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

Is it permissible to offer an Udhiyah on behalf of the deceased?

In the Name of Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Offering an Udhiyah (sacrificial animal) on behalf of a deceased person is permissible. This is the official position of the Hanbali school (as stated in Kashshaf al-Qina’ by al-Bahuti,Vol.6/P.428) and was also upheld by the prominent Shafi'i scholar Al-’Abbadi (mentioned in Bidayat al-Muhtaj by Ibn Qadi Shuhbah,Vol. 4/P.358). It has likewise been narrated as a valid view among some Maliki and Hanafi scholars.
 
In fact, Imam Abu Dawud dedicated an entire chapter in his Sunan collection entitled, "Chapter on Sacrificing on Behalf of the Deceased." In it, he recorded a narration from Hanash, who said: "I saw 'Ali sacrificing two rams, so I asked him, 'What is this?' He replied, 'The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded me to offer a sacrifice on his behalf, so I am sacrificing on his behalf.'"
 
Imam Abu Dawud also narrated from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "O Allah, this is from You, for You, and on behalf of Muhammad and his Ummah (community). In the Name of Allah, and Allah is the Greatest," and he then slaughtered the animal.
 
The textual evidence here lies in the fact that our Master, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), offered a sacrifice on behalf of his entire community—and it is well-established that his community includes those who have already passed away.
 
Furthermore, there is an abundance of sacred texts demonstrating that the rewards of righteous deeds reach the deceased. For instance, it is permissible to fast on behalf of a deceased person who passed away with missed obligatory fasts, and it is equally permissible to perform Hajj on their behalf, both of which are firmly established in authentic Hadiths. Therefore, if the reward of fasting (which is a purely physical act of worship) and Hajj (which is a joint physical and financial act of worship) can reach the deceased, then the reward of an Udhiyah reaches them with greater reason (by way of A Fortiori argument). This is because it is a purely financial act of worship, falling under the general category of charity (Sadaqah).
 
Additionally, scholars have reached a consensus (Ijma') that the rewards of charity reach the deceased, and since the Udhiyah is inherently an act of charity, it falls under the same ruling. Consequently, based on all the aforementioned evidence, we hold the view that offering a sacrifice on behalf of the deceased is entirely permissible. And Allah the Almighty Knows Best.

When is supplication (du‘a) more likely to be accepted: before or after breaking the fast in Ramadan?

Du‘a is accepted at all times, and this is part of Allah’s mercy and generosity toward His servants.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "No Muslim makes a supplication that does not involve sin or severing family ties except that Allah grants them one of three things: either He grants their supplication immediately, or He stores it for them in the Hereafter, or He averts from them an equivalent harm." [Narrated by Ahmad]
However, in Ramadan, du‘a is especially likely to be accepted shortly before breaking the fast.
The Prophet ﷺ said: "Three supplications are never rejected: the supplication of a fasting person until they break their fast, the supplication of a just leader, and the supplication of an oppressed person. Allah raises it above the clouds, opens the gates of heaven for it, and says: ‘By My might, I will surely grant you victory, even if after a while.’" [Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi]

How is the Night Prayer (Qiyam al-Layl) performed?

Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
 
Night Prayer (Qiyam al-Layl) refers to the voluntary (Nafl) prayers performed by a person after the Sunset prayer (Maghrib) and before the Dawn prayer (Fajr). As for Tahajjud, it is the voluntary prayer performed during the night specifically after waking up from sleep, as an act of devotion to Allah. Allah the Exalted says {what means}: "And from [part of] the night, pray with it [i.e., recitation] as additional worship for you." (Al-Isra/79). Thus, in terms of reward,Tahajjud is superior to voluntary prayers performed before sleeping. And Allah the Exalted 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