His saying, exalted and majestic is He: "So whoever alters it after he has heard it, then his sin is only upon those who alter it. Indeed, Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing." "And whoever fears from a testator some injustice or sin, and he reconciles between them, then there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." "O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous." "[Fasting for] a limited number of days. So whoever among you is ill or on a journey - then an equal number of days [are to be made up]. And upon those who are able [to fast, but with hardship] - a provision [of food] for a poor person. But whoever volunteers excess - it is better for him. And to fast is best for you, if you only knew." The pronoun in "alter it" refers back to the bequest and the command of the deceased. Likewise, in "he has heard it," it is possible that the one referred to in "he has heard it" is the command of Allah, exalted is He, in this verse, and the first statement is more apparent to the observer. However, it implies that the one who alters is knowledgeable of the prohibition, intentionally opposing it. The pronoun in "his sin" refers back to the alteration, and "All-Hearing, All-Knowing" are two attributes with which nothing of the injustice of the testators and the alteration of the transgressors is hidden. Hamzah, al-Kisai, and Abu Bakr read from Asim: "from a testator" with the 'waw' opened and the 'sad' emphasized, while the others read with the 'waw' silent. And "injustice" means deviation. Al-A'sha said: "My she-camel deviated from the stone of Yamamah, and I did not intend from its people except for you." And Amir al-Rami al-Hadhrami al-Muharibi said: "The master intended, and they have deviated against us, and we are among their enemies, indeed, we are few." The meaning of the verse, as Mujahid said, is: Whoever feared that the testator would be unjust and cut off the inheritance of a group, and he intentionally harms or comes to it without intention, and that is the deviation without sin. If he intended, then it is deviation in sin. So the meaning is: Whoever advised him in that and turned him away from it, and reconciled what was between him and his heirs, and what was between the heirs among themselves, "then there is no sin upon him." "Indeed, Allah is Forgiving" regarding the testator if the advice was effective in him, and he turned away from what he intended of harming. "Merciful" towards him. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, and Qatadah and al-Rabi' said: The meaning of the verse is: Whoever feared, meaning knew and saw, and his knowledge came to him after the death of the testator that the testator was unjust and intended to harm some of his heirs, and he reconciled what occurred among the heirs from discord and conflict, then there is no sin upon him, meaning he is not afflicted with the sin of the mentioned alterer before, even if there is alteration in his action, but it is alteration for the sake of benefit. The alteration that involves sin is only the alteration of desire. Abdullah ibn Umar read: "then there is no sin upon him" by omitting the 'alif.' And "decreed" means it is obligatory. And "fasting" in language means to restrain and to refrain from moving from one state to another, and from it is the saying of al-Nabighah: "Steady horses and horses that are not steady under the dust, and horses that chew the bits." Meaning: horses that are stable and restrained. And from it is the saying of Allah, exalted is He: "Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful a fast," meaning: restraint from speaking. And from it is the saying of Imru al-Qais: "As if the Pleiades were hung in its fasting."

That is, in the place of its establishment and holding, and from it is His saying:

So leave that and relieve your concern with a bridge, A camel that is restrained when the day fasts and it is hot.

That is: the sun has stopped moving and has settled.

And fasting in the Shari'ah is a holding back from food and drink, accompanied by conditions, from observing times and other than that. It is from the general of the Qur'an in the saying of the experts, and the 'kaf' in His saying: "as" is in a position of accusative as an adjective, its estimation is: like writing as, or fasting as, or in the state, as if the speech is: He has prescribed fasting for you, resembling what He prescribed for those before you.

And some of the grammarians said: the 'kaf' is in a position of nominative as an adjective for fasting, since its definition is not purely due to the place of the generality that is in it, of what the Shari'ah has explained. Therefore, it is permissible to describe it with 'as', since it is only described by it for indefinite nouns. It is as if: "Fasting has been prescribed for you." And this saying is weak. The interpreters have differed in the place of the analogy. Al-Shabi and others said: the meaning is: Ramadan has been prescribed for you as it was prescribed for the Christians. He said: For indeed, it was prescribed for them Ramadan, but they altered it because they took precautions for it, by adding a day at the beginning, and a day at the end, century after century, until they reached fifty days. It became difficult for them in the heat, so they moved it to the winter season. Al-Naqqash said: "And in that is a narration from Dughful ibn Hanzalah, and Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and Al-Suddi. And it was said: Rather, a king from their kings fell ill, and he vowed that if he recovered, he would add ten days to it, then the last seven, then the last three, and they saw that the addition in it is good in compensation for the error in its transmission. And Al-Suddi and Al-Rabi' said: The analogy is that from the breaking of the fast to its like, he does not eat or drink or have relations, and when the time for breaking the fast comes, he does not do these things if he slept. And likewise, it was initially for the Christians, and it was in the early Islam, then Allah abrogated it because of Umar and Qays ibn Sirmah with what will come from the verses regarding that. And Al-'Ata said: The analogy is; fasting has been prescribed for you three days from every month.

