本章讨论破斋（不封斋）及其相关律例。依照伊斯兰教法，可以破斋（或不封斋）的人分为三类：第一类是经一致同意，既可以封斋也可以不封斋的情况；第二类是必须不封斋的情况，以及穆斯林法学家之间对此存在的分歧；第三类是禁止不封斋的情况。对于每一类，都有与之相关的律例。

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.

那些可以同时获准两种情况的人是：病人（此点已有共识）、旅行者（此点存在分歧）、孕妇、哺乳期妇女，以及老人。这一划分在整体上已被公认，唯独旅行者的问题需从多个方面加以考察。这些方面包括：如果他禁食，其斋戒是否有效；若有效，旅行者禁食与不禁食哪一种更好，或者他可以在两者之间自由选择。对于旅行，是只限于某种特定类型的旅程才允许他破斋，还是凡习惯上被称为"旅行"的任何行程都允许？旅行者何时可以停止禁食？何时重新开始禁食？如果他在斋月期间开始旅行，在斋月过去一部分之后，他是否有权破斋？最后，如果他不禁食，他的判决是什么？关于病人的情况，则需讨论使其可以不禁食的疾病如何认定，以及他在不禁食时的判决。

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:

这与病人和旅行者若斋戒，其斋戒是否可作为义务斋戒而成立的问题有关。法学家们对此存在分歧。多数学者认为，若他们斋戒，其斋戒是合规且有效的。而达欧德派（Zahirites）则认为，他们的斋戒无效，其义务是在其他日子（而非斋月中）补行偿还（qada'）。

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).

分歧的原因在于对至高者经文的理解：“你们中谁患病或旅行，［应当］以其他日子补足相同的数目”。问题在于应按字面读，不假定有省略的词，还是应作比喻来理解，并补入省略的词，使其读作“他不封斋，那么［应当］以其他日子补足相同的数目”。这种言语中省略词语的现象，在阿拉伯语专家中被称为“lahn al-khitab”（言语的风格）。按字面而非比喻来读经文的人认为，旅行者的义务是以其他日子补足相同的数目，依据是至高者所说的“其他日子的数目”。那些补入省略词“他不封斋”的人则认为，只有在他不封斋的情况下，其义务才是以其他日子补足相应的数目。双方都以一些圣训来支持自己的理解，这些圣训证明了他们的理解是正确的。不过原则是按字面读取经文，除非有其他证据表明应当按其比喻义来理解。

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.

大多数学者以圣门弟子安赛（Anas）的传述作为其观点的依据。他说：“我们在斋月与安拉的使者ﷺ同行，他既不责备斋戒的人，也不责备不斋戒的人。”又有确定的传述说：“安拉的使者ﷺ的同伴们在旅途中同行，其中有人斋戒，有人不斋戒，彼此互不指责。” 达哈里派（Zahirites）则以伊本·阿拔斯（Ibn cAbbas）确定的传述作为其观点的依据：“安拉的使者ﷺ在征服麦加那年的斋月前往麦加，他一直斋戒到卡迪德（al-Kadld），之后他便停止斋戒，众人也随之停止斋戒。”他们遵循安拉的使者ﷺ最后的命令行事，并以此说明旅行时斋戒的规定已被废止。 艾布·欧麦尔（Abu cUmar）说：反驳达哈里派的论据是他们一致认为，如果病人坚持斋戒，其斋戒仍被视为有效。

The majority argue for their opinion on the basis of the established tradition of Anas, who said, “We travelled with the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) during Ramadan and he did not find fault with the person fasting in preference to the person not fasting nor did he find fault with the person not fasting in preference to the one fasting”. It is also established from him that he said, “The Companions of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) used to travel together with some of them fasting when others were not”. The Zahirites argue for their opinion on the basis of what is established from Ibn cAbbas “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) travelled to Mecca in the year of its conquest during Ramadan. He continued to fast up to al-Kadld after which he stopped fasting and so did the people”, and they , used to act upon the most recent of the commands of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him). They said that this indicates the abrogation of fasting (during travel). Abu TJmar said that the argument against the Zahirites is their consensus that if the sick person keeps the fast his fast is considered to be valid.

这与旅途中斋戒是否优于不斋戒的问题有关。若依照多数学者的观点，旅行者有权不斋戒，那么我们必须补充说明：在这一普遍共识之内，法学家们又有三种不同的看法。其中一些人认为斋戒的功德更大，持此观点的有马立克和艾卜·哈尼法。另一些人认为不斋戒更好，持此观点的有艾哈迈德以及一批法学家。还有一些人认为这属于选择的问题，两者都不优于另一者。

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.

