by 'Imraan (may Allah be pleased with him).
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said: “The imam has been appointed to be followed.” In another narration, he said: “Do not differ from me.” This indicates that Shari'ah aims to cultivate a deep sense of adherence to the Muslim community. Scholars of education and character development state that habitual training is one of the strongest methods to shape a person's psychological attachment to certain behaviors. When a person is raised with a strong sense of belonging to the Muslim community, and is taught to prioritize unity over isolation, they become accustomed to it, and it becomes their natural inclination.
Now, consider fasting during Ramadan. If a person were to break their fast alone, celebrate 'Eid alone, and separate from the rest of the Muslim community in both worship and joy, they would develop a tendency toward isolation and detachment from the collective body of Muslims. On the other hand, when a person is obligated to remain with the Muslim community, fasting and breaking their fast in unity, they develop a strong attachment to collective worship and communal belonging.
Similarly, during Ramadan, a person abstains from food and drink that Allah has ordained as lawful. They train themselves to refrain from permissible things because Allah has commanded them to do so for a specific time. If this person later encounters forbidden food, such as meat containing pork, they will instinctively avoid it, saying, “I will not eat this.”
This is because they have developed the habit of refraining from what Allah has prohibited. Just as they avoided lawful food during Ramadan when it was temporarily prohibited, it becomes even more natural for them to avoid what is permanently forbidden. This principle applies to many aspects of life.
Similarly, when we instruct our children to pray at the age of seven, it is not merely about prayer itself. Rather, when a child grows up being commanded by their parents and obeying them, they develop a natural sense of obedience and submission to authority, particularly toward their parents.
Look at Western societies and even some Muslim communities that neglect the duty of instructing their children to pray. One day, they find that their child has become completely rebellious against them. It is often observed that children who were not disciplined in prayer from an early age are the ones who grow up to be disobedient and defiant toward their parents.
Rarely do you find a person suffering from a disobedient child except that they neglected to command them to pray from a young age. When you raise a child to obey Allah’s commands and to listen to you as a parent, they naturally become accustomed to it. These matters are not limited to acts of worship alone—they have far-reaching effects. That is why the Almighty says:
وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنْتُمْ لا تَعْلَمُونَ
“Allah knows while you do not know.” (Al-Baqarah, 2:216) This means there are matters beyond your understanding, profound wisdoms and hidden secrets that ultimately bring benefit to a person in their religious, worldly, and eternal life.
When a person is raised with a deep connection to the Muslim community, it brings great benefits. Even if they, as an individual, find it difficult to fast thirty-one days, they achieve far greater objectives than merely enduring hardship. Sometimes, Shari'ah may command an individual to endure difficulty for the sake of a greater benefit to the collective Muslim community.
For this reason, scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) would train their students to love knowledge and respect scholars. They would discourage excessive objections from students, because when a student of knowledge becomes accustomed to constant criticism and opposition, they eventually develop boldness toward the great scholars of the past.
This can lead them to become arrogant, disrespectful, and reckless—may Allah protect us—showing no restraint in their words and having no hesitation in criticizing and undermining scholars. However, if a student is trained in proper manners, respect, and reverence for scholars, they develop a sense of humility. When they disagree with a scholar, they do so with caution and restraint, preserving their speech and avoiding disrespect toward scholars. This comes from a deep-seated respect and reverence for the righteous scholars of the past (may Allah have mercy on them all).
For this reason, some scholars, when they noticed this attitude in a student, would expel them or turn away from them. This is the meaning behind imam Maalik's (may Allah have mercy on him) statement: “Do not teach knowledge to the children of the lowly, lest they grow arrogant toward the scholars.” This is because such individuals are accustomed to disrespect and disregard for authority due to their upbringing and social environment. A person’s habits and familiar surroundings have a significant impact on their psychological disposition.
One of the common mistakes made by some educators and teachers is that when a student criticizes something, they praise them in front of the class, reinforcing the behavior. As a result, we have begun raising our children on a culture of criticism. Now, we even see academic assignments asking students to “criticize a book” as part of their training. This has instilled in them a spirit of boldness and audacity.
A century ago, people held scholars in great reverence. It was unheard of for a scholar or teacher to make criticism of books and scholars a formal method of learning. But today, we see cases where a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old child—perhaps even a new Muslim—is asked to prepare a speech critiquing a book or is entered into a competition at a summer camp to criticize a particular work. Who is truly qualified to critique? What mindset are we fostering in students? A student who is trained to criticize will eventually become accustomed to it, and it will shape their entire approach to knowledge.
Look for a scholar whose teaching and books are centered on criticizing other scholars, constantly searching for their mistakes and belittling them. You will find that his students follow his path exactly, imitating him step by step. However, Allah often exacts justice upon such individuals even in this world before the Hereafter. He may send their own students against them, turning their criticism back onto them, just as they themselves criticized the scholars of Islam.
On the other hand, a teacher who nurtures a love for knowledge in their students, instills in them a deep respect for the Muslim community, for knowledge, and for scholars, and cultivates in them reverence for the righteous predecessors—such a teacher’s students will grow with love for Allah, His religion, and His scholars. They will become accustomed to honor, humility, and reverence, and this will become their way of life, whether they realize it or not.
This approach should be given the same attention as the Shari'ah has given it. The evidence for this is clear: we do not break our fast in isolation from the congregation. Ibn Mas'ood (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed behind 'Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) even though he knew that 'Uthmaan had added something to the prayer that was not part of it. It is well known that adding something to a pillar of Islam is not correct. However, ibn Mas'ood prayed behind him and when asked why, he replied: "Disagreement is evil." That is, I do not want to break away from the Muslim community.
Similarly, 'Umar ibnul-Khattaab (may Allah be pleased with him) stood up to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and said to him: "How can you fight people who testify that there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah?" He had heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say: "I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god [worthy of worship] but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah." But Abu Bakr insisted, saying: "Have you not heard him say: ‘Except by its right?’ By Allah, if they withheld even a young goat that they used to give to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), I would fight them for it." At this point, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "It was only when I saw that Allah had opened Abu Bakr's heart for fighting that I realized it was the truth."
'Umar did not come forward and say: "People, Abu Bakr is wrong," nor did he write a treatise saying: "Abu Bakr has made a mistake" and criticize him publicly. Rather, the community united and the ranks were aligned, forming a strong force against the enemies of Islam. As a result, Allah made Abu Bakr’s opinion an honor for Islam and its people.
When Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) sought to implement the army of Usaamah after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the Arabs had apostasized, he chose to carry it out, despite the resistance from some of the Companions. The words were with Abu Bakr. The Companions came to him and he responded, saying: "By Allah, I will not dissolve the banner that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) entrusted." That is, I cannot dissolve the banner that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had appointed.
Fasting has certain invalidators, and if a person commits any of them, their fast becomes invalid. Among these invalidators are those that require making up the fast with repentance to Allah, and others that require Qadhaa' along with a kaffaarah. One such invalidator is engaging in sexual relations during the daytime in Ramadan. The kaffaarah has been prescribed to complete the deficiency in the performance of the obligatory fast, along with serving as a deterrent against violating Allah's limits and prohibitions.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
In the name of Allah, all praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the best of Allah’s creation, his family, companions, and those who follow him.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Chapter on What Invalidates the Fast and Requires Expiation."
He states (may Allah have mercy on him): "Chapter on What Invalidates the Fast," meaning, what nullifies it.
After explaining that Allah has made fasting in Ramadan obligatory, and after discussing the rulings related to this obligation, the author now moves on to clarifying what invalidates the fast and what necessitates expiation.
Invalidating acts of fasting take different forms:
- Some acts break the fast and require only Qadhaa'.
- Some acts break the fast and require both Qadhaa' and kaffaarah.
Because kaffaarah is a consequence of breaking the fast, the author has combined both discussions. An example of this is when a person engages in sexual relations during the daytime in Ramadan while fasting. The requirement of kaffaarah is directly tied to the fact that they have invalidated their fast.
The author states: "Chapter on what invalidates the fast—whether it is voluntary or obligatory—and requires expiation." This means that the act necessitates kaffaarah, which must be performed by the individual.
The term "kaffaarah" is derived from "kafar", which means to cover. The term "kafar" is used when something is concealed. The disbeliever (kaafir) is called such because they cover up the blessings of Allah upon them. The word "kufr" itself means "covering", as reflected in the words of the poet: "On a night when the clouds ‘kafar’ the stars," meaning, the clouds covered and concealed the stars.
Similarly, a farmer is also called "kaafir", because when they plant seeds, they bury and conceal them in the earth.
Regarding kaffaarah, it is a Shar'i punishment prescribed in Shari'ah. Scholars differ over its reasoning:
Some scholars say that Allah has legislated kaffaarah as a punishment for those who violate their worship, such as in the case of fasting, where a person engages in sexual relations during the daytime in Ramadan.
Some scholars have said that kaffaarah was prescribed by Allah to compensate for deficiencies in the act of worship.
Others combined both views, stating that kaffaaraat serve as punishments, deterrents, and compensatory measures. They act as a punishment for the one who committed the violation, a deterrent for others, and a means of completing the deficiency caused by the violation of an act of worship.
For this reason, they said that if a person engages in intercourse with their spouse during the daytime in Ramadan, Allah has made kaffaarah the freeing of a slave—which is one of the most significant forms of expiation. They explained that if a person frees a slave, Allah will free them from the Hellfire, as though they had plunged into Allah’s punishment by deliberately engaging in intercourse and violating Allah’s command. Therefore, Allah made the freeing of a slave a means of their redemption from the fire of Hell.
It is established in the hadith that: “Whoever frees a slave, Allah will free them—limb for limb.” Meaning, for every limb of the slave that is freed, a corresponding limb of the one who freed them is saved from Hell.
For this reason, scholars noted that in the expiation for accidentally killing a believer, Allah requires the freeing of a believing slave. However, in the expiation for dhihaar (a prohibited form of divorce-like statement), faith is not a condition for the freed slave. This distinction is due to the significance of freeing slaves as a means of redemption.
If a person is unable to free a slave, then Allah prescribed fasting for two consecutive months as a replacement. In this way, one day of intentionally breaking the fast in Ramadan is compensated by sixty continuous days of fasting. This emphasizes the sanctity of Ramadan and the gravity of breaking the fast intentionally.
From this, scholars concluded that kaffaarah serves multiple purposes: it compensates for deficiencies, acts as a deterrent, and serves as a warning for those who might be tempted to violate Allah’s commands and sacred limits.
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) states: "Chapter on What Invalidates the Fast and Requires Kaffaarah." It is as if he is saying: "In this section, I will explain a set of rulings and issues related to what invalidates a person’s fast and necessitates its nullification."
The author states: "Whoever eats, drinks, uses nasal drops, receives an enema, applies kohl that reaches the throat, introduces something into their body through any opening other than the urethra, induces vomiting, engages in masturbation, engages in physical intimacy that results in ejaculation or pre-ejaculatory fluid, repeatedly looks (at something arousing) until they ejaculate, undergoes cupping or has cupping performed on them causing blood to flow—while doing so intentionally and remembering their fast—then their fast is invalidated."
"Whoever eats or drinks" refers to a fasting person who deliberately consumes food or drink, with the condition that they are aware of their fast. If they eat or drink forgetfully, the majority of scholars hold that their fast remains valid, based on the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Whoever eats or drinks while forgetting (they are fasting), let them complete their fast, for it is Allah who has fed them and given them drink.” This hadith indicates that if a forgetful person eats or drinks during the daytime in Ramadan or any other fast, their fast remains valid. The reason is that forgetfulness is a valid excuse according to Shari'ah, and this is one of the cases in which forgetfulness lifts responsibility.
The author continues: “Whoever eats”—meaning that consuming any amount of food, whether a large or small quantity, invalidates the fast. Even if a person takes a tiny portion of food and it passes beyond the uvula—which is the hanging tissue at the back of the throat, marking the separation between the mouth and the upper digestive tract—then their fast is considered invalid.
“Or drinks”—Drinking applies to liquids, while eating applies to solids. Whether a large or small amount is consumed, it invalidates the fast. Even a single drop of water that reaches the throat is enough to break the fast, and this ruling is agreed upon by the consensus of scholars.
Based on this, the statement "whoever eats or drinks" is general and unrestricted, meaning it applies to anything that can be classified as eating or drinking, whether in small or large amounts, whether it provides nourishment to the body or not, and whether the body benefits from it or not.
Under the same ruling as eating and drinking is consuming medication. For example, if a person sprays mist into their throat, such as the asthma inhaler, this mist—although some may argue it is just air—is actually composed of tiny water droplets. These droplets reach the throat, moisten it, and thus invalidate the fast, according to the majority of scholars.
Some later scholars have argued that it does not invalidate the fast because they claim it is only air. However, when consulting medical experts, they confirm that the mist contains compounds that are distinct from regular air. If it were merely air, it would not be a form of medication, since the body naturally inhales air without needing treatment. This indicates that the substance within the inhaler is a form of medication.
Because of this, scholars state that it has a physical substance, similar to smoke, and therefore, using it breaks the fast. Consequently, anything that passes beyond the uvula—whether water, solids, or smoke with a physical substance (such as incense, vapor, or even the smoke of forbidden substances like cigarettes)—invalidates the fast.
Whoever differentiates by saying, "This is medicine and that is air," must provide evidence for such a distinction. The reason for this is that there is consensus among scholars that if a person takes a drop of medicine and lets it enter their throat, their fast is invalidated. This proves that whether something provides nourishment or not is irrelevant—what matters is whether the person continues to abstain. If even a single drop reaches their throat, they have broken their fast.
Our evidence for this is the authentic Sunnah, specifically the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah, in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “And rinse your nose thoroughly—except when you are fasting.” If you reflect on this hadith, you will realize that a person who rinses their nose deeply might accidentally let even a tiny droplet reach their throat. Yet, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) still said, “except when you are fasting.”
From this, the majority of scholars have concluded that both small and large amounts of an invalidating substance are treated equally. It is as though Shari'ah has set a clear boundary for fasting, prohibiting any food, drink, or even smoke with a physical substance from crossing that boundary. Once it passes that point, the person is no longer in a state of fasting as required by Shari‘ah.
Based on this, when the ruling states "whoever eats or drinks", it applies to anything classified as eating or drinking, even if it is a minuscule amount. This includes tiny droplets of water, mist from sprays, or vaporized particles—all of which invalidate the fast according to the majority of scholars.
The author states: "Or uses nasal drops (استعط)." Ist‘at refers to taking medication through the nose. If a person administers medicine through their nose, and it reaches the brain, as is the case with certain medical treatments, then their fast is considered invalidated. In the past, for example, melted fat was sometimes placed in a person’s nose as a remedy for nasal dryness. If such a substance is inhaled deeply enough to reach the brain, scholars state that this is considered an entryway into the body.
The evidence for this ruling is the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “And rinse your nose thoroughly—except when you are fasting.” This ruling is upheld by the majority of scholars, including the four major madhhabs. They maintain that if a person takes medication through the nose and it reaches their throat, or if they can taste it in their throat, then their fast is broken. This ruling is based on the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) command to avoid excessive nasal rinsing while fasting, indicating that substances entering through the nose can affect the validity of the fast.
This hadith presents an important point for reflection. The early scholars examined the underlying reason (علة) behind the ruling, meaning they analyzed why certain actions break the fast while others do not. There are three main scholarly views on the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah:
- Some scholars argue that fasting is invalidated when a substance enters through specific bodily passages, namely the mouth and other major openings. According to this view, the key factor in invalidating the fast is the entry point of the substance.
- Other scholars disagree, arguing that the ruling is based on a different reasoning.
The determining factor is whether a substance enters the body, regardless of the point of entry—whether it enters from the upper or lower part of the body. As long as it is a substance that invalidates fasting, such as nutrients or medicine, it is considered to break the fast.
- Some scholars, however, hold that both factors (point of entry and type of substance) should be considered together.
To understand the jurisprudence (fiqh) of this issue, one must reflect on the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah, which was relied upon by the majority of early and later scholars. The books of fiqh and fatwas are filled with rulings affirming that anything entering the body through non-oral and non-nasal routes also invalidates the fast.
Scholars argue that in the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ruled that something entering the body through an uncommon entry point still affects the validity of the fast. Water entering through the nose is not the usual way of consuming food or drink, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) still warned against it for a fasting person.
If someone were to argue that only substances that provide nourishment or physical strength break the fast, the response would be:
1. Even tiny drops of liquid do not provide nourishment, yet they still break the fast.
2. There is scholarly consensus that even a single drop of liquid passing beyond the uvula invalidates the fast.
Therefore, the argument that a substance must provide nourishment to invalidate the fast is not valid.
One remaining issue is whether the determining factor is simply something entering the body, regardless of whether it is medicine or food, in small or large amounts. The reason for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade even a tiny drop from entering through the nose, which indicates that nothing should reach the inside of the body.
Based on this, one could argue: it does not matter whether the substance enters from the upper part of the body or the lower part—both are equally invalidating.
An objection may arise: What if a person receives an injection into their muscle? It does not enter the digestive system but is instead used as a localized treatment for inflammation or similar conditions.
The response would be: A drop of liquid entering through the nose during nasal rinsing (الاستنشاق) does not actually reach the digestive system either—it is absorbed before it gets that far. This suggests that Shari'ah intended fasting to be an absolute form of abstention (الإمساك المطلق).
Here, we observe a difference between the approach of early scholars and later scholars. The earlier scholars were strict about anything reaching the body, because in their understanding, fasting is fundamentally about abstention (الإمساك). This understanding of fasting as absolute abstention was derived from its underlying meaning, which may not always be obvious to some later scholars. Some may argue: "There is no explicit evidence that kohl (eyeliner) invalidates fasting, or that eye or nasal drops break the fast."
We say: If every ruling required a direct textual proof, there would be no need for scholars. True fiqh is about understanding and deriving rulings, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “When Allah intends good for someone, He grants them understanding of the religion.” Thus, scholars exert effort in deriving rulings from textual evidence, not based on personal opinions alone.
Scholars have not based their rulings on mere personal opinions, but rather on textual evidence. They carefully analyzed the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah and concluded that the mouth is not the only relevant entry point, because the nose is not a natural passage for food or drink, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) still warned against excessive nasal rinsing while fasting.
Shari'ah often uses one example to indicate a broader principle. The mouth is a common entry point, while the nose is an uncommon entry point. However, once a substance reaches the throat through the nose, it still invalidates the fast, demonstrating that what matters is whether something enters the body, not the specific entry point.
For this reason, scholars say:
- If a person uses eye drops and later tastes them in their throat, their fast is broken.
- If a person applies kohl (eyeliner) and later tastes it in their throat, their fast is broken.
This is the correct understanding of the issue.
Some people mistakenly assume that this ruling is just the scholars’ opinion without any basis in evidence. However, those who do not understand this reasoning may dismiss it as invalid, based on their own personal interpretation. In reality, the imamas and early schoalrs who established these rulings did so by carefully analyzing and deriving them from the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah.
This is why those who argue that intramuscular injections do not invalidate fasting contradict themselves when they say that nutritional injections do break the fast.
If they claim that an injection does not break the fast because it enters the body through an uncommon entry point (the muscle), then why do they also say that a nutritional injection does break the fast? If their reasoning is that a nutritional injection invalidates fasting because it provides nourishment, then they have contradicted their own principle.
We have responded that the entry of a substance into the body is not dependent on whether it is nourishing or not.
Upon careful analysis of the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah, it becomes clear and evident that the opinion of the majority of the Salaf and early imams—who based their rulings on this hadith—is the stronger position. Anyone who examines the detailed explanations and extensive texts will find this clearly established.
For this reason, scholars have differing interpretations regarding what constitutes entry into the body and what exactly invalidates the fast. Their differences—as will be discussed later, insha'Allah—revolve around the criteria for determining fasting invalidators. Thus, I emphasize: One should not hastily assume that early scholars ruled on such matters without evidence. The righteous predecessors were far more cautious, God-fearing, and mindful of Allah than to speak about religious matters without knowledge.
Every student of knowledge should recognize that the early scholars were far more protective of the religion than to recklessly permit what is forbidden or forbid what is lawful based on personal opinion alone. Such an act would never come from the great scholars of the early generations, including the four imams (may Allah have mercy on them).
Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) affirmed this in his works "Raf‘ al-Malaam" (The Removal of Blame) and "Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa". He provided valuable insights, explaining that the scholars’ rulings were based on textual evidence and that their ijtihaad was firmly grounded in the [Shar'i] texts.
Shari'ah is built upon deep understanding and insight. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “When Allah intends good for someone, He grants them understanding of the religion.” The scholars reflected on the Shar'i causes (العلل) of rulings and asked: Why did the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) command thorough nasal rinsing except when fasting?
The phrase "or took an enema" refers to administering an enema into the rectum. Scholars have stated that this invalidates the fast because the substance reaches the internal body cavity, providing nourishment and medical benefit. Just as a person benefits from medicine taken orally, they also benefit from medicine administered rectally. Therefore, they ruled that if a person takes an enema through the lower part of their body, it is considered to break the fast.
The phrase "or applied kohl that reaches his throat" refers to a person applying kohl (eyeliner) in one or both eyes. The key condition is that the kohl must reach the throat. If a person applies kohl half an hour before sunset but does not experience its taste in their throat until half an hour, an hour, or even a moment after sunset, their fast remains valid because the substance did not reach the throat while fasting.
