Islamic Fiqh > Fasting > What breaks the fast > Breaking the fast
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
The fast of Ramadan is an obligation, but the Sharia eases it for the one whom illness threatens, for the pregnant and nursing woman, for the powerless old man, for the one overcome by hunger or thirst, and for the traveler. This page sets out who may break the fast, what becomes due to him afterwards, and how far the traveler's license extends, according to the four schools.
The origin is the word of Allah:
Whoever among you is sick or on a journey, then a number of other days.
Surah al-Baqara, 184
The four imams agree that the sick person who fears, because of fasting, an aggravation, a delayed cure or the deterioration of an organ may break and make up; his breaking is even recommended and completing the fast is disliked, for it may lead to perdition (al-Ifsah 1/411, Maratib al-Ijma' p. 40, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/350, al-Bada'i' p. 630, Mukhtasar al-Quduri p. 63, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/465, al-Majmu' 7/423, al-Mughni 4/210).
an-Nawawi transmits from al-Qadi 'Iyad: the majority of the scholars hold that the illness permitting breaking is the one that makes fasting hard; some permitted breaking to every sick person (Sharh Sahih Muslim 8/21). Among the Shafi'is, the sick person unable to fast because of an illness whose cure is hoped for is not bound to fast at the moment, but must make up; the condition is an apparent hardship linked to fasting, without needing to reach the impossibility of fasting: an unbearable hardship suffices; a slight illness without apparent hardship does not permit breaking, without disagreement, unlike the Dhahiris.
The sick person whose illness permits breaking, if he can bear it, may leave the nocturnal intention; if he has an intermittent fever, he leaves the intention if he is feverish at the moment of starting the fast, otherwise he makes the intention at night and will break if he needs to. The same holds for the harvester, the builder and the guard, even out of extra devotion: the nocturnal intention is due from them, then they break if hardship reaches them (al-Majmu' 7/423, Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 2/81, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/369).
Ibn Qudama defines the illness permitting breaking as the severe illness that grows worse with fasting or whose slow cure is feared. Ahmad was asked: when does the sick person break? He answered: when he can no longer. He was asked: like fever? He answered: what illness is more severe than fever? Some of the early Muslims permitted breaking for every illness, down to the pain of the finger and the tooth, by the generality of the verse and because the traveler may break without need. The answer: the sick person without harm is like the resident, the fast is due from him; the verse concerns the traveler and the sick together, the traveler not being permitted to break for a short journey; the difference is that travel rests on a presumption, the long distance, where hardship has no internal measure, while illnesses differ: some make fasting harmful to their bearer.
The jurists finally distinguish the illnesses with no effect on the fast, like toothache, a wound to the finger, a boil, a slight ulcer or scabies: illness is there no criterion; only the intended wisdom counts, namely the feared harm. Whoever bears it and fasts acts in a disliked way, for he harms himself, leaves the relief Allah grants him and refuses His license; his fast remains valid and counts, assiduity having been left for the license, like the sick person who may leave the Friday prayer or the night prayer (al-Mughni 4/211, al-Furu' 3/20, al-Insa'f 3/286, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/310).
The majority, the Hanafis, the Malikis according to a view, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis on the whole, allow the healthy person to break if he fears illness with a strong presumption, based on a sign and experience, or on the information of a physician. The Hanafis specify: a competent, Muslim and covered physician; mere suggestion gives no right to break (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar with Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 2/422).
The Shafi'is add: whoever is overcome by hunger and thirst to the point of fearing perdition must break, even if healthy and resident, then make up like the sick person; and the sick person who would worsen through what caused his illness may leave the fast in case of severe harm, on condition, according to ar-Ramli, of having the intention of the license. They distinguish the overwhelming, constant illness, in which the nocturnal intention may be left, from the intermittent illness: feverish at the moment of starting, one leaves the intention; otherwise one takes it at night and will break if needed. The harvester, the builder and the guard follow the same rule (al-Majmu' 7/423, Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 2/81, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/369).
Ibn Qudama writes that the healthy person who fears illness from fasting is like the sick person who fears aggravation: breaking is permitted to him, the sick person having only been allowed to break out of fear of what fasting would bring forth; the fear of aggravation is its meaning. Ahmad said of the one suffering a dominant sexual desire to the point of fearing the tearing of his private parts that he may break; and of the young girl who fasts while menstruating, before fifteen years of age: if fasting exhausts her, let her break and make up; the qadi specifies: if she fears illness from fasting, breaking is permitted to her, otherwise not.
