Sura hii inajadili kufungua saumu (na kutofunga) pamoja na hukmu zake. Wale wanaoruhusiwa kufungua saumu (au kutofunga), kisheria, wamegawanyika katika makundi matatu: kundi ambalo ni halali, kwa makubaliano ya wanazuoni, kufunga au kutofunga; kundi ambalo ni wajibu kutofunga, pamoja na mvutano unaoambatana nalo miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa Kiislamu; na kundi ambalo ni haramu kutofunga. Kwa kila moja ya haya kuna hukmu zinazohusiana nalo.

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.

Wale ambao wote wawili wanaruhusiwa kufanya hivyo ni mgonjwa, kwa makubaliano, msafiri, kwa kutokubaliana, mwanamke mjamzito, mwanamke anayenyonyesha, na mzee. Mgawanyo huu umekubaliwa kikamilifu kwa ujumla wake, isipokuwa msafiri ambaye tatizo lake limechunguzwa kwa mitazamo mbalimbali. Hizi ni pamoja na hoja: kwamba akifunga, je, funga yake inachukuliwa kuwa sahihi? Ikiwa ni sahihi, je, ni bora kwa msafiri kufunga au kutofunga, au yuko huru kuchagua kati ya hizo mbili? Je, kuvunja funga kunaruhusiwa kwake kwa aina fulani ya safari iliyo na mipaka, au kwa safari yoyote ambayo neno "safari" linatumika kwake kwa matumizi ya kawaida? Msafiri anaweza kuacha kufunga lini? Anaanza kufunga (tena) lini? Ikiwa anaanza safari wakati wa Ramadhani, je, ana haki ya kuvunja funga baada ya kupita sehemu ya mwezi? Hatimaye, ikiwa hafungi, ni hukmu gani kwake? Kisa cha mgonjwa kinahusisha majadiliano kuhusu kutambua ugonjwa unaomruhusu kutofunga, pamoja na hukmu wakati hafungi.

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:

Hii inahusu suala la mgonjwa na msafiri, kama wakifunga saumu yao inachukuliwa kuwa ni saumu ya wajibu iliyo sahihi. Wanazuoni wametofautiana kuhusu hili. Wengi wao wanashikilia kwamba wakifunga, saumu yao ni sahihi na inakubalika. Lakini Mazahiri wanashikilia kwamba saumu zao si sahihi, na wajibu wao ni kulipa (qadhaa) siku nyingine (si katika Ramadhani).

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).

Sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na ufafanuzi wa maneno ya Aliyetukuka: "Na yeyote miongoni mwenu aliye mgonjwa au yuko safarini, (afunge) idadi ya siku nyingine." Je, maneno hayo yasomwe kama yalivyo, bila kudhania neno lililofichika, au yafasiriwe kwa maana ya kiistiara, na neno lililofichika lisomwe ndani yake, ili yasomeke: "na asipofunga, basi (afunge) idadi ya siku nyingine." Aina hii ya kukosekana kwa neno katika usemi inajulikana kwa wataalamu wa lugha kama lahn al-khitab (mtindo wa Kiarabu). Wale waliosoma aya kama ilivyo, wasiofasiri kiistiara, walisema kwamba wajibu wa msafiri ni kufunga idadi ya siku nyingine, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Aliyetukuka, "idadi ya siku nyingine." Wale waliodhania neno lililofichika "na asipofunga" walisema kwamba wajibu wake ni idadi ya siku nyingine ikiwa hatafunga. Pande zote mbili zinaunga mkono ufahamu wao kwa hadithi zinazoshuhudia usahihi wa uelewa wao, ingawa kanuni ni kusoma maandiko kama yalivyo, isipokuwa kuna dalili nyingine inayoonyesha kwamba yasomwe kwa maana yake ya kiistiara.

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.

