Who says that fasting is not permissible except with the intention before dawn in all types of fasting? And who says that the intention after dawn is permissible in voluntary fasts, not in obligatory fasts? And who says that the intention after dawn is sufficient in fasting whose obligation is related to a specific time and voluntary fasts, but it is not rewarded in obligatory fasts.

Fajr is a sign of the rising of the sun, so it is like the divine name in that it denotes the one called by it, not the meaning by which it is distinguished from other names. The one who intends to fast may intend it out of necessity and choice, and the person, in his knowledge of God, may be the possessor of intellectual insight or the possessor of witnesses. His knowledge of God came from looking at evidence, so he must seek the evidence that leads him to knowledge. He is in the same position as someone who made an intention before dawn, and the period of his looking at evidence is like the period from dawn to sunrise .

Knowledge of God is of two types: obligatory, such as knowing His Oneness in His divinity, and non-obligatory knowledge, such as knowing the relationship of names to Him that indicate meanings. It is not obligatory for him to consider those meanings as to whether they are additional to Him or not. For such knowledge, he does not care when he intends it, whether after obtaining the evidence of the Oneness of God. Or before

As for what is obligatory in the protection of God, it is knowledge of God in terms of what the law has attributed to him in the Qur’an and Sunnah, for it has been determined by theoretical evidence that this is his law and these are his words, so belief in it occurred and it is in the protection of God, so it is necessary to aim for it without looking at the theoretical evidence, which is what the intention is considered in. Before dawn, because he has necessary knowledge, and it takes precedence over theoretical knowledge, because theoretical knowledge does not occur unless evidence is necessary or generated by necessity, whether near or far, and if it is not like that, then it is neither conclusive evidence nor existential proof .

The majority is of the opinion that purity from impurity is not a condition for the validity of fasting, and that having a wet dream during the day does not invalidate the fast, except for some of them, for they are of the view that if he does that intentionally, it will invalidate his fast. This is a saying that is transmitted from Al-Nakha’i, Tawus, and Urwa ibn Al-Zubayr, and it was narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah. In intentional and unintentional, he used to say that whoever becomes junub in Ramadan breaks his fast, and he used to say what I said. Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, was said by the Lord of the Kaaba. Some of the Maliks said that if a menstruating woman becomes pure before dawn and delays washing, then her day is a day when she breaks the fast.

Impurity is alienation, and alienation after menstruation is harm, and harm necessitates distance, and I mean special harm, such as his saying, “Those who harm God and His Messenger, may God curse them,” that is, keep them away, and the curse is distance, and its cause is harm from them, so it is far from the Holy Name, and fasting necessitates closeness to God, to whom there is nothing like it. And fasting has no equal in acts of worship. Just as proximity and distance do not coexist, so do fasting, impurity, and harm .

Whoever takes into account that impurity is a rule of nature, so is menstruation, and he said that fasting is a divine ascription. He established every matter in its proper place, and said that fasting is valid for the impurity woman and for the woman who has been pure from menstruation before dawn, if she delays washing and does not purify herself until after dawn, and it is the first to take into account what wisdom requires of giving to everyone who has a right. His truth, for the Wise Almighty says: He gave everything its creation and then guided it, that is, he clarified and praised God with this saying when he related it on the authority of Moses that he said it to Pharaoh, and God Almighty did not offend him in this saying as he offended those who said that God is poor and that God is the third of three.

So who says that if they fast it, then it suffices for them, and who says that it does not suffice for them, and that they are obligated to do a number of other days, and what I go to is that if they fast it, then that does not suffice for them, and that they are obligated to do other days, except that I differentiate between the sick person and the traveler if they fail to fast. In this case, in the month of Ramadan, as for the sick person, fasting is for him a voluntary act, and it is an act of righteousness, and it is not obligatory for him. If he made it obligatory for himself, then it is not obligatory for him. As for the traveler, his fasting while traveling in the month of Ramadan or at any other time is not an act of righteousness, and if it is not an act of righteousness, it is as if he did not work. Something that is the lowest of its degrees, or that it is the opposite of righteousness and its opposite, which is immorality, and I do not say that except that I deny t

The traveler is the one who travels through places of worship with the divine names, so the divine name Ramadan does not deem him obligatory or non-obligatory fasting, and for this reason

he, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said it is not righteousness