عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

The Illness that Permits the Breaking of the Fast
Author : Dr. Mohammad Al-Khalayleh
Date Added : 04-01-2026

The Illness that Permits the Breaking of the Fast 

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the Trustworthy Guide, our Master Muhammad, and upon his family and all his companions. 

Allah the Almighty has prescribed fasting despite the hardship it entails, making it obligatory upon His servants as a mercy to them, a means for the forgiveness of their sins, a purification for their souls, and a cleansing of their hearts from their ailments. Allah says {what means}: "Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship" (Al-Baqarah/185). In addition, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "When any one of you is observing Saum (fasting) on a day, he should neither indulge in obscene language nor should he raise the voice; and if anyone reviles him or tries to quarrel with him he should say: 'I am observing fast.'" (Reported by Bukhari & Muslim).

However, a person may be afflicted by certain conditions that render fasting difficult or impossible, such as travel or illness. This may cause him severe harm and unbearable hardship, which the established principles and overarching objectives of Islamic law (Maqasid al-Shariah) do not accept, as they call for warding off harm, facilitating matters for Muslims, and removing unbearable hardship wherever it is found.

Hence, Allah the Almighty has granted a concession for the ill person to break the fast during the days of Ramadan. Allah says {what means}: "So whoever among you is ill or on a journey [during them] - then an equal number of days [are to be made up]" (Al-Baqarah/184).

Illness is defined as: what causes a change in the natural state towards corruption. However, illnesses vary greatly according to their type, severity, and effects on the human body. Therefore, illness, in terms of its permissibility for breaking the fast, can be divided into three categories:

Firstly: The illness that does not permit its bearer to break the fast:

This is a minor illness with which fasting is not difficult, such as some simple ailments that are unrelated to fasting.

Examples include: headache, fever, toothache, or a pain in a finger or foot. This also includes illnesses where the person can delay taking medication until after breaking the fast or at the pre-dawn meal (Suhoor). It also includes diabetic patients whose condition is stable and controlled solely by diet or by blood sugar-lowering medications. This is the position of the majority of scholars.

Imam Al-Nawawi said: "As for the minor illness that does not entail apparent hardship, it is not permissible to break the fast, without disagreement among our scholars." [Al-Majmu' Vol.6/P.363].

The Dhahiri school and Ibn Sirin held the view that any illness whatsoever permits breaking the fast.

Tarif ibn Shihab Al-'Atardi said: "I entered upon Muhammad ibn Sirin during Ramadan while he was eating. When he finished, he said: 'Indeed, this finger of mine hurt me.'"

Al-Bukhari said: "I fell slightly ill in Naysabur, and that was during the month of Ramadan. Ishaq ibn Rahawayh visited me with a group of his companions and said to me: 'Have you broken your fast, O Abu 'Abdillah?' I said: 'Yes.' He said: 'I feared you might be too weak to accept the concession.'" (Al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Qur'an by Al-Qurtubi Vol. 2/P.276).

This opinion is considered remote, and the fatwa follows the view of the majority of scholars: that a minor illness with which fasting is not difficult does not permit breaking the fast.

Secondly: The illness that permits its bearer to break the fast:

This is what scholars call 'the illness for which a concession is granted'; meaning, its bearer is permitted to break the fast, but it is not obligatory upon him.

With this illness, the person is capable of fasting, but it would cause harm and hardship, though not to the point of death, nor would it necessarily lead to the increase of a life-threatening illness or the aggravation and worsening of the illness in the person's body. Scholars differed regarding this type. The Hanafi and Shafi'i schools held that breaking the fast is permissible in such an illness. The Malikis held that breaking the fast is recommended and fasting is disliked.

Al-Qurtubi said: "The second type: when he is capable of fasting but with harm and hardship. For this person, breaking the fast is recommended, and none would fast [in this state] except an ignorant person." (Al-Jami' li Ahkam al-Qur'an Vol.2/P.276).

Imam Abu Hanifah said: "If a man fears for himself while fasting that if he does not break his fast, the pain in his eye or his fever will increase, then he should break his fast." (Al-Mabsut by Al-Sarakhsi Vol.4/P.230).

Al-Kasani said: "As for illness, the type for which a concession is granted is that which one fears will increase due to fasting. This is what was alluded to in Al-Jami' al-Saghir..." Then he said: "It is narrated from Abu Hanifah that if the person is in a state where it is permissible to pray sitting down, then there is no harm in breaking fast." (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' Vol.2/P.94).

