Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre

The Holy Quran, in Surah al-Baqarah, discusses the obligation of fasting during the month of Ramadan. A key question arises from verse 185 concerning the traveller:

Is refraining from fasting (fitr) a binding specification of the ruling for the traveller – whether termed an obligation (‘azima) or an obligatory concession (rukhsa wajiba) – meaning the traveller must not fast and perform makeup days (qada’) later? Or is it merely a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba), leaving the fast optional?

This distinction is important to understanding the correct legal ruling.

Terminology note: In this article, fitr denotes non-observance of the fast on a given day, i.e., not fasting or breaking the fast, not the communal sunset meal commonly called iftar.

Verse 184 establishes the foundational principle:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُتِبَ عَلَيۡكُمُ ٱلصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبۡلِكُمۡ لَعَلَّكُمۡ تَتَّقُونَ

“O ye who believe! fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may guard against evil.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V.184)

The term “prescribed for you” indicates a universal command. Thus, the original state (asl) is the obligation to fast. The discussion centres on interpreting verse 185 and how it modifies this initial instruction. The central point is: Is the verse to be read in its literal sense (haqiqa) or according to a non-literal reading (majaz) that posits an implied clause (idmar/taqdir)?

The Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd (d. 595/1198), in Bidayat al-Mujtahid, frames this as follows:

والسبب في إختلافهم: تردد قوله – تعالى -: ﴿فمن كان منكم مريضا أو على سفر فعدة من أيام أخر﴾ [البقرة: ١٨۵] بين أن يحمل على الحقيقة […] أو يحمل على المجاز فيكون التقدير: فأفطره فعدة من أيام أخر […] فمن حمل الآية على الحقيقة […] قال: إن فرض المسافر عدة من أيام أخر لقوله – تعالى – ﴿فعدة من أيام أخر﴾ [البقرة: ١٨٤] ومن قدر (فأفطر) قال: إنما فرضه عدة من أيام أخر إذا أفطر. وكلا الفريقين يرجح تأويله بالآثار

“The reason for the disagreement is based on the interpretation of the words of the Exalted, ‘And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days,’ whether the verse is taken literally […], or it is taken metaphorically, in which case the underlying implication would be: ‘[And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey] and he does not fast (fa-aftara), [only then] (let him fast the same) number of other days’ […]. Those who interpret the verse literally […] said that the obligation of the traveller is [fasting] a number of other days, because of the words of the Exalted, ‘(let him hast the same) number of other days’. Those who assumed the implied words ‘and he does not fast’ (fa-aftara) said that his obligation is a number of other days in case he does not fast. Both groups support their interpretation on the basis of traditions (athar).” (Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-mujtahid wa-nihayat al-muqtasid, ed. Farid ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Jundi [Cairo: Dar-Hadith, 2004], Vol. 2, pp. 57-58)

Quranic text: Ramadan fasting and ‘other days’

The relevant verses, 185 and 186 of Surah al-Baqarah, provide the textual foundation. Verse 185, following the general command to fast in verse 184, specifies the ruling for the sick and the traveller. It does not simply state that they are allowed to refrain from fasting. Instead, it prescribes a different timeframe for their fasting duty: “(let him fast the same) number of other days.” The wording functions as an assignment of when the obligation is to be discharged (“other days”), rather than as a conditional allowance that only applies if the traveller first chooses not to fast.

This verse thereby establishes two distinct periods for fulfilling the fast: (1) The “fixed number of days” (ayyaman ma‘dudat) of Ramadan applies to the general population who are resident (hadir) and healthy (salim). (2) In contrast, the “other days” (ayyamin ukhar) are designated for the sick and the traveller. The latter is presented as the alternative way in which they have to fulfil their fasting duty, not as an option alongside fasting in Ramadan.

Furthermore, the Andalusian scholar Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064) stresses that this verse, Ch.2, V.186, is decisive (muhkam), its command regarding the traveller is general (‘amm) covering all types of journeys, and it functions to explicitly transfer the obligation to “other days,” rather than merely present an option. (Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla bi-l-athar, ed. ʻAbd al-Ghaffar Sulayman al-Bindari [Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya]), 1988, Vol. 4, pp. 384, 399)

The general population is commanded to fast during Ramadan. The sick and traveller are commanded to fast an equal number of other days. The Quran makes a distinction in when the obligation is fulfilled for these groups. 

This raises the question: How can fasting during Ramadan be considered optional for the traveller, when the Quran assigns them other days? If mere permission were intended, different wording could have been employed. The specific instruction for makeup days (qada’) on “other days” establishes this ruling as a binding obligation (‘azima) for the traveller.

Ar-Razi’s grammatical analysis: Evidence for obligation (‘azima)

Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi’s (d. 606/1210) grammatical analysis of fa-‘iddatun, in Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.185, provides significant support for the ‘azima position. He shows the phrase can be read in two distinct grammatical cases, each suggesting the obligation (wujub) of makeup days (qada’), and thus, the necessity of refraining from fasting (fitr) during Ramadan for the sick and traveller. (Ar-Razi, at-Tafsir al-kabir [Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi], 1999, Vol. 5, p. 245)

When fa-‘iddatun is read in the nominative case (marfu‘), the verse implies: “Then upon him is [the obligation of] fasting an equal number of other days” (fa-‘alayhi sawmu ‘iddatin min ayyamin ukhar). This reading necessitates an implied “upon him” (‘alayhi) when understood literally. Ar-Razi states that “upon” (‘ala) here signifies obligation (wujub). The nominative reading directly emphasises the obligatory nature of qada’, showing that making up missed days is the primary requirement, not a consequence of choosing to refrain from fasting. (Ibid.)

Alternatively, when fa-‘iddatan is read in the accusative case (mansub), the verse, when understood literally, functions as a command: “Then let him fast an equal number of other days” (fa-l-yasum ‘iddatan min ayyamin ukhar). This imperative form also underscores the compulsory nature of making up the missed days. Ar-Razi indicates that this accusative reading also signifies obligation (ijab). (Ibid.)

