Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/384)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

they say that his fast is invalidated. If he scratches his skin until blood comes out, they say that his fast is invalidated. If he has a tooth extracted and blood comes out, they say that his fast is invalidated. If he has a nosebleed without intending it, they say that his fast is invalidated. All of this is excessive. Having a tooth extracted does not invalidate the fast, even if blood comes out, because the person having his tooth extracted does not intend to draw blood; rather, the bleeding merely occurs incidentally. Likewise, if a person scratches his skin, or lances a wound and foul matter comes out of it, none of this is harmful.

“Deliberately, while remembering that he is fasting, his fast is invalidated; not if he forgets . . .”

His statement, “deliberately,” is a circumstantial qualifier referring to the subject of “ate” and the actions conjoined to it. The author stipulates two conditions for the fast to be invalidated by the matters mentioned:

The first condition is that one act deliberately. Its opposite is acting unintentionally, which is of two types. The first is when something that invalidates the fast occurs without one’s choice and without coercion—for example, dust, smoke, or an insect flies into his mouth; or he rinses his mouth and water enters his stomach unintentionally. In such cases, his fast is not invalidated. The evidence for this is Allah’s saying:

“It is not for your mistakes that you are blamed, but for what your hearts deliberately intend.” [al-Ahzab: 5]

His heart did not deliberately intend the act that invalidates the fast, so his fast remains valid.

The second type is when a person does something that invalidates the fast under coercion. His fast is not invalidated, because Allah Most High says:

“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after having believed—except one who is compelled while his heart is secure in faith—but whoever willingly opens his heart to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a tremendous punishment.” [al-Nahl]

If the ruling of disbelief is excused in the case of coercion, then anything less serious than disbelief is even more deserving of excuse. Accordingly, if a man coerces his wife into intercourse while she is fasting, and she is unable to resist him, her fast remains valid. In order for the ruling to be lifted, however, she must do this act in order to ward off the coercion, not because she is comfortable with it—that is, she drank or ate to ward off the coercion, not

قالوا: أفطر، ولو حك جلده حتى خرج الدم قالوا: أفطر، ولو قلع ضرسه وخرج الدم قالوا: أفطر، ولو رعف بدون اختياره قالوا: أفطر، فكل هذه مبالغة، فقلع الضرس لا يفطر ولو خرج الدم؛ لأن قالع ضرسه لا يقصد بذلك إخراج الدم، وإنما جاء خروج الدم تبعاً، وكذلك لو حك الإنسان جلده، أو بط الجرح حتى خرجت منه المادة العفنة فكل ذلك لا يضر. عامداً ذَاكِراً لِصَوْمِهِ فَسد لا ناسياً .......... قوله: «عامداً» حال من فاعل «أكل» وما عطف عليه، اشترط المؤلف لفساد الصوم بما ذكر شرطين: الشرط الأول: أن يكون عامداً، وضده غير العامد، وهو نوعان، أحدهما: أن يحصل المفطر بغير اختياره بلا إكراه، مثل أن يطير إلى فمه غبار أو دخان أو حشرة أو يتمضمض، فيدخل الماء بطنه بغير قصد فلا يفطر، والدليل على ذلك قول الله تعالى: ﴿وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا أَخْطَأْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَكِنْ مَا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ﴾ [الأحزاب: ٥] وهذا لم يتعمد قلبه فعل المفسد فيكون صومه صحيحاً. الثاني: أن يفعل ما يفطر مكرهاً عليه فلا يفسد صومه لقوله تعالى: ﴿مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللَّهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِهِ إِلاَّ مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ وَلَكِنْ مَنْ شَرَحَ بِالْكُفْرِ صَدْرًا فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ *﴾ [النحل] فإذا كان حكم الكفر يعفى عنه مع الإكراه، فما دون الكفر من باب أولى، وعلى هذا فلو أكره الرجل زوجته على الجماع وهي صائمة، وعجزت عن مدافعته فصيامها صحيح، ويشترط لرفع الحكم أن يفعل هذا الشيء لدفع الإكراه لا للاطمئنان به، يعني أنه شرب أو أكل دفعاً للإكراه لا