Kitab al-Sawm: Fasting Hours, Invalidators, Qada and Kaffarah

1. The legal map for this passage

This part distinguishes three questions: when a fast runs, which acts invalidate it, and whether an invalidated fast calls for make-up alone or both make-up and expiation.

The outcomes must not be conflated. Certain acts leave the fast intact; others demand only qaḍāʾ; specific deliberate violations of a Ramadan fast entail both qaḍāʾ and kaffārah. Read every ruling with its stated conditions.

2. The fasting period

ووقتُ الصومِ: من حينِ طلوعِ الفجرِ الثاني إلى غروبِ الشمسِ.
Translation: The fasting period runs from the appearance of true dawn until sunset.

The “second dawn” is the true dawn (al-fajr al-ṣādiq), the horizontally spreading light that marks the start of the Fajr prayer time. The fast runs from that instant until actual sunset.

Food and drink must cease at true dawn, not sunrise. Likewise, the fast does not end merely because the sky has become dim; the legally relevant end is sunset.

3. Distinguishing the two dawns

Classical legal terminology distinguishes false dawn (fajr awwal) from true dawn (fajr thānī). False dawn does not commence the fast; true dawn, spreading across the horizon, does.

The start of the Fajr prayer time and the start of fasting coincide as a legal boundary. Clock times vary by place and date; the source describes the sign rather than a fixed hour.

4. Abstention and intention

والصومُ هو: الإمساكُ عن الأكلِ، والشربِ، والجماعِ نهارًا، مع النيةِ.
Translation: Fasting is abstaining from eating, drinking, and intercourse during the day, together with an intention.

The definition does not equate fasting with merely going without food. Abstention from eating, drinking, and intercourse through the prescribed day must be accompanied by an intention.

Someone who happens not to eat or drink for unrelated reasons has not necessarily performed a legal fast. The detailed intention rules appeared earlier; this line shows why intention belongs in the very definition.

5. Applying the definition

Four elements work together: abstention, the defined prohibited acts, the relevant daylight period, and intention. None is a substitute for another.

For example, someone may refrain from all meals but deliberately drink water during the fasting period. Avoiding food alone does not preserve a fast after a deliberate daytime drink; the individual conditions matter.

6. Forgetful eating, drinking, or intercourse

فإن أكلَ الصائمُ، أو شربَ، أو جامعَ ناسيًا: لم يُفطر، ولا قضاءَ عليه، ولا كفارةَ.
Translation: If a fasting person eats, drinks, or has intercourse forgetfully, the fast is not broken; neither make-up nor expiation is due.

Nāsiʾan means acting while forgetful of the fast. Under that condition, eating, drinking, or intercourse does not invalidate the fast. The text expressly rules out both make-up and expiation.

The exception concerns genuine forgetfulness, not a conscious choice. When the person remembers fasting, the act must cease immediately and the fast continues.

7. Forgetfulness is not every mistake

Forgetfulness means the person was unaware, at that moment, of being in a fast. It is not identical to a mistaken estimate of sunset or to knowingly continuing an act once the fast is remembered.

A person who forgets, takes a bite, and stops on remembering comes under this clause. Continuing to eat after remembering introduces a deliberate element and cannot simply be classed as more forgetfulness.

8. Deliberate eating after a mistaken assumption

فإن ظنَّ ذلك يُفسِدُ صومَه، فأكلَ بعدَ ذلك مُتعمِّدًا: فعليه القضاءُ، ولا كفارةَ عليه.
Translation: If he supposes the prior act has invalidated his fast and then eats deliberately, he owes make-up, but not expiation.

The special case is sequential: a person first eats through forgetfulness, mistakenly believes this has already nullified the fast, and then deliberately eats again. Quduri requires qaḍāʾ but not kaffārah in that specific case.

It must not be converted into a general permission to break a fast deliberately. The mistaken belief following the initial forgetful act is an essential part of the case.

9. Two similar-looking cases, different outcomes

Case one: a person eats while genuinely forgetful, remembers, and immediately stops. The fast remains valid, without qaḍāʾ or kaffārah.

Case two: after forgetful eating, the person believes the fast has already been spoiled and intentionally eats again. In the stated Hanafi ruling, qaḍāʾ becomes due, but not kaffārah. The additional intentional act explains the changed ruling.

10. Involuntary discharge and listed non-invalidators

وإن نامَ فاحتلمَ، أو نظرَ إلى امرأةٍ فأنزلَ، أو ادَّهنَ، أو احتجمَ، أو اكتحلَ، أو قبَّلَ: لم يُفطر.
Translation: If he has a wet dream, ejaculates from looking, applies oil, undergoes cupping, uses kohl, or kisses, the fast is not invalidated.

This clause groups acts or events which, as stated, do not themselves invalidate a fast: a wet dream, discharge resulting from looking only, applying oil, cupping, using kohl, or kissing without the additional outcome discussed next.

The following clause separately addresses ejaculation caused by kissing or touching. The legal distinction is between the act by itself and a consequential bodily event.

