Islamic Fiqh > Fasting > Fasting of the traveller and the sick person
The traveller and the sick person may break the fast and make it up: the evidence, the conditions accepted by the schools, and the value of fasting despite the concession.
Contents
Updated on 06 October 2026 at 10:50 PM
The 4 schools agree: the sick person who fears, through fasting, a worsening of his illness, a delay in cure or damage to an organ, may break the fast and makes up; and breaking is for him a sunna, completing the fast being disliked since it may lead to ruin. an-Nawawi cites al-Qadi Iyad: the majority of the scholars define the illness that dispenses as the one that makes fasting hard. He adds: lasting hardship suffices, without requiring total inability to fast. Ibn Qudama speaks of severe illness; Ahmad was asked: when does the sick person break?
He said: "When he no longer can. And: "What illness is harder than fever? Some of the early generations allowed breaking for any ailment, even a toothache, but they are answered that the verse targets the illness the fasting harms.
The majority (Hanafis, Malikis in one view, Shafi'is, Hanbalis in principle): the healthy person who fears illness with a strong likelihood, on a sign, an experience or the word of a skilled and pious doctor, may break; mere imagination grants no licence.
The Shafi'is add: one overwhelmed by hunger and thirst to the point of fearing ruin must break, even if healthy and resident, on "and do not throw yourselves into ruin" (al-Baqara 195). Whoever fasts regardless: his fast is valid and counts, but Ibn Qudama says it is performed in a disliked manner.
The 4 schools hold the traveller's fast valid. Aisha reported that Hamza ibn Amr al-Aslami, a great faster, asked: "Shall I fast while travelling?" He answered: "If you wish, fast; if you wish, break" (al-Bukhari 1943, Muslim 789). And Anas said: "We travelled with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and neither was the faster reproached for fasting nor the one who broke for breaking" (al-Bukhari 1947, Muslim 787).
The majority (Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis in one view): fasting is preferable if it does not wear him out, on "yet to fast is better for you" and the hadith of Hamza which gives the choice; Ibn Rushd writes: what is a dispensation, it is better to leave.
The Hanafis add a limit: if most of his companions break or share the expenses, breaking with them is preferable.
The Hanbalis (in the madhhab) and several Malikis (Ibn Habib, Ibn Abd al-Barr) judge breaking preferable: "It is not righteousness to fast while travelling", and: "Take the concessions Allah has granted you".
A true distance: the equivalent of 2 days' moderate walking, about 49 km, according to the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis. Residence away from home: Malikis and Shafi'is, the intention to settle at most 4 days and nights; Hanbalis, more; Hanafis, 15 days. A lawful journey: the majority (Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis) denies the licence to the sinning traveller (brigandage, unjust warfare, trade in unlawful things); the Hanafis grant it even on a sinful journey, since the texts did not distinguish journeys. Leaving the built-up area: Ibn Qudama: he does not break before leaving the houses behind his back, that is, out of the buildings; Anas's word, that he ate before departing and said "it is a sunna", was understood as meaning he had already left the town, and the consensus of the 4 schools forbids breaking before leaving one's place of residence, on "Whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it" (al-Baqara 185).
Three cases fix the timing: if departure happened before dawn, or dawn finds him travelling with the intention to break, he breaks by agreement. If he took the intention to fast at night: the Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is (in one view) do not allow him to break that day; if he breaks all the same, no expiation according to most (the most widespread view of Malik: no expiation, given the possible confusion). If the licence ends: back in his town by day, the Hanafis and the Hanbalis (in the madhhab) impose abstention for the rest of the day out of the time's sanctity; the Malikis, the Shafi'is and a Hanbali narration impose nothing. Whoever decides to settle in a place becomes a resident again: he prays in full and fasts Ramadan.
Those who labour in the heat (harvesters, workers, guards): the night intention is asked of them, then if hardship overtakes them they break.
Before travelling: decide during the night whether to fast or break, and do not break before leaving town. The sick person assesses his case with a trusted doctor and then makes up day for day.
Bidayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd · comparative
The second section of the obligatory fast, which is the discussion of breaking the fast (fitr) and its rulings. Those who break the fast according to the Law are of three categories: a category for whom breaking and fasting are both permitted by consensus; a category upon whom breaking is obligatory, with disagreement on that among the Muslims.
The cause of their disagreement: what was reported from Abu Hurayra, that he used to say: "Whoever wakes in major impurity during Ramadan has broken (the fast)". And it was reported from him that he said: "It was not I who said it; Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Lord of the Kaaba". And Ibn al-Majishun, of Malik's companions, held that the menstruating woman, if she becomes pure before dawn and delays the ghusl, her day is a day of breaking. The statements of these people are isolated statements and rejected by the well-known, established Sunnas.
The classical reference: about 80-90 km (2 marhala); contemporary scholars add journeys customarily recognized as travel.
It is a concession, not an obligation; breaking and making up is easier, fasting is valid without difficulty.
If he cures, yes; if not, he pays fidya (see the fidya page): the elderly and durable sick's rule.
Yes, days are made up within the year; prudence recommends not delaying to the next Sha'ban (Aisha made hers up in Sha'ban).