Tafsir of Al-Baqarah 2:184

(Days numbered): Meaning days specified by count, or few, because a small number is easy to count, whereas a large amount is estimated haphazardly. Muqatil said: Every instance of "numbered" (معدودات) or "countable" (معدودة) in the Qur'an refers to fewer than forty; this is not said of what exceeds that. The intent of these days is either Ramadan—a view chosen by Ibn Abbas, al-Hasan, Abu Muslim (may Allah be pleased with them), and the majority of verifiers; it is also one of the two statements of al-Shafi'i. Thus, Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) first informed us that fasting was prescribed for us, then clarified it by saying: "(Days numbered)," which removed some of the ambiguity, and then further clarified it with the words: "(The month of Ramadan)" to prepare the soul for it. It was objected that if this were the intent, mentioning the sick and the traveler would be a repetition. The response is that in the beginning, fasting Ramadan was obligatory with a choice between it and the ransom (fidya). When the choice was abrogated and it became binding, there was a risk that one might assume this ruling applied to everyone, making the sick and traveler like the resident and healthy person. Thus, their ruling was repeated as a warning that their concession remained unchanged, unlike the ruling for the resident and healthy person. As for what was mandatory to fast before that—namely the three days of every month, the "white days" (ayyam al-bid) as reported from 'Ata and attributed to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), or three days of every month plus the day of Ashura as reported from Qatada—the people of this opinion agreed that this obligation was abrogated by the fasting of Ramadan. A difficulty was raised: its obligatory nature was established by this verse, so if they had acted upon that ruling for a long period as is said, how could the abrogator be connected? And if they had not acted upon it, abrogation is invalid, as there is no abrogation before action. The response is: regarding the first choice, sequence in recitation does not prove sequence in revelation. Regarding the second, the more correct view is that abrogation is permissible before action. Reflect on this.

The accusative case of "(days)" is not due to "fasting" (as has been said, for there is an intervening extraneous word between them), but rather due to an implied verb that the word itself indicates, namely "fast" (صوموا). It is either an adverb of time or an object of the verb (by way of extension). Others say it is governed by a verb inferred from the particle of resemblance (ka), which clarifies the aspect of similarity; as if it were said: "Fasting has been prescribed for you, similar to the fasting of those before you in that it is (days numbered)." The similarity exists between the two fasts in this respect—namely, that both relate to a duration that is not prolonged. The structure is thus of the type "Zayd is like 'Amr in jurisprudence." Others say it is in the accusative as a second object of "prescribed" (kutiba) by way of extension. Al-Bahr rejected this, stating that extension is based on the possibility of it being an adverb for "prescribed," which is invalid because an adverb is the location of the action, and the "prescribing" did not take place in the days, but rather its object, "fasting," occurred within them. The response given is that the location of the object is sufficient for adverbiality, as in: "He knows what is in the heavens and the earth," and that the meaning of "prescribed" is "imposed," and the imposition of fasting occurs within the days.

(So whoever among you is sick): A sickness that makes fasting difficult for him, as is indicated by the Almighty’s saying later: "(Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship)." This is the view of the majority of jurists. Ibn Sirin, 'Ata, and al-Bukhari held that the concession applies to any sickness, acting upon the generality of the wording. It is recounted that they entered upon Ibn Sirin during Ramadan while he was eating, and he cited the pain in his finger as the excuse; this is also a position of the Shafi'is.

(Or on a journey): Or someone who is mounted upon a journey, established upon it, such that he occupied himself with it before dawn. This implies that someone who begins a journey during the day does not break the fast; for this reason, "on a journey" (عَلَىٰ سَفَرٍ) was chosen over "traveling" (مُسَافِرًا). The generality of "journey" is used as evidence that a short journey or a journey for the purpose of sin is a valid concession for breaking the fast, though most scholars restrict it to lawful travel and travel where hardship is usually expected, specifically the distance defined in Sharia.

