Wannan babin yana magana ne game da karya azumi (da rashin yin azumi) da hukunce-hukuncensa. Waɗanda za su iya karya azumi (ko ba su yi azumi ba), a shari'a, suna da nau'i uku: nau'in da aka halatta, bisa ijma'i, yin azumi ko rashin yinsa; nau'in da ya wajaba a rashin yin azumi, tare da rashin jituwar da ke tsakanin malaman fiqhu musulmi; da kuma nau'in da aka haramta rashin yin azumi. Ga kowannensu akwai hukunce-hukunce masu alaƙa da shi.

This chapter discusses breaking the fast (and not fasting) and its ahkam. Those who may break the fast (or not fast) are, in the law, of three kinds: a category in which it is permitted, by consensus, to fast or not to fast; a category in which it is obligatory not to fast, along with the accompanying disagreement among Muslim jurists; and a category in which it is forbidden not to fast. For each of these there are related ahkam.

Waɗanda aka halatta musu duka abubuwan biyu su ne: mai ciwo, bisa ga yarjejeniya; matafiyi, da saɓani; mace mai ciki, da mai shayarwa, da tsoho. Wannan rarrabuwa an yarda da ita gaba ɗaya, sai dai matafiyi, wanda al'amarinsa ana bincikensa ta fuskoki daban-daban. Waɗannan sun haɗa da batun: idan ya yi azumi, shin azumin nasa yana da inganci? Idan yana da inganci, shin ya fi kyau matafiyi ya yi azumi ko kada ya yi, ko kuwa yana da zaɓi tsakanin biyun? Shin an halatta masa karya azumi saboda wani nau'in tafiya ƙayyadaddu, ko kuwa saboda kowace tafiya da ake kiran ta "tafiya" a al'ada? Yaushe matafiyi zai daina azumi? Yaushe zai fara azumi (a karo na biyu)? Idan ya fara tafiya a cikin watan Ramadan, shin yana da 'yancin karya azumi bayan wucewar wani ɓangare na watan? A ƙarshe, idan bai yi azumi ba, menene hukuncinsa? Batun mai ciwo kuwa ya ƙunshi tattaunawa game da gano irin ciwon da ke ba shi damar kada ya yi azumi, da kuma hukuncinsa yayin da bai yi azumi ba.

Those to whom both things are permitted are the the sick person, by agreement, the traveller, with disagreement, the pregnant woman, the wet- nurse, and the old person. This division is agreed upon in its entirety, except the traveller whose problem is examined from various aspects. These include the point: that if he fasts, whether his fast is considered to be valid. If it is valid, whether it is better for the traveller to fast or not to fast, or whether he has a choice between the two. Whether breaking the fast is permitted to him for a limited type of journey or for any journey to which the term “journey” is applied in usage. When may the traveller stop fasting? When does he begin fasting (again)? If he initiates a journey during Ramadan, does he have the right to break the fast after the passage of a portion of the month? Finally, if he does not fast, what is the hukm for him? The case of the sick person involves the discussion of the identification of the sickness which entitles him not to fast, and also the hukm while not fasting:

Wannan ya shafi tambayar marar lafiya da matafiyi idan sun yi azumi, shin azuminsu yana da inganci a matsayin azumin farilla. Malamai sun sami sabani a kan wannan. Mafi yawan malamai sun tabbatar da cewa idan sun yi azumi, azuminsu yana cikin tsari kuma yana da inganci. Ahlul-Zahir kuwa sun tabbatar da cewa azuminsu ba shi da inganci, kuma wajibinsu shi ne yin ƙadha a wasu kwanaki (ba a cikin watan Ramadan ba).

This relates to the question of the sick person and the traveller if they fast, whether their fast is considered valid as an obligatory fast. The jurists disagreed over this. The majority maintain that if they fast their fast is in order and valid. The Zahirites maintain that their fasts are not valid and their obligation is to perform qada> on other days (not in Ramadan).

Dalilin rashin jituwa ya samo asali ne daga fassarar maganar Mai girma da daukaka: "Duk wanda ya kasance daga cikinku mara lafiya ko yana kan tafiya, (sai ya yi azumi) adadin wasu kwanaki." Ko a karanta ayar yadda take, ba tare da zato ko kara wata kalma ba, ko kuma a fassara ta ta hanyar misali, a kara wata kalma da aka boye a cikinta, domin ta zama: "ba ya yin azumi, to (sai ya yi azumi) adadin wasu kwanaki." Irin wannan rashin kalma a magana sananne ne ga masana harshen Larabci, kuma ana kiransa lahn al-khitab (salon magana a Larabci). Wadanda suka karanta ayar yadda take, ba ta hanyar misali ba, sun ce wajibi ne ga matafiyi ya yi azumi adadin wasu kwanaki, saboda maganar Mai girma da daukaka: "adadin wasu kwanaki." Wadanda kuma suka zabi kalmar da aka boye, wato "ba ya yin azumi", sun ce wajibinsa shi ne adadin wasu kwanaki idan bai yi azumi ba. Dukkan bangarorin biyu suna goyon bayan fahimtarsu da hadisai da ke tabbatar da cewa fahimtarsu daidai ne. Duk da haka, ka'ida ita ce a karanta nassi yadda yake, sai dai idan wata hujja ta nuna cewa a karanta shi a ma'anarsa ta misali.

The reason for the disagreement is based on the interpretation of the words of the Exalted, “And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of ’Other days”, whether they are to be read as they are so that no implied word is assumed, or whether they are to be construed metaphorically and an implied word is to be read into them so as to read, “and he does not fast then (let him fast the same) number of other days”. This kind of absence of words in speech is known to the experts of the language as lahn al-khitab (style of Arabic). Those who read the verse as it is and not metaphorically said that the obligation for the traveller is to fast the same number of other days, because of the words of the Exalted, “number of other days”. Those who assumed the implied words “and he does not fast” said that his obligation is a number of other days if he does not fast. Both groups support their interpretation on the basis of traditions that testify to the correctness of their understanding, though the principle is to read a text as it is, unless another evidence indicates that it be read in its metaphorical meaning.

Idan muka ce bisa ga ra'ayin mafi yawan malamai cewa matafiyi yana da 'yancin kada ya yi azumi, to dole ne mu ƙara cewa malamai sun yi da ra'ayoyi uku daban-daban (a cikin wannan yarjejeniya ta gaba ɗaya). Wasu daga cikinsu sun riƙe cewa azumi yana da ƙarin lada. Waɗanda suka riƙe wannan ra'ayi sun haɗa da Malik da Abu Hanifa. Wasu sun ce kada azumi shi ne mafi alheri. Waɗanda suka riƙe wannan ra'ayi sun haɗa da Ahmad da wasu ƙungiyar malamai. Wasu sun ce al'amari ne na zaɓi, babu wanda ya fi wani.

