The Distinguished Jurists Primer by Ibn Rushd

There are three elements. Two of them are agreed upon, and, these are duration and abstinence from acts breaking the fast, while the third is disputed, which is formulation of the intention.

The first element, which is duration, is divided into two kinds. The first is the period of obligation, which is the month of Ramadan, while the other is the period of abstinence from acts that break the fast, and this covers day-time of the the days of this month, thus, excluding the nights. To each of these periods are related fundamental issues over which they disagreed. We begin with those that relate to the period of the obligation. The first of these is the determination of the two ends of this period. The second relates to the identification of the method by which a knowledge of the limiting signs is attained with respect to each individual and to the various horizons. With respect to the two ends of the period (of obligatory fasting), the jurists agreed that the Arabic month spans over twenty-nine days that are sometimes thirty, and that the criterion for the determination of the month of Ramadan is the sighting of the new moon, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Fast with its [the moon’s] sighting and break it with its sighting”. By sighting here is meant the first appearance of the new moon after the declining of the sun. They disagreed about the hukm when; there are factors that conceal sighting and make it impossible. They also disputed the proper time for sighting the new moon. As to their disagreement when the moon is concealed (in clouds), the majority maintain that the hukm in such a case is to complete the period of the preceding month (Shahan), thirty days. If the moon is concealed at the (probable) beginning of the month, the month before it is to be counted as having thirty days. Thus, the first day of the Ramadan would be the next day. If the moon is concealed at the end of the month (of Ramadan), the people will fast for thirty days. Ibn TJmar held a different opinion, that is, if the concealed moon is that of the beginning of the month of Ramadan, the next day which is called the Day of Doubt is to to be observed as a fast. It is related from some of the predecessors (early jurists) that if the moon is concealed recourse is to be had to astronomical calculation, and this is the opinion of Mutarrif ibn al-ShikhkhTr, one of the leading Tabi un. In a narration by Ibn Surayj c from al- Shafi T he said that c if a person is proficient in astronomy, and according to his calculation the new moon could be sighted had it not been for the obstruction he may (should) commence fasting and his fast would be valid.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the lack of detail (ijmdl) in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Fast on sighting it and break the fast on sighting it. If it is concealed, make an assessment about it (fa yqduru lahu)”. The majority maintained that this means “complete the period of thirty days”. One group of jurists said that the meaning of taqdir here is to fix its time by reckoning. Some of them even said that the believer should wake up fasting, which is the opinion of Ibn TJmar, as we have mentioned. This, however, is a remote interpretation. The majority decided upon their interpretation due to the authentic tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “If it is concealed from you, then, complete the count of thirty days”. The former (tradition) lacks detail (they said) and this is its explanation, thus, it is necessary to construe the unelaborated through its explanation. This is a method over which there is no dispute among the experts on usul, as there is in fact no conflict at all between the mujmal and the mufassar. The opinion of the majority on this point is more convincing, Allah knows best.

In their disagreement about the legitimate time of sighting, they first agreed that if it is sighted in the evening the month begins on the next day (starting after sunset). They disagreed when it was sighted during the daytime on the last day of Shahan, that is, the first time of its sighting. The opinion of the majority is that if the first sighting of the moon is during the day, it is the moon of the next day, just like its sighting in the evening. This opinion was held by Malik, al-Shafi T, Abu Hanifa, and the majority of c their disciples. Abu Yusuf, the disciple of Abu Hanifa, al-ThawrT, and Ibn Habib one of the disciples of Malik held that if the moon is sighted before the declining of the sun it belongs to the previous night, but if it is sighted after the declining of the sun it belongs to the coming night.