11. Why a wet dream does not invalidate the fast

A wet dream occurs during sleep without the sleeper’s deliberate choice. The quoted ruling therefore leaves the fast intact.

If a ritual bath becomes necessary afterward for prayer, that is a distinct matter. Being required to perform ghusl does not by itself mean that a fast is invalid. Rules of purification and rules of fasting answer different legal questions.

12. Discharge from looking versus touching

Quduri places discharge caused by looking alone in the list of events that do not invalidate a fast. The very next ruling, however, requires qaḍāʾ when ejaculation results from kissing or physical touch.

The shared word “ejaculation” does not erase the difference in the preceding cause. A legal answer must consider how the event was brought about.

13. Oil, cupping, and kohl in the source

Ittihān means applying oil; iḥtijām is cupping; iktiḥāl is the use of kohl. In this passage, these actions do not invalidate the fast.

This historical wording is not a blanket ruling for all contemporary drugs, injections, drops, or medical procedures. Those require their own legal analysis. Here the lesson confines itself to the actions actually named in the book.

14. Ejaculation caused by kissing or touching

وإن أنزلَ بقبلةٍ، أو لمسٍ: فعليه القضاءُ، ولا كفارةَ عليه.
Translation: If ejaculation occurs because of kissing or touching, make-up is required, but expiation is not.

When ejaculation results from kissing or touching, Quduri requires making up the fast but expressly excludes expiation.

Kissing as an action and ejaculation resulting from the action are not the same legal case. The decisive detail is the stated consequence: this clause adds a requirement of qaḍāʾ which the previous general list did not impose.

15. When kissing is discouraged

ولا بأسَ بالقُبلةِ إذا أَمِنَ على نفسِه، ويُكرهُ إن لم يأمن.
Translation: There is no harm in kissing if he is confident of his self-control; it is disliked if he is not.

The expression “feels secure about himself” refers to confidence that the act will not lead to an outcome that invalidates the fast. Under that condition, Quduri does not object to the kiss itself.

If there is a real risk of losing control and falling into invalidating conduct, kissing is regarded as disliked. The legal distinction turns on risk and self-control, not the mere presence of affection.

16. Two kinds of vomiting

Quduri differentiates vomiting that overtakes a person involuntarily from deliberately inducing a mouthful of vomit. The first does not invalidate the fast; the second requires qaḍāʾ.

The phrase “mouthful” is a substantive condition. This wording must not be expanded to claim the exact same rule for all amounts of deliberate vomiting.

17. Involuntary vomiting

وإن ذَرَعَهُ القَيءُ: لم يُفطِرْ.
Translation: If vomiting overtakes him involuntarily, the fast is not invalidated.

The Arabic phrase dharaʿahu al-qayʾ means that vomiting overcame the person involuntarily. The vomiting was not deliberately induced, so the fast remains intact under this line.

For example, an unexpected episode caused by nausea falls under involuntary vomiting. It should not be confused with a person intentionally bringing up vomit.

18. Deliberately inducing a mouthful of vomit

وإن استقاءَ عامدًا مَلْءَ فيهِ: فعليه القضاءُ.
Translation: If he deliberately induces a mouthful of vomit, he owes a make-up fast.

Istaqāʾ means inducing vomiting; ʿāmidan supplies deliberateness, and milʾa fīhi supplies the mouthful threshold. Under these combined conditions the text requires qaḍāʾ.

Kaffārah is not imposed by this clause. The practical consequence stated here is replacement of the invalidated day by a make-up fast.

19. Three words governing the vomiting rule

Three expressions carry the reasoning: dharaʿahu signals an involuntary event; istaqāʾ an induced event; milʾa fīhi specifies a mouthful. A bare reference to “vomiting” misses the operative qualifications.

Advanced reading requires preserving each condition in the translation and in the resulting case analysis. Omitting the quantity or intent changes the legal question.

20. Swallowing a pebble, metal, or a pit

ومن ابتلعَ الحصاةَ، أو الحديدَ، أو النَّواةَ: أفطرَ، وقضى.
Translation: Whoever swallows a pebble, metal, or a fruit pit invalidates the fast and must make it up.

Pebbles, metal, and fruit pits are non-nutritive objects. Swallowing them invalidates the fast and requires qaḍāʾ under this ruling.

They are distinguished from ordinary food or medicinal intake, for which Quduri states a separate rule immediately afterward. This clause prescribes make-up, not the additional expiation.

21. Non-nutritive objects versus food

The swallowed objects in the preceding clause are not ordinary nourishment. Their stated consequence is qaḍāʾ. By contrast, the next clause includes deliberate intake of food, drink, or medication within the circumstances requiring both make-up and expiation for a Ramadan fast.

A sound reading considers the kind of substance, deliberate action, and category of fast, rather than treating every swallowed item as legally identical.

22. Deliberate violations requiring make-up and expiation

ومن جامعَ عامدًا في أحدِ السبيلين، أو أكلَ، أو شربَ ما يُتغذَّى به، أو يُتداوى به: فعليه القضاءُ، والكفارةُ، مثلُ كفارةِ الظِّهارِ.
Translation: Whoever deliberately has intercourse by either of the stated routes, or eats or drinks something nourishing or medicinal, owes make-up and expiation like the expiation for ẓihār.