Similarly, if a person applies kohl at night and later perceives its taste during the day, their fast is not broken, because the application occurred at night. The arrival of the substance at the throat during the fasting hours is not considered significant, as the obligation to abstain applies only during the fasting period.
Since fasting is defined as abstinence, the majority of scholars hold that the fast is nullified in cases where a person perceives the taste of the kohl during the fasting hours. If the taste of the kohl is experienced within the same day, it invalidates the fast. However, if it is detected after the day has ended or was applied at night but noticed during the day, the fast remains valid.
The phrase "or introduced something into his body cavity from any entry point except his urethra" refers to inserting any substance into the body, whether it provides nourishment or not.
"From any entry point" means that it does not matter whether the substance enters from the mouth, nose, or any other opening in the upper, middle, or lower part of the body. If it reaches the internal cavity (jauf), it nullifies the fast. The evidence for this is the hadith of Laqit ibn Sabrah, which suggests that fasting in Islamic law essentially means abstaining. If a person allows something to enter their internal body cavity, they are no longer abstaining, regardless of whether the substance is food, drink, or something else—it all results in breaking the fast.
"Except his urethra"—the urethra is the urinary tract in males. Scholars have differed on whether inserting something into the male urethra breaks the fast. The mention of "urethra" here specifically refers to men, while for women, inserting something into the vaginal opening is considered a nullifier of fasting, just as it is with the rectum.
Some scholars argue that substances inserted into the male urethra do not reach the internal cavity in the same way, due to the nature of urine filtration through the kidneys. Because of this, some scholars do not consider it a cause for breaking the fast, which is why the author of this text exempted the male urethra from the ruling of nullification.
Question: If a person does not have anything to break their fast with, can they break their fast by intention alone?
Answer: According to the opinion that intention alone is sufficient to break the fast, it is acceptable for a person to break their fast simply by intending to do so. In fact, it is obligatory for them to form the intention of breaking the fast, and at that point, they are considered to have broken it.
This is supported by the Hadith Qudsi, in which Allah says: "The most beloved of My slaves to Me is the one who hastens to break his fast." Thus, by intending to break the fast, the person follows the Sunnah. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) emphasized that it is from his guidance to hasten breaking the fast and delay Suhoor (pre-dawn meal). Based on this, if a fasting person does not have access to food or drink—such as if they leave their house and the call to Maghrib prayer catches them while they are in their car with no food or drink available—they should intend in their heart to break their fast. This fulfills the Sunnah, even if they do not consume anything at that moment. And Allah knows best.
Question: If someone puts food in their mouth, then remembers they are fasting and spits it out, but still tastes it in their mouth, what is the ruling?
Answer: If a person places food in their mouth, then remembers that they are fasting and spits it out, their fast remains valid. However, they must rinse their mouth thoroughly to remove any remnants of the food so that their saliva does not mix with any foreign substance. For this reason, if someone uses toothpaste or similar substances while fasting, they must clean their mouth thoroughly to remove all traces of it. If the toothpaste residue mixes with saliva and is swallowed, it nullifies the fast, as it is considered an external substance, just like deliberately placing a foreign substance in the mouth.
Therefore, rinsing and cleaning the mouth is necessary. If a person refuses to rinse and clean their mouth, then swallows their saliva while it still contains traces, particles, or even dissolved remnants of the food, their fast is nullified. And Allah knows best.
Question: What is the ruling on someone who excessively inhales water during wudhoo' (ablution) while being unaware of the ruling and finds water reaching their throat?
Answer: If a person excessively inhales water and feels it reach their throat, their fast is broken, and they are required to make up those fasting days. Ignorance of the ruling is considered an excuse only during the time of legislation (i.e., when the laws of Islam were first being revealed). However, after the Shari'ah has been fully established, ignorance is no longer a valid excuse, as one has the opportunity to ask scholars and learn the correct rulings. The scholars have stated that when a person reaches the age of responsibility (بلغ) and an act of worship becomes obligatory upon them, they should first ask about its proper method before performing it. Therefore, failing to seek knowledge is considered negligence, and such ignorance is not a valid Shar'i excuse. Thus, the person must estimate the number of days they fasted under this condition and make up for them accordingly. And Allah knows best.
Question: If a woman takes medication to delay her menstrual cycle so she can fast the entire month of Ramadan, what is the ruling on this?
Answer: There are two main issues regarding this matter: The first issue is whether it is permissible for a woman to take pills that delay her menstruation. The correct view is that it is not permissible because these pills can harm the body and interfere with the natural reproductive process, which is one of the objectives of Shari'ah. Additionally, they may cause irregularities in the menstrual cycle, leading to confusion about whether the woman is experiencing a true period (حائضاً) or irregular bleeding (مستحاضة). Using artificial means to disrupt natural bodily functions is not allowed. Furthermore, medical studies have confirmed that these pills can be harmful, and the presence of such harm makes their use prohibited.
The second issue is whether a woman’s fast remains valid if she takes these pills and prevents menstruation for the entire month of Ramadan. The strongest opinion is that her fasting is valid because Shari'ah considers menstruation as the determining factor for breaking the fast. Since the menstrual blood is absent, her fast is considered valid. The same ruling applies to her Hajj, Tawaaf (circumambulation of the Ka'bah), and other acts of worship. This is the view of many contemporary scholars who have examined this issue.
In conclusion, while taking pills to delay menstruation is discouraged due to its potential harm, if a woman does take them and does not experience bleeding, her fasting, prayer, and pilgrimage remain valid. And Allah knows best.
Question: If a man engages in physical intimacy with his wife during the daytime in Ramadan without reaching ejaculation, does this break his fast, and is expiation required?
Answer: Engaging in physical intimacy with one’s spouse during fasting hours is considered a violation of Allah’s limits. This is because such acts often lead to further prohibited actions, and there is no guarantee that one will not fall into what is forbidden. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) mentioned in a Hadith Qudsi: “He leaves his food, drink, and desires for My sake.” For this reason, scholars have stated that a person’s reward for fasting decreases in proportion to their level of physical intimacy. It is not permissible to engage in such acts because they contradict the spirit of fasting. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said: “Like a shepherd grazing near a forbidden pasture, he is likely to fall into it. Indeed, every king has a sanctuary, and indeed, the sanctuary of Allah is His prohibitions.” Allah has explicitly prohibited intercourse for a fasting person. The forbidden boundary (الحمى) surrounding intercourse for a fasting person is engaging in physical intimacy with one’s spouse in a way that arouses sexual desire. Since fasting is an obligation from Allah, such acts may lead to breaking the fast or committing a prohibited act. Therefore, it is not allowed, as one cannot be certain that they will not violate the limits set by Allah.
For this reason, it is not permissible for a person to engage in such actions. However, if he controls himself and does not ejaculate, then his fast remains valid, though it is diminished in reward. Some scholars have stated that Zakat al-Fitr was prescribed as a means to compensate for such deficiencies in one's fast. If ejaculation occurs without actual intercourse, scholars have differed on the ruling. According to the Hanafi and Maaliki madhhabs, both making up the fast (Qadhaa') and expiation (kaffaarah) are required, because they consider breaking the sanctity of Ramadan a serious violation that necessitates expiation.
The Shaafi'ee and Hanbali madhhabs, on the other hand, hold that only making up the fast (Qadhaa') is required, without expiation—which is the stronger opinion. The reasoning is that since he ejaculated, he did not uphold the necessary form of fasting, as Allah stated in the Hadith Qudsi: “He leaves his food, drink, and desires for My sake.” Therefore, if a person ejaculates due to masturbation, physical intimacy with their spouse, looking at something arousing, excessively engaging in activities that lead to ejaculation, or even by looking at their spouse with excessive desire, then their fast is considered invalid, and they must make up that day. And Allah knows best.
Question: In the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Whoever fasts one day in the cause of Allah...", does this ruling specifically apply to a soldier stationed in defense (muraabit), or is it general?
Answer: Scholars have two interpretations regarding this hadith.
Some scholars say that the hadith applies specifically to a mujaahid (fighter in the cause of Allah), whether he is stationed at the borders (muraabit) or actively engaged in battle. They argue that in Islamic terminology, the phrase "في سبيل الله" (in the cause of Allah), when used without further clarification, typically refers to jihad. This understanding is supported by numerous texts in the Kitaab and Sunnah, which commonly use the phrase in the context of fighting in Allah’s cause.
Other scholars interpret the phrase "في سبيل الله" more broadly, meaning fasting voluntarily (nafilah) for the sake of Allah. Their reasoning is that fasting during combat is not recommended, as it weakens the fighter and hinders his ability to confront the enemy effectively. Based on this, they argue that the phrase "في سبيل الله" in this hadith does not exclusively refer to jihaad but rather to fasting as an act of devotion and nearness to Allah.
Both interpretations are well-supported and have strong reasoning. Initially, I inclined toward the view that the hadith refers specifically to jihaad, as this is the most common meaning of the phrase "في سبيل الله" in Shari'ah. If the intent was to encourage voluntary fasting in general, the hadith would have used a clearer wording, such as "Whoever fasts a voluntary fast", without specifying "في سبيل الله".
However, the second view also holds weight, especially considering that a fighter is usually encouraged to break his fast to maintain his strength for battle. This raises a valid contradiction between the two interpretations, leading me to refrain from definitively favoring one over the other, as further clarity may come with deeper understanding. And Allah knows best.
Question: A person did not fast for two years in the past and is now making up the missed fasts. Is making up the fasts sufficient, or is both making up the fasts and feeding the poor required? Or is feeding the poor enough along with repentance?
Answer: Anyone who does not fast during Ramadan is required to make up the missed fasts, whether they missed them deliberately or due to a valid excuse. If they missed an entire Ramadan, they must fast the same number of days later to make up for it. Delaying makeup fasts is allowed as long as there is enough time to complete them before the next Ramadan. This is based on the hadith of 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), in which she said: "I used to have fasts to make up from Ramadan, and I would not make them up until Sha'ban because of my duties to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." Scholars derive from this hadith that there is flexibility in making up missed Ramadan fasts, as long as they are completed before the next Ramadan. If a person delays without a valid excuse until the next Ramadan begins, the majority of scholars hold that they must both make up the missed fasts and offer expiation. The expiation is to feed one poor person per missed day, which is measured as a quarter of a saa’ (approximately 0.5 kg) per day or seven and a half saa’ (approximately 15 kg) for an entire month. Based on this, the person should calculate how many Ramadans they missed and must both make up the fasts and provide expiation, according to the opinion of the majority of scholars. And Allah knows best.
Question: If someone is declared brain dead and their ventilator is needed for another patient, can it be removed without being considered the taking of a Muslim life?
Answer: This issue is one of the contemporary medical dilemmas, and the concept of brain death itself requires careful examination without haste in issuing a ruling. The reason for this caution is that there is no unanimous medical agreement on the exact definition and criteria for brain death. In fact, there are about three different medical schools of thought on how to define brain death. Furthermore, there have been cases where a person was declared brain dead, but later regained consciousness. I have personally come across reports of such cases, and even some respected scholars and knowledgeable individuals were declared brain dead, and their families were considering organ donation. However, due to a delay caused by family disputes, the person regained consciousness after a week. This is a highly sensitive matter that is not easy to resolve. Additionally, the medical criteria for diagnosing brain death or clinical death are complex and can only be properly determined in the most advanced hospitals.
Therefore, issuing a general ruling on this matter requires great caution and thorough evaluation. It is essential to prioritize the sanctity of human life and avoid rushing to conclusions in such critical cases.
If two patients are in critical condition, but one is terminally ill—such as someone suffering from an incurable disease like advanced cancer or an elderly person with an illness that is unlikely to be cured—while the other patient has a treatable condition with a high likelihood of recovery if placed on life support, can the doctor withdraw the ventilator from the terminally ill patient to save the one with a better prognosis? The answer is yes. This situation is similar to when two patients are brought to a doctor in critical condition, but one has a higher chance of survival than the other. The doctor would naturally prioritize treating the patient with better chances of recovery. The reason for this is that keeping the life support on a terminally ill patient offers only a slim and uncertain benefit, while withdrawing it and using it for a patient with a treatable condition brings a stronger and more likely benefit.
In Shari'ah, when two interests (المصالح) conflict, the greater and more certain interest is prioritized. Similarly, when two harms (المفاسد) conflict, the greater harm is avoided by allowing the lesser harm. This principle is supported by the story of Prophet Khidr (peace be upon him) in the Qur’an, where he damaged a ship to prevent it from being seized entirely. This example illustrates that a lesser harm can be accepted to prevent a greater harm. In cases like severe car accidents, where a patient arrives at the hospital in critical condition and their survival depends on immediate access to life support, prioritizing them over a terminally ill patient is justified. After careful study and research, this appears to be one of the exceptional cases where it is permissible to withdraw life support—when a non-terminal patient with a high chance of recovery requires the equipment. And Allah knows best.
Question: In the Ayah where Allah says:
وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنصِتُوا
"And when the Qur'an is recited, then listen to it and be silent" (al-A’raaf, 7:204), is this ruling specific to prayer, or does it apply outside of prayer as well?
Answer: This issue requires some clarification: If the setting is designated for the recitation of the Quran, such as a study circle or a Quran class, then it is not permissible for someone to sit in the gathering and engage in conversation, as this would disturb others. If a person wishes to speak with a companion, they should step away from the gathering so as not to disrupt those listening to the Quran.
However, if the Quran is recited in a non-designated setting, such as when someone hears it while walking on the street, in a shop, or in a marketplace, they are not obligated to listen attentively. Nevertheless, if they choose to listen, it is better and more virtuous. The ideal response in such situations is to pause and pay attention, even while walking. Similarly, a woman engaged in her work or daily tasks can listen to the Quran and reflect on its Ayat, and it is an act of worship of both the hearing and the heart.
For those seeking the best practice, listening attentively is encouraged. However, the obligation to remain silent and listen attentively applies specifically in prayer, where listening to the recitation is required. Outside of prayer, scholars distinguish between a structured environment (where listening is expected) and an unstructured environment (where it is optional).
This also serves as a reminder regarding behavior in study circles. Some individuals, especially women, have been reported to engage in conversations during Quranic lessons or religious lectures held in masaajid. This disturbs others who are trying to listen and learn, and some women have expressed their frustration about such behavior in prayer areas.
This is not permissible because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade causing harm, and one of the greatest forms of harm is when a student of knowledge—whether male or female—leaves their personal concerns behind and dedicates their time to listening to the words of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), seeking to benefit and learn, only to have someone come and disrupt their focus. This is a serious form of harm.
I fear that such individuals may be subject to the supplications of the believers against them. When a person wrongs their fellow Muslim and others pray against them, it does not bring any good upon them. A person must avoid disturbing their fellow Muslims. If someone wishes to engage in conversation, they should either leave the masjid or move to a farther area so as not to disrupt the worshippers, those engaged in remembrance of Allah, or those attending Quranic study circles, religious lectures, or recitations.
We ask Allah, the Almighty and Lord of the Mighty Throne, to guide us to what pleases Him.
وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين
Among the things that invalidate the fast and require making up the missed day (Qadhaa') are: vomiting intentionally, masturbation, physical intimacy that leads to ejaculation, and ejaculation caused by repeated gazing. There is scholarly disagreement on whether cupping (hijaamah) breaks the fast or not. There are also matters that do not invalidate the fast nor require making it up, such as: a fly or similar object unintentionally entering one’s throat, ejaculation due to mere thoughts, or experiencing a wet dream during the day in Ramadan. Additionally, there are issues related to uncertainty regarding the time of dawn and sunset, which are discussed in their respective sections.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the most noble of prophets and messengers, and upon his family and companions. To proceed:
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Inducing vomiting, engaging in sexual activity leading to ejaculation, looking repeatedly in a manner that leads to ejaculation, cupping or having oneself cupped, and if blood appears intentionally and knowingly while one is fasting, the fast becomes invalid."
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, continues to explain what causes the fasting person's fast to be invalid. He says, "Or inducing vomiting." It has been previously stated that attempting to vomit intentionally is a cause for invalidating the fast. The basis for this is found in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever induces vomiting and vomits, let him make up the fast." This hadith indicates that the fast is invalidated by vomiting. There is a distinction between one who intentionally induces vomiting and one who is overcome by it involuntarily.
A person has two situations: The first situation: When a person induces vomiting, by inserting a finger or engaging in any action that triggers vomiting, causing them to expel the contents of their stomach. If a person induces vomiting intentionally, meaning they take actions that lead to it, their fast becomes invalid, and they must make up the fast for that day.
The second situation: When a person is overcome by vomiting involuntarily, whether due to hearing something repulsive or seeing something that causes disgust and nausea, and then they vomit. In this case, they are considered excused, and they are not required to make up the fast. There is a consensus on this matter, distinguishing between one who induces vomiting and one who is overcome by it. If a person intentionally induces vomiting, they must make up the fast, but if they are overcome by it, they do not have to make up the fast.
"Or masturbates"
Masturbation refers to the act of seeking the release of semen, and the term is in the form of "استفعال", meaning to seek or cause something to happen. In this case, it refers to a person stimulating their sexual desire, either by using their hand or rubbing against the ground, wall, or something similar. All of these actions are considered masturbation. The Arabs in the Jaahiliyyah (pre-Islamic period) used to refer to it as "جلد عميرة", which was a euphemism for extracting semen. This is also reflected in the poet's saying: "When you rest in a valley, with no one in sight, rub 'Umayrah, for there’s no shame or plight." Islam came to forbid this shameful and immoral practice. The Almighty, says:
وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ * إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ * فَمَنِ ابْتَغَى وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ
"And those who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed. But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors." (Al-Mu’minoon 23:5-7) In this Ayah, Allah clarifies that seeking sexual pleasure outside of what is lawful, such as through one's spouse or a right-hand possession, is considered transgressing the boundaries set by Allah. This interpretation was supported by some of the early imams of the Salaf, who understood the Ayah as prohibiting masturbation. Several hadiths also prohibit this practice, to the point where some scholars gathered all the various narrations and said that they support one another, indicating that there is a strong basis for the prohibition.
The point of this issue is that if a person stimulates their desire either by themselves or through their spouse—through actions like intercourse or similar means—and ejaculation occurs, then that person must make up the fast for that day.
The evidence for this is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) mentioned in a Hadith Qudsi from Allah, Glory be to Him, regarding the fasting person: "He leaves his food, drink, and his desires." When it was mentioned "his desires", it was stated generally, meaning it includes all forms of desire, whether it is through intercourse or masturbation. If ejaculation occurs, then the person's desire has been fulfilled, and this is considered a major desire. Therefore, the person is no longer fasting, because a fasting person leaves such desires.
As a result, masturbation is considered one of the reasons for breaking the fast. However, the Dhaahiriyyah, may Allah have mercy on them, held an opposing view. Some of their scholars argued that masturbation is neither forbidden nor does it break the fast.
There is no doubt that the texts we have presented indicate the prohibition of masturbation, in addition to what has been established in Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "O young people! Whoever among you is able to marry, let him marry, for it is more lowering of the gaze and more protecting of the private parts. And whoever is not able, then let him fast." If masturbation were permissible, he would have said, "Let him practice masturbation," which shows that these texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah indicate that masturbation is prohibited.
The hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), in which he narrates from his Lord (and it is confirmed as saheeh), says: "He leaves his food, drink, and his desires for My sake," indicates that someone who masturbates is considered to have broken their fast.
Therefore, it is the same whether a person masturbates by themselves or with the help of another, as anything that leads to the release of semen invalidates the fast if ejaculation occurs.
The key factor in this issue is the release of semen. If someone masturbates but does not release semen, or if they stimulate their desire without ejaculation, then the desire has not been fully realized, and their fast is not invalidated, nor are they required to make up the fast. However, they would be considered to have missed out on full reward for their fast, as some scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) have noted.
"Or he has sexual relations with his wife, leading to ejaculation or pre-ejaculate." If a person has direct physical contact with his wife, causing him to ejaculate or discharge pre-ejaculate, the term "المباشرة" (direct physical contact) refers to touching the woman’s skin, which arouses sexual desire and may lead to ejaculation. This can include activities like intimate interaction that does not involve actual intercourse. In such cases, the person has engaged in an action that can lead to breaking the fast, just as if they had induced vomiting or masturbated. Therefore, if ejaculation occurs—whether through physical contact or masturbation—it invalidates the fast.
The evidence for this is from the previous discussion regarding desire. The authentic hadith shows that the fasting person should not fulfill their desire through ejaculation or sexual intercourse. Therefore, if a person has direct physical contact with his wife and ejaculates, he is considered to have broken his fast and is required to make it up.
However, the term "أمذى" (pre-ejaculate) refers to the small, sticky drops that are released at the onset of sexual desire, unlike semen, which is released in a larger quantity during full sexual pleasure and satisfaction. When semen is released, the fast is broken, according to the majority of scholars, as we have mentioned. However, if a person has physical contact with his wife and only pre-ejaculate (المني) is released in one or more drops, it is considered to invalidate the fast according to the Hanaabilah and Maalikiyyah. On the other hand, the Hanafiyyah and Shaafi'iyyah do not consider it to invalidate the fast. The correct opinion is that if a person has direct contact or looks at something and pre-ejaculate is released, it does not invalidate the fast, as pre-ejaculate is not the completion of desire. Therefore, the fast is not invalidated in such cases.