Importantly, whichever grammatical reading is adopted – and both are valid – the verse clearly establishes the binding nature of qada’. This inherent, grammatically demonstrable obligation necessitates refraining from fasting (fitr) during Ramadan. The Quran does not say, “If you refrain from fasting, then make it up.” It states directly, “Your obligation is to fast an equal number of other days.” The duty of qada’ is primary, not conditional upon fitr. (Ibid.)

This grammatical understanding is taken up by later grammarians and exegetes like Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d. 754/1344), who notes the default reading of fa-‘iddatun is nominative, implying an underlying structure: “Then upon him is [the obligation of] a number […] or: the obligation is a number, or: the ruling is a number [of other days]” (fa-‘alayhi iddatun […] aw: fa-l-wajib, aw al-hukmu ‘iddatun). (Abu Hayyan, al-Bahr al-muhit fi t-tafsir, ed. Sidqi Muhammad Jamil, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr [1992], Vol. 2, p. 184)

This construction, i.e., treating ‘a number [of days]’ (‘iddatun) as the predicate of an implied obligation, supports the reading that the traveller’s primary duty is fasting on other days (qada’), rather than fasting during the journey itself. (Ibid.)

The majority (jumhur) view: An unnecessary implication (muqaddar)

The majority of scholars (jumhur), viewing the allowance for travellers as merely a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba), posit an implied phrase (muqaddar) within verse 185 of Surah al-Baqarah and thus interpret it in a figurative sense (majaz). This approach, as summarised by figures like Ibn Rushd, involves interpreting the verse by inserting “if he refrains from fasting” (fa-aftara) before the command to fast other days (fa-‘iddatun min ayyamin ukhar). (Ibn Rushd, ibid.)

Ar-Razi explains this exact argument used by the jumhur, stating that their position is that the verse necessitates an ellipsis (idmar) because the implied meaning (taqdir) would be: “and he does not fast, then [upon him is] a number of other days” (fa-aftara fa-‘iddatun min ayyamin ukhar). (Ar-Razi, ibid.)

This insertion of a muqaddar is unnecessary and forced. It appears designed to reconcile the verse with a pre-determined conclusion – that fasting during travel is optional – rather than allowing the Quranic text to speak for itself.

The argument for obligation (‘azima) requires no such addition. The necessity to refrain from fasting (fitr) for the traveller is derived directly from the literal understanding of the verse assigning them “other days,” effectively replacing the Ramadan obligation with the obligation of qada’. The verse, as it stands, is complete and coherent.

Indeed, classical exegetes like Abu Hayyan recognise the strength of reading the text as it stands. He invokes the interpretive principle (asl) that the text should be read without assuming omitted words (la hadhf). Based on this principle, he notes that the apparent (zahir) and literal meaning of the verse directly assigns the makeup days (‘idda) as the obligation of the traveller. Importantly, Abu Hayyan points out that a necessary consequence of reading the text literally, following this rule, is that should a traveller fast during Ramadan, that fast would not suffice (lam yujzihima) to meet the obligation, leaving the requirement for makeup days firmly in place. (Abu Hayyan, ibid., p. 186)

This perspective is strongly echoed by jurists like Ibn Hazm, who emphatically rejected the insertion of such an implied condition like “in case he does not fast” (fa-aftara) as a forged claim with no evidence (da‘wa mawdu‘a bi-la burhan), unsupported by the explicit Quranic text. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 399)

The claim that both interpretations require a muqaddar is incorrect. The jumhur add words to create a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba) where none is explicitly stated. The ‘azima position, conversely, derives the necessity to refrain from fasting (fitr) from the literal Quranic text without additions. The obligation (‘azima) is inherent in the structure of the verse. (Ar-Razi, ibid., pp. 245-246)

Ar-Razi’s refutation of majority (jumhur) arguments

Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi not only supports the obligation (‘azima) view grammatically but also directly refutes the main arguments used by the majority (jumhur) to justify implying “in case he does not fast” (fa-aftara).

Al-Qaffal (d. 365/976) argued that verse 186 (“Therefore, whosoever of you is present at home in this month, let him fast therein”) establishes fasting as a universal obligation upon everyone without exception. If this is the case, then verse 185 cannot simply mean what it appears to say on its own. It must contain an implied, unstated phrase (idmar), namely, “and he does not fast” (fa-aftara), to make sense alongside verse 186’s blanket command.

Ar-Razi, however, responds by exposing a problem with this reasoning. If we truly read verse 186 as universally binding on everyone with no exceptions, then verse 186 itself would also need an implied phrase to exclude the sick and the traveller, since everyone agrees that they are not obligated to fast during their illness or travel. In other words, al-Qaffal’s reading creates the very same problem it tries to solve.

Ar-Razi then invokes a well-known principle of legal interpretation (qa‘ida usuliyya): when there is a conflict between reading a verse as a specification (takhsis), i.e., narrowing the scope of a general rule, and reading it as containing an unstated implication (idmar), specification is always preferred. Accordingly, verse 185 has to be understood as specifying and narrowing the general command of verses 184 and 186, defining what the traveller and the sick person is obligated to do, rather than being forced to carry an unstated hidden phrase. (Ibid., p. 246)

Similarly, Ibn Hazm countered the majority’s reliance on the general command, “Therefore, whosoever of you is present at home in this month, let him fast therein” (Ch.2: V.186). He argued that this general command is immediately qualified by the very next clause concerning the sick and the traveller, stating that Allah explicitly designated “other days” for them, thereby transferring the obligation due to travel and negating the applicability of the initial general command to the traveller during the journey itself. (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)

Al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076), in his book at-Tafsir al-Basit, offered a different argument. He reasoned as follows: the obligation to make up missed fasts (qada’) only arises when someone has actually not fasted (fitr), not simply because they were sick or travelling. So, since the verse commands makeup fasting, and makeup fasting logically presupposes that one did not fast, the verse must contain a hidden, unstated phrase: “and he does not fast” (fa-aftara).