Hili linahusu swali la kama kufunga ni bora kuliko kutofunga (wakati wa safari). Ikiwa tutasema, kwa mujibu wa maoni ya wengi, kwamba msafiri ana haki ya kutofunga, basi lazima tuongeze kwamba wanazuoni wa fiqh walikuwa na maoni matatu tofauti (ndani ya makubaliano hayo ya jumla). Baadhi yao walishikilia kwamba kufunga kuna thawabu kubwa zaidi. Miongoni mwa waliokuwa na maoni haya ni Malik na Abu Hanīfa. Wengine walishikilia kwamba kutofunga ni bora zaidi. Miongoni mwa waliokuwa na maoni haya ni Ahmad na kundi la wanazuoni wa fiqh. Na baadhi walishikilia kwamba hili ni jambo la hiari, hakuna lililo bora zaidi.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano wa tafsiri moja na maana dhahiri ya baadhi ya matini zilizopokewa, na mgongano wa baadhi ya matini zilizopokewa na matini nyingine zilizopokewa. Hii ni kwa kuwa maana inayoeleweka ya ruhusa ya mtu kutofunga ni msamaha uliokusudiwa kuondoa uzito kwake, na pale msamaha unapotolewa, ni jambo lenye thawabu kuacha kutumia msamaha huo. Hili linathibitishwa na hadithi ya Hamza bin Amr al-Aslamy, aliyoipokea Muslim, kwamba alisema: "Ee Mjumbe wa Allah, najiona nina nguvu ya kufunga wakati wa safari, je, nitakuwa nimetenda dhambi?" Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ akasema: "Ni msamaha kutoka kwa Allah, basi yeyote atakayeutumia amefanya vema, lakini hakuna dhambi kwa anayependa kufunga." Kauli ya Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ, hata hivyo, kwamba "Si wema kufunga wakati wa safari", pamoja na ukweli kwamba moja ya matendo yake ya mwisho ilikuwa kutofunga, inatoa picha kwamba ni bora kutofunga. Kutofunga, hata hivyo, si hukmu, bali ni jambo lenye ruhusa, na ilikuwa vigumu kwa wengi kuona jambo lenye ruhusa kuwa bora kuliko jambo lililoamriwa. Wale waliotoa uhuru wa kuchagua katika jambo hili walifanya hivyo kwa sababu ya hadithi ya Aisha, aliyesema: "Hamza bin Amr al-Aslamy alimuuliza Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ kuhusu kufunga wakati wa safari, naye akasema: 'Funga ukipenda, na usifunge ukipenda.'" Imepokewa na Muslim.

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.

Je, ruhusa ya mtu msafiri kutofunga inazuiliwa kwa safari zenye umbali maalum uliowekwa? Wanazuoni wametofautiana kuhusu jambo hili. Wengi wao wamesema kwamba haruhusiwi kutofunga katika safari ambayo ndani yake Swala inapaswa kufupishwa, na hilo hutofautiana kulingana na kutofautiana kwao katika suala hilo. Kundi la wanazuoni wamesema kwamba anaweza kuacha kufunga katika kila safari ambayo neno "safari" linatumika kwayo. Hawa ni Wazahiri.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano kati ya maana ya wazi ya maandishi na tafsiri fulani. Maana ya wazi ni kwamba mtu hawezi kutofunga katika safari yoyote inayoitwa safari, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Aliye Juu, "Na yeyote miongoni mwenu aliye mgonjwa au yuko safarini, (afunge) idadi ya siku nyingine".222 Lakini maana inayoeleweka ya ruhusa ya kutofunga wakati wa safari ni (kupunguziwa) ugumu. Kwa kuwa ugumu hauwezi kupatikana katika kila safari, inakuwa ni lazima kuruhusu kutofunga katika safari ile tu inayoleta ugumu, na kwa kuwa Maswahaba walionekana kukubaliana juu ya kipimo cha jambo hili, inafuata kwamba kipimo hicho kinapaswa kufananishwa na kipimo cha kupunguza Sala.

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.

Pia walikuwa wametofautiana kuhusu ugonjwa ambao kutofunga kunaruhusiwa. Kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kuwa ni ugonjwa ambao ugumu na madhara huhusishwa na kufunga. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya Malik. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kuwa ni ugonjwa mzito unaomlemea mtu. Hii ilikuwa maoni ya Ahmad. Kundi la tatu la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kuwa ikiwa neno "mgonjwa" linaweza kutumika kwa mtu kama huyo, basi asifunge. Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ndiyo sababu hiyohiyo iliyotolewa kwa kuweka kikomo cha safari.

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.

Wakati gani msafiri huacha kufunga na wakati gani hufunga? Kundi la wanazuoni wa sheria lilisema kwamba yeye huacha kufunga siku ile ile anapoanza safari yake. Hii ndiyo ilikuwa maoni ya al-Sha'bi, al-Hasan, na Ahmad. Kundi jingine lilisema kwamba hapaswi kuacha kufunga siku anayoanza safari yake. Msimamo huu uliungwa mkono na wanazuoni wa miji ya mbali. Kundi la wanazuoni liliona kuwa inapendeza kwa mtu anayejua kwamba atafika mji siku ya kwanza ya safari yake aingie mjini akiwa amefunga. Baadhi yao walikuwa wakali zaidi katika hili kuliko wengine, lakini wote hawakumlazimisha kulipa kafara mtu aliyeingia akiwa hafungi. Walitofautiana kuhusu mtu aliyeingia mjini wakati sehemu tu ya siku ilikuwa imepita. Malik na al-Shafi'i walisema kwamba aendelee kula na kunywa. Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walisema kwamba ajizuie kula, kama vile mwanamke mwenye hedhi, kwa maoni yao, hujizuia kula anapoingia katika kipindi cha usafi.