The reason for their disagreement is the relinquishment of experience, where experience provides a way out, and having recourse instead to reports on the issue. There is no tradition on this issue from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to which recourse can be had. There are, however, two traditions from TJmar (God be pleased with him). One of them is general and the other is explanatory. One group relied upon the general report, while the other relied upon the explanatory. The report with the general implication is related by al-A<mash from Abu Wa’il, the brother of Ibn Salama, who said, “A letter from TJmar came to us, when we were at Khaniqayn that the crescent moon appears in different sizes. Sometimes it looks large and it may look small. (The letter said:) ‘If you sight the moon during day-time, do not stop fasting till two men testify that they have seen the new moon during the (previous) evening’”. The tradition with the particular implication* is what is related by al-ThawrT from him that a report reached TJmar that some people had sighted the new moon after the declining of the sun and had broken their fast. He wrote to them reprimanding them for it and said: “If you sight the moon during the day before the declining of the sun, break your fast, but if you see it after the declining of the sun do not break it”.

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said: “What is dictated by analogy and experience is that the moon cannot be seen when the sun has not gone down, unless it is far away from it, for at that time it is greater than the arc of vision, though it varies growing greater or lesser, but it is unlikely, Allah knows best, to be so large as to be seen when the sun has not gone down yet. The best reliance in this matter is on experience, as we have said. There is no difference here whether it is before the declining of the sun or after it, and the thing to be considered is the disappearance of the sun”.

As far as their disagreement about the legitimate knowledge of sighting is concerned, there are two methods for it. One of these is based upon the senses (perception) and the other upon reports. The jurists agreed that a person, who alone sights the moon, is under an obligation to fast, except for (A|3? ibn AbT Rabah, who said that he is not to fast unless another person besides him has sighted it too. They disagreed about whether he can stop fasting on the basis of his own sighting. Malik, Abu HanTfa, and Ahmad held that he is not to cease fasting. Al-Shafi T said that he c is to stop fasting, and this was also the opinion of Abu Thawr. This dispute has no meaning, as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made fasting and breaking the fast dependent upon sighting, and sighting is by perception. Had there been no consensus about fasting on the basis of a report of sighting, because of the apparent meaning of this tradition, the imposition of an obligation of fasting on the basis of reports would be far-fetched. Those who made a distinction between the moon of fasting and that of terminating the fast did so for the prevention of improper claims that may be made falsely by the devious, who may cease fasting illegitimately, claiming they have seen the moon when in actual fact they have not. Al-Shafi<T, therefore, said that if he fears accusations he should abstain from eating and drinking and consider himself as having ceased fasting. Malik deviated from this and said that the person who sights the moon alone and breaks his fast is liable to qada* as well as expiation. Abu HanTfa said that he is only liable for qadtf.

They disagreed regarding certain questions related to the report of moon sighting. First, over the number of reporters whose reports must be accepted, and then about their qualifications. Malik said that it is not permitted to commence fasting or to cease fasting on the testimony of less than two trustworthy men. Al-ShafiT, in a narration by al-MuzanT, said that fasting is to commence on the testimony of one man about sighting, but fasting is not to be stopped with the testimony of less than two men. Abu HanTfa said that if the sky is overcast the testimony of one person is accepted, but if it is clear in a large city only the testimony of a large number of persons is acceptable. It is also related from him that he would accept the testimony of two morally upright persons when the sky was clear. It is related from Malik that he would not accept the testimony of two witnesses when the sky was overcast. They agreed that for breaking the fast not less than two witnesses are acceptable, except for Abu Thawr who did not make a distinction between fasting and breaking the fast, unlike al-Shafi T.

c The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of traditions on the subject, and the vacillation of a tradition between falling under the category of testimony and the category conveying no stipulated number (for witnesses). The traditions include what has been related by Abu Dawud from cAbd al- Rahman ibn Zayd ibn al-Khattab that he addressed the people on a Day of Doubt and said, “I used to mix with the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and asked them, and all of them related to me that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Commence fasting on sighting it and cease fasting on sighting it. If it is concealed from you, then, complete a period of thirty (days). If two witnesses render testimony (of sighting the moon), commence fasting or cease fasting’”. They also include the tradition of Ibn <Abbas that he said, “A Bedouin came up to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and said, ‘I sighted the moon tonight.’ He said, ‘Do you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his servant and messenger?’ He replied, ‘Yes’. He (the Prophet) said, ‘Bilal, announce to the people that they are to fast tomorrow’”. This is recorded by al-TirmidhT, who stated that there is a dispute about its isnad as a group has reported it as mursal. There is also the tradition of Rib T ibn Khirash (Hirash?)