Ar-Razi considers this argument “extremely weak” (wa-hadha fi ghayat as-suqut), and his refutation rests on a careful reading of the verse’s actual wording. He points out that Allah did not say “upon him is the making up of what he missed” (fa-‘alayhi qada’u ma mada). Rather, what Allah actually said was: “upon him is the fasting of an equal number of other days” (fa-‘alayhi sawmu ‘iddatin min ayyamin ukhar). This is an important distinction. The verse is simply imposing an obligation to fast on a different set of days; it is not framed as compensating for days one did not fast. And if the verse is simply saying “fast on other days instead,” this does not logically require that the non-fasting must have already occurred. Therefore, al-Wahidi’s claim that the verse inherently implies a prior non-fasting is unfounded. (Ar-Razi, ibid.)

Finally, the jumhur cite ahadith like that reported by Hamza al-Aslami^ra to justify implying fa-aftara. In this hadith, Hamza^ra asked the Holy Prophet^sa:

أَأَصُومُ فِي السَّفَرِ؟

“Should I fast while traveling?”, and he used to fast frequently. The Holy Prophet^sa replied:

إِنْ شِئْتَ فَصُمْ، وَإِنْ شِئْتَ فَأَفْطِرْ

“If you wish, fast, and if you wish, do not fast.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1943)

Ar-Razi states that using such a hadith to override the direct implication of the Quran is jurisprudentially invalid, as it would constitute abrogation of the Quran by a solitary hadith (naskh al-Qur’an bi-khabar al-wahid), which is impermissible. The explicit Quranic text takes precedence. (Ar-Razi, ibid.)

Quranic evidence: Divine intent for ease

Beyond refuting the majority (jumhur) view, the Holy Quran offers direct textual support for fitr, i.e., refraining from fasting, being the obligation (‘azima) for the traveller. A key piece of evidence lies in the theological statement within verse 186:

 يُرِيدُ ٱللَّهُ بِكُمُ ٱلۡيُسۡرَ وَلَا يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ ٱلۡعُسۡرَ 

“Allah desires ease for you and He desires not hardship for you” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.186)

In his analysis, Abu Hayyan connects the divine intention for ease (yusr) mentioned in the verse specifically to the concession to the traveller, explaining that refraining the fast (fitr) aligns with this intended ease, while fasting during the journey represents the hardship (‘usr) that Allah does not desire for them. (Abu Hayyan, ibid., p. 199)

It has been reported from notable early authorities, including ‘Ali^ra, Ibn ‘Abbas^ra, Mujahid and ad-Dahhak, that they specifically identified the “ease” (yusr) mentioned in this verse with refraining from fasting (fitr) while travelling, and the “hardship” (‘usr) with fasting during the journey. This directly links the Quranic statement about desiring ease to the specific act of the traveller refraining from fasting, suggesting that refraining from fasting (fitr) is the divinely intended path of ease for them. (Ibid.)

Building on this understanding of divine ease (yusr), ar-Razi convincingly argues that this declaration of divine intent must be understood in the immediate context of the preceding discussion about fasting obligations. The “ease” (yusr) Allah desires for the sick and traveller is specifically not to fast (fitr) during Ramadan and fulfil their obligation through makeup days (qada’) later. Conversely, the “hardship” (‘usr) Allah does not desire is compelling them to fast during Ramadan despite their condition. This interpretation aligns perfectly with the ‘azima position, indicating a divine preference for the traveller not to fast during the journey itself, but rather to utilise the concession provided. (Ar-Razi, ibid., p. 245)

Sunnah and Companion practice: Affirming obligation

The Sunnah and the understanding of the Companions^ra further affirm the position that fitr during Ramadan travel is an obligation (‘azima), not merely an option.

Most telling is the Holy Prophet’s^sa categorical dissociation of righteousness from fasting during travel:

لَيْسَ مِنَ الْبِرِّ الصِّوم فِي السَّفَرِ

“It is not of righteousness (al-birr) to fast while travelling.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1946)

While the jumhur often limit this to hardship, the fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence and Quranic exegesis “consideration is given to the general wording, not just the specific occasion” (al-‘ibratu bi-‘umum al-lafz la bi-khusus as-sabab) – strongly emphasised by authorities like Ibn Hazm in this context – suggests broader application, negating righteousness (al-birr) from the act of fasting during travel itself. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 400)

Furthermore, the statement attributed to ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Awf^ra underscores this:

الصَّائِمُ فِي السَّفَرِ كَالْمُفْطِرِ فِي الْحَضَرِ

“The one who fasts while traveling is like the one who refrains from fasting while resident.” (Sunan an-Nasa’i, Hadith 2285)

This powerful analogy equates the perceived piety of fasting in travel with violating the obligation of refraining from fasting when resident, indicating that the rukhsa is required (wajiba). Ibn Hazm notably considered the chains for this statement to be rigorously authentic (fi ghayat as-sihha). (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 404)

Hazrat Aisha^ra was also reported to have explicitly forbidden fasting during Ramadan travel. Abu Salama b. ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf narrated from his father, ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf^ra, who said:

نَهَتْنِي عَائِشَةُ أُمُّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَنْ أَنْ أَصُومَ رَمَضَانَ فِي السَّفَرِ

“‘Aisha^ra, the Mother of the Believers, forbade me from fasting Ramadan during travel.” (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 403)

This direct prohibition (nahatni) from Hazrat Aisha^ra adds significant weight to the position that refraining from fasting (fitr) was considered the required practice.

Further Prophetic evidence underscores this obligation, using language that indicates the removal of the duty itself. The Holy Prophet^sa is reported to have said regarding the traveller:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى وَضَعَ عَنِ الْمُسَافِرِ الصَّوْمَ

“Indeed, Allah Almighty has lifted from the traveller the fast”. (Jami‘ at-Tirmidhi, Hadith 715)

This direct statement, employing the verb wada‘a, meaning lifted, removed or relieved of, strongly indicates that the very obligation of fasting during Ramadan is suspended for the traveller. It signifies not merely a permission to refrain from fasting, but that the requirement itself is temporarily removed by divine decree, reinforcing the position that refraining from (fitr) becomes the designated and required course during the journey.

The following actions and explicit statements of key Companions like Hazrat Umar^ra, Ibn ‘Umar^ra, Ibn ‘Abbas^ra, Abu Hurairah^ra, and Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri^ra confirm this understanding.