Quduri treats deliberate intercourse and intentional ingestion of nourishing or medicinal substances as acts that, when they invalidate the relevant Ramadan fast under the stipulated circumstances, require both qaḍāʾ and kaffārah.

The words ma yutaghadhdhā bihi and ma yutadāwā bihi refer respectively to nourishment and medication. The text intentionally mentions both categories rather than restricting the rule to ordinary meals.

23. Qaḍāʾ and kaffārah are different obligations

Qaḍāʾ replaces a particular invalid fast with a later fast. Kaffārah is a separate, additional expiation imposed only in specified cases. They are not alternative names for the same duty.

The source refers to the expiation of ẓihār. In classical Hanafi law, this is described in a sequence: manumission (a historical institution), then two consecutive months of fasting when unable, then feeding sixty poor persons if unable to fast. Applying the sequence in an actual case requires qualified case-specific guidance.

24. Example: knowingly drinking water

Consider a legally accountable, resident and healthy person who deliberately drinks water during a current Ramadan fast while aware of fasting, without a recognized excuse. As a normal drink knowingly consumed, the stated classical rule calls for both qaḍāʾ and kaffārah.

This illustration assumes the ordinary complete set of conditions. Illness, travel, coercion, mistake, intention, and the type of fast may materially change an individual ruling.

25. A different intimacy-related case

ومن جامعَ فيما دونَ الفرجِ فأنزلَ: فعليه القضاءُ، ولا كفارةَ عليه.
Translation: Whoever engages in non-penetrative sexual intimacy and ejaculates owes make-up but not expiation.

The text distinguishes physical sexual intimacy short of penetration when ejaculation results. The consequence in this case is qaḍāʾ without kaffārah.

This is a precise legal differentiation. Not every act of sexual intimacy triggers the same expiation; the nature of the act and its specified outcome determine which obligation follows.

26. Expiation for invalidating non-Ramadan fasts

وليسَ في إفسادِ الصومِ في غيرِ رمضانَ كفارةٌ.
Translation: There is no such expiation for invalidating a fast outside Ramadan.

Quduri expressly limits this kaffārah: invalidating a fast other than the current Ramadan fast does not incur the expiation described in this passage. Obligations to make up a fast, where applicable, are a separate matter.

For example, breaking a make-up fast must not be treated as identical to the specified expiation case for the Ramadan fast in its own time. The absence of this kaffārah does not automatically remove another duty or excuse a wrongful act.

27. Current Ramadan fast versus a make-up fast

A current Ramadan fast is the obligatory fast observed in Ramadan itself. A qaḍāʾ Ramadan fast is observed afterward to discharge a missed obligation. Both matter, but their expiation rules are not automatically the same.

Under the text, specific deliberate violations of a present Ramadan fast can require kaffārah, whereas the quoted restriction excludes this kaffārah from a fast observed outside Ramadan.

28. Comparative ruling matrix

1. Forgetful food or drink: valid fast; neither qaḍāʾ nor kaffārah.
2. Deliberate eating based on the mistaken belief that forgetful eating had spoiled the fast: qaḍāʾ only.
3. Wet dream or ejaculation from looking only: the fast remains valid.
4. Ejaculation due to kissing or touching: qaḍāʾ only.
5. Involuntary vomiting: fast valid; deliberately induced mouthful: qaḍāʾ.
6. Swallowing a pebble or pit: qaḍāʾ.
7. Specified deliberate Ramadan violations involving food, medicine, or intercourse: qaḍāʾ and kaffārah.
8. Non-Ramadan fasts: this kaffārah is not imposed.

29. Four questions for analyzing a case

For any scenario, proceed in order: (1) Which fast was being kept? (2) What exactly happened? (3) What was the intent and circumstance—forgetfulness, involuntary event, or deliberate action? (4) What consequence does the source prescribe—validity, qaḍāʾ, or both qaḍāʾ and kaffārah?

For example, “the person vomited” is insufficient information. Was it involuntary or induced, and was it a mouthful? The qualifications change the case.

30. Reading the source’s key vocabulary

Core terms: al-imsāk (abstention), nāsiyan (in forgetfulness), al-qaḍāʾ (making up an obligation), al-kaffārah (specified expiation), dharaʿahu al-qayʾ (vomiting overtook him), istaqāʾ (induced vomiting), and milʾa fīhi (a mouthful).

Each term corresponds to a legal element: the act, its condition, or its consequence. Advanced comprehension demands understanding their role in complete cases, not merely memorizing isolated translations.

31. Where the next passage begins

This lesson completes the bounded passage on fasting times, invalidating and non-invalidating events, and the distinction between make-up and expiation. The next source block begins with “wa-man iḥtaqana aw istaʿaṭa,” and discusses medicinal entry routes, wounds, and juristic differences.

Do not automatically extend these historical rulings to modern injections, nasal therapies, ear procedures, or other treatments. Those require separately sourced legal analysis.