Accordingly, the position of the majority of scholars is: if a person has an illness that causes him pain and suffering, or he fears its persistence, or he fears its increase, then breaking the fast is valid for him.

Moreover, any illness that, in the predominant medical opinion, increases due to fasting – such as diabetes, where the patient suffers from high blood sugar – then it is recommended for the bearers of such an illness to break the fast.

Thirdly: The illness that necessitates breaking the fast:

This is the illness with which fasting is impossible, or one fears death from the illness, or it would lead to severe weakness, or the exacerbation of a life-threatening illness. Examples include diabetic patients undergoing kidney dialysis.

In this case, it is obligatory upon the ill person to break the fast, provided he is certain of the occurrence of death, severe harm, or that it is most likely to occur, based on the assessment of trustworthy, specialized physicians. Physicians must explain to their patients the extent of fasting's impact on their health and the potential complications that may pose a danger to their lives or exacerbate their illnesses, which would make fasting impermissible for them.

In this situation, the ill person would be sinning by fasting, because it involves casting oneself into destruction. Allah says {what means}: "And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful" (An-Nisa'/29), and His saying: "And do not throw [yourselves] with your [own] hands into destruction" (Al-Baqarah/195).

Al-Kasani said: "And the absolute, rather obligatory, permitting factor is that from which death is feared; because it involves casting oneself into destruction, and this is not for establishing the right of Allah, which is obligation. The obligation does not remain in this condition; rather, it is forbidden. Therefore, breaking the fast becomes permissible, rather obligatory." (Bada'i' al-Sana'i' 2/94).

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]

Read for Author




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

What should a person do if they suffer from an incurable illness that prevents them from fasting?

A person who has an illness that is not expected to be cured and prevents them from fasting must feed a needy person one mudd (600 grams) of food (such as wheat or rice) for each missed day instead of fasting.
Allah Almighty says {what means}: "and [in such cases] it is incumbent upon those who can afford it to make sacrifice by feeding a needy person." [Al-Baqarah/184].

"I told my family at night: 'I will fast tomorrow as qaḍā' (a make-up fast),' but I forgot to make the intention before sleeping. Is my fast valid?"

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
 
The intention is obligatory in acts of worship. For obligatory fasting, the required intention is to resolve to fast during the night [before dawn]. Its proper locus is the heart, while verbalizing the intention out loud in acts of worship is a sunnah — so that the tongue may align with the heart. If the intent behind the statement in question was the intention to fast, then it is valid; but if the intent was merely to inform someone, or reflected hesitation or doubt, then it is not valid.
 
It is stated in *Bushrā al-Karīm* (Vol.1/P.216): "It is a sunnah to verbalize the intention — that is, whatever has already been intended in the heart, whether an obligatory or a voluntary act — such as specifying the number of rak‘ahs, just before the opening takbīr — so that the tongue may assist the heart, and because this is further removed from whispered doubts (waswasah), and in order to accommodate the view of those who held it obligatory in every act of worship that requires an intention (even though this is a minority position), by analogy with Ḥajj."
 
Accordingly: if the intention to fast arose in your heart before the second adhān [i.e., before Fajr], then your fast is valid.
 