And in some of the narrations: And the Day of Ashura, as it was prescribed upon those before you, three days from every month and the Day of Ashura. Then this was abrogated in this nation by the month of Ramadan. And a group said: The resemblance was prescribed upon you as fasting in general, meaning: It has been established in the legislation of others. The term "those" is general for the Christians and others. And "that perhaps you" is a hope regarding them, and "you may attain piety". Al-Suddi said: Its meaning is that you may avoid eating, drinking, and sexual relations after sleeping, according to the interpretation of those who have explained this. It was said: You may attain piety in general because fasting, as he said, blessings and peace be upon him, is a shield and a means of attaining piety because it suppresses desires. And "days" is the second object of "was prescribed," as said by Al-Farra. It was said: It is an accusative of time, and it was said: Its accusative is by "fasting," and this is only good if fasting operates in the 'kaf' of "as" according to the saying of those who have estimated fasting as. If it does not operate in the 'kaf', the separation between the source and what it operates in becomes inappropriate - with what it operates in being different from it, and that is if the operator in the 'kaf' is "was prescribed." Some of them permitted that "days" could be an adverb that operates in "fasting." And "counted" was said to refer to Ramadan, and it was said: the three days.

And His saying, the Exalted: "So whoever among you is ill or on a journey" means: So he breaks his fast, then he must count a number of other days. This is what they call the implication of the speech.

(p-437) And the scholars differed regarding the definition of the illness that permits breaking the fast. A group said: Whenever a person is in a state that justifies the name of the sick, breaking the fast is valid by analogy to the traveler, that he breaks his fast due to the reason of travel, even if necessity does not compel him to break it. This was said by Ibn Sirin. And the majority of the scholars said: If he has an illness that harms him or causes him pain, or he fears its continuation, or he fears that fasting will worsen it, breaking the fast is valid for him. This is the view of the proficient companions of Malik, and they argue with it. As for Malik's wording, it is: The illness that is difficult for a person and he reaches it. Al-Hasan said: If he is unable to pray while standing due to the illness, he breaks his fast. And a group said: No one breaks the fast due to illness except one who is compelled by the necessity of the illness itself to break it. Whenever he can bear the necessity with him, he does not break it. This is the saying of Al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him.

And the scholars differed regarding which is better: breaking the fast or fasting while traveling. A group, including Al-Shafi'i and Malik in some of what was narrated from him, said that fasting is better for one who is strong. The majority of Malik's view is preference. Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, and others said: Breaking the fast is better. Mujahid, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, and others said: The easier of the two is the better. Ibn Hanbal and others disliked fasting while traveling. And Ibn Umar said: Whoever fasts while traveling must make up for it when he is present. This is the view of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him.

The position of Malik regarding the recommendation of fasting for one who is able to do so, and shortening the prayer is good. This is because the obligation is fulfilled in the concession of prayer while one is occupied with the matter of fasting. The correct action is to hasten to good deeds. Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, said: 'Breaking the fast while traveling is an option.' Anas ibn Malik went to fasting and said: 'The concession was revealed while we were hungry, we go to hunger and return to hunger.' And the travel is for obedience, like Hajj and jihad, by consensus. Connected to these are the travels for maintaining family ties and seeking necessary livelihood. As for the travel for trade and permissible matters, there is disagreement about its prohibition and permissibility, and the opinion of permissibility is stronger. As for the travel of sins, there is disagreement about its permissibility and prohibition, and the opinion of prohibition is stronger. The distance for the travel of breaking the fast according to Malik is where the prayer is shortened. There is disagreement regarding the extent of that; Malik said: 'One day and one night,' then he returned and said: 'Eighty-four miles.' It has been narrated from him: 'Two days,' and it has been narrated from him in the 'Utbiyyah: 'Forty-five miles,' and in the 'Mabsut': 'Forty miles,' and in the madhhab: 'Thirty-six miles,' and in it: 'Thirty.' Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbas, and Al-Thawri said: 'Breaking the fast while traveling is for three days.' In other than the madhhab, it is shortened to three miles and beyond.

And His saying, the Exalted: 'Then a waiting period,' is raised on the news of the beginning, its estimation being: 'The ruling is a waiting period' or 'The obligation is a waiting period.' It is correct that it can be raised on a beginning and the news after it, and the estimation is: 'The waiting period is better for him.' It is correct: 'Then upon him is a waiting period.' There is disagreement regarding the obligation of its continuity on two sayings, and 'other' does not decline according to Sibawayh because it is deviated from the definite article, for this construction only comes with the definite article as you say: 'The virtue and the greatness have gathered in it justice and description.' And it came in the verse 'other' and 'other' did not come so that it would not be mistaken as a description for the waiting period. The principle is that the plural of what is not rational runs in this regard like the feminine singular. Among it is His saying, the Exalted: 'O mountains, respond with him.'