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.

Sababu ya kutokubaliana kwao kuhusu wakati ambao msafiri anapaswa kuacha kufunga inatokana na mgongano wa hadithi na hoja za akili. Imethibitishwa kupitia hadithi ya Ibn ʿAbbas kwamba "Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ alifunga hadi alipofika al-Kadīd, akaacha kufunga, na watu pamoja naye pia wakaacha kufunga." Maana ya wazi ya hadithi hii ni kwamba aliacha kufunga baada ya kuwa ameshaweka nia ya kufunga. Kwa upande wa watu, hata hivyo, hakuna shaka kwamba walivunja funga baada ya kuwa wameshaweka nia yake usiku uliotangulia. Inayoafiki jambo hili ni hadithi ya Jabir ibn ʿAbd Allah kwamba "Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ alisafiri kwenda Makka mwaka wa ushindi wake. Aliendelea na safari hadi Kurāʿ al-Ghamīm, ambako aliomba bakuli la kunywea, watu walipokuwa wamefunga, akaliinua ili watu wamuone. Kisha akanywa kutoka humo. Baadaye ikasemwa kwake kwamba baadhi ya watu wameendelea kufunga. Akasema, 'Hao ni waasi. Hao ni waasi.'" Abu Dawud amepokea kutoka kwa Abu Busra al-Ghifārī kwamba alikuwa amevuka kwa shida nyumba alipoomba sahani ya chakula. Jaʿfar, msimulizi wa hadithi, alisema: "Nilimwambia, 'Je, huoni nyumba?' Akajibu, 'Je, unajiepusha na sunna ya Mtume wa Mwenyezi Mungu ﷺ?'" Jaʿfar alisema, "Kisha akala." Hoja hapa ni kwamba, kwa kuwa msafiri anaruhusiwa kuweka nia ya funga yake tu usiku uliotangulia, hairuhusiwi kwake kubatilisha funga yake, kwa sababu aliweka nia kwa msingi wa maneno ya Aliye Juu: "Enyi mlioamini! Mtiini Mwenyezi Mungu na mtiini Mtume, wala msibatilishe amali zenu."

Hili linahusu suala la kama inaruhusiwa kwa mtu aliyefunga Ramadhani kuanza safari kisha kuacha kufunga akiwa safarini. Wengi wanashikilia kwamba anaruhusiwa kufanya hivyo. Imepokewa kutoka kwa baadhi ya watu, nao ni Tjbayda al-Salmani, Suwayd ibn Ghafla, na Ibn Majaz, kwamba iwapo amekuwa akifunga Ramadhani kisha akaanza safari ndani yake, hairuhusiwi kwake kuacha kufunga.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao juu ya maana ya maneno ya Mwenye Enzi, "Na atakayekuwa miongoni mwenu wakati wa mwezi huo, na afunge." Hili linaweza kufasiriwa kwa maana kwamba yule aliye mkazi kwa sehemu ya mwezi ana wajibu wa kufunga mwezi mzima. Pia inawezekana kuelewa kutoka humo kwamba mtu aliyeshuhudia sehemu ya mwezi (akiwa mkazi) anapaswa kufunga sehemu hiyo, kwa kuwa maana kwa makubaliano ni kwamba aliyeshuhudia mwezi mzima anapaswa kufunga mwezi mzima, hivyo pia inapaswa kumaanisha kwamba aliyeshuhudia sehemu ya mwezi (akiwa mkazi) anapaswa kufunga sehemu hiyo. Maoni ya wengi yanaungwa mkono na ukweli kwamba Mtume ﷺ alianza safari yake wakati wa Ramadhani.

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.

Hukmu ya msafiri akiacha kufunga (wakati wa Ramadhani) ni kulipa (qadhaa) kwa makubaliano, na vivyo hivyo kwa mgonjwa, kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mwenye Enzi: “(Afunge) idadi ya siku nyingine.” Isipokuwa ni watu wanaougua kwa kuzimia au kichaa, lakini wanachuoni wametofautiana kuhusu kesi hizo mbili. Wanachuoni wa mikoani wanashikilia wajibu wa kulipa (qadhaa) kwa mtu aliyezimia, lakini wanatofautiana kuhusu mwenye kichaa. Kwa mujibu wa maoni ya Malik, yeye pia ana wajibu wa kulipa (qadhaa), lakini maoni hayo ni dhaifu kwa sababu ya maneno ya Mtume ﷺ: “Kalamu (ya dhima) imeinuliwa kwa watu watatu … na mwenye kichaa hadi atakapopona.” Wale waliowawajibisha wote wawili walitofautiana kuhusu kama kuzimia na kichaa ni mambo yanayobatilisha funga. Kundi moja lilisema kwamba huibatilisha funga, na kundi jingine likasema kwamba haibatilishi. Kundi la tatu la wanachuoni lilitofautisha kati ya kuzimia kabla ya alfajiri na kuzimia baada ya alfajiri. Kundi moja lilisema kwamba ikiwa kitatokea baada ya kupita sehemu kubwa ya siku, funga ya mtu huyo ni sahihi, lakini ikiwa kitatokea katika sehemu ya mwanzo ya siku, anapaswa kulipa funga hiyo (qadhaa), na hili ndilo maoni ya Malik.