他们产生分歧的原因，在于对某些传述文本的解释与其表面含义相冲突，以及某些传述文本之间相互冲突。这是因为，允许一个人不封斋，从字面理解是一种许可，旨在为他免除困难；而当一种许可被提供时，放弃这一许可是更值得称道的。穆斯林所辑录的哈姆扎·本·阿慕尔·阿斯拉米的传述可以印证这一点：他说：“安拉的使者啊，我觉得自己有能力在旅途中封斋，那我这样做是否有罪？”安拉的使者ﷺ说：“这是安拉赐予的许可，谁遵行它，便是行善；而愿意封斋的人，也没有罪过。”然而，先知ﷺ所说的“旅途中封斋并非虔敬之举”，加之他晚年的一次行为是不封斋，给人的印象是不封斋更好。不过，不封斋并非法定的律例，而只是一种允许的行为；而大多数学者难以认为允许的行为优于法定的行为。主张可以自由选择的人，依据的是阿伊莎的传述，她说：“哈姆扎·本·阿慕尔·阿斯拉米向安拉的使者ﷺ询问旅途中封斋的事，他说：‘你若愿意就封斋，若愿意就不封斋。’”此段圣训由穆斯林辑录。

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.

关于旅行者不斋戒的许可是否仅限于达到一定距离的旅程，学者们存在分歧。多数学者认为，只有在可以缩短拜功的旅程中才可以不斋戒，而这一点又随着他们在缩短拜功问题上的分歧而有所不同。另有一派学者则主张，凡是可以称为“旅行”的行程，旅行者都可以停止斋戒。这一派即是达឵希里派（Zahirites）。

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.

他们产生分歧的原因，在于经文的字面含义与某种理解之间存在冲突。字面含义是：只要符合“旅行”这一术语，人便可以不斋戒，因为至尊真主说：“你们中有病的人或旅行的人，应当在其他的日子里补还同等的天数。”然而，允许在旅途中不斋戒的可理解之义，是为了免除艰难。既然并非每一次旅行都有艰难，那么就必须将允许不斋戒限定于有艰难的旅行中。又因为圣门弟子似乎对此已有一个共识的界限，由此可推，应当以缩短拜功的界限作类比。

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.

他们在允许不封斋的疾病范围上也存在分歧。一派法学家认为,这是指那种会使封斋伴随困难和痛苦的疾病,这是马立克的观点。另一派法学家认为,这是指严重到难以承受的疾病,这是艾哈迈德的观点。第三派法学家认为,只要此人能被称为“病人”,他就不必封斋。他们产生分歧的原因,与确定旅行限度所依据的理由完全相同。

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.

旅行者何时停止斋戒，何时开始斋戒？一群法学家认为，旅行者应在出发当天即停止斋戒。这是al-Sha'T、al-Hasan和Ahmad的观点。另一群人则认为，出发当天不必停止斋戒。这一观点得到了各地法学家的支持。一群法学家认为，若人知道自己在旅途第一天就会抵达某城，那么他最好在斋戒的状态下进入该城。他们之中有些人比其他人更为严格，但所有人都不认为在未斋戒时进入城市的人需要承担赎罪。至于在一天已过去一部分时才进入城市的人，他们存在分歧。Malik和al-ShaficT说，他应继续饮食。Abu HanTfa及其门徒则说，他应当戒除饮食，正如在他们看来，经期妇女进入洁净期后便要停止饮食一样。

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.