He then details the case of the one permitted to break for an overwhelming desire: if he can turn the desire away without intercourse, by stimulation with his own hand or the hand of his wife or his slave girl, intercourse is not permitted to him, for he breaks out of necessity, and excess beyond necessity is not licit, like the food of the carrion animal in a state of necessity; if he has intercourse, the expiation is due from him. If he can turn the desire away by what does not nullify the fast of another, like intercourse with his young slave girl or with a woman of the Book, or touching a mature Muslim woman while avoiding the private part, or stimulation by her hand or his own, nullifying the fast of another is not permitted to him, the repelled necessity not licensing excess; but if the necessity can only be repelled by nullifying the fast of another, that is permitted to him, like breaking itself, or like the pregnant and nursing women who break out of fear for their children.
If he has two wives, one menstruating and the other pure and fasting, and necessity calls him to one of them, two views: intercourse with the fasting one is preferable, Allah having textually forbidden intercourse with the menstruating woman, and the harm it causes does not disappear with the need; or the choice is given him, for intercourse with the fasting one annuls her fast, and the two harms are equal (al-Mughni 4/211-212, al-Furu' 3/20, al-Insa'f 3/286, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/310).
The Malikis, according to the famous view, forbid the healthy person to break out of fear of hardship and exhaustion: so long as it is only an exhaustion hardship linked to fasting, breaking is not permitted, though another view allows it. ad-Dardir writes in ash-Sharh al-Kabir that breaking is permitted with a feared illness, according to the opinion of a competent physician, experience, or the information of a person of the same temperament regarding aggravation or delayed cure; and that the sick person may break for a severe hardship of exhaustion, unlike the healthy person. ad-Dusuqi specifies that the healthy person may not break for a mere hardship of exhaustion, according to the famous view, nor for fear of an illness appearing through his fasting, according to the famous view, though another view allows it. ad-Dardir adds that breaking is obligatory for the sick person and for the healthy person who fears, in fasting, perdition or severe harm, like the loss of the benefit of hearing or sight, by the obligation of preserving life; severe fatigue permits breaking for the sick person, and it was said for the healthy person too (ash-Sharh al-Kabir with Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/535, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/465).
The jurists agree that the pregnant woman and the nursing woman may break in Ramadan if they fear for themselves or for their children illness, its aggravation, harm or perdition: the child in the womb is like an organ of its mother, and fearing for it equals fearing for one of her organs (al-Mughni 4/202-203). ad-Dardir specifies: breaking is obligatory in case of fear of perdition or severe harm, permitted in case of fear of illness or significant harm (ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/536, Jawahir al-Iklil 1/103, Minh al-Jalil 1/410). The Hanbalis state textually that their fast is disliked, like that of the sick person (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/313, al-Insa'f 3/290).
The basis is the word of Allah:
Whoever is sick or on a journey shall fast a number of other days.
Surah al-Baqara, 185
al-Kasani explains (al-Bada'i' 2/636) that the verse does not mean illness in the strict sense: the sick person whom fasting does not harm has no right to break; illness there designates what makes fasting harmful, and this meaning exists in pregnancy and nursing, which therefore fall under the license of breaking. The Malikis state explicitly that pregnancy is an illness in the true sense, and nursing has the status of illness without being one in the strict sense (ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/536, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/466). Another proof is the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Allah lifted the fast and half of the prayer from the traveler, and lifted the fast from the pregnant or nursing woman.
reported by at-Tirmidhi 715 and an-Nasa'i 2315, hasan hadith
When they break out of fear for themselves or for their children, the makeup fast is due from them by the agreement of the four schools, for they are like the sick person who fears for himself. The disagreement bears on the expiation: the majority, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, hold that only the makeup fast is due from them, without expiation, for lack of proof of its obligation, and because they are like the sick person who fears for himself, upon whom no expiation weighs.
If the pregnant or nursing woman breaks out of fear for her child, the question of the fidya, the feeding of a poor person per day, is added. The Shafi'is within the school and the Hanbalis require the makeup fast and the fidya together, by the word of Allah:
Upon those who are able to bear it lies a ransom: the feeding of a poor person.
Surah al-Baqara, 184
the two women entering into the generality of the verse; and by the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas:
It had been granted to the old man and the old woman able to fast to break and to feed a poor person per day without makeup, then this was abrogated by the verse: "whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it"; there remains for the old man and the old woman unable to fast, as well as for the pregnant woman and the nursing woman if they fear for their children, to break and to feed a poor person per day.
reported by al-Bayhaqi 4/230, at-Tabari 2752-2753 and Ibn al-Jarud in al-Muntaqa 381; sahih hadith according to al-Albani (al-Irwa' 912); Abu Dawud 2318 transmits an abridged wording, abrogated in its first part
The Hanafis reject the fidya: this is a breaking with excuse, the pregnant and nursing women being charged with preserving the child, which requires breaking; and the command to break is incompatible with an expiation that would make breaking a fault. They rely on the hadith of Anas reporting that the Prophet said that Allah lifted the fast and half of the prayer from the traveler, and the fast from the pregnant and nursing woman, without ordering any expiation.
