Discussion of the first condition, which is that one is knowledgeable and not ignorant, with evidence

The Shaykh : The opposite of the knowledgeable person is the ignorant one. The ignorant person does not break his fast. Ignorance is of two types: ignorance of the ruling and ignorance of the reality. Ignorance is of two types: ignorance of the ruling and ignorance of the reality. Ignorance of the ruling is when the fasting person who consumed these things that break the fast does not know that they break the fast. We say that if he does not know that they break the fast, then he does not break his fast by doing so. It is as if a man raised in the desert, far from knowledge and far from people, thought that intercourse does not break the fast, so he had intercourse with his wife during the day of Ramadan and came to ask us. He said, "By Allah, I did not know that this breaks the fast, and if I had known, I would not have done it." Does he break his fast or not? No, because he is ignorant, and his claim of ignorance is accepted with us because there is a circumstance that supports what he claimed. What is the circumstance? That he was raised in a desert far from knowledge. But if a man in the city, who knows and hears from people, claimed that, saying, "I did not know that intercourse breaks the fast," then his claim may not be accepted, and we would hold him accountable for what his intercourse necessitates. The important point is that the one ignorant of the ruling does not break his fast. What is the evidence? The evidence for this issue with us is of two types: general evidence and specific evidence. The general evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: Did Allah the Exalted say "except fasting"?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Yes, generally, anything from the forbidden things that a person does while forgetting or while ignorant, he is not held accountable for it. And if he is not held accountable for it, its rulings do not apply to him because he is excused. Another evidence is the saying of Allah the Exalted: This is from the Qur'an. As for from the Sunnah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: As for the specific evidence, and I told you that the evidences are of two types in this chapter: the specific evidence for ignorance of the ruling is that 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) intended to fast, so he read the saying of Allah the Exalted: So he placed two ropes under his pillow. What are the two ropes? Two ropes used to tie camels, one black and the other white. He would eat and drink, then look at the ropes until the black one became distinct from the white one, so he stopped. He came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to seek a ruling on what had happened to him. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to him: What does "the whiteness of the day" mean? The white rope. And "the darkness of the night" is the black rope. This is how the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Did he order him to repeat his fast? No. This ignorance that occurred from 'Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) was ignorance of the reality, not ignorance of the ruling. It was ignorance of the ruling because he did not know that this was what Allah the Exalted intended by the verse, so he was ignorant of Allah's ruling in this issue. Similarly, if a fasting person consumes something from these things that break the fast while ignorant of the reality, meaning he thinks it is not daytime, he thinks it is night, then his fast is valid. An example is a man who got up at night and looked at the clock, and the clock was four and a third, but he saw it as three and a third, an hour before Fajr. He said, "Praise be to Allah, I got up early today," then he brought the pre-dawn meal and ate and drank until he filled his stomach. Then he went out and saw that the people had come out from prayer. He came to ask. What do we tell him?

The questioner : Your fast is valid.

The Shaykh : Your fast is valid. What is the evidence? The evidence is ignorance. Also, in the hadith, Asma' bint Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with them both) said: Did they break their fast during the day or at night? During the day. And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not order them to make up the fast. What makes us know that he did not order them to make it up? Even if someone might say he ordered them but it was not transmitted, we say: if he had ordered them, it would have been transmitted, because if he ordered them to make up the fast, making it up would become part of the Shari'ah of Allah. And if it is part of the Shari'ah of Allah, it must be preserved and transmitted. Since it was not transmitted, we know that it did not happen. And since it did not happen, we know that it is not part of the Shari'ah. Because Allah did not obligate us, if we made a mistake in estimating the setting of the sun and ate or drank, then it turned out that the sun had not set, to make up this fast, because we were ignorant. But a person must not be hasty; he should verify. A questioner asked us and said that he is in the Eastern Region and heard the adhan, the adhan of the Emirates. I said "al-Imarat" or "al-Imarat"?

The questioner : Al-Imarat.

The Shaykh : I said it with an open "a" (fat-h), and the correct is with a kasrah, because it is from "al-imarah" (authority), not from "al-amarah" (sign). "Al-amarah" with an open "a" is a sign, and "al-imarah" with a kasrah is from "al-imarah" (authority), which is governance. Well, he says, "We heard the adhan of the Emirates and broke our fast, thinking it was the adhan of the region. Then, after that, the region gave the adhan a quarter of an hour or ten minutes later." He came to ask. He is actually asking. What do we tell him? Do you have to repeat it?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Why? Because he was ignorant of the reality, and a person is commanded to hasten to break the fast. In the hadith from Allah the Glorious and Exalted, in the Qudsi hadith: So he is commanded to hasten. This man heard the adhan, so he hastened and did what he was commanded to do, which is to hasten. It turned out that the sun had not set. We say, "Your fast is valid due to ignorance of what? Of the reality." Well, we mentioned that one must be knowledgeable, and the opposite of knowledge is ignorance. This man is a new example we will mention. A man had intercourse with his wife, and he knew that intercourse is forbidden, but he did not know that the expiation was upon him. He told us when he came to seek a ruling, "I know that it is forbidden, but I did not know that there is this severe expiation: freeing a slave. If I do not find one, then fasting two consecutive months. If I cannot do that, then feeding sixty poor people. If I had known that there was even fasting one day in it, I would not have done it." Do we excuse him?

