Kuna vipengele vitatu. Viwili kati yake vimekubaliwa, navyo ni muda na kujizuia na vitendo vinavyovunja funga, huku cha tatu kikiwa na mvutano, nacho ni kutamka nia.

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.

Kipengele cha kwanza, ambacho ni muda, kimegawanywa katika aina mbili. Ya kwanza ni kipindi cha wajibu, ambacho ni mwezi wa Ramadhani, na nyingine ni kipindi cha kujizuia na mambo yanayovunja funga, ambacho kinahusu muda wa mchana wa siku za mwezi huu, hivyo kikiwatenga usiku. Kwa kila kipindi hiki zinahusishwa masuala ya msingi ambayo wanazuoni walitofautiana juu yake. Tunaanza na yale yanayohusu kipindi cha wajibu. La kwanza kati ya haya ni kubainisha mipaka miwili ya kipindi hiki. La pili linahusu kubainisha njia ya kupata ujuzi wa alama zinazoashiria mwisho wa mipaka hiyo, kwa kila mtu mmoja mmoja na kwa upeo mbalimbali. Kuhusu mipaka miwili ya kipindi cha kufunga kwa wajibu, wanazuoni wa fiqhi wamekubaliana kwamba mwezi wa Kiarabu una siku ishirini na tisa, wakati mwingine thelathini, na kwamba kigezo cha kubainisha mwezi wa Ramadhani ni kuona mwezi mpya, kwa sababu ya kauli ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu zimshukie), "Fungeni kwa kuuona na mfuturu kwa kuuona". Kuona hapa maana yake ni kuonekana kwa mara ya kwanza kwa mwezi mpya baada ya jua kuzama. Walitofautiana kuhusu hukmu pale ambapo kuna mambo yanayoficha kuona na kuyafanya lisiwezekane. Pia walibishana kuhusu wakati sahihi wa kuangalia mwezi mpya. Kuhusu kutofautiana kwao pale mwezi unapofichwa (na mawingu), wengi wanashikilia kwamba hukmu katika hali hiyo ni kukamilisha kipindi cha mwezi uliotangulia (Shaban), yaani siku thelathini. Ikiwa mwezi unafichwa wakati wa mwanzo (unaodhaniwa) wa mwezi, mwezi uliotangulia huhesabiwa kuwa na siku thelathini. Hivyo, siku ya kwanza ya Ramadhani itakuwa siku inayofuata. Ikiwa mwezi unafichwa mwishoni mwa mwezi (wa Ramadhani), watu watafunga kwa siku thelathini. Ibn Umar alikuwa na maoni tofauti, yaani, ikiwa mwezi umefichwa mwanzoni mwa mwezi wa Ramadhani, siku iliyofuata, inayoitwa Siku ya Shaka, inapaswa kufungwa kama saumu. Imepokewa kutoka kwa baadhi ya watangulizi (wanazuoni wa mwanzo) kwamba ikiwa mwezi umefichwa, inapaswa kutumika hesabu za kinajimu, na hii ni maoni ya Mutarrif ibn al-Shikhkhir, mmoja wa Tabi'un mashuhuri. Katika riwaya ya Ibn Surayj kutoka kwa al-Shafi'i, alisema: "ikiwa mtu ni mjuzi wa unajimu, na kulingana na hesabu yake mwezi mpya ungeweza kuonekana isingekuwa kwa kizuizi, anaweza (anapaswa) kuanza kufunga, na saumu yake itakuwa sahihi."

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.

