Islamic Fiqh > Fasting > What breaks the fast > The conditions of validity of the fast
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
A fast is not valid by abstention alone: it must be performed in a state of purity, kept free of what nullifies it, and carried by an intention that is firm, precise, made at night for the obligatory fast and renewed each day. This page examines these conditions one by one, together with the schools' differences over each.
The jurists agree that a menstruating woman and a woman in postnatal bleeding may not fast: they break and make up, and if they fast, their fast is invalid, whether obligatory or supererogatory, according to the word of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):
When she menstruates, does she not pray and not fast? That is part of the deficiency of her religion.
reported by al-Bukhari 304
As soon as the blood appears, even for an hour of the day, the fast of that day is void. an-Nawawi, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Hubayra and others transmitted the consensus on this. Ibn Battal writes: this hadith establishes textually that the menstruating woman is relieved of the prayer and that fasting is not permitted to her during her menses; the community followed her in this, all agree that she makes up the fast she left and that no makeup prayer is due from her, except for a sect among the Kharijites who required of her the makeup of the prayer, against the view of the scholars of the community, early and late (Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 1/419).
Ibn Qudama sums up (al-Mughni 3/38-39): all the people of knowledge agree that the menstruating woman and the woman in lochia may not fast, that they break Ramadan and make it up, and that their fast does not count. 'Aisha said: "we menstruated at the time of the Messenger of Allah; we were ordered to make up the fast, and we were not ordered to make up the prayer" (reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim). Abu Sa'id transmits that the Prophet said: "when one of you menstruates, does she not pray and not fast? That is part of the deficiency of her religion," reported by al-Bukhari. The menstruating woman and the woman in lochia are equal, for the blood of lochia is menstrual blood and its ruling is the same; as soon as menstruation appears in part of the day, the fast of that day is void, whether it appears at the beginning or at the end; if she intends the fast and abstains while knowing it is forbidden to her, she sins and her abstention does not count.
an-Nawawi reports that the community agreed on the prohibition of fasting for the menstruating woman and the woman in lochia and on the invalidity of their fast, transmitted from Ibn Jarir, as others did too. Imam al-Haramayn observes that saying their fast is invalid has no graspable meaning, since purity is not a condition of it. Ibn Rajab writes: the community agreed that the menstruating woman does not fast during her menses, that her fast is neither valid nor counted, and that she makes up when purified (Fath al-Bari of Ibn Rajab 1/421).
All also agree on her obligation to make up Ramadan, on the basis of the hadith of Mu'adha with 'Aisha:
Mu'adha asked 'Aisha: "why does the menstruating woman make up the fast and not the prayer?" 'Aisha said: "are you a Haruri?" Mu'adha answered: I am no Haruri, but I question. 'Aisha said: "that happened to us, and we were ordered to make up the fast, and we were not ordered to make up the prayer."
reported by al-Bukhari 231 and Muslim 335
The order to make up follows from the obligation of performance. The consensus was transmitted by Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Jarir, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nawawi, Ibn Hubayra and others. al-Qurtubi adds that all the scholars agree that the menstruating woman makes up the fast and does not make up the prayer (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 3/83), and an-Nawawi confirms: her fast is neither valid nor required, it is forbidden to her and its makeup is obligatory; all of this is a matter of agreement (al-Majmu' 2/357, 7/420).
The schools finally agree that menstruation does not interrupt continuity in the fast of expiations, for it opposes fasting and the month is almost never free of it; postponing the expiation until menopause would carry a danger. The Hanafis except from this the expiation of the oath and the like (Hashiyat Ibn Abidin 1/485, Majmu' Rasail 1/111, Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/276, al-Qawanin p. 77, al-Majmu' 2/357, Sharh Sahih Muslim 4/24, al-Mughni 4/205, al-Ifsah 1/103, Mughni al-Muhtaj 3/109, 365, Kashshaf al-Qina' 5/384, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 1/240).
The second condition is that the faster be free of everything that nullifies the fast by touching him, such as intercourse (Maraqi al-Falah pp. 348-349).
The third condition is the intention, for the fast of Ramadan is an act of worship that does not take place without it, like the other acts of worship, on the basis of the hadith:
Deeds count only by intentions.
reported by al-Bukhari 1
Abstention may come from habit, lack of appetite, sickness or exercise: only the intention gives it its status, like standing for the prayer or the pilgrimage. an-Nawawi writes: no fast is valid in any state without intention; the seat of the intention is the heart; the pronunciation of the tongue is not required, without disagreement, and it does not stand in place of the intention of the heart, without disagreement (al-Majmu' 7/482).
