Explanation of the author's statement: "And whoever vows to fast a month, it is obligatory for him to do so consecutively"
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said "And whoever vows to fast a month, it is obligatory for him to do so consecutively", and if he vows a specific number of days, it is not obligatory for him. If he vows to fast a month, it is obligatory for him to do so consecutively, meaning it is obligatory for him to fast consecutively. The vow of a month is of two types, pay attention. The first type is that he vows a specific month, for example, Rabi' al-Awwal. In this case, it is obligatory for him to fast consecutively. Why?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because he specified it, and due to the necessity of the specification, once he has specified the month, he cannot fast it except consecutively.
The second type is that he vows a month in general, saying, "I have a vow upon me to Allah to fast a month." The author holds the view that it is obligatory for him to fast consecutively, and some scholars have held the view that it is not obligatory for him to fast consecutively. This issue applies if he did not have an intention. However, if he had an intention, it is according to what he intended, or if he had a condition, it is according to what he conditioned. That is, if he said, "My intention is to fast a month consecutively," we say it is obligatory for you to fast consecutively. Or if he explicitly stated the condition and said, "I have a vow upon me to Allah to fast a month consecutively," yes, it is obligatory for him to fast consecutively. The third case is if he said, "I will fast a month only." Is it obligatory for him or not? There is a difference of opinion. The school of thought (madhhab) is that it is not obligatory for him, and the correct view, yes, or the second opinion, is that it is obligatory for him. The correct view is that it is not obligatory for him. The correct view is the school of thought that it is not obligatory for him. The evidence for this is that if the month, when mentioned in general, necessitated consecutiveness, then the condition of consecutiveness in the saying of Allah the Exalted What is it? would be superfluous and unnecessary. Since Allah conditioned consecutiveness for the two months, we know that the month, when mentioned in general, what is it? does not necessitate consecutiveness. This is the correct view. So if a man said, "If Allah heals my sick person, I have a vow upon me to Allah to fast a month," and Allah healed his sick person, then we tell him, "Fast a month." If we ask him, "Do you have to fast consecutively?" we say, "No, it is not obligatory for you unless you intended it or conditioned it."
He said "And if he vows a specific number of days". All right, ... before we move past the issue, he said "it is obligatory for him to do so consecutively". But is it obligatory for him to fast thirty days, or is it not obligatory for him except twenty-nine days? We say that if he started fasting from the first day of the month, it is not obligatory for him except the month, whether it is twenty-nine days or thirty days, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted[Al-Baqarah 2:185] So Allah called it a month, even though it may be twenty-nine days or thirty days.
And if he started it in the middle of it, for example, if he started fasting when?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : On the fifteenth day. It was said that it is obligatory for him to fast thirty days because it is impossible to build upon the month. It was also said that it is not obligatory for him, but rather it is obligatory for him to fast what the month was. According to this opinion, if he started fasting on the fifteenth day of this month, it ends on the fourteenth day of the following month, right? All right, if we assume that the month in which he started fasting was short, how many days does he fast? Twenty-nine days. And this opinion is the correct one: that it is not obligatory for him except a lunar month, whether he started in the middle of the month or at the beginning of the month.
The second issue: if we say that consecutiveness is obligatory, meaning in the case where consecutiveness is obligatory, if he breaks the consecutiveness by fasting one day of the month, does he restart or complete it? There is a detail. If it was for an excuse, he does not restart; he builds upon what has passed. For example, a man started fasting and fasted ten days, then he became ill with an illness that permits him to break the fast, so he broke the fast. He broke the fast for five days. Does he complete based on the first ten days?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because he broke the fast for an excuse. And likewise, if he traveled. If he traveled after fasting ten days and broke the fast during the travel, then returned from the travel, what is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He builds upon what has passed, because travel is an excuse that permits breaking the fast, even in obligatory fasting by the original law, which is Ramadan. All right, if he traveled in order to break the fast.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Breaking the fast is forbidden. We say it is forbidden for you to break the fast. First, it is not permissible for you to break the fast, because it is obligatory for you to fast consecutively, and there is no consecutiveness with breaking the fast. But if he breaks the fast, it is obligatory for him to restart, because he broke the fast for an excuse that does not permit breaking the fast.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because it is a month. He fasted a month, it did not become twenty-nine. The month in which he started became twenty-nine. All right, did you understand? So the one who vowed, if consecutiveness is obligatory for him and the consecutiveness is broken, Ya Fawzi, what is the ruling? He starts over.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is the detail?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He restarts. All right, in such a case, if someone asked you for a ruling, is it obligatory for you to ask for details, or do you say "build upon it," or do you say "restart"? One person comes to ask you and says, "I have a vow to fast two consecutive months, and I broke the fast for one day of these two months, right?" Do I say "restart," or "continue," or "ask for details"?