"Or he repeated looking and ejaculated." If a person repeatedly looks at something desirable and then ejaculates, why is the term "repeated" used? Repetition occurs in the second instance of looking, because the first glance is excused, as it is difficult to avoid. For example, if a person looks at their wife and becomes attracted to her, and upon the first glance they ejaculate, it is said that this is beyond their control and is often treated similarly to someone who is involuntarily overcome by vomiting; therefore, it is excused. However, if a person continues to look and repeatedly focuses their gaze, this stirs their desire just as direct physical contact or masturbation does. If ejaculation occurs as a result of this repeated looking, then they are required to make up the fast.
"Or he performed cupping or had cupping done, and blood appeared." If a person performs cupping on someone else or has cupping done on themselves, cupping involves drawing blood from the body, and it is one of the ancient medical practices. It has been confirmed in the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as a form of treatment. The Prophet said: "If there is any remedy in what you use for healing, it is in cupping, or in an incantation from the Book of Allah, or a drink of honey, or cauterization with fire, but I do not like to be cauterized."
Cupping is a type of medical treatment that is still practiced today and is considered part of general surgery in modern times. The Shari'ah acknowledges and praises cupping as a healing method. It involves drawing a portion of blood from the body, and the treatment can be applied in various areas, such as the head, back, or lower body, depending on the ailment being treated. Each disease or illness has a specific area for cupping, and if done incorrectly, it may lead to a worse condition than the one it was intended to treat. For example, cupping on certain areas of the head can help with sleep problems or headaches, while cupping in other areas might lead to forgetfulness, and possibly even memory loss.
Thus, cupping is considered a form of treatment, but it must be done by someone who is qualified, as it can be dangerous if not performed properly. While it can provide benefits, it can also cause harm if done incorrectly.
Cupping is a matter of scholarly disagreement, may Allah have mercy on them, regarding whether performing cupping or having cupping done invalidates the fast. There are various narrations and reports from the Prophet (peace be upon him) on this issue. It is narrated in hadiths reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawood that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done on them have broken their fast." This hadith was narrated by several of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), with imam az-Zayla'i (may Allah have mercy on him) tracing it to eighteen companions, all of whom narrated this same hadith.
However, many of these hadiths are weak and their chains of narration are not strong. Nevertheless, some hadiths have been judged as hasan, and certain scholars and narrators have affirmed their authenticity. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is known to have verified the hadith about cupping invalidating the fast, and imam al-Bukhaari is also reported to have affirmed this ruling; and others from the imams, may Allah have mercy upon them, upon everyone is based on the established statement (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that "Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done on them have broken their fast."
The reasoning behind this is as follows: The haajim (the one performing the cupping) is involved in drawing blood, and since cupping requires the extraction of blood from the body—by first preparing the site and then drawing out the harmful blood—there is a concern that some of that blood may be ingested or absorbed, thus invalidating the fast.
As for the maḥjūm (the one undergoing cupping), the act of cupping weakens the body and depletes its strength. For this reason, it is also considered to invalidate the fast, and the ruling is the same for both the person performing cupping and the one receiving it.
The majority of scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, including a group of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) such as Anas and others, hold the view that this hadith is abrogated. Some scholars interpret the hadith "Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done on them have broken their fast" as referring to something other than actual fasting invalidation.
They disagreed on this matter, with one group saying that this hadith was revealed in a specific context: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) passed by the cemetery of al-Baaqi’—as mentioned in some narrations—and heard a haajim and a maḥjūm (one who performs cupping and one who receives cupping) gossiping about others while fasting. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, 'Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done have broken their fast.'” This means that through their backbiting, they ruined the reward of their fasting, so it was as if they had broken their fast. In Arabic, the term "أفطر" (to break the fast) or "أصبح" (to become morning) or "أمسى" (to become evening) can sometimes be used figuratively, meaning someone is in a situation that causes them to lose their intended goal. In this case, their backbiting ruined their reward, so it was as though they hadn't fasted at all.
This is supported by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever does not abandon false speech and actions, then Allah has no need for him to leave his food and drink." This is the first interpretation.
The second and stronger interpretation is that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done have broken their fast," he meant that they were close to breaking their fast, similar to the Arabic expression "you have become morning, you have become morning"—which means "you were almost there." This is also seen in the hadith of ibn Umm Makooum, where he would not begin the prayer call until he was told, "You have become morning, you have become morning."
This type of language is still in use today. For example, if you say to someone, "You are finished, you are finished!" it doesn't mean they are literally finished; it means they are near danger, as in "You are near fire!" even though they are not actually in the fire. The expression signifies being in a position that could lead to a particular outcome.
They said: The statement "Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done have broken their fast" means that the haajim (the one performing cupping) cannot be certain that some of the blood he draws will not enter his body, and the maḥjūm (the one receiving cupping) cannot be certain that the weakness caused by the cupping will not lead to him breaking his fast. This is an interpretation of the hadith based on the situation, as the condition clearly indicates that the body of the one being cupped will be weakened, and the one performing cupping cannot be sure that blood will not enter his body. Therefore, you cannot say that the haajim has truly broken the fast, because a true breaker of the fast is someone who eats, drinks, or engages in an act that directly leads to the breaking of the fast. Since neither the haajim nor the maḥjūm eats or drinks, but the actions involved lead to weakness that may eventually result in breaking the fast, this explanation of the hadith becomes stronger.
There is a third view—one of the strongest interpretations, chosen by many imams, may Allah have mercy on them, as mentioned by imam ibn Hazm adh-Dhaahiri and others—which is: The hadith "Both the one who performs cupping and the one who has cupping done have broken their fast" applies to the early days of Islam but was later abrogated. This is explicitly stated in a narration from Anas ibn Maalik (may Allah be pleased with him), where he said, "It was only a concession." Likewise, a similar narration from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) states, "Then cupping was permitted." They argue that the phrase "then cupping was permitted" indicates that the ruling was initially a strict prohibition, but was later relaxed.
This is the strongest and most correct position on this issue. Furthermore, it has been established in the authentic hadith from ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) that "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) performed cupping while fasting." Ibn 'Abbaas was one of the younger companions, which further supports the view that the later ruling (the concession) comes after the initial ruling, as indicated in the hadiths from Anas ibn Maalik and Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri.
According to this view, cupping initially made both the haajim and the maḥjūm break their fast. However, this ruling was later abrogated, and cupping became a concession, as Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) said, "Then cupping was later permitted." Based on this, if a person performs cupping or has it done to them, it is no longer considered to invalidate the fast.
However, for those who maintain that cupping breaks the fast, they say that it only invalidates the fast if the haajim sucks the blood. If a person undergoes "الفصد" (bloodletting), meaning the cutting of a vein or artery to let blood flow, this is different from cupping. The difference between cupping and "الفصد" is that cupping targets blood vessels, drawing out the bad blood through suction, whereas fissad targets veins, and the blood is simply let out without suction.
Regarding "الفصد", some scholars say that it does not invalidate the fast because there is no suction involved. However, does "الفصد" have an impact on the fasting person? Some scholars have said that "الفصد" is similar to cupping in that it weakens the body of the one undergoing it. In fact, "الفصد" might be stronger and have a more profound effect on the body than cupping because it involves veins, and blood flowing through veins is more intense than blood flowing through blood vessels. The harm caused by "الفصد" is greater than the harm caused by cupping.
According to the view that "الفصد" invalidates the fast, this would also apply to someone donating blood, because "الفصد" involves the removal of blood from a vein, and donating blood involves the same process—removing blood from veins.
Therefore, they say that if blood is removed in this way, it would break the fast. However, if blood comes out involuntarily, such as from a nosebleed or bleeding from a wound, it is not considered to invalidate the fast because the person did not cause the harm to themselves. This is different from a situation where someone suffers a nosebleed or is injured and has no control over it; in such cases, the fast is not considered invalidated.
"And blood appears intentionally, while remembering one’s fast, then the fast is invalidated." It is a condition for cupping, as we have mentioned, that blood appears. The implication of the phrase "and blood appears" is that if no blood appears, it is not considered to invalidate the fast. For example, if the cupping is performed and the Maghrib (sunset) call to prayer is made, and blood appears only after the call to prayer, it does not invalidate the fast because the blood that would trigger the ruling for invalidation came after the call to prayer. Therefore, the fast is not considered invalidated in this case.
However, if the cupping is performed and blood appears before the call to prayer, even if only a moment before, it is considered to invalidate the fast according to this view.
"Intentionally, while remembering one’s fast, then the fast is invalidated." (Intentionally): This means the person intentionally had cupping performed. If a person is coerced into having cupping done, it does not affect the fast.
"While remembering one’s fast": If the person was forgetful, it does not affect the fast. As we mentioned earlier, the correct view is that cupping does not invalidate the fast.
"Intentionally, while remembering one’s fast, not forgetful or coerced." (Not forgetful): This means that if the person was forgetful, it would not affect the fast. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "Whoever eats or drinks in the day of Ramadan while forgetting, then let him complete his fast, for what he ate or drank was provided by Allah." If eating and drinking while forgetting does not invalidate the fast, then similarly, cupping performed while forgetting does not invalidate the fast.
(Not coerced): Coercion means acting against one’s will, and there are conditions for valid coercion. If these conditions are met, the obligation is lifted according to a group of scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. The principles of Shari'ah support this view, as the Almighty says:
إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ
"Except for those who are coerced, while their hearts remain content with faith." (An-Nahl, 16:106). Allah has exempted the penalty for apostasy (rejecting the faith) if the person was coerced. By analogy, if coercion does not invalidate a person's faith, then it is even less likely to invalidate the fast or any other violation of religious obligations.
"Or a fly or dust enters his throat, or he thinks and ejaculates, or has a wet dream, or finds food in his mouth upon waking and spits it out, or he bathes or gargles or sniffs water, or exceeds three rinses, or he swallows water while gargling without intent, his fast is not invalidated."
"If a fly or dust enters his throat, it does not invalidate his fast." (Or a fly enters his throat.) This refers to a situation where a person is talking and doesn’t realize that a fly has flown into his throat. It happened unintentionally, and it does not affect the fast.
(Or dust.) Dust, if intentionally inhaled, can cause an issue as it has mass and substance, which could invalidate the fast. We discussed this issue earlier: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned against deliberately inhaling substances into the nose, as stated in his saying: "Exaggerate in inhaling water (during ablution) unless you are fasting." The reasoning is that inhaling such substances has a physical form and substance. Therefore, if a person intentionally tastes or swallows something like clay, and it reaches the throat, it would invalidate the fast without a doubt. Similarly, if someone deliberately licks dust or opens their mouth to let it enter, it would invalidate their fast. However, if the fly or dust enters the throat unintentionally, like when it flies or blows into the mouth or throat, it does not invalidate the fast because it is something that is difficult to avoid.
"Or he thinks and ejaculates." Thinking and ejaculating does not invalidate the fast, because it is something difficult to control or avoid. The principle in Shari'ah is that there is no harm in it. If we were to say that a person must make up their fast if they think and ejaculate, this would be something difficult to guard against, similar to the situation of someone recently married or having sexual relations just before dawn. This is an issue that cannot be easily avoided, just like dust or flies entering the throat.
The author is highlighting that when scholars discuss these cases, they intend to provide the general principle: that fasting is invalidated only by intentional acts. That is why the author says, "not when forgotten or coerced." This is followed by examples such as flies or dust entering the throat, showing that the author aims to make the distinction between situations where a person is overwhelmed or cannot avoid something and those where they have control. So, if someone asks about something beyond their control or difficult to avoid, it would be considered excusable. But if it is something they could have prevented, it would invalidate the fast.
"Or he has a wet dream." A wet dream (احتلم) occurs when a person experiences something in their sleep that causes sexual arousal and leads to ejaculation. If this happens, it does not invalidate the fast because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The pen is lifted from three people—among them, the sleeping person until they wake up."
The scholars agree that if someone sleeps and has a wet dream, they are not required to break their fast. Based on this, it is clear that Shari'ah differentiates between what overwhelms a person and what is within their control. Just like in the case of a wet dream or dust flying into the throat while walking in a desert or similar situations—these are things that cannot be avoided, so they are excused.
"Or if he wakes up with food in his mouth and spits it out." This situation occurs after suhoor (pre-dawn meal). If the adhaan (call to prayer) for Fajr is heard, and there is still some food remaining in the person's mouth, especially between the teeth, then spitting it out does not affect their fast. However, if the person swallows or ingests the food, it would invalidate their fast.
"Or if he takes a bath." Taking a bath with water does not invalidate the fast. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) took a bath while fasting. Likewise, 'Umar ibnul-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) and ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) once sat in a pool of water between Makkah and Madinah, competing to see who could hold their breath the longest as they submerged themselves in the water. The reason for this is that bathing or immersing oneself in water is not the same as eating or drinking. It does not fall under the ruling of eating or drinking.
Therefore, immersing oneself in water or swimming does not invalidate the fast. Similarly, if a person takes a bath and pours water over themselves, this does not invalidate the fast either. The reason for this is that pouring water over the outer surface of the body does not break the fast, as it is not considered like eating or drinking. Similarly, rinsing the mouth (making wudhoo' or gargling) while fasting does not invalidate the fast, because the mouth is an external part of the body, just as pouring water over the body is not invalidating.
"Or if he rinses his mouth or sniffs water, or exceeds three times, or exaggerates until water enters his throat, it does not invalidate the fast." If a person rinses their mouth or sniffs water, there are two cases:
- The first case: If the person rinses their mouth or sniffs water without exaggeration or excessive effort, this does not invalidate the fast. This is the view of the majority of scholars.
- The second case: If the person rinses or sniffs water in an exaggerated manner, scholars have two views. Some say that if a person exaggerates, their fast is invalidated. This understanding comes from the Sunnah, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in the hadith of Luqayt ibn Sabrah: “And rinse your nose thoroughly—except when you are fasting.” According to this view, if a person exaggerates in these actions, they would invalidate their fast. This is the more cautious opinion and differs from the position chosen by the author.
Therefore: If someone exaggerates in rinsing their mouth (e.g., gargles) and feels the water reach their throat, it would invalidate their fast. Likewise, if someone exaggerates in sniffing water and feels the taste of water in their throat, their fast would also be invalidated according to the stronger opinion among scholars. This is because they have taken the action that leads to breaking the fast, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibited this, which indicates that if a person engages in the prohibited act, their fast is invalid.
"Or exceeds three times": It is said that exceeding three times is not permitted because it is considered an unnecessary exaggeration. Just as exaggeration in sniffing or rinsing is not allowed while fasting, increasing the number beyond the prescribed three is prohibited by Shari'ah. This prohibition is similar to exaggerating in sniffing water or rinsing, both of which can invalidate the fast if done excessively. Thus, just as exaggeration in the legal acts of rinsing or sniffing breaks the fast, exceeding the prescribed number of times would also invalidate it, as it involves engaging in actions that contradict the prescribed limits.
If a person wakes up at night and is unsure whether dawn has broken, they may continue eating or drinking. By consensus, they are considered to be still within the nighttime and are allowed to eat and drink. This situation includes the following possible cases:
The first case: If nothing is clear to them, meaning if a person wakes up in the middle of the night and is unsure whether dawn has arrived, they may eat or drink. Then, if they fall back asleep and wake up after the Fajr prayer, unsure whether they ate or drank after dawn became clear or before, they should consider themselves to have still been in the night and their fast is valid. If they did not clearly determine the arrival of dawn, their fast remains valid.
Evidence for this: The default assumption is that the night continues until it is clear that dawn has broken. Allah has commanded us to maintain certainty, and doubt should not be considered. The foundational principles of Shari'ah, as well as the texts of the Kitaab and Sunnah, indicate that certainty is what counts, and doubt should be disregarded.
One of the principles of Shari'ah is: "Certainty is not removed by doubt," and from this, they derive the saying: "The default is the continuation of what was."
The default is the continuation of the night, and it is permissible to eat, drink, and engage in intimate relations until it is certain that dawn has arrived. This transitions the person from the certainty of what is allowed to the certainty of what is prohibited.
The second case: If the matter becomes clear to them, then there are several possibilities:
The first scenario: The person eats or drinks and then realizes that dawn has not yet broken. For example, if they wake up, eat, or drink thinking it is still night, but then check the time or hear the first call to prayer, confirming that dawn has not yet broken, then by consensus, this does not affect their fast, because they ate and drank during a time when it was permissible according to Shari'ah.
The second scenario: The person realizes that dawn has indeed arrived. There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding this. Some say that the fast is valid, while the majority hold that the person must make up the fast (Qadhaa') because they acted in a way that involved negligence. The reasoning is that if the person had made a proper inquiry, they would have known that dawn had already broken. Since they failed to verify this, they are held accountable for their negligence and are required to make up the fast.
The majority [of scholars] say that the person must make up the fast (Qadhaa') because they acted negligently. The reasoning is that if they had properly verified, they would have known that dawn had already broken. Since they were negligent, they are held accountable for the consequence of their negligence and must make up the fast. This is because Allah has obligated the person to fast from the break of dawn until sunset, and they did not observe this period properly. Therefore, they are required to make up the fast. This is the strongest and most widely accepted view among scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, as they were negligent and are required to make up for that negligence.
If the sun sets behind clouds or in times when clocks were unavailable, or the person doesn’t have a clock, they may be uncertain whether the sun has set. In such a case, the original certainty is that it’s still daytime, so they are prohibited from eating or drinking until they are certain or reasonably believe that the night has begun and the sun has set.
Based on this, if a clock or similar means is available, they should not break their fast until they can verify with it. If no clock is available, they should estimate the time and wait for a period that they believe, with reasonable certainty, corresponds to sunset.
The proof for this is found in the hadith about the Dajjaal: "He will stay for forty days, one of which will be like a year, one like a month, one like a week, and the rest like normal days. The Companions asked: 'O Messenger of Allah! The day that’s like a year, should we pray the prayer of an entire year?' He replied: 'No, but estimate its length.'"
Scholars have used this hadith to show that when precise measurement is impossible, one should rely on estimation. Therefore, when the sun’s setting can’t be exactly confirmed, the person should estimate and break their fast once they reasonably believe the sun has set.
If you break your fast, there are two possible scenarios: either the situation becomes clear to you, or it does not – similar to the case of suhoor that we discussed earlier. If the situation does not become clear, and you are reasonably sure that the sun has set, your fast is valid, because Allah has commanded us to act on what we believe to be true, and there is no clear indication that your fast is invalidated.
Second, the first scenario: if it becomes clear that your estimate was correct, for example, if you ate at a particular time and then someone came in and asked you the time, saying it's 6:00 PM, and sunset is at 5:45 PM or 5:50 PM, and between your eating and their telling you the time, it becomes clear that your eating and drinking happened after sunset, then your estimation is confirmed, and your fast remains valid.
The second scenario: if it becomes clear that the sun has not set and it is still daytime, and your eating and drinking happened while it was still daylight, scholars have two famous opinions: Some say that you must make up the fast because you made a mistake, and you are required to make up the day, just like in the case of suhoor. There is also a narration in Saheeh al-Bukhaari where Hishaam ibn 'Urwah was asked: "Should we make up that day?" He replied: "There is no doubt about the makeup." This indicates that you would be required to make up the fast, and this view is stronger. Therefore, 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The matter is simple," meaning that you should make up that day.
This is the view that the soul finds peace with, due to its caution, and because it involves applying the principle of holding the fasting person accountable for their negligence. This is because they committed a form of negligence; if they had taken utmost care in verifying, they would have realized that the day was still ongoing. The principle is: "There is no consideration for doubt that is clearly wrong."
To explain further, fasting is a right owed to Allah, and the right of Allah is a debt upon His creation. The authentic Sunnah has indicated this principle, and therefore the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in the context of Hajj: "If there was a debt owed by your mother, would you repay it?" She said: "Yes." He replied: "Then the debt of Allah is more rightful to be repaid." He equated Hajj, which is one of the pillars of Islam, to a debt, and fasting, which is also one of the pillars of Islam, is a debt owed to Allah.
Thus, if fasting is a debt and a right owed to Allah, then if you were in debt to a fellow human being and thought you had paid it in full, but it later became clear that you had not fulfilled it completely, you would be required to make up for that shortfall. The right of Allah is even more deserving of this. Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The debt of Allah is more rightful to be repaid."
Therefore, the principles of Shari'ah indicate that the person must make up the fast because they did not fast the day correctly and because they were negligent. If they had taken full care in confirming, they would have realized that the day was still ongoing. Moreover, fasting is a right owed to Allah, and it does not get waived due to an incorrect assumption, so the person is obligated to make up the fast.
One might ask: What is the benefit of the mistake? We say: The mistake absolves the person of the sin, but the liability (or compensation) does not get waived. This is similar to the case of someone who kills another by accident; the sin is forgiven, but they are still responsible for compensating for the life they took.
From this, we see that the foundations of Shari'ah require the person who made a mistake to be held accountable for their responsibility. For example, in the case of an accidental killing, the person is required to free a slave, and if they cannot do that, they must fast for two consecutive months. This is because every mistake involves some form of negligence. Based on this, it is strong to say that the person is obligated to make up the fast for the day, as it ensures their obligation to Allah is fulfilled in the best possible way.
Similarly, if someone eats or drinks believing it is still night, only to find out later that it was actually day, they must also make up that day’s fast, contrary to the view chosen by the scholar who ruled that no makeup is required in such a case.
Question: If the mu'adhin (المؤذن) mistakenly calls the Adhaan for Maghrib during Ramadan, and people break their fast based on this call before sunset, are they required to make up the fast? May Allah reward you.
