The ruling on a fasting person breaking his fast to remove the dire necessity of another
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Question : Now, if a person needs to break his fast to remove the dire necessity of another, is that permissible or not? A man needs to break his fast to remove the dire necessity of another. There are many examples of this, such as when this man’s blood is needed; that is, a man’s blood has been tested, and it is said that if he does not receive a blood transfusion now, he will die, and we have a fasting person whose blood is compatible with the patient’s. So, is blood taken from him to transfuse into that patient, even though he is fasting for the festival?
Answer : The answer is yes, we take from him for this purpose, and he breaks his fast, eating and drinking. He breaks his fast, eats, and drinks, and there is no blame on him, because here he breaks his fast to remove the dire necessity of the unseen, and dire necessity is defined by its loss, whereas fasting is not defined by its loss. How can it prevent his slave?
What is the obligatory? The grave, but the dire necessity of another so that they help him will not succeed if we wait until the sun sets and this one is not relieved, the patient will not be relieved. Likewise, if he needs to remove the dire necessity of another to save him from drowning, a person sees a drowning man and then says, “I cannot save him unless I drink, because I am thirsty and cannot move,” we tell him, “Drink and save this drowning man.” And likewise, saving him from heat, and other things, saving him from a snake, saving him from an enemy. The important point is that if it is to remove the dire necessity of another from the protected, he breaks his fast and makes it up. And is it obligatory to feed the one who broke his fast for his sake, or is it not obligatory?
Yes, the school of thought, even in this issue, says that feeding is not obligatory; he only has to make up the fast, even though in reality there is no difference between him and the pregnant woman who broke her fast for the benefit of the child, because this person broke his fast for the sake of his honor and his trust.
Answer : The answer is yes, we take from him for this purpose, and he breaks his fast, eating and drinking. He breaks his fast, eats, and drinks, and there is no blame on him, because here he breaks his fast to remove the dire necessity of the unseen, and dire necessity is defined by its loss, whereas fasting is not defined by its loss. How can it prevent his slave?
What is the obligatory? The grave, but the dire necessity of another so that they help him will not succeed if we wait until the sun sets and this one is not relieved, the patient will not be relieved. Likewise, if he needs to remove the dire necessity of another to save him from drowning, a person sees a drowning man and then says, “I cannot save him unless I drink, because I am thirsty and cannot move,” we tell him, “Drink and save this drowning man.” And likewise, saving him from heat, and other things, saving him from a snake, saving him from an enemy. The important point is that if it is to remove the dire necessity of another from the protected, he breaks his fast and makes it up. And is it obligatory to feed the one who broke his fast for his sake, or is it not obligatory?
Yes, the school of thought, even in this issue, says that feeding is not obligatory; he only has to make up the fast, even though in reality there is no difference between him and the pregnant woman who broke her fast for the benefit of the child, because this person broke his fast for the sake of his honor and his trust.
Source
قناة «فضيلة الشيخ محمد بن صالح العثيمين»، 282- هل يجوز الفطر لدفع ضرورة غيره؟ وماذا يجب على الفاطر؟ II ابن عثيمين — youtube.com
The Arabic text is a machine transcription of the audio recording.