192 – “It is a dispensation—namely, the permission to break the fast while travelling—granted by Allah; whoever avails himself of it has done well, and whoever wishes to fast, no sin shall be upon him.”

Muslim (3/145), al-Nasa’i (1/317) and al-Bayhaqi (4/243) transmit it through the chain of Abū Marwāḥ from Ḥamzah ibn ʿAmr al-Aslamī (may Allah be pleased with him). He said, “O Messenger of Allah! I find myself strong enough to fast while travelling; is any sin upon me?” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied … and he mentioned the ḥadith.

Majd al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyyah said in al-Muntaqā, “It is a strong proof of the superiority of breaking the fast.”

I say: The point of inference is his statement about the one who fasts, “no sin shall be upon him,” meaning he incurs no sin. This wording suggests, on the face of it, that fasting is less preferable, especially when set against his statement about breaking the fast, “has done well.” Yet, in my view—and Allah knows best—this apparent sense is not intended. The lifting of blame in any text merely indicates that the action is permissible and that no burden rests on the doer. Whether the doer is rewarded is a separate question that cannot be gleaned from the text itself but only from other, external texts. This is well known to those who have examined the matters in which the phrase “no sin upon him” occurs; they fall into two categories:

A. A category intended solely to remove hardship, with action and abstention being equal. This is the norm. An example is his ﷺ saying:

“Five kinds of animals—there is no sin upon a pilgrim in killing them: the crow, the kite, the mouse, the scorpion, and the rabid dog.”

193 – “Five kinds of animals—there is no sin upon a pilgrim in killing them: the crow, the kite, the mouse, the scorpion, and the rabid dog.”

Narrated by the two Shaykhs, Mālik, and the four Sunan compilers except al-Tirmidhī, as well as al-Dārimī (2/36), al-Bayhaqī, and Aḥmad (2/8, 32, 37, 48, 52, 54, 65, 82, 138).