Ibn Hubayra reports the agreement on the obligation of the intention for the obligatory fast of Ramadan, which does not take place without it (al-Ifsah 1/383, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/402). The intention must be firm, precise, nocturnal and renewed.
The majority of the jurists, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis within the school, require textually firmness to cut hesitation: even if, on the night of doubt, he forms the intention to fast tomorrow "if it is Ramadan it will be obligatory, otherwise supererogatory," his fast is not valid and does not count if it turns out it was Ramadan, for he did not resolve; he is like one who would say: if I find food tomorrow I break, otherwise I fast. But if he says this on the thirtieth night of Ramadan, his fast is valid once the month is established, for his intention rests on an established fact whose disappearance is not established: his hesitation does no harm, unlike the thirtieth of Sha'ban where no established fact exists, the established fact being the continuation of Sha'ban (al-Qawanin p. 80, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/238, Ashhal al-Madarik 1/417, Balghat as-Salik 1/444, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/353, al-Majmu' 7/490, Hashiyat al-Muhalli 'ala al-Minhaj 2/53-54, Asna al-Matalib 1/413, al-Mughni 4/130-131, al-Insa'f 3/295-296, al-Qawa'id al-Fiqhiyya 1/133, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/315, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 2/186).
The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis within the school require specifying every obligatory fast: believing one will fast tomorrow a day of Ramadan, or of its makeup, or of its expiation, or of a vow; without specification the fast does not count, and a vague intention or the intention of a supererogatory fast do not count for the obligatory. They cite the word of the Prophet:
There is for each person only what he intended.
reported by al-Bukhari 1
This wording is explicit on the requirement of specification, and the obligatory fast, a worship tied to time, requires specifying it, like the five prayers or the tawaf of the visit: whoever circumambulates the Kaaba with the intention of the farewell tawaf or of a vague tawaf does not count for the visit (al-Ishraf 1/195, al-Ifsah 1/383, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/402, al-Qawanin pp. 79-80, al-Majmu' 7/488, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/350, al-Mughni 4/131, al-Insa'f 3/293).
Ahmad has a view in one transmission where specification is not required for Ramadan: the fast is valid by an absolute intention, by the intention of a supererogatory fast at night, or by a hesitant obligatory intention (al-Mughni 4/131, al-Insa'f 3/294).
The Hanafis divide the fast into two categories. In the first, specification is not required: the performance of Ramadan, the vow whose time is specified, and the supererogatory; they are valid by any intention to fast, for Ramadan is a narrow criterion that admits no fast of its kind, no other fast being legislated in it, which makes it determined from the outset, and the determined does not need to be specified; as for the vow with specified time, it is considered by the imposition of Allah (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/85). In the second, specification is required: the makeup of Ramadan, the makeup of the annulled supererogatory, the expiations of every type, and the absolute vow not tied to a time, whether suspended on a condition or absolute: it has no fixed time, so it is only performed by a precise and firm intention, to cut rivalry (al-Mabsut 3/61, al-Bada'i' 2/602-603, al-Hidaya 2/23, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/85, al-Ikhtiyar 1/127, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/195-196, Maraqi al-Falah p. 253).
The jurists agree that every fast established in one's responsibility, like the makeup of Ramadan, the makeup of the vow and the expiations, is valid only by an intention made at night (al-Ifsah 1/385, Fath al-Qadir 2/311, al-Ishraf 1/194, al-Majmu' 7/497, al-Mughni 4/126). They diverged over Ramadan and the vow with specified time.
The majority, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, require the nocturnal intention for the validity of the fast of Ramadan and of every obligatory fast, on the basis of the hadith of Hafsa:
Whoever does not resolve upon the fast before dawn has no fast.
reported by Abu Dawud 2454, Ahmad 6/287, at-Tirmidhi 730 and an-Nasa'i 2331, 2333; sahih hadith
in a wording: "whoever does not make the intention of the fast at night has no fast." The fast of Ramadan, an obligatory fast, needs the intention at night like the makeup and the vows; the intention is a condition of the legal fast, and no part of the day may pass without it; it is a worship performed and made up, in which the time of intention must be the same as for the prayer.