c that is recorded by Abu Dawud from Rib€T ibn Khirash from one of the Companions of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “The people were fasting on the last day of Ramadan, when two Bedouins stood up and testified to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that they had sighted the moon the previous evening. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the people to break the fast and to go to the place of [ £/j prayer”.

c The jurists adopted the methods of preference or the method of reconciliation for these traditions. Al-Shaf^T reconciled the traditions of Ibn c Abbas and Rib<T ibn Khirash through their apparent meanings and, thus, deemed the commencement of fasting obligatory on the testimony of one person and its cessation on the testimony of two. Malik preferred the tradition of cAbd al-Rahman ibn Zayd on the basis of analogy, that is, holding it to be similar to testimony in other claims. It appears that Abu Thawr did not see a conflict between the traditions of Ibn cAbbas and that of RibT ibn Khirash. This is so as he (the Prophet) decided on the testimony of two witnesses according to the tradition of Rib<T ibn Khirash, and in the tradition of Ibn SAbbas he decided on the the testimony of one witness. This (Abu Thawr said) indicates the permissibility of both, and not that there is a conflict. Nor is there an indication that the decision in the first was specific to the commencement of fasting and that in the second to its cessation, for such an opinion would be based on the assumption of a conflict. The same appears to be true for the conflict between the traditions of cAbd al-Rahman ibn Zayd and Ibn Abbas, unless c the conflict is claimed on the basis of the indirect indication of the text, which is weak as the text opposes it. Thus, we see that the opinion of Abu Thawr, despite its deviation (from the majority view), is more evident, although comparing sighting to narration is closer than comparing sighting to testifying. The reason is that in testimony the stipulation of a number (for witnesses) may either be guidance by revelation, and thus it cannot be subjected to intellectual interpretation as it is not permitted to draw an analogy from it, or it may be said that the stipulation of number is due to the litigation that accompanies claims and the doubt that is associated with the testimony of a person by the litigants. Thus,. a multiplicity of witnesses is stipulated so that the conviction becomes predominant and the inclination toward the claims of one litigant is strengthened. The number did not go beyond two so that adducing evidence does not become difficult thereby vitiating claims. There is no accompanying doubt due to an opponent in the case of the sighting of the moon that should necessitate its clarification through an increase in number.

It appears that al-ShaficT made a distinction between the moon of fasting and the moon of cessation of fasting on the basis of the suspicion that is associated with people in the sighting of the moon of cessation of fasting, but is not present in the case of the moon of fasting. The opinion of Abu Bakr ibn al- Mundhir is the same as the opinion of Abu Thawr, and I believe it is also that of the Zahirites. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir argued on the basis of this tradition for the occurrence of a consensus for the obligation of breaking the fast and abstaining from eating on the testimony of one person. It therefore becomes necessary that the matter be the same for entering into the month and moving out of it, as both are signs separating the period of non-fasting from the period of fasting.

If we say that sighting is established for those who have not sighted it on the basis of a report, then, can this be extended from one land to the other, I mean, is it obligatory upon the people in one region, if they have not sighted the moon, to adopt the sighting in another land, or is sighting necessary for every land? There is disagreement over this. Ibn al-Qasim and the Egyptian jurists (who follow Malik) have related from Malik that if it is established for the people of one town that the people in another have sighted the moon, they are under an obligation of qadffi for the day observed by others and missed by them. This was also the opinion of al-ShafiT and Ahmad. The Medinites have related from Malik that sighting on the basis of a report is not binding upon people not living in the land in which sighting occurred, unless the imam requires the people to do so. This was the opinion of Ibn al-Majishun and of al-MughTra from among the disciples of Malik. They agreed that this is not to be taken into account for lands distant from each other, like al-Andalus and al- Hijaz.