This relates to the question whether fasting is better than not fasting (during travel). If we say, according to the opinion of the majority, that the traveller is entitled not to fast, then we must add that the jurists had three different opinions (within this general agreement). Some of them held that fasting has greater merit. Those who held this opinion include Malik and Abu HanTfa. Some maintained that not fasting is better. Those who held this opinion include Ahmad and a group of jurists. Some maintained that this was a matter of choice, none is better.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga rikicin wata fassara da ma'anar zahirin wasu nassosin da aka ruwaito, da kuma rikicin wasu nassosin da aka ruwaito da wasu nassosin da aka ruwaito. Wannan ya faru ne saboda ma'anar da ake fahimta daga izinin rashin azumi ga mutum izini ne da aka bayar don kawar masa da wahala, kuma idan an bayar da izini, to yana da lada a bar wannan izinin. Wannan yana tabbata ne da hadisin Hamza dan Amr al-Aslami, wanda Muslim ya rawaito, cewa ya ce: "Ya Manzon Allah, ina jin cewa ina da karfin yin azumi a lokacin tafiya, shin zan yi zunubi?" Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Izini ne daga Allah, don haka wanda ya yi amfani da shi yana aikata alheri, amma babu zunubi ga wanda ya so yin azumi." Amma kuma maganar Manzon Allah ﷺ cewa: "Ba aikin biyayya ba ne yin azumi a lokacin tafiya," tare da cewa daya daga cikin ayyukansa na karshe shi ne rashin azumi, yana ba da ra'ayin cewa ya fi kyau kada a yi azumi. Duk da haka, rashin azumi ba hukunci ba ne, sai dai aiki ne mai izini, kuma ya yi wa mafiya yawan malamai wuya su dauki aiki mai izini a matsayin wanda ya fi wanda aka wajabta. Wadanda suka ba da zabi a cikin lamarin sun yi haka ne saboda hadisin Aisha, wadda ta ce: "Hamza dan Amr al-Aslami ya tambayi Manzon Allah ﷺ game da azumi a lokacin tafiya, sai ya ce: 'Ka yi azumi idan kana so, idan kuma kana so ka bar shi.'" Muslim ne ya rawaito shi.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of an interpretation with the apparent meaning of some transmitted texts, and the conflict of some transmitted texts with other transmitted texts. This is so as the understandable meaning of the permission of not fasting for a person is an exemption intended to remove hardship for him, and when an exemption is provided it is meritorious to relinquish the exemption. This is testified to by the tradition of Hamza ibn Amr c al-AslamT, recorded by Muslim, that he said, “O Messenger of Allah, I find in myself the strength to fast during a journey, would I then be sinning?” The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It is an exemption from Allah, so he who acts upon it does good, but there is no sin on the person who wishes to fast”. The saying of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), however, that “It is not an act of piety to fast during a journey”, along with the fact that one of his last acts was not to fast, gives the impression that it is better not to fast. Not fasting, though, is not the hukm, but a permissible act, and it was difficult for the majority to deem the permissible act as being better than the prescribed. Those who gave a choice in the matter did so because of the tradition of cA’isha, who said, “Hamza ibn cAmr al-AslamT asked the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) about fasting during a journey and he said, ‘Fast if you like, and if you like do not”’. It is recorded by Muslim.

Shin an iyakance halaccin mai tafiya ya ci abinci a lokacin azumi ga tafiye-tafiyen da aka ƙayyade nisansu? Malamai sun sabawa juna a kan wannan batu. Mafi yawansu sun ce bai halatta mai tafiya ya bar azumi ba sai a tafiyar da ake gajarta sallah a cikinta, kuma wannan ya bambanta bisa ga sabanin da suke da shi a kan wannan mas'ala. Wata ƙungiyar malamai kuwa sun ce yana iya barin azumi a duk tafiyar da ake kiranta "tafiya". Waɗannan su ne Zahiriyyawa.

Whether the permissibility of not fasting for the traveller is limited to journeys of a minimum determined distance. The jurists disagreed about it. The majority said that he may not fast in a journey for which prayer is to be curtailed, and that varies in accordance with their disagreement on that issue. A group of jurists maintained that he may cease fasting in every journey to which the term “journey” is applied. These are the Zahirites.

Sababin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga karon da ke tsakanin ma'anar zahirin nassi da wata fassara. Ma'anar zahirin ita ce mutum ba zai yi azumi ba a duk wata tafiya da kalmar tafiya ta shafa, saboda maganar Mai girma da daukaka: "Kuma duk wanda yake cikinku yana rashin lafiya ko yana kan tafiya, (ya yi azumi) adadin wasu kwanaki."222 Duk da haka, ma'anar da ake fahimta daga izinin rashin yin azumi a lokacin tafiya ita ce (sauki daga) wahala. Tun da ba a samun wahala a kowace tafiya, sai ya zama wajibi a halatta rashin yin azumi a wannan tafiya da ke haifar da wahala, kuma tun da sahabbai sun yi ittifaqi a kan iyaka domin haka, sai ya biyo baya cewa a yi kiyasi bisa iyakar gajarta salla.

The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the text with an interpretation. The apparent meaning is that the person may not fast in any journey to which the term is applicable, because of the words of the Exalted, “And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days”.222 Yet, the understandable meaning of the permission of not fasting during a journey is (relief from) hardship. As hardship is not to be found in every journey it becomes necessary that not fasting be permitted in that journey that entails hardship, and because the Companions were apparently agreed upon a limit for this, it follows that an analogy be drawn upon the limit for the curtailment of prayer.

Sun kuma sabawa a kan irin rashin lafiyar da ake ba da izinin rashin yin azumi saboda ita. Wata jama'a ta malamai sun ce, rashin lafiya ce wadda wahala da matsananciyar bukata ke haɗuwa da azumi a cikinta. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Malik. Wata jama'a kuma sun ce, rashin lafiya ce mai tsananin gaske. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Ahmad. Jama'a ta uku sun ce, idan za a iya kiran mutum "mara lafiya", to ba ya azumi. Dalilin sabanin su shi ne dalilin da aka danganta da iyakar tafiya.

They also disagreed about the sickness during which not fasting is permitted. A group of jurists said that it is a sickness in which hardship and duress become associated with the fast. This was Malik’s opinion. Another group of jurists said that it is an overwhelming sickness. This was Ahmad’s opinion. A third group of jurists said that if the term “sick” could be applied to such a person he is not to fast. The reason for their disagreement is the very reason that is assigned for the limit of the journey.