Answer: The mu'adhin (the one who does Adhaan) are entrusted with the fasting of the people, and they bear this trust and will be questioned about it before Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) referred to this in a hadith narrated by Ahmad and Abu Dawood, as reported by Abu Hurayrah: "The imam is a guarantor, and the mu'adhin is trusted." They said, "What is meant by ‘the mu'adhin is trusted’?" It means the mu'adhin is entrusted with the fasting of the people because he calls the Adhaan for both the start of fasting and the breaking of the fast.
If the mu'adhin is careless and does not verify or keep track of the correct time in his call, especially for Fajr or Maghrib, he bears the sin of anyone who breaks their fast based on his call, particularly if this negligence is due to carelessness or mischief. For instance, the mu'adhin may eat or even leave his house while the time for Fajr has entered, and then delay the Adhaan for Maghrib by 10 or 5 minutes beyond the correct time.
Such a person is considered sinful according to Shari'ah, as they are betraying the trust placed in them by Allah. Especially if they are paid for this role, their salary is considered to have a form of dishonor because they have failed in their duty, for which they are compensated.
Therefore, this issue is serious for mu'adhins. It is incumbent upon the imams to ensure that their mu'adhins are performing their duties correctly, to advise the Muslim community, and to be vigilant about this matter. The imam should not be lenient with a mu'adhin who is negligent in this regard. If the mu'adhin fails to take advice or correct his actions, the imam must report this issue to someone who can discipline and prevent the mu'adhin from continuing such negligence.
Likewise, it is forbidden for the people of a neighborhood to remain silent about mu'adhins who are careless with the prayer times. If they remain silent about this, they become partners in the sin, because such negligence in these matters is not permissible. It causes the rights of Allah, the Almighty, to be lost, especially during the days of Ramadan. Therefore, matters related to the fasting of the people should be taken seriously and cautiously, using all necessary means to ensure that the Adhaan is called at the proper times.
If the mu'adhin has a particular circumstance or fears that he might fall asleep, he should arrange for someone to wake him up, or appoint a trustworthy person to call the Adhaan for him if he is absent or delayed, ensuring that the prayer is performed correctly. This responsibility is a trust on the shoulders of the mu'adhin, and the imam also bears responsibility. The congregation who prays in the masjid or hears the Adhaan is equally responsible for not remaining silent about mu'adhins who play with the prayer times. Many have become lax in this matter nowadays. I have even heard, with my own ears, in Medina, where some mu'adhins call the Adhaan before the masjid al-Haram, even though their masjid is very close to the Haram. I have heard one person call the Adhaan seven minutes before the Haram, and I even heard with my own ears someone calling the Adhaan a quarter of an hour before the Haram’s Adhaan! All of this shows a lack of respect and indifference towards the rights of Allah, and to Allah we complain about the loss of these great responsibilities.
Thus, such matters should be handled firmly, and there should be no leniency with mu'adhins. If a mu'adhin is careless with his Adhaan, delaying the Fajr call or advancing the Maghrib call, he should be advised, reminded of Allah, warned about the punishment of Allah, and told that the people are a trust upon him. If he neglects this, knowing the time has passed and he has failed in his duty, he will be held accountable before Allah for the sin of those who broke their fast based on his Adhaan, whether it is the Fajr Adhaan or the Maghrib Adhaan.
As for the mu'adhin: If the mu'adhin makes a mistake, he must inform the people and clarify that on a particular day he called the Adhaan after the proper time, and anyone who broke their fast based on his call must make up the fast. If he remains silent about this, he will bear the responsibility for those who broke their fast based on his erroneous call. This principle applies to other matters as well, whether it is related to prayer or something else. The imam must give a reminder. If the mu'adhin makes a mistake, he should at least notify the people in the neighborhood that they must make up their fast for that day, as they ate or drank after the true dawn had occurred. Allah has prohibited eating and drinking during that time.
And Allah knows best.
Question: How do those who require making up the fast respond to the hadith of Asmaa' (may Allah be pleased with her), in which it is mentioned that the Companions broke their fast on a cloudy day and were not commanded to make up the fast? May Allah reward you.
Answer: This is what the scholars call "the unspoken" (المسكوت عنه). The hadith does not mention whether they were commanded to make up the fast or not; it is silent on this matter. Some scholars who say there is no obligation to make up the fast argue that if they had been ordered to do so, it would have been made clear. If making up the fast were obligatory, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would have instructed them to do so.
From a principle perspective: the hadith is silent, and when something is left unclear, we return to the default ruling. This is the essence of jurisprudence: when a text is clear and explicit, we accept it. If it has a clear indication, we accept it. But if it is ambiguous, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) may have remained silent about the matter because he knew they had eaten and drunk during the day, meaning they had not fasted correctly. Therefore, the silence may be due to this obvious knowledge.
Additionally, it is possible that they were ordered to make up the fast, but this order was not transmitted. The hadith, therefore, remains silent on this matter. Some scholars argue that since this is a narration from Asmaa' (may Allah be pleased with her), and women may sometimes be unaware of what men do, there might be a gap in the narration. Based on this, it is stronger and more cautious to revert to the default position, which is that they are required to make up the fast.
It is not permissible to say there is no obligation to make up the fast based on a doubtful or ambiguous matter. The principles [of jurisprudence] require that the person who has missed a fast day is responsible for completing it, unless there is a clear, explicit concession in the texts. If there is no explicit concession, we follow the original ruling, which requires making up the fast.
And Allah knows best.
Question: Is there a comparison between someone who ejaculates due to thinking and someone who ejaculates due to repeatedly looking, in terms of both not intentionally doing something that would preserve their fast? May Allah reward you.
Answer: Thinking is considered weaker than looking, as some scholars have said. Thoughts come to a person more forcefully than sights do. It is harder to guard against thinking than it is to guard against looking. In the case of looking, a person can lower their gaze and divert their attention, but with thinking, it can overwhelm a person. Thoughts can come suddenly, and the soul is weak. When it suddenly overwhelms the person, they may follow it, whereas in the case of looking, the person has more control.
Therefore, there is a difference between thinking and looking. However, the opinion that they are of equal standing has some merit and a valid basis of reasoning, as we mentioned. Based on this, I believe the stronger argument is to distinguish between them, since thoughts can suddenly overtake a person, while looking can be controlled. That said, the opinion that they are equivalent in strength also has its place.
And Allah knows best.
Question: What is the difference between the statement of the author (may Allah have mercy on him): "If someone eats while doubting whether the dawn has risen, his fast is valid" and his statement: "Or believing it is still night, but it turns out to be day"? May Allah reward you.
Answer: There is a difference between belief and doubt. Doubt occurs when both possibilities are equally likely: whether the dawn has risen or not, whether the call to prayer has been made or not. In this case, you are uncertain, not sure about either possibility. However, belief (or conviction) means you lean toward one of the possibilities or are certain about it.
The difference between belief and doubt is that doubt occurs when both possibilities are equal. For example, you are unsure whether it is still night or if dawn has already arrived, meaning you are uncertain if day has begun. Scholars refer to this as doubt. If you say, "It is day," you acknowledge the possibility that it might still be night, and if you say, "It is night," you acknowledge the possibility it might be day. This uncertainty places you in a state of confusion, not knowing whether it is night or day.
On the other hand, belief means you are convinced of one of the possibilities. For instance, you believe the night is still ongoing, which is a form of certainty or strong inclination. This conviction is stronger than doubt because it involves certitude.
So, doubt means the two possibilities are equal, and in this case, you return to the default: if you're unsure whether it is night, you assume it is night, and if you're unsure whether the sun has set, you assume it has not set. Therefore, you eat if you doubt the dawn and fast if you doubt the sunset. The key difference is that doubt involves uncertainty with no certainty, while belief involves certainty, either through absolute confidence or a strong assumption.
And Allah knows best.
Question: If someone donates blood during the day in Ramadan to save the life of an injured person, does this affect their fast? May Allah reward you.
Answer: Donating blood to save a life is an act of kindness, charity, and obedience. It falls under the general meaning of Almighty's statement:
وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا فَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمِيعًا
“And whoever saves a life, it is as if he has saved all of humanity.” (Al-Maa'idah 5:32). Some scholars have said that whoever causes a soul to be saved, especially if it is a righteous soul and they intend to assist in its preservation, will be rewarded with the same reward as saving that life.
This is a great reward! The good deeds of such actions are equivalent to saving that life, and thus, the reward for helping others is immense. For example, saving someone who is in an accident or a woman experiencing bleeding during childbirth is a form of charity. There is no doubt that relieving the distress of a fellow Muslim is one of the most beloved deeds to Allah. Allah forgave a woman who committed adultery simply because she gave water to a thirsty dog—how much more so for someone who saves a believer’s life or causes their survival?! This is undoubtedly one of the best acts of worship.
As for donating blood during Ramadan, it does not break the fast. If blood is drawn and the person feels strong enough to continue fasting for the rest of the day without eating or drinking, their fast is valid. However, some scholars argue that the insertion of a needle into the body could potentially break the fast, but this view is weak and open to questioning. The more accurate opinion is that donating blood does not invalidate the fast.
And Allah knows best.
Question: What is the ruling on eating after hearing the Fajr Adhaan in Ramadan? May Allah reward you.
Answer: There are two possible situations for someone who hears the Fajr Adhan:
The first situation: If the person is certain that the mu'adhin has made a mistake, for example, if they know the correct time for Fajr and can visually identify the true dawn (as is possible in rural areas or places far from cities), where they can distinguish between the true dawn and the false dawn. If the dawn has not yet appeared and they are sure of it, in this case, they are allowed to eat and drink, as long as they are certain that the true dawn has not yet arrived. They are not required to follow the assumption of others but rather rely on their own certainty.
The second situation: If the person does not have the means to verify the error of the mu'adhin, they must stop eating and drinking immediately upon hearing the Adhaan. If they eat or drink even for a moment after the Adhaan, they are considered to have broken their fast, based on the clear text of the Kitaab and Sunnah. Allah says:
وَكُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكُمُ الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنَ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ مِنَ الْفَجْرِ
“And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct from the black thread of night” (al-Baqarah, 2:187). The command is to eat and drink until it is clear that dawn has arrived. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said, “Bilaal gives the Adhaan during the night, so eat and drink until ibn Umm Maktoom gives the Adhaan”—meaning, until the second Adhaan, when it is certain that dawn has come.
Therefore, if someone eats or drinks even a moment after the Adhaan, they are required to make up the fast, according to the apparent meaning of the Kitaab and Sunnah.
As for what is reported from some of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), where they acted based on their own judgment—such as some eating even when it was clear that the day had begun or when dawn had become evident—this was their personal ijtihaad. Some of them interpreted the phrase “until it becomes distinct” in their own way. However, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) corrected such ijtihaad, as in the case of the companion `Adi (may Allah be pleased with him), who, despite being an Arab and knowledgeable of the language and the Quran, misunderstood the verse. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) explained to him the error in his understanding.
It is not impossible that some of the other Sahaabah, who were not aware of the hadiths that clarify and interpret the Ayah, may have exerted their own ijtihaad in a similar manner. However, it is always important for a student of knowledge to focus on the clear and explicit texts of the Kitaab and Sunnah, to act upon them, and to present themselves before Allah with a clear, evident argument.
The Ayah:
وَكُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكُمُ الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنَ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ مِنَ الْفَجْرِ
“And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct from the black thread of night” (al-Baqarah 2:187), and the hadiths in the Saheehayn, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) clarified what constitutes dawn, saying, “It should not be said like this, but rather like this and this”—meaning it spreads out—indicate that one must wait for the clear appearance of dawn. Once dawn is clearly visible, and the time for Fajr has entered, it is forbidden for a person to eat or drink.
This is what the apparent meaning of the Kitaab and Sunnah leads to, and it is what the Muslim should follow, presenting themselves before Allah with clear and authentic evidence from the Kitaab and Sunnah.
As for the hadiths with disputed chains of narration and the differing actions of some companions, the scholars of the past and the majority of the people of knowledge have agreed on this point. The consensus of the majority of the righteous predecessors (may Allah have mercy on them) was that the decisive factor is the clear indication of dawn, and once dawn is established, eating and drinking becomes prohibited.
Therefore, we adopt this position, which is consistent with the texts of the Kitaab and Sunnah, and it is in alignment with the principles of the Shari'ah. This is the approach that a student of knowledge should follow if they wish to stand before Allah with clear, valid evidence.
As for those who argue based on the ijtihaad of the Sahaabah, we excuse them, as it may be that the texts did not reach them. However, we cannot depart from the clear text of our Lord’s Book and the authentic Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) regarding the time to stop eating, which is once dawn becomes evident, because this would contradict the established principle.
And Allah knows best.
Question: If a man travels to a country where fasting begins a day or two later than in his home country, should he break his fast at the completion of thirty days, or should he follow the fasting schedule of the country he is in? May Allah reward you.
Answer: When a person travels to another country, they should follow the fasting schedule of the country they are in. If the country is ahead or behind in terms of the fasting time, you should break your fast according to the timing of that country. This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Your fast is the day you fast”. Thus, fasting is determined by the schedule of the broader Muslim community.
Therefore, you will follow the timing of the place you are in. If that country is ahead (as in the example provided), you will fast an additional day or two because you are breaking your fast with them, and your month of fasting is aligned with theirs. The important thing is to break your fast at the same time as they do.
On the other hand, if the country is behind, and the month only reaches twenty-eight days, you will need to fast one extra day. You will fast with them on the day of 'Eid and then make up one day. This is the view of the majority of scholars.
Some scholars hold the view that you would make up two days, arguing that the month is thirty days. Others say you only need to make up one day because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “The month is like this and like this”—and he gestured with his hands to indicate twenty-nine and thirty days. The more certain position is that the month is twenty-nine days, and the thirtieth day is in some cases. The stronger view is that you should make up one day, while the more cautious approach would be to make up two days.
وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين، وصلى الله وسلم على نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه وسلم.
What nullifies the fast and requires a Kaffaarah: One of the actions that nullifies the fast and requires a Kaffaarah is having sexual intercourse during the day in Ramadan. If a person engages in intercourse with their spouse during the daytime in Ramadan, they are required to perform a Kaffaarah, which is to free a slave. If they are unable to do so, they must feed sixty needy people. If they are unable to do that as well, they must fast for two consecutive months.
There are additional rulings and issues related to engaging in intercourse during the day in Ramadan and the corresponding Kaffaarah. These are detailed and explained by the shaykh in this section.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the noblest of prophets and messengers, and upon his family and companions.
Now, to proceed: The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "Chapter: Whoever engages in intercourse during the day in Ramadan, whether vaginally or anally, must make up the fast and pay the Kaffaarah."
Allah has prohibited the fasting person from engaging in intercourse with their spouse during the day in Ramadan. Therefore, intercourse is considered to invalidate the fast. We have already mentioned the evidence from the Kitaab, Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ummah regarding the prohibition of this act for the fasting person.
The remaining question is: What is the ruling if a fasting person commits this violation?
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Whoever engages in intercourse during the day in Ramadan, whether vaginally or anally."
This section is specifically about the violation of fasting through acts of lust, beginning with the most severe form of violation, as it is explicitly mentioned in the texts that there is a penalty for it. The author then moves on to the related issues concerning intercourse during the day in Ramadan.
Regarding the phrase "Whoever engages in intercourse", it is important to note that intercourse is only valid if there is penetration of the vagina, and the key factor here is the "الحشفة"—the tip of the male organ. The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) have derived more than eighty rulings based on the penetration of the "الحشفة", one of which is that the Kaffaarah is obligatory for one who engages in intercourse during the day in Ramadan, provided the penetration occurs in the way described.
Thus, the author’s statement: "Whoever engages in intercourse" applies whether the person engages in lawful marital relations (which are permitted by Shari'ah in general), or if it occurs during Ramadan when it is prohibited, or if the act occurs due to a misunderstanding, such as having intercourse with a woman who the person mistakenly thinks is his wife or concubine. Additionally, this applies if the intercourse is unlawful, such as committing adultery (may Allah protect us).
If intercourse occurs in a situation that is Shar'i permitted, such as with one’s wife, or if it occurs due to a valid Shar'i excuse, such as engaging with someone whom one mistakenly believes to be their wife, the ruling is unanimous that the fast must be made up (Qadhaa') and a Kaffaarah must be performed.
As for adultery (may Allah protect us), it involves multiple major sins:
- First sin: The person has violated a fundamental pillar of Islam, which is the fast that Allah has commanded.
- Second sin: The person has committed adultery, which is a heinous crime (may Allah protect us).
In this case, there are several violations:
- First: The person intentionally broke their fast.
- Second: The fast was broken in the most severe manner, which is through sexual intercourse.
Furthermore, if intercourse takes place in an unlawful manner (such as adultery, may Allah protect us), the ruling remains severe. Similarly, if intercourse happens through anal penetration, the ruling is the same as vaginal intercourse, meaning the fast is invalidated, and both the Kaffaarah and the Shar'i penalty (hadd) apply according to Shari'ah, as will be detailed in the section on punishments.
Similarly, if intercourse occurs through anal penetration, the ruling remains the same as for vaginal intercourse, whether the woman is alive or dead. This is the view of the majority of scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. If penetration occurs with a woman who is deceased, it is still considered a form of intercourse, and the same Shar'i ruling applies as if she were asleep or mentally incapacitated. As a result, the person is required to make up the fast (Qadhaa') and perform the Kaffaarah.
The same applies in the case of anal intercourse: it requires the person to make up the fast, perform the Kaffaarah, and undergo the Shar'i punishment (hadd), which is the established ruling in Shari'ah concerning crimes, as will be explained in detail, insha'Allah.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And whoever has intercourse during the day in Ramadan..." The Shafi'iyyah and Hanaabilah are of the opinion that the atonement (kaffaarah) is specific to Ramadan. As for times outside of Ramadan, they do not carry the same ruling as Ramadan. The Maalikiyyah and Hanafiyyah, however, stated that Allah, the Almighty, made it obligatory for someone who has intercourse during the day in Ramadan to perform the kaffaarah. The key factor is that they have violated a religious duty, which is the obligatory fast, so some scholars analogized this situation to making up a missed Ramadan fast, fasting for expiation (kaffaarah), or fasting a voluntary vow. They argued that if someone is fasting a make-up (Qadhaa') for a missed day of Ramadan and has intercourse on that day, they would be required to perform the same kaffaarah as someone who had intercourse during the day in Ramadan itself. They explained that since the make-up day replaces a day of Ramadan, it should be treated the same, and thus, failing to observe the fast on a make-up day is considered the same as failing to observe the fast during the original Ramadan days. The principle here is that "the make-up mimics the original performance." If the make-up is treated like the original performance and the Shari'ah has placed the person who is making up the fast in the same position as one fasting the original Ramadan, then we should rule that failing to observe the make-up fast is like failing to observe the original fast.
The stronger opinion, and Allah knows best, is that there is no obligation to perform kaffaarah for someone who has intercourse while making up a fast from Ramadan. The ruling is specific to Ramadan itself, and the reason for this is evident in the text. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked by a man who had had intercourse with his wife during the day while fasting in Ramadan, the condition of the time was that it was during the day in Ramadan while fasting. Thus, the condition of the time—having intercourse during the day in Ramadan—was met. The basic principle is that a person is presumed to be free of any obligation unless clear evidence shows otherwise. Therefore, the default ruling is that no kaffaarah should be required unless proven otherwise by evidence.
When the evidence shows that a person’s accountability is engaged during the day in Ramadan, it remains that outside of Ramadan, the original ruling applies, which is the requirement to make up missed fasts. However, it is not without sin. For instance, if someone has intercourse or deliberately breaks their fast without a valid excuse during a make-up day for Ramadan, they are still sinful, as stated by many scholars, may Allah have mercy on them.
The statement, "during the day in Ramadan," excludes intercourse at night, for which there is unanimous agreement that no atonement is required. The term "day" refers to the period from the true dawn (Fajr as-Saadiq) until sunset. Once the true dawn breaks, the day of fasting begins, as ordained by Allah.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Whoever has intercourse during the day in Ramadan, whether in the vagina or anus." As mentioned earlier, this is the view of the majority of scholars. However, some of the imams disagreed, stating that if someone has intercourse in the anus, whether with their wife or anyone else, it is considered an invalidation of the fast, but does not require the kaffaarah.
The correct view is that of the majority, who hold that kaffaarah is obligatory in such cases, and it is actually a more serious violation. Therefore, the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, state that Allah made atonement obligatory for anyone who has intercourse during the day in Ramadan in a lawful manner. By mentioning intercourse in the lawful part of the body, they highlight the severity of the violation when it occurs in a forbidden manner, such as intercourse in the anus or in unlawful relations.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if he had intercourse below the genitals and ejaculated..."
This issue is one that students of knowledge should pay attention to, as it pertains to the legal definition of intercourse in Shari'ah. Issues related to intercourse have implications in both acts of worship and legal matters. Some people mistakenly believe that simply touching the genitals requires a ritual bath (ghusl), or that if the organ touches another organ, a ritual bath becomes obligatory. Others think that if there is any contact between the organs, it constitutes a punishable act of fornication (zina) and that one should be punished as a fornicator. All of these views are contrary to the foundational principle.
The legal principle is that actual intercourse is only confirmed when the head of the male organ (the glans) is inserted, which is defined by the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, as the insertion of the glans or its equivalent if it is cut off. Therefore, the legal punishment for zina is only applicable if a judge confirms that such an insertion has occurred.
