Islamic Fiqh > Fasting > Ramadan: fasting, rules and dispensations > Dispensations and complications of fasting
Contents
Updated on 27 September 2026 at 3:52 AM
Allah has granted the fast dispensations: illness, old age, pregnancy, overwhelming hunger, travel. This page details, school by school, when breaking becomes permitted or obligatory, what is owed afterwards (makeup days, compensation), and every rule of fasting while traveling, from intention to the end of the dispensation.
The foundation is Allah's words: "Whoever among you is ill or on a journey shall make up an equal number of other days" (Surah al-Baqara, 184). The four imams agree that the sick person who fears worsening of his illness, delay of his cure or damage to an organ may break and make up; his breaking is even recommended, completing the fast is disliked, for it may lead to loss of life, and one must guard against it (al-Ifsah 1/411; Maratib al-Ijma' of Ibn Hazm 40; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/350; Badai' al-Sanai' 2/630; al-Majmu' 7/423; al-Mughni 4/210).
An-Nawawi, quoting the qadi Iyad, reports the majority of scholars: the illness permitting breaking is the one with which fasting becomes hard; some permitted it to every sick person. An-Nawawi states: the sick person unable to fast because of an illness whose cure is hoped for need not fast at once but must make up, if fasting inflicts a manifest hardship on him; he need not reach the state in which fasting becomes impossible, the condition being a hardship hard to bear; a light illness without manifest hardship permits no breaking, without divergence, against the Zahiris.
Ibn Qudama defines the breaking illness: severe illness that worsens with fasting or whose slow cure is feared. Ahmad was asked: when does the sick person break? He said: when he can no longer. It was said: like fever? He said: what illness is worse than fever? Some of the early generations permitted breaking for every illness, down to pain of a finger or a tooth, on the generality of the verse and because the traveler may break without need; the answer is that the painless sick man is like the healthy one, the verse covers traveler and sick person together, and for illness probability was retained, since no fixed measure exists, illnesses differing from one another (al-Majmu' 7/421-425; al-Mughni 4/204-211).
The majority of jurists (Hanafis, Malikis in one view, Shafi'is, Hanbalis as a whole) permit the healthy person to break when he fears illness or exhaustion: a preponderant assumption supported by a sign, by experience or by the report of a skilled, Muslim and discreet physician. The Hanafis specify: mere conjecture does not suffice (Radd al-Muhtar 2/422).
The Shafi'is add: one whom hunger and thirst overcome until he fears loss of life must break, even if healthy and resident, on the verses "do not kill yourselves" and "do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction", and he makes up like the sick person.
Do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction.
Surah al-Baqara, 195
If the sick person oversteps by an action that aggravates his illness, breaking remains permitted when he feels severe harm, on condition he broke intending to use the dispensation, as ar-Ramli said and those who followed him. A distinction is drawn between illness that settles and illness that comes and goes: in the first, he may leave off the intention at night; in the second, if he is feverish when entering the fast he leaves off the intention, otherwise he must intend from the night and break later if need comes. The same holds for the harvester, the builder and the guard, even out of ostentation: the nighttime intention falls on them, then they break if hardship strikes them (al-Majmu' 7/423; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi 2/81; Rawdat at-Talibin 2/369).
Ibn Qudama, for the Hanbalis, draws them together: one who fears illness from fasting is like the sick man whose worsening is feared, for permission to break was granted the sick man only out of fear of what fasting renews of illness and prolongation of its duration. Ahmad also permitted breaking to one dominated by the desire for intercourse to the point of fearing for his body, and to the young slave girl who fasts and begins to menstruate before fifteen: if fasting exhausts her, let her break and make up; the qadi states this holds if she fears illness, otherwise not. A particular case is treated: one whose desire is so strong that breaking was permitted him, if he can repel it without intercourse, such as masturbation by his own hand or his wife's hand, intercourse is not permitted him, for he breaks by necessity and one does not exceed what repels it, as one does not exceed the necessary amount when eating carrion; if he has intercourse the expiation is due from him; and if necessity can be repelled only by voiding another's fast, as with intercourse with a young slave girl or a woman of the book, or touching a free mature woman without penetration, that is permitted him. If one of his two wives is menstruating and the other a healthy faster, and necessity calls him, two views clash: entering the faster is preferable, for the text forbids the menstruating one and her harm does not vanish with the need; or he chooses, for the two breakings are equal (al-Mughni 4/211-212; al-Furu' 3/20; al-Insaf 3/286).