Kuna masuala fulani madogo yanayohusiana na qadhaa ya msafiri na mgonjwa, ikiwa ni pamoja na maswali haya: je, hufunga mfululizo? Nini kinachotakiwa kutoka kwao kama qadhaa? Wajibu wao ni upi wakichelewesha utekelezaji wa qadhaa bila sababu, hadi Ramadhani inayofuata? Je, wakifa bila kutekeleza qadhaa iliyotakiwa, wali hufunga kwa niaba yao? Baadhi ya wanazuoni walifanya kuwa ni wajibu kutekeleza qadhaa mfululizo kama ada, huku wengine hawakufanya hivyo. Baadhi ya wanazuoni hawa walimpa mtu uhuru wa kuchagua, huku wengine wakiona kwamba kufunga mfululizo ni jambo linalopendeza, lakini wengi zaidi wanasimama upande wa kuondoa wajibu wa kufunga mfululizo.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano kati ya maana ya wazi ya maandishi na kiasi (qiyas). Kiasi, katika jambo hili, kinahitaji kwamba utekelezaji wa qadhaa uwe sawa na adaa, msingi wa hilo ukiwa ni sala na hija. Maana ya wazi ya maneno ya Mwenye Enzi, Mtukufu: “(Afunge) idadi ya siku nyingine”, inadokeza kwamba wajibu upo kwa idadi hiyo peke yake na si kwa utekelezaji mfululizo. Imepokewa kutoka kwa 'Aisha kwamba alisema: “Aya ilishushwa kama ‘idadi ya siku mfululizo’, lakini neno ‘mfululizo’ liliondolewa.”

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”.

Kuhusu kuchelewesha kulipa qadhaa hadi Ramadhani inayofuata iingie, kundi moja la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kuwa wajibu juu ya mtu kama huyo ni kulipa qadhaa baada ya Ramadhani mpya pamoja na kafara (kaffara). Huu ndio ulikuwa msimamo wa Malik, al-Shaafi'i, na Ahmad. Kundi jingine la wanazuoni wa fiqhi lilisema kuwa hakuna wajibu wa kafara juu yake. Huu ndio ulikuwa msimamo wa al-Hasan al-Basriy na wa Ibrahim al-Nakha'iy.

