If the ‘Udhr (excuse) arises, which is the Sabab (cause) for the Rukhsah, it is permitted for the Mukallaf to act with whichever one he wishes. He can choose to act in accordance to the ‘Azeemah or in accordance to the Rukhsah. That is because the texts related to the Rukhas (special permissions) have indicated that. Allah (swt) said:

The lifting of the ‘Junaah’ (blame) mentioned in the Aayah means Al-Ibaahah (permissibility). As such, the Musaafir who travels the distance of shortening is provided with the choice between the ‘Azeemah, which is to complete the Salaah with four Rak’aaat, and between taking the Rukhsah and shortening the Salaah by praying the prayers consisting of four Rak’aaat with two Rak’ah (i.e. Zhohr, Asr and ‘Ishaa).

Allah (swt) said:

This also indicates Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) i.e. a choice between fasting and breaking the fast (or not fasting).

And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

This explains that they are equal in respect to the obedience of Allah in regards to their performance or undertaking whilst the Talab (request) of one of them does not have precedence over the Talab of the other.

The Shaari’ has explained by the Adillah (evidences) that there are circumstances when acting with the ‘Azeemah takes precedence over acting with the Rukhsah and some of the ‘Ulamaa considered it to be Mandoob (recommended). This is like in respect to the Qawl of Allah Ta’Aalaa:

The Aayah indicates that fasting during the Safar (travel) is Awlaa (preferential) than breaking the fast.

It was related that two of the Sahaabah (rah) were threatened with death by the Mushrikeen due to their embracing of Islaam. One of them then pronounced words of disbelief whilst the other refrained from doing so. So the Messenger of Allah (saw) said in respect to the one who refrained: “He is the best of the Shuhadaa’ and he is my companion in Jannah”. This is therefore a Daleel indicating that acting by the ‘Azeemah in this situation is preferential to acting by the Rukhsah

In the case where acting in accordance to the ‘Azeemah will lead to sure death, acting in accordance to the Rukhsah is Waajib (obligatory) whilst adhering to the ‘Azeemah is Haraam. This is like the special permission to eat the carrion meat (Al-Maitah) in regards to the one who fears death. It is Mubaah due to the Rukhsah in origin, however, it would become Waajib if the death becomes a confirmed inevitable reality. Adherence to the ‘Azeemah would then become Haraam due to the Qaa’idah Ash-Shar’iyah:

The destruction of the person or life is Haraam and so adherence to the ‘Azeemah, which in this example is manifested in not eating the Maitah (carrion meat), is Haraam.

These cases in which the Rukhsah is Waajib and acting by it is Waajib, are not however actually a representation of the Rukhsah. Rather they represent a Takleefiy Hukm and the same applies in the case if it was Mandoob and acting by it was Mandoob.

That is because the Rukhsah, in respect to its reality, and in respect to it being legislated as a Rukhsah, is Mubaah in regards to its Hukm. Then if by leaving it and acting by the ‘Azeemah, it leads inevitably to Haraam, the Rukhsah, which is Mubaah, would become Waajib. This circumstance would then take it out from being a Rukhsah and it would become a Hukm Takleefiy and not a Hukm Wad’iy.

It is therefore considered to be a Rukhsah as long as its Hukm is that of Al-Ibaahah (permissibility) and as long as the Mukallaf is given the choice between doing it or doing the ‘Azeemah.

So the Sawm of Ramadhaan is Waajib whilst the breaking of the fast (or not fasting) for the ill person represents a Rukhsah which is Mubaah.

However, if by not breaking the fast it would lead to the perishing of the sick person, then in that case the Sawm (fasting) would become Haraam and breaking the fast would be obligatory. This new situation or circumstance would then be taken out of the sphere of the Rukhsah and ‘Azeemah and would become representative of a case upon which the following Shar’iyah principle applies: