有三个要素。其中两个是一致公认的，即时间的持续和避免破坏斋戒的行为；第三个则存在分歧，即意图的确定。

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.

第一个要素是时段，分为两种。第一种是义务性的斋戒期，即斋月；另一种是禁戒破斋之事的时段，只涵盖这个月各日的白天，不包括夜晚。围绕这两个时段，有一些根本问题存在分歧。我们先从与义务性斋戒期相关的问题谈起。其中第一个问题是确定这一时段的两个端点；第二个问题是确定在每个人以及各个地平线上，如何获知界定时段的标志。 关于这一时段的两个端点，法学家们一致认为，阿拉伯历月有二十九天，有时为三十天；确定斋月的依据是看见新月，因为先知（愿真主赐福并使他平安）说："见月则封斋，见月则破斋。"这里的"看见"指太阳西沉之后新月的初次出现。在有遮蔽看见的因素、使看见无法实现的情况下，他们对于应适用的律例存在分歧；对于看月的适当时间，他们也有争议。关于月亮被云等遮蔽时的分歧，多数学者认为，此时的律例是将前一个月补足三十天（即沙阿班月）。如果在月初（推测的时间）月亮被遮蔽，则将其前一个月计为三十天，因此斋月的第一天便是次日。如果月亮在斋月末尾被遮蔽，人们则封斋三十天。 伊本·欧麦尔持有不同的观点:如果新月因被遮蔽而无法看见,即在斋月开始之时,那么被称为"存疑日"的次日应当作为斋戒日。据传,早期的一些法学家认为,如果月亮被遮蔽,则应当依靠天文计算。这也是著名的再传弟子之一穆塔里夫·伊本·谢赫赫尔的观点。在伊本·苏莱吉引述沙斐仪的一段传述中,他说:"如果一个人精通天文学,并且根据他的计算,新月本可以被看见,只是受到了遮挡,那么他可以(应当)开始斋戒,他的斋戒是有效的。"

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.

分歧的原因在于先知(愿主的赞颂与祝福降于他)所说的这句话缺乏详细说明(ijmdl)："见新月则封斋，见新月则开斋。若被云遮蔽，则当估算之(fa yqduru lahu)。"多数学者认为，这里的意思是"完成三十天的周期"。一部分法学家则认为，这里"估算"(taqdir)的意思是通过推算来确定其时间。他们中有人甚至说，信士应当在斋戒状态下醒来，这是伊本·欧麦尔的观点，我们前面已经提到。然而，这种解释较为牵强。多数学者之所以选择他们的解释，是因为伊本·阿拔斯传述的可靠圣训：先知(愿主的赞颂与祝福降于他)说："若月亮被你们遮蔽，则当补足三十天的数目。"他们认为，前一段圣训缺乏详细说明，而这段圣训正是其解释，因此，应当以其解释来理解未加阐明的内容。这是一条关于法源学(usul)的方法，专家们对此并无争议，因为概括(mujmal)与详释(mufassar)之间实际上并不存在任何冲突。在这一点上，多数学者的观点更具说服力，真主至知。

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.

在关于月份合法目击时间的分歧中,他们首先一致认为:若新月在傍晚被目击,则月份从次日开始(即日落之后开始)。分歧出现在沙坦月最后一天白天目击到新月的情况,也就是新月第一次被目击的时间。多数学者的观点是:若新月首次被目击于白天,则它属于次日的月份,与傍晚目击的情况相同。这一观点为马立克、沙斐仪、艾卜·哈尼法以及其门徒中的大多数人所持。艾卜·尤素福(艾卜·哈尼法的门徒)、赛尔·萨瓦里(al-ThawrT)以及马立克的门徒之一伊本·哈比卜则认为:若新月在太阳偏西之前被目击,则它属于前一夜;若在太阳偏西之后被目击,则它属于即将到来的夜晚。

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.

导致他们分歧的原因在于放弃经验判断，转而依据关于此问题的传闻。关于此问题，没有可以依据的先知（愿安拉的赞颂与平安降于他）的圣训。然而，有两则来自欧麦尔（愿真主喜悦他）的传述：一则是普遍性的，另一则是限定性的。一派依据普遍性的传述，另一派依据限定性的传述。具有普遍含义的传述是阿米什从艾卜·瓦伊勒（伊本·赛迈的兄弟）处转述的，他说：“我们在呼乃克因（Khaniqayn）时，欧麦尔的一封信送到了我们这里，信中说新月的大小各不相同，有时看起来很大，有时看起来很小。（信中写道：）‘如果你们在白天看到新月，在两个人作证他们于前一晚看到新月之前，不要停止斋戒。’”具有特定含义的传述是萨瓦里从他那里转述的：有人传到欧麦尔那里，说一些人在太阳偏西之后看到了新月，并且破了斋。他write信责备他们，并说：“如果你们在太阳偏西之前的白天看到月亮，就可以破斋；但如果是在太阳偏西之后看到，则不要破斋。”

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”.

伊本·鲁世德（Ibn Rushd）法官说："根据类推和经验所得，当太阳尚未落山时，月亮通常看不见，除非它离太阳很远，因为那时它大于视线所能及的范围。月亮的大小会有变化，时大时小，但它不太可能大到在太阳尚未落下时就能被看见，真主至知。正如我们所说，在这个问题上最可靠的依据是经验。这里无论是在太阳偏西之前还是之后，都没有区别，应当考虑的是太阳的消失。"

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”.

关于人们对目睹新月的合法依据存在的分歧，有两种方法。其一以感官（直接观察）为依据，另一种以传闻为依据。法学家们一致认为，独自看到新月的人有义务封斋，但伊本·阿比·拉巴赫（Ibn AbT Rabah）除外，他认为除非另有一人与他同时看到，否则他不应封斋。至于他能否仅凭自己的目睹而停止封斋，则存在分歧。马立克、艾卜·哈尼法和艾哈迈德认为他不应停止封斋。沙斐仪认为他应当停止封斋，艾布·萨乌尔也持此观点。这一争论其实并无意义，因为先知ﷺ使封斋与开斋都取决于看见新月，而看见是通过感官实现的。若不是因为这段圣训的字面含义，人们对于基于传闻的目睹而封斋已经达成了共识，那么依据传闻强制规定封斋的义务将是牵强的。那些区分封斋之月与结束封斋之月的人，是为了防止狡诈之人伪称自己看见了新月而非法停止封斋。因此，沙斐仪说，如果他担心遭到指责，就应当戒绝饮食，并视自己为已经停止封斋。马立克则与此不同，他认为独自看见新月并开斋的人，既要补偿（卡萨），也要赎罪（卡法拉）。艾卜·哈尼法则认为他只需补偿（卡萨）。

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.

他们在有关月象报告的若干问题上存在分歧。首先是关于应当接受其报告的目击者人数，其次是关于这些目击者的资格。马立克说，不得依据少于两名可信之人的证词开始斋戒或结束斋戒。沙斐仪在穆扎尼的转述中说，开始斋戒可依据一人关于见月的证词，但结束斋戒不得依据少于两人的证词。艾卜·哈尼法说，如果天空有云层遮蔽，则接受一人的证词；但如果天空晴朗且在大城市中，则只接受大量人员的证词。也有传述称，他曾在天空晴朗时接受两名品行端正之人的证词。另有传述称，马立克在天空有云层遮蔽时不接受两名证人的证词。他们一致认为，结束斋戒时，不少于两名证人的证词是可以接受的，但艾卜·萨think尔例外，他不像沙斐仪那样区分开始斋戒与结束斋戒。

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

c 他们产生分歧的原因，源于这一问题上圣训的相互冲突，以及某一圣训究竟属于“证言”类别还是不规定见证人数目类别之间的摇摆。所引圣训包括艾布·达乌德从阿卜杜·拉赫曼·本·宰德·本·哈塔卜处传述：他在“存疑之日”对众人讲话，说：“我曾与安拉的使者ﷺ的同伴们交往，并向他们请教，他们都向我传述：安拉的使者ﷺ说：‘见新月则开始斋戒，见新月则结束斋戒。若月亮被遮蔽而不可见，则完成三十天。若有两位见证人作证（见到新月），则开始斋戒或结束斋戒。’”圣训中还包括伊本·阿拔斯的传述：他说：“一位贝都因人来到先知ﷺ面前，说：‘今夜我看见了月亮。’先知ﷺ说：‘你作证万物非主，唯有安拉，并且穆罕默德是他的仆人和使者吗？’他回答：‘是的。’先知ﷺ说：‘毕拉勒，你去通告众人明天封斋。’”此段由提尔米兹圣训集录载，他指出，关于其传述系统（isnad）存在争议，因为有一群人将其作为“中断圣训”（mursal）传述。此外还有里卜ʿī·本·希拉什（Hirash?）的圣训。

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 这段圣训由艾布·达乌德记录，传自Rib€T ibn Khirash，他是圣门弟子之一，他说：“众人正在斋戒，即在莱麦丹月的最后一天，这时两位贝都因人站起来，向先知ﷺ作证，他们在前一天晚上看到了新月。安拉的使者ﷺ命令众人破斋，并前往礼拜的地方。”

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”.

法学家们对这些圣训采用了取舍或调和的方法。沙斐仪依据字面含义调和了伊本·阿拔斯和里布ʿī·本·希拉什的圣训，因此认为开始斋戒以一人作证为准，而停止斋戒则需两人作证。马立克依据类比选择了阿卜杜·拉赫曼·本·宰德的圣训，即将其视为与其他诉讼中的证言相似。看来，艾卜·萨瑞（Abu Thawr）并不认为伊本·阿拔斯与里布ʿī·本·希拉什的圣训之间存在冲突。他认为，先知ﷺ依据里布ʿī·本·希拉什的圣训裁定以两人作证为准，而在伊本·阿拔斯的圣训中则裁定以一人作证为准。艾卜·萨瑞认为，这表明两者皆可，并非存在矛盾。也没有迹象表明，前一裁定专门针对斋戒的开始，后一裁定专门针对斋戒的结束，因为这种看法必须以存在矛盾为前提。阿卜杜·拉赫曼·本·宰德与伊本·阿拔斯的圣训之间的冲突，情况也大体相同，除非是依据经文的间接暗示来主张存在冲突，而这种论证很薄弱，因为经文本身与之相悖。由此可见，艾卜·萨瑞的观点尽管偏离了多数人的看法，却更为明显，尽管将望月类比于传述比将望月类比于作证更为接近。原因在于：在作证中，对证人人数的规定，要么是启示的指引，因此不能进行理性的诠释，也不允许由此类推；要么可以说，人数的规定是出于伴随诉讼而来的争议，以及诉讼双方对某人证言所产生的怀疑。因此，…… 要求有多名证人，是为了使确信占据优势，并增强对某一方诉讼当事人主张的倾向。人数不超过两名，是为了避免举证变得困难，从而使主张落空。在看见新月的情况下，不存在因对方当事人而产生的伴随性疑虑，因此无需通过增加人数来予以澄清。

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.

据看来，沙斐仪（al-Shafi'i）曾区分斋月月的确定与开斋月的确定，理由是：开斋月（即斋月结束）的月象之确定中存在人们的怀疑，而斋月开始时的月象确定中则不存在此种怀疑。艾卜·伯克尔·伊本·孟迪尔（Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir）的观点与艾卜·陶尔（Abu Thawr）的观点相同，我认为这也是 Zahirites（zahiriyya，经典派）的观点。艾卜·伯克尔·伊本·孟迪尔以这一圣训为依据，主张学界已有共识：仅凭一人的见证即可使开斋成为义务、并须停止饮食。因此，进入斋月与离开斋月的情形理应相同，因为二者都是区分非斋期与斋期的标志。

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.

如果我们说，对于没有亲自看见新月的人，依据传闻而确立的看见（新月）是有效的，那么，这一规定能否从一个地区延伸到另一个地区？也就是说，若某地的人没有看见月亮，他们是否有义务采纳另一地区的看见？还是每个地区都必须各自看见？对此存在分歧。伊本·嘎西姆以及埃及的法学家（他们遵循马立克）转述马立克的观点：如果确定某城市的人看见了月亮，那么对于另一城市的人，即使他们错过了（那一天的斋戒），也有补斋的义务，因为他们错过了别人所遵守的那一天。这也是沙斐仪和艾哈迈德的观点。麦地那的学者转述马立克的观点：依据传闻而确立的看见，对于不居住在看见发生地的人不具有约束力，除非伊玛目要求人们遵行。这是伊本·麦吉舒恩以及马立克门生中的穆格伊拉的观点。他们一致认为，对于相距遥远的地区，比如安达卢斯和希贾兹，这一规定不予考虑。

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.