Based on this, the Shari'ah points this out by saying: "When the foreskin touches the foreskin" (or in another narration: "When the foreskin exceeds the foreskin"). In another narration: "When the two foreskins meet—then ghusl becomes obligatory." All of these narrations, as the scholars explain, are meant to highlight the point at which the head of the male organ has been inserted. If the head is missing (due to circumcision or any other cause), the legal ruling is based on the size of the remaining portion, as the Shari'ah applies a proportional measure in cases where the full original form is absent, such as with a circumcised or naturally altered organ.
Therefore, if such an insertion occurs, the punishment for zina applies, and the status of being "muhsan" (a person in a legal marriage) is also established. This means that if a man marries a woman and has intercourse with her, and there is an insertion of the head of the organ, even if the virginity is not broken, the man is considered "muhsan" (a person in a lawful marriage), and he will be treated as such. If he commits zina, he will be stoned to death rather than flogged, as would be the case for an unmarried person. There are many legal rulings connected to this issue, and it is important to explain them to understand the legal consequences, as they all depend on this condition.
Regarding his statement, "and whoever has intercourse in other than the genitals or anus," referring to things like "thighing" (as the scholars term it) or physical contact without penetration, this does not constitute legal intercourse in the strict sense. Actual intercourse, according to the Shari'ah, is only confirmed by penetration. However, such actions are still categorized as sexual contact, as "intercourse" is defined as the act of two bodies coming together in this context.
The intended meaning is that the author, may Allah have mercy on him, used a general phrase when he said: "And whoever has intercourse in other than the genitals or anus." In this context, intercourse does not occur outside of the genitals or anus. However, he generalized his phrasing. If intercourse were to occur, then kaffaarah would be required. The situation he is referring to is one where actual intercourse does not happen—such as when the organ is placed on the organ without penetration, or, for instance, when there is "thighing" as the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, have described. In such cases, no kaffaarah is required. This is the view of the Shaafi'iyyah and Hanaabilah, may Allah have mercy on them.
The Maaliki scholars, on the other hand, maintain that if a man has engaged in "thighing" with his wife or has stimulated her by hand, he is considered to have violated the sanctity of the month of Ramadan. They argue that the kaffaarah is required not just for actual intercourse but for any act that violates the sanctity of Ramadan, including those actions that lead to ejaculation. In their view, whether it is actual intercourse or any form of physical intimacy (such as thighing or similar actions) that leads to ejaculation, the kaffaarah is still required. This is because such actions are seen as violating the sanctity of Ramadan by intentionally breaking the fast with ejaculation.
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, addresses a Shar'i matter based on texts of the Shari'ah: the obligation of kaffaarah for one who has intercourse during the day in Ramadan. He also discusses scenarios where intercourse does not occur, such as thighing or physical intimacy without penetration. He appears to be setting boundaries: when a person crosses these boundaries, kaffaarah becomes obligatory, but if they do not exceed them (such as when no penetration occurs), they are required to make up the fast but are not obligated to perform kaffaarah.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if he has intercourse below the genitals and ejaculates, or if the woman is excused."
This is the condition. However, if he engages in physical intimacy below the genitals, such as through thighing or other actions without penetration or ejaculation, his fast is still valid. Even if he emits pre-ejaculate (madhi), the correct view, as we have mentioned, is that it does not require kaffaarah or a make-up fast. Only semen (mani) necessitates making up the fast, while pre-ejaculate (madhi) requires repentance and seeking forgiveness, but there is no legal penalty or atonement required for it.
"Or if the woman is excused."
If the woman is excused for having intercourse, then she is not required to perform the kaffaarah. A woman may be excused due to coercion or force. The general rule is that it is not permissible for her to allow her husband to engage with her sexually during the day in Ramadan because Allah has forbidden her from indulging in such desires during fasting hours, and the husband is also prohibited from engaging in such acts. If she agrees to it, she is aiding him in committing sin, transgression, and violating the limits set by Allah, thereby breaking the sanctity of His commands.
Therefore, it is her duty to prevent him from this act. In fact, scholars say she should resist him as much as she can. If he attempts to force himself on her, and she manages to push him away and even throw him to the ground, she bears no responsibility for it. She should advise him, remind him of Allah, and speak to him about the sin he is committing. If he persists in trying to have intercourse, she is allowed to push him away with her hands or feet as much as possible, provided no harm results. Some scholars even say that if harm occurs while defending herself, she would be excused in this case because he is the one initiating the violation of Allah's laws.
This means she is permitted to push him away even if it causes harm, as long as her action is a response to his sin of violating Allah's limits. Some scholars say that even in such a situation, she would be excused from the harm and would not be held accountable for any injury caused in her defense.
This scenario is considered an exception where the woman may refuse to obey her husband, since there is no obedience to a creation in disobedience to the Creator. This is an act of disobedience to Allah, as it concerns a fundamental pillar of Islam, which is fasting.
Therefore, she should take measures to resist him. If she is overpowered—such as if she is asleep or coerced—and he forces himself upon her and she cannot prevent him, scholars say she is excused in this case. This is a general principle among the scholars, although some differentiate between cases of forced intercourse and cases of adultery (zina), as will be discussed when explaining the differences of opinion between the majority and the Hanafiyyah regarding coercion in cases of zina.
The conclusion is that she should resist and prevent her husband as much as possible. If she is overpowered and unable to resist, she is not required to perform kaffaarah but must make up the fast due to the fact that desire and pleasure were experienced. However, no kaffaarah is due in this case.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Or if someone has intercourse after intending to fast while traveling, he has broken his fast but does not owe kaffaarah."
If a person travels and intends to fast at the start of the day, some scholars ask: Why is the intention of fasting mentioned? This is because some scholars differentiate for travelers between whether they intend to fast or not. If a traveler intends to break his fast (for example, if he knows he will be traveling and intends to break the fast), there is no issue. However, if he intends to fast and also intends to travel, such as planning to travel to a city tomorrow, and he wakes up in the morning with the intention to fast, scholars say he is required to complete his fast.
In this situation, if he utilizes the concession (the allowance for travel) and leaves Makkah, traveling beyond its boundaries and breaks his fast, then if he has intercourse with his wife during the journey, there is no issue. He is excused, as he is permitted to break the fast in such circumstances, and he is not considered to have broken the fast in a prohibited way, but rather in a manner that is legally excused.
However, if he arrives in the city—whether it is at the end of the day or in the middle of the day—or reaches his home, the question arises: should he continue fasting and refrain from having intercourse, or is he allowed to engage in it? The majority of scholars are of the opinion that he must refrain from eating and drinking for the rest of the day. This is based on the evidence from the hadith of fasting on the Day of 'Ashooraa', where the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, based their reasoning on the prohibition of eating and drinking in such cases. If he eats or drinks after arrival, he would be considered sinful.
If he has intercourse with his wife after arriving at his destination, some scholars say that he does not owe kaffaarah, but he would be considered sinful because he should have refrained for the remainder of the day.
For those who do not believe it is obligatory to fast for the remainder of the day, and they say that once he has broken the fast, he is no longer required to refrain, there is no sin upon him, and he is not obligated to repent or seek forgiveness.
To summarize: If a traveler arrives before the end of the day and has broken his fast during the journey, he must refrain from food and drink for the rest of the day. If he has intercourse during this time, scholars have two opinions: some say there is no harm or sin, and he could choose to have intercourse without issue. Others say that he must refrain, and if he does engage in intercourse, he would be considered sinful and required to repent and seek forgiveness, but no kaffaarah is required because his fast was not broken by intercourse in a prohibited manner.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if he has intercourse on two different days or repeats it on the same day without performing kaffaarah, then one kaffaarah is due for the second instance, and two kaffaarahs are due for the first."
If a person intentionally has intercourse with his wife on the first day, then has intercourse again with her on the second day, this is intercourse repeated on two different days, and he has broken the fast on both days. Allah has made fasting obligatory for both days, and he has violated the sanctity of Ramadan on both days. Therefore, he is required to perform two kaffaarahs—one for each day—whether or not he has performed kaffaarah for the first day.
However, if he has repeated intercourse on the same day, even if multiple times, only one kaffaarah is required. This applies whether or not he has made atonement for the first instance.
For example, if a person has intercourse with his wife at the beginning of the day, then again at midday, and again just before sunset, that would be three instances of intercourse. In this case, only one kaffaarah is required, as he has already broken the fast with the first instance, and no additional kaffaarah is required for the subsequent instances during that same day.
One of the scenarios discussed by the scholars is if a man has intercourse with four different wives in a single day. In this case, only one kaffaarah is required for himself. However, regarding the women, the situation is different, as we discussed earlier: if the woman willingly consents and chooses to participate, she owes a kaffaarah separate from her husband's. If she resisted and refused, some scholars say that the husband is obligated to atone on her behalf, while others argue that no kaffaarah is due from him, based on the hadith about the man who had intercourse with his wife during Ramadan while fasting.
"Kaffaarah for Repeated Intercourse During the Same Day in Ramadan."
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if he repeats intercourse in one day without performing kaffaarah, then one kaffaarah is due for the second instance, and two kaffaarahs for the first."
Some scholars say that if a person has intercourse multiple times in one day, we look at whether he has performed kaffaarah for the first instance. If he has, then he must perform kaffaarah for the second instance, but this view is considered weaker.
The correct opinion is that if a person repeats intercourse on the same day—even if it happens ten times—he is only required to perform one kaffaarah. However, due to his repeated violation of Allah's rights, he should feel remorse, seek forgiveness, and repent to Allah for each instance. But as for the kaffaarah, only one is required, and he only needs to make up (Qadhaa') the fast for that one day.
Those who say that kaffaarah should be repeated argue that if he atones for the first instance of intercourse and then engages in intercourse again, a second kaffaarah is required. For example, if he has intercourse at 8 AM, performs the kaffaarah by 10 AM, then has intercourse again at 12 PM, 1 PM, 2 PM, and 3 PM, they say that after performing the kaffaarah at 10 AM, he is obligated to repeat the kaffaarah for each subsequent instance of intercourse.
However, the correct view is as we mentioned: that for one day, only one kaffaarah is required, regardless of how many times intercourse occurs. This is because it is considered one violation—he has broken the fast on that day with his first act of intercourse. Any subsequent intercourse is considered to have occurred after he had already broken his fast, and thus no additional kaffaarah is required.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if he has intercourse, then performs the kaffaarah, then has intercourse again on the same day, a second kaffaarah is due."
The correct view is that no second kaffaarah is required, and the first kaffaarah is sufficient. This is because, after the first act of intercourse, he was already considered to have broken the fast, and the second intercourse occurred while he was already in a state of having broken the fast. The condition for kaffaarah is that the intercourse takes place while fasting.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Similarly, for someone who is required to refrain (for the remainder of the day), if he has intercourse."
As we mentioned regarding someone who arrives in his city and there is still part of the day remaining, scholars say that he is considered to be in the status of someone who is fasting. Therefore, if he has intercourse during the remainder of the day, he would be required to perform kaffaarah.
However, the correct opinion, as we mentioned earlier, is that he is not required to perform kaffaarah because he has already broken his fast for that day. Kaffaarah is required for those who are fasting, not for those who have already broken their fast.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And if he has intercourse while healthy, then becomes ill, insane, or travels, the kaffaarah is not waived."
After explaining the obligation of kaffaarah for intercourse, the question arises: What happens if intercourse is repeated? He clarified that it could either occur on different days or on the same day. If repeated on the same day, it could be that the person performs kaffaarah for the first instance, or does not perform kaffaarah. He explained the ruling for all these scenarios.
Then, he addresses a specific issue: If a person has intercourse with his wife on the first day of Ramadan and violates the fast, but before sunset, an excuse arises that would permit him to break his fast, such as illness, insanity, or travel, does this mean the entire day becomes excused, and the kaffaarah is waived?
Some scholars, particularly in the Shaafi'iyyah, hold an opinion that the excuse after the violation—such as insanity, illness, or travel—would permit breaking the fast, and therefore the person would not be required to perform kaffaarah. However, this view is considered an exception.
The correct opinion, according to the majority of scholars, is that if a person has intercourse at the beginning of the day and then a valid excuse arises that permits breaking the fast later in the day, he is still required to perform kaffaarah. This is because the violation (the act of intercourse) occurred when the person was still obligated to fast, and thus, he violated Allah's limits during a time when he was being held accountable for fasting.
The punishment for violating the fast through intercourse during the day is intended to deter the person from transgressing Allah’s boundaries. This violation occurred at the start of the day, and it does not matter that an excuse (like illness, insanity, or travel) appeared later. The presence of an excuse after the violation does not affect the ruling, and the person is still liable for the kaffaarah.
This principle is akin to other situations where an excuse arises after a violation, such as if a judge issues a ruling and then becomes insane before it is executed, or if witnesses testify and then die, become insane, or are proven to be corrupt after their testimony. These are examples of "emergent excuses" that may or may not have an effect, depending on the context. In the case of fasting and the violation of its rules, the excuse that arises later does not nullify the ruling or waive the kaffaarah.
Therefore, the person is required to perform kaffaarah, even if an excuse arises later in the day or immediately after the violation, because the violation occurred while they were still in a state of being accountable to fast. The key factor is the initial violation, not what happens afterward.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "Kaffaarah is not required for anything other than intercourse during Ramadan."
Kaffaarah is not required for actions like masturbation, or for other forms of sexual pleasure such as "thighing" (المفاخذة) and similar activities. Kaffaarah is only required for actual intercourse, and it applies specifically to fasting during Ramadan (the obligatory fast) and not to the fast of making up missed days (Qadhaa’). This is a key distinction between different schools of thought.
As we have noted, there is a difference of opinion between the Hanafiyyah and Maalikiyyah on one side, and the Shaafi’iyyah and Hanaabilah on the other. The main principle here is that there is no kaffaarah for a fast unless actual intercourse takes place during Ramadan.
Therefore, kaffaarah is not required if the fast is outside of Ramadan, even if it is a mandatory fast, such as making up missed days of Ramadan (Qadhaa’). Similarly, kaffaarah is not required for anything other than intercourse, such as masturbation or other forms of sexual activity that do not involve full intercourse.
The scholars who argue for the requirement of kaffaarah in cases outside Ramadan believe that if a person is fasting for another obligatory reason (like making up missed days), it is as if they have violated the sanctity of the month of Ramadan, just as they would by engaging in intercourse during the fasting hours of Ramadan. Therefore, they view it as similar to violating the fast in Ramadan itself.
They also argue that the issue is related to the pleasure (الشهوة) that leads to the release of semen, whether through intercourse, "thighing," masturbation, or similar acts. From their perspective, any action that results in the release of semen would require both kaffaarah and making up the fast.
However, the correct position, as we have mentioned, is to adhere strictly to the wording of the text. The general rule is that the individual is innocent (i.e., their obligations are not increased) until there is clear evidence requiring them to be held accountable. The evidence strongly supports the position that kaffaarah is only required for the specific scenario in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about and declared that it applies only to those who engage in intercourse during the daytime of Ramadan. Therefore, we limit the obligation of kaffaarah to this case and exclude other scenarios.
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "The kaffaarah is the freeing of a slave. If one cannot find a slave, then fasting two consecutive months. If one cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. If one cannot find any of this, it is waived."
The Ruling on Freeing a Slave and the Conditions for It
“The kaffaarah is the freeing of a slave” — The term “it” refers to the kaffaarah. Regarding the slave, some scholars stipulate that the slave must be a believer, based on the analogy with the kaffaarah for murder.
This is a point of difference among the scholars. The command to free a slave comes in two forms: one where the command is restricted, as in the case of the kaffaarah for murder [where Allah says]:
فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ
“Then the freeing of a believing slave” (an-Nisaa', 4:92), where Allah has explicitly stipulated that the slave must be a believer.
And there is another situation where the mention of the neck is unrestricted, as in the verse about the expiation for a man who divorces his wife by dhihaar (a form of marriage-related declaration), and also in the saying [of the Prophet] (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as found in the Saheehayn: "Do you find a slave or free a slave?" In this case, the scholars have two opinions and madhhabs: Some say that the unrestricted reference here — in the case of someone having intercourse during the day in Ramadan — should be understood as the restricted reference found in the expiation for murder. According to this opinion, there would be no expiation by freeing a slave unless the slave is a believer.
They argued based on the hadith that was confirmed about him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) when he asked the maidservant, "Where is Allah?" She replied, "In the heaven." He then said, "Free her, for she is a believer." [Translator's note: "In the heaven" is a direct translation; however, in the Arabic context, it means "above the heaven." For more information, see: Is Allah Above the Heavens?]
And his statement, "For she is a believer," is an explanatory sentence, meaning: because she is a believer. It implies that if she were not a believer, he would not have commanded her emancipation. From one perspective, this argument has merit—meaning, if you look at the texts, it makes sense. However, the earlier scholars respond by saying that the man intended to free her voluntarily, not as an obligatory act. When he chose to free her voluntarily, the best and most complete option was for the slave to be a believer, so that her emancipation would help her in obedience and goodness, thus fulfilling the intended purpose of voluntary emancipation.
As for the emancipation due to an obligatory act (like in the case of expiation), what is meant by it is the actual emancipation and the financial compensation. This is because a person incurs a financial loss by losing their slaves, as slaves were considered a form of wealth. People would benefit from them and use them for their needs, so losing them would result in financial harm. Similarly, when someone is unable to fast for two consecutive months, they are required to feed sixty poor people, which is also a financial burden.
They said: The goal is for the person to incur a financial penalty, and therefore they do not apply the general ruling to the specific one. They argue that if the freeing of a slave in the case of a woman’s vow (المظاهر) or in the kaffaarah for Ramadan fasting were conditioned on the slave’s faith, the Shari'ah would have explicitly indicated this requirement. After all, in the case of the kaffaarah for murder, the text says: “The freeing of a believing slave”, while here the text is general without such a condition. If belief were a condition, the Shari'ah would have explicitly specified it.
This opinion is further supported by the fact that in the case of murder, the freeing of a believing slave has a specific purpose: when someone frees a slave as a kaffaarah for murder, it is as if the individual is freeing themselves from the Fire, as if the body part is freed in exchange for the body part of the person harmed, as it is narrated that even the genitals are freed in the process.
From this, they said: Since the killer has essentially condemned himself to the Hellfire by killing his Muslim brother, he atones for this by freeing a believing slave, as if he is freeing himself from the Fire. This raises a point of difficulty: the killing was a mistake, and the killer did not intend it. They responded by saying: A mistake is never without negligence, because if the killer had been more careful and cautious, this would not have occurred. Therefore, he is obligated to atone because there was negligence and a failure to take precautions.
From this, they said: This deficiency is compensated by emancipating a believing slave so that they are freed from the Hellfire. Regardless, the argument for not restricting it is strong and valid due to the generality of the texts. While interpreting the general (unrestricted) text in light of the specific (restricted) text is a more cautious approach, the unrestricted interpretation holds significant strength. Therefore, it is obligatory upon him to free the slave.
However, the safer opinion is to apply the restriction to the expiation, requiring that the slave be a believer. But the view of having no condition regarding faith is indeed strong. Therefore, in this case, the person is required to free a slave.
The expiation of freeing a slave does not depend on whether the slave is young or old. Even if the slave is a young child, the same ruling applies in the case of murder. If the child was born to a believing mother, then the child is considered part of the Muslim community. Thus, if the mother is a believer, the child will be considered a believer, and the slave will be freed as if they were a believing individual.
This description of Muslim children as having faith is what scholars refer to as “assumed description” (التقديري). Imam al-'Izz ibn Abdis-Salaam discussed this issue in his book Qawaa’id al-Ahkaam, under the topic of assumed descriptions. He said: He said: "Estimation is treating the nonexistent as if it were present." One of the examples he gave is that if children are in Muslim lands, we give them the ruling of Islam. So, if someone finds an abandoned child in a Muslim country, they are treated as the children of Muslims; if found in a kaafir country, they are treated as the children of kuffaar. Why? This is based on estimation. While it is not a literal ruling of faith, they say it is by estimation.
Additionally, the text states: “Every newborn is born upon the fitrah (natural disposition). It is their parents who make them Jews, Christians, or Majoosi.” They say that children follow the ruling of their parents by estimation, according to the Shar'i rulings. So, here, if someone wanted to free a slave, even if the slave were a child, it would be permissible to free them.
This opinion was chosen by scholars, including imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari (may Allah have mercy on him) in his tafseer. Based on this, it is permissible to free young slaves from among the children of Muslims if they are slaves, and they are considered to have the description of faith by assumed description.
Here, if a man has relations with his wife during the day in Ramadan and then frees a boy or a girl, it would suffice for him, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Free a slave." And in another narration: "Do you find a slave to free?" This is an unrestricted statement, so it includes both males and females. Therefore, if he frees a female slave, it is valid and sufficient, and if he frees a male slave, it is also valid and sufficient. All of them are sufficient because the Shar'i is unrestricted.
There is a difference of opinion among scholars regarding whether the slave being freed must be free from defects or not. Some scholars say that the emancipation is not valid unless the slave is free from defects. These defects can be in terms of character or physical condition. Defects in slaves are divided into two categories: impactful defects and non-impactful defects.
The defects that do not affect usability are minor defects that do not hinder the benefit derived from the slave. For example, if the slave is illiterate and cannot read or write, this is not considered a significant defect because it does not prevent the slave from being useful in performing service tasks.
However, the second type of defects, which are the affecting ones, are also divided into two categories: physical defects or moral defects. Either it is a physical defect, such as a bodily impairment like paralysis, blindness, or lameness, which is considered a congenital defect.
