His statement: “Or if they fasted because of clouds, they must not end the fast.” If they fasted because of clouds, they must not end the fast, because their fasting at the beginning of the month was not based on legal evidence; rather, it was merely a precaution.

According to the correct view, this issue does not arise, because no fasting is to be observed on account of clouds. Thus, this question only arises according to the view of those who hold that fasting is obligatory because of clouds.

Note: None of the matters contingent upon the beginning of Ramadan take effect on the thirtieth night of Sha‘ban if there are clouds or haze; only fasting is obligatory, because the beginning of the month has not been legally established. Rather, we fast as a precaution. For example, if a man says to his wife, “When Ramadan begins, you are divorced,” the divorce does not take effect on that night. Likewise, debts deferred until the beginning of Ramadan do not fall due on that night. Similarly, if a woman observing a waiting period calculated by months is due to complete her waiting period with the completion of Sha‘ban, her waiting period does not end on that night.

Question: If a person begins fasting based on the sighting in one land, then travels to another land whose people began fasting a day later, and he completes thirty days but the crescent is not seen in the land to which he travelled, should he end the fast or fast with them?

The correct view is that he should fast with them, even if he fasts thirty-one days. This may be likened to the case of one who travels to a land where the sun sets later: he ends his fast according to sunset in the land to which he has travelled.

It was also said—and this is the position of the school—that he should end his fast secretly, because once the crescent is sighted in one land, the ruling concerning fasting and ending the fast becomes binding upon all people.