Sehemu iliyobaki ya sura hii imejitolea kujadili mwanamke anayenyonyesha, mwanamke mjamzito, na mzee. Kuna masuala mawili yanayojulikana sana yanayohusiana na haya. La kwanza ni: ikiwa mwanamke mjamzito na mwanamke anayenyonyesha hawafungi, wajibu wao ni upi? Wanazuoni wa fiqhi wana maoni manne kuhusu suala hili. La kwanza ni kwamba wote wawili huwalisha masikini na hawana qadhaa. Hili limepokewa kutoka kwa Ibn 'Umar na Ibn 'Abbas. Maoni ya pili, ambayo ni kinyume cha la kwanza, ni kwamba wao hulipa qadhaa tu, na hawana wajibu wa kuwalisha masikini, na hili ni maoni ya Abu Hanifa, wanafunzi wake, Abu 'Ubayd, na Abu Thawr. Maoni ya tatu ni kwamba wao hulipa qadhaa pamoja na kuwalisha masikini. Huu ndio ulikuwa msimamo wa al-Shafi'i. Maoni ya nne ni kwamba mwanamke mjamzito hulipa qadhaa lakini hawalishi masikini, wakati mwanamke anayenyonyesha hulipa qadhaa pamoja na kuwalisha masikini.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na kuyumba kwa kesi zao kati ya kufanana na wale ambao kufunga kwao ni vigumu na kati ya mtu mgonjwa. Wale waliowafananisha na mgonjwa walisema kwamba wanalazimika tu kulipa qadhaa. Wale waliowafananisha na wale ambao kufunga kwao ni shida kubwa walisema kwamba wanalazimika tu kulisha masikini; mtazamo huu unategemea dalili ya usomaji, uliosomwa na baadhi, wa aya isemayo: "Na wale ambao kwao ni mzigo mzito ni fidia: kuwalisha masikini (masakin)." Wale waliozingatia sababu zote mbili kwao, inaonekana, walifanya uamuzi wao kwa msingi wa kufanana kwa pande zote mbili. Hivyo, walisema kwamba wanalazimika kulipa qadhaa kwa kadiri wanavyofanana na mgonjwa, na wanalazimika kutoa fidia kwa kadiri wanavyofanana na wale ambao kufunga kwao ni vigumu. Hata hivyo, kuwafananisha na mtu mwenye afya njema asiyefunga ni dhaifu, kwa kuwa hakuna ruhusa kwa mtu mzima mwenye afya kutokufunga. Wale waliotofautisha kati ya mwanamke mjamzito na mwanamke anayenyonyesha waliunganisha mwanamke mjamzito na mgonjwa, na walimpa mwanamke anayenyonyesha hukumu iliyo mchanganyiko wa hukumu ya mgonjwa na hukumu ya yule ambaye kufunga kwake ni vigumu, au walimchukulia kuwa sawa na mtu mwenye afya njema. Wale waliotenga hukumu moja kwao wana mtazamo bora zaidi, Allah ndiye ajuaye zaidi, ikilinganishwa na wale waliounganisha hukumu hizo mbili; kadhalika wale waliotenga hukumu ya qadhaa kwao wana mtazamo bora kuliko wale waliotenga hukumu ya kulisha kwao, kwa kuwa usomaji wa aya ambao kwa msingi wake walipanga hukumu hiyo si mutawatir (yaani ni wa kutofautiana). Basi tafakari juu yake, kwani ni wazi.

Uchunguzi wa kundi la watu ambao inaruhusiwa kutoendelea kufunga iwapo wameshavunja funga unashughulikiwa kwa kuzingatia kuvunja funga kwa kujamiiana au kwa njia nyingine, na kwa kuzingatia kitendo kilichokubaliwa au kile kinachozozaniwa, yaani kitendo kinachotegemea shaka na kile kisicho nayo. Kila moja ya kesi hizi mbili hutokea either kwa sababu ya kusahau, au kwa sababu ya nia, au kwa sababu ya hiari, au kwa sababu ya kulazimishwa.

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.

Wengi wa wanazuoni wa fiqhi walishikilia kwamba mtu anayevunja funga yake kwa kufanya jimai kwa makusudi analazimika kulipa kafara pamoja na kulipa siku alizovunja (qadha), kwa mujibu wa yaliyothibitishwa katika hadithi ya Abu Hurayra, aliyesema: “Mtu mmoja alimwendea Mtume wa Allah ﷺ akasema: ‘Nimeangamia, ee Mtume wa Allah.’ Akasema: ‘Nini kimekuangamiza?’ Akasema: ‘Nilimwingilia mke wangu katika Ramadhani.’ Akasema: ‘Je, unao mtumwa ambaye unaweza kumwacha huru?’ Akajibu: ‘Hapana.’ Akasema: ‘Je, unaweza kufunga miezi miwili mfululizo?’ Akajibu: ‘Hapana.’ Akasema: ‘Je, unao chakula cha kuwalisha masikini sitini?’ Akajibu: ‘Hapana.’ Kisha akakaa kimya. Kisha Mtume ﷺ alipokea zawadi ya faraq [kikapu kikubwa] cha tende, akamwambia: ‘Chukua hizi uzitoe sadaka.’ Mtu yule akasema: ‘Je, nitoe kwa aliye masikini kuliko mimi? Hakuna nyumba kati ya mipaka ya mji huu iliyo na uhitaji zaidi kuliko yetu.’ Mtume ﷺ akacheka mpaka meno yake ya mbwa yakaonekana, kisha akasema: ‘Nenda, walishe familia yako.’” Wanazuoni walitofautiana katika masuala kadhaa, ikiwa ni pamoja na: je, kuvunja funga kwa makusudi kwa kula au kunywa kuna hukumu sawa na kuvunja funga kwa jimai, yaani kulipa qadha na kafara? Mtu akifanya jimai kwa kusahau, anapaswa kufanya nini? Mwanamke asiyelazimishwa, wajibu wake ni upi? Je, kafara inapaswa kutolewa kwa mpangilio uliotajwa au ni hiari? Kiasi gani kinatolewa kwa kila masikini anapotoa kafara kwa kuwalisha? Je, kafara hujirudia kwa kujirudia kwa jimai? Ikiwa mtu ataahirisha kulisha masikini kwa sababu ya hali ngumu, je, linakuwa la lazima atakapopata nafuu?