Ibn ‘Umar^ra stated:

إِنْ صَامَ قَضَاهُ

“If he fasts, he must make it up.” (an-Nawawi, al-Majmu‘ sharh al-Muhadhdhab, ed. Muhammad Najib al-Muti‘I (Jeddah: Maktabat al-Irshad), 1980, Vol. 6, p. 269)

He further underscored the gravity of insisting on fasting by using a powerful analogy regarding this concession:

إِنَّمَا هِيَ صَدَقَةٌ تَصَدَّقَ اللَّهُ بِهَا عَلَيْك، أَرَأَيْتَ لَوْ تَصَدَّقْتَ بِصَدَقَةٍ فَرُدَّتْ عَلَيْكَ أَلَمْ تَغْضَبْ؟

“It [the concession] is only a charity that Allah has bestowed upon you. Do you see? If you were to give a charity and it was rejected back to you, would you not become angry?” (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 403)

Ibn Hazm noted that this implies ‘Ibn Umar^ra viewed fasting during Ramadan travel as something potentially angering to Allah, a description not used for merely permissible acts. His disapproval was also practical. When a woman travelling with him insisted on fasting, Ibn ‘Umar^ra reportedly told her, “Do not accompany us (la tashabina)!” (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)

Moreover, Ibn ‘Abbas^ra said:

لا يجزئه الصيام

“Fasting [in Ramadan while traveling] does not fulfil the obligation.” (an-Nawawi, ibid.)

Furthermore, Ibn ‘Abbas^ra explicitly described the allowance to refrain from fasting during travel as a binding ruling (‘azima):

الْإِفْطَارُ فِي رَمَضَانَ فِي السَّفَرِ عَزْمَةٌ

“Refraining from fasting in Ramadan during travel is a binding ruling (‘azma).” (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)

He also advised taking the path of ease Allah intended, contrasting it with hardship. When asked about fasting during travel, he reportedly said:

يُسْرٌ وَعُسْرٌ خُذْ بِيُسْرِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى

“[When it comes to] ease and hardship, take the ease of Allah the Exalted.” (Ibid.)

These statements underscore his view that accepting the concession of fitr was not merely permissible but the required course, aligning with Allah’s intent for ease (yusr).

Hazrat Umar^ra took decisive action:

أَمَرَ رَجُلًا صَامَ رَمَضَانَ فِي السَّفَرِ أَنْ يَقْضِيَهُ

“He ordered a man who fasted [in] Ramadan while traveling to make it up”. (‘Abd ar-Razzaq, Al-Musannaf, ed. Habib ar-Rahman al-Aʻzami (Johannesburg: al-Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983), Vol. 4, p. 270)

Abu Hurairah^ra also held this view, stating as a general principle:

مَنْ صَامَ فِي السَّفَرِ فَعَلَيْهِ الْقَضَاءُ

“Whoever fasts during travel, he must make up (qada’) [the fasts].” (Abu Hayyan, ibid., p. 186)

Consistent with this view, Abu Hurairah^ra instructed his own son who had fasted during travel, as reported:

الْمُحَرَّر بْنَ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ: صُمْتُ رَمَضَانَ فِي السَّفَرِ فَأَمَرَنِي أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ أَنْ أُعِيدَهُ فِي أَهْلِي، وَأَنْ أَقْضِيَهُ فَقَضَيْتُهُ

Al-Muharrar b. Abi Hurairah said: “I fasted [in] Ramadan during travel, so Abu Hurairah ordered me to redo it when I was back home with my family and to make it up, so I made it up.” (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 404)

This demonstrates his clear view that the fast performed during travel was invalid for fulfilling the Ramadan obligation.

Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri^ra expressed his strong disapproval of a traveller insisting on fasting by saying:

لَوْ مَاتَ مَا صَلَّيْتُ عَلَيْهِ

“If he were to die, I would not pray on him [i.e., I would not perform the funeral prayer for him].” (Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Matalib al-ʻaliya bi-zawaʼid al-Masanid al-thamaniya, ed. ʻAbd Allah b. ʻAbd al-Muhsin b. Ahmad al-Tuwayjiri, Riyadh: Dār al-ʻAsima; Dar al-Ghayth, 1998, Vol. 6, p. 87)

This shows the gravity of disregarding the allowance.

Reflecting the understanding that the Holy Prophet’s^sa final instructions were decisive, the esteemed tabi‘i Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri (d. 124/742) stated:

كَانَ الْفِطْرُ آخِرَ الْأَمْرَيْنِ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَإِنَّمَا يُؤْخَذُ مِنْ أَمْرِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِالْآخِرِ فَالْآخِرِ

“Refraining from fasting (fitr) was the latter of the two practices [regarding fasting or not fasting while travelling] from the Messenger^sa of Allah, and one takes from the command of the Messenger^sa of Allah the later of his commands, whichever is later.” (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)

This important principle highlights that the Holy Prophet’s^sa final ruling emphasising fitr implies abrogation (naskh) of any earlier permission.

The leading tabi‘i Sa‘id b. al-Musayyib (d. 94/715), one of the seven fuqaha’ of Medina, directly countered the argument of personal strength, which is often used to justify fasting during travel. When asked by a man if he should fast while travelling, asserting his ability to do so (inni aqwa ‘ala dhalik), Sa‘id replied:

لَا […] رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ أَقْوَى مِنْكَ قَدْ كَانَ يُقْصِرُ وَيُفْطِرُ

“No, […] the Messenger^sa of Allah was stronger than you, yet he used to shorten [the prayer] and refrain from fasting.” (Ibid.)

This response firmly grounds the ruling in the Holy Prophet’s^sa established Sunnah, dismissing personal capacity as a relevant factor for overriding the concession.

This understanding continued among other prominent tabi‘un, such as Sa‘id b. Jubayr (d. 95/714), Ibrahim an-Nakha‘i (d. 96/714), ‘Ata’ b. Abi Rabah (d. 114/732) – who explicitly disallowed the obligatory fast during travel while permitting voluntary ones, ‘Urwa b. az-Zubayr (d. 94/713) – who mandated qada‘ and was another one of the seven fuqaha’ of Medina, ash-Sha‘bi (d. 103/723), Zayn al-‘Abidin (d. 94/712) – the great-grandson of the Holy Prophet^sa, his son Muhammad al-Baqir (d. 114/733) and al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr (d. after 105/723) – grandson of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr^ra, and also one of the seven fuqaha’ of Medina, all of whom disapproved of and/or prohibited fasting during Ramadan while travelling, demonstrating a strong consensus among the succeeding generation.