这种分歧的原因在于传闻与推理之间的冲突。推理认为：如果不同地区日出和星辰升起的时间相差不大，那么一地必须跟从另一地，因为依理性而言，它们处于同一地平线之下。但如果时间相差很大，则一个地区并无义务跟从另一个地区。 传闻方面，是穆斯林从库莱卜处所传的一段：乌姆·法德勒·宾特·哈里斯派他去叙利亚见穆阿维叶。他说："我到了叙利亚，办完了她所交代的事。在我身处叙利亚时，斋月的新月出现了，我在星期五前夜看到了它。月底时我回到麦地那，阿卜杜拉·伊本·阿拔斯问我，并提到了新月，说：'你们是什么时候看到新月的（在叙利亚）？'我说：'我们是在星期五前夜看到的。'他问：'你们自己亲眼看到了吗？'我说：'是的，人们也都看到了，他们开始封斋，穆阿维叶也封斋了。'他说：'但我们是在星期六前夜看到的，我们会一直封斋，直到满三十天或看到新月为止。'我说：'你不认为穆阿维叶的封斋就足够了吗？'他回答：'不！这是先知（愿安拉的赞颂与祝福降临于他）命令我们这样做的。'" 这段传闻表面的含义似乎是：无论近处还是远方，每个地区都必须亲自观察新月。然而考察显示，远方与近处之地有所不同，尤其是那些在经度和纬度上相距甚远的地方。如果关于观察的报道已达到大量传述（tawatur）的程度，便无需以见证来加以佐证。以上便是与义务期限相关的诸问题。

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.

关于斋戒时间长短的问题，学者们一致认为，斋戒以日落为结束，这是因为至高者的话："然后你们应当完成斋戒直到夜幕降临。"他们对斋戒的开始时间则存在分歧。多数学者认为，斋戒始于第二次黎明的出现，即白色的地平线，真正的晨曦，因为这一点是从安拉的使者（愿主赐予他尊荣和平安）那里确立的，他将其定义为扩散的白色地平线；同时也因为至高者的话："你们可以吃，可以喝，直到黎明的白线在你们面前与黑线区分开来。"另有一派偏离了这一看法，认为是出现在白色之后的红色黎明，它与红色的黄昏（夜晚的晚霞）相似。此说传自胡宰法和伊本·麦斯欧德。

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.

分歧的原因源于关于这一问题的传述之间的冲突,以及“黎明”一词的多义性,即它既可指白色的曙光,也可指红色的曙光。他们所据以争论的传述包括:出自艾卜·胡宰法的宰尔传述,他说:“我曾与先知ﷺ一同在黎明前用餐,若我愿意,我可以说现在已是白天,然而太阳还未升起。”艾布·达乌德记载,盖斯·本·塔里格从其父传述,先知ﷺ说:“你们吃喝吧,不要让升起的白光使你们畏惧。你们吃喝吧,直到你们看见红光铺散在地平线上。”艾布·达乌德说,这段传述只有亚马玛的人独自传述,而这是有偏差的,因为至高者的话:“你们吃喝,直到黑线中的白线对你们分明。”{你们吃喝,直到白线与黑线对你们分明}在这一点上是明确的,或几乎是明确的。 那些认为指的是铺散开的白色曙光的人——他们是多数,立场也更为稳固——对于停止饮食等事项的确切界限存在分歧。一部分教法学家说,界限就是曙光本身的破晓。另一部分人说,界限是看者本人对它的觉察。如果他没有觉察到,那么即使天已破晓,遵守戒斥也不是义务。这一区别的意义在于:如果此人发现黎明在他觉察之前已经到来,那么按照以破晓本身为界限的人的观点,他需要补功(qadā);而以本人觉察为界限的人则认为,他不需要补功。

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.

关于经文"你们吃喝，直到黑线中的白线对你们显明"中所包含的各种理解，产生了分歧。斋戒应当从白线对人显明时开始，还是从它实际出现时开始？阿拉伯人习惯以比喻的方式使用这一词语，用一种现象的发生来指代紧随其后的另一种现象。因此，经文的意思仿佛是说："你们吃喝，直到白线与黑线对你们分明。"如果白线自身已经显明，它便对我们显明，因此，将"显明"归于我们，正是争议的原因所在。因为白线可能在其自身已经显明、分明，而对我们而言仍未显明。表面的意思要求将戒斋与实际的认知相连，而类比则将其与事实本身相连。我指的是从日落礼拜的律例以及其他与时间限制相关的所有宗教义务中所作的类比，例如晌礼的时间从太阳偏西时开始。在所有这些情况中，考虑的都是事实本身，而非对事实的认知。 马立克的著名观点，也是多数学者所持的观点，是饮食等行为可以持续到黎明破晓之时。但也有人说，戒斋应在黎明之前开始。第一种观点的依据是布哈里《圣训实录》中所记载的圣训，我相信在某些传述版本中也有此文：先知ﷺ说："你们吃喝，直到伊本·乌姆·马克图姆为你们召唤（晨礼），因为他只有在确定黎明已经破晓时才会召唤。"这段圣训在争议之点上是明确的，或者几乎是明确的，并且与经文"你们吃喝，直到黑线中的白线对你们显明"相符。 218 那些主张禁食应在黎明前开始的人，是出于谨慎，也是为了杜绝导致违犯的途径。这一观点更为审慎，而另一种观点则更符合类比推理。真主最为知晓。

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.