The Malikis in the famous view refuse the healthy person breaking for the fast's mere hardship, when it brings only intense fatigue; a view permits it. Ad-Dardir cites permission to break for one who fears his illness will be prolonged or worsened, on the word of a competent physician, on experience or on a constitution like his, and states that sick and healthy alike must break if they fear loss of life or severe harm, such as loss of a function of hearing or sight, for preserving one's person is obligatory; extreme fatigue permits breaking to the sick person, and it was said also to the healthy one (ash-Sharh al-Kabir with the Hashiya of al-Dasuqi 1/535; ash-Sharh al-Saghir 1/465).
The jurists agree that the pregnant woman and the nursing mother may break in Ramadan if they fear for themselves or their children illness, its worsening, harm or loss of life: the child of the pregnant mother is like an organ of hers, and fear for him is like fear for one of her limbs (al-Mughni 4/202-203). Ad-Dardir states: breaking is obligatory if they fear loss of life or severe harm, permitted if they fear illness or serious harm.
The Hanbalis declare their fasting disliked, like that of the sick person (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/313; al-Insaf 3/290; ash-Sharh al-Kabir 1/536).
Whoever among you is ill or on a journey shall make up an equal number of other days.
Surah al-Baqara, 185
Al-Kasani explains that the verse targets no particular illness: an illness fasting does not harm permits no breaking, so the word illness there denotes whatever weighs on the fast, a meaning pregnancy and nursing fulfill. The Malikis state explicitly that pregnancy is illness in the proper sense and nursing likened to illness. A hadith confirms it:
Allah the Most High has lifted from the traveler the fast and half the prayer, and from the pregnant woman or the nursing mother the fast.
reported by at-Tirmidhi 715 and an-Nasa'i 2315, judged hasan
All the schools then agree: when they break, the makeup is due from them, for they are like the sick person who fears for himself. The divergence concerns the food compensation (fidya).
The Hanafis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis: nothing but the makeup, for no text institutes the compensation, and they resemble the sick person who fears for himself, who owes nothing beyond makeup.
The Shafi'is in their madhhab and the Hanbalis in a transmission add the compensation: feeding a poor person per day, on the verse "upon those who can bear it: the feeding of a poor person", which covers them, and on the account of Ibn Abbas: "dispensation was made to the very old man and the very old woman to break and feed a poor person per day, then the verse prescribed fasting upon them when they can; the compensation remains for the old man and old woman unable to fast, as well as for the pregnant and nursing women when they fear for their children" (reported by al-Bayhaqi 4/230, at-Tabari 2752-2753 and Ibn al-Jarud 381; al-Albani judged it sahih; a shortened version is reported by Abu Dawud 2318).
The Hanafis refuse the compensation on the hadith reported from Anas ibn Malik, in which Allah lifted the fast from the pregnant woman and the nursing mother with no compensation: they are commanded to preserve the child, and this preservation requires breaking, and the command to break does not combine with a compensation that presupposes a blameworthy breaking.
The Malikis exempt the pregnant woman from compensation, for she breaks with excuse, like the menstruating woman; for the nursing mother, two views: she owes the compensation, for the excuse does not exist in herself but for the child, which weakens her; or she is exempt, like the pregnant woman. Malik is transmitted in three views: a measure of food per day for both; two measures for the nursing mother and one for the pregnant woman; the compensation for the nursing mother alone (Badai' al-Sanai' 2/636-637; al-Mudawwana; al-Majmu' 7/442-445; al-Mughni 4/202; al-Ifsah 1/398-399).
The jurists agree that the very old man and the very old woman unable to fast may break without makeup, and that the sick person whose cure is not hoped for falls under the same ruling. Ibn al-Mundhir reports their consensus, al-Buhuti states that whoever is incapable through old age or an illness without hope of cure breaks by consensus, for fasting is not demanded of him; an-Nawawi states: the old man whom fasting exhausts with painful hardship and the incurable sick person owe no fast, without divergence (al-Ijma' 34; Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/309; al-Majmu' 7/422; al-Mughni 4/204).