The questioner : ... Ask for details.
The Shaykh : Here, it is obligatory for me to ask for details, because the ruling is not complete except by knowing the situation. Just as if a questioner asked you about a deceased person who left behind a daughter, a brother, and a full paternal uncle. Do you say the daughter is a full sister or a sister through the father?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, the daughter does not need us to ask for details about her? ...? The daughter, there is no full sister through the father, all right. The brother, we ask for details: is he a brother through the mother or a brother other than through the mother? The uncle is known to be a full uncle. For the brother, we say we ask for details: is he a brother through the mother or a brother other than through the mother? Why? Because if he said "through the mother," we say he has no share, and the rest is for the uncle. If it is a brother through the mother, he has no share. Who excluded him?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The daughter, the descendant who inherits, understood? And the rest is for the uncle because he is a residuary heir ('asabah), the closest male. And if they said that the brother is a full brother of the deceased or a brother through the father, we say the remaining money is for the brother, and the uncle is excluded. Do we need to ask for details?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We need to ask for details. All right, a questioner asked me and said, "A deceased person left behind a son or a father, a son and a father." Do I need to say, "Is the son a slave or a free man?" Or "Is he a killer or not a killer?" Yes. So we take from this a rule: that it is not obligatory for me to ask about the existence of a barrier, but it is obligatory for me to ask about the realization of the condition. There is a difference between them, why? Because the original state of a barrier is its absence, and the original state of a condition is its absence. Therefore, I verify its existence. The original state for all of us is absence; I need to verify the existence, the existence of the condition, so I say, "Is it such and such or such and such," until the conditions become clear. And this issue, in reality, is needed by the student of knowledge when issuing a ruling. We say that asking about the existence of a barrier is not obligatory, and asking about the existence of a condition is obligatory, because the original state for both is absence. All right, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it does not contradict. This is a man who said, "A person entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs. Is that permissible or not?" If you are among those who hold that it is not permissible to pray the greeting of the mosque during the prohibited times, it is obligatory for you to ask for details. What is it? Some people say if you enter during the prohibited time, you do not pray. If I hold this opinion, and if someone asks me, "I entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs. Am I rewarded or punished?" Right? Do I ask for details? I say.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or do I say he is rewarded, and the original state is the absence of a barrier? Right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It may be said that this is the apparent view. And it may be said that since the times, in them, there is what prevents and what permits, it is necessary to ask, unlike this heir who is a killer or not a killer, because the original state is the absence of killing. But this is a time, a divided time in which some things are lawful and some are not lawful. But the correct opinion, as we have passed over many times, is that the voluntary prayers that have causes, right? are not prevented from being performed in the prohibited times; they are permissible in the prohibited times.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because he specified it, and due to the necessity of the specification, once he has specified the month, he cannot fast it except consecutively.
The second type is that he vows a month in general, saying, "I have a vow upon me to Allah to fast a month." The author holds the view that it is obligatory for him to fast consecutively, and some scholars have held the view that it is not obligatory for him to fast consecutively. This issue applies if he did not have an intention. However, if he had an intention, it is according to what he intended, or if he had a condition, it is according to what he conditioned. That is, if he said, "My intention is to fast a month consecutively," we say it is obligatory for you to fast consecutively. Or if he explicitly stated the condition and said, "I have a vow upon me to Allah to fast a month consecutively," yes, it is obligatory for him to fast consecutively. The third case is if he said, "I will fast a month only." Is it obligatory for him or not? There is a difference of opinion. The school of thought (madhhab) is that it is not obligatory for him, and the correct view, yes, or the second opinion, is that it is obligatory for him. The correct view is that it is not obligatory for him. The correct view is the school of thought that it is not obligatory for him. The evidence for this is that if the month, when mentioned in general, necessitated consecutiveness, then the condition of consecutiveness in the saying of Allah the Exalted
Two consecutive months
شهرين متتابعينHe said "And if he vows a specific number of days". All right, ... before we move past the issue, he said "it is obligatory for him to do so consecutively". But is it obligatory for him to fast thirty days, or is it not obligatory for him except twenty-nine days? We say that if he started fasting from the first day of the month, it is not obligatory for him except the month, whether it is twenty-nine days or thirty days, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted
The month of Ramadhan [is that] in which was revealed the Qur'an
شهر رمضان الذي أنزل فيه القرأنAnd if he started it in the middle of it, for example, if he started fasting when?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : On the fifteenth day. It was said that it is obligatory for him to fast thirty days because it is impossible to build upon the month. It was also said that it is not obligatory for him, but rather it is obligatory for him to fast what the month was. According to this opinion, if he started fasting on the fifteenth day of this month, it ends on the fourteenth day of the following month, right? All right, if we assume that the month in which he started fasting was short, how many days does he fast? Twenty-nine days. And this opinion is the correct one: that it is not obligatory for him except a lunar month, whether he started in the middle of the month or at the beginning of the month.