From Malik, three transmissions circulate concerning the expiation of the pregnant and nursing woman: the expiation is due from both, a mudd of wheat, barley or dates per day; or due from both but variable: two mudds for the nursing woman, one for the pregnant woman; or due from the nursing woman alone, the pregnant woman being sick, unlike the nursing woman.
The Malikis state that the pregnant woman owes no fidya, for she breaks with excuse like the menstruating woman, and the expiation of breaking is only due in case of profanation of the fast without excuse. As for the nursing woman, two views with them: the fidya is due from her, her excuse lying not in herself but in another, which weakens her case compared to the pregnant woman and the sick person; or no fidya at all, by analogy with the sick person (al-Bada'i' 2/636-637, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/355-356, al-Ikhtiyar 1/135, Mukhtasar al-Quduri p. 63, al-Mabsut 3/99-100, Mukhtasar at-Tahawi p. 54, al-Mudawwana 1/186, al-Ishraf p. 204, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/466, adh-Dhakhira 2/515, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/412, al-Umm 2/103-104, al-Majmu' 7/442-445, al-Mughni 4/202, al-Insa'f 3/290, al-Ifsah 1/398-399).
The jurists agree that the old man and the old woman unable to fast may break, and the sick person whose cure is not hoped for enters their ruling. Ibn al-Mundhir reports their agreement (al-Ijma' p. 34, al-Qawanin p. 82). al-Buhuti writes: whoever is unable to fast through old age or an incurable illness breaks, by consensus, the fast not being obligatory upon him since he is incapable of it (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/309). an-Nawawi specifies: the old man whom fasting exhausts with severe hardship and the incurable sick person have no fast, without disagreement (al-Majmu' 7/422, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/119, Maraqi al-Falah p. 375, al-Insa'f 3/284, ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/138, al-Mughni 4/204).
The proofs are the verses:
He has laid upon you in the religion no hardship.
Surah al-Hajj, 78
Allah burdens a soul only to its capacity.
Surah al-Baqara, 286
and the verse of the ransom, "upon those who are able to bear it lies a ransom: the feeding of a poor person," which some interpret through an implied negation: upon those who are not able, as in "Allah sets out the rulings to you, lest you go astray" of Surah an-Nisa. 'Ata' heard Ibn 'Abbas recite this verse and say: "it is not abrogated: it is the old man and the old woman unable to fast who feed a poor person per day" (reported by al-Bukhari 4235). The verse remains a proof even for those who abrogate it, for abrogation only applies to the one able to fast, and the dying old man keeps his status. The Hanafis nevertheless require the old man's incapacity to be permanent: if he can only fail to fast because of extreme heat, he breaks and makes up in winter (Hashiyat at-Tahtawi 1/453, Radd al-Muhtar 2/119).
If they break, the majority, the Hanafis, the Shafi'is within the school and the Hanbalis, require the fidya: a mudd of food per day, by the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas already cited, and by what is reported from Anas:
He lost the strength to fast a year before his death; he broke the fast and fed a poor person for each day.
reported by at-Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil al-Athar 6/188, at-Tabarani in al-Kabir 1/242 and ad-Daruqutni 2/207; its transmitters are those of the Sahih according to al-Haythami (al-Majma' 3/164)
al-Kasani explains: when the fast escapes the person concerned, the need for repair appears, and repair by fasting being impossible, the fidya replaces it as the legal equivalent of the fast in this state, by necessity, like the value in the indemnity of lost goods (al-Bada'i' 2/638). The Malikis and the Shafi'is according to a view do not impose the fidya: he breaks with excuse, like the sick person and the coerced, with no obligation of feeding; he breaks without makeup, like the child; and when the makeup disappears for want of an interrupted excuse, no feeding is due upon its lapse: in the principles, feeding is due for the delay of the fast or of the makeup, not for its total disappearance as with the child (al-Bada'i' 2/638, Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/356-357, al-Ishraf pp. 204-205, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/242, al-Majmu' 7/421-425, al-Mughni 4/204, Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat 1/475, al-Insa'f 3/284).
Whoever is overcome by hunger and thirst to the point of fearing perdition breaks and makes up. an-Nawawi writes: breaking is incumbent upon him, even if healthy and resident, by the verses:
And do not kill yourselves. Allah is ever Merciful to you.
Surah an-Nisa, 29
And do not throw yourselves into destruction with your own hands.