The reason for this disagreement comes from the conflict of traditions and reasoning. The reasoning is that if the timing of the rising of the sun and the stars in different lands does not differ very much, it is necessary that one should follow the other, as by reason they have the same horizon. If it does differ much, however, then it is not binding upon one region to follow the other. The tradition is what is related by Muslim from Kurayb that Umm al- Fadl bint al-Harith sent him to Mu^wiya in Syria. He said, "I reached Syria and did what she had required. The moon of Ramadan came upon me while I was in Syria, and I sighted it on the night before Friday. Near the end of the month I moved to Medina where cAbd Allah ibn cAbbas questioned me and then-mentioned the moon, saying, ‘When did you.sight the moon (in Syria)?’ I said, ‘We saw it on the night before Friday.’ He asked, ‘Did you, yourself, see it?’ I said, ‘Yes, and so did the people. They fasted and Mu^wiya fasted too’. He said, ‘But we sighted it on the night before Saturday, and we continue to fast till we either complete thirty days or sight it’. I said, ‘Do you not consider MuSiwiya’s fasting as sufficient?’ He replied, ‘No! This is what the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered us to do’”. The apparent meaning in this tradition implies that each land, near or distant, must sight the moon. Investigation, however, reveals a difference between distant and near lands, especially those that are at a great distance in terms of longitude and latitude. If the report (about sighting) reaches the level of tawatur there is no need to support it with testimony' These, then, are the issues related to the duration of the obligation.

On the issues related to the duration of abstinence they agreed that it is terminated by the setting of the sun, because of the words of the Exalted, “Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall”.213 They disagreed about the time of its commencement. The majority said that it is at the appearance of the second dawn, the white line (horizon), the appearance of the true morning twilight, because it is established from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who defined it as the spreading white line (horizon), and also because of the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white .thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn”.214 One group deviated saying that it is the red dawn that appears after the white and it is a replica of the red dusk (the evening twilight). This is related from Hudhayfa and Ibn Mas ud.

c The reason for disagreement emanates from the conflict of traditions oh the issue and the equivocality of the term “dawn”, that is, it is applied to mean either the white or the red. The traditions on the basis of which they argued include the tradition of Zarr from Abu Hudhayfa, who said, “I had meals with* the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) before daybreak, and had I liked I could have said it was daytime, yet the sun had not risen”. Abu Dawud had recorded from Qays ibn Talq from his father that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Eat and drink, and let not the rising white light intimidate you. Eat and drink, until you see the red light spreading across [the horizon]”. Abu Dawud stated that this tradition was narrated by the people of Yamama alone, and this is deviation, for the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you”,215 Qur The are explicit, or almost explicit, in this. Those who held that it is the spreading white line of the dawn, and these are the majority, who are on firmer ground, disagreed about the exact limit for abstention from such things as eating (and drinking). A group of jurists said that it is the breaking of the dawn in itself. Another group said that it is its awareness for the person looking at it. If he does not become aware of it, then, observance of abstention is not obligatory, even if it is already daybreak. The significance of the, distinction is that if the person discovers that .it was daybreak before he became ,aware of it, then, according to those for whom.the limit is the break of the dawn itself, he is liable for qadd*. Those who consider the limit to be the person’s own awareness of it, hold that qadd is not obligatory for him.

The disagreement over this is caused by the possible interpretations of the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn”. Is abstinence to commence when the distinction becomes evident to the person or as soon as it actually happens? Arabs employ the .term figuratively for the occurrence of a phenomenon to denote another that follows it. It was thus as if it was said, “Eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread”. If it becomes evident in itself it becomes evident to us, thus, attributing its becoming evident to us is the reason for the dispute, because it may have become evident and distinct in itself and still not be evident to us. The. apparent meaning necessitates the linking of abstinence to actual knowledge, while analogy associates it with the actual fact. I mean, analogy drawn from the hukrn of the sunset prayer and from all the other religious obligations attached to time-limits, like the zuhr prayer starting at the declining of the sun, as well as others. The consideration in all of these is attached to the actual realities themselves, not to their knowledge. The well-known opinion from Malik, which is also held by the majority, is that engagement in acts like eating may go up the beginning of daybreak (dawn). It is said, however, that abstinence should be prior to dawn. The evidence for the first view is what is related in the Sahih of al-BukharT, and I believe in some versions of the tradition, that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Eat and drink until Ibn Umm Maktum makes the call [for the dawn prayer], for he does not make the call unless it is the break of the dawn”. This is explicit on the point of dispute, or almost explicit, and conforms with the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the.black thread of the dawn”.218 Those who maintained that abstinence is to commence prior to the dawn did so as a precaution and for the prevention of means (to violation). This is a more conservative opinion, but the other is more in line with analogy, Allah knows best.