因为传述与理性推论之间存在冲突，学者们在旅行者应当在何时停止斋戒的问题上产生了分歧。伊本·阿拔斯的传述确立了这一点："安拉的使者（愿主的慰埋与祝福降于他ﷺ）持斋直至抵达卡迪德，然后他停止了斋戒，人们也与他一同停止了。"这段传述的表面含义是，他是在已经作了斋戒的意图之后才停止斋戒的。至于那些人，毫无疑问，他们是在前一夜已作了斋戒的意图之后才破斋的。与此意义相同的，还有哲比尔·伊本·阿卜杜拉的传述："安拉的使者（愿主的慰埋与祝福降于他ﷺ）在征服麦加那一年出行前往麦加。他一直前行，直到抵达卡尔·甘迈姆，他在那里要了一碗水，当时人们正在斋戒，他把碗举起，好让人们看见，然后他饮了水。之后有人对他说，还有一些人继续斋戒。他说：'他们是违抗者，他们是违抗者。'"艾布·达乌德记载，艾布·布斯拉·阿尔-吉法里刚刚走出房屋，便要来了餐布。传述者哲法尔说："我对他说：'你没有看见那些房屋吗？'他回答：'你是在回避安拉的使者（愿主的慰埋与祝福降于他ﷺ）的逊奈吗？'"哲法尔说："于是他便进食了。"其理性推论在于：既然旅行者只被允许在前一夜作斋戒的意图，那么他就不得废除自己的斋戒，因为他是依据至尊者的话作了意图的："信道的人们啊！你们当服从安拉，服从使者，不要使你们的功修归于无效。"

The reason for their disagreement about the time at which the traveller is to stop fasting arises from the conflict of traditions with reasoning. It is established through the tradition of Ibn cAbbas “that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) kept the fast until he reached al- KadTd when he stopped fasting and so did the people with him”. The apparent meaning of this tradition is that he stopped fasting after he had> formed the intention for fasting. In the case of the people, however, there is no doubt that they broke the fast after they had formed the intention for it the previous night. Implying the same is the tradition of Jabir ibn <Abd Allah “that the -Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) travelled to Mecca in the year of its conquest. He continued to travel up to Karac al- GhamTm, where he asked for the drinking bowl, when the people were fasting, and raised it so the people could see him. He then drank from it. It was later said to him that some of the people continued to fast. He said, ‘They are the disobedient. They are the disobedient’ Abu Dawud has recorded from Abu Busra al-Ghifan that he had barely gone beyond the houses when he asked for the dining sheet. Jacfar, the narrator of the tradition, said, “I said to him, ‘Do you not see the houses?’ He replied, ‘Do you shy away from the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him)”’. JaTar said, “He then ate”. The reasoning here is that as the traveller is permitted only to form the intention for his fast on the previous night it is not permitted that he annul his fast, because he formed the intention on the basis of the words of the Exalted, “O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the messenger and render not your actions vain”.

这涉及一个问题:斋戒中的人在斋月里开始旅行后,是否允许在旅途中停止斋戒。多数学者认为他可以这样做。据传另有一些人持不同看法,他们是:塔巴伊德·阿尔-萨勒玛尼(TJbayda al-SalmanT)、苏瓦伊德·伊本·盖菲拉(Suwayd ibn Ghafla)和伊本·马贾兹(Ibn Majaz),他们认为如果某人在斋月中已经开始斋戒并在斋月内启程,则他不允许中止斋戒。

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.

他们之间产生分歧的原因，在于对至高者的经文“凡在场的人，就当封斋这个月”的理解有异。这句经文可以理解为：在月份中有一部分时间在家的人，有义务封斋整个月。也可以理解为：见到月份中一部分时间（作为居住者）的人，应当封斋那一部分。按照共识，见到整个月份的人应当封斋整个月；由此也应当理解为，见到月份中一部分时间（作为居住者）的人，应当封斋那一部分。多数学者的观点，得到了先知ﷺ在斋月中开始旅程这一事实的支持。

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.

旅行者在斋月中中断斋戒，其裁决是需要补斋（卡达），这是一致的看法；病人也是如此，因为至高者说："（应当）在其他日子里补足同样的数目。"这些例外的人是因昏厥或精神失常而生病的人，但法学家对这两种情况存在分歧。各地的法学家认为昏厥者有补斋的义务，但对精神失常者则有不同看法。马立克的观点是，精神失常者也有补斋的义务，但此说较弱，因为先知ﷺ说过："三种人的责任被免除……其中包括精神失常的人，直到他恢复理智。"主张两者都需补斋的法学家，又对昏厥和精神失常是否会使斋戒无效存在分歧。一派认为它们会使斋戒无效，另一派认为不会。第三派法学家区分了昏厥发生在黎明前还是黎明后：一派认为，如果昏厥发生在白天的大部分时间过去之后，斋戒仍然有效；但如果发生在白天的前半段，则需要作为补斋来补斋，这也是马立克的观点。