Addressing Hamza al-Aslami’s^ra hadith of choice

The majority (jumhur) use certain ahadith to argue for the permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. A primary example they cite is the hadith reported by Hamza b. ‘Amr al-Aslami^ra:

إِنْ شِئْتَ فَصُمْ، وَإِنْ شِئْتَ فَأَفْطِرْ

“If you wish, fast, and if you wish, refrain from fasting.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1943)

The jumhur interpret this as a general authorisation applicable even during Ramadan. However, this interpretation faces several jurisprudential challenges:

Firstly, the hadith’s wording is general (‘amm), encompassing fasting during travel without specifying Ramadan, whereas verse 185 is specific (khass) and addresses the traveller’s Ramadan duty by directing it to “other days” (ayyamin ukhar). According to the established principle of takhsis al-‘amm bi-l-khass, when a general text and a specific text address the same subject but the specific text carries a distinct ruling, the specific governs its own domain. Since verse 185 provides an explicit directive for the specific case of Ramadan travel – mandating that the traveller fast on other days – the hadith’s general permission of choice cannot override this specific Quranic ruling. The hadith therefore pertains to voluntary or non-Ramadan fasts, while the Quran’s explicit directive regarding Ramadan travel remains determinative.

Secondly, the reliance on tark al-istifsal, i.e., arguing that the Holy Prophet’s^sa general reply encompasses Ramadan because he did not ask Hamza^ra for specifics, does not settle the matter. The principle of tark al-istifsal holds that when a questioner poses a general question and the Holy Prophet^sa provides a general answer without requesting clarification, the answer is taken to cover the full scope of the question. However, this principle operates on the assumption that no contextual indicator (qarina) narrows the scope of the question. In Hamza’s^ra case, such a qarina exists: the narration itself describes him as someone who used to fast frequently, a characterisation pointing to a habitual devotional practice rather than the Ramadan obligation. This contextual detail provides strong grounds for understanding the question as pertaining to the maintenance of his voluntary fasting habit during travel, not to the communal Ramadan duty, which would not ordinarily occasion such an individual inquiry. The Holy Prophet’s^sa permissive reply, “if you wish, fast, and if you wish, refrain from fasting,” fits naturally as an answer to a question about voluntary practice, where choice is indeed appropriate. The tark al-istifsal argument, therefore, cannot be invoked without first accounting for this contextual indicator, which significantly limits the question’s likely scope. Moreover, even if one were to set aside this qarina and treat the reply as general in its fullest sense, the resulting generality would still remain subject to specification (takhsis) by verse 185, as established above.

Thirdly, usuli methodology requires that reconciliation (al-jam‘) between texts be attempted before resorting to abrogation (naskh). The jumhur claim to achieve reconciliation by reading both texts as granting a choice during Ramadan travel: the Quran assigns other days in case the traveller refrains from fasting and the hadith confirms that fasting is also permissible. However, this form of reconciliation comes at a significant cost. It effectively reduces the Quran’s specific directive [“(let him fast the same) number of other days”] from an operative command defining the traveller’s obligation to a mere conditional permission that applies only if the traveller happens to choose fitr. On this reading, the Quranic verse’s independent force is stripped away. It ceases to prescribe anything and instead becomes dependent on a prior voluntary act that the verse itself never mentions. This is not genuine reconciliation but the subordination of one text to the other. A more methodologically sound reconciliation, one that preserves the full operative meaning of both texts, is achieved through takhsis: the hadith establishes a general permission of choice for fasting during travel, applicable to voluntary and non-Ramadan fasts, while the Quran specifies the ruling for the particular case of Ramadan travel, where the traveller is directed to fast on other days. Neither text is set aside or reduced to redundancy. The hadith governs its domain and the Quran governs its own.

Furthermore, Ibn Hazm critiqued the versions of this tradition that grant an unrestricted choice during Ramadan travel, raising both chain-based (isnad) and contextual (matn) objections. On the chain-based level, he identified weaknesses in the transmission paths of those versions that explicitly mention Ramadan in their wording, finding their reliability diminished compared to the base narration, which contains no such specification. The addition of a Ramadan context in these weaker versions cannot, therefore, be treated as established. On the contextual level, Ibn Hazm reinforced the point about Hamza’s^ra devotional character by drawing on the specific description of him as one who maintained constant fasting (asrada as-sawm). He argued that this description marks a pattern of supererogatory devotion, an individual practice exceeding the norm, and therefore points to a question about voluntary fasting rather than the universally observed Ramadan duty. This strongly suggests that his question concerned whether he should maintain his voluntary fasting habit during travel and the Holy Prophet’s^sa permissive answer addressed that specific concern. The permissive answer, therefore, cannot be straightforwardly extended to the Ramadan obligation. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 398) 

Having established above that the hadith most likely pertains to voluntary fasting and not the Ramadan obligation, a further, concessive argument may be advanced: even if one were to accept, for the sake of argument, that this hadith pertains to Ramadan travel, the jumhur’s interpretation still overlooks a significant detail in another version of this incident narrated in Sahih Muslim:

هِيَ رُخْصَةٌ مِنَ اللَّهِ فَمَنْ أَخَذَ بِهَا فَحَسَنٌ وَمَنْ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يَصُومَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِ

“It is a concession (rukhsa) from Allah, so whoever takes it, it is good (hasan), and whoever loves to fast, then there is no sin on him (fa-la junaha ‘alayhi).” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1121e)

The wording here draws a clear distinction between the two options. Accepting the concession and not fasting is described with the commendatory term hasan, which implies positive merit. Fasting, by contrast, is merely declared free from sin (la junaha ‘alayhi). In both Quranic and juristic usage, the expression la junaha consistently functions to lift a potential prohibition or apprehension of wrongdoing, rather than to affirm the merit of an act. Applied here, the same linguistic function implies that fasting during travel was the act requiring reassurance of permissibility, not refraining from fasting. The resulting hierarchy – commendation (hasan) for refraining from fasting and mere permissibility (la junaha) for fasting – suggests only the absence of prohibition for fasting, not that it fulfils the specific obligation or reward of Ramadan, thereby supporting the view that accepting the concession is the primary, rewardable act (rukhsa wajiba).