Surah al-Baqara, 195
then he makes up like the sick person (al-Majmu' 7/423). The Malikis add that fear for oneself makes the fast forbidden, the preservation of life and of interests being obligatory (Jawahir al-Iklil 1/153, al-Qawanin p. 82). al-Kasani holds the severe hunger and thirst whose perdition is feared to be an absolute permission, ranked with the deadly illness caused by fasting (al-Bada'i' 2/638).
The Hanafis lay down two conditions: that perdition be feared with a strong presumption, not through mere suggestion, or that one fear the loss of reason or of certain senses, like the pregnant and nursing women who fear for themselves or for their children; and that this state not be caused by voluntary exhaustion, otherwise the expiation would be due, though it was denied (Maraqi al-Falah p. 374, Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115). Some jurists liken this state to illness: al-Hisni writes that dominant hunger and thirst equal illness (Kifayat al-Akhyar p. 257), and al-Qalyubi specifies: dominant hunger and thirst, not the slight headache, earache or toothache (Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 2/64).
The examples are the hard trades: the harvester, the builder, the guard; they must make the intention at night, then break if hardship reaches them. The Hanafis specify in ad-Durr al-Mukhtar that working to the point of weakness is not permitted: the baker bakes half of the day and rests for the rest; if he claims that does not suffice him, he is refuted by the shortest days of winter; if he exhausts himself into illness then breaks, two views circulate on his expiation; and whoever fasts then cannot stand fasts and prays seated, combining the two acts of worship. Ibn Abidin reports consultations: the craftsman who knows that his trade will bring him an illness that permits breaking, while he lives off his work, was sternly forbidden to eat before falling ill; the baker weakened at the end of the day was told to bake half of the day and rest (Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115).
ar-Ramli transmits from Jami' al-Fatawa: whoever loses the strength to fast because of his livelihood may break and feed half a sa' per day, that is, if he finds no other days on which to fast, otherwise the makeup fast is due from him; on this basis, the harvester who cannot harvest while fasting and whose crop would perish through delay may break and make up, as may the baker. He nevertheless nuances: the length of the day has nothing to do with the sufficiency of earnings, the need varying with summer and winter, high and low prices, the number of dependents; and the statement reported was formulated for the one who vowed perpetual fasting (Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115).
Ibn Abidin rules on the craftsman: if he has enough to meet his needs and those of his dependents, breaking is not permitted to him, begging being forbidden to him, fasting being preferable; otherwise, he works what suffices him, and even if the work leads him to break, that is permitted to him when no other work avoids it; likewise if he fears the loss of his crop or its theft and finds no worker at the equivalent wage though he has the capacity, he who may cut the prayer for less than that. If his wage is fixed for a known duration and Ramadan arrives, breaking is permitted to him even if he has enough to live on, should the hirer refuse to terminate the contract, like the wet nurse bound by the contract to nurse, to whom breaking is permitted if she fears for the child, fear for herself being stronger. This is what appeared to him, and Allah knows best (Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/208).
On voluntary exhaustion, the Wahbaniyya reports two views on the expiation of the one who tires himself in work then breaks. ash-Shurunbulali specifies: the faster who exhausts himself in work until overcome by thirst and breaking owes the expiation, according to a view that al-Baqali decreed; unlike the slave girl who exhausts herself, excused under the master's coercion, and who may refuse; the apparent meaning of the Muntaha is the preference for the obligation of the expiation. Ibn Abidin deduces that the slave girl who chooses owes it too (Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115).
al-Hattab reports in Mawahib al-Jalil 2/441 the question of the harvester in hot weather: the one who needs his trade to live may go out to the harvest even if it leads him to break; otherwise it is disliked; as for the owner of the crop, the agreement is that he may harvest it even if it leads him to break, otherwise he falls into the prohibition of wasting his property. The same holds for the spinning of flax and the drawing of thread through the mouth for women: Egyptian flax is permitted absolutely; Damascene flax with its sweet taste likens these women to the hard trades: permitted if they are weak or needy, disliked in the day of Ramadan otherwise. Abu Bakr al-Ajurri among the Hanbalis writes: whoever has a hard trade, if he fears through fasting the loss of his work, breaks and makes up; if leaving his trade does him no harm, he sins by breaking and leaves it; if the harm does not vanish by leaving it, no sin lies upon him: such is the view of the jurists (al-Furu' 4/458, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/310, see al-Mughni 4/204).
The four imams judge that the traveler who fasts during his journey has a valid fast that counts, by the hadith of Hamza ibn 'Amr al-Aslami, a frequent faster, who asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
Shall I fast while traveling? He answered: "if you wish, fast; if you wish, break the fast."
reported by al-Bukhari 1943 and Muslim 789
and by the word of Anas: "we traveled with the Prophet, and the faster reproached the breaker with nothing, nor the breaker the faster" (reported by al-Bukhari 1947 and Muslim 787), and other hadiths of the same meaning.