Sababu ya tofauti yao inatokana na ukosefu wa maelezo ya kina (ijmāl) katika kauli ya Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ: "Fungeni kwa kuuona mwezi, na mvunje funga kwa kuuona mwezi. Ikiwa umefichwa, pimeni kwa ajili yake (fa yaqduru lahu)". Wengi wao walishikilia kwamba hii inamaanisha "kukamilisha kipindi cha siku thelathini". Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kwamba maana ya taqdīr hapa ni kuweka wakati wake kwa kuhesabu. Baadhi yao walisema hata kwamba muumini anapaswa kuamka akiwa katika funga, ambayo ni maoni ya Ibn Umar, kama tulivyotaja. Hata hivyo, hii ni tafsiri ya mbali. Wengi walifikia uamuzi wao wa tafsiri kwa sababu ya hadithi sahihi ya Ibn 'Abbas kwamba Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) ﷺ alisema: "Ikiwa umefichwa kwenu, basi kamilisheni hesabu ya siku thelathini". Kauli ya kwanza (wanasema) haina maelezo ya kina, na hii ndiyo ufafanuzi wake, kwa hiyo ni lazima kufasiri lisilofafanuliwa kwa ufafanuzi wake. Hii ni mbinu ambayo hakuna mzozo kati ya wataalamu wa usūl, kwani kwa hakika hakuna mgongano wowote kati ya mujmal na mufassar. Maoni ya wengi juu ya jambo hili yana nguvu zaidi, na Mwenyezi Mungu ndiye Mjuzi zaidi.

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.

Katika mzozo wao kuhusu wakati halali wa kuonekana kwa mwezi, awali walikubaliana kwamba ikiwa mwezi utaonekana jioni, mwezi unaanza siku inayofuata (kuanzia baada ya machweo). Walitofautiana pale ulipoonekana mchana wa siku ya mwisho ya Shaaban, yaani wakati wa kwanza wa kuonekana kwake. Maoni ya wengi ni kwamba ikiwa mwezi utaonekana kwa mara ya kwanza mchana, ni mwezi wa siku inayofuata, kama ilivyo kuonekana kwake jioni. Maoni haya yalishikwa na Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, na wengi wa wanafunzi wao. Abu Yusuf, mwanafunzi wa Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, na Ibn Habib mmoja wa wanafunzi wa Malik walishikilia kwamba ikiwa mwezi utaonekana kabla jua halijapinduka, ni wa usiku uliopita, lakini ikiwa utaonekana baada ya jua kupinduka, ni wa usiku unaokuja.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kuacha uzoefu, ambapo uzoefu hutoa njia ya kutokea, na badala yake kurejea kwenye riwaya kuhusu suala hilo. Hakuna hadithi kuhusu suala hili kutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ ambayo inaweza kurejewa. Hata hivyo, kuna hadithi mbili kutoka kwa Umar (radhi za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake). Mmoja wao ni wa jumla na mwingine ni wa maelezo. Kundi moja lilitegemea riwaya ya jumla, wakati jingine lilitegemea ile ya maelezo. Riwaya yenye maana ya jumla imepokewa na al-A'mash kutoka kwa Abu Wa'il, ndugu wa Ibn Salama, ambaye alisema: "Barua kutoka kwa Umar ilitufikia, tulipokuwa Khaniqayn, kwamba mwezi mpevu huonekana kwa ukubwa tofauti. Wakati mwingine unaonekana mkubwa na wakati mwingine unaweza kuonekana mdogo. (Barua ilisema:) 'Mkiuona mwezi wakati wa mchana, msisimamishe kufunga hadi watu wawili washuhudie kwamba wameuona mwezi mpevu wakati wa jioni iliyotangulia'." Hadithi yenye maana mahususi ni ile iliyopokewa na al-Thawri kutoka kwake, kwamba habari ilimfikia Umar kuwa baadhi ya watu waliuona mwezi mpevu baada ya jua kupinduka na wakafungua saumu. Aliwaandikia akiwakemea kwa jambo hilo na kusema: "Mkiuona mwezi wakati wa mchana kabla ya jua kupinduka, fungueni saumu, lakini mkiuona baada ya jua kupinduka, msifungue."

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”.

Kadhi (Ibn Rushd) alisema: "Kile kinachoamuliwa na kiasi (qiyas) na uzoefu ni kwamba mwezi hauwezi kuonekana wakati jua bado halijazama, isipokuwa ikiwa uko mbali nalo, kwa maana wakati huo unakuwa mkubwa kuliko upeo wa kuona, ingawa unabadilika, ukikua au kupungua, lakini haiwezekani, Allah ndiye ajuaye zaidi, kuwa mkubwa kiasi cha kuonekana wakati jua bado halijazama. Utegemezi bora katika jambo hili ni uzoefu, kama tulivyosema. Hakuna tofauti hapa kama ni kabla ya jua kuelekea kuzama au baada yake, na jambo la kuzingatiwa ni kutoweka kwa jua."