They agreed that abstinence from food, drink, and sexual intercourse is obligatory, on the person fasting, during the period of the fast due to the words of the Exalted, “So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn”. They differed in this over issues some of which are not expressly stated in the law while others are. Those that are not expressly stated include the question of things entering the stomach but are not food, that of things entering the stomach from other than the passage for food and drink, like enema, and the problem of things entering some parts of the body other than the stomach, like those entering the brain but not reaching the digestive tract.

The reason for their disagreement over these things stems from the analogy drawn from food for those that are not food. This is so as things expressly mentioned are food. Those who thought that the purpose of fasting has a rational meaning did not link non-food with food. Those who maintained that it is a worship that does not have a rational meaning and that the aim of fasting is abstinence alone from things that reach the stomach held food and non-food to be the same (for this purpose). The summary of Malik’s opinions is that it is obligatory to abstain from Things that reach the gullet through any opening, whether they are food or non-food.

With respect to things other than food and drink that break the fast, all of them agreed, except for Malik, that a person who kisses and ejaculates has broken the fast, but one who passes pre-seminal fluid does not. They disagreed over kissing by the person fasting. Some of them permitted this. Some disapproved (frowned upon) it for a young man but permitted it for the elderly. Some prohibited it absolutely. Those who granted an exemption for it did so because of what is related of the traditions of cA5isha and Umm Salama “that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to kiss when he was fasting”. Those who disapproved of it did so as kissing may lead to sexual intercourse. One group deviated and said that a kiss breaks the fast. They argued for this on the basis of what is related from Maymuna ibn Sa<d, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was asked about kissing by one fasting. He said, ‘Both are to break the fast’”. Al-TahawT recorded this tradition but declared it as weak. Those acts, that occur as a result of an overpowering emotion or forgetfulness, their discussion will be taken up under the discussion of things breaking the fast and their ahkdm.

The things that are expressly mentioned and over which they disagreed are cupping and vomiting. There are three opinions about cupping. A group of jurists said that cupping breaks the fast and abstaining from it is obligatory. This was the opinion of Ahmad, Dawiid, al-AwzacT, and Ishaq Ibn Rahwayh. Another group of jurists said that it is disapproved (deprecated) for the person fasting, but it does not break the fast. This was the opinion of Malik, al- ShafiT, and al-Thawri. A third group said that it is neither frowned upon nor does it annul the fast. This was the opinion of Abu Harnfa and his disciples.

The reason for their disagreement comes from the conflict of traditions that have been reported on the issue. There are two traditions on the issue. The first is related through Thawban and through Rafic ibn Khadij that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The person cupping and the one being cupped have broken the fast”. This tradition of Thawban was considered authentic by Ahmad. The second is the tradition of cIkrima from Ibn Abbas c “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) was cupped when he was fasting”. This tradition of Ibn <Abbas is authentic.

The Jurists, in their treatment of these traditions, adopted three methods. The first is the method of preference. The second is the method of reconciliation. The third is the giving up of the conflicting traditions and having recourse to the original rule of no liability, as the abrogated text cannot be distinguished from the abrogating text. Those who adopted the method of preference argued on the basis of the ,tradition of Thawban, as it imposes a hukm while the tradition of Ibn cAbbas removes it, and that imposing it is to be preferred over one removing it. If the hukm is established in a manner that it is obligatory to act upon it, it cannot be removed except by way of an obligation of not acting upon it. The tradition of Thawban necessitates that it be acted upon. The tradition of Ibn <Abbas has two probabilities; namely, it is the abrogated or the abrogating tradition. This invokes doubt and doubt does not necessitate action nor does it remove a conviction necessitating action. This is in accordance with the method of those who do consider doubt to be operative against conviction. Those who sought to reconcile the two traditions interpreted the proscribing tradition to mean disapproval and the tradition depicting cupping to imply the removal of prohibition. Those who dropped the traditions due to conflict upheld the permissibility of cupping for the person fasting.