Yaushe matafiyi yake daina azumi kuma yaushe yake yin azumi? Wasu malaman fiqihu sun ce ya kan daina azumi a ranar da ya fara tafiya. Wannan ra'ayin al-Sha'bi, al-Hasan, da Ahmad ne. Wata ƙungiyar kuma ta ce ba ya daina azumi a ranar da ya fara tafiya. Malaman fiqihu na garuruwa ne suka tabbatar da wannan ra'ayi. Wata ƙungiyar malaman fiqihu sun ga abin so ne ga mutumin da ya san cewa zai isa wani gari a ranar farko ta tafiyarsa ya shiga garin yana azumi. Wasu daga cikinsu sun fi tsananta a wannan fiye da wasu, amma dukansu ba su wajabta kaffara a kan mutumin da ya shiga garin ba yana azumi. Sun sabawa juna game da mutumin da ya shiga gari bayan wani ɓangare na yini ya wuce. Malik da al-Shafi'i sun ce yana ci gaba da ci da sha. Abu Hanifa da almajiransa kuma sun ce yana kamewa daga ci, kamar yadda mace mai haila, a ra'ayinsu, take kamewa daga ci idan ta shiga lokacin tsarki.

When does the traveller stop fasting and when does he fast? A group of jurists said that he is to cease fasting the very day that he begins his journey. This was the opinion of al-Sha^T, al-Hasan, and Ahmad. Another group said that he is not to cease fasting the day he commences his journey. This was upheld by the jurists of the provinces. A group of jurists considered it desirable for the person who 'knows that he will reach a city on the first day of his journey should enter it while fasting. Some of them were more strict in this than others, but all of them did not impose expiation on a person who entered when he was not fasting. They disagreed about the person who entered a city when only part of the day had past. Malik and al-ShaficT said that he is to continue eating and drinking. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that he is to abstain from eating, just as the menstruating woman, in their view, refrains from eating when she enters the period of purity.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakanin malamai game da lokacin da matafiyi zai daina azumi ya samo asali ne daga karo tsakanin hadisai da hankali (ra'ayi). An tabbatar da shi ta hadisin Ibn cAbbas "cewa Manzon Allah (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya ci gaba da azumi har ya isa al-Kadid, sai ya daina azumi, haka mutanen da ke tare da shi suka daina". Ma'anar zahirin wannan hadisi ita ce, ya daina azumi bayan ya riga ya yi niyyar azumi. Amma game da mutanen kuwa, babu shakka sun karya azumi ne bayan sun riga sun yi niyyarsa da daren da ya gabata. Irin wannan ma'anar ita ce hadisin Jabir dan cAbdullahi "cewa Manzon Allah (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya yi tafiya zuwa Makka a shekarar fathi. Ya ci gaba da tafiya har ya kai Kura'ul-Ghamim, inda ya nemi kwano na ruwan sha, lokacin da mutane suke azumi, ya daga shi domin mutane su gani, sannan ya sha daga cikinsa. Daga baya aka ce masa wasu mutane sun ci gaba da azumi. Sai ya ce: 'Su ne masu sabo. Su ne masu sabo'". Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga Abu Basra al-Ghifari cewa, ya kusa wuce gidaje sai ya nemi tebur na abinci. Ja'far, mai ruwaitowar hadisin, ya ce: "Na ce masa, 'Ba ka ganin gidajen ne?' Ya amsa, 'Shin kana gujewa sunnar Manzon Allah (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi)?'" Ja'far ya ce: "Sai ya ci abinci". Hankali kuma a nan shi ne: tun da matafiyi an yarda masa ya yi niyyar azuminsa ne kawai da daren da ya gabata, to ba a halatta ya karya azuminsa ba, domin ya yi niyya ne bisa maganar Maɗaukakin Sarki: "Ya ku wadanda suka yi imani! Ku bi Allah, ku bi Manzo, kuma kada ku bata ayyukanku".

Wannan ya shafi tambayar ko an halatta ga mutumin da yake azumin Ramadan ya fara tafiya sannan ya daina azumi yayin tafiyar. Yawancin malamai sun tabbatar da cewa an halatta masa hakan. An rawaito daga wasu, kuma su ne Tjbayda al-Salmani, Suwayd ibn Ghafla, da Ibn Majaz, cewa idan ya kasance yana azumin Ramadan sannan ya fara tafiya a cikinsa, ba a halatta masa ya daina azumi ba.

This relates to the question of whether it is permitted for a person fasting during Ramadan to begin a journey and then stop fasting while travelling. The majority maintain that he is permitted to do so. It is related from some, and these are TJbayda al-SalmanT, Suwayd ibn Ghafla, and Ibn Majaz, that if he has been fasting during Ramadan and begins a journey in it he is not permitted to cease fasting.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakaninsu ya samo asali ne daga banbancin fahimtarsu game da maganar Mai girma da daukaka, "Duk wanda ya halarci wata, to ya yi azumi a cikinsa." Ana iya fahimtar wannan da cewa wanda ya halarci wata (yana zaune a gida) na wani bangare nasa, yana da wajibi ya yi azumin dukan watan. Haka kuma ana iya fahimtar daga gare shi cewa wanda ya shaida wani bangare na watan (yana zaune a gida) ya yi azumin wannan bangaren, domin ma’anar da aka yarda da ita ita ce wanda ya shaida dukan watan ya yi azumin dukansa, kuma hakan na nufin wanda ya shaida wani bangare na watan (yana zaune a gida) ya yi azumin wannan bangaren. Ra’yin mafi yawan malamai yana samun goyon baya daga gaskiyar cewa Annabi ﷺ ya fara tafiyarsa a lokacin watan Ramadan.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over the meaning of the words of the Exalted, “And whosoever is present let him fast the month”. This can be interpreted to mean that one who is present (resident) for part of the month is under an obligation to fast for the whole month. It is also possible to understand from it that the person who has witnessed part of the month (as a resident) should fast for that part, as the meaning by agreement is that the person who has witnessed the whole month should fast for the whole month, it should also mean that one who has witnessed part of the month (as a resident) should fast for that part. The opinion of the majority is supported by the fact that the Prophet began his journey during Ramadan.