The hukm for the traveller if he ceases to fast (during Ramadan) is qada\ by agreement, and the same holds for the sick person, because of the words of the Exalted, “(Let him fast the same) number of other days”.223 224 The exceptions are persons who are sick due to fainting or insanity, but the jurists disagreed about the two cases. The jurists of the provinces maintain the obligation of qad# for the person who faints, but differ about the insane. In Malik’s opinion he is under an obligation for qada>, but it is weak because of the words of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “The pen (liability) has been lifted in the case of three persons .. and the insane person until he recovers”. Those who imposed the obligation on both disagreed about the existence of fainting and insanity as vitiating factors for fasting. One group said that they do vitiate fasting, while another group said that they do not. A third group of jurists made a distinction between the fainting spell occurring before dawn or after dawn. One group said that if it occurs after the passage of the greater part of the day the person’s fast is valid, but if it occurs in the first part of the day he is to fast as qadtf, and this is Malik’s opinion.

关于旅行者和病人的补偿（qadā'），有若干相关的子问题，包括：他们的补偿是否需要连续进行？他们作为补偿需要做什么？如果他们无故拖延补偿的履行，直到下一个斋月，他们应承担什么责任？如果他们在未履行应尽的补偿之前去世，其监护人（walī）是否要代其斋戒？ 一些学者规定补偿必须连续进行，如同当期斋戒一样，而另一些学者则不然。在这些学者中，有人给予当事人选择的余地，也有人认为连续进行是可取的；但大多数学者主张取消连续进行的义务。

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.

他们分歧的原因在于经文的表面含义与类比之间的冲突。就此而言,类比要求补做(qada)的功修应与原本的功修(ada’)相同,其依据是礼拜和朝觐。安拉至高的话语“(应当斋)同等数目的其他日子”(225)之表面含义表明,义务仅在于数目相同,而不要求连续进行。据传阿伊莎曾说:“这节经文降示时是‘连续的若干日’,但‘连续’一词被省略了。”

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”.

关于将补斋推迟到下一个斋月开始之后，一些法学家认为，这样的人有义务在新的斋月之后补斋，并且还需缴纳赎罪（kaflara）。这是马立克、沙斐仪和艾哈迈德的观点。另一些法学家则认为，他没有缴纳赎罪的义务。这是哈桑·巴士里和易卜拉欣·纳赫仪的观点。

With respect to delaying qadd until the next Ramadan has started, a group of jurists said that the obligation upon such a person is qadd after the new Ramadan as well as expiation (kaflara). This was the opinion of‘Malik, al- Shafi T, and Ahmad. Another € group of jurists said that there is no obligation of expiation upon him. This was the opinion of al-Hasan al-Basn and of Ibrahim al-Nakha T.

c 他们分歧的原因在于：类比是否可以用于将一种赎罪（kaffārah）延伸到另一种？不允许在赎罪中使用类比的人说：他只需要补偿（qaḍāʾ）。允许在赎罪中使用类比的人说：他有义务依照故意破斋者的情况来进行赎罪，因为两者都侵犯了斋戒的神圣性。此人是通过在应当补偿的时间放弃补偿来侵犯，而那人则是通过在不允许进食的日子里进食来侵犯。若是由立法者明确规定了补偿有一个确定的时间，这种类比本可以有充分的依据，因为立法者已经为斋戒（ adāʾ）规定了确定的时间。有一派法学家偏离了这一观点，说如果此人的病持续到下一个斋月，他就不需要补偿。这与经文相违背。

c The reason for their disagreement is whether analogy can > be used for extending one expiation to another? Those who did not permit analogy for expiation said that he is only liable for qadd\ Those who permitted analogy in expiation said that he is obliged to make expiation on the analogy of the person who breaks his fast intentionally as both violate the sanctity of the fast. This person does it by relinquishing qadd at its proper time whereas the other does it by eating during a day on which eating is not permitted. Analogy here would be well grounded had it been established explicitly by the Lawgiver that there is a determined time for qad&, because the timings for 'ad# have been determined by the Lawgiver. One group of jurists deviated saying that if the illness of the person continues up to the next Ramadan there is no qad# for him. This opposes the text.

本章其余部分专门讨论乳母、孕妇和老人。与此相关有两个众所周知的问题。第一个问题是：如果孕妇和乳母不封斋，她们的义务是什么？法学家对此有四种看法。第一种看法是两者都要供养贫民，且不需要补斋（qadāʾ）。这一看法传自伊本·欧麦尔和伊本·阿拔斯。第二种看法与第一种相反，即她们只需补斋，不需供养贫民，这是艾布·哈尼法及其门徒、艾布·欧拜德和艾布·save（艾布·萨尔）的看法。第三种看法是她们既要补斋，也要供养贫民，这是沙斐仪的观点。第四种看法是孕妇补斋但不供养贫民，而乳母既要补斋，也要供养贫民。

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.