Finally, some proponents of the jumhur’s position claim that this hadith post-dates the revelation of verse 185, arguing that it therefore modifies or effectively abrogates the Quranic directive. This claim faces two difficulties. First, the precise chronology of this incident relative to the verse’s revelation has not been definitively established. Second, even if the hadith were shown to post-date the verse, a solitary report (hadith ahad) cannot abrogate or override a Quranic ruling. The jumhur might respond that they are not claiming outright abrogation (naskh) but rather specification (takhsis) or clarification (bayan) of the Quran by the hadith. However, verse 185 already addresses the specific case of the traveller during Ramadan and assigns a determinate ruling – fasting on other days. There is no ambiguity or generality in the verse’s treatment of Ramadan travel that requires further specification or clarification by an external text. To use a solitary report to render this explicit Quranic directive inoperative for the very case it was revealed to address is, in substance, abrogation, regardless of the terminology employed. Furthermore, the hadith’s own wording, using la junaha for fasting, as discussed above, reads more naturally as a concession operating within the Quranic framework than as an abrogation of it.

Refuting arguments from ‘no censure’ and the conquest journey

In addition to the hadith of choice, the jumhur also point to narrations describing Companions travelling with the Holy Prophet^sa where some fasted and others broke their fast without mutual censure (la ya‘ibu). An example is the report from Anas^ra:

إِنَّ أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانُوا يُسَافِرُونَ فَلَا يَعِيبُ الصَّائِمُ عَلَى الْمُفْطِرِ وَلَا الْمُفْطِرُ عَلَى الصَّائِمِ

“Indeed, the Companions of the Messenger^sa of Allah used to travel, and neither the one fasting would find fault with the one refraining from fasting, nor the one refraining from fasting with the one fasting.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1118b)

The jumhur argue that this would demonstrate general permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. This conclusion, however, does not follow from the evidence. It is important to note, first, that this narration describes the Companions’ general travel practice, “they used to travel” (kanu yusafirun), without specifying that these journeys took place during Ramadan. The fasting and refraining from fasting it describes may well pertain to voluntary fasting during travel at other times, making it irrelevant to the specific question of the Ramadan obligation. Moreover, even if Ramadan were assumed, the mere absence of mutual censure is a descriptive observation about interpersonal conduct, not a normative legal pronouncement establishing optionality. The absence of open reproach among individuals does not establish that both practices were equally valid before Allah. Several factors could account for this: some Companions may not yet have received the final ruling, others may have exercised forbearance in avoiding public correction, or these events may predate the Holy Prophet’s^sa definitive later commands on the matter. Drawing a legal ruling of permissibility from the silence of individuals would be an argument from absence, which cannot override the positive textual evidence from the Quran and the Holy Prophet’s^sa explicit statements.

Another significant event cited by the jumhur is the Holy Prophet’s^sa journey for the Conquest of Mecca. They highlight his initial fasting during this journey as proof that fasting during Ramadan travel is permissible, overlooking the significance of his later action. As narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

عن رسول الله ﷺ أنه خرج في شهر رمضان لغزوة الفتح، فسار حتى بلغ الكديد، ثم أفطر، وأمر الناس بالفطر

“The Messenger^sa of Allah went out in the month of Ramadan for the Conquest of Mecca, and he proceeded until he reached al-Kadid, then he broke his fast, and ordered the people not to fast.” (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘azim, ed. Sami b. Muhammad as-Salama [Riyadh: Dar Tiba li-n-Nashr wa-t-Tawziʻ], 1999, Vol. 1, p. 503)

The decisive point is not that the Holy Prophet^sa initially fasted, but that he subsequently broke his fast and explicitly ordered others to do so (amara an-nasa bi-l-fitr). The initial fasting, whatever its basis, was superseded by this definitive public command during the same journey. This command established fitr as the expected and required course, supporting the ruling of obligation (‘azima). The jumhur’s attempt to restrict this command solely to the context of impending battle constitutes an unfounded specification (takhsis), limiting the Holy Prophet’s^sa general order to refrain from fasting to a particular military context without any textual evidence for such a restriction. This contradicts the established principle that consideration is given to the general wording, not the specific occasion (al-‘ibratu bi-‘umum al-lafz la bi-khusus as-sabab). The Holy Prophet’s^sa command was phrased in general terms, “he ordered the people to refrain from fasting,” and there is no indication in the narration that this order was conditioned upon the imminence of battle.

Indeed, when some persisted in fasting despite this command, the Holy Prophet^sa responded by characterising them as:

أُولَئِكَ الْعُصَاةُ

“Those are the disobedient ones.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1114a)

Jurists like Ibn Hazm viewed this designation as a definitive statement establishing fitr as obligatory (fard) for the traveller, rendering continued fasting after the command an act of disobedience (ma‘siya). The jumhur’s attempt to limit this designation to the specific battle context faces the same objection outlined above: the Holy Prophet’s^sa words, “those are the disobedient ones,” are a general characterisation of those who refused the command to refrain from fasting, and restricting it to combat situations requires a limitation unsupported by the text. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 399)

Ibn Hazm further emphasised that the Holy Prophet’s^sa own action of refraining from fasting while travelling in Ramadan serves as the definitive interpretation of Allah’s command in verse 185, he being the one most knowledgeable of divine intent and the source from whom the ruling must be taken. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 395)

Addressing further hadith contentions

Further ahadith presented by the majority (jumhur) to support optional fasting also fail to negate the obligation (‘azima) of fitr for the traveller.