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”.

Kuhusu tofauti yao juu ya uthibitisho halali wa kuona mwezi, kuna njia mbili kwa ajili yake. Moja yake inategemea hisi (utambuzi) na nyingine inategemea riwaya (taarifa). Wanazuoni wa fiqhi wamekubaliana kwamba mtu anayeona mwezi peke yake analazimika kufunga, isipokuwa Ibn Abi Rabah, aliyesema kwamba yeye hafungi isipokuwa mtu mwingine kando yake pia ameuona. Wamekhitalifiana kuhusu kama anaweza kuacha kufunga kwa kutegemea kuona kwake mwenyewe. Malik, Abu Hanifa na Ahmad walishikilia kwamba hapaswi kuacha kufunga. Al-Shafi'i alisema kwamba anaweza kuacha kufunga, na hii ilikuwa pia maoni ya Abu Thawr. Mjadala huu hauna maana, kwa kuwa Mtume ﷺ alifanya kufunga na kufungua kufunga kutegemee kuona mwezi, na kuona ni kwa utambuzi. Lau kusingekuwa na makubaliano ya kufunga kwa msingi wa taarifa ya kuona mwezi, kwa sababu ya maana ya wazi ya hadithi hii, kuweka wajibu wa kufunga kwa msingi wa taarifa kungekuwa mbali na uhalisia. Wale waliofanya tofauti kati ya mwezi wa kuanza kufunga na ule wa kumaliza kufunga walifanya hivyo ili kuzuia madai yasiyo sahihi yanayotolewa kwa uongo na watu wadanganyifu, ambao wanaweza kuacha kufunga kinyume cha sheria, wakidai wameona mwezi na kumbe hawakuuona. Kwa hiyo Al-Shafi'i alisema kwamba iwapo anaogopa kushutumiwa, ajizuie kula na kunywa na ajichukulie kuwa ameacha kufunga. Malik alitofautiana na hilo na kusema kwamba mtu anayeona mwezi peke yake na kufungua kufunga yuko chini ya wajibu wa kulipa qada' pamoja na kafara. Abu Hanifa alisema kwamba analazimika tu kulipa qada'.

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.