He has placed upon you in religion no hardship.
Surah al-Hajj, 78
The verse "upon those who can bear it: the feeding of a poor person" grounds the compensation: some read into it an implicit negation, that is, upon those who cannot bear it. Ibn Abbas is reported, while reciting this verse, to have said: "it is not abrogated: they are the very old man and the very old woman unable to fast, who feed a poor person per day" (reported by al-Bukhari 4235). The verse remains proof even for those who declare it abrogated: abrogation holds only for one who can fast, so the old man remains as he was.
The Hanafis condition the incapacity of old age: it must be permanent; one who cannot fast only because of intense heat makes up in winter.
On what is due from them, the majority (Hanafis, Shafi'is in their madhhab, Hanbalis) require the compensation: a measure of food per day, on the account of Ibn Abbas and that of Anas: "he became unable to fast the year before his death, he broke and fed a poor person per day" (reported by at-Tabari in his commentary 6/188, at-Tabarani in al-Kabir 1/242 and ad-Daraqutni 2/207; al-Haythami declared its men those of the sahih collections). Al-Kasani explains: fasting escaped him, the need for a repairer followed, and repair by fasting is impossible, so the compensation replaces it, as value replaces in indemnity for lost objects.
The Malikis, and the Shafi'is in one view, impose no compensation: he broke with excuse, like the sick person and the coerced one, without makeup; and one who owes neither makeup nor fast owes no feeding either, for feeding follows in the principles only a deferred fast, not a fast fallen definitively (Badai' al-Sanai' 2/638; Sharh Fath al-Qadir 2/356-357; al-Majmu' 7/421-425; al-Mughni 4/204).
The jurists hold that one whom hunger and thirst dominate until he fears loss of life breaks and makes up. An-Nawawi: one whom hunger and thirst overcome until he fears loss of life must break, even if healthy and resident, on the verses "do not kill yourselves" and "do not throw yourselves with your own hands into destruction" (al-Majmu' 7/423).
The Malikis add that fasting then becomes forbidden to him, for preserving one's life and interests is obligatory (Jawahir al-Iklil 1/153). Al-Kasani places extreme hunger and thirst on the level of the illness through which loss of life is feared by fasting (Badai' al-Sanai' 2/638).
The Hanafis set two conditions: fear of loss of life, of loss of reason or of the senses, with strong likelihood and not mere conjecture, like the pregnant woman and the nursing mother; and that this hunger not be of his own making: if he exhausted himself, two views clash over his expiation, and another view was also said; the servant and the slave are excused when their master wore them out (Maraqi al-Falah 374; Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115). Al-Hisni and al-Qalyubi liken this hunger to illness, excluding a migraine or a light pain of tooth or ear.
Hard trades are given as example: the harvester, the builder and the guard must take the intention at night, then break if hardship strikes them.
The Hanafis add that the faster must not undertake work that brings him to weakness: the baker kneads half the day and rests the rest, and if he says it does not suffice he is called a liar by the shortest days of winter; if he wears himself out at work until falling ill and breaking, two views clash over his expiation. In the Hanafi consultations, the professional who knows his trade will bring him an illness permitting breaking is forbidden to work to the point of falling ill, so long as he has provision for his dependents: fasting is preferable, for begging is forbidden him; if he has no livelihood, he works according to his need, and breaking is permitted him if the work cannot be otherwise. Ar-Ramli reports: if someone becomes unable to fast because of his livelihood, he breaks and feeds half a measure per day, when he cannot make up; on this principle the harvester and the baker break if the harvest would be lost by waiting. Ibn Abidin states: whoever has provision need not break; the seasonal worker whose contract runs through Ramadan follows the need of his work; al-Hattab likewise notes that the harvester pressed by the season breaks without divergence when the crop would be lost, and Abu Bakr al-Ajurri, for the Hanbalis, says: one whose trade is hard, if he fears losing everything by fasting, breaks and makes up; if he loses nothing by stopping, he sins by breaking and leaves his trade that day (Radd al-Muhtar 2/114-115; Mawahib al-Jalil 2/441; al-Furu' 4/458; Kifayat al-Akhyar 257; Hashiyat al-Qalyubi on Sharh al-Mahalli 2/64).
