The Nature of Things that Break the Fast (2/2)

It is confirmed by evidence in the Book and the Sunnah that whoever does a prohibited deed mistakenly, or out of forgetfulness, then Allah will not punish him for that, so his status is like the status of one who did not at all, there is no sin upon him, and the one who does not commit a sin is neither considered disobedient nor having a committed a prohibited act. 

In his case he did what he was commanded and did not do what he was prohibited.  Such a case does not invalidate his worship, his worship is only invalidated when he does not do what he was commanded or he does what he has been prohibited from him.

Contrarily; Hajj is not invalidated by doing any of the forbidden things mistakenly or out of forgetfulness, not sexual intercourse or other than that, and this is the more apparent of the views of Ash-Shafi’i.

As for the atonement and the ransom, they become obligatory because they replace the value of the thing destroyed.  Likewise, if a boy, an insane person, or sleeping person were to destroy it, he becomes responsible for replacing it.

The ransom in case of killing game mistakenly or out of forgetfulness has the status of ransom for accidental murder.  The atonement for accidental murder is obligatory based upon texts of the Qur’an and the consensus of the Muslims.

As for the other violations during Hajj, such as clipping one’s nails, shortening one’s moustache, using perfume and wearing normal clothing, they cannot be classified under this topic.  Even if one pays ransom for such actions, this does not make it similar to the ransom of killing game; since the latter is a means of replacing the value of the thing that was destroyed.  Thus, the one doing a prohibited deed mistakenly or out of forgetfulness pays ransom alone, only in the case of killing game.

There are different opinions among people here:

1. This is one of them, it is the saying of the Dhahiriyah.

2. The second view includes both things during forgetfulness, as said by Abu Hanifah, and Ahmad, and Al-Qadhi and his companions also chose it.

3. The third view makes a distinction between what causes damage, such as killing game, shaving hair, and clipping nails; and what does not cause damage, such as perfume and dress.  This is the view of Ash-Shafi’i and Ahmad in the second narration from him, and a group of his companions chose it as well.  This view is better than the other, but removing hair and clipping nails should be classified along with the dress and perfume, not under killing game.  In this case this view would even be better.

4. The fourth view is that mistakenly killing game should not be included.  This is according to a narration from Ahmad.  This applies even more so to removing hair and clipping nails.

Contrarily, if the fasting person eats, drinks, or has sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness or mistakenly, he does not have to make it up.  This is the view of a group of predecessors and a group of those after them.

Some of them said that in the case of forgetfulness or being mistaken the fast is broken. This was the view of Malik. 

Abu Hanifah said: “This is his analogy.  But he is contradicted by the Hadith of Abu Hurayrah about forgetting”[1]

Some others say that the one eating mistakenly has broken his fast while the one who has forgotten has not.  This is the view of Abu Hanifah, Ash Shafi’i and Ahmad.  Abu Hanifah gave preference to the position of the one who forgot.  As for the followers of Ash-Shafi’i and Ahmad they say: “Forgetfulness does not break the fast because it is uncontrollable.  On the contrary, in the case of the mistaken, it was possible for him not to break his fast until he was certain that the sun had set, and that he refrain from eating when he is not sure about the beginning of Fajr.”

This distinction is deficient, and the opposite is actually the case.  According to the Sunnah, the fasting person is commanded to hasten to break his fast and to delay pre-dawn meal (As-Suhur).  In case of overcast, a long time must pass before one is sure whether it is time to break the fast or not.  This may cause him to miss the (reward of) hastening to break his fast and of performing the Maghrib prayer which he is required to expedite.  If he is not sure of sunset, he would have to postpone the Maghrib prayer until he is sure of its time.  In this case he may postpone it until the dusk goes away and still be unsure.

It is reported from Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and others among the predecessors – and it is the view of Abu Hanifah – that in the case of cloudy weather, they considered it recommended to delay the Maghrib and the Zuhr prayers, and advancing the ‘Isha’ and the ‘Asr’ prayers.  There are also texts in that regard from Ahmad and others.

Some of the followers of Abu Hanifah thought that this was done in an attempt to pray when the two times meet.  This is not the case, because immediately after this “precautionary time of meeting” is the time of ‘Asr and ‘Isha’.  But this was done because these two sets of prayers may be combined in the case of some excuse, and cloudy weather is a case of an excuse.  So the first of the two prayers is delayed and the second of them is advanced, for the sake of two benefits:

1. The first is to ease the matter for people to perform them one time for fear of rain, so it is like the case of combining for rain.

2. The second is to be sure of time of Maghrib. The same with combining Zuhr and `Asr according to the most apparent of the two views, and this is one of the two reports from Ahmad.  This means combining them due to thick mud, strong wind and the like as the scholars state.  This is the view of Malik, and the most apparent of the two sayings in the Madhhab of Ahmad.