And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

The Jurisprudential Significance of the Ḥadīth: "Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr Prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking..."
"Whoever says, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer, while crossing his legs, before speaking: 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah, lahu al-mulku wa lahu al-ḥamdu yuḥyī wa yumītu wa huwa ʿalā kulli shayʾin qadīr' ten times — ten good deeds will be recorded for him, ten bad deeds will be erased from him, he will be raised ten levels, he will spend that day in protection from everything disliked and guarded from the devil, and no sin will be able to befall him on that day except associating partners with Allah" — does this noble ḥadīth apply to the imam, and what is meant by "extraneous speech"?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite, immediately after the final salām, the specific remembrance reported in the sunnah to be said before turning away from one's place of prayer. The imam then leaves his praying spot, and the act of "turning" is fulfilled when the imam faces the congregation — even without physically leaving his spot — by positioning his right side toward them and his left side toward the qiblah, and this applies even while he is engaged in supplication.
Al-ʿAllāmah Ibn Qāsim al-ʿAbbādī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Tuḥfah (Vol.2/P.105): "It is most virtuous for the imam, once he has given the salām, to rise from his place of prayer immediately afterward." He adds that an exception must be made for the remembrances that are specifically required to be recited before he turns away. He then notes, citing Sharḥ al-ʿUbāb: "Yes, an exception to this rising immediately after the salām applies to the Fajr prayer, due to the authentic report that the Prophet ﷺ, when he prayed Fajr, would remain seated until the sun rose." He further cites, from al-Khādim, the ḥadīth concerning one who recites, at the conclusion of the Fajr prayer while still in the position of crossing his leg to rise: "Lā ilāha illā Allāh, waḥdahu lā sharīka lah..." and the rest of the well-known ḥadīth. He comments that this makes explicit that this particular remembrance is to be recited before the worshipper turns his legs to leave, and the same applies to Maghrib and ʿAṣr, as reported in those contexts as well.
What is meant by "speech" in the relevant ḥadīth is extraneous worldly speech that is not called for after the prayer and for which there is no legitimate excuse. The remembrances reported to be recited upon concluding the prayer, however, do not fall under this category of extraneous speech, since they are themselves required by the sharīʿah.
Al-ʿAllāmah ʿAlī al-Shabrāmalsī states in his Ḥāshiyah ʿalā al-Nihāyah (Vol.1/P.551): "If someone greets a person with salām while he is occupied with reciting this remembrance [i.e., 'Lā ilāha illā Allāh...'], should he return the greeting — without this causing him to forfeit the promised reward, since he is engaged in an obligatory matter — or should he delay returning the greeting until he finishes, this being a legitimate excuse for the delay?" He continues: "I say: the more likely view is the former, and the prohibition on speech is to be understood as applying to extraneous speech for which there is no legitimate excuse. Based on this, should the worshipper give precedence to this remembrance ('Lā ilāha illā Allāh...') or to reciting Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ ('Qul huwa Allāhu aḥad')? This requires consideration, though it is not unlikely that the remembrance takes precedence, given that the Lawgiver urged hastening to it through his words 'while crossing his leg.' This is not considered ordinary speech, since it is not extraneous to what is required after the prayer."
Accordingly, it is recommended for both the imam and those praying behind him to recite this remembrance and to give it precedence over the other remembrances of the prayer, ensuring it is said before they move from their place. And Allah the Almighty knows best.

What is the ruling on offering a sheep as a sacrifice (Udhiyah) if its fat-tail is sound, except that when it was young, the tip of its fat-tail was cut so that it would grow larger? And what is the ruling in case of doubt regarding the amount that was cut?

 
In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Cutting a minor, insignificant portion from the tip of an animal's fat-tail (al-alyah) to encourage it to grow larger is not considered a defect, and it does not prevent the animal from being valid for sacrifice (Udhiyah).
 
It is stated in Tuhfat al-Muhtaj (Vol.9/P.352): "There is some scholarly deliberation regarding the common practice of cutting the tip of the fat-tail so that it grows larger. It could potentially be likened to a partial cut of the ear—supported by the jurists' general rule: 'even if it is a small amount.' On the other hand, if it is an exceptionally minor cut, it might have no effect on validity. This is explicitly clarified by the juristic exception to the general rule, which states that cutting a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm. This latter view is more well-founded.
 
Furthermore, I found that some scholars investigated this matter and concluded: 'It should not affect validity if a custom-sanctioned portion of its fat-tail is removed during its youth to make it grow larger and look better, just as castrating a male animal causes no harm.' However, applying this unconditionally contradicts the established texts of the jurists, as understood from what I have laid out; thus, the restriction I specified is what must be relied upon."
 
Similarly, it is mentioned in Nihayat al-Muhtaj (8/135): "If a small piece is cut from the fat-tail to help it grow larger, the most well-founded view is that the sacrifice remains valid, as was given in a formal legal verdict (Fatwa) by my father [Shihab al-Din al-Ramli], may Allah be pleased with him. This is proven by the jurists' maxim: 'The loss of a tiny piece from a large limb causes no harm.'"
 
In cases where there is doubt as to whether the portion cut was large or small, the animal is still deemed valid for sacrifice. It is noted in Hashiyat al-Shubramallisi ‘ala Nihayat al-Muhtaj (Vol.8/P.135):
 
"This matter requires careful consideration, but the closer and more correct view is that it is valid. This is because soundness is the default state for the animal from which the piece was cut, and it aligns with what usually occurs—namely, that the part removed to help the fat-tail grow larger is naturally very small." And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

See More