Sharh Muqaddimat al-Tafsir li-Ibn Taymiyyah - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (45)

and do not extend it to anyone outside that category, for in that case we restrict the ruling to that very type.

If, on the other hand, we treat the Prophet’s saying, “It is not an act of righteousness to fast while traveling,” as fully general, we must conclude that fasting while on a journey is never an act of righteousness, whether or not it causes the traveler hardship.

Should we narrow it down to the particular individual, we would be saying that it was not an act of righteousness only for the man whom the Prophet ﷺ saw surrounded by people who were shading him, as though the Prophet were declaring that that man’s fast alone was not righteous. This, too, is a mistake; no Muslim, as the shaykh noted, has ever upheld such a view.

If we instead affirm that the ruling is specific to the type, we say: fasting while traveling is not an act of righteousness for anyone whose condition matches that man’s—namely, when the fast imposes hardship. For such a person it is not an act of righteousness to fast on a journey, unlike one for whom fasting entails no hardship.

This balanced position is the correct one: a ruling revealed for a particular incident must be extended only to the class represented by that incident—neither to all people indiscriminately, nor to that single individual alone.

Here we should note that tying the ruling to its effective cause is preferable to universalizing it, for if we were to generalize we would then need evidence to narrow it back down. In reality, the wording is general, but the intent is particular.

There is a distinction between the statement “It is not an act of righteousness” and the statement “Righteousness is to refrain from fasting,” for when the Prophet said, “It is not an act of righteousness,” he was indicating that persisting in it is sinful.

As for a concession (rukhsah), we do not deem sinful the one who opts not to avail himself of it—unless he imagines that he has no need for the concession Allah has granted him. That is another matter entirely, and such an attitude would indeed make him blameworthy.

لا يتعداه لغيره فإننا نخصصه بذلك النوع، وإذا أخذنا بالعموم في حديث: ((ليس من البر الصيام في السفر)) ، قلنا: إن الصيام في السفر ليس من البر؛ سواء شق على الإنسان أم لم يشق. وإذا خصصناه بالشخص قلنا ليس من البر باعتبار ذلك الرجل الذي رآه النبي ﵊ عليه زحام ظللاً عليه، كأنه قال ليس صومه من البر وهذا أيضاً خطأ لا أحد يقوله من المسلمين مثل ما قال الشيخ، وإذا قلنا: إنه خاص بالنوع، قلنا: ليس من البر الصيام في السفر فيمن حاله كحال ذلك الشخص يشق عليه، فإنه ليس من البر أن يصوم في السفر بخلاف من لا يشق، وهذا القول الوسط هو الصواب، وأنه يجب أن يعدى الحكم الوارد على سبب معين إلي نوع ذلك المعين فقط لا إلى العموم، ولا أن يختص بنفس ذلك الشخص. وهنا نشير إلي أن ربطه بعلته أولى من التعميم؛ لأننا لو عممناه لاحتجنا إلي دليل على التخصيص، لكن كأنه من العام الذي أريد به الخصوص. وفرق بين قوله: ((ليس من البر)) وبين قول: ((البر ألا يصوم)) ، لأنه قول قال: ((ليس من البر)) فهو من الإثم. والرخصة لا نؤثم من لم يفعلها، اللهم إلا إذا اعتقد في نفسه الاستغناء عن رخصة الله له فهذا شئ آخر، فيكون آثماً من هذا