造成他们之间分歧的原因，在于这些人的情况在两类人之间摇摆：一类是斋戒艰难的人，另一类是病人。认为她们与病人相似的人说，她们只需补做斋戒（qadā'）。认为她们与斋戒极为吃力的人相似的人说，她们只需供养贫困者；这一观点的依据是有人诵读的经文：“那些难以承受斋戒的人，应当以供养贫民作为赎偿”（masākīn）。同时考虑这两方面因素的人，据其看法，是基于两种相似性作出判断的。因此，他们说，她们在与病人相似的方面需要补做斋戒，在与斋戒艰难者相似的方面需要缴纳赎偿。然而，把她们比作身体健康而不斋戒的人，这种看法是薄弱的，因为健康的人没有被允许不斋戒。 至于孕妇与哺乳妇的区别：有人把孕妇归入病人一类，而把哺乳妇的裁决视为病人与斋戒艰难者两种裁决的结合，或者把她比作身体健康的人。只为她们确定一种裁决的人，其观点更为可取，真主至知。这与合并两种裁决的人相比更为妥当；同样，只确定补做斋戒（qadā'）裁决的人，比只确定供养裁决的人观点更好，因为作为其依据的那段经文的诵读并非经传（mutawātir），而是有异读。所以你应当深思，其理自明。

The reason for their disagreement derives from the vacillation of their cases between resemblance with those for whom fasting is difficult and between the sick person. Those who regarded them to be similar to the sick person said that they are only to perform qadd\ Those who regarded them to be similar to those for whom fasting is exhausting said that they are only obliged to feed the needy; this view rests on the evidence of the recitation, recited by some, of the verse, “And those for whom it is overwhelming is ransom: feeding the needy (masakin)” Those who considered both factors for them, it appears, formed their opinion on the basis of both resemblances. Thus, they said that they are obliged for qada* insofar as they resemble the sick person, and they are obliged for ransom insofar as they resemble those for whom fasting is difficult. Holding them similar to a person of sound health who does not fast, however, is weak as there is no permission for the healthy person not to fast. Those who made a distinction between the pregnant woman and the wet-nurse associated the pregnant woman with the sick person, and they rendered the hukm of the wet-nurse to be a combination of the hukm of the sick person and the hukm of the person for whom fasting is difficult, or they held her to be similar to the person in sound health. Those who singled out one hukm for them have a better opinion, Allah knows best, as compared to those who combined the two, just as those who singled out the hukm of qada* for them have a better opinion than those who singled out the hukm of feeding for them, as the reading of the verse on the basis of which they assigned it is not mutawatir (and is variant). So ponder over it, for it is evident.

对于哪些人可以在已经破斋的情况下不必继续守斋，这一问题的探讨，是围绕破斋的方式展开的：或因房事而破斋，或因其他方式而破斋；同时也涉及行为本身是双方一致认可的，还是存在争议的，即基于疑惑而作出的行为与并非基于疑惑的行为。这两种情况中的每一种，都可能是由于遗忘、由于故意、由于自主选择，或由于被迫而发生。

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.

大多数法学家认为，故意以性交破斋的人，既须补偿（卡达）斋戒，也须赎罪（卡法喇），其依据是艾布·胡莱赖传述的圣训：有人来到安拉的使者ﷺ面前说：“我完了，安拉的使者啊！”他说：“什么使你完了？”他说：“我在斋月里与妻子同房。”他说：“你有奴隶可以释放吗？”他答：“没有。”他说：“你能连续禁食两个月吗？”他答：“不能。”他说：“你有食物可以供给六十个贫困的人吗？”他答：“没有。”然后他等待着。先知ﷺ收到一份赠礼，是一筐（法拉格，约十五萨阿，即六十捧）枣子，便对他说：“把这些拿去施舍。”那人说：“施舍给比我更穷的人吗？城镇的两端之间，没有哪一家比我们家更需要它。”先知ﷺ笑了，露出了他的犬齿，说：“去吧，用它来养活你的家人。” 学者们在以下几点上存在分歧：故意以饮食破斋，是否与以性交破斋适用相同的裁决，同样需要补偿和赎罪？如果人是因遗忘而发生性交，他的义务是什么？如果女方并未被迫，她的义务是什么？赎罪是否必须按所列顺序进行，还是可以自由选择？如果以供养穷人的方式赎罪，每位穷人应得的数量是多少？赎罪是否随性交次数的重复而重复？如果他处于困境而推迟供养，待境况好转后，这项义务是否变为必须履行？

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?

