Whoever likened fasting to the pilgrimage said, “It is converted,” whereas whoever likened it to the other acts of worship said, “It is not converted.”
With regard to their disagreement over the moment when the intention must be made, Mālik held that a fast is not valid unless the intention is formed before dawn, and this in every kind of fast. Al-Shāfiʿī maintained that an intention made after dawn suffices for voluntary fasts but not for obligatory ones. Abū Ḥanīfah was of the view that an intention formed after dawn is acceptable for any fast whose obligation is tied to a specific time—such as Ramadan or a vow for particular days—and likewise for supererogatory fasts, but it does not suffice for an obligation that still rests in one’s liability.
The reason for their divergence is the clash of the transmitted reports. The conflicting reports are as follows:
-
Al-Bukhārī narrates from Ḥafṣah that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “Whoever has not resolved during the night to fast, has no fast.” Mālik transmitted the same report in a suspended (mauqūf) form. Abū ʿUmar remarked, “The chain of Ḥafṣah’s report shows inconsistency.”
-
Muslim relates from ʿĀʾishah who said: “One day the Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—asked me, ‘Do you have anything (to eat)?’ I replied, ‘Messenger of God, we have nothing.’ He said, ‘Then I am fasting.’”
-
As for the report of Muʿāwiyah, he declared from the pulpit: “People of Madīnah, where are your scholars? I heard the Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—say, ‘Today is the Day of ʿĀshūrāʾ; its fasting has not been prescribed for us. I am fasting, so whoever among you wishes may fast, and whoever wishes may break the fast.’”
Those who adopted the method of preference (tarjīḥ) acted upon the report of Ḥafṣah. Those who adopted the method of reconciliation distinguished between voluntary and obligatory fasts—applying Ḥafṣah’s report to the obligatory fast and the reports of ʿĀʾishah and Muʿāwiyah to the voluntary fast. Abū Ḥanīfah further differentiated between an obligation fixed to a particular time and an obligation that simply remains in one’s liability: a fixed obligation has a specific time that stands in the place of intention for specification, whereas the liability-based obligation has no set time, and thus explicit specification by intention becomes necessary.
The majority of jurists hold that ritual purification from major impurity is not a condition for the validity of the fast, because ʿĀʾishah and Umm Salamah—may God be pleased with them—narrated that “the Messenger of God—peace and blessings be upon him—would wake up in Ramadan in a state of major impurity from marital relations, not from a nocturnal emission, and would still fast.” A further proof is the unanimous agreement that experiencing a wet dream during the day does not invalidate the fast. It is reported from Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr, and Ṭāwūs that if a person deliberately