Hukuncin matafiyi idan ya daina azumi (a cikin watan Ramadan) shi ne qada', bisa yarjejeniyar malamai, haka kuma mara lafiya, saboda maganar Mai girma da xaukaka, "(Ya yi azumi) adadin wasu kwanaki."223 224 Keɓaɓɓu su ne waɗanda suka suma ko suka yi hauka, amma malamai sun sami saɓani game da waɗannan halaye biyu. Malaman yankuna sun tabbatar da wajabcin qada' ga wanda ya suma, amma sun sha bamban game da mahaukaci. A ra'ayin Malik, shi ma yana da wajabcin qada', amma wannan ra'ayi yana da rauni saboda maganar Annabi (tsira da aminci da albarkar Allah su tabbata a gare shi), "An ɗaga alhakin (alƙalami) ga mutum uku ... da mahaukaci har sai ya warke." Waɗanda suka wajabta qada' a kan su biyun sun sami saɓani game da ko suma da hauka suna ɓata azumi. Wata ƙungiya ta ce suna ɓata azumi, wata ƙungiyar kuma ta ce ba sa ɓatawa. Wata ƙungiya ta uku ta bambanta tsakanin suma da ta faru kafin alfijir ko bayan alfijir. Wata ƙungiya ta ce idan ya faru bayan wucewar mafi yawan yini, azumin mutum yana nan daidai, amma idan ya faru a farkon yini, dole ne ya yi qada', kuma wannan shi ne ra'ayin Malik.

Akwai wasu ƙananan batutuwa masu alaƙa da qadā' na matafiyi da mai rashin lafiya, waɗanda suka haɗa da tambayoyin: shin suna yin qadā' a jere ne? Me ake buƙata daga gare su a matsayin qadā'? Menene wajibcinsu idan suka jinkirta yin qadā' ba tare da uzuri ba har zuwa Ramadan na gaba? Idan suka mutu ba tare da sun yi qadā' ɗin da ake buƙata ba, shin waliyyinsu (wali) zai yi azumi a madadinsu? Wasu daga cikin malaman fiqhu sun sanya yin qadā' a jere ya zama wajibi kamar yadda yake a cikin azumin kansa, yayin da wasu ba su sanya ba. Wasu daga cikin waɗannan malamai sun bai wa mutum zaɓi, kuma wasu suna ganin cewa yin qadā' a jere abin so ne (mustahabbi), amma mafi yawan malamai sun tafi a kan cewa wajibcin yin shi a jere ya fāɗi.

There are certain sub-issues related to the qadd* of the traveller and the sick person including the questions: do they perform consecutively? What is required from them as qad&i What is their duty if they delay, without excuse, the performance of qada? until the next Ramadan? If they die without performing the required qadd>, does the guardian {wall) fast on their behalf?Some of the jurists made it obligatory that qad# be performed consecutively like add, while others did not. Some of these jurists gave the person a choice, with some considering consecutive performance to be desirable, but the greater majority stands for the relinquishment of the obligation of consecutive performance.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga karo tsakanin ma'anar zahirin nassi da kiyas. Kiyas, a wannan yanayi, yana bukatar a yi qada'in aiki kamar yadda ake yin ada'i, domin tushen hakan shi ne sallah da hajji. Ma'anar zahirin kalmomin Maɗaukaki, "(Ya yi azumi a kan) adadin wasu kwanaki",225 na nuna cewa wajibi ya tabbata ga adadin kawai, ba ga yin sa a jere ba. An karbo daga A'isha cewa ta ce: "Ayar an saukar da ita da cewa 'adadin kwanaki a jere', amma kalmar 'a jere' aka fasa."

The reason for their disagreement arises from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the text with analogy. Analogy, in this case, requires that qada? performance be the same as ad&\ the basis for this being prayer and hajj. The apparent meaning of the words of the Exalted, “(Let him fast the same), number of other days”,225 implies that the obligation exists for the same number alone and not for consecutive performance. It is related from cA5isha that she said, “The verse was revealed as ‘consecutive number of days’, but the word ‘consecutive’ was dropped”.

Dangane da jinkirta ramuwar azumi har sai watan Ramadan na gaba ya shiga, wata jama'a daga malaman fiqihu sun ce wajibi ne a kan irin wannan mutum ya yi ramuwa bayan sabon Ramadan, tare da kaffara. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin Malik, al-Shafi'i, da Ahmad. Wata jama'a kuma sun ce babu wajibcin kaffara a kansa. Wannan ita ce ra'ayin al-Hasan al-Basri da Ibrahim al-Nakha'i.

Bakin babin ya ƙunshi tattaunawa game da mai shayarwa, mace mai ciki, da tsoho. Akwai batutuwa guda biyu sanannu da suka shafi wannan. Na farko shi ne, idan mace mai ciki da mai shayarwa ba su yi azumi ba, menene wajibinsu? Malaman fiqihu suna da ra'ayoyi huɗu kan wannan batu. Ra'ayi na farko shi ne cewa dukkansu suna ciyar da mabukata kuma babu qada'i a kansu. Wannan an rawaito shi daga Ibn cUmar da Ibn cAbbas. Ra'ayi na biyu, wanda shi ne akasin na farko, shi ne cewa suna yin qada'i kawai, ba a wajabta musu ciyar da mabukata ba, kuma wannan ra'ayin Abu Hanifa ne, da almajiransa, da Abu cUbayd, da Abu Thawr. Ra'ayi na uku shi ne cewa suna yin qada'i tare da ciyar da mabukata. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin al-Shafi'i. Ra'ayi na huɗu shi ne cewa mace mai ciki tana yin qada'i amma ba ta ciyar da mabukata, yayin da mai shayarwa take yin qada'i tare da ciyar da mabukata.

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to the discussion of the wet-nurse, the pregnant woman, and the old person. There are two well known issues related to this. The first is if the pregnant woman and wet-nurse do not fast, what is their duty? The jurists have four opinions on this issue. The first is that both feed the needy and there is no qada> for them. This is related from Ibn <Umar and ibn cAbbas. The second opinion, which is the counterpart of the first, is that they only perform qada? and they are not obliged for feeding the needy, and this is the opinion of Abu HanTfa, his disciples, Abu TJbayd, and Abu Thawr. The third opinion is that they perform qada* as well as feed the needy. This was al-Shafi^s opinion. The fourth opinion is that the pregnant woman performs qada* but does not feed the needy, while the wet- nurse performs qada> as well as feeds the needy.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga yadda lamuransu ke sauyawa tsakanin kamanceceniya da wadanda azumi ke musu wahala da kuma tsakanin mara lafiya. Wadanda suka dauke su kamar mara lafiya sun ce suna wajabta musu ne kawai kwada (qadd\). Wadanda suka dauke su kamar wadanda azumi ke musu tsanani sun ce ba su wajaba face ciyar da mabukata; wannan ra'ayi yana dogara ne da hujjar karatun wasu, wanda suka karanta ayar, "Kuma wadanda azumi ke musu nauyi, to fansa ce: ciyar da mabukata (masakin)." Wadanda suka yi la'akari da abubuwa biyu game da su, a bayyane yake, sun kafa ra'ayinsu bisa kamanceceniya biyun. Saboda haka suka ce suna wajaba ga kwada* idan sun yi kama da mara lafiya, kuma suna wajaba ga fansa idan sun yi kama da wadanda azumi ke musu wahala. Amma dauke su kamar mutum mai lafiya wanda baya azumi rauni ne ra'ayi, domin babu izini ga mutum mai lafiya ya bar azumi. Wadanda suka bambanta tsakanin mace mai ciki da mai shayarwa sun danganta mace mai ciki da mara lafiya, kuma sun ce hukuncin mai shayarwa hadin hukuncin mara lafiya ne da hukuncin wanda azumi ke musu wahala, ko kuma sun dauke ta kamar mutum mai lafiya. Wadanda suka kebe musu hukunci guda daya suna da ra'ayi mafi kyau, Allah ya fi sani, idan aka kwatanta da wadanda suka hada biyun, kamar yadda wadanda suka kebe musu hukuncin kwada* suke da ra'ayi mafi kyau fiye da wadanda suka kebe musu hukuncin ciyarwa, saboda karatun ayar da suka dogara da shi ba mutawatir ba ne (kuma akwai sabani a cikinsa). Don haka ku yi tunani a kai, domin a bayyane yake.