对于故意因饮食而破斋，是否需要承担赎罪（kaffārah）？马立克及其门徒、艾卜·哈尼法及其门徒、赛吴热（al-Thawrī）以及一批法学家认为：故意以饮食破斋的人，应承担补偿（qaḍāʾ）以及此段圣训中所提及的赎罪。沙斐仪（al-Shāfiʿī）、艾哈迈德以及孛希里派（al-Ẓāhiriyyah）则认为：只有以房事破斋时，才产生赎罪的义务。

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.

他们分歧的原因，源于对如何类推的争论：是否应将以性交破坏斋戒的人，与以饮食破坏斋戒的人相比较。主张两者有共同依据的人，即斋戒神圣性遭到侵犯，因此认定两者的判决应当相同。主张赎罪虽是对侵犯斋戒神圣性的惩罚，但就其严厉程度而言，更适合用于以性交破坏斋戒的人，而非其他人的人则认为：惩罚的目的在于遏制，因此对于人们欲望更为强烈的行为，应设定更重的惩罚。他们说，这种行为比其他违犯更为强烈，尽管各类违犯的程度相近，而设立赎罪的目的，是使人们遵守法律、敬畏虔诚、行为端正，正如至高者所说："信道的人们啊！斋戒是为你们而规定的，正如为你们以前的人们所规定的一样，以便你们敬畏。"他们说，这种加重的赎罪因此只适用于性交。主张在此类问题上运用类推者持这些观点。而不主张在此运用类推者的观点则很明显：他们不将性交违犯的判决扩展到饮食上。

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.

马立克在《穆宛塔》中所传的一则圣训：有人在斋月中破斋，先知ﷺ命他履行所列的赎罪，这一说法并不具有说服力。因为传述者所说的这人"破斋"一语属于mujmal（含混未明的表述），而含混之语没有可以采用的普遍涵义。然而，它确实表明了传述者的看法，即他把赎罪视为破斋的后果。假如情况并非如此，他就不会提到这些话，而会直接说明破斋的某种方式。

The report by Malik in al-Muwattd, that a person broke his fast during Ramadan and the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to make the listed expiation, is not persuasive as the statement of the narrator that the person “broke his fast” is mujmal (unelaborated), and the mujmal does not have a general implication that can be adopted. It does, However, give an opinion as the narrator reported expiation to be a consequence for breaking the fast. Had this not been the case he would not have mentioned these words, and he would have mentioned one of the ways in which the fast is broken.

当禁食者因遗忘而与配偶行房时，沙斐仪（al-ShafiT）与艾布·哈尼法（Abu HanTfa）认为，此人既无需补偿（qadd），也无需赎罪（kaffara）。马立克（Malik）认为，他需要补偿（qadd），但无需赎罪。艾哈迈德（Ahmad）与达希尔派（al-Zahiriyya）则认为，他既需要补偿，也需要赎罪。

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.

造成他们对于因遗忘而行为者是否需要补偿（qadā'）存在分歧，其根源在于一段圣训的表面含义与类比推理（qiyās）相互冲突。这一类比认为，忘记礼拜的人与忘记封斋的人相似。主张二者相似的人，便依据经文对忘记礼拜者的规定，认为忘记封斋者也应补偿。与此类比的表面含义相冲突的圣训，是布哈里和穆斯林从艾卜·胡莱赖传述的：安拉的使者ﷺ说："谁在封斋时忘记而吃喝，应当完成他的斋戒，因为是安拉让他吃喝的。"这段圣训得到了先知ﷺ的另一句普遍含义的圣训的支持："我的民众中，因错误、遗忘以及被迫所做之事，其责任已被免除。" 在这一议题之内，他们还有另一分歧：对于那些错误地以为太阳已经落山而破斋，但太阳随后才出现的人，是否需要补偿。理由是此人犯了错误，而犯错者的判决与遗忘者相同。无论以何种方式表述，遗忘在免除补偿责任上的效力是显而易见的，安拉最为清楚。其论证是：如果我们坚持原则，即在没有证据表明之前，遗忘者不负补偿责任，那么就必须认定封斋时的遗忘不需补偿，因为没有证据表明需要补偿，这与礼拜的情况正好相反。 另一方面，如果我们认为原则是补偿（qadd）是必须的，直到有证据表明它从遗忘者的责任中被免除，那么我们可以说，在艾布·胡莱赖（Abu Hurayra）的传述中，已有证据表明它已从遗忘者的责任中被免除。除非有人坚持认为：对于其他形式的功修，遗忘者的情况已被文本从遗忘规则中排除（凡放弃者，文本即全部免除其责任），而斋戒遗忘者的情况是以拜功为基础类推而来的。然而，通过类比来确立补偿义务是薄弱的。而按照多数学者的观点，补偿是通过一道新的命令而成为必须的。