One such narration is from Jabir^ra b. ‘Abd Allah:

كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي سَفَرٍ فَرَأَى زِحَامًا وَرَجُلًا قَدْ ظُلِّلَ عَلَيْهِ. فَقَالَ ((مَا هَذَا؟)) فَقَالُوا: صَائِمٌ، فَقَالَ: ((لَيْسَ مِنَ الْبِرِّ الصَّوْمُ فِي السَّفَرِ))

“The Messenger^sa of Allah was on a journey and saw a crowd and a man who was being shaded. He asked, ‘What is this?’ They said, ‘A fasting person.’ He said, ‘It is not of righteousness (al-birr) to fast while traveling.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1946)

The jumhur interpret this statement as limited to cases of extreme hardship, arguing that the Holy Prophet^sa negated righteousness only because the man in question had reached a state of visible distress. However, the Holy Prophet’s^sa words are formulated as a general proposition: “It is not of righteousness to fast while traveling” (laysa min al-birr as-sawmu fi s-safar). He did not say, “It is not of righteousness to fast when it causes you such difficulty,” nor did he qualify his statement by reference to the man’s specific condition. Again, according to the established principle that consideration is given to the general wording, not the specific occasion (al-‘ibratu bi-‘umum al-lafz la bi-khusus as-sabab), the Holy Prophet’s^sa negation of righteousness from fasting during travel carries general applicability. The specific occasion, i.e., the sight of a man in distress, prompted the statement, but does not limit its legal scope. This implies that accepting the rukhsa of fitr is the correct and righteous course for the traveller, and that fasting during travel, regardless of the traveller’s physical state, falls outside the category of birr.

The jumhur also cite the hadith of Abu ad-Darda’^ra:

خَرَجْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ فِي حَرٍّ شَدِيدٍ […] وَمَا فِينَا صَائِمٌ إِلَّا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَعَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنَ رَوَاحَةَ

“We went out with the Messenger^sa of Allah in the month of Ramadan during intense heat […] and none among us was fasting except the Messenger^sa of Allah and ‘Abd Allah b. Rawaha^ra.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1122a)

They argue that the Holy Prophet’s^sa own fasting during this Ramadan journey demonstrates the permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. However, this argument requires examination. Ibn Hazm questioned whether the fast the Holy Prophet^sa and ‘Abd Allah b. Rawaha^ra observed on this occasion was necessarily the obligatory Ramadan fast or a voluntary fast undertaken during the month of Ramadan. Within the framework of the ‘azima position, the traveller’s Ramadan obligation is transferred to other days. Accordingly, any fast a traveller undertakes during the journey, even in the month of Ramadan, would be voluntary rather than a fulfilment of the Ramadan duty. The narration itself does not specify the nature of the fast, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Companions were not fasting is itself noteworthy, suggesting that fitr was already the prevailing practice among them. Moreover, even if the fast were understood as a Ramadan fast, this incident is situated chronologically before the Holy Prophet’s^sa later, definitive commands establishing fitr as the required practice, including the command during the Conquest journey and the designation of persistent fasters as “disobedient” (al-‘usat). Following az-Zuhri’s principle that one takes from the Holy Prophet’s^sa commands the later of them, this earlier practice would be considered superseded (mansukh) by the later instructions. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 397)

Finally, a narration from Sunan ad-Daraqutni concerning ‘A’isha^ra fasting and completing prayers during Ramadan travel faces serious reliability challenges on both levels of hadith criticism. Regarding the chain of transmission (isnad), the narrator ‘Ala’ b. Zuhayr has been subject to criticism by hadith scholars, and there are well-established doubts about whether ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. al-Aswad actually heard from ‘A’isha^ra directly, introducing a probable discontinuity (inqita‘) in the chain. Regarding the content (matn), the narration mentions an ‘umra performed in Ramadan, a detail that sits uneasily with the established records of ‘A’isha’s^ra pilgrimages and raises questions about the report’s overall accuracy. Given these combined weaknesses in both chain and content, this narration cannot be reliably adduced as evidence for the permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. (Sunan ad-Daraqutni, 2293)

Obligatory concession (rukhsa wajiba) for the traveller

The preceding analysis has established, through Quranic text, Prophetic statements and Companion practice, that fitr during Ramadan travel functions as the traveller’s reformulation of the obligation (‘azima). This conclusion is further reinforced by a recognised principle in Islamic jurisprudence: that of the obligatory concession (rukhsa wajiba). According to this principle, accepting a divinely granted concession (rukhsa) is not always merely permissible (mubaha) or recommended (mustahabba). Rather, when the conditions warranting the concession are met, accepting it becomes obligatory (wajib). In the case of travel during Ramadan, where the Quran itself transfers the traveller’s fasting duty to other days and declares that Allah desires ease for His servants, refusing the concession amounts to rejecting a divinely ordained arrangement.

The Holy Prophet^sa underscored the importance of accepting concessions, stating:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى رُخَصُهُ كَمَا يُحِبُّ أَنْ تُؤْتَى عَزَائِمُهُ

“Indeed, Allah loves that His concessions (rukhas) be accepted, just as He loves that His obligations (‘aza’im) be fulfilled.” (Ibn Hibban, al-Musnad as-sahih, ed. Muhammad ‘Ali Sunmiz; Khalis Ay Damir, Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2012, Vol. 5, p. 474)

Al-Mundhiri graded the chain (isnad) of this hadith as good (hasan). The wording is significant: it does not merely permit acceptance of concessions but declares that Allah loves their acceptance in the same manner as He loves the fulfilment of obligations. This places the acceptance of applicable concessions on the same plane of divine expectation as the performance of standard duties. Specifically, regarding Ramadan travel, the Holy Prophet^sa commanded:

عَلَيْكُمْ بِرُخْصَةِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي رَخَّصَ لَكُمْ

“It is upon you to adhere to Allah’s concession which He has granted you.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1115c)

The imperative form ‘alaykum bi, a construction that denotes binding instruction in Arabic usage, makes this a clear directive, not a mere suggestion or recommendation.