Ana duba nau'o'in mutanen da aka yarda musu su daina azumi idan sun karya azumi, ta fuskar karya azumi ta hanyar jima'i ko ta wata hanya, da kuma ta fuskar aikin da aka yarda a kansa ko wanda ake jayayya a kansa, watau aikin da ya dogara da shakka da wanda ba ya cikin shakka. Kowane ɗayan waɗannan lamura biyu yana faruwa ko dai saboda mantuwa, ko saboda niyya, ko saboda zaɓi, ko saboda tilastawa.

The examination of the category of persons to whom it is permitted not to continue the fast if they have broken their fast is taken up with reference to breaking, the fast through sexual intercourse or through some other way, and with reference to an act that is agreed upon or that which is disputed, that is, an act based on doubt and one that is not. Each of these two cases occurs either due to forgetfulness or due to intention or due to choice or due to duress.

Mafi yawan malaman shari'a sun tafi a kan cewa mutumin da ya karya azumi ta hanyar saduwa da mata da gangan yana da wajibcin ramako (qada) tare da kaffara, saboda abin da aka tabbatar ta hadisin Abu Hurayra, wanda ya ce: "Wani mutum ya zo wurin Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: 'Na halaka, ya Manzon Allah.' Ya ce: 'Me ya halakar da kai?' Ya ce: 'Na kwana da matata a watan Ramadan.' Ya ce: 'Kana da bawa da za ka 'yanta?' Ya ce: 'A'a.' Ya ce: 'Za ka iya yin azumi watanni biyu a jere?' Ya ce: 'A'a.' Ya ce: 'Kana da abinci da za ka ciyar da mabukata sittin?' Ya ce: 'A'a.' Sai ya jira. Sai Annabi ﷺ ya samu kwandon dabino (faraq) mai nauyin sa'o'i goma sha biyar (kwatankwacin sittin mudu), sai ya ce masa: 'Ka ba da wannan sadaka.' Mutumin ya ce: 'Shin ga wanda ya fi ni talauci? Babu wani gida tsakanin iyakokin garin nan da ya fi mu bukatar hakan.' Sai Annabi ﷺ ya yi murmushi har haƙoransa na gaba suka bayyana, ya ce: 'Ka tafi ka ciyar da iyalinka da shi.'" Sun sabawa juna a kan abubuwa da dama, ciki har da: ko karya azumi da gangan ta hanyar ci ko sha yana da hukuncin da ya yi daidai da karya azumi ta hanyar saduwa, wato ramako da kaffara? Idan mutum ya yi saduwa saboda mantuwa, menene wajibinsa? Menene wajibin mace idan ba a tilasta ta ba? Shin kaffara wajibi ne bisa tsari da aka lissafa, ko kuma zabi ne? Nawa ne za a bai wa kowane mabukaci idan mutum zai yi kaffara ta hanyar ciyarwa? Shin kaffara tana sake maimaituwa idan saduwa ta sake faruwa? Idan an dakatar da ciyarwar saboda mutum yana cikin matsi, shin ta zama wajibi idan halinsa ya inganta?

The majority of the jurists maintained that a person who breaks his fast through intentional sexual intercourse is under an obligation of qada? as well as expiation, because of what is established through the tradition of Abu Hurayra, who said, “A man came up to the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace, and blessings be upon him) and said, T am ruined, O Messenger of Allah’. He said, ‘And what has ruined you?’ He said, ‘I had sexual intercourse with my wife during Ramadan.’ He said, ‘Do you have a slave that you can set free?’ He replied, ‘No’. He said, ‘Are you able to fast for two months consecutively?’ He replied, ‘No’. He said, ‘Do you have food with which you can feed sixty needy persons?’ He replied, ‘No’. He then waited. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) received as a gift a faraq [fifteen sd\ sixty midrib], of dates and said to him, ‘Give these as alms’. The man said, ‘To someone w'ho is poorer than I? There is no household between the boundaries of the town more in need of it than ours’. The Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) smiled so that his canine teeth were noticeable, and said, ‘Go, feed it to your family’”. They differed over this on several points including: whether breaking a fast intentionally by eating or drinking carries the same hukm as that, for breaking the fast through sexual intercourse involving qada> and expiation? If the person has sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness, w hat is his obligation? What is the obligation for the w^oman if she was not forced into it? Is expiation obligatory in the listed order or is it a matter of choice? What is the amount that is to be given to each needy person, if he makes expiation by feeding the needy? Does expiation recur with the recurrence of sexual intercourse? If feeding is deferred when he is in difficult straits, does it become binding when his situation improves?

Shin kaffara ta wajaba ga wanda ya karya azumi da gangan ta hanyar ci ko sha? Malik da almajiransa, Abu Hanifa da almajiransa, al-Thawri, da wata jama'a ta malamai sun tabbatar da cewa wanda ya karya azumi da gangan ta hanyar ci ko sha yana da alhakin qadd da kaffara da aka ambata a cikin wannan hadisi. Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, da 'yan Zahiriyya kuwa sun ce alhakin kaffara yana tasowa ne kawai idan an karya azumi ta hanyar jima'i.

Is expiation obligatory for intentionally breaking the fast by eating or drinking? Malik, his disciples, Abu Hanifa, his disciples, al-ThawrT, and a group of jurists maintained that the person who intentionally breaks his fast by eating or drinking is liable to qadd> and expiation mentioned in this tradition. Al- ShafiT, Ahmad, and the Zahirites held that liability for expiation arises in the case of breaking the fast through sexual intercourse alone.