With respect to vomiting, the majority of the jurists maintained that one who vomits involuntarily has not broken his fast, except RabFa who said that he has. The majority, except Tawus, also maintain-that the person who vomits voluntarily has broken his fast. The reason for their disagreement stems from the assumed conflict between the traditions that are laid down on the issue, and also their dispute about the authenticity of these traditions. There are two traditions on the topic. The first , is the tradition of Abu al-Darda5 “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) vomited and broke his fast”. Mandan said, “I met Thawban in the mosque of Damascus and said to him that Abu al-Darda5 told me ‘that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) vomited and broke his fast.’ He said, ‘He spoke the truth, and I poured out water for his ablution’”. This tradition of Thawban has been declared authentic by al-TirmidhT. The other tradition is from Abu Hurayra and is recorded by al-TirmidhT and Abu Dawud. It says that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “One who is overcome by vomiting when he is fasting is not under an obligation for qad&, but one who causes himself to vomit is under the obligation for qad<P”. This has also been related as mawquf™ from Ibn <Umar. Those for whom both traditions did not prove to be authentic said that there is no breaking of the fast at all in this case. Those who adopted the apparent meaning of the tradition of Thawban and preferred it over the tradition of Abu Hurayra upheld the obligation of (qadtP for) breaking the fast after vomiting without qualifications, that is, they did not distinguish between deliberate and non­ deliberate vomiting. Those who reconciled- the two traditions maintained that the tradition of Thawban lacks detail, while the tradition of Abu Hurayra is explanatory, and it is necessary to construe the concise tradition through the explanatory. They, therefore, distinguished between vomiting and self-induced vomiting, and this is the opinion of the majority.

The discussion of intention is undertaken from different aspects. These include whether it is a condition for the validity of this worship, and if it is a condition, then, what kind of determination is considered valid? Further, whether its renewal every day of Ramadan is obligatory or is the intention expressed on the first day sufficient? If the subject makes the resolve, what is the time of this resolve that makes the fast valid, so that if it is not expressed at such time it is nullified? Does failure to form the intention necessitate breaking the fast, and what if the person does not break the fast? The jurists differed on each of these questions.The opinion of the majority of the jurists is that intention is a condition for the validity of the fast, but Zufar deviated and said that the month of Ramadan does not require intention, unless .the person happens to have reason to be relieved from the obligation of fasting, such as being on a journey, but wishes to fast. The reason for their disagreement stems from their notion about the nature of fasting whether it is a worship having a rational meaning or it has no such meaning. Those who maintained that it is a worship having no rational purpose made intention obligatory, while those who maintained that it is a worship with rational purpose said that the purpose is attained even if the person does not form an intention. The confining of this reasoning by Zufar to only some kinds of fasting presents some weakness. It appears that he formed his opinion on the grounds that it is not permitted to cease fasting during the days of Ramadan and that any fast kept during these days of the month fulfils this form of prescribed fasting, and this is something specific to these days.

With respect to their dispute over the specification of the kind of fasts through the formulation of a valid intention, Malik said that it is necessary to identify the fast of Ramadan in the intention, and it is not sufficient in Ramadan to have a general intention to fast, nor an intention specifying another fast. Abu HanTfa (held the opposite view, and) said that if the person forms an absolute (unqualified) intention, or an intention specifying another fast other than the fast of Ramadan it is valid and the fast turns into a fast of Ramadan. This is so, unless the person is on a Journey for, in his view, if the traveller during Ramadan makes an intention for fasts other than the fast of Ramadan his intention will apply to the intended fast. The reason is that while travelling he is not under an obligation to observe the fast of Ramadan. His two (renowned) disciples did not distinguish between one travelling and the resident. They said that each fast intended during Ramadan is converted into a fast of Ramadan.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the dispute as to whether it is sufficient for the fasts of Ramadan that the category of fasting be identified generally or that it has to be specified. Both forms (of intention) exist in the law. An example of the general intention is the intention of ablution in which it is sufficient to intend the removal of impurities. The worshipper may then perform any kind of worship whose validity depends on ablution (prayers, tawdfy carrying a copy of the QuPan, etc.). Thus, ablution is not specific to one kind of worship. This is different from the intention for prayer, in which it is necessary to specify the particular prayer that is about to be performed. It is, therefore, necessary to specify the prayer as W, if it is W, and zuhr if it is zuhr. All this is well-known to the jurists. Fasting, therefore, vacillates between these two general rules in the view of these jurists. Those who associated it to one genus said that it is sufficient to make a resolve for fasting alone. Those who associated it with the second genus stipulated the specification of the fast.