The four imams hold that the traveler who fasts while traveling has a valid fast that suffices him, on the Prophet's words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to Hamza ibn Amr al-Aslami, a great faster: "if you wish, fast; if you wish, break" (reported by al-Bukhari 1943 and Muslim 789), and on Anas's words: "we traveled with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the faster found no fault with the one who broke, nor the one who broke with the faster" (reported by al-Bukhari 1947 and Muslim 787).
Which is preferable, fasting or breaking? The majority of the jurists of the four schools, in one view, hold fasting preferable when it neither exhausts nor weakens him, on the words "and fasting is better for you" and on the hadith (judged weak): "whoever has a mount that carries him to satiety, let him fast Ramadan wherever he meets it" (reported by Abu Dawud 2410). Fasting in Ramadan is the worship of the best of times, deferring the obligation out of its time is lesser, and the traveler is assured of makeup; the verses show the fast to be the firm rule and breaking the dispensation, and the firm rule prevails so long as it turns to no harm. Ibn Rushd says: what is a dispensation, better to leave it (Bidaia al-Mujtahid 1/407).
The Hanafis add: if most of his companions break and share the expense, breaking is preferable, to follow the group.
The Hanbalis in their madhhab, with Ibn Habib, Abd al-Malik ibn al-Majishun and Ibn Abd al-Barr among the Malikis, hold breaking preferable: "fasting while traveling is not part of righteousness" (reported by al-Bukhari 1844); "hold to Allah's dispensation" (reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim 1115, the wording being Ibn Umar's); "Allah loves that His dispensations be used as He dislikes that His disobedience be used" (sahih hadith); and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) broke in the year of the conquest when hardship appeared, then said of those who persisted: "they are disobedient ones, they are disobedient ones" (reported by Muslim 1114). Ibn Habib adds: breaking is the last of the two commands given. An-Nawawi and al-Kamal ibn al-Humam answer by harmonizing: the hadiths on breaking target those harmed by fasting, a reading some texts make explicit, and one must take this path to reconcile the hadiths without neglecting any or claiming abrogation without decisive proof (al-Majmu' 7/440-442; Fath al-Qadir 2/273-274; al-Mughni 4/214).
The distance permitting breaking is, for the Malikis, Shafi'is and Hanbalis, the march of two moderate days without a night, or of two nights without a day, or of one day and one night (al-Majmu' 7/439; al-Mughni 4/138). Four conditions join it according to the schools.
First condition: the traveler must not resolve to reside along the way: four days with their nights among the Malikis and Shafi'is, more than four days among the Hanbalis, some fifteen days or half a month among the Hanafis; in a place fit for dwelling, not a ship, a desert or a land of war; he then becomes resident, completes the prayer and fasts (Radd al-Muhtar; Maraqi al-Falah 231; Sharh al-Mahalli 1/257; al-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/89; al-Mughni 4/142-146).
Second condition: the journey must not be an act of disobedience. The majority (Malikis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis) set it: one who travels for banditry, to fight Muslims unjustly or to trade in wine gains nothing by his breaking, for the dispensation is a relief meant to help attain a lawful aim, and one who disobeys by traveling has no right to it; the Hanafis do not set it: the texts distinguished no journey from any other, travel in itself is not disobedience, and the dispensation attaches to the journey, not to the disobedience surrounding it (Badai' al-Sanai' 1/311, 2/631; al-Majmu' 5/445, 7/431; al-Insaf 2/314-315; al-Mughni 2/485).