The nocturnal intention is placed between sunset and dawn: an intention before sunset suffices no one, nor an intention after dawn, for the intention is a purpose and intending the past is rationally impossible. Whoever makes it simultaneously with sunset or dawn, or in doubt, his case is that of the missed nocturnal intention: invalid. According to a Maliki view, the intention simultaneous with dawn is valid, like the takbira of the ihram, the origin of the intention being coincidence with what is intended (Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/246, Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/520, Balghat as-Salik 1/449). It does not count after dawn, and counts simultaneously with it if the coincidence occurs: this is the view of 'Abd al-Wahhab, approved by al-Lakhmi and Ibn Rushd among the Malikis; Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam transmitted that it does not count; the statements of al-Qarafi, Ibn Bashir and Ibn al-Hajib indicate that coincidence with dawn is the origin, the advance having been permitted because of the hardship of aiming at it (Hashiyat ad-Dusuqi 1/519-520).
The correct view among the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis is that the second half of the night is not required: the intention is valid in any part of the night, the hadith being worded without distinction; whoever made it at night, his fast is valid as if he had made it in the second half. Restricting it to the second half would cause many people to lose the fast, for it is the hour of sleep in which many people do not think of the fast; the Lawgiver permitted the advance because of hardship, and restricting it to a moment of hardship without proof would be arbitrary. It is likewise correct that doing after the intention, still at night, what opposes the fast, like eating, drinking or having intercourse, does no harm, so long as one has not yet donned the worship; and that renewing the intention is not required if one sleeps after it then wakes before dawn (al-Qawanin p. 80, Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil 2/246, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/449, al-Majmu' 7/479, 484, Hashiyat al-Muhalli 'ala al-Minhaj 2/52, al-Iqna' 2/326, al-Mughni 4/128-129, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/315).
The Hanafis, for their part, do not require the nocturnal intention for Ramadan, nor for the vow with specified time, nor for the supererogatory: whoever has not made the intention at night may make it in the morning until midday, half of the day, so that the greater part be intended; after midday the intention no longer counts. It is nevertheless preferable to fast with a precise and nocturnal intention, to leave the disagreement (al-Ikhtiyar 1/136, al-Bada'i' 2/606).
They rely on what is reported from Ibn 'Abbas: the people spent the morning of the day of doubt, then a Bedouin arrived and testified to the sighting of the crescent; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked him: "do you testify that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah?"; he answered yes; he said: "Allah is the greatest: a single one of the Muslims suffices the Muslims"; he fasted, ordered the fast and had a herald call out: "whoever has eaten, let him not eat the rest of his day, and whoever has not eaten, let him fast."
This report is disputed: al-Mawsili mentions it in al-Ikhtiyar 1/135 without attributing it to anyone; az-Zayla'i writes in Nasb ar-Raya 2/435 that it is a strange hadith; Ibn al-Jawzi declares it unknown, the known being the Bedouin's testimony alone followed by the order to fast tomorrow; al-Hafiz writes in ad-Daraya 1/275 that he did not find it; the testimony alone is found with the four from Ibn 'Abbas, authenticated by Ibn Hibban, and the rest of the report, in which whoever has eaten fasts the rest of his day, belongs to the story of Ashura reported by the two shaykhs from Salama ibn al-Akwa'.
The people of knowledge agree that whoever makes the intention every night of the nights of Ramadan completes a full fast (al-Ijma' p. 123, al-Ishraf 3/115). They diverged over a single intention for the whole month.
The majority, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis within the school, require an intention for each day: each day of Ramadan is an independent worship whose time begins at dawn and ends at sunset; it is not annulled by the fast of the day before nor by the breaking of the day after; a single intention does not suffice, as for the prayers, according to the word of the Prophet: "whoever does not make the intention of the fast at night has no fast" (sahih hadith, already cited).
The Malikis and Ahmad according to one transmission hold that a single intention suffices for the whole month so long as it is not revoked: the intention of the first night covers all of Ramadan, by virtue of "there is for each person only what he intended"; the fast of the month is one worship, like the pilgrimage and the rak'as of the prayer; and he made the intention in a time whose kind suits the intention of fasting, as if he had made it each day in its night.
The majority of the jurists, the Hanafis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, allow the whole supererogatory fast by a daytime intention before midday, without a nocturnal intention, on condition that no nullifier took place before, on the basis of the hadith of 'Aisha:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) entered one day and asked: "do you have anything?"; we answered no; he said: "I am then fasting."
reported by Muslim 1154
and on the basis of the hadith of Ashura:
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered a man of the tribe of Aslam to call the people: whoever has eaten, let him fast the rest of his day, and whoever has not eaten, let him fast; for today is the day of Ashura.
reported by al-Bukhari 1903 and Muslim 1135
This fast of Ashura was obligatory, then abrogated by the obligation of Ramadan (Tibyan al-Haqa'iq 1/314, al-Hidaya 1/118, Hashiyat at-Tahtawi 1/427). One argument advanced for the late intention: whoever has the capacity for the legal fast would have lacked it had the nocturnal intention been required, which shows it is not (al-Ikhtiyar 1/135). The supererogatory is lighter than the obligatory: the supererogatory night prayer may be left despite the capacity, not the obligatory; the same holds for the fast.