They also disagree over the issue that if he makes an intention, during the days of Ramadan, for another kind of fast whether this is converted (to the fast of Ramadan). The reason for this is that some kinds of worship are converted due to the fact that the time in which it occurs is specific for the worship to which they are converted. There are some kinds of worship that are not converted, and this applies to most forms of worship. Those, however, that are converted include hajj, by agreement. They said that if a person on whom hajj is obligatory commences it as a voluntary form of worship during the hajj season, the voluntary form is converted to the obligatory form. They did not say this for prayer or other forms of worship. Those who held fasting to be similar to hajj said that it is converted, while those who held it to be similar to other forms said that it is not.

In their disagreement over the time of forming the intention, Malik said that fasting is not valid except by an intention formed before the break of the dawn, and this applies to all kinds of fasting. Al-ShaficT said that intention formed after dawn is valid in supererogatory fasting, but it is not in obligatory fasts. Abu Hamfa held that intention formed after dawn is sufficient for all kinds of fasting whose obligation is linked to a particular time, like those of Ramadan, those linked to specific days or dates after a vow, and also those that are supererogatory, but it is not for the fasts that exist as a liability.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of traditions on the issue. The first of these traditions is the one recorded by al-Bukhari from Hafsa that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “One who does not form the intention to fast during the night has no fast”. It has also been related as mawqufby Malik. Abu TJmar said that there is some discrepancy in the isndd of Hafsa’s tradition. The second is recorded by Muslim from cA>isha, who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said to me one day, ^A’isha, do you have something (to eat)?’ I said, ‘O Messenger ; of Allah, we have nothing’. He said, ‘Then I am fasting’ ”, In the tradition of Mu<awiya, he said on the pulpit, “O people of Medina, where are your learned men? I heard the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) saying, ‘Today it is the day of cAshura’ and its fast has not been prescribed for us. I am fasting, so those of you who wish to fast may do so and those who like may continue to eat’”.

Those who adopted the method of preference relied on Hafsa’s tradition, while those who adopted the method of reconciliation distinguished between supererogatory and obligatory fasting, that is, they construed the tradition1 of Hafsa as implying obligatory fasts and the traditions of cA*isha and MuSawiya as implying supererogatory fasts. Abu HanTfa made a distinction between universal obligation and an obligation that is a liability, as the universal obligation has a determined time that takes the place of intention for specification, while the fast that is a liability has no fixed time;, th us, he made it obligatory that it be specified with an intention.

The majority of the jurists maintain that freedom from janaba is not a condition for the validity of the fast, because of what is established from the traditions of cA’isha and Umm Salama, the two. wives of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to arise in the morning during Ramadan in a state of major impurity from sexual intercourse, not a wet dream, and then kept the fast”. An evidence for this is that a wet dream during the day does not invalidate the fast. It is, however, related from Ibrahim al- NakhaT, TJrwa ibn Zubayr, and Tawus that if the person does this intentionally (induces ejaculation) the fast is invalidated.

The reason for their disagreement comes from what is related from Abu Hurayra, who used to say, “One who arises in the morning during Ramadan in a state of major impurity has broken his fast”. Malik has related that a menstruating woman who reaches the period of purity before dawn, but delays bathing is not to fast on that day. The opinions of these jurists are deviant and rejected by the well-known and-established sunan.