The questioner : No, we do not excuse him.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : He is not excused by ignorance.

The Shaykh : I heard one of you say that the expiation is dropped from him because he is ignorant. Yes, is he ignorant of the reality? He was not ignorant of the reality; he knew that it happened to him during the day. Is he ignorant of the ruling? He was not ignorant of the ruling; he knew that it is forbidden. But he was ignorant of what follows from this ruling. Do you understand? By the result. It is not a condition for breaking the fast that one be knowledgeable of the result. And the evidence that that is not a condition is that the man who had intercourse with his wife and came to consult the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), did he know that an expiation was upon him?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : He did not know.

The questioner : He did not know.

The Shaykh : How did he not know?

The questioner : He knew the issue.

The Shaykh : No, he knew that it is forbidden, but did he know that an expiation was upon him? He did not know. And yet, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) held him accountable for it. So, if a person is ignorant of what follows from his action, while knowing its ruling, is he excused or not excused? Not excused. Well, if a man committed zina with a woman and said, "I did not know that zina is forbidden," a man raised in the desert, far from people, who did not know and did not recognize it, or a man newly converted to Islam who did not know that zina is forbidden in Islam, so he did it and came to us and said, "I did not know that zina is forbidden." Do we establish the hadd upon him?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Meaning, we flog him.

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Because he is ignorant of the ruling. And another man came to us saying that he committed zina and he is muhsan (married and has had intercourse with his wife and secured his chastity). He came to ask, saying that he committed zina and he knew that zina is forbidden, but he did not know that the punishment for zina of a muhsan is stoning. He said, "If I had known that its punishment was stoning, I would not have done it." Do we stone him?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : ... He did not know that its hadd was stoning, and he knew that it is forbidden. And he says, "I read that zina is forbidden. I know that, but if I had known that if he did it, he would be stoned with stones until he died, he would never have done it." So he is asking now. Is he stoned? Yes, he is stoned, because ignorance of what follows from the action is not an excuse. As long as you know the ruling of the action, the ruling applies to you. So at that time, do we stone him or not? We stone him. Unlike the first one, for whom we do not stone him because he did not know that zina is forbidden. So pay attention to this difference. Ignorance of what follows from the action is an excuse if you made a mistake, so correct me: Ignorance of what follows from the action is an excuse.

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Well, ignorance of the ruling of the action is an excuse.

The questioner : An excuse.

The Shaykh : An excuse. Well, the second time, and let us move away from the issue of things that break the fast. Ignorance of the ruling is an excuse if the thing is prohibited, meaning forbidden. And ignorance of its ruling if it is commanded is not an excuse. Second time, well, ignorance of the ruling of a thing if it is commanded is not an excuse, and ignorance of its ruling if it is prohibited is an excuse. I am not asking you now; I am telling you. This is a rule: Ignorance of the ruling of a thing if it is commanded is not an excuse, and ignorance of the ruling if it is prohibited is an excuse. Clear? Well, let us give an example so that this becomes clear to you. A man's garment was affected by impurity. His garment was affected by impurity, so he prayed with his garment, but he did not know that impurity must be removed when praying. He did not know this and came to us to ask, saying, "I prayed in a garment that was impure, but I did not know that impurity must be removed." Do we hold him accountable for repeating it?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Why? We do not obligate him to repeat it, because removing this impurity falls under the category of removing a prohibited act. Another man ate camel meat and did not perform ablution, then he prayed. Then he came to us saying, "I did not know that camel meat invalidates the ablution." What do we say? He must repeat the prayer. He must perform ablution and repeat the prayer. Why? Because this person neglected a commanded act, which is the ablution. He must perform the ablution. But the first man committed a prohibited act, which is praying in a garment that is impure. Pay attention to this. It is said that in the second case, ignorance regarding the neglect of a prohibited act is an excuse, but ignorance regarding the performance of a commanded act is not an excuse. This is a well-known principle among the scholars, and it contains the benefits I mentioned to you. If a man comes to us who is ignorant that removing impurity from a garment is obligatory, and he has prayed in it, we say he does not have to repeat the prayer. If a man eats camel meat while being ignorant that it invalidates the ablution, we tell him that he must perform ablution and repeat the prayer. That is complete. Now, what about two men: one whose garment became impure and he forgot to wash it, so he prayed, and another who became in a state of ritual impurity and forgot to perform ablution, so he prayed? What do we say to them? Repeat the question. A man’s garment became impure, so he forgot to wash it and prayed. Another man became in a state of ritual impurity, meaning his ablution was invalidated, and he forgot to perform ablution and prayed. The first one does not repeat the prayer, and the second one repeats it. The difference is that the first case falls under the category of committing a prohibited act while forgetting, and the second case falls under the category of neglecting a commanded act, for which a person is not excused. Now, let us return, may Allah reward you, to the conditions for breaking the fast with these things that break the fast. We said that the person must be aware.