They diverged over the intention after midday: the Hanbalis within the school and the Shafi'is according to a view allow it before and after midday, by the hadith of 'Aisha, by the hadith of Ashura, and because it is the view of Mu'adh, Hudhayfa and Ibn Mas'ud with no known opponent; the whole night is the time of intention for the obligatory, so the whole day is the time of intention for the supererogatory (al-Majmu' 7/485, al-Mughni 4/134).
Who is rewarded from dawn or from the moment of the intention? Most of the Shafi'is and Abu al-Khattab among the Hanbalis say: from dawn, for the fast does not divide within the day: eating in part of it prevents the rest from counting, so fasting in part of the day indicates fasting from its beginning; like whoever catches part of a rak'a or of the congregational prayer is counted as having caught it whole. The Hanbalis within the school and Abu Ishaq al-Marwazi say: the reward starts from the moment of the intention, for what precedes it was not intended, by virtue of "deeds count only by intentions"; the fast is a pure worship that does not exist without intention, like the other pure worships (al-Mughni 4/134-135, al-Majmu' 7/485-486, al-Ikhtiyarat al-Fiqhiyya 1/160).
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is according to the more correct view and some Hanbalis forbid the intention of the supererogatory after midday: the intention did not accompany the greater part of the worship; wanting to fast at sunset would contradict the first half, in which the intention had accompanied the greater part, and the greater part of a thing may stand for the whole: whoever catches the greater part of a rak'a with the imam is counted as having caught it, not whoever catches less (al-Bada'i' 2/606).
The Malikis, al-Muzani and Abu Yahya al-Balkhi require a nocturnal intention for the supererogatory fast, by the generality of the word of the Prophet: "whoever does not make the intention of the fast at night has no fast"; the fast being a worship whose validity requires the intention, the supererogatory equals the obligatory as the prayer does; and the intention after dawn equals the intention after midday (ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/450, Bidayat al-Mujtahid 1/404, Jawahir al-Iklil 1/148, Sharh al-Kharashi 2/246, al-Ifsah 1/385, al-Majmu' 7/486, al-Mughni 4/132).
The jurists require that the intention persist and that the series of fasting not be interrupted by travel, sickness or the like, for any interruption means the single intention no longer suffices: the nocturnal intention is required each time one wants to fast, even if one kept fasting while traveling or sick; the same holds after menstruation, lochia or madness, even if the impediment occurred after sunset and disappeared before dawn. The intention each night is recommended where the single intention suffices, as well as for every consecutive fast: makeup, expiation or consecutive vow, like one who vowed a specific month (al-Qawanin p. 80, ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/521, Balghat as-Salik 1/450, al-Ishraf 1/195, al-Ikhtiyar 1/160, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/87, al-Majmu' 7/482, 498, al-Mughni 4/130, al-Ifsah 1/384, al-Insa'f 3/293, al-Furu' 3/29).
Whoever makes the intention at night then retracts it before dawn is not a faster. an-Nawawi transmits from al-Mutawalli: the intention cut before dawn loses its ruling, for leaving the intention is its opposite; unlike the meal taken at night after the intention, which does not annul it, for eating is not its opposite (al-Majmu' 7/495). at-Tahtawi adds (Hashiyat p. 354): the nocturnal retraction is valid and one loses the status of faster; if one breaks, nothing is due except the makeup fast, without expiation in Ramadan, for the situation resembles that of the one who does not require the nocturnal intention, unless one renews the intention at its proper time, the first no longer being counted after the retraction.
The wording "I fast tomorrow, Allah willing" does not annul the intention when it aims at blessing, or at the fast taking place and life lasting to its end by the will of Allah, just as faith is not annulled by the wording "I believe, Allah willing." The qadi of the Hanbalis extends this to all acts of worship: mentioning the divine will in the intention does not annul them, so long as one does not intend doubt or hesitation; but intending by the wording doubt, hesitation in resolve, or hesitation in purpose invalidates the fast (al-Majmu' 7/493, Hashiyat at-Tahtawi p. 354, Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/316, al-Ifsah 3/296).