Third condition: he must leave the town, its outskirts and its buildings. Ibn Qudama says: he may not break before leaving the houses behind him. Al-Hasan held that he may break at home on the day of departure, an isolated view Ibn Abd al-Barr rejects: no consideration nor report permits breaking while resident, and the opposite is reported from al-Hasan. The hadith of Anas yet shows he broke on the day his mount was saddled and his travel clothes put on, before mounting (reported by at-Tirmidhi 799, judged hasan); at-Tirmidhi notes that some scholars concluded from it that the traveler may break at home without being able to shorten the prayer before leaving the town, and al-Baghawi reports al-Hasan saying this for one who resolves to travel in the morning; most people of knowledge hold that if dawn rose before his exit he must fast that day, and by consensus shortening is unlawful before leaving the town (Majmu' 7/437; Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/312; Sharh as-Sunna 6/313).
One who intends to travel in Ramadan cannot resolve at night to break before departing: Ibn Abd al-Barr reports their consensus, for travel comes about neither by intention nor by preparations but by setting out; residence, by contrast, comes about by intention alone, and the obligation to fast falls as soon as the journey truly begins. They also agree that one who walked until the houses vanished from sight, then was held back from continuing and ate, owes no expiation (al-Istidhkar 3/308).
First case: departure occurs before dawn, or dawn overtakes him already on the road and he intends to break: breaking is permitted him by consensus, for he began his journey in the time when breaking is lawful and he is traveling when the fast becomes obligatory (al-Hawi al-Kabir 3/428; Rawdat at-Talibin 2/369; al-Majmu' 7/432; Radd al-Muhtar 3/122-123; Maraqi al-Falah 369). On the precise moment, Ibn al-Mundhir reports the divergence: for Amr ibn Shurahbil and ash-Sha'bi he breaks from his departure as a traveler; for Ahmad, once he passes the houses; for Ishaq, once he sets out on his journey; for al-Hasan al-Basri, he may break at home on the day of departure; Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi retains Ahmad's view: one who fasts healthy then falls ill may break the rest of the day, likewise one who sets out traveling; while ath-Thawri, Makhul, Yahya al-Ansari, Malik, al-Awza'i, ash-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr and the partisans of reasoned opinion refuse him that day. If he eats at home before departure, Malik imposes nothing, Ashhab sees an affair of interpretation, others require the expiation, and Ibn Juzy lists three views, the third distinguishing according to whether he then travels or not (al-Ishraf 3/144; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 82).
Second case: he is resident at dawn, fasts, then sets out traveling during the day. The majority (Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi'is, and Ahmad in one transmission) declare he may not break and must complete his fast: the fast varies with residence and travel, and whoever began it in residence must complete it under the ruling of residence, like the prayer and wiping over the boots; he mixed a permission with a prohibition, and the ruling of residence prevails.
If he breaks nonetheless: the Hanafis and the Malikis in the famous view impose no expiation, for the end of the period carries an excuse and he has become, by traveling, one of those permitted to break; the Shafi'is in the soundest view forbid it to him, and even if he breaks through intercourse the expiation is due.
The Hanbalis in their madhhab, with al-Muzani among the Shafi'is and the people of Medina as Ibn Hubayra reports, permit it once he leaves the inhabited houses of his town, willingly or not, on the generality of the verse of illness and travel and on the account of the year of the conquest: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) fasted until he reached Kura' al-Ghamim, then drank a cup of water after the asr while the people watched, and said of those who persisted: "they are disobedient ones" (reported by Muslim); Ibn Abbas also reports it: he drank after the people showed their thirst, and the people drank (reported by Ahmad 1/366); Abu Basra al-Ghifari served his meal on a boat far from any houses, and said to his companion: "do you turn away from the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?" (reported by Abu Dawud 2412, judged hasan); Anas likewise broke on a departure day, before mounting, and said: it is the sunna (reported by at-Tirmidhi 799, sahih hadith). Ibn al-Qayyim sees in this a proof for those who permit breaking on the very day of the journey in progress, a transmission reported from Ahmad and the view of Ishaq and of Dawud. Malik, ash-Shafi'i and
Abu Hanifa refuse it, with ath-Thawri, al-Awza'i and Makhul.
The Hanbalis state that completing that day is better, to step out of the divergence (Kashshaf al-Qina' 2/312; al-Rawd al-Murbi' 1/139; Manar as-Sabil 1/258; al-Ifsah 1/417; al-Insaf 3/289; Hashiyat Ibn Qayyim on Sunan Abi Dawud 7/39; al-Mughni 4/142-146).