The second issue: if we say that consecutiveness is obligatory, meaning in the case where consecutiveness is obligatory, if he breaks the consecutiveness by fasting one day of the month, does he restart or complete it? There is a detail. If it was for an excuse, he does not restart; he builds upon what has passed. For example, a man started fasting and fasted ten days, then he became ill with an illness that permits him to break the fast, so he broke the fast. He broke the fast for five days. Does he complete based on the first ten days?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, because he broke the fast for an excuse. And likewise, if he traveled. If he traveled after fasting ten days and broke the fast during the travel, then returned from the travel, what is it?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He builds upon what has passed, because travel is an excuse that permits breaking the fast, even in obligatory fasting by the original law, which is Ramadan. All right, if he traveled in order to break the fast.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Breaking the fast is forbidden. We say it is forbidden for you to break the fast. First, it is not permissible for you to break the fast, because it is obligatory for you to fast consecutively, and there is no consecutiveness with breaking the fast. But if he breaks the fast, it is obligatory for him to restart, because he broke the fast for an excuse that does not permit breaking the fast.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Because it is a month. He fasted a month, it did not become twenty-nine. The month in which he started became twenty-nine. All right, did you understand? So the one who vowed, if consecutiveness is obligatory for him and the consecutiveness is broken, Ya Fawzi, what is the ruling? He starts over.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : What is the detail?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He restarts. All right, in such a case, if someone asked you for a ruling, is it obligatory for you to ask for details, or do you say "build upon it," or do you say "restart"? One person comes to ask you and says, "I have a vow to fast two consecutive months, and I broke the fast for one day of these two months, right?" Do I say "restart," or "continue," or "ask for details"?
The questioner : ... Ask for details.
The Shaykh : Here, it is obligatory for me to ask for details, because the ruling is not complete except by knowing the situation. Just as if a questioner asked you about a deceased person who left behind a daughter, a brother, and a full paternal uncle. Do you say the daughter is a full sister or a sister through the father?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, the daughter does not need us to ask for details about her? ...? The daughter, there is no full sister through the father, all right. The brother, we ask for details: is he a brother through the mother or a brother other than through the mother? The uncle is known to be a full uncle. For the brother, we say we ask for details: is he a brother through the mother or a brother other than through the mother? Why? Because if he said "through the mother," we say he has no share, and the rest is for the uncle. If it is a brother through the mother, he has no share. Who excluded him?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The daughter, the descendant who inherits, understood? And the rest is for the uncle because he is a residuary heir ('asabah), the closest male. And if they said that the brother is a full brother of the deceased or a brother through the father, we say the remaining money is for the brother, and the uncle is excluded. Do we need to ask for details?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : We need to ask for details. All right, a questioner asked me and said, "A deceased person left behind a son or a father, a son and a father." Do I need to say, "Is the son a slave or a free man?" Or "Is he a killer or not a killer?" Yes. So we take from this a rule: that it is not obligatory for me to ask about the existence of a barrier, but it is obligatory for me to ask about the realization of the condition. There is a difference between them, why? Because the original state of a barrier is its absence, and the original state of a condition is its absence. Therefore, I verify its existence. The original state for all of us is absence; I need to verify the existence, the existence of the condition, so I say, "Is it such and such or such and such," until the conditions become clear. And this issue, in reality, is needed by the student of knowledge when issuing a ruling. We say that asking about the existence of a barrier is not obligatory, and asking about the existence of a condition is obligatory, because the original state for both is absence. All right, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Very well.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, it does not contradict. This is a man who said, "A person entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs. Is that permissible or not?" If you are among those who hold that it is not permissible to pray the greeting of the mosque during the prohibited times, it is obligatory for you to ask for details. What is it? Some people say if you enter during the prohibited time, you do not pray. If I hold this opinion, and if someone asks me, "I entered the mosque and prayed two rak'ahs. Am I rewarded or punished?" Right? Do I ask for details? I say.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Or do I say he is rewarded, and the original state is the absence of a barrier? Right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It may be said that this is the apparent view. And it may be said that since the times, in them, there is what prevents and what permits, it is necessary to ask, unlike this heir who is a killer or not a killer, because the original state is the absence of killing. But this is a time, a divided time in which some things are lawful and some are not lawful. But the correct opinion, as we have passed over many times, is that the voluntary prayers that have causes, right? are not prevented from being performed in the prohibited times; they are permissible in the prohibited times.