If one made the intention at night, then a fainting fit, madness or drunkenness occurs before dawn: if one regains consciousness in part of the day, the majority of the jurists judge the fast valid. Ibn Hubayra reports the agreement on the one whose consciousness returns in part of the day and who then faints for the rest: his fast is valid (al-Ifsah 1/421).
The Malikis detail: fainting before dawn followed by waking much later does not count, without disagreement; waking shortly after does not count according to the famous view. Fainting after dawn followed by waking quickly counts; waking after midday or at its moment does not count. Drunkenness from a lawful substance follows the same description; unlawful drunkenness at night persisting into the day entails the makeup fast, and its author has no right to use a nullifier for the rest of the day. The sleeper, for his part, makes the intention at the beginning of the month then sleeps the whole month: his fast is valid and his responsibility is discharged; the lawful drunkard is not like him. The madman has the ruling of the fainted man (Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/575).
If one does not regain consciousness until after sunset, the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis judge the fast invalid, for the fast is abstention with the intention, and the word of the Prophet:
Allah said: every deed of the son of Adam belongs to him, except the fast: it is for Me and it is I who reward it; out of love for Me he leaves his food and his drink.
reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim
attaches the leaving of food to the person, which the fainted man cannot claim; the intention, pillar of the fast, does not suffice alone, as abstention alone does not suffice. The Hanafis judge the fast valid: the intention is established, and the loss of consciousness afterwards does not prevent it, like sleep.
They finally diverged over the one who regains consciousness during the day without having made the nocturnal intention: the Hanafis validate his fast if he wakes before midday and makes the intention, the fast of Ramadan being possible by a daytime intention before midday; after midday, it is not valid (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/277, al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/196, Majma' al-Anhar 1/372). The Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis reject it (al-Mudawwana 1/208, Jawahir al-Iklil 1/148, ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/520, ash-Sharh as-Saghir 1/453, Hashiyat al-'Adawi 1/575, Rawdat at-Talibin 2/366, Hawashiy ash-Shirwani 3/415, Hashiyat al-Bayjuri 1/300, al-Mughni 4/136, al-Insa'f 3/292-293, al-Ifsah 1/418).
If the faster forms the intention to break in the middle of the day, does he break by it? The Hanafis, the Shafi'is within the school and Ibn Hamid among the Hanbalis answer no: he does not break, like one who would form the intention to speak during his prayer without speaking. al-Bayjuri specifies: retracting the intention harms at night, not by day (al-Bahr ar-Ra'iq 2/139, ad-Durr al-Mukhtar 2/123, Maraqi al-Falah p. 361, Hashiyat al-Bayjuri 1/300, al-Majmu' 7/492, al-Mughni 4/174, al-Insa'f 3/297, al-Mubda' 2/154, al-Ifsah 1/388).
The Malikis, the Hanbalis within the school and some Shafi'is answer that he breaks: the intention being a condition of the whole fast, cutting it in the middle of the day leaves the rest without intention, hence void; and the invalidity of a part carries the invalidity of the whole, for the parts are not separate (al-Majmu' 7/491, al-Qawanin p. 80).
The Mudawwana reports from Malik on the one who spends the morning of Ramadan with the intention to break and does not eat until sunset: the makeup fast and the expiation are due from him; likewise if he forms the intention to break then returns to fasting before sunrise, or if he wanted to break the whole day without eating or drinking: the expiation is preferred along with the makeup fast; and the one who breaks deliberately then wants to return to fasting: the makeup fast and the expiation are due (al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 1/220).
an-Nawawi specifies: this holds when he firmly resolves to leave the fast at once; if he hesitates, or suspends his leaving upon Zayd entering, for example, the madhhab, chosen by the majority, is that the fast is not annulled, by a single view (al-Majmu' 7/492). The Hanbalis go further: hesitation about breaking annuls the fast, like the wording "if I find food I eat, otherwise I complete," because of the hesitation in the intention, the prayer being annulled in the same way by revoking the intention, the continuity of the ruling until the end of the worship being a condition.
The day on which one wanted to break remains valid as supererogatory outside Ramadan: the validity of the daytime intention of the supererogatory, even after midday, is textual; likewise, wanting to break a supererogatory fast then returning to fasting is valid (al-Mughni 4/174, al-Insa'f 3/297, al-Mubda' 2/154, Matalib Uli an-Nuha 2/188).
In practice: make each night of Ramadan a firm and precise intention to fast the next day; do the same for every obligatory fast (makeup, expiation, vow), and for the supererogatory before midday at the latest according to the majority. A nocturnal intention remains valid despite a late sahur, the night meal or sleep, so long as it is not revoked before dawn.