Dalilin sabani ya samo asali ne daga takaddama kan yin qiyas tsakanin wanda ya karya azumi ta hanyar jima'i da wanda ya karya shi ta hanyar ci da sha. Wadanda suka ce suna da dalili guda da ya hada su, wato keta alfarmar azumi, sun tabbatar da cewa hukuncin ya zama daya ga dukkansu. Wadanda suka ce ko da yake kaffara hukunci ne saboda keta alfarmar azumi, to ta fuskar tsananinta ta fi dacewa da wanda ya karya azumi ta hanyar jima'i fiye da sauran, kuma (don haka suka ce) saboda manufar hukunci hana aikata laifi ne, sai aka shar'anta babban hukunci ga aikin da sha'awarsa ta fi karfi. Wannan aiki, a cewarsu, ya fi karfin sauran laifuffuka, ko da yake matakan laifuffukan suna kusa da juna, kuma manufar shar'anta kaffara ita ce sa mutane su bi dokoki su zama masu takawa da adalci, kamar yadda Madaukaki ya ce: "Ya ku wadanda suka yi imani! An wajabta muku azumi kamar yadda aka wajabta wa wadanda suka gabace ku, domin ku kare kanku daga sabo." Wannan tsananin kaffara, a cewarsu, saboda haka yana keebe ne ga jima'i. Wadannan ra'ayoyi ne na wadanda suke amfani da qiyas a wannan batu. Ra'ayin wadanda ba sa amfani da qiyas a nan a bayyane yake: ba sa mika hukuncin keta ta hanyar jima'i zuwa ci da sha.

The reason for their disagreement arises from their dispute over drawing an analogy between the person breaking the fast through sexual intercourse and one breaking it by eating and drinking. Those who maintained that they have a common basis, which is the violation of the sanctity of the fast, determined that the hukm should be the same for them both. Those who maintained that though expiation is a punishment for the violation of sanctity, it is more suitable by its intensity for the person breaking the fast through sexual intercourse as compared to others, and (thus, they said that) because the purpose of punishment is deterrence a greater punishment is laid down for the act for which there is a more powerful desire. This act, they said, is more powerful than other offences, though the degrees of the offences are close and the aim of the imposition of expiation is to make people abide by the laws and be pious and upright, as in the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed for you, even as it was prescribed for those before you, that ye may ward off (evil)”. This enhanced form of expiation, they said, is therefore specific to sexual intercourse. These views are expressed by those who uphold analogy in this case. The opinion of those who do not uphold analogy here is obvious, they do not extend the hukm for (violation through) sexual intercourse to eating and drinking.

Idan mai azumi ya yi jima'i saboda mantuwa, al-Shafi'i da Abu Hanifa sun tabbatar da cewa babu qada a kansa, haka nan babu kaffara. Malik ya ce yana da alhakin qada amma babu kaffara. Ahmad da Zahiriyyawa sun tabbatar da cewa yana da alhakin qada da kaffara duka biyun.

When the person fasting has sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness, al-ShafiT and Abu HanTfa maintain that there is no qadd for the person nor is there any expiation. Malik said that he is liable for qaddy but there is no expiation. Ahmad and the Zahirites maintained that he is liable for both qadd and expiation.

Sababin rashin jituwarsu game da qadan wanda ya yi aiki saboda mantuwa ya samo asali ne daga karo tsakanin ma'anar zahirin hadisi da qiyasi. Qiyasin ya ɗauki wanda ya manta da sallah a matsayin kamar wanda ya manta da azumi. Waɗanda suka ɗauke shi kamar wanda ya manta da sallah sun ɗora masa wajibcin qada, kamar yadda nassi ya ɗora wa wanda ya manta da sallah. Hadisin da ya saɓa da ma'anar zahirin wannan qiyasi shi ne wanda Al-Bukhari da Muslim suka rawaito daga Abu Hurairah, wanda ya ce: "Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: 'Wanda ya manta yana azumi ya ci ko ya sha, to ya cika azumin nasa, domin lallai Allah ne ya ciyar da shi, ya kuma shayar da shi.'" Wannan hadisi yana samun goyon baya daga ma'anar gaba ɗaya ta faɗin Annabi ﷺ: "An ɗauke wa al'ummata wajibcin kuskure, da mantuwa, da abin da aka tilasta musu yi." Daga cikin wannan maudu'i akwai kuma rashin jituwarsu game da wanda (bisa kuskure) ya yi tunanin rana ta faɗi ya buɗe azuminsa, sai rana ta bayyana daga baya. Dalilin shi ne cewa irin wannan mutum ya yi kuskure, kuma hukuncin wanda ya yi kuskure yana daidai da na wanda ya manta. Ta kowace hanya aka bayyana ta, tasirin mantuwa wajen sauke wajibcin qada a bayyane yake, Allah ne masani. Hujjar ita ce: idan za mu riƙe ka'idar cewa qada ba ta wajaba ga wanda ya manta sai an sami dalili da ke nuna haka, to wajibi ne a ce mantuwa a azumi ba ta haifar da qada ba, domin babu dalilin da ke nuna haka, sabanin halin sallah. Idan kuma muka ce ka'ida ita ce cewa qadā wajibi ne har sai wata hujja ta nuna cewa an cire shi daga hakkin wanda ya manta, to, za mu iya cewa wata hujja ta nuna an cire shi daga hakkin wanda ya manta a hadisin Abu Hurayra. Sai dai idan mutum zai riƙe cewa hujjar da ta keɓe batun wanda ya manta azumi daga ƙa'idar mantuwa a sauran nau'ikan ibada, inda duk wani nauyi ke fita daga kan wanda ya bari, ta hanyar nassi, ƙiyas ce da aka gina kan batun sallah. Sai dai sanya wajibcin qadā ta hanyar ƙiyas rauni ne. Kuma qadā a ra'ayin mafi yawan malamai wajibi ne ta hanyar sabon umarni.