他们一致认为，斋戒期间，斋戒者必须戒绝饮食与房事，这是有义务的。依据是至高者的话："现在你们可以与妻子交合，可以寻求安拉为你们所命定的。你们可以吃，可以喝，直到黎明时白色的线条对你们显明，与黑色的线条有别。"他们在一些问题上存在分歧，其中有些问题经文中没有明确规定，有些则有明确规定。没有明确规定的问题包括：进入胃中但并非食物的东西，从进食与饮水的通道之外进入胃中的东西，例如灌肠，以及进入身体其他部位而非胃部的东西，例如进入大脑却未到达消化道的东西。

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.

他们在这些问题上产生分歧，原因在于从食物推及非食物的类比。因为经文明确提及的都是食物，所以那些认为斋戒的目的有理性意义的人，不会把非食物与食物等同起来。那些坚持斋戒是一种没有理性意义的功修、并认为斋戒的目的仅仅在于戒除经由肠胃进入身体的东西的人，则把食物和非食物同等看待（就此目的而言）。马立克的观点概括起来是：凡是经由任何孔道进入咽喉的东西，无论是食物还是非食物，都必须戒除。

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.

关于除饮食之外使斋戒无效的事项，众学者一致认为：亲吻并导致射精者，斋戒无效；而仅流出前列腺液者，斋戒不受影响。唯有马立克除外。至于斋戒者亲吻，学者们存在分歧。有人允许此事；有人认为年轻人亲吻为可厌（makrūh），而老年人则可以；还有人绝对禁止。主张允许者，所依据的是传自阿伊莎和乌姆·赛莱麦的圣训：“先知ﷺ在斋戒时曾亲吻。”主张可厌者，理由是亲吻可能导致性交。有一派偏离众议，认为亲吻会使斋戒无效，其依据是传自迈蒙奈·本·赛尔德的圣训，他说：“有人问安拉的使者ﷺ关于斋戒者亲吻的事，他说：‘两者都会破斋。’”塔哈维记录了这段圣训，但认定其为弱传。至于因强烈情绪或遗忘而发生的这些行为，其讨论将放在“破斋事项及其裁决”的章节中一并论述。

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

关于niyyah（意图）的讨论从不同方面展开。这些方面包括：它是否是此项崇拜有效的条件？如果是条件，那么怎样的决定被视为有效？此外，在斋月的每一天是否都必须更新意图，还是第一天表达的意图就已足够？如果人要立定意图，那么使斋戒有效的立意时间是什么，以至于如果没有在该时间表达，斋戒就会无效？未立意图是否必然导致破斋，如果此人不破斋又会怎样？法学家们在这些问题的每一个上都存在分歧。 大多数法学家的观点是，意图是斋戒有效的条件，但祖法尔（Zufar）持不同看法，他说斋月不需要意图，除非此人碰巧有理由免除斋戒的义务，例如身处旅途，但仍愿意斋戒。他们分歧的原因源于对斋戒本质的不同认识：斋戒是一种具有理性意义的崇拜，还是没有这种意义。主张斋戒是没有理性目的之崇拜的人，使意图成为必需；而主张斋戒是具有理性目的之崇拜的人则认为，即使此人没有立定意图，目的也能达成。祖法尔把这一推理仅限于某些类型的斋戒，这一做法存在一定的薄弱之处。看来他的观点是基于这样的理由：在斋月的日子里不允许中止斋戒，而在这些日子里所守的任何斋戒都满足规定斋戒的这一形式，这是这些日子所特有的。

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.

关于他们在斋戒种类的确定上的争论——即通过确立有效的意图来明确斋戒的种类——马立克认为，必须在意图中明确指定是斋月的斋戒，在斋月中仅有一般性的封斋意图是不够的，有指定其他斋戒的意图也不够。艾卜·哈尼法持相反的观点，认为如果人有不限定的意图，或有指定斋月以外其他斋戒的意图，这种意图是有效的，斋戒便转为斋月的斋戒。但有一个例外：如果此人在旅途中，依他的看法，旅行者在斋月中若为斋月以外的斋戒而立意图，其意图便适用于所立的斋戒。理由是旅行者在旅途中没有遵守斋月斋戒的义务。他的两位著名弟子不区分旅行者与居住者，他们说，斋月中所立的每一个斋戒意图，都转为斋月的斋戒。

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