Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (6/385)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

out of satisfaction with eating or drinking after he had been coerced into it. If he does so out of satisfaction with eating or drinking after having been coerced, he is not regarded as having acted under coercion. This is the well-known position of the madhhab. It was also said that he is indeed regarded as coerced, because most people—especially ordinary people—do not distinguish between doing something in order to ward off coercion and doing it willingly, since they have been coerced. Moreover, the general wording of the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him, “My ummah has been excused for mistakes, forgetfulness, and what they are coerced into,” (1) includes this case. This was the view preferred by Shaykh al-Islam.

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

This is the second condition: that he remembers; its opposite is forgetfulness.

If he does any of these fast-invalidating acts forgetfully, then nothing is due from him, because of the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever forgets while fasting and eats or drinks should complete his fast, for Allah has fed him and given him drink.” (2)

The Prophet’s words, peace and blessings be upon him, “while fasting,” include both an obligatory fast and a voluntary fast.

Consider his words in the hadith, “Allah has fed him”: he did not attribute the act to the person himself, but to Allah, because he had forgotten and did not intend disobedience or sin. For this reason, his act was attributed to the One who caused him to forget—Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He. This is a specific proof.

We also have a general proof: a legal principle that is among the strongest principles of the Sacred Law.

(1) Reported by Ibn Majah in *Divorce*, chapter: “The Divorce of One Who Is Coerced or Forgetful” (2043), on the authority of Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him. Its wording is: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned my Ummah for ...” It was also reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, (2045), with the wording: “Indeed, Allah has relieved my Ummah of ...” It was authenticated by Ibn Hibban (7219) and by al-Hakim (2/198), who judged it authentic according to the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim; al-Dhahabi concurred. (2) Reported by al-Bukhari in *Fasting*, chapter: “If a Fasting Person Eats or Drinks Forgetfully” (1933); and by Muslim in *Fasting*, chapter: “The Forgetful Person’s Eating, Drinking, and Sexual Intercourse Do Not Invalidate the Fast” (1155).

رضاً بالأكل أو الشرب بعد أن أكره عليه، فإن فعله رضاً بالأكل أو الشرب بعد أن أكره عليه فإنه لا يعتبر مكرهاً، هذا هو المشهور من المذهب، وقيل: بل يعتبر مكرهاً؛ لأن أكثر الناس لا سيما العوام لا يفرقون بين أن يفعلوا هذا الشيء لدفع الإكراه أو أن يفعلوه اطمئناناً به؛ لأنهم أكرهوا وعموم قوله ﷺ: «رفع عن أمتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استكرهوا عليه» (١) يشمل هذه الصورة، وهذا اختيار شيخ الإسلام. قوله: «ذاكراً لصومه فسد لا ناسياً». هذا هو الشرط الثاني: أن يكون ذاكراً، وضده الناسي. فلو فعل شيئاً من هذه المفطرات فاسداً، فلا شيء عليه لحديث أبي هريرة ﵁ أن النبي ﷺ قال: «من نسي وهو صائم فأكل أو شرب فليتم صومه فإنما أطعمه الله وسقاه» (٢). وقوله ﷺ «وهو صائم» يشمل الفريضة، والنافلة. وانظر قوله في الحديث «أطعمه الله» فلم ينسب الفعل إلى الفاعل، بل إلى الله؛ لأنه ناسٍ لم يقصد المخالفة والمعصية، ولهذا نُسب فعله إلى من أنساه وهو الله ﷿ وهذا دليل خاص. ولدينا دليل عام وهو قاعدة شرعية من أقوى قواعد الشريعة

(١) أخرجه ابن ماجه في الطلاق/ باب طلاق المكره والناسي (٢٠٤٣) عن أبي ذر ﵁، ولفظه: «إن الله تجاوز لي عن أمتي … »؛ وأخرجه عن ابن عباس ﵄ (٢٠٤٥) ولفظه: «إن الله وضع عن أمتي … » وصححه ابن حبان (٧٢١٩)، وصححه الحاكم (٢/ ١٩٨) على شرط الشيخين ووافقه الذهبي. (٢) أخرجه البخاري في الصوم/ باب الصائم إذا أكل أو شرب ناسياً (١٩٣٣)؛ ومسلم في الصيام/ باب أكل الناسي وشربه وجماعه لا يفطر (١١٥٥).