Moreover, specific versions of the laysa min al-birr incident include the explicit command “so accept it!” (fa-qbaluha). Ibn Hazm argued forcefully that this direct command (amr) transforms the concession into a mandated obligation (rukhsa muftarada), reinforcing the duty to accept Allah’s ordained ease. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 401)

Ibn ‘Umar^ra further emphasised the gravity of refusing this concession. When a man claimed he was physically capable of fasting during travel, Ibn ‘Umar^ra did not engage with the claim of personal strength but responded with a Prophetic warning:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو طُعْمَةَ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: كُنْتُ عِنْدَ ابْنِ عُمَرَ إِذْ جَاءَهُ رَجُلٌ فَقَالَ: يَا أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ إِنِّي أَقْوَى عَلَى الصِّيَامِ فِي السَّفَرِ، فَقَالَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللهِ ﷺ يَقُولُ: «مَنْ لَمْ يَقْبَلْ رُخْصَةَ اللهِ، كَانَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْإِثْمِ مِثْلُ جِبَالِ عَرَفَةَ»

Abu Tu‘ma narrated to us that he said: I was with Ibn ‘Umar when a man came to him and said: “O Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman, I am capable of fasting while traveling.” Ibn ‘Umar^ra said: “I heard the Messenger^sa of Allah say: ‘He who does not accept Allah’s concession, the weight of his sin will be like the mountains of ‘Arafa.’” (Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, Vol. 5, p. 51)

The context in which Ibn ‘Umar^ra deployed this hadith is itself instructive. The man’s claim of personal strength, “I am capable of fasting while traveling,” is precisely the reasoning many use to justify fasting during Ramadan travel. Ibn ‘Umar’s^ra response dismisses personal capacity as irrelevant to the ruling and redirects the matter to the acceptance or rejection of a divine concession, with a severe warning of sin attached to refusal. Under genuine travel conditions, therefore, accepting this concession by refraining from fasting is not simply an easier option. It is the divinely intended, and thus required, action.

Wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum: Correct contextual understanding

The majority (jumhur) often misapply the phrase “And fasting is good for you” (wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum) in verse 185, claiming it endorses fasting during Ramadan travel as preferable. This interpretation detaches the phrase from its specific context within the verse. Two main lines of reasoning refute this misuse:

Firstly, Ibn Hazm argues strongly that this phrase is misapplied entirely to the traveller. He explains that it relates specifically to the provision regarding fidya for those who could fast only with extreme difficulty (wa-‘ala lladhina yutiqunahu) mentioned earlier in verse 185. That context, involving a choice between fasting with great difficulty or offering fidya, is distinct from the traveller’s situation, which involves the transfer of the fasting obligation to makeup days (qada’). The phrase “And fasting is good for you” addresses those who face the fidya option and encourages them that fasting, despite their difficulty, is the better of the two alternatives available to them. Applying this phrase, which is textually situated within the fidya discussion, to the traveller’s entirely different legal scenario is, according to Ibn Hazm, a distortion (tahrif) that twists the Quran’s meaning. While the understanding of the historical application of the fidya provision varies among scholars, Ibn Hazm’s core point rests on the phrase’s undeniable textual link to the fidya context within verse 185, making its application outside that specific scenario incorrect. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 393)

Secondly, even if one were to consider the phrase applicable beyond the fidya context, as a general exhortation to fast, it still does not support fasting during travel. Verse 185 addresses distinct groups and assigns each a specific obligation. For the healthy resident, who is obligated by verse 186 to fast during the month itself, “fasting is good for you” naturally refers to fasting during Ramadan. For the sick and the traveller, whose obligation is modified to qada’ on “other days” (ayyamin ukhar), “fasting is good for you” pertains to their own assigned duty, that is, fasting on those other days. The phrase wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum, read within this framework, encourages each group to fulfil its respective obligation diligently. It encourages the traveller to fulfil the obligation of qada’ later, not to fast during the journey in place of the obligation that has been transferred from them.

Both lines of reasoning demonstrate that using wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum to justify fasting during Ramadan travel is incorrect. The phrase, whether understood within its immediate fidya context or as broader exhortation, does not contradict the obligation (‘azima) ruling derived from the command of qada’ for the traveller.

Conclusion: The obligation of fitr for the traveller

The interpretation of Surah al-Baqarah, verse 185, regarding the traveller’s fast in Ramadan distinguishes between taking the text literally (haqiqa) or implying unstated conditions (majaz). This analysis demonstrates that the position of ‘azima, where refraining from fasting (fitr) becomes the modified obligation requiring makeup days (qada’), aligns directly with the Quran’s plain and literal meaning. The verse assigns travellers “other days,” a structural and grammatical directive, as demonstrated through ar-Razi’s analysis of the nominative and accusative readings of fa-‘iddatun, reinforced by the principle of divine ease (yusr) mentioned in verse 186 and supported by the interpretive rule, upheld by Abu Hayyan and Ibn Hazm, that the text should be read without assuming omitted words.

This Quranic understanding is strongly supported by the Sunnah and the practice of the early Muslims (salaf). Prophetic statements negating the righteousness (al-birr) of fasting during travel, the definitive later commands establishing fitr as the final ruling, as emphasised by az-Zuhri’s principle that one takes from the Holy Prophet’s^sa commands the later of them, and the consistent understanding and actions of prominent Companions and tabi‘un who mandated qada’ or deemed the fast invalid (la yujzi’), all point to fitr being required. The principle of rukhsa wajiba, emphasising the obligation to accept Allah’s concessions, further solidifies this view.

Conversely, the common view of a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba) relies on an unnecessary textual insertion (muqaddar/mudmar), critiqued by both ar-Razi and Ibn Hazm, and on interpretations of ahadith that overlook established principles: the precedence of the specific (khass) Quranic text over general (‘amm) narrations through takhsis, the proper methodology of reconciliation (al-jam‘) that preserves rather than neutralises the operative force of each text and significant distinctions within the ahadith themselves, such as the hierarchy between hasan and la junaha in the Sahih Muslim version. Furthermore, applying wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum to the traveller detaches the phrase from its specific textual context within verse 185.

Therefore, the collective evidence firmly concludes that fitr for the traveller during Ramadan is an obligation, regardless of whether it is called ‘azima or rukhsa wajiba. It is the modified divine requirement, replacing the duty to fast in Ramadan with the duty to perform qada’ on other days, reflecting divine wisdom and mercy.