Walikhitilafiana kuhusu baadhi ya masuala yanayohusiana na habari ya kuonekana kwa mwezi. Kwanza, kuhusu idadi ya wapokezi ambao habari zao lazima zikubaliwe, kisha kuhusu sifa zao. Malik alisema kuwa haiwezekani kuanza kufunga wala kuacha kufunga kwa ushahidi wa wanaume chini ya wawili waaminifu. Al-Shafi'i, katika riwaya ya al-Muzani, alisema kuwa kuanza kufunga kunategemea ushahidi wa mtu mmoja kuhusu kuonekana kwa mwezi, lakini kuacha kufunga hakuruhusiwi kwa ushahidi wa chini ya wanaume wawili. Abu Hanifa alisema kuwa ikiwa anga limefunikwa na mawingu, ushahidi wa mtu mmoja unakubaliwa, lakini ikiwa anga ni safi katika mji mkubwa, ni ushahidi wa idadi kubwa ya watu pekee unaokubalika. Pia imepokewa kutoka kwake kwamba alikubali ushahidi wa watu wawili wenye maadili mema wakati anga ni safi. Imepokewa kutoka kwa Malik kwamba hakukubali ushahidi wa mashahidi wawili wakati anga limefunikwa na mawingu. Wote walikubaliana kwamba kwa kuacha kufunga, ushahidi wa mashahidi wasiopungua wawili unakubalika, isipokuwa Abu Thawr ambaye hakutofautisha kati ya kuanza kufunga na kuacha kufunga, tofauti na al-Shafi'i.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano wa hadithi kuhusu suala hili, na kuyumba kwa hadithi moja kati ya kuangukia katika kundi la ushahidi na kundi lisilobainisha idadi maalum (ya mashahidi). Hadithi hizo ni pamoja na ile aliyoipokea Abu Dawud kutoka kwa ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn al-Khattab, kwamba alisema mbele ya watu siku ya Shaka: "Nilikuwa nikichanganyika na Maswahaba wa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ na kuwauliza, nao wote walinieleza kwamba Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: 'Anzeni kufunga kwa kuuona mwezi, na acheni kufunga kwa kuuona mwezi. Ikiwa umefichwa kwenu, basi kamilisheni siku thelathini. Ikiwa mashahidi wawili watatoa ushahidi (wa kuuona mwezi), anzeni kufunga au acheni kufunga'." Pia zimo hadithi ya Ibn ʿAbbas kwamba alisema: "Mwarabu wa jangwani alimjia Mtume ﷺ akasema: 'Nimeuona mwezi usiku wa leo.' Akamwambia: 'Je, unashuhudia kwamba hakuna mungu isipokuwa Allah na kwamba Muhammad ni mja wake na Mtume wake?' Akajibu: 'Ndiyo.' Akasema (Mtume ﷺ): 'Bilal, tangaza kwa watu kwamba wafunge kesho'." Hadithi hii imepokewa na al-Tirmidhi, ambaye alisema kwamba kuna mjadala kuhusu isnadi yake kwa kuwa kundi fulani limeipokea kama mursal. Pia kuna hadithi ya Rib T ibn Khirash (Hirash?)

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 hiyo ameipokea Abu Dawud kutoka kwa Rib'ī ibn Khirāsh, kutoka kwa mmoja wa Maswahaba wa Mtume ﷺ, aliyesema: "Watu walikuwa wamefunga siku ya mwisho ya Ramadhani, wakati Wabedui wawili walisimama na kushuhudia mbele ya Mtume ﷺ kwamba walikuwa wameuona mwezi jioni ya siku iliyotangulia. Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ aliwaamuru watu wafungue saumu na waende mahali pa [ £/j ] kuswali."

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”.

Wafaqihi walifuata mbinu ya kupendelea (tarjīḥ) au mbinu ya kupatanisha (jam') kwa mapokezi haya. Al-Shaf'ī alipatanisha mapokezi ya Ibn 'Abbās na ya Rib'ī ibn Khirāsh kwa maana zake za wazi, na hivyo akaona kuanza kwa funga ni wajibu kwa ushahidi wa mtu mmoja, na kumalizika kwake ni kwa ushahidi wa watu wawili. Mālik alipendelea mapokezi ya 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd kwa msingi wa qiyās, yaani kuyafananisha na ushahidi katika madai mengine. Inaonekana kwamba Abū Thawr hakuona mgongano kati ya mapokezi ya Ibn 'Abbās na yale ya Rib'ī ibn Khirāsh. Hii ni kwa sababu (Mtume ﷺ) alitoa uamuzi kwa ushahidi wa mashahidi wawili kulingana na mapokezi ya Rib'ī ibn Khirāsh, na katika mapokezi ya Ibn 'Abbās alitoa uamuzi kwa ushahidi wa shahidi mmoja. Hii (alisema Abū Thawr) inaonyesha kuruhusiwa kwa yote mawili, wala si kwamba kuna mgongano. Wala hakuna dalili kwamba uamuzi wa kwanza ulikuwa mahsusi kwa kuanza kwa funga na ule wa pili kwa kumalizika kwake, kwa kuwa maoni kama hayo yangetegemea dhana ya mgongano. Inaonekana vivyo hivyo kuhusu mgongano kati ya mapokezi ya 'Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Zayd na Ibn 'Abbās, isipokuwa mgongano huo ukidaiwa kwa msingi wa dalili ya kiuwakilishi ya matini, ambayo ni dhaifu kwa kuwa matini inapingana nayo. Hivyo, tunaona kwamba maoni ya Abū Thawr, licha ya kutofautiana kwake (na maoni ya wengi), ndiyo yaliyo wazi zaidi, ingawa kulinganisha kuona mwezi na kusimulia kunakaribia zaidi kuliko kulinganisha kuona mwezi na kushuhudia. Sababu ni kwamba katika ushahidi, kuwekwa kwa idadi (ya mashahidi) kunaweza kuwa ni mwongozo wa wahyi, na hivyo hakiwezi kufanyiwa tafsiri ya kiakili kwa kuwa hairuhusiwi kufanya qiyās juu yake; au inaweza kusemwa kwamba kuwekwa kwa idadi kunatokana na ubishani unaoambatana na madai na shaka inayohusishwa na ushahidi wa mtu kutoka kwa wanaoshindana. Hivyo, Idadi ya mashahidi nyingi imewekwa ili dhana (imani ya kuaminika) iwe kubwa zaidi na mwelekeo kuelekea madai ya upande mmoja wa mgogoro uimarishwe. Idadi haikupita mashahidi wawili ili kutoa ushahidi lisiwe jambo gumu, na hivyo kuharibu madai. Katika suala la kuona mwezi hakuna shaka inayoambatana kutokana na mpinzani inayolazimu kuufafanua kwa kuongeza idadi.