The second type is a moral deficiency, such as being insane, as the person would be unable to control their emotions, speech, actions, and behaviors. If such a deficiency, whether physical or moral, exists in the slave, some scholars say it does not count, and it is required for the slave to be whole and free from defects.
Some scholars say that if he frees a paralyzed person, it is valid; and if the person is blind or insane, it is still valid. This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Free a slave," and this is general, encompassing both a complete and an incomplete slave.
In reality, there is no doubt that the opinion which considers the perfection of creation and the absence of significant defects in a person is the safest, most cautious, and most deserving of consideration.
If he cannot find it, then fasting two consecutive months
If a person is unable to afford the price of a slave but is given one as a gift, he can still make atonement by freeing that slave. If it was given to him as a gift, it is still valid as an atonement. Furthermore, if he owns the slave before beginning the fasting, then he must atone by freeing the slave. This is because the hadith says: "If he cannot find it"—so the atonement for sexual intercourse during the day in Ramadan is sequential. This is the view of the majority of the early and later scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. Some scholars have issued a fatwa allowing one to transition to fasting two consecutive months if the freeing of the slave is possible. This was also done as a recommendation, as was the case with imam Yahya ibn Yahya al-Laythi, may Allah have mercy on him, in his story with 'Abdur-Rahman al-Umawi, the governor of Andalusia, when he sought a fatwa about sexual intercourse during the day in Ramadan. Yahya ibn Yahya advised him to fast two consecutive months.
He was the chief judge of his time. When he issued this fatwa, the scholars who were with him were amazed and remained silent out of respect for him, thinking that he had a valid reasoning for his ijtihaad. When he left, they approached him for clarification, and he explained: "If we had told him to free a slave, he might have engaged in intercourse again, and the matter would have become easier for him. He might have found it trivial to do so every day—engage in intercourse and free a slave. However, if I commanded him to fast, he would be more conscious of Allah's limits and would not violate His prohibitions. I ordered him to fast because of the great hardship it would cause him, and because it would serve as a stronger deterrent against him falling into this forbidden act."
In truth, this fatwa is rejected and invalid, as pointed out by scholars and imams of Usool. Even the author of al-Mustasfa mentioned it as an example of invalid and flawed reasoning, because it contradicts the text. When the Shari'ah commands the freeing of a slave, we must command the freeing of a slave. No one has the right to go beyond the ruling of Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and there is no justification for such ijtihaad or preferences.
There is no doubt that the basic principle obligates us to command the freeing of a slave, even if the person is able to do so or is wealthy. Allah is the most knowledgeable of His creation and the wisest in His rulings. He knows that there are wealthy individuals for whom freeing slaves would not be harmful, even if they were to engage in intercourse every day. But we say what Allah has commanded us to say in His rulings, and we uphold what is established through the authentic texts from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
From here, we emphasize that a person should avoid personal opinions and views that contradict the texts. A Muslim must adhere strictly to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), especially in matters of fatwa, judicial rulings, and similar issues where a person is entrusted with the laws of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.
No one, regardless of their status, has the right to introduce into the religion of Allah anything that is not part of it, even if it is based on personal opinion or preference. This is why imam ash-Shaafi'ee (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "Whoever makes a judgment based on personal preference (istihsaan) has legislated."
The imams of the Salaf would strongly caution the people of opinion (أهل الرأي) in this regard: if the opinion contradicts the clear texts from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
But the opinions that a person understands from the text are valid Shar'i opinions, as evidenced by the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) statement: "When the judge exerts effort (to make a ruling)" and his statement: "Whoever Allah intends good for, He gives him understanding of the religion." From His words: "He gives him understanding," it means that the person understands, i.e., they have looked into the text and derived something from it. This indicates that if an opinion is derived from the Shari'ah, then it is valid, and the person is rewarded for it. If they are correct, they will receive two rewards, and if they are mistaken, they will receive one reward.
As for someone coming to a text in the Kitaab and Sunnah and believing that the reality or circumstances require changing the text, or introducing something stricter to make it more deterrent, all of this is in direct conflict with the Shari'law of Allah Almighty and a violation of His boundaries. It is not permissible for a Muslim to recklessly jump into the fire with knowledge, issuing fatwas or judgments based on personal desire or opinion in matters of Allah's religion when entrusted with the responsibility of issuing fatwas or judgments. This is something that should be approached with caution. If you know that there is a text in the Kitaab and Sunnah and that the Shari'ah has bound you to it, do not advance or delay it. As a judge, a mufti, or a teacher, you are not permitted to go beyond what you have learned. What you have learned from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be conveyed. However, if you depart from the Kitaab and Sunnah and follow your own opinion and personal judgment, going against what Allah has prescribed in His Book or what His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has decreed in the authentic Sunnah, this—may Allah protect us from it—is the essence of destruction and misguidance. It is not permissible for a Muslim to abandon the clear path that is shown by the texts of the Kitaab and Sunnah.
This is a very important matter for students of knowledge. They should always keep in mind that they are entrusted with the law of Allah Almighty. A student of knowledge is not permitted to make judgments or issue opinions unless the Shari'ah of Allah allows them to do so through reasoning and scholarly ijtihaad.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "If he does not find, then he should fast two consecutive months."
If a person is unable to free a slave and cannot afford it, then he should fast two consecutive months.
There are two possible scenarios for these two months: the first is that the person starts the month from the beginning, such as starting from the first day of Muharram, Safar, or Rabee’ al-Awwal. If they start with the first day of Muharram, then the validity of the fast is judged based on whether the month is complete or incomplete. So, if they start in Muharram and it turns out that Muharram is 29 days, they have still completed one full month. Then, if the second month, Safar, finishes, they will have completed the fasting period required for the expiation, even if they fasted for 58 days—29 days of Muharram and 29 days of Safar. This is agreed upon by the scholars, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "We are an unlettered nation, we do not write or calculate. The month is like this and like this," and he gestured with his hand in the first instance to indicate thirty, and in the second instance, he made a circle with his thumb to indicate twenty-nine. This indicates that if someone fasts for twenty-nine days and the new moon is sighted for both the first and second months, then their fast will be valid, and fasting for 58 days will suffice as expiation.
The second scenario is that the person begins fasting the two consecutive months in the middle of the month, such as starting on the 10th of Muharram. If they start on the 10th of Muharram, their first month will not be completed until the 10th of Safar, and their second month will not be completed until the 10th of Rabee' al-Awwal. In this case, the fast is measured by days, and in this second scenario, they will be required to fast a full 60 days.
There remains the issue of the requirement for consecutive fasting, meaning these two months must be consecutive. "Consecutive" here means not breaking the fast during the two months. If the person breaks their fast even a single day before completing them, they must start over and complete the full number of days again. For example, if they fasted until the 29th of Safar and then broke their fast, they would have to make up the missed days and start the two consecutive months again. This is based on the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instruction in the hadith of the man who had intercourse with his wife during the day in Ramadan. The Prophet ordered him to fast two consecutive months, and the man said, "O Messenger of Allah! Wasn't it the fast that put me in this situation?!" He was a man who couldn't tolerate being apart from women, so it was as if he was excusing himself for his inability to fast.
Therefore, if someone breaks their fast even a day before completing the two months, they are required to restart and fast the two consecutive months again.
But the question remains: If someone begins fasting the two consecutive months as a kaffaarah for having intercourse during the day in Ramadan, or for killing, or for the expiation of dhihaar in Sha'ban, and then Ramadan enters, does Ramadan break the continuity of the fasting?
The answer is that Ramadan does not break the continuity of the fasting. He will fast the entire month of Ramadan. Once Ramadan ends, the question arises: Should he break his fast on the day of 'Eid or not? Scholars have two views on this: the more correct opinion is that he should break his fast on the day of 'Eid. After that, he continues and builds upon what has passed.
For example, if he fasted the entire month of Sha'ban, then fasted Ramadan, and during Ramadan, if he breaks his fast due to travel or something else, it does not break the continuity, and it does not affect it until Ramadan is complete. When Ramadan is completed and 'Eid comes, fasting on 'Eid day is prohibited. Therefore, if he fasts on 'Eid, it will not count for the consecutive fasts. If it does not count according to the text of the Shari'ah—because the Shari'ah forbids fasting on this day—then the fast for 'Eid is removed from his obligation, and the presence of 'Eid day in his fasting becomes irrelevant, as if it did not exist.
In this case, he breaks his fast just as a menstruating woman would. A menstruating woman cannot fast sixty consecutive days because menstruation usually comes to her (or to most women). Therefore, the existence of this legitimate excuse is treated as a physical excuse. Just as menstruation does not break the continuity of fasting because it comes without the individual's choice, similarly, the arrival of Eid day does not break the continuity for someone who started fasting in the month of Sha'ban. He breaks his fast on 'Eid day, then completes the count after 'Eid. Once he completes the count after 'Eid, his fasting continuity is not broken by the fast on that day.
The second issue: The menstruating and post-partum women are not interrupted in their fasting continuity due to their menstruation or post-partum bleeding. They must continue their fasting for the two consecutive months of expiation. If they fast the two consecutive months and menstruation or post-partum bleeding interrupts it, they break their fast during the days of menstruation or post-partum bleeding, and then resume their fasting after the bleeding ends.
However, if a person begins fasting in the month of Muharram and then falls ill during their fast, does the illness break the continuity or not? Scholars have two opinions on this:
1. Some say that the illness does not break the continuity, similar to how menstruation does not break the continuity for women. This view is strong in reasoning.
2. Others say that it does break the continuity because the criterion is the uninterrupted sequence, and the person must resume their fast once they regain their health and strength.
The stronger opinion is that if the illness prevents the person from fasting, it does not break the continuity. They are allowed to break their fast for the days they were ill, and after recovery, they can complete their fasting, resuming from where they left off after the days of illness.
He said: “Fasting two consecutive months”—meaning fasting two complete consecutive months in the manner we mentioned. Some scholars say that the two months are a form of compensation for the day he missed fasting, which is why it is obligatory for him to fast. If he is unable to do so, he should feed sixty poor people, with each poor person being compensated for one day. If you look at the total number of days in the two months, it equals sixty days, and the number of poor people he must feed is sixty, with each person receiving a quarter of a saa’ (approximately 0.5 kg), as will be explained later. It is as if this is a compensation for the day he broke his fast, and the fasting of these two consecutive months compensates for the day he broke his fast.
Some scholars say that this is evidence of the great importance of Allah’s commandments, and that it is not permissible for a Muslim to take lightly the obligations of Allah. If he neglects them without a valid excuse or intentionally breaks his fast, or neglects what Allah has made obligatory, even if he makes up for it later, it will not be equivalent in terms of reward, especially if it was done deliberately. From this comes the hadith of Abu Hurayrah: “Whoever breaks his fast on a day of Ramadan without an excuse, he can fast forever, but it will never compensate for that day”—meaning that the reward for the fast of that day cannot be replaced, no matter how much he fasts afterward.
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "[If he is unable], then he should feed sixty poor people."
If someone is unable to fast the two consecutive months—whether due to illness, such as kidney failure, for example, where it is medically determined that fasting could result in death—then it is permissible for them to switch from fasting to feeding sixty poor people. Similarly, if a person is excessively driven by sexual desire and cannot control their urges, and thus cannot fast for sixty days, they are allowed to transition to feeding the poor. This ruling comes from the story of the man who asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Hasn’t the fasting placed me in this situation?!" and the scholars say that he switched from fasting to feeding because of his inability to endure fasting due to his strong desires. So, if the person has a valid excuse, whether due to illness or overwhelming desire, they are allowed to shift to feeding the poor.
Each poor person is given a quarter of a saa‘, as mentioned in the narration of al-Muwatta’ regarding the man who had intimate relations with his wife during the day in Ramadan. The Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed him to feed sixty poor people. The man complained that he had nothing to give, and the hadith mentions: "Do you find something to feed sixty poor people?" He said: "No."
Then, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was brought a ‘araq—which is a large basket, similar to what we call a "القفّة" today. These large baskets were traditionally used to carry dates and fruits. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed the man to give it as charity.
The ‘araq contains fifteen saa‘, as mentioned in the narration of al-Muwatta’ that the ‘araq is like a basket containing fifteen saa‘. If we divide the fifteen saa‘ among sixty poor people, each poor person would receive a quarter of a saa‘, which is equivalent to the quarter of the saa‘ given at the end of Ramadan. This quarter of a saa‘ is called the madd, which is the small saa‘ used by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There is a small saa‘ and a large saa‘, and the small one is defined by scholars as the amount one can hold in both hands, neither cupped nor spread out. It is called the madd because it is the quantity the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would use to perform his ablution. Therefore, when feeding the poor, each poor person should receive a quarter of a saa‘, and if this is done, it suffices.
The author said: "If he cannot find [what to expiate with], the kaffaarah is waived."
This means that if a person is unable to afford what is required for the kaffaarah due to poverty or lack of resources (for example, if they do not have enough money to buy food or to give charity to the poor), the kaffaarah is waived. This is because when the man who had relations with his wife during the day in Ramadan came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and complained, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was brought a ‘araq (a large basket) and ordered him to take it and give it as charity. The man responded, saying: "O Messenger of Allah! Am I poorer than anyone else?" He said: "By Allah, there is no one between its two hills more impoverished than I." In another narration, he said: "There is no family more impoverished than us."
Laabbataan is the dual of laabbah, which refers to the two hills. This is because Madinah is situated between two volcanic plains, which are known today as the Eastern and Western Harrah. The Eastern Harrah was called Harrah Waaqim in ancient times, and it was the site of the famous battle during the time of Yazeed. And in it is the saying of Qays ar-Ruqayyaat: "If you kill us on the day of Harrah Waaqim, then indeed we were the first to be killed in Islam."
The second one is Harrah al-Wabarah, which is the Western Harrah. The phrase "between its two hills" refers to the area between these two volcanic plains, implying the entire city of Madinah. The reason for this is that the settlements of Medina did not extend beyond these two plains.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then instructed the man to take the basket and feed his family, demonstrating Allah’s mercy toward His slaves.
But this matter is a specific ruling for this man, as the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, have pointed out. Otherwise, if he were given a container of food, it would not be correct for a scholar to say to him: "Take it to your family." Similarly, if someone came to ask for help and had a kaffaarah to make, and then someone donated a container of food to him and said, "He is poor," you cannot say to him: "The kaffaarah is obligatory upon you," because this - as they say - is a specific case, and individual cases do not serve as evidence for general rulings.
This is a concession from the Shari'ah and a facilitation from Allah, the Exalted, which He made to flow through the tongue of His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as the imams, may Allah have mercy on them, pointed out in their explanation of the hadith, that this ruling applies specifically to this man.
As for someone who is given the means to make expiation, or someone who is given money with which he can make the expiation, and then says, "I want to keep it for myself," he is not allowed to do so. He must fulfill the expiation that Allah has made obligatory upon him.
Question: In the hadith of the Bedouin, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not mention the ruling regarding the woman of the Bedouin in terms of her obligation to fast or to make expiation (kaffaarah). How do we reconcile this with the principle: “It is not permissible to delay the clarification of a ruling until the time of necessity”? Please clarify this issue, may Allah reward you.
Answer: This issue, in fact, has been extensively discussed by scholars, particularly the matter of engaging in sexual intercourse during the day in Ramadan. Therefore, when scholars spoke about the issue of reasoning (التعليل) and the methods of reasoning, this hadith became one of the most suitable hadiths for illustrating the different forms of reasoning. As a result, you will find that the imams, may Allah have mercy on them, and the books of usool pay special attention to explaining this hadith from a principle and reasoning perspective.
There are two approaches among the Usooliyyoon (scholars of principles of jurisprudence) regarding this matter. One approach is subtle and elegant, as it resolves many of the complications. They say: the man came asking primarily about himself, and the question was initially about himself. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave him a ruling and clarified it for him. It became clear that the man had nothing for himself, so the expiation was waived for him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) remained silent about his wife because the ruling is the same. If the expiation was waived for him, it is only natural that it should be waived for the wife he supports.
This approach does not provide any grounds for objection in the matter, so the woman remains under the same ruling as the man, being required to perform the expiation. They argue that the man initially asked about himself, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only answered the question he was asked. He did not make an effort to answer something that was not asked of him. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) responded to him, and continued with the man, outlining the expiation step by step. When it became clear that the man had nothing, the expiation was lifted from him. Since the expiation was waived for him due to his circumstances, it follows naturally that it would also be waived for his wife and those he supports. Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not speak further on the matter, especially since the man said: "By Allah, there is no household between the two lava plains more destitute than mine." By saying "household," this included both him and his wife.
This answer is one of the most precise, effectively closing all objections. From this point, the majority of scholars say: the issues that are left unsaid—whether the wife complied or not—remain matters of ijtihaadiyyah. This is a sign of the precision of Shari'ah, which sometimes explicitly addresses certain issues while leaving others for scholars to interpret. This is a wisdom from Allah, the Most Exalted and Majestic, elevating the scholars' ranks and creating room for differing opinions among them, which distinguishes the knowledgeable from the less knowledgeable. Thus, the matters that are not explicitly addressed in the texts are left for scholars to deduce and explain their rulings. Some scholars align these matters with the original principle and find the strongest analogy to apply, as the Shari'ah often provides hints that guide one issue to another. This type of ijtihaad is rooted in the foundational principles of Shari'ah.
Some scholars say that it is an act of forgiveness, as is the position of the Dhaahiriyyah (may Allah have mercy on them). This approach asserts that everything not explicitly addressed in the text is forgiven. According to them, the woman is not obligated to anything, even if she complied with her husband, consented, or chose to do so. They argue that nothing was made obligatory for the woman in this hadith by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
If you say to them: "He remained silent."
They say: "Silence is forgiveness."
In reality, what the Shari'ah has remained silent about is forgiveness from Allah in terms of the specific ruling, but the scholar remains required to exert effort (i.e., ijtihaad). This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If the ruler makes ijtihaad..." meaning that there are matters that require deliberation, research, and the clarification of their ruling.
Thus, by giving a ruling based on its analogy, one has exercised ijtihaad in accordance with the Shari'ah, and "fiqh" means understanding the objective of the Shari'ah. This is the meaning of the statement (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whomsoever Allah intends good for, He gives him understanding in the religion," meaning that He helps him understand the purpose of the Shari'ah so that he can base the ruling on it. So, when you see that the objective of the Shari'ah is to prohibit something, you then say: "It is not allowed."
And if you understand that the objective of the Shari'ah is its permissibility and to make things easier for the people, you would say: "It is allowed," and all of this is based on your understanding of the objectives of the Shari'ah.
In this issue, since the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not ask the man whether his wife obeyed him or not, whether she was coerced or not, whether she had an excuse or not, it cannot be said that this is delaying clarification when it is needed. The most fitting explanation, as mentioned by the scholars of Usool, is their saying: "Leaving the inquiry in a case of possibility is like making a general statement." This means that the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not ask the man any follow-up questions. He did not say: "Did your wife obey you or not? Was she coerced or not? Was she willing or unwilling?" Instead, he left the inquiry in a situation where it was uncertain.
That is, in a situation where it is possible that the woman might be excused and also possible that she might not be, the fact that he did not inquire further is treated as a general statement.
This means that the kaffaarah is only obligatory on the man. As for the woman, it is not obligatory upon her, whether she obeyed or did not obey. This is the meaning of the principle.
However, as we mentioned earlier, the principle of "leaving further inquiry in a situation of possibility" does not apply in this case. It applies when a question is asked specifically about something, such as when a man asks the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about the ruling regarding his wife, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would say: "She is obligated to make kaffaarah."
He does not ask if she obeyed or did not obey. Therefore, leaving further inquiry in such cases serves as an indication and evidence. However, since there was no question asked about the woman and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) remained silent about her, this leaves room for ijtihaad.
It is not unreasonable, because a woman may entice her husband to engage in intimacy, or she may initiate the act herself. Some scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, mentioned this. Although it is common that the man is the one who has the primary urge for intimacy, the fact that it can also be the woman who instigates and urges him shows that the woman should be treated the same as the man if she willingly and knowingly engages in the act.
If the woman is the one who desires intimacy, initiates it, and consents willingly, then she and the man are treated equally, and the kaffaarah becomes obligatory upon her. This is because the reason for the punishment that applies to the man is present in the woman as it is in the man.
This is correct from both a jurisprudential perspective and in terms of principles, regulations, and ijtihaadiyyah. The reason for the penalty that applies to the man is also present in the woman, so she is obligated to perform the kaffaarah just as the man is. However, if the man coerces or overwhelms her, it would be as though he has caused her to fall into this prohibited act. In this case, the kaffaarah would be required from him because he is the cause of the transgression, similar to how responsibility is assigned in matters of compensation for rights.
Since the Shari'ah equates the rights of Allah to the rights of human beings, as demonstrated by the authentic hadith "The rights of Allah are the most deserving to be fulfilled", the obligations are considered as settled, similar to obligations related to human rights. Similarly, here the right of Allah is guaranteed. Just as the woman is absolved from the atonement for being coerced, the man, who is the one who coerced her, would be the one responsible for the kaffaarah.
There is a situation in which the kaffaarah applies, and it is possible for a second kaffaarah to be required, unlike when the woman was coerced. In that case, there is no obligation because the violation is not present. Based on this, there are two scenarios:
The first scenario: The woman is coerced and overcome. In this case, there is no issue for the man, but regarding the woman—the one who is Shar'i accountable—the condition necessary for the imposition of the kaffaarah does not exist, as she did not meet the criteria for violation. However, if she was coerced, it means that there has been a violation on the part of the man in two ways: one from his own actions and the other from causing someone else to break the fast.