In addition, the potential wrong committed by advancing ‘Asr and ‘Isha’ is preferred to that of advancing Zuhr and Maghrib; since performing a prayer before its time is not permissible under any circumstances.  While it is permissible to perform them during the time of Zuhr and Maghrib; since this is their due time in the case of an excuse.  The state of uncertainty is a case of an excuse.  Thus, to combine two prayers in the case of uncertainty is more reasonable than praying them individually during a time of doubt.

This is related to what is said by those who say it was done in order to catch the time the two prayers meet.  But such a time only occurs in the case of prayers that share a time. Do not see that they did not recommend delaying Fajr, ‘Isha’ or ‘Asr? If the reason for all of this was actually for fear of performing the prayer before its time, then this would have also applied to Fajr, `Asr and ‘Isha’.

It is narrated that the Prophet (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) urged us to hasten peforming the `Asr prayer:

“Expedite the prayer on the cloudy day.  Indeed, whoever leaves the ‘Asr prayer, his deed will be in vain.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Ibn Majah.)

If it is said: “If it is desirable to delay Maghrib during cloudy weather, then breaking the fast would also be delayed.”  Then we say that it is only desirable to delay along with advancing ‘Isha’, such that they are prayed before dusk disappears.  But if one delays it until he fears the disappearance of dusk, then this is not recommended, nor is it recommended to delay breaking the fast until that time.

Thus, the legislated combining for rainy weather is the combining in advance, at the time of Maghrib. 

It is not recommended to delay Maghrib until the disappearance of dusk. This would cause a great hardship on people, while combining has been legislated to ease matter for the Muslims.

Both the delay and the advancement that are recommended do not mean the performance of the two prayers without any time in between. 

Zuhr is delayed and ‘Asr advanced, but there may be a short period of time between them.  The same with Maghrib and ‘Isha’, the pray one, and wait for the other, but only a time in which none would need to go to their home and then return.  This type of combining is allowed. It is not conditional based upon instantaneous succession, according to the most correct view as we mentioned in different places.

It is confirmed in Sahih Al-Bukhari from Asma’ bint Abi Bakr, may Allah be pleased with her, who said: “One day, during the lifetime of the Prophet (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) we broke our fast in Ramadan on a cloudy day, then, the sun appeared again.”

Two rulings are inferred from this narration:

1. It is not recommended to delay breaking the fast during cloudy weather until one is sure of sunset.  They did not do this, nor did the Prophet (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) order them to.  It is well known that the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) along with his companions, may Allah be pleased with them, are well aware of the rulings, and they are the more compliant to Allah, the Almighty, and to His Messenger (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) than those who followed them.

2. Making up the fast is not obligatory.  Since, had the Prophet (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) commanded them to make it up, it would have been popular among them and it would have been conveyed to us, just as their breaking their fast was conveyed to us.  Since it was not conveyed, it is inferred that He (salAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not command it.

If it is said: “Hisham bin ‘Urwah was asked, ‘Were they commanded to make it up.’ And he said: ‘Isn’t making it up essential?’” Then the response is that this is mere view of Hisham, then they reported it with the Hadith he narrated.  Proving that he had no knowledge about that is what Ma`mar narrated: “I heard Hisham saying: ‘I do not know whether they made it up or not.” Al-Bukhari reported this.  Hisham narrated this Hadith from his wife, Fatimah bint Al-Mundhir from Asma’ (radyAllahu`anha).

Hisham also narrated from his father ‘Urwah that they were not commanded to make it up, and ‘Urwah is more knowledgeable than his son.  This is the view of Ishaq bin Rahwiyah.  Ahmad said: “By analogy, it does not break his fast.  We only left this view because of the Hadith of ‘Umar.”

Ishaq bin Rahwiyah is a colleague of Ahmad bin Hanbal, and he is in agreement with his Madhhab, in its fundamentals and its branches.  And many of their sayings are in accord. Al-Kawsakh asked his questions from Ahmad and Ishaq as did others.  Similarly At- Tirmidhi combined the sayings of Ahmad and Ishaq, for he reported both of their sayings from the issues of Al-Kawsakh.

Abu Za`rah, Abu Hatim, Ibn Qutaybah, and other Imams of knowledge and Sunnah and Hadith used to learn the Madhhab of Ahmad and Ishaq and give preference to their views over the views of the others.  Other Imams of Hadith such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, At- Tirmidhi, An Nasa’i and others who followed them are all among those who took knowledge and Fiqh from them, as well as Dawud who took from the companions of Ishaq.

Whenever Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked about Ishaq, he used to say: “Am I asked about Ishaq? Nay, Ishaq should be asked about me.”

Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ishaq, Abu ‘Ubayd, Abu Thawr, Muhammad bin Nasr Al-Marwazi, Dawud bin ‘Ali and their like are all Fuqaha’ of Hadith, may Allah be pleased with them all.

Additionally Allah the Almighty said in His Book:

“And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread [of night].” [Surah Al-Baqarah: 187]

The verse along with the authentic Hadiths of the Prophet (salAllahu‘alayhi wa sallam) clearly state the command to eat until Fajr appears plainly.  Thus, even in the state of doubt concerning Fajr, one is commanded to eat, as has been clarified.