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.

Inaonekana kwamba al-Shafi'i alitofautisha kati ya mwezi wa kuanza kufunga na mwezi wa kumaliza kufunga, kwa msingi wa shaka inayohusishwa na watu katika kuona mwezi wa kumaliza kufunga, ambayo haipo katika kesi ya mwezi wa kuanza kufunga. Maoni ya Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir ni sawa na maoni ya Abu Thawr, na ninaamini pia ndiyo ya Dhahiriyya. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir alitoa hoja, kwa msingi wa hadith hii, kwamba kumetokea makubaliano ya jumla juu ya wajibu wa kufungua saumu na kuacha kula kwa ushahidi wa mtu mmoja. Kwa hiyo inakuwa ni lazima jambo hilo liwe sawa kwa kuingia katika mwezi na kutoka humo, kwa kuwa vyote viwili ni alama zinazotenganisha kipindi cha kutofunga na kipindi cha kufunga.

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.

Ikiwa tunasema kwamba kuona mwezi kunathibitika kwa wale ambao hawakuuona kwa msingi wa habari iliyopokelewa, je, hili linaweza kupanuliwa kutoka nchi moja hadi nyingine? Namaanisha, je, ni wajibu kwa watu wa eneo moja, ikiwa hawakuuona mwezi, kufuata kuonekana kwake katika nchi nyingine, au kuona mwezi ni lazima kwa kila nchi? Kuna kutofautiana kuhusu hili. Ibn al-Qasim na wanazuoni wa Misri (wanaofuata Malik) wamepokea kutoka kwa Malik kwamba ikithibitika kwa watu wa mji mmoja kwamba watu wa mji mwingine wameuona mwezi, wanalazimika kulipa qadaa kwa siku ambayo wengine waliifunga na wao wakaikosa. Hii pia ilikuwa maoni ya al-Shafi'i na Ahmad. Wanazuoni wa Madina wamepokea kutoka kwa Malik kwamba kuona kwa msingi wa habari hakumlazimishi watu wasioishi katika nchi ambayo kuonekana kulitokea, isipokuwa imamu awaamuru watu kufanya hivyo. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa maoni ya Ibn al-Majishun na al-Mughira miongoni mwa wanafunzi wa Malik. Wao walikubaliana kwamba hili halizingatiwi kwa nchi zilizo mbali kati yao, kama al-Andalus na al-Hijaz.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana huku inatokana na mgongano kati ya riwaya (hadithi) na mantiki. Mantiki inasema kwamba ikiwa wakati wa kuchomoza kwa jua na nyota katika nchi mbalimbali hautofautiani sana, basi ni lazima nchi moja ifuate nyingine, kwa kuwa kwa mantiki zina upeo mmoja. Lakini ikiwa unatofautiana sana, basi nchi moja hailazimiki kufuata nyingine. Riwaya ni ile aliyoipokea Muslim kutoka kwa Kurayb, kwamba Umm al-Fadl bint al-Harith alimtuma kwa Mu'awiya huko Shamu. Alisema: "Nilifika Shamu na kutekeleza alichoniagiza. Mwezi wa Ramadhani ulinikuta nikiwa Shamu, nikauona usiku wa kuamkia Ijumaa. Karibu na mwisho wa mwezi nilihamia Madina, ambako 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas alinihoji kisha akataja mwezi, akisema: 'Uliuona mwezi lini (Shamu)?' Nikasema: 'Tuliuona usiku wa kuamkia Ijumaa.' Akauliza: 'Wewe mwenyewe uliuona?' Nikasema: 'Ndiyo, na watu pia waliuona. Wakafunga, na Mu'awiya naye akafunga.' Akasema: 'Lakini sisi tuliuona usiku wa kuamkia Jumamosi, nasi tunaendelea kufunga hadi tukamilishe siku thelathini au tuuone mwezi.' Nikasema: 'Je, hukubali kufunga kwa Mu'awiya kuwa kunatosha?' Akajibu: 