This act of breaking the fast occurred due to the desire for intercourse. Just as intercourse requires a kaffaarah for the man, the same applies to the woman.
According to the view that holds the coerced woman’s kaffaarah to be the responsibility of her husband, it is said that he must fulfill multiple kaffaarah in a single day. Some scholars even pose a riddle, saying: According to the view that a man who has intercourse multiple times in one day only owes one kaffaarah, how could multiple kaffaarah be required? The answer would be: If we say that the coerced woman—the one forced by her husband—requires a kaffaarah, then after the first act of intercourse, the husband owes one kaffaarah for himself and one for his wife, which makes it two kaffaarahs. If he then has intercourse with a second wife (not the first), it constitutes a second act of breaking the fast, so a second kaffaarah is required. Similarly, if he has intercourse with a third wife, a fourth kaffaarah is required; and if he has intercourse with a fourth wife, a fifth kaffaarah is owed.
These are five kaffaaraat required for a man who has intercourse with multiple wives on the same day. This issue is something that some scholars discuss, but the point is that the woman who was coerced into intercourse by her husband—whether he threatened her, overpowered her, or she was asleep and unaware until it happened—must have kaffaarah for both herself and her husband. This is because the fast was broken in two ways: by him and by his wife. Therefore, the kaffaarah is required multiple times due to this dual transgression.
Based on this: The hadith of the man who had intercourse during the day in Ramadan is considered to be an unanswered issue, as there was no inquiry made about the woman. This should not be seen as delaying an explanation beyond the time of need.
And Allah knows best.
Question: Is the expiation for a slave who has intercourse during the day in Ramadan the same as for a free person, or is there a distinction in this matter? May Allah reward you.
Answer: As for the slave, he does not own himself; however, some scholars have said that if his master grants him freedom and allows him to be emancipated, then he may be freed, and this would suffice as the expiation. Another opinion held by a group of the early scholars is that the slave should fast instead. If he is unable to fast, the expiation is waived, as he does not own himself. The proof that he does not own himself is found in the hadith narrated in Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim from ibn 'Umar, where the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If someone sells a slave and he has property, then the property belongs to the seller unless the buyer specifies otherwise." It freed the slave's hand from ownership, which indicates that he does not own himself. This is a fundamental principle among scholars, and it has already been explained and elaborated upon in the issues of zakat. And Allah knows best.
Question: If someone was paying his master installments for a mukaatab (contract of partial emancipation) and some installments remain unpaid, and then his master emancipates him as an expiation for having intercourse during the day in Ramadan, would this suffice, or must the master return to the slave what was paid of the mukaatab? May Allah reward you.
Answer: If the master and the slave have agreed on a mukaatab contract and the slave has paid all the installments, then the master is obligated to free the slave. If the master does not emancipate him and the slave complains to the judge, the judge will rule in favor of his emancipation. This is a type of contract that is binding both at the beginning and at the end. Contracts can be of different types: some are binding from the beginning to the end, some are binding only in the beginning but not at the end, and some are not binding at the beginning but become binding in the end.
The contract of partial emancipation is considered binding from the beginning if both parties have agreed to it. In principle, the master is not obligated to enter into a mukaatab contract with his slave, according to the view that it is not compulsory. However, some scholars argue that it is obligatory based on the apparent meaning of the Almighty's statement:
فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ
"So, contract with them" (an-Noor, 24:33). If we say that it is not obligatory, then the mukaatab is not binding on the master initially. However, once the contract is concluded and they separate, the master is obligated to fulfill the terms of the contract, and the slave must pay what he owes. For example, if the master says to the slave: "I will contract with you for 10,000, to be paid in installments of 1,000 each month, and once you complete the 10,000, you will be free," then if the slave pays the full amount, he will be emancipated with the final installment.
However, if the slave fails to pay the installments, he will revert to being a slave to his master.
Based on this: If the slave is unable to pay some of the installments of the mukaatab and reverts to being a slave to his master, and then his master emancipates him due to dhihaar (a form of divorce), murder, or intercourse during the day in Ramadan, this emancipation would suffice as expiation. This is because, once the slave’s inability to pay is confirmed, he returns to the ownership of his master.
However, if the slave has completed most of the installments and is near the end of the mukaatab contract, and then the master says to him, "You are free," this emancipation does not count as an emancipation for a liability upon him, because the original obligation is for the slave to complete the remaining installments to be freed. The freedom is based on fulfilling the contract terms, not on what is due as a duty to Allah. It is as though the master is freeing the slave to avoid buying another slave, and the purpose is to relieve himself from the responsibility of acquiring a second slave. Therefore, this kind of emancipation does not count as a valid expiation for dhihaar, murder, or any other required emancipation, as it does not fulfill the intended religious obligation.
وآخر دعوانا أن الحمد لله رب العالمين.
There are certain actions that scholars have mentioned as being disliked during fasting, as they detract from the fast and reduce its reward. There are also recommended practices that the fasting person should be aware of and maintain in order to ensure their fast is complete, correct, and accepted by Allah, the Almighty.
Among the matters related to fasting are the rulings on making up missed fasts for those who broke their fast during Ramadan due to a legitimate excuse, as well as the ruling on someone who has passed away while having missed fasts to make up, and other related rulings and issues regarding making up missed fasts.
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, Lord of all the worlds. May Allah send His peace, blessings, and mercy upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, his companions, and all his followers. May He grant them abundant peace.
To proceed: The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Chapter on What Is Disliked and Recommended, and the Ruling on Making Up Missed Fasts."
The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Chapter on what is disliked" — that is, what is disliked for the fasting person to do while fasting, whether it is a voluntary fast or a mandatory one. The disliked (makrooh) refers to what souls find repulsive. To dislike someone means to find something in them that causes aversion. As for the disliked in Shari'ah, it refers to actions that the Shar' has prohibited in a non-absolute manner. The one who abandons such an act is rewarded, while the one who performs it is not punished. It seems that the author, may Allah have mercy on him, intends to clarify some matters that are not recommended for the fasting person to engage in. If the fasting person leaves them with the intention of drawing closer to Allah, they will be rewarded according to Shari'ah, but these actions do not break the fast.
And when he says: "And it is recommended" — this is the opposite of disliked. When it comes to statements and actions, if the command is definite, it is obligatory. If it is not definite, it is recommended or desirable.
Its ruling: the one who does it will be rewarded, and the one who leaves it is not punished.
The meaning of "recommended" is that it is desirable for the fasting person to do or say it. The reason for this is that fasting involves forbidden acts, disliked acts, obligatory acts, recommended acts, and permissible acts. Therefore, the author, may Allah have mercy on him, spoke in the previous chapters about forbidden and obligatory matters, and after explaining both categories, he began to clarify what is disliked and what is recommended. However, the question arises: why did he say "Chapter on what is disliked" and put the disliked before the recommended? The precedence of one over the other usually indicates its greater significance. He mentioned the disliked first because fasting primarily involves abstaining from things, and thus, the disliked is closer to the essence of fasting than the recommended, which often requires action.
And when he says, may Allah have mercy on him: "And the ruling on making up missed fasts" — that is, in this section, I will mention a number of issues related to making up missed fasts of Ramadan. The reason for this is that the one obligated to fast falls into two situations: either they perform the obligatory fast at its proper time in a manner that is legally accepted, and in this case, there is no problem, and this fast is referred to as the "fast of performance" (صيام الأداء).
And the other possibility is that he does not fast due to a legitimate excuse that permits him to break his fast, such as illness, travel, or other reasons. In this case, he breaks his fast. When he breaks his fast, the legal ruling is that he must make up the days he missed, equivalent to the number of days he fasted during Ramadan. At that point, he transitions from Ramadan to a period outside of Ramadan.
A question arises regarding these days and the rulings associated with them: do they count as the same as the days of Ramadan, or not? Also, concerning the one who is making up the fast: if he breaks his fast intentionally, is it permissible for him to do so, or not? What is the ruling if he breaks his fast in this manner? The author, may Allah have mercy on him, says: "Chapter on what is disliked and recommended, and the ruling on making up missed fasts". He combined these topics in this section because they are related in nature. Disliked and recommended acts usually contradict each other, although there are instances where the recommended does not necessarily contradict the disliked.
"It is disliked to collect saliva and swallow it."
This means it is disliked for a fasting person to collect their saliva. Saliva is the fluid created by Allah in the mouth, and in its original form, it is a thick substance or it can dissolve with the movement of the mouth. Allah has created this saliva for wisdom. If a person wants to reflect on the great blessing of Allah in providing them with this saliva, they should consider how they would feel in the intense heat of midday, when their throat becomes dry and their saliva is gone. How difficult would their situation be? If Allah had created them in that state, they would experience immense hardship and suffering. But Allah, the Most Gracious, has made everything He created perfect, and He is the Best of creators. He created them with this saliva in their mouth, which enables them to speak and relieves the discomfort of a dry throat and difficulty in speaking. That’s why when a person’s saliva dries up or decreases—especially in the conditions of fasting and intense thirst—they find it difficult to speak and communicate.
Thus, this saliva has two states: The first state is when the person leaves it as Allah has created it, benefiting from it when their throat or mouth becomes dry, in the normal, customary manner.
This situation poses no issue, according to the consensus of scholars, because saliva is considered to have no effect on the fast, even if the person swallows it. This is because it is difficult to avoid, and the scholars have compared it to things that are hard to avoid while fasting. They have made exceptions for small amounts of saliva left over from food when it is difficult to avoid during prayer, as well as for things caught between the teeth, like the residue of milk, which comes from the fat content in the milk.
As for fasting, they say that when dawn breaks and the time for suhoor ends, the fasting person should rinse their mouth if any food remains, because saliva becomes mixed with the food, and while it is still technically saliva, it has changed due to the food's substance. For this reason, they say the saliva in this case should be removed, either by spitting it out or by rinsing the mouth with water. This is why it is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rinsed his mouth before prayer to remove the residue of milk and its fat.
The second case of saliva is when the person collects it and swallows it while fasting. This act of collecting saliva is a matter of uncertainty between two principles, and understanding these two principles is important. The crux of this matter is that the mouth is considered part of the external body, not the internal body. To clarify: during fasting, it is necessary to distinguish between what is outside the body and what is inside the body. This distinction is essential for giving rulings on issues related to fasting. A scholar or student of knowledge cannot give rulings on breaking the fast until they clearly understand what constitutes the exterior and what is considered the interior of the body, so they can determine if something entering the body invalidates the fast.
The mouth is indicated by the evidences to be part of the external body. Therefore, if you say that it is external, anything that enters it from the things that break the fast does not harm or affect the fast, as long as it does not exceed the legally considered limit. And what is this limit? The limit is the uvula, which is the fleshy part hanging at the beginning of the throat. It acts as a separator between the inside and the outside of the body. The outside of the body is the mouth. Anything below the uvula is considered part of the inside of the body. Based on this, if a person vomits and the vomit reaches their mouth, and even a small amount of vomit goes beyond the uvula and into the throat, they have broken their fast. This is agreed upon by all scholars: if the vomit reaches the mouth and is then swallowed back into the body, the fast is broken, because as soon as it reaches the mouth, it has exited the body.
Thus, it is established that there is a distinction between what is inside and what is outside. The inside is considered to be anything below the uvula, while the outside is considered to be anything before it, in the mouth. Based on this: if the saliva is in the mouth, there is no issue, even if the person collects it, moves it around in their mouth, and then spits it out, because all of this happens in the external part of the body. The issue arises, however, if the person collects the saliva and swallows it. This act is uncertain and is seen from two perspectives: one that suggests the fast is broken, and another that suggests it is not.
As for the view that it breaks the fast, they say that this saliva is a substance connected to the outside of the body. If a person swallows their saliva little by little, they say that this is the usual, natural action that is difficult to avoid, and the Shari'ah has permitted it. However, if the person collects the saliva intentionally, with full ability and control, and then swallows it—just as someone might swallow any bodily residue, like excess food—they say that saliva is considered bodily residue. It is agreed upon that bodily residue, like vomit, when it exits to the mouth and is then swallowed back, breaks the fast. Therefore, they say that when saliva is intentionally collected, it exceeds the allowance. The allowance for saliva is that it should naturally dissolve in the mouth to moisten it, but if the person intentionally collects it, they are moving it from being a mouth fluid to something that reaches the throat, thus breaking the fast from this angle.
They said: It is most similar to when vomit exits the body and is then swallowed back into the body.
As for the second view, which argues that it does not break the fast, they say that saliva is a substance that the Shari'ah has allowed some leniency with. It is agreed upon that if the saliva is inside the body and a person swallows it little by little, it does not break the fast. There is no difference, in their view, between swallowing it all at once or swallowing it gradually.
Thus, there are two perspectives: one that prohibits and rules that the fast is broken, and another that permits and says it does not break the fast.
The principle followed by some scholars is that if an action or statement is uncertain and falls between what is permitted by the Shari'ah and what is not permitted (i.e., what is prohibited), and there are elements of both, then it is disliked (makrooh).
This is a criterion for what is considered disliked according to some scholars. They give the example of letting the garment hang below the ankles. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Anything below the ankles of the garment is in the fire," but he permitted it if the garment is above the ankles. It is established that the Prophet said, "The garment of the believer should be to the middle of the shin." So, if the garment is above the ankles, it is agreed upon to be permissible. However, if it is below the ankles, it is considered part of the statement: "Anything below the ankles of the garment is in the fire."
But if the garment reaches the ankles, without going beyond them or rising above them, and is level with the ankles, then there is no text that definitively prohibits it, nor is there a text that permits it. If you say it is permissible, the one responding might point out that the Shari'ah allowed garments above the ankles. If you say it is forbidden, the objector might say that what is forbidden by the Shari'ah is what is below the ankles. Therefore, it falls between prohibition and permissibility, and so it is considered disliked (makrooh). The Shari'ah remains silent on this matter due to its ambiguity between prohibition and permissibility, and they say it is disliked.
From here, the argument that collecting saliva is one of the disliked (makrooh) actions during fasting becomes stronger.
To summarize, swallowing saliva has three possible situations: the familiar, common situation, which is not problematic, and two other situations that the scholars mention. These are:
1. The first situation: Collecting saliva from inside the mouth.
2. The second situation: The collected saliva exits the mouth.
As for the case where the saliva remains inside the mouth, collecting and swallowing it is considered disliked (makrooh), as mentioned earlier. However, if the person collects the saliva, then removes it from the mouth with their tongue, beyond the lips, and then returns it, the majority of scholars agree that this breaks the fast. This is because once the saliva exits the mouth, it goes beyond the permitted allowance in the view of scholars. The saliva is no longer considered the saliva that is allowed by the Shari'ah, as it is no longer contained within the mouth. Therefore, once it exits the mouth, they say it invalidates the fast.
What is the benefit of the scholars' statement, may Allah have mercy on them, that saliva is collected from inside or outside? Some might say that it is inappropriate for a person to expel saliva from their mouth and then return it! These issues are mentioned by the scholars for reasons that may be needed by fuqahaa'. For example, in our time, there may be situations where certain machines are used to suction fluids from the mouth and then return them to the mouth for repetition, as is the case with some people in resuscitation equipment. In such cases, there is a need for materials in the mouth. If the suction machine draws the material outside the mouth and beyond the lips before returning it, this would be a matter of concern. However, if it remains inside the mouth and does not exceed the lips, there is no issue.
The point is that the issue of collecting saliva involves these two scenarios: If the saliva exits and goes beyond the lips, it invalidates the fast without dispute. However, if it does not go beyond the lips, then the ruling we mentioned applies— it is disliked (makrooh) but does not break the fast.
He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "It is prohibited to swallow mucus, and it breaks the fast only if it reaches the mouth."
"And it is prohibited to swallow mucus" There is another substance from the excess material of the mouth, which is mucus that comes from the nostrils and sinuses, and it may also come from the chest, like phlegm. As for the mucus that comes from the nostrils, it is not exempt from two possible scenarios:
The first scenario is when a person inhales it directly into the body, such as when they sniff and the mucus goes into the body without passing through the mouth. This is, by consensus, something that does not break the fast, even if the mucus has a solid form, like the small clot that forms from the mucus. This does not break the fast.
The second scenario is when the mucus has reached the mouth. If the mucus enters the mouth and the person moves it around in their mouth, there are two possible cases:
1. If they move it around in their mouth and then swallow it, this is the situation the author, may Allah have mercy on him, has ruled to be prohibited, and it breaks the fast if swallowed. There is a second view that it does not break the fast, as they consider the mouth to be excusable like the nose. However, the view chosen by the author is strong and in line with the foundational principles.
2. If the mucus reaches the lips, as mentioned earlier, such as when a person sticks their tongue out and the mucus is on it, then swallows it, this breaks the fast by the consensus of the majority of scholars, may Allah have mercy on them.
Based on this, a distinction is made between these two cases when it comes to mucus.
As for phlegm from the chest, if the person coughs and brings it to their throat without it reaching the mouth and crossing the uvula, there is no issue if they swallow it directly. However, if it reaches the mouth, the ruling mentioned earlier applies. The correct and stronger opinion is that it breaks the fast, just like if the vomit is brought to the mouth and then swallowed back.
Therefore, the rulings regarding mucus and phlegm are differentiated as described.
The statement "It is disliked to taste food without necessity" has two situations:
The first situation: If you look at tasting food, you can see that there is a doubt about it, because if the person tastes the food and swallows it, there is no doubt that it breaks the fast by consensus. For example, if someone takes a sip of a drink or tastes food and then swallows it, passing it beyond the uvula, it definitely breaks the fast by consensus.
The second situation: If someone tastes the food and then immediately rinses their mouth and spits it out, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. The correct opinion, as stated by ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) and some of the early scholars, is that there is no harm or issue in tasting the food. However, the condition is that after tasting it, the person should rinse their mouth thoroughly and remove the substance they tasted. If the substance remains, breaks down in the saliva, and the taste of the food remains in the throat, then the fast is broken.
"Chewing strong gum."
Gum refers to chewing resin, and it comes in various types:
The first type: It is used as a medicine or treatment, such as bitter gum, which has benefits for the chest and the digestive system.
The second type: This is not used for medicinal purposes but rather for leisure or enjoyment. Some scholars take a strict view on this type due to its similarity to the practices of the people of Lot (Prophet Lut). However, there is no strong, authentic text indicating that this is prohibited. Nonetheless, it is considered one of the breaches of muru'ah (a sense of dignity and honor). This means that it is not appropriate for people of status, such as parents in front of their children, or a scholar or a student of knowledge, to chew gum in public. Chewing gum in such situations may be seen as a loss of dignity and an indication of a lack of modesty.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Among the things that people have inherited from the first prophethood is: 'If you have no shame, do as you wish.'"
The guideline here is that if an action, while permissible, harms a person’s sense of honor and dignity when done in public, it should be avoided. Therefore, chewing gum in front of people can be seen as damaging to one’s reputation and character, affecting their credibility and the integrity of their testimony. It also suggests a lack of proper reasoning because a person of sound judgment would avoid such behavior in public.
As for the prohibition based on the people of Lot, there is no authentic text supporting this, and the default ruling is permissibility. There is no harm in chewing gum, and it is not forbidden for a person to chew it. However, it should not be done in public. As for young people, such as children or teenagers, this is usually excused by custom. The proof for its permissibility is that Allah has made it easy for the children of Adam to enjoy food and drink unless there is evidence to prohibit it. Chewing gum falls under what is permissible in this regard.
As for medicinal gum, such as for people with diabetes who need to stimulate saliva in their mouths, or the bitter gum used for medicinal purposes, there is no issue with that.
Thus, gum or chewing resin has two cases:
The first case: The gum is strong and its substance dissolves. This is most evident when a person begins chewing it, as they feel the strength of the substance and its effect in the mouth. The person's saliva starts to flow due to the potency of the substance. If the gum is sweet, the saliva increases. This is the dissolved or active type.
The second case: The gum that does not dissolve or affect the mouth, such as bitter gum. When chewed for about fifteen minutes, it becomes a substance to chew but without a strong taste or noticeable effect. The primary purpose of chewing such gum is often to encourage the flow of saliva.
This is the meaning of strong, dissolving gum versus weak, non-dissolving gum. At the beginning, the gum is strong and dissolving.
What is the benefit of this distinction? The benefit of this detail is that if someone chews gum before Fajr prayer and its potency dissolves, and then the Adhan (call to prayer) is heard while the gum is still in their mouth, but they only find that it causes saliva to flow and no longer feel the taste or effect of the gum, this is weaker than if they were still chewing it with its full potency. Therefore, a distinction is made between gum that has a dissolving substance and gum that doesn’t.
To clarify: the mouth is considered external as we established. So, if saliva is flowing inside the mouth due to the gum, this does not affect the fast, unless the gum has a strong dissolving substance that affects the taste of the saliva, and then the person swallows this substance, which would break the fast. On the other hand, if the gum's substance is dry—especially if the person drinks water around 10–15 minutes after chewing the gum—then the gum becomes dry and its substance does not dissolve. At that point, it loses its effect, unlike when it is fresh and potent at the start of chewing.
"And if the taste of it is found in his throat, he has broken his fast."
If the taste of the gum, whether strong or weak (i.e., dissolving or non-dissolving), is found in the throat, the fast is broken without dispute. The reason for this is that when this substance reaches the throat, it is considered as if the person has tasted food and has food or its effect in the throat.
"Chewing dissolving gum is prohibited if the person swallows their saliva."
