because they continued fasting despite the hardship, and because they went against the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him: he broke his fast, while they remained fasting.

If the hardship is severe and there is fear of harm, then fasting is prohibited, due to Allah’s saying: “Do not kill yourselves.”

As for the saying of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, “It is not righteousness to fast while travelling” (1), which the Hanbalis cite as evidence, this applies specifically to the man whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, saw being shaded while people stood around him. He said, peace and blessings be upon him, “What is this?” They replied, “He is fasting.” He then said, “It is not righteousness to fast while travelling.”

If it is said, “What counts is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the occasion,”

we reply: Specificity is of two types:

personal specificity and categorical specificity.

Personal specificity is when it is said that this ruling is unique to this particular man and does not extend to anyone else. This requires specific evidence. It is in this sense that one says, “What counts is the generality of the wording, not the specificity of the occasion.” Thus, the verse concerning mutual imprecation was revealed regarding the case of a particular man, and likewise the verse concerning ẓihār; yet what counts is the generality, so this ruling applies to everyone.

Categorical specificity—or, if you prefer, circumstantial specificity—means that the ruling is not established generally except for one whose condition resembles that of this person. Thus, it is said: Fasting while travelling is not an act of righteousness for one to whom it causes hardship, such as this man; it does not apply generally to every person who fasts.