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.

这个问题涉及学者们对于（在斋戒期间）被诱骗与人发生性行为的女子是否需要承担赎罪（库法来）义务的分歧。艾卜·哈尼法及其门徒，以及马立克及其门徒，都认为她有赎罪的义务。沙斐仪和达伍德则认为她没有赎罪的义务。

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.

这一分歧的根源在于该圣训的表面含义与类比（类推）相冲突，因为先知（愿主的赞颂与祝福降临于他）并没有命令圣训中的那位妇女进行赎罪。而类比的理由是：她与男子一样，两者都负有相同的责任，故应与男子同等对待。

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.

是否存在赎罪（kaffārah）的先后顺序，如同 zihār（伤害性比拟）的情况那样，还是可以自由选择？所谓顺序，是指义务人不得从一项义务转向另一项，除非他无法履行前一项；所谓自由选择，是指他可以在不无法履行另一项的情况下选择其中一项。学者们对此存在分歧。al-Shāfiʿī、Abū Ḥanīfah、al-Thawrī 以及所有库法学者都认为存在顺序。因此，此人应先释放一名奴隶；如果他无法做到，则应斋戒；如果他也无法做到，则应供养贫民。Mālik 认为这是基于选择的。Ibn al-Qāsim 从他那里转述，认为供养贫民比释放奴隶和斋戒更为可取。

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.

他们在是否要求顺序上存在分歧，其原因在于各段圣训表面含义之间的冲突，以及各种类比推理之间的差异。关于那位乡下人的圣训，其表面含义显示存在顺序要求，因为先知ﷺ曾问他是否有能力依次完成各项功课。而马立克所传的那段圣训：“有人在斋月中破斋，安拉的使者ﷺ命令他释放一名奴隶，或者连续斋戒两个月，或者供养六十位贫困的人”，其表面含义则表示选择，因为阿拉伯人用法中的“或”（أو）表示选择。尽管这句话出自传述者的言辞，而传述者是对语境及用词含义最为熟悉的圣门弟子之一。

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.

相互冲突的类比则是基于这样的看法：一次将其等同于zihdr（宣誓离妻）的赎罪，另一次又将其等同于誓言的赎罪；尽管它更接近zihdr的赎罪，而非誓言的赎罪。此外，还有从传述者的陈述中推导出命令的做法。

The conflicting analogies, on the other hand, are based on holding it to be similar, once, with, the expiation in zihdr and, another time, with the expiation for an oath, though it resembles more the expiation for zihdr rather than that for an oath, and also by deriving an order from the statement of the narrator.

在马立克看来，以施食于贫民作为开始是值得推崇的，但这与圣训的表面含义相冲突。他作出这一判断，是基于类比推理：法律中多次将施食于贫民作为斋戒的替代，而且根据一种异文诵读——“那些无法承受的人，应当以施食于贫民作为赎罪”——施食与斋戒的关系比其他方式更为契合。出于同样的理由，他与一些法学家认为，为身故而仍有未尽斋戒义务的人，代其以施食方式补偿是值得推崇的。这似乎属于这样一类：以有原则依据的类比，优先于没有原则支持的圣训。

这与他们关于施舍给贫困者的食物数量的分歧有关。马立克、沙斐仪及其弟子们认为，应当依照先知ﷺ所用的穆德（mudd）标准，给每位贫困者一穆德食物。艾布·哈尼法及其弟子们则认为，依照先知ﷺ所用的穆德标准，少于两穆德是不够的，这相当于每位贫困者半萨阿（ṣāʿ）。

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.