The jurists of the four schools diverged over what is preferable for the traveler. The majority, the Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis according to a view, hold fasting preferable to breaking when it does not exhaust or weaken him, by the word of Allah in Surah al-Baqara 184: "and it is better for you to fast," and by the word of the Prophet: "whoever has a mount and provisions leading to satiety, let him fast Ramadan wherever he meets it," a weak hadith reported by Abu Dawud 2410; Ramadan is the better of the two times, and fasting in the better of the two times of fasting is better than elsewhere; breaking delays the fast beyond its time, performing obligations at their time being better, securing freedom from omission, the reward and the discharge of responsibility; the verses make fasting the course of action and breaking the license, and the course of action is better than the license so long as it does no harm. Ibn Rushd writes: what is a license is better left (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/407, see also al-Bada'i' 2/634, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/464, al-Hidaya 2/273, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/117, al-Qawanin p. 81, al-Majmu' 7/431, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/312). The Hanafis add a condition: unless most of his companions break or share the expenses, breaking then being better, to follow the group (Hashiyat at-Tahtawi p. 452, Nur al-Idah 1/111).
The Hanbalis within the school, and Ibn Habib, 'Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun and Ibn 'Abd al-Barr among the Malikis, hold breaking preferable for the traveler, by the word of the Prophet: "fasting while traveling is not righteousness," and in a wording: "take the license of Allah, who granted it to you" (reported by al-Bukhari 1844 and Muslim 1115), and by the word reported from Ibn 'Umar: "Allah loves that His license be taken as He hates that His disobedience be committed" (sahih hadith), and by the hadith of Jabir:
The Messenger of Allah set out for Mecca in the year of the conquest, in Ramadan; he fasted until Kara' al-Ghamim and the people fasted; then he called for a cup of water, raised it until the people saw it and drank. He was told afterwards that some people had fasted, and he said: "those are the disobedient, those are the disobedient."
reported by Muslim 1114
Ibn Habib adds that breaking is the later of the two commands from the Messenger of Allah (at-Tamhid 22/53, al-Ifsah 1/413, al-Mughni 4/214, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/312, al-Insa'f 3/287, al-Majmu' 7/440). But an-Nawawi and al-Kamal ibn al-Humam answer that the hadiths on the superiority of breaking are interpreted of the traveler harmed by fasting, some of them stating it explicitly; this interpretation is needed to reconcile the hadiths, and it is better than neglecting some of them or claiming abrogation without decisive proof (al-Majmu' 7/442, Fath al-Qadir 2/273-274).
The distance permitting breaking among the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis is the march of two moderate days without a night, or of two nights without a day, or of a day and a night (al-Majmu' 7/439, al-Mughni 4/138); this measure has already been defined in the section devoted to the traveler's prayer.
Second condition: that the traveler not resolve to settle during his journey four days and their nights among the Malikis and Shafi'is, more than four days among the Hanbalis, or half a month, fifteen days, among the Hanafis (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 1/528, Maraqi al-Falah p. 231, al-Qawanin p. 59, Hashiyat al-Muhalli 'ala al-Minhaj 1/257, ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/89).
Third condition: that the journey not be an act of disobedience. The majority, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, require the journey permitting breaking to be lawful: the one disobedient through his journey does not break, whether he set out for banditry, for fighting the Muslims unjustly, or for trade in wine and forbidden goods; breaking is a license and a relief the disobedient does not deserve, the license having been legislated to help attain the lawful aim and the interest; permitting it here would amount to aiding the forbidden and the corruption, of which the Sharia is free (al-Qawanin p. 59, al-Majmu' 5/445-447, 7/431, al-Insa'f 2/314-315, al-Mughni 2/485-487, ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/89). The Hanafis do not require the lawfulness of the journey: the texts do not distinguish one journey from another, the journey in itself is not disobedience, disobedience being what follows it or accompanies it, and the license attaches to the journey, not to the disobedience (Bada'i' as-Sana'i' 1/311, 2/631, Tibyan al-Haqa'iq 1/216, al-Hidaya 1/82, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 1/527, Maraqi al-Falah p. 230, Tuhfat al-Fuqaha 1/255).
Fourth condition: passing beyond the town, its contiguous buildings, its courtyards and its ruins. Ibn Qudama writes: breaking is not permitted to him before he has left the houses behind his back, that is, gone past them and out of their buildings. al-Hasan said he may break in his house on the day he intends to leave, and the like is reported from 'Ata'. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr judges al-Hasan's view odd: breaking for a resident has neither consideration nor report, and the contrary is transmitted from al-Hasan himself (al-Ishraf 3/144, Tafsir al-Qurtubi 2/278).