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?

Je, kafara ni wajibu kwa mtu anayevunja funga kwa makusudi kwa kula au kunywa? Malik, wanafunzi wake, Abu Hanifa, wanafunzi wake, al-Thawri, na kundi la wanachuoni wa fiqhi walishikilia kwamba mtu anayevunja funga yake kwa makusudi kwa kula au kunywa anastahili qadhaa na kafara iliyotajwa katika hadith hii. Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, na Wazahiri walishikilia kwamba wajibu wa kafara hutokea katika kesi ya kuvunja funga kwa kujamiiana pekee.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mzozo wao kuhusu kufanya qiyas (kulinganisha) kati ya mtu anayevunja funga kwa kujamiiana na mtu anayeivunja kwa kula na kunywa. Wale waliosema kuwa kuna msingi wa pamoja, ambao ni kuvunjika kwa heshima ya funga, walihukumu kwamba hukmu iwe ile ile kwa wote wawili. Wale waliosema kwamba ingawa kafara ni adhabu kwa kuvunja heshima ya funga, inafaa zaidi kwa ukali wake kumhusu mtu anayevunja funga kwa kujamiiana kuliko wengine, (na hivyo wakasema) kwa kuwa lengo la adhabu ni kuzuia, adhabu kubwa zaidi imewekwa kwa kitendo ambacho kuna hamu yenye nguvu zaidi. Kitendo hiki, walisema, kina nguvu zaidi kuliko makosa mengine, ingawa viwango vya makosa hivyo vinakaribiana, na lengo la kuwekwa kwa kafara ni kuwafanya watu wazingatie sheria na kuwa wacha Mungu na wanyofu, kama alivyosema Mwenye Enzi: "Enyi mlioamini! Mmeandikiwa Swaoma kama ilivyoandikiwa wale waliokuwa kabla yenu, ili mpate kujikinga (na maovu)". Kafara hii iliyoimarishwa, walisema, kwa hiyo ni mahususi kwa kujamiiana. Haya ndiyo maoni ya wale wanaokubali qiyas katika jambo hili. Maoni ya wale wasiokubali qiyas hapa yako wazi: hawaipanui hukmu ya (kuvunja kwa) kujamiiana kuhusu kula na kunywa.

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.

Wakati mtu aliyefunga anapofanya tendo la ndoa kwa kusahau, al-Shafi'i na Abu Hanifa wanashikilia kwamba hakuna qadhaa kwa mtu huyo wala kafara yoyote. Malik alisema kwamba anapaswa kulipa qadhaa lakini hakuna kafara. Ahmad na Wazahiri walishikilia kwamba anapaswa kulipa qadhaa na pia kutoa kafara.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao kuhusu kulipa (qadhaa) kwa mtu anayefanya jambo kwa kusahau kunatokana na mgongano kati ya maana ya wazi ya hadithi na qiyas (kulinganisha kimantiki). Qiyas inamchukulia mtu aliyesahau sala kuwa sawa na mtu aliyesahau kufunga. Wale waliomweka sawa na mtu aliyesahau sala walimwajibisha kulipa, kama vile maandiko yanavyomwajibisha mtu aliyesahau sala. Hadithi inayopingana na maana ya wazi ya qiyas hii ni ile iliyopokewa na al-Bukhari na Muslim kutoka kwa Abu Hurayra, aliyesema: "Mtume wa Allah ﷺ alisema: 'Aliyesahau akiwa amefunga na kula au kunywa, na afuturu kamili, kwani hakika ni Allah aliyemlisha na kumnywesha.'" Hadithi hii inaungwa mkono na maana ya jumla ya kauli ya Mtume ﷺ: "Dhima ya kosa, kusahau, na yale waliyofanya kwa kulazimishwa imeondolewa kutoka kwa umma wangu." Katika mada hii hii, wamekhitilafiana kuhusu kama kuna kulipa kwa mtu anayeamini kwa makosa kuwa jua limeshatua na akafuturu, kisha jua likaonekana baadaye. Sababu ni kwamba mtu huyo amefanya kosa, na hukumu ya mtu anayekosea ni sawa na ya mtu aliyesahau. Kwa namna yoyote tunavyolieleza, athari ya kusahau katika kuondoa (wajibu wa) kulipa ni dhahiri, na Allah ndiye Mjuzi zaidi. Hoja ni kwamba, ikiwa tungeshikilia kanuni kwamba kulipa si lazima kwa mtu aliyesahau mpaka ushahidi uonyeshe hivyo, basi ingelazimu kusema kwamba kusahau katika kufunga hakuwajibishi kulipa, kwa kuwa hakuna ushahidi unaoonyesha hilo, tofauti na hali ya sala. Ikiwa, kwa upande mwingine, tungeshikilia kwamba kanuni ni kwamba qadhaa ni wajibu mpaka dalili ionyeshe kuondolewa kwake katika dhima ya mtu aliyesahau, basi tunaweza kusema kwamba dalili imeonyesha kuondolewa kwake katika dhima ya mtu aliyesahau katika hadithi ya Abu Hurayra. Isipokuwa mtu angeshikilia kwamba dalili iliyomtoa mtu aliyesahau funga kutoka katika kanuni ya kusahau kwa aina nyingine za ibada, ambapo dhima yote huondolewa kwa maandiko kwa yule anayeiacha, ni kulinganisha kisa cha funga na kisa cha sala. Kuweka wajibu wa qadhaa kwa njia ya kulinganisha, hata hivyo, ni dhaifu. Na qadhaa, kwa mujibu wa maoni ya wengi, ni wajibu kwa amri mpya.