It is disliked if the gum is not dissolving strongly, but if the gum is dissolving and the person swallows their saliva, it becomes prohibited. However, if they move the gum around in their mouth and then spit it out, it does not affect the fast.
"Kissing is disliked for a person whose desire is aroused."
Kissing is disliked for someone whose desire is stirred by the kiss. A person who kisses may find themselves in one of three situations:
The first situation: They are unsure of their ability to control their desires, and they fear that their passion might lead them to the point where they would break their fast by engaging in sexual intercourse.
The second situation: Their desire is stirred to the point where they reach ejaculation but do not engage in intercourse. They can control themselves to prevent intercourse but cannot prevent themselves from ejaculating, especially if they are quick to ejaculate when their desire is aroused.
The third situation: They are strong-willed and in full control of their desires, so they do not ejaculate and are confident that they will not engage in sexual intercourse.
These are the three situations regarding someone whose desires are stirred: either the kiss leads them to sexual intercourse, or it leads them to ejaculation without intercourse, or it excites them without causing ejaculation or intercourse.
As for someone whose desires are not stirred by a kiss, this person does not experience pleasure from kissing. For example, they might kiss out of affection, like a parent kissing their children. This is not a kiss of desire, because kissing can have different meanings: a kiss of love and desire, such as when a husband kisses his wife and vice versa; a kiss of compassion, like a child kissing their father, or a father kissing his child; a kiss of affection, such as when a parent kisses their child; and a kiss of respect, like when someone kisses the forehead or hand of a scholar.
These are all different reasons for kissing. However, what the scholars are discussing here is the kiss driven by desire, which refers to a kiss of passion. If someone kisses a woman out of sympathy or affection, such as kissing her because she is upset, this falls outside the scope of what is being discussed. Some scholars even referred to the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) kissing Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) before entering the mosque, and they explained that this kiss was not a kiss of love but a sincere expression of affection, not meant to arouse desire or to be a sexual kiss between a husband and wife. As 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would be so focused on prayer when the call to prayer was heard that he would not even notice us."
The kissing that the scholars are concerned with in this context is kissing driven by desire, not just any form of kissing. For example, if a father kisses his son, it is an affectionate and compassionate kiss. This was illustrated when one of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "I have ten children and have never kissed any of them."
He said: "Or do I have control over the fact that Allah has removed mercy from your heart?!" He described the kiss as an act of mercy, which is not what the scholars are concerned with. Similarly, if a mother kisses her daughter upon seeing her distressed, this would not be the subject of concern. However, if the kiss is for desire, it has been established from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he kissed while fasting. This is narrated in the Saheehayn from a narration by Hishaam ibn 'Urwah, from his father 'Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, that 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: "The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would kiss while fasting."
'Urwah (may Allah be pleased with him) asked her, "I don’t think it was you." She replied with laughter, may Allah be pleased with her.
What is the benefit of 'Urwah's question in this way? Some might ask: Why did 'Urwah say that? The reality is that we learn from this that the narration is continuous, not separate. This is because, while 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) might narrate something about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from other Mothers of the Believers, her laughter indicates that it happened directly with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Therefore, the narration is connected, and the action was between Aisha and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) directly.
This indicates that there is no harm in a fasting person kissing their spouse. However, the Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her) said: "And he was the most able to control his desire" — and in another narration, "his urge" (or "his desire," as some say). Scholars have differed regarding this phrase in two ways:
One view is that "arab" (الأَرَب) refers to the member (i.e., the physical organ), meaning she intended that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not ejaculate. The second view is that arab refers to desire in a general sense, meaning the natural sexual desire.
If you interpret arab as referring to the member, then her statement implies that he took care to avoid ejaculation, which would allow for kissing for sexual desire as long as one can control the situation. But if you understand arab to mean general desire, it includes both the sexual desire arising from the kiss itself and the desire that leads to intercourse. In that case, one could say he kissed for reasons other than sexual desire, such as affection, compassion, or tenderness. The first view (that arab refers to the member) is the stronger opinion.
Based on this: if a person kisses their spouse for sexual desire, there is no harm, but there are details to consider. If it is highly likely that they will engage in intercourse or fall into intimacy, it is not permissible for them to kiss because means (of actions) take the ruling of their intended outcomes. If you say: "The Shari'ah permits a man to kiss his wife," but you strongly suspect that it will lead to intercourse and thus invalidate the fast, this is something that Allah does not allow. This would be contradictory to the law.
Therefore, the Mother of the Believers (may Allah be pleased with her) pointed this out when she said: "He was the most able to control his desire." She seemed to be distinguishing between those who are able to control themselves and those who are not able to do so.
The Shari'ah indicates that engaging in actions that may lead to harm requires caution, and a person should avoid reasons that could potentially break their fast, whether related to what is commanded or prohibited. Accordingly, if a person strongly believes that kissing will lead to intercourse or ejaculation and thus invalidate their fast, then it is not permissible for them to kiss.
"It is obligatory to avoid lying, backbiting, and cursing."
It is obligatory for the fasting person to avoid lying. In fact, lying is prohibited for every Muslim, whether they are fasting or not. But why does the author, may Allah have mercy on him, specifically say: "It is obligatory to avoid lying"? The clarification is that lying is forbidden in general, but during Ramadan or while fasting, when a person lies, there are two sins involved: the first sin is from the act of lying itself, and the second is from not honoring the sanctity of the fast. Therefore, scholars emphasize this point specifically within the context of fasting. Otherwise, lying is universally prohibited.
Lying is defined as a statement that contradicts the reality, such as saying, "Muhammad is in the house," when he is not.
In reality, if someone says, "Muhammad is in the house," and he is not in the house, this is lying. The reality means the actual situation or the external fact that should be described. So, if you say, "Muhammad is in the house" when he is not, or "Muhammad is not in the house" when he actually is, this is considered lying. It is a lie if the person knows that Muhammad is not present but says that he is, and vice versa.
Lying is unrestrictedly prohibited. Allah, the Almighty, says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَكُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ
"O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are truthful." (At-Tawbah, 9:119). And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in a sound hadith: "You must be truthful, for truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise." When he says, "leads to righteousness," it means it leads to every good deed. You rarely find a person with a truthful tongue who is not among the most diligent in performing acts of obedience. Similarly, you rarely find a liar who is successful in doing good. Generally, the truthful person in speech is trustworthy in their reports and successful in doing good because they have prevented themselves from the sin of lying.
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wanted to describe the perfection of a Muslim, he said: "A Muslim is the one from whose tongue and hand other Muslims are safe." One of the harms done to Muslims by the tongue is lying about them, where a person lies and tells them things that are not true. This is a form of lying, and the worst form of lying is when it is directed towards Allah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in order to make the forbidden lawful or make the lawful forbidden. This is one of the greatest lies, and we ask Allah for safety and well-being! It is one of the major sins for which Allah has promised the curse and wrath. We ask Allah for safety and well-being.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned against lying, saying: "Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. A man will continue to lie and strive to tell lies until he is written as a liar with Allah." The person who does not care about the words that come out of his mouth, and speaks without truth, is committing an offense against the limits set by Allah regarding the tongue, leading to wickedness through his speech.
It is narrated in a hadith from Sufyan ibn 'Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) who asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "What is the thing you fear most for me?" He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied, "This," meaning, "your tongue." If the tongue lies and seeks to lie – may Allah protect us – the rest of the limbs become corrupted. This is supported by the hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) mentioned that every morning the limbs speak to the tongue, saying: "O you, fear Allah regarding us, for we are dependent upon you. If you remain upright, we remain upright. If you deviate, we deviate." This shows the danger of lying.
Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Lying leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. A man will continue to lie and strive to lie until he is written as a liar with Allah." Lying is prohibited, whether in fasting or outside of it, but it is more severe during fasting, and it is a major sin.
Scholars have differed on when lying becomes a major sin. Some scholars say that lying is a major sin even if done only once. If a person tells a single lie, they are considered a corrupt individual, their testimony is rejected, and their integrity is undermined.
Some scholars say that lying must be repeated three times to be considered a major sin. Therefore, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "A man will continue to lie and strive to lie until he is written as a liar with Allah." People can be liars, habitual liars, or prone to lying. A habitual liar or a "الكذاب" is someone who frequently lies. The form "فعّال" in Arabic indicates abundance or repetition of an action. Some scholars argue that lying is not considered a major sin unless it is done three times, but the stronger opinion is that it depends on the nature of the lie. Some lies are considered major sins even if done once, while others are considered major only if repeated. For instance, lying about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), even with just one fabricated hadith, is considered a major sin. If someone narrates a hadith while knowing it is weak and attributes it to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or if they express it in a way that suggests its authenticity while believing that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not say it, they have lied about the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). May Allah protect us!
As for the statement "It is required to avoid lying," some scholars say that if a person lies while fasting, their fast is broken, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever does not abandon false speech and acting upon it, Allah has no need for him to leave his food and drink." They argue that if someone lies, their fast is invalid. This is the opinion of some of the Dhaahiri scholars and some of the scholars of hadith, may Allah have mercy on them. However, the majority of the Salaf hold that lying does not invalidate the fast, but it reduces the reward of the fast and impairs its full reward. It may even prevent Allah from accepting the fast. May Allah protect us from this! This is based on Allah's saying:
إِنَّمَا يَتَقَبَّلُ اللَّهُ مِنَ الْمُتَّقِينَ
"Indeed, Allah only accepts from the righteous" (Al-Maa’idah, 5:27), and His saying:
اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ وَكُونُوا مَعَ الصَّادِقِينَ
"O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are truthful" (At-Tawbah, 9:119). He made truthfulness a part of His guidance, a specific expression of the general principle of piety.
Based on this, they say that if a person lies even once while fasting, they cannot be sure that their fast will be accepted by Allah. If the deed is not accepted, it is as though the person has not done it at all. May Allah protect us from this!
His Statement: "And Backbiting."
A fasting person must avoid backbiting and should not speak ill of others. The true nature of backbiting is that it can be done through speech as well as through actions.
Based on this, backbiting has two forms:
1. Backbiting through speech
2. Backbiting through physical actions and gestures
As for backbiting through speech, it occurs when a person mentions something about their brother that they would dislike. For example, saying: "So-and-so is short," "So-and-so is fat," "So-and-so limps," or "So-and-so is one-eyed." However, if such descriptions are necessary for identification or if the person is widely known by that characteristic, then it would not be considered backbiting. Otherwise, mentioning a physical or moral flaw, such as those listed above, falls under the category of backbiting.
Deficiencies are of two kinds: those related to religious matters and those concerning a person's traits that are not connected to religion. A deficiency related to religion includes statements such as: "So-and-so is immoral" or "So-and-so is a sinner"—may Allah grant us safety and well-being! Accusing someone of immorality or wickedness falls under backbiting, even if the person actually possesses such traits. However, if the accusation is false, it combines two major sins: backbiting and slander—may Allah grant us safety and well-being! This is among the gravest offenses, as indicated by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). When someone asked him: "O Messenger of Allah! What if what I say about him is true?" The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied: "If what you say about him is true, then you have committed backbiting; and if it is not true, then you have slandered him."
As for a deficiency unrelated to religion, it includes statements such as: "So-and-so rushes to make decisions," "So-and-so does not consult others," or "So-and-so is stubborn in his opinions." These are flaws in a person's character but do not pertain to religion or constitute religious criticism. While such remarks still fall under backbiting, they are considered personal rather than religious flaws. All of this falls under backbiting through speech.
As for backbiting through physical actions and gestures, it can occur through the hands, such as when someone gestures while saying, “So-and-so is short.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) referred to this when he said: “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! When you gestured that she is short, you have spoken a word that, if mixed with the sea, would pollute it.”
This means that such an action—mocking or ridiculing someone for their short stature—harms a believing woman, and harming a believer is a serious matter in the sight of Allah.
His statement “if mixed with the sea” means that if this remark were something tangible, its impurity would be visible. If it were placed in the vast sea, which is known for its abundance of water that does not easily change, it “would pollute it”—meaning its foulness and harm would be evident.
This highlights the severity of backbiting, demonstrating that even gestures can constitute backbiting. This is an example of backbiting through physical actions (backbiting of the hands).
Imitating someone’s speech also falls under backbiting through physical actions, just as backbiting through speech does. This includes mimicking a person’s accent or manner of speaking—for example, imitating the way a non-Arab speaks Arabic or mocking someone with a speech impediment, such as a lisp or difficulty pronouncing certain letters. If a person mimics these speech patterns in a way that ridicules or belittles another, it is considered backbiting and takes the same ruling—may Allah grant us safety and well-being!
Just as backbiting can occur through speech, it can also happen through physical actions and gestures. Some people mistakenly believe that backbiting only involves words, but in reality, it is broader than that. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) classified gestures as a form of backbiting, leading scholars to conclude that actions carry the same ruling as speech in this matter.
The primary concern is to preserve the dignity of one’s fellow Muslim, and whether this dignity is violated through words or actions, it is equally sinful. In fact, in some cases, violating a person’s honor through actions may be even more harmful than doing so through speech.
Backbiting has no good in it; only a lowly person engages in it. A person who is upright in character and refined in manners preserves their tongue from harming others and refrains from violating people’s honor. Such a person loves for others what they love for themselves and dislikes for others what they dislike for themselves. Just as one would hate to be spoken about in a negative way, they should also avoid speaking about others in a way they would not like. Thus, backbiting is forbidden and is unanimously considered one of the major sins.
Scholars have differed on when exactly backbiting becomes a major sin. Some scholars stated that it depends on who is being backbitten. For example, backbiting scholars, whether through speech or physical gestures, with the intent of discrediting or belittling them, is considered a major sin. Even mentioning a scholar in a way they would dislike, even once, is deemed a grave offense due to their esteemed status in the sight of Allah. This is supported by the hadith regarding the hypocrites, who said: "We have never seen people more gluttonous nor more cowardly in battle than our reciters." In response, Allah revealed:
قُلْ أَبِاللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ وَرَسُولِهِ كُنتُمْ تَسْتَهْزِئُونَ * لا تَعْتَذِرُوا قَدْ كَفَرْتُمْ بَعْدَ إِيمَانِكُمْ
"Say: Is it Allah, His signs, and His Messenger that you were mocking? Make no excuses; you have disbelieved after your belief." (At-Tawbah, 9:65-66) Scholars explain that the hypocrites mocked and backbit the reciters of the Book of Allah, which was considered a severe offense because their harm was directed at those engaged in religious devotion. The same applies to scholars and judges, as harming them is not merely a personal attack but an attack from a religious perspective as well.
People often fall into backbiting without even realizing it. You may hear someone say, "Judges don’t know what they’re doing" or "Preachers don’t understand"—statements like these are considered backbiting. When someone says, "Judges are ignorant," they have essentially backbitten all judges who rule by Islamic law across the world and bear the burden of that sin—may Allah grant us safety and well-being! Similarly, if someone says, "Scholars don’t know how to give proper rulings," they are held accountable for discrediting all scholars, as such a generalization implies they are all ignorant.
This is an extremely serious matter! If a person makes a broad statement about an entire group—saying, for example, "People of this nationality don’t understand," "This group is corrupt," "These people steal," "They behave in such and such a way," or "They are all tall or short"—they are backbiting an entire community because they have described them all in a negative way and testified against them. This is a grave issue, as Allah the Almighty says:
سَتُكْتَبُ شَهَادَتُهُمْ وَيُسْأَلُونَ
"Their testimony will be recorded, and they will be questioned about it." (Az-Zukhruf, 43:19)
A person may speak without realizing the gravity of their words, thinking it is something trivial. However, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned about this, saying: "By the One in Whose Hand is my soul! A slave may utter a word that angers Allah, without paying attention to it, and because of it, he falls deeper into Hellfire than the distance between the east and the west."
Just one word can lead to such a severe consequence. This is a serious matter—some scholars even said that a person could spend the night praying and the day fasting, yet lose all their good deeds because of a single act of backbiting—such as speaking ill of an entire community, may Allah protect us!
This is a grave issue, and it is the responsibility of students of knowledge, scholars, and preachers to advise people and remind them that backbiting is strictly forbidden by Allah. Some scholars even stated that if a fasting person engages in backbiting, their fast is invalidated, and they must make it up. However, this opinion is weak. The stronger and more widely accepted view, held by the majority of scholars, is that while backbiting is sinful, it does not invalidate the fast—though the person still bears the burden of the sin.
His Statement: "And Insulting."
Insulting (shatm) can take two forms:
An insult that directly harms the religious standing of the person being insulted. This includes calling someone a kaafir—may Allah protect us! If a person insults another by labeling them a disbeliever, this is among the gravest forms of verbal abuse. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned about this, saying: "If a man says to his brother, 'O kaafir!' then it will apply to one of them; if the accused is indeed a disbeliever, then the statement is true, but if not, it will return upon the one who said it." This means that falsely accusing someone of disbelief is an extremely serious offense, and the accusation returns upon the one who uttered it, making it one of the most dangerous forms of insult.
Next is insulting someone by accusing them of immorality (fisq), such as labeling them a sinner for acts like drinking alcohol, committing adultery, or other forms of wrongdoing. This is considered one of the major sins. Among the gravest forms of this is slandering chaste, unaware, believing women, which Allah has warned against [in the Qur’an]. He has promised His curse, anger, and severe punishment in both this world and the Hereafter for those who engage in such slander—may Allah grant us safety and well-being! This makes it one of the most serious types of insults.
Following that is insulting through belittlement or indirect insults, such as using comparisons to degrade someone. This includes describing a person in a way intended to demean or ridicule them. Such expressions are considered insults because they involve mockery and belittlement. All of this is forbidden for a fasting person. For this reason, some scholars would avoid reprimanding students harshly during Ramadan or while fasting, fearing that it might diminish their reward or reduce the completeness of their fast’s reward. Some scholars were even so cautious that they avoided saying to a student, "You did not understand," as they considered it a form of criticism and belittlement, given that the essence of an insult lies in diminishing someone’s worth.
For this reason, a fasting person should be cautious and avoid harming their fellow Muslims through insults, cursing, or abusive speech. It is authentically reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Those who frequently curse will not be witnesses or intercessors on the Day of Judgment." This means that those who habitually curse and use foul language will be deprived of these two honorable ranks on the Day of Judgment—may Allah grant us safety and well-being! These two ranks, witnessing and interceding, are of great importance, especially when a person hopes to intercede for their loved ones, such as their children or family members, to be saved from Hellfire or to have their punishment reduced. However, those who excessively curse will neither be granted intercession nor be chosen as witnesses on that day. Bearing witness is a mark of honor and excellence, highlighting the importance of restraining one's tongue from cursing.
Moreover, when a curse is uttered, it does not return once spoken. If the person being cursed deserves it, it will fall upon them, but if they do not, the curse will return upon the one who said it—may Allah grant us safety and well-being!
The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "It is recommended for the one who is insulted to say: 'I am fasting.'”
The evidence for avoiding insults and foul language while fasting is found in the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "When one of you is fasting, let him not engage in obscene speech or act ignorantly." Ignorance here refers to insulting and cursing others, as such behavior is characteristic of Jaahiliyyah. The Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) command not to act ignorantly means that one should not speak harshly, insult others, or engage in backbiting. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) also said: "Let him not act ignorantly, nor raise his voice. If someone insults him or argues with him, let him say: 'I am fasting, I am fasting.'" This hadith establishes the recommended practice of self-restraint while fasting. If someone provokes, insults, or angers a fasting person, they should remind themselves and others of their fasting by saying, "I am fasting." This serves as a reminder to remain calm, patient, and self-disciplined, rather than reacting with anger or retaliation.
When a fasting person says, "I am fasting," they are reminding their fellow Muslim to fear Allah and to avoid committing two sins: insulting and belittling them, and provoking them to ruin their fast by responding in anger. Saying this aloud also serves as a reminder for the other person to have taqwa (consciousness of Allah)—especially if they are also fasting.
If an argument or exchange of insults occurs between two people, there are specific guidelines for both the one being insulted and the one doing the insulting. The basic principle is that a person should not insult others, as previously mentioned. If they are fasting, the prohibition becomes even more serious. However, if someone crosses the line and insults another, it is recommended for the one being insulted to respond by saying, "I am fasting, I am fasting."
After explaining that it is forbidden for a fasting person to insult, curse, argue, or act ignorantly, the author (may Allah have mercy on him) then clarifies what a person should do when they are insulted or slandered. If a fasting person is cursed, insulted, or their honor is violated, they should restrain themselves and say aloud: "I am fasting, I am fasting."
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "If someone insults or argues with a fasting person, let him say: 'I am fasting, I am fasting.'" The correct view is that the fasting person should say this aloud so that the other person hears it. Some scholars suggested that it is sufficient to say it internally, in one’s heart, but this opinion is weak. The principle in understanding texts is that words should be taken in their literal meaning unless there is clear evidence indicating otherwise. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Let him say," and speech (qawl) refers to verbal expression—not merely an internal thought. The Almighty says:
مَا يَلْفِظُ مِنْ قَوْلٍ
"Not a word does he utter but there is an observer ready to record it." (Qaaf, 50:18) Here, speech (qawl) is described as something uttered (yalfidh), meaning it is spoken aloud. Likewise, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded, "Let him say," it means that the person must verbalize the words: "I am fasting, I am fasting."
If someone only says it internally, in their heart, then they have not actually spoken, and thus, they have not fulfilled the Sunnah in this regard.It took a lot of time since the project involved translating an entire chapter, so I did not complete it. I stopped at this point and marked it according to the progress I had reached:
https://shamela.ws/book/7696/1976#p1