The report cited in support of al-Hasan's view is that of Muhammad ibn Ka'b:
I came to Anas ibn Malik in Ramadan while he was preparing a journey: his mount was saddled and he had put on his travel clothes; he called for food and ate. I asked: "is this the sunna?" He answered: "the sunna," then mounted.
reported by at-Tirmidhi 799, sahih hadith
The Hanbalis' answer: this report is an argument, but its protagonist cannot be described as a traveler before leaving the town; whatever is in the town belongs to the ruling of the residents, which is why the prayer is not shortened there; and Anas had perhaps already left the town when Muhammad ibn Ka'b joined him at his halt (al-Mughni 4/142). at-Tirmidhi reports that some of the people of science followed this report: the traveler may break in his house before leaving, without shortening the prayer before passing beyond the wall of the town or the village; this is the view of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanzali (Sunan at-Tirmidhi 3/163). al-Baghawi transmits the same from al-Hasan, followed by Ishaq, and reports that most of the people of science hold that if dawn rises before the departure, the fast of that day is due; all agree that shortening is not permitted before leaving the town (Sharh as-Sunna 6/313).
Ibn al-Mundhir devotes a chapter to the moment when the traveler may break at his departure, and reports the disagreement: some of the scholars hold that he breaks his day as soon as he goes out as a traveler, like 'Amr ibn Sharhabil and ash-Sha'bi; Ahmad said he breaks after passing the houses; Ishaq said he breaks when he has set foot in the journey; al-Hasan al-Basri said he may break in his house on the day of his departure if he wishes. Abu Bakr judged Ahmad's view correct: just as the one who spends the morning healthy then falls ill breaks the rest of the day, the one who spends the morning resident then sets out traveling may break. Another party holds that he does not break that day: az-Zuhri, Mak'hul, Yahya al-Ansari, Malik, al-Awza'i, ash-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and the partisans of opinion (al-Ishraf 3/144).
If he eats in this state before leaving his town, is an expiation due? Malik said no; Ashhab said he is in interpretation; others said he must expiate. Ibn Juzayy reports three views on the expiation of the one who breaks before the departure, the third distinguishing whether he then travels, which drops the expiation, or not, which obliges it (al-Qawanin p. 82).
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr reports the agreement: whoever intends to travel in Ramadan may not form, at night, the intention to break; the traveler is a traveler not by intention but by setting out or by preparing his caravan; the intention of travel does not equal the intention of settling, the latter making one resident on the spot, settling requiring no act; on the contrary, the resident who intends to travel is not a traveler before departing and leaving the inhabited area, the moment when shortening and the rulings of travel become permitted to him, unless his preparation is assimilated to departure, in which case eating before going out is not charged to him. They also agree that whoever walks in his journey until the houses of the village disappear, then alights and eats before an obstacle prevents him from going on, owes no expiation (al-Istidhkar 3/308).
Three situations determine the moment of permitted breaking. The first: departing before dawn, or dawn rising while one is already traveling and one intends to break: breaking is permitted by consensus, the journey having begun in a time in which breaking is permitted (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/428, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/369, al-Majmu' 7/432, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 3/122-123, Maraqi al-Falah p. 369, al-Qawanin p. 82, Mawahib al-Jalil 2/445, Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/569).
The second: departing after dawn. The Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is and Ahmad according to one transmission judge that breaking is not permitted and that the fast must be completed: the fast is a worship that varies with travel and residence; begun as a resident, the ruling of residence prevails when travel occurs, as for the prayer and the wiping on the khuffs; the license and the prohibition having become mixed, one of the two must prevail, and residence is the safer. Yet if he breaks, no expiation is due from him among the Hanafis and the Malikis according to the famous view: doubt at the end of the time, and having become a traveler after dawn, he is of the people of breaking. According to the correct view of the Shafi'is, breaking is forbidden to him, and if he breaks by intercourse, the expiation is due from him.
The Hanbalis within the school, al-Muzani and others among the Shafi'is, and the Medinan companions of Malik as transmitted by Ibn Hubayra, hold that whoever intended fasting as a resident then travels in the middle of the day, willingly or under constraint, may break that day after leaving the inhabited houses of his village, by the generality of the verse of Surah al-Baqara 185 and by the following reports:
The Messenger of Allah set out for Mecca in Ramadan, in the year of the conquest, and fasted until passing near a watering place at high noon; the people grew thirsty, stretched their necks, and their glances turned to him; he called for a cup of water, held it in his hand until the people saw it, then drank, and the people drank.