One who, while traveling, took the intention of fasting at night and rose fasting without abandoning his resolve: may he change his mind? The Hanafis, the Malikis and the Shafi'is in one view refuse breaking that day; if he breaks, no expiation falls on him, because of the excuse surrounding his situation.
Ibn Abd al-Barr reports that Malik imposed the makeup and the expiation, and that another transmission from him imposes no expiation, the view of most of his companions, except Abd al-Malik: one who breaks through intercourse expiates, for he cannot sustain his journey thereby and has no excuse. Ibn Juzy counts three views, the third distinguishing intercourse, which expiates, from the rest, which does not. In the commentaries of Khalil and with ad-Dasuqi, the expiation is due as soon as he took the intention of fasting while traveling and then broke, whether he had an excuse or not; this is the text of the Mudawwana: Ibn al-Qasim questioned Malik repeatedly, and Malik answered every time: makeup and expiation, like one who breaks while resident; for the traveler had the choice between breaking and fasting, and once he chose the fast he leaves it only through an excuse from Allah; but one who was resident, fasted, then traveled and broke owes only makeup, for he was on the side of fasting and passed to the side of breaking. Al-Makhzumi, Ibn Kinana and Ashhab impose only makeup on one who fasts while traveling then breaks; Ashhab adds that one who rises fasting while traveling then returns home by day and breaks owes makeup and expiation, with no acceptable excuse.
The Shafi'is in their madhhab, the Hanbalis, Ibn Abd al-Barr and Mutarrif among the Malikis permit on the contrary breaking without excuse, for the travel excuse remains: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) set out for Mecca in Ramadan, fasted, then broke at al-Kadid and the people broke (reported by al-Bukhari 4275, from Ibn Abbas); the account of Jabir at Kura' al-Ghamim is explicit, and Ibn Qudama declares this text without appeal (al-Mughni 4/142; al-Istidhkar 3/308; al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 1/201-202; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 82; Majmu' al-Fatawa 25/212).
The dispensation falls through two things, without divergence. First: return to one's land. If he returns and enters his dwelling, even to retrieve a forgotten object, the fast becomes obligatory upon him again as though he had arrived by night, or before midday according to the Hanafis. If he arrives during the day without having intended to fast at night, or after midday according to the Hanafis, he abstains for the rest of the day out of reverence for the time, by the Hanafis and the Hanbalis in their madhhab; the Malikis, the Shafi'is and the Hanbalis in one view do not impose it, for he broke with excuse (Radd al-Muhtar 2/106; al-Hidaya 1/129; Badai' al-Sanai' 2/653; al-Mudawwana al-Kubra 1/202; al-Majmu' 7/433; al-Insaf 3/283).
Second: the intention to reside, in a place fit for dwelling: four days with their nights by the Malikis and Shafi'is, more than four days by the Hanbalis, half a month or fifteen days by the Hanafis; he becomes resident, completes the prayer and fasts.
The Shafi'is state that if, having fasted, he resolves to reside along the way, breaking becomes forbidden to him, the permission having ceased; a view permits it, considering the start of the day. Ibn Juzy states the rule: travel permits shortening only through intention and action, while residence imposes fasting and completion by intention alone. And if he stops for a need without resolving to reside, not knowing when it will end, breaking and shortening remain permitted him, even for years, say the Hanafis; but if he expects to stay beyond four days by the majority, or fifteen by the Hanafis, he is counted resident: neither breaking nor shortening (al-Mughni 4/142-146; Sharh al-Muhalli on al-Minhaj 2/64; an-Najm al-Wahhaj 3/330; al-Qawanin al-Fiqhiyya 82).
In practice: the sick person, the incurable elder, the pregnant or nursing woman who fears for herself or her child, and one whom hunger or thirst threaten break and make up, the food compensation falling to the incapable elder alone in the majority of the schools; the traveler who departs before dawn breaks at will, one who departs during the day completes his fast by the majority of the schools or breaks once out of his town by the Hanbalis, and fasting remains preferable in travel so long as it does not wear him out; the dispensation falls upon returning home or upon resolving to reside.