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.

Suala hili linahusu kutofautiana kwao kuhusu wajibu wa kafara kwa mwanamke ambaye ameshawishiwa kufanya tendo la ndoa (akiwa amefunga). Abu Hanifa na wafuasi wake, pamoja na Malik na wafuasi wake, walifanya kafara kuwa ni wajibu kwake. Al-Shafi'i na Dawud walisema kwamba hakuna kafara kwake.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana inatokana na mgongano kati ya maana ya wazi ya hadithi na kiasi (qiyas), kwa kuwa Mtume (rehema na amani za Mwenyezi Mungu ziwe juu yake ﷺ) hakumwamuru mwanamke aliyetajwa katika hadithi atoe kafara. Kiasi ni kwamba yeye yuko sawa na mwanaume kwa kuwa wote wawili wako chini ya wajibu.

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.

Je, kuna mpangilio wa utekelezaji wa kafara, kama ilivyo kwa zihdhar (kujilinganisha kwa madhara), au kuna uchaguzi? Kwa mpangilio namaanisha kwamba mtu hahamii kutoka wajibu mmoja kwenda mwingine isipokuwa akiwa hawezi kutekeleza uliotangulia; na kwa uchaguzi namaanisha kwamba anaruhusiwa kuchagua mmoja wapo bila kuwa hawezi kutekeleza mwingine. Wanachuoni walitofautiana kuhusu hili. Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, na Wakufi wote walisema kuna mpangilio. Hivyo, mtu anapaswa kwanza kumwacha huru mtumwa, na asipoweza kufanya hivyo, afunge, na asipoweza kufanya hivyo, basi awalishe maskini. Malik alisema kwamba ni kwa uchaguzi. Ibn al-Qasim amesimulia kutoka kwake kwamba alionelea kuwalisha maskini kuwa bora zaidi kuliko kumwacha mtumwa huru na kufunga.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao katika kulazimisha mpangilio inatokana na mgongano wa maana za wazi za hadithi na za mifano mbalimbali ya kikiyasi. Maana ya wazi ya hadithi kuhusu Mbedui inadokeza mpangilio, kwa kuwa Nabii ﷺ alimuuliza kuhusu uwezo wake wa kutekeleza vitendo kwa mpangilio maalum. Maana ya wazi ya kile kilichosimuliwa na Malik kwamba "Mtu mmoja alivunja funga yake wakati wa Ramadhani, na Mtume wa Allah ﷺ akamwamuru amwache huru mtumwa, au afunge miezi miwili mfululizo, au awalishe maskini sitini", inaonyesha uchaguzi, kwa kuwa neno (au), katika matumizi ya Waarabu, linadokeza uchaguzi, ingawa hili lilitokea kwa maneno ya msimulizi, mmoja wa Maswahaba, ambao walikuwa wanaijua vizuri zaidi muktadha na maana za maneno hayo.

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.

Wanaohusika na mzozo wao kuhusu kiasi cha chakula kinachopaswa kutolewa kwa wahitaji. Malik, al-Shafi'i, na wanafunzi wao walisema kwamba anapaswa kutoa mudd moja ya chakula kwa kila mhitaji, kulingana na mudd aliyotumia Mtume ﷺ. Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake walishikilia kwamba kiasi chini ya mudd mbili, kulingana na mudd aliyotumia Mtume ﷺ, hakitatosha, na hii inafikia nusu sa' kwa kila mhitaji.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao inatokana na mgongano wa qiyās (kulinganisha) na hadith. Qiyās inategemea ufanano wa fidia hii na ile ya kutonyoa kichwa (mwishoni mwa Hija) kwa sababu ya maradhi, jambo ambalo limetajwa wazi. Hadith ni ile iliyopokelewa katika matoleo mbalimbali ya hadith kuhusu kafara, kwamba faraq (kipimo kikubwa) kina sā' kumi na tano. Lakini kuwa na sā' kumi na tano hakuonyeshi wajibu wake kwa kila maskini katika kesi hii, isipokuwa kwa dalili dhaifu sana; hata hivyo, inaonyesha kwamba kiasi hiki ndicho badala ya kufunga katika kafara hii.

