Zād al-Maʿād - Ibn al-Qayyim - (2/92)

Zād al-MaʿādIbn al-Qayyim

known during the day, when forming the intention during the night was no longer possible. The intention therefore became obligatory when the obligation arose and became known; otherwise, this would impose an obligation beyond one’s capacity, which is inadmissible. They say: Accordingly, if testimony to the moon’s sighting is established (1) during the day, the fast is valid with an intention formed upon learning of its obligation. The precedent for this is fasting on ‘Āshūrā’.

This is our teacher’s approach. As you can see, it is the soundest approach and the one most consistent with the principles and rules of Islamic law. The hadiths support it, and through it their apparent discrepancies are reconciled, avoiding any unnecessary claim of abrogation. Every other approach inevitably conflicts with either a rule of Islamic law or some transmitted reports.

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not command the people of Qubā’ to repeat the prayer they had performed partly facing the abrogated direction of prayer, since news of the obligation to change direction had not reached them. Likewise, someone who had not learned that fasting was obligatory, or was unable to ascertain the grounds for its obligation, is not commanded to make it up. Nor can it be said that he omitted the obligatory intention during the night, since the obligation to form that intention depends on knowing that the fast itself is obligatory. This is entirely clear.

There is no doubt that this approach is sounder than that of those who argue that fasting on ‘Āshūrā’ was obligatory and valid with an intention formed during the day, but that the ruling making it obligatory was then abrogated, along with its associated rulings—including the validity of fasting with an intention formed during the day—because those associated rulings depended on it, and when the principal ruling ceased, its dependent and associated rulings also ceased. For the validity of an obligatory fast (2) with an intention formed during the day was not associated (3) specifically with that particular day; rather, it was associated with

(1) The phrase “idhā qāmat (if [testimony] is established)” is omitted in ق. (2) ق, مب: “al-sawm (fasting).” (3) ق, ج, ص, مب: “ta‘alluqāt (connections).”

عُلِم من النَّهار، وحينئذٍ فلم يكن التَّبييت ممكنًا، فالنية وجبت وقتَ تجدُّد الوجوب والعلم به، وإلَّا كان تكليفًا بما لا يطاق وهو ممتنعٌ. قالوا: وعلى هذا إذا قامت (١) البيِّنة بالرُّؤية في أثناء النَّهار أجزأ صومه بنيَّةٍ مقارنةٍ للعلم بالوجوب، وأصله صوم يوم عاشوراء. وهذه طريقة شيخنا، وهي كما تراها أصحُّ الطُّرق وأقربها إلى موافقة أصول الشَّرع وقواعده، وعليها تدلُّ الأحاديث ويجتمع شَمْلُها الذي يُظنُّ تفرُّقه، ويُتخلَّص من دعوى النَّسخ بغير ضرورةٍ. وغير هذه الطَّريقة لا بدَّ فيه من مخالفة قاعدةٍ من قواعد الشَّرع أو مخالفة بعض الآثار. وإذا كان النَّبيُّ ﷺ لم يأمر أهل قُباءٍ بإعادة الصَّلاة الَّتي صلَّوا بعضها إلى القبلة المنسوخة إذ لم يبلغهم وجوب التَّحوُّل، فكذلك من لم يبلغه وجوب فرض الصَّوم أو لم يتمكَّن من العلم بسبب وجوبه، لم يؤمر بالقضاء، ولا يقال: إنَّه ترك التَّبييت الواجب، إذ وجوب التَّبييت تابعٌ للعلم بوجوب المبيَّت، وهذا في غاية الظُّهور. ولا ريبَ أنَّ هذه الطَّريقة أصحُّ من طريقة من يقول: كان عاشوراء فرضًا، وكان يُجزئ صيامه بنيَّةٍ من النَّهار، ثمَّ نُسخ الحكم بوجوبه فنُسخت متعلِّقاته، ومن متعلِّقاته إجزاء صيامه بنيَّةٍ من النَّهار؛ لأنَّ متعلِّقاته تابعةٌ له، وإذا زال المتبوع زالت توابعه وتعلُّقاته، فإنَّ إجزاء الصيام (٢) الواجب بنيَّةٍ من النَّهار لم يكن من متعلِّقات (٣) خصوص هذا اليوم، بل من متعلِّقات

(١) «إذا قامت» ساقطة من ق. (٢) ق، مب: «الصوم». (٣) ق، ج، ص، مب: «تعلقات».