'La! Hivi ndivyo Mtume (rehema na baraka za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake) alivyotuamuru tufanye.'" Maana ya wazi ya riwaya hii inaonyesha kwamba kila nchi, iwe karibu au mbali, ni lazima iuone mwezi. Uchunguzi, hata hivyo, unaonyesha tofauti kati ya nchi za mbali na za karibu, hasa zile ziko mbali sana kwa upande wa longitudo na latitudo. Iwapo habari (ya kuuona mwezi) inafikia kiwango cha tawatur, basi hakuna haja ya kuiunga mkono kwa ushahidi. Haya ndiyo masuala yanayohusiana na muda wa wajibu.

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.

Kuhusu masuala yanayohusu muda wa kujizuia (kufunga), walikubaliana kwamba unakoma kwa kuzama kwa jua, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Aliye Juu: “Kisha timizeni funga hadi usiku.”213 Walitofautiana kuhusu wakati wake wa kuanza. Wengi walisema kwamba unaanza kwa kuonekana kwa alfajiri ya pili, mstari mweupe (upeo), kuonekana kwa mwangaza wa kweli wa asubuhi, kwa sababu imethibitishwa kutoka kwa Mtume wa Allah ﷺ, aliyeufafanua kuwa ni mstari mweupe unaoenea (upeo), na pia kwa sababu ya maneno ya Aliye Juu: “Kuleni na kunywa mpaka mstari mweupe utakapokutofautikia na mstari mweusi wa alfajiri.”214 Kundi moja lilipotoka kwa kusema kwamba ni alfajiri nyekundu inayotokea baada ya ile nyeupe, nayo ni nakala ya mwangaza mwekundu wa jioni (mwangaza wa machweo). Hili limepokewa kutoka kwa Hudhayfa na Ibn Mas‘ud.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na mgongano wa riwaya kuhusu suala hili, na pia na ukweli kwamba neno "alfajiri" lina maana mbili, yaani linaweza kumaanisha ama nyeupe au nyekundu. Riwaya ambazo walizitegemea katika mjadala huo ni pamoja na riwaya ya Zarr kutoka kwa Abu Hudhayfa, aliyesema: "Nilikula chakula pamoja na Mtume ﷺ kabla ya kuchomoza kwa mchana, na kama ningependa ningeweza kusema kuwa ni mchana, lakini jua lilikuwa halijachomoza." Abu Dawud alipokea kutoka kwa Qays ibn Talq, kutoka kwa baba yake, kwamba Mtume ﷺ alisema: "Kuleni na kunyweni, wala mwanga mweupe unaochomoza usiwatishe. Kuleni na kunyweni hadi mwone mwanga mwekundu ukienea [upeo wa macho]." Abu Dawud alisema kwamba riwaya hii ilipokelewa na watu wa Yamama peke yao, na hii ni upotofu, kwa kuwa maneno ya Mwenye Enzi: "Kuleni na kunyweni hadi uzi mweupe utofautike kwenu," {Qur'an 2:187} ni wazi, au karibu wazi, kuhusu hili. Wale waliosema kwamba ni mstari mweupe unaoenea wa alfajiri, nao ndio wengi, ambao wako katika msimamo imara zaidi, walitofautiana kuhusu kikomo halisi cha kujizuia na mambo kama kula (na kunywa). Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa sheria lilisema kwamba ni kuchomoza kwa alfajiri yenyewe. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba ni kufahamu kwake kwa mtu anayeitazama. Ikiwa hajatambua, basi kujizuia hakuwi wajibu juu yake, hata kama tayari ni alfajiri. Umuhimu wa tofauti hii ni kwamba ikiwa mtu atagundua kwamba ilikuwa alfajiri kabla hajatambua, basi, kwa mujibu wa wale ambao kikomo ni kuchomoza kwa alfajiri yenyewe, atawajibika kulipa (qadhaa). Wale wanaoona kikomo ni ufahamu wa mtu mwenyewe juu yake, wanashikilia kwamba qadhaa haiwi wajibu kwake.