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.

Hii inahusu kurudiwa kwa kafara pamoja na kurudiwa kwa kuvunja funga. Wanazuoni wamekubaliana kwamba mtu anayefanya tendo la ndoa wakati wa Ramadhani kisha akatoa kafara, kisha akafanya tendo la ndoa siku nyingine, analazimika kutoa kafara nyingine. Wamekubaliana pia kwamba mtu anayefanya tendo la ndoa mara kadhaa katika siku moja analazimika kutoa kafara moja tu. Wametofautiana kuhusu hali ya mtu anayefanya tendo la ndoa siku moja wakati wa Ramadhani, na hakutoa kafara mpaka alipofanya tendo la ndoa siku nyingine. Malik, al-Shafi'i, na kundi la wanazuoni wa sheria wamesema kwamba analazimika kutoa kafara kwa kila siku hizo. Abu Hanifa na wanafunzi wake wamesema kwamba analazimika kutoa kafara moja tu, mradi bado hajatoa kafara kwa tendo la kwanza.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kunatokana na kufanana kwa vipimo hivi vya kafara na vile vya hudud. Wale waliodhani kwamba vinafanana na hudud walisema kwamba kafara moja inatosha katika hili kutokana na idadi ya vitendo, kama ilivyo kwa mtu anayefanya zinaa ambaye anapewa adhabu moja ya kuchapwa hata kama amefanya kitendo hicho mara elfu (kabla ya hapo), ilhali hakuwahi kupewa hadd kwa lolote kati ya hayo matukio. Wale ambao hawakuona kwamba vinafanana na hudud waliweka hukmu tofauti kwa kila siku ambayo funga imevunjwa, na hivyo wakawajibisha kafara moja kwa kila siku. Walishikilia kwamba tofauti hiyo inatokana na kwamba kafara ni njia ya kupata karibu na Allah (SWT), ilhali hudud ni aina ya kuzuia tu.

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.

Je, mtu aliyefanya tendo la ndoa wakati wa mchana katika Ramadhani na hakuweza kumudu gharama ya kafara wakati huo, ana wajibu wa kuitoa atakapokuwa na hali nzuri ya kifedha? Al-Awzaci alisema kwamba hana deni lolote ikiwa alikuwa maskini wakati wa kosa. Al-Shafi'i alisita kuhusu swali hili.

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.

Sababu ya kutofautiana kwao ni kwamba jambo hili ni hukmu isiyoelezwa waziwazi katika sheria, hivyo inaweza kufanana na madeni, ambapo wajibu unarudi pale hali yake ya kifedha inapoimarika; na pia inaweza kusemwa kwa usawa kwamba kama jambo hili lingekuwa la wajibu, Mtume ﷺ angeliweka wazi.

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.

Hizi, basi, ni hukumu za mambo ambayo wanazuoni walikubaliana kwamba funga huvunjika kwa kitendo cha makusudi. Katika masuala yenye khilafu, wale waliosema kwamba funga imevunjika walitofautiana kuhusu kama inapaswa kulipwa kwa qadhaa peke yake, au kwa qadhaa pamoja na kafara. Mifano ya haya ni: kufanya hijama, kutapika, kumeza jiwe, na msafiri kufungua funga yake siku ya kwanza ya safari, kwa maoni ya wale wanaoshikilia kwamba hapaswi kufanya hivyo.

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 aliamua kwamba kulipa qadhaa na kutoa kafara ni wajibu kwa msafiri wa aina hiyo, lakini alipingwa katika hili na wanazuoni waliobaki wa miji mbalimbali pamoja na wengi wa wanafunzi wake. Wale waliozingatia kwamba qadhaa na kafara ni wajibu katika kesi ya kutapika kwa makusudi ni pamoja na Abu Thawr na al-Awzaa'iy, lakini wanazuoni waliobaki wanaoshikilia kwamba kutapika kunavunja funga wao huweka wajibu wa qadhaa tu kwa jambo hilo. Mwanazuoni aliyeweka wajibu wa qadhaa na kafara katika kesi ya kufunga kwa njia ya kuwekwa vikombe vya kutolea damu (hijaama), miongoni mwa wale waliosema kwamba hijaama huvunja funga, ni 'Ataa' peke yake.