The reason for their disagreement over qadd of the person acting out of forgetfulness stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the tradition with analogy. The analogy holds one forgetting prayer to be similar to the person forgetting his fast. Those who held him to be similar to one forgetting prayer held him liable for qadd as the person forgetting prayer has been held liable by the text. The tradition conflicting with the apparent implication of this analogy is what has been recorded by al-BukharT and Muslim from Abu Hurayra, who said, “The Messenger of. Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘One who forgets while fasting and eats or drinks should complete his fast, for indeed it is Allah who has given him to eat and made him drink’”. This tradition is supported by the general implication of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Liability for mistake, forgetfulness, and what they did under duress has been lifted from my umma”.Within this topic their disagreement about whether there is qadd for the person who (mistakenly) believes that the sun has gone down and breaks his fast, but the sun appears thereafter. The reason is that such a person has made a mistake, and the hukm of one making a mistake is the same as that for one forgetting. In whatever way we express it, the effectiveness of forgetfulness in dropping (the obligation) of qadd is evident, Allah knows best. The argument is that if we were to maintain the principle that qadd is not binding on the person forgetting until an evidence indicates this, it becomes necessary to hold that forgetfulness in fasting is not liable to qadd as there is no evidence to indicate this, as against the situation in prayer. If, on the other hand, we were to hold that the principle is that qadd is obligatory until an evidence indicates its removal from the liability of the person forgetting, then, we can say that an evidence has indicated its removal from the liability of the person forgetting in the tradition of Abu Hurayra. Unless one were to maintain that the evidence which exempted the case of the person forgetting the fast from the rule of forgetfulness for the other forms of worship, where all liability is removed by the text from one relinquishing it, is analogy to the case of fasting constructed upon the case of prayer. The imposition of obligation of qadd by means of analogy, however, is weak. And qadd in the opinion of the majority is obligatory through a renewed command.

Wannan batu yana kan sabanin malamai game da wajabcin kaffara a kan matar da aka lallashe ta yi jima'i (alhali tana azumi). Abu Hanifa da almajiran sa, da Malik da almajiran sa, sun wajabta mata kaffara. Al-Shafi'i da Dawud kuma sun ce babu kaffara a kanta.

This issue is about their disagreement over the obligation of expiation upon the woman who has been coaxed into having sexual intercourse (while fasting). Abu HanTfa and his disciples, and Malik and his disciples made expiation obligatory for her. AI-ShaficT and Dawud said that there is no expiation for her.

Dalilin sabani ya samo asali ne daga karo tsakanin ma'anar zahiri na hadisin da kiyasi, domin Manzon Allah ﷺ bai umarci matar da ke cikin hadisin ta yi kaffara ba. Kiyasin shi ne cewa ita tana kama da namiji saboda dukkansu suna karkashin wajibci.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the conflict of the apparent meaning of the tradition with analogy, because the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) did not order the woman in the tradition to make expiation. The analogy is that she is like the man as both’ are under the liability.

Is there an order in performing the expiation, as in the case of zihar (injurious assimilation), or is there a choice? By order I mean that the person is not to move from one obligation to another unless he is unable to perform the previous one; and by choice I mean that he is permitted to choose one without being unable to perform the others. They disagreed about this. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, and all the Kufis said that there is an order. Thus, the person is to free a slave first, and if he is unable to do this he is to fast, and if he is unable to do that then he is to feed the needy. Malik said that it is based on choice. Ibn al-Qasim related from him that he considered feeding the needy more desirable than freeing a slave and fasting.

Is there an order for the making of the expiation, as in the case of zihdr (injurious assimilation), or is there a choice? By order I mean that the subject is not to move from one obligation to. the other unless he is unable to perform the previous one; and by choice I mean that he is permitted to make a choice of one without being unable to perform the other. They disagreed about this. Al-Shafi T, Abu Hanlfa, al-ThawrT, and all c the KufTs said that there is an order. Thus, the person is to manumit a slave first, and if he is unable to do this he is to fast, and if he is unable to do that then he is to feed the needy. Malik said that it is based on choice. Ibn al-Qasim has related from him that he considered feeding the needy more desirable than manumission and fasting.

Dalilin sabanin da suka yi game da tilasta tsari ya samo asali ne daga rikicin ma'anoni na zahiri na hadisai da kuma kiyasai daban-daban. Ma'anar zahirin hadisin game da Balarabe tana nuna tsari, domin Annabi ﷺ ya tambaye shi game da iyawarsa ta aikata ayyuka cikin tsari ƙayyadaddi. Ma'anar zahirin abin da Malik ya ruwaito cewa "Wani mutum ya karya azumi a cikin watan Ramadan, sai Manzon Allah ﷺ ya umarce shi da ya 'yanta bawa, ko ya yi azumi watanni biyu a jere, ko ya ciyar da mabukata sittin", tana nuna zabi, domin kalmar (ko) a amfanin Larabawa tana nuna zabi, koda yake wannan ya faru ne a cikin kalmomin mai ruwaitowa, wanda yake daya daga cikin Sahabbai, wadanda suka fi sanin mahallin kalmomin da ma'anoninsu.

The reason for their disagreement in imposing an order derives from the conflict of the apparent meanings of the traditions and the various analogies. The apparent meaning of the tradition about the Bedouin implies an order, as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) asked him about his ability to perform acts in a definite order. The apparent meaning of what is related by Malik that “A man broke his fast during Ramadan and the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to set free a slave, or to fast for two consecutive months, or to feed sixty needy persons”, indicates a choice, as the word (or), in the usage of the Arabs implies a choice, even though this occurred in the words of the narrator, one of the Companions, who were best acquainted with the context and the implications of the words.

Wannan yana da alaƙa da sabanin da suka yi game da adadin abincin da za a ba mabuƙata. Malik, al-Shafi'i, da almajiransu sun ce ya kamata ya ba kowane mabukaci mudd guda na abinci bisa ga mudd da Annabi ﷺ ya yi amfani da shi. Abu Hanifa da almajiransa kuwa sun ce ba zai isa ba a ba kasa da mudd biyu, bisa ga mudd da Annabi ﷺ ya yi amfani da shi, kuma wannan yana zuwa ga rabin sa'i ga kowane mabukaci.

This relates to their disagreement over the quantity of food to be given to the needy. Malik, al-Shafi T, and their c disciples said that he is to give one mudd of food to each needy person in accordance with the mudd used by the Prophet (God’s peace and .blessings be upon him). Abu HanTfa and his disciples held that less than two mudds, in accordance with the mudd used by the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would not be sufficient, and this comes to one-half sdS for each needy person.

Sababin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga karo tsakanin qiyas da wani hadisi. Qiyas din an gina shi ne bisa kamanceceniyar wannan fansa da fansar rashin aske kai (a karshen aikin hajji) saboda wata cuta, wanda aka bayyana a fili. Hadisin kuwa shi ne abin da aka ruwaito a cikin sigogi daban-daban na hadisan kaffara cewa faraq (wani ma'auni mai girma) yana dauke da sa'i goma sha biyar. Sai dai kasancewarsa da sa'i goma sha biyar ba ta nuna wajibcin hakan ga kowane mabukaci a wannan yanayi ba, sai dai ta hanyar wata alama mai rauni sosai, amma tana nuna cewa madadin azumi a wannan kaffara shi ne wannan adadin.