reported by al-Bukhari 1842 and Muslim 1113; al-Kadid designates a water located between Usfan and Qudayd
'Ubayd ibn Jubayr said: I traveled with Abu Basra al-Ghifari, Companion of the Messenger of Allah, on a boat leaving Fustat, in Ramadan; he prepared himself and brought his meal near, then said: "come closer." I said: "are you not between the houses?" Abu Basra answered: "do you dislike the sunna of the Messenger of Allah?"
reported by Abu Dawud 2412 and Ahmad 6/398, hasan hadith
added to these are the hadith of Jabir cited above and the report of Muhammad ibn Ka'b with Anas, also cited above. Ibn al-Qayyim writes after the athar of Abu Basra (Hashiyat 'ala Sunan Abi Dawud 7/39) that it constitutes a proof for whoever permits the traveler to break a day begun in travel: it is one of the two transmissions of Ahmad, the view of 'Amr ibn Sharhabil, ash-Sha'bi and Ishaq, an athar going back to Anas, and the view of Dawud and Ibn al-Mundhir; Malik, ash-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifa hold that he does not break, as az-Zuhri, al-Awza'i and Mak'hul. For the former, travel is a meaning: if it existed at night and persisted by day, it would permit breaking; existing in the middle of the day, it permits it likewise, like illness; and it is one of the two textual causes of the permission to break: permitting it by day equals permitting it for the other. The Shafi'is who permit it see in it the prevalence of the ruling of travel (Hashiyat al-Qalyubi on Sharh al-Muhalli 2/64). The Hanbalis state textually that whoever travels in the middle of the day after having intended fasting preferably completes the fast of that day, to leave the disagreement with those who do not permit it, giving prevalence to the ruling of residence, as for the prayer (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/312, ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/139, Manar as-Sabil 1/258, al-Ifsah 1/417, al-Insa'f 3/289, Majmu' al-Fatawa 25/212).
The third situation is breaking before leaving one's town: the four schools agree that whoever intends to travel may not break before leaving his place of residence, the travel license not existing without it and not remaining without it: he is still a resident and counted among the witnesses of the verse "whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it," and whatever is in the town belongs to the ruling of the residents, which is why he does not shorten the prayer (al-Mughni 4/142, at-Tamhid 22/51).
Attached to this is the question of the one who made the intention to fast at night while he was a traveler and who spends the morning fasting. The Hanafis, Malikis and Shafi'is according to a view judge that breaking is not permitted to him that day; if he breaks, no expiation is due from him, because of the doubt. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr reports that Malik required of him the makeup fast and the expiation, though it is also transmitted from him that no expiation is due: this is the view of most of his companions except 'Abd al-Malik, who required the expiation only for intercourse, the latter preventing him from sustaining his journey; the jurists of the Hijaz and of Iraq agree to require no expiation. Abu 'Umar explains that the dropping of the expiation is evident rationally: he makes interpretation, does not profane the sanctity of his fast in his own eyes, and he is a traveler, entered into the generality of the permission to break (at-Tamhid 22/51, Radd al-Mukhtar 2/122-123, Maraqi al-Falah pp. 369, 374).
Ibn Juzayy writes: whoever is traveling and spends the morning on the intention of fasting may only break with an excuse, like feeding himself to face the enemy; Mutarrif permitted it without excuse; according to the famous view, if he breaks, three views circulate on the expiation, the third distinguishing intercourse, which obliges it, from the rest, which does not (al-Qawanin p. 82). The commentaries of Khalil and the Hashiya of ad-Dusuqi nevertheless rule: whoever makes the intention of fasting in travel, spends the morning fasting then breaks owes the expiation, whether he makes interpretation or not.
The Mudawwana reports it textually from Malik: fasting in travel is dearer to the one who has the strength for it; whoever spends the morning fasting in travel then breaks deliberately without cause owes the makeup fast with the expiation, like the one who breaks as a resident; Malik repeated it several times: his capacity to break or to fast vanishes as soon as he chooses the fast, he can no longer leave it without an excuse coming from Allah. On the contrary, the one who spends the morning as a fasting resident then travels and breaks owes only one day of makeup, though Malik disliked his breaking. The difference: the resident was of the people of the fast and became of the people of breaking by traveling, hence the dropping of the expiation; whereas the traveler, to whom the choice had been given, chose the fast and left the license: he became of the people of the fast, and his breaking brings upon him what is brought upon them. al-Makhzumi, Ibn Kinana and Ashhab require from the faster in travel only the makeup fast; Ashhab excepts the one who makes interpretation of the license then visits his family by day and breaks: makeup fast and expiation, with no excuse for anyone; and for the fasting resident who travels then breaks, makeup fast and expiation, the fast having been made obligatory upon him as a resident (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 1/201-202, Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi with ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/535, Jawahir al-Iklil 1/153, Minh al-Jalil 1/410, Sharh az-Zurqani 2/213).
