As for reports, this is when a knowledgeable and trustworthy physician informs him of that—that fasting will harm him. If an ordinary person who is not a physician informs him, he should not rely on his statement. Likewise, if he is informed by a physician who is not knowledgeable but merely practises medicine, he should not rely on his statement; and if he is informed by a physician who is not trustworthy, he should not rely on his statement.

Is it stipulated that the physician be Muslim in order for us to trust him, since a non-Muslim is not to be trusted?

There are two views among the scholars on this matter. The correct view is that this is not stipulated: whenever we trust his statement, we act upon it in permitting the omission of the fast. Such matters are his profession, and a disbeliever may well uphold the standards and reputation of his profession, and thus say only what he believes to be true. The Prophet ﷺ entrusted a disbeliever in one of the gravest and most perilous circumstances: when he emigrated from Mecca to Medina, he hired a polytheist man from Banu al-Dayl, named Abdullah ibn Urayqit, to guide him along the route (1). This was a perilous matter, for Quraysh were searching for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and had offered one hundred camels to anyone who led them to him. Yet the Messenger of Allah ﷺ trusted him. This indicates that if we trust a polytheist, we may accept his statement.

Question: Is it preferable for the traveller to fast, or is it preferable for him not to fast?

The answer is that, according to the Hanbali school (2), it is preferable for him not to fast. Indeed, they considered fasting disliked for the traveller. The Shafi'is said that it is preferable for him to fast, while others said that it is a matter of choice: we do not deem either breaking the fast or fasting preferable.