And the majority of people read: 'They are able to do it' with a kasra on the ta and a sukoon on the ya. The original is: 'They are burdened with it.' The movement of the waw was transferred to the ta and turned into a ya due to the kasra before it. Hamid read: 'They burden it,' and that is according to the original, and the analogy is to weaken it. Ibn Abbas read: 'They are burdened with it' meaning they are tasked with it. Aisha, Tawus, and Amr ibn Dinar read: 'They are burdened with it' with a fatha on the ya and a shadda on the ta while it is open.

And a group read: 'They are burdened with it' with a damma on the ya and a fatha on the ta and a shadda on the open ya. Ibn Abbas read: 'They are burdened with it' with a fatha on the ya and a shadda on the ta and a shadda on the open ya meaning they are tasked with it. Al-Naqqash reported it from Ikrimah, and the shadda on this word is weak.

Nafi' and Ibn 'Amir read from the route of Ibn Dhakwan: "The expiation is the food of the poor" with the addition of the expiation. Hashim read from Ibn 'Amir: "The expiation is the food of the poor" with the tanween on the expiation. The others read: "An expiation" with tanween and "the food of a poor person" in the singular, and this is a good reading because it clarifies the ruling for the day. The number of the poor is not known on that day except from outside the verse. Abu Ali said: If you say: How did they singularize the poor while the meaning is in the plural, since those who can afford it are many, and each one of them is required to provide for a poor person, is it not the case that they should gather as the able ones gathered? The answer is that the singular is good, because it is understood by the meaning that each one has a poor person. An example of this is His saying, the Most High: "And those who accuse chaste women and do not bring four witnesses, flog them with eighty lashes" [An-Nur: 4]. The eighty are not separate among all of them, but rather each one has eighty.

The interpreters have differed regarding the intended meaning of the verse.

Mu'adh ibn Jabal, Alqamah, An-Nakha'i, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ibn 'Umar, Ash-Shabi, Salamah ibn Al-Akwa', and Ibn Shihab said: The obligation of fasting was thus upon the people; whoever wanted fasted, and whoever wanted fed a poor person and broke his fast. Then this was abrogated by His saying, the Most High: "So whoever witnesses the month, let him fast it" [Al-Baqarah: 185]. A group said: "And upon those who can afford it": meaning upon the elderly and the weak who can afford it but with great difficulty. So Allah permitted for them the expiation and breaking the fast, and this is a definitive ruling according to those who say this. And according to this interpretation, the reading of "yatooqunahu" and "yutawwiqoonahu" comes.

Ibn 'Abbas said: This concession was revealed specifically for the elderly and the weak, if they break their fast while they are able to fast, then it was abrogated by His saying, the Most High: "So whoever witnesses the month" [Al-Baqarah: 185]. Thus the concession was removed except for whoever among them is unable. Al-Suddi said: "And upon those who can afford it": meaning upon those who were able to fast when they were young, then they became old and cannot fast. This is a definitive ruling for him, and the elderly are required to provide the expiation if they break their fast, and this is similar to what Ibn 'Abbas said. Malik said: I do not see the expiation as obligatory upon the weak elderly, but it is recommended for whoever can afford it. The verse, according to him, is only for those who can fast during Ramadan and have a previous obligation of fasting. If he was able to fast during that time and left it, then he has the expiation. Al-Shafi'i and Abu Hanifah said: The weak elderly must provide food. Al-Tabari reported from Ikrimah that he used to read it: "And upon those who can afford it, then they broke their fast."

The view of Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and a group of scholars is that the amount of the expiation is a measure for each poor person. Some said: the food for a day. Others said: dinner and pre-dawn meal. Sufyan Al-Thawri said: half a sa' of wheat, or a sa' of dates or raisins.

The pronoun in "yutooqunahu" refers back to "fasting," and it was said: to "food," and this is a weak opinion.

There was a difference of opinion regarding the pregnant woman. Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbas said: She may break her fast and make a compensation, and there is no obligation upon her to make up the fast. Al-Hasan, Ata, Al-Dhahhak, Al-Zuhri, Rabi'a, and Malik said: The pregnant woman must make up the fast if she breaks it, and there is no compensation upon her. Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Mujahid said: She must make up the fast and provide compensation if she breaks it. Malik also said regarding the nursing woman: If she breaks her fast, she must make up the fast and provide compensation. This is the well-known opinion. In the summary of Ibn Abd al-Hakam, it is stated that there is no feeding required for the nursing woman.

And His saying, the Exalted: "So whoever volunteers good, it is better for him," Ibn Abbas, Tawus, Ata, and Al-Suddi said: The intended meaning is whoever feeds two needy persons. Ibn Shihab said: Whoever increases the feeding beyond fasting. Mujahid said: Whoever increases in feeding beyond a mudd.

And "better" in the second instance is a comparative adjective, as is the third. The first "better" has the status of wealth or benefit. Ubayy ibn Ka'b read: "And fasting is better for you" as a substitute for: "And that you fast." And His saying, the Exalted: "If you know," implies encouragement to fast, meaning: Know this and fast.