The Shafi'is within the school, the Hanbalis, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and Mutarrif among the Malikis hold that whoever spends the morning fasting in travel may break without excuse, the excuse already being in place and persisting (Rawdat at-Talibin 2/369, al-Majmu' 7/428, an-Najm al-Wahhaj 3/330, Hashiyat al-Muhalli 'ala al-Minhaj 2/64, al-Wajiz 1/103, al-Qawanin p. 82, al-Mughni 4/143, at-Tamhid 22/53). They cite the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas and the hadith of Jabir cited above. Ibn Qudama writes: it is an explicit text to which no opponent is given consideration (al-Mughni 4/144).
Ibn 'Abd al-Barr concludes that these reports show that the faster may break in travel after having begun the fast, by choice, in Ramadan (at-Tamhid 22/53). The Hanbalis add that he may break by any nullifier, intercourse included, like the one who had no intention: for whom food is permitted, intercourse is permitted; no expiation is due for intercourse, the breaking having taken place by the intention preceding it (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/312, al-Mughni 4/144).
The travel license drops, by consensus, through two things. The first: returning to one's country and entering one's place of residence, even forgetting something there: the fast is imposed as if he had arrived by night, or before midday among the Hanafis (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/106). If he arrives by day without having made the nocturnal intention, or after midday among the Hanafis without a prior intention, he abstains for the rest of the day out of respect for the time according to the Hanafis and the Hanbalis within the school; the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis according to a view do not require this abstention, for he broke with an excuse (Bidayat al-Mubtadi 1/41, al-Hidaya 1/129, al-Bada'i' 2/653, al-Ikhtiyar 1/144, al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 1/202, al-Fawa'id ad-Dawani 1/306, Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/559, al-Majmu' 7/433, al-Insa'f 3/283, al-Mubda' 3/283).
The second: resolving to settle, absolutely or for the duration of settling, four days and their nights among the Malikis and Shafi'is, more than four days among the Hanbalis, half a month or fifteen days among the Hanafis, in a single place fit for settling, not a ship, a desert or a land of war: he becomes a resident, completes the prayer, fasts and no longer breaks in Ramadan, the ruling of travel being extinguished (al-Mughni 4/142, 146). The Shafi'is specify according to the correct view that breaking is forbidden to him if he resolved to settle while traveling when he had made the intention to fast at night, before touching a nullifier, for want of permission; another view allows it, considering the beginning of the day (Hashiyat al-Muhalli 'ala al-Minhaj 2/64, an-Najm al-Wahhaj 3/330, Mughni al-Muhtaj 2/214).
Ibn Juzayy sums up: travel does not permit shortening without the intention and the act, unlike settling, which imposes the fast and the performance by the intention alone, without act (al-Qawanin p. 82). If the traveler does not resolve to settle but remains for a need, without the intention of settling and without knowing when it will end, or expecting its end at any moment, breaking is permitted to him, like the shortening of the prayer; the Hanafis add: even if he remained thus for years. If he reckons that his need exceeds four days according to the majority, or fifteen days among the Hanafis, he is considered a resident: neither breaking nor shortening, unless it is the obligation of fighting, according to al-Ghazali, in which the more apparent of the two views is followed, or the Muslims have entered a land of war, besieged a fortress there, or besieged a city upon the surface of the sea, which has the status of the land of war (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 1/529, al-Ikhtiyar p. 80, al-Qawanin p. 59, al-Iqna' with Hashiyat al-Bujayrmi 2/154, al-Wajiz 1/58-59, ar-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/90).
This status rests on the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas: the Messenger of Allah led the conquest in Ramadan; he fasted until al-Kadid, a water between Qudayd and Usfan, then broke the fast and kept breaking until the end of the month (reported by al-Bukhari 4275). The conquest took place in the last ten days of Ramadan: the Prophet therefore broke in Mecca ten or eleven days according to the narrations, and his breaking does not exclude that of the following days; likewise he stayed at Tabuk twenty days while shortening the prayer (sahih hadith reported by Ibn Hibban 6/456). Breaking the fast follows the same logic as shortening: the traveler has all the licenses of travel (Hashiyat al-Bujayrmi 2/154).
In practice: the traveler whose journey is lawful and whose distance meets the measure chooses between fasting and breaking; if he fasts, his fast counts, and he may still break later in the course of the day. The pregnant or nursing woman who fears for herself or her child breaks and makes up, the fidya being added according to the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis; the powerless old man feeds a poor person per day according to the majority; whoever is threatened by hunger or thirst breaks without delay, the preservation of life coming before the fast.