As for the sick person, his ruling is different from the ruling for the traveler in consideration. The scholars have unanimously agreed that if the sick person fasts Ramadan in the event of his illness, it is sufficient, but the traveler is not like that according to them, so their reasoning for the verse is weak, so they consider that illness is the opposite of health, and what is required of fasting is his health, and the two opposites do not come together, so sickness and fasting are not valid, and we considered it to be in a month. Ramadan alone, because it is obligatory due to God’s obligation to begin with, so the one who made it obligatory is the one who removed it from the sick person, so it is not valid to consider what is not obligatory from God an obligation from God in the event that it is not obligatory.