他们*的分歧，源于类比与一则圣训之间的冲突。该类比是基于此赎偿与因疾病而未剃头（于朝觐结束时）的情况之间的相似性，而后者已有明文规定。所据圣训，是各种关于赎罪的版本中所传的：一法拉格（一种大量度器）包含十五个萨阿（sā‘）。然而，其包含十五个萨阿，并不表明在此情况下每位贫困者都有义务获得这一数量，除非通过非常微弱的暗示；但它确实表明，此赎罪中代替斋戒的数额为这一数量。

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.

这是关于违犯斋戒后重复赎罪的问题。学者们一致认为，若有人在斋月中与妻子行房，并已完成赎罪，之后又在另一天行房，则须再次赎罪。他们also一致认为，若有人在同一天多次行房，只需承担一次赎罪。 他们在以下情形上存在分歧：某人在斋月中某一天行房，但在再次于另一天行房之前并未履行赎罪。马立克、沙斐仪以及一批法学家认为，他须为每一天的行房各自赎罪。艾布·哈尼法及其门徒则认为，只要他尚未为第一次行房履行赎罪，就只需承担一次赎罪。

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.

分歧的原因在于这些赎罪（Kaffarah）与哈德（hudud）中的赎罪之间存在相似性。认为它们与哈德相似的人说，就同一原因而涉及的多种行为而言，一次赎罪便已足够，正如犯通奸者即使多次犯此罪，只要就其中任何一次都未受过哈德惩罚，也只承受一次鞭刑。认为它们与哈德不相似的人则为每一天破坏斋戒的行为确定了独立的裁决，因此每一天都要求一次赎罪。他们主张，两者的区别在于：赎罪是一种趋近安拉的途径，而哈德则纯粹是一种威慑。

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.

一个人在斋月白天与妻子行房，犯了这一罪过，当时无力负担赎罪的代价，等他经济状况好转以后，是否还必须履行赎罪？奥扎仪（Al-Awzaci）说，如果他犯罪时处于贫困，那么他就不欠什么。沙斐仪（Al-ShafiT）对这一问题有所犹豫。

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.

他们产生分歧的原因在于，这是一项hukm，而这一规定并未在法律中明文阐述，因此它可能类似于债务，在这种情况下，若其经济状况好转，义务便会重新生效；同样也有可能认为，如果这是一项义务，先知（愿真主的赐福与平安降临于他）早就会加以说明了。

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.

这些便是学者们一致认为故意作为会使斋戒无效的情形的裁决。在有争议的情形中，主张斋戒已被破坏的人们，又分歧于仅需补偿（qadā'）还是需要补偿并加赎罪（kaffārah）。例如：拔罐、呕吐、吞下石子，以及旅行者在出发当天即破斋，按照认为他不应当这样做的学者的观点。

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.

马立克认为,对这样的旅行者应当强制规定补偿(qadā’)和赎罪(kaffārah),但其他地区的法学家和他的大多数门徒都反对他的这一看法。主张在故意呕吐的情况下应当规定补偿和赎罪的,有艾布·萨尔(Abu Thawr)和奥扎’i(al-Awzā‘ī);其余认为呕吐会破斋的法学家,则只规定补偿。在认为拔火罐会破斋的人当中,主张拔火罐的情况下应规定补偿和赎罪的,只有阿塔’(‘Aṭā’)一人。

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

c 这一分歧的根源在于：破斋的存在争议的因素与无争议的破斋因素相似，也与双方一致认为不破斋的行为相似。那些认为其中某一种相似占优的人，便使该相似所对应的判决成为必须遵守的判决。正是这两类存在于这些情况中的相似，引起了分歧，即该人是否被视为已经破斋，或是否不被视为破斋。由于破斋本身存在疑问，多数学者认为赎罪不是义务，只需补斋（qadd*）即可。 基于此，艾布·哈尼法认为：有意破斋之后，当天又出现了使该人可以破斋的情况，则他不需要赎罪。例如，一名女子有意破斋之后，在当天其余时间开始了经期；又如，一名身体健康的人有意破斋之后随即生病；再如，一名居住者破斋之后出门旅行。因此，那些着眼于最终发展、认为其破斋合法化的人说，此人无需赎罪。理由是，对于这些人而言，事后的发展表明他们在那一天破斋是被允许的。而那些更注重违法性的人则要求此人赎罪，因为他在破斋时并不知道之后才出现的许可。这是马立克和沙斐仪的观点。