Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (13/273)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

he is excused; and when he is excused, Allah does not hold him accountable for that excuse.

His statement, “or under compulsion”: if he breaks his fast under compulsion, the continuity is not interrupted, because he was compelled. Here too, however, citing this as an example according to the school’s position is problematic, since compulsion does not invalidate the fast, as mentioned previously. They do say, however, that if a man compels his wife to have intercourse during the day in Ramadan while she is fasting, her fast is invalidated and she must make up the day, though no expiation is due from her. But we say: if he breaks his fast under compulsion—such as when a man comes and forces him to break it, or when a woman is compelled by her husband and he has intercourse with her—the continuity is not interrupted. The correct view is that the fast has not been invalidated at all, and that the continuity remains intact.

His statement, “or for an excuse that permits breaking the fast, it is not interrupted”: if he breaks his fast for an excuse that permits doing so, such as a non-life-threatening illness or travel, the continuity is not interrupted. Thus, if a man who has begun fasting two consecutive months—whether as expiation for zihār, for intercourse during the day in Ramadan, or for killing—travels and breaks his fast, the continuity is not interrupted, because this travel permits him to break the fast. But if he contrives to travel in order to break his fast, we say to him: this is not lawful for you, and you must refrain from eating and drinking, because obligations are not waived through legal stratagems. If you do not do so, you must begin again.

The evidence that travel does not interrupt the continuity of fasting is that Allah, Most High, has permitted a person who travels during the day in Ramadan to break his fast, even though fasting Ramadan is more emphatic than fasting an expiation: it is one of the pillars of Islam, and the requirement of continuity in it is evident, since one may not break the fast even for a single day of Ramadan without an excuse. This case is likewise; therefore, the continuity is not interrupted. Thus, if he has fasted one month

معذور، وإذا كان معذوراً فإن الله لا يؤاخذ بهذا العذر. قوله: «أو مكرهاً» إذا أفطر مكرهاً فإنه لا ينقطع التتابع؛ لأنه مكره، وهذا ـ أيضاً ـ التمثيل به على المذهب مشكل؛ لأنه لا يفطر بالإكراه كما سبق، إلا أنهم يقولون: لو أكره الإنسان زوجته على الجماع في نهار رمضان وهي صائمة أفطرت، ووجب عليها القضاء دون الكفارة، لكن نقول: إنه إذا أفطر مكرهاً بأن جاء رجل وأكرهه على الفطر، أو المرأة أكرهها زوجها فجامعها فإنه لا ينقطع التتابع، والصواب أنه لا فطر أصلاً، وأن التتابع مستمر. قوله: «أو لعذر يبيح الفطر لم ينقطع» إذا أفطر لعذر يبيح الفطر، كمرض غير مخوف أو سفر فإنه لا ينقطع التتابع، فإذا قدر أن هذا الرجل الذي شرع في صيام شهرين متتابعين، سواء في كفارة الظهار، أو كفارة الوطء في نهار رمضان، أو كفارة القتل، إذا سافر فأفطر لم ينقطع التتابع؛ لأن هذا السفر مبيح للفطر، ولكن لو تحيل بالسفر على الإفطار قلنا له: لا يحل لك، ويلزمك الإمساك؛ لأن الواجبات لا تسقط بالحيل، فإن لم تفعل وجب عليك الاستئناف. والدليل على أن السفر لا يقطع التتابع في الصوم أن الله ـ تعالى ـ أباح للإنسان إذا سافر في نهار رمضان أن يفطر، وهو أوكد من صيام الكفارة، وركن من أركان الإسلام، والتتابع فيه ظاهر؛ لأنه ما يجوز أن يفطر ولا يوماً من رمضان بدون عذر، فهذا ـ أيضاً ـ مثله فلا ينقطع التتابع، فإذا كان قد صام شهراً