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.

Tofauti kuhusu jambo hili inasababishwa na tafsiri zinazowezekana za maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu: "Kuleni na kunyweni mpaka uzi mweupe utakapokubainikia kutoka uzi mweusi wa alfajiri". Je, kujizuia kunapaswa kuanza wakati tofauti hiyo inapokuwa wazi kwa mtu, au mara tu inapotokea kweli? Waarabu hutumia neno hilo kimafumbo kwa kutaja kutokea kwa jambo fulani ili kuashiria jingine linalofuata. Ni kana kwamba imesemwa, "Kuleni na kunyweni mpaka uzi mweupe ukubainikie kutoka uzi mweusi". Ikiwa jambo hilo linajidhihirisha lenyewe, basi linajidhihirisha kwetu. Kwa hiyo, kuhusisha kujidhihirisha kwake kwetu ndio sababu ya mzozo, kwa sababu huenda likawa limejidhihirisha na kubainika lenyewe, lakini bado lisiwe wazi kwetu. Maana ya dhahiri inalazimu kuunganisha kujizuia na ujuzi halisi, ilhali kiyas (kulinganisha) kinakiunganisha na jambo lenyewe. Nina maana kwamba kiyas kinatokana na hukmu ya swala ya Magharibi na kutoka kwa ibada nyinginezo zote zilizofungamanishwa na muda maalumu, kama vile swala ya Dhuhri kuanza kwa kuteremka kwa jua, na nyinginezo. Uzingatiaji katika hayo yote unahusishwa na hakika zenyewe, si na ujuzi wake. Maoni maarufu kutoka kwa Malik, ambayo pia yanashikiliwa na wengi, ni kwamba kushughulika na vitendo kama kula kunaweza kuendelea hadi mwanzo wa kupambazuka kwa alfajiri. Hata hivyo, inasemwa kwamba kujizuia kunapaswa kuwa kabla ya alfajiri. Ushahidi wa mtazamo wa kwanza ni kile kilichopokewa katika Sahihi ya al-Bukhari, na naamini katika baadhi ya toleo za hadithi hiyo, kwamba Nabii ﷺ alisema: "Kuleni na kunyweni mpaka Ibn Ummi Maktum atakapoadhini, kwani yeye haadhini isipokuwa ni alfajiri imeingia". Hili ni wazi kuhusu hoja ya mzozo, au karibu wazi, na linaendana na maneno ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu: "Kuleni na kunyweni mpaka uzi mweupe ukubainikie kutoka uzi mweusi wa alfajiri". 218 Wale waliosema kwamba kujizuia (kufunga) kunapaswa kuanza kabla ya alfajiri walifanya hivyo kwa tahadhari na kwa ajili ya kuzuia njia (zinazoweza kupelekea kukiuka). Huu ni msimamo wa tahadhari zaidi, lakini ule mwingine unaendana zaidi na qiyas (kulinganisha kimantiki), na Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi.

