Aḥmad ibn al-Mufarraj informed us; he said: “ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥasan the ḥāfiẓ narrated to us; he said: ‘Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Fuḍaylī informed us; Muḥallim ibn Ismāʿīl al-Ḍabbī informed us; al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad the judge narrated to us; Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Thaqafī narrated to us; Qutaybah ibn Saʿīd narrated to us; Bakr ibn Muḍar narrated from ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith, from Bukayr, from Yazīd, the freedman of Salamah ibn al-Akwaʿ, from Salamah, who said:
‘When the verse, “And for those who can bear it with hardship, a ransom of feeding a poor person” (al-Baqarah 2:184), was revealed, anyone among us who wished could break the fast and give the ransom—until the verse that followed it was revealed, which abrogated that ruling.’⦗1⦘
This is a sound hadith, though its chain is lower; what strengthens and elevates it is its occurrence from
(1) Reported by al-Bukhari 8/136, Book of Tafsir, chapter: “Whoever among you witnesses the month must fast it”; by Muslim (1145), Book of Fasting, chapter: “Clarifying that the verse ‘And upon those who are able to fast but with hardship, there is a ransom’ is abrogated by the verse ‘Whoever among you witnesses the month must fast it’”; by Abu Dawud (2315), Book of Fasting, chapter: Abrogation of the verse “And upon those who are able to fast …”; and by al-Nasa’i 4/190, chapter: Interpretation of the Almighty’s words: “And upon those who are able to fast but with hardship is a ransom of feeding a needy person.”
Ibn Qudama states in al-Mughni 3/79: In sum, when fasting becomes unbearably strenuous for an elderly man or woman, they may break the fast and feed one poor person for each missed day. This was the view of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurayra, Anas, Sa‘id b. Jubayr, Tawus, Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri and al-Awza‘i.
Malik maintained that no compensation is due, arguing that inability to fast removes any obligation for a ransom.
Our evidence is the verse itself and Ibn Abbas’s explanation that it was revealed as a concession for the aged; likewise, an obligatory fast may be commuted to an expiation (kafara) when performance is impossible, just as with a make-up fast.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar comments in Fath al-Bari (hadith 4505): On Ibn Abbas’s reading there is no abrogation, for he limits the ransom to the one who attempts to fast but cannot, breaks the fast, and then expiates; that ruling still stands. Thus “abrogation” here does not entail abolishing the earlier ruling in every respect, since the later verse only restricts it. Such restriction is one of the meanings of naskh recognized by the Companions and their Successors.
See also al-Shatibi, al-Muwafaqat 3/102; Ibn al-Qayyim, Miftah Dar al-Sa‘ada 2/32ff.