The reason for their* disagreement arises from the conflict of analogy with a tradition. The .analogy is based upon the similarity of this ransom with that in the case of not shaving the head (at the close of the pilgrimage) due to an ailment, which is expressly stated. The tradition is what is related in different versions of the traditions about expiation that a faraq (a large measure) comprised of fifteen sd^s. Its comprising fifteen however, does not indicate its obligation for each needy person in this case, except through a very weak indication, but it does indicate that the substitute: for fasting in this expiation is this amount.

Wannan yana game da sake faruwar kaffara tare da sake faruwar keta azumi. Sun amince cewa mutumin da ya yi jima'i a cikin watan Ramadan, ya kuma yi kaffara, sannan ya sake yin jima'i a wata rana, dole ne ya sake yin wata kaffara. Sun amince cewa mutumin da ya yi jima'i sau da yawa a rana guda, yana da wajibi ya yi kaffara guda ɗaya kawai. Sun saɓa game da batun mutumin da ya yi jima'i a rana ɗaya a cikin watan Ramadan, kuma bai yi kaffara ba sai ya sake yin jima'i a wata rana. Malik, al-Shafi'i, da wasu gungun malamai sun ce dole ne ya yi kaffara a kowace rana daga cikin waɗannan kwanaki. Abu Hanifa da almajiransa kuwa sun ce yana da wajibi ya yi kaffara guda ɗaya, muddin bai riga ya yi kaffara saboda jima'i na farko ba.

This is about the recurrence of expiation with a recurrence of the violation of the fast. They agreed that a person who has sexual intercourse during Ramadan and makes an expiation, and then has sexual intercourse on another day has to make another expiation. They agreed that the person who commits sexual intercourse a number of times on the same day is only obliged to make a single expiation. They disagreed about the case of a person who has intercourse on one day during Ramadan and does not make the expiation until he has intercourse on another day. Malik, al-ShaficT, and a group of jurists said that he is to make an expiation for each of these day. Abu HanTfa and his disciples said that he is to make a single expiation as long as he has not made an expiation for the first intercourse.

Dalilin rashin jituwa ya samo asali ne daga kamancecin wadannan kaffara da wadanda ke cikin hudud. Wadanda suka ga cewa suna kama da hudud sun ce kaffara daya ta isa a wannan sakamakon ayyuka da dama, kamar yadda wanda ya yi zina ake yanke masa hukuncin bulala daya ko da ya aikata ta sau dubu (kafin haka) alhali ba a yi masa hadd a kan wani daga cikin wadancan lokuta ba. Wadanda ba su ga cewa suna kama da hudud ba sun tabbatar da hukunci daban ga kowace rana da aka karya azumi a cikinta, don haka suka wajabta kaffara daya ga kowace rana. Sun kuma tabbatar da cewa bambancin ya samo asali ne daga cewa kaffara hanya ce ta kusantar Allah, alhali hudud nau'in hani ne tsantsa.

The reason for the disagreement stems from the similarity of these expiations with those in the hudud. Those who held them to be similar to the hudud said that one expiation is sufficient in this on account of a number of acts, just as the person committing unlawful sexual intercourse is subjected to one penalty of stripes even if he has committed the act a thousand times (before that) when he has not been subjected to hadd for any of those occasions. Those who did not consider them to be similar to the hudud determined a separate hukm for each of the days in which the fast has been violated, and therefore imposed one expiation for each day. They maintained that the distinction is based upon expiation being a way of attaining nearness to Allah, while the hudud are a form of pure deterrence.

Shin mutum, wanda ya yi jima'i a lokacin azumin Ramadan kuma bai iya biyan kuɗin kaffara ba a lokacin, yana da wajibi ya bayar da ita idan yanayin kuɗinsa ya inganta? Al-Awza'i ya ce, idan yana cikin matsi a lokacin aikin laifin, to babu abin da ya hau kansa. Al-Shafi'i kuwa ya yi jinkiri a kan wannan tambaya.

Does a person, who committed the offence of copulation during the fast of Ramadan and could not afford the cost of expiation at the time, have to offer it when his financial condition improves? Al-Awzaci said that he owes nothing if he was hard up at the time of the offence. Al-ShafiT hesitated over this question.

Dalilin sabanin su shi ne cewa hukunci ne wanda shari'a ba ta fayyace shi a sarari ba, don haka yana iya kasancewa kamar bashi, wanda in yanayin kudinsa ya inganta sai wajibi ya dawo kansa; haka kuma yana iya yiwuwa a ce, da ya kasance wajibi ne, da Annabi ﷺ zai bayyana shi.

The reason for their disagreement is that it is a hukm.nut expressly stated in the law, and it is, therefore, likely to be similar to debts, in which case the obligation reverts if his financial position improves, and it is equally likely to say that if this had been obligatory the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) would have explained it.

Waɗannan, to, su ne hukunce-hukuncen wuraren da malaman fiqihu suka yarda cewa azumi ya karye saboda aikin da mutum ya yi da gangan. A cikin lamuran da aka sami saɓani a kansu, waɗanda suka ce azumi ya karye sun bambanta ko a wajabta kaffara kawai, ko kuma a wajabta ƙada'i tare da kaffara. Misalan wannan su ne: cupping (ƙaiƙaiwa/ƙoshi da jini), amai, haɗiye dutse, da matafiyi ya karya azumi a ranar tafiyarsa ta farko, bisa ra'ayin waɗanda suke ganin bai kamata ya yi haka ba.

These, then, are the ahkam of the cases in which the jurists agreed that the fast was broken by deliberate action. In disputed cases those who held that the fast had been broken differed as to whether qadff alone should be imposed, or qada> as well as expiation. Examples for these are: cupping, vomiting, swallowing a stone, and the traveller breaking his fast on departing the first day, in the opinion of those who maintain that he should not do so.

Malik ya wajabta qada' da kaffara ga irin wannan matafiyi, amma sauran malamai na yankuna da mafi yawan almajiransa sun saba masa a wannan. Waɗanda suka wajabta qada' da kaffara a yanayin amai da gangan sun haɗa da Abu Thawr da al-Awza'i, amma sauran malamai waɗanda suke ganin cewa amai yana karya azumi suna wajabta qada' kawai saboda shi. Malamin da ya wajabta qada' da kaffara a yanayin cupping, daga cikin waɗanda suka ce cupping yana karya azumi, shi kaɗai ne Ata'.

Malik made qadd> and expiation obligatory on such a traveller, but he was opposed in this by the remaining jurists of the provinces and the majority of his disciples. Those who considered qada* and expiation obligatory, in the case of deliberate vomiting include Abu Thawr and al-AwzacT, but the remaining jurists who maintain that vomiting breaks the fast impose only qadd* for it. The jurist who imposed qadd* and expiation in the case of cupping, from among those who maintained that cupping breaks the fast, is Ata> alone.