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.

Walikubaliana kwamba kujizuia na chakula, kinywaji na tendo la ndoa ni wajibu kwa mfungaji katika kipindi cha Ramadhani, kutokana na kauli ya Mwenyezi Mungu Mtukufu: "Basi sasa changanyikeni nao, na takeni yale Mwenyezi Mungu aliyokuandikia, na kuleni na kunywa mpaka lidhihirike kwenu funda jeupe kutoka kwenye funda jeusi la alfajiri." Walitofautiana kuhusu mambo fulani, baadhi yake hayakutajwa wazi katika sheria, na mengine yametajwa wazi. Yale ambayo hayakutajwa wazi ni pamoja na suala la vitu vinavyoingia tumboni lakini si chakula, lile la vitu vinavyoingia tumboni kutoka sehemu nyingine isipokuwa njia ya chakula na kinywaji, kama dawa ya kuingizwa kupitia haja kubwa (enema), na tatizo la vitu vinavyoingia sehemu nyingine za mwili isipokuwa tumbo, kama vinavyoingia kwenye ubongo lakini visifike kwenye njia ya chakula.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu mambo haya inatokana na kulinganisha (qiyas) kati ya chakula na kisicho chakula. Hii ni kwa sababu mambo yaliyotajwa waziwazi ni chakula. Wale waliodhani kwamba lengo la funga lina maana ya kiakili hawakulinganisha kisicho chakula na chakula. Wale waliosema kwamba funga ni ibada isiyo na maana ya kiakili, na kwamba lengo la funga ni kujizuia peke yake na vitu vinavyofika tumboni, waliona chakula na kisicho chakula kuwa sawa kwa madhumuni haya. Muhtasari wa maoni ya Malik ni kwamba ni wajibu kujizuia na vitu vinavyofika kooni kupitia tundu lolote, iwe ni chakula au kisicho chakula.

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.

Mada ya niyya inajadiliwa kutoka pembe mbalimbali. Miongoni mwao ni kama niyya ni sharti la kusihi kwa ibada hii, na ikiwa ni sharti, basi ni aina gani ya kuamua inayochukuliwa kuwa sahihi? Zaidi ya hayo, je, kuifanya upya kila siku ya Ramadhani ni wajibu, au niyya iliyotamkwa siku ya kwanza inatosha? Mtu anapofanya azma, ni wakati gani wa azma hii unaofanya saumu kuwa sahihi, kiasi kwamba ikiwa haikutamkwa katika wakati huo inabatilika? Je, kushindwa kuweka niyya kunalazimu kufungua saumu, na vipi ikiwa mtu hafungui? Wanazuoni wa fiqhi wametofautiana kuhusu kila moja ya maswali haya. Maoni ya wengi wa wanazuoni ni kwamba niyya ni sharti la kusihi kwa saumu, lakini Zufar alikengeuka na akasema kwamba mwezi wa Ramadhani hauhitaji niyya, isipokuwa pale mtu anapokuwa na sababu ya kuondolewa wajibu wa kufunga, kama kuwa safarini, lakini anataka kufunga. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na dhana yao kuhusu asili ya saumu: je, ni ibada yenye maana ya kiakili au haina maana kama hiyo? Wale waliosema kuwa ni ibada isiyo na kusudio la kiakili waliifanya niyya kuwa wajibu, huku wale waliosema kuwa ni ibada yenye kusudio la kiakili wakasema kwamba kusudio hilo linafikiwa hata mtu asipoweka niyya. Kizuizi cha Zufar cha hoja hii kwa baadhi tu ya aina za saumu kina udhaifu fulani. Inaonekana alitoa maoni yake kwa msingi kwamba haifai kuacha kufunga katika siku za Ramadhani, na kwamba saumu yoyote inayofungwa katika siku hizi inatimiza aina hii ya saumu iliyoamriwa, na hili ni jambo mahsusi kwa siku hizi.

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.