(Then an equal number of other days): Meaning, he must fast a number of days equal to the days of sickness and travel from other days, if he broke his fast. The condition and the two genitive additions were omitted due to their obviousness. As for the condition: the sick and the traveler are included in the general address, which proves the obligation of fasting upon them; if the ruling had not been qualified here, it would imply that sickness and travel—which are grounds for ease legally and rationally—would become grounds for hardship. As for the first omission (the condition of breaking the fast): it is because the discussion is about fasting and its obligation. As for the second (the number of days): because when it was said "whoever is sick or on a journey, upon him is an equal number," it meant an equal number of days, described as being from "other days," so it was understood to be equal to the number of days of sickness and travel, and the addition was dispensed with. This breaking of the fast is ordained by way of a concession; the sick and the traveler may fast if they wish, or break it if they wish, as the majority of jurists hold. However, Imam Abu Hanifa and Malik said: Fasting is more beloved. Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and al-Awza'i said: Breaking the fast is more beloved. The school of the Zahiris holds that breaking the fast is mandatory, and that if they fast, it is invalid because it is before the time necessitated by the apparent meaning of the verse. This is attributed to Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Abu Huraira, and a group of the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them). The Imamiyyah hold this view, and they have presented extensive arguments for it based on reports from the Ahl al-Bayt.

The verse is used as evidence for the permissibility of performing the compensatory (qada) fasts consecutively or separately, and that it is not immediate, contrary to Dawud. Also, that whoever misses all of Ramadan must compensate with "days numbered"; if the month was complete, he does not perform an incomplete month, and if it was incomplete, he is not obligated to perform a complete month—contrary to those who differed in both cases. It is also used as an argument by those who say: there is no ransom (fidya) alongside the compensatory fast. Likewise, those who say: if a traveler becomes a resident or a sick person recovers during the day, they are not obligated to abstain for the remainder of the day, because Allah only obligated an equal number of other days, and they have already broken their fast. A rule of breaking the fast is that it does not require more than one day, and if we commanded them to abstain and then perform compensation, we would be obligating them to provide more than the substitute for a day. The implications of this are not hidden.

It is read as fa-'iddatun (nominative) and fa-'iddatan (accusative), the latter as the object of an omitted verb; meaning, "let him fast an equal number." Whoever implied the condition there, implies it here.

(And upon those who are able to do it): Meaning, upon those who have the capacity for fasting if they break it, there is a ransom: i.e., giving it.

(Food of a poor person): This is the amount that is eaten each day, which is half a sa' of wheat, or a sa' of something else according to the people of Iraq, and a mudd according to the people of the Hijaz for each day. This was at the beginning of Islam because fasting was imposed upon them and they were not accustomed to it, so it was difficult for them, and they were granted the concession of breaking the fast and paying the ransom. Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasa'i, al-Tabarani, and others reported from Salama bin al-Akwa' (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: When this verse was revealed, whoever among us wanted to fast, did so, and whoever wanted to break it, did so and gave a ransom. This continued until the verse after it was revealed and abrogated it: "(So whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it)."

Sa'id bin al-Musayyib read it as yutayyiqunahu (with a damma on the ya and a shadda on the ya), and Mujahid and 'Ikrimah as yutayyiqunahu (with a shadda on the ta and the ya). Both readings are in the form of the active voice. They stem from the root tawq, which is wawi (weak with waw), and the waw was changed into ya and then assimilated. Their meaning is "they take it upon themselves with difficulty." 'Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) read yutawwaqawnahu in the passive form, meaning "they are tasked with it" or "they are burdened by it," from tawq meaning capacity or a collar. All three are narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) as well. He also has the reading yatatawwaqawnahu, meaning to take it upon oneself or take it on as a burden.

Some held that there is no abrogation, as reported by al-Bukhari and Abu Dawud, saying the verse was revealed concerning the very elderly man and the very elderly woman. Some people also did not subscribe to abrogation even with the canonical reading, explaining it as "they fast it by their own effort and capacity." This is based on the idea that wus' (scope) is a name for the ability to do something with ease, while taqa (capacity) is a name for the ability with intensity and hardship. The meaning becomes: "Upon those who fast it with intensity and hardship," thus including the pregnant and nursing woman.

(So whoever volunteers good): By adding to the amount mentioned as the ransom. Mujahid said: Or by increasing the number of those he feeds, so he feeds two poor people or more. Ibn Abbas said this. Or by combining feeding with fasting, as Ibn Shihab said.

(It is better for him): Meaning the voluntary action or the good that he performed. Some made the first "good" (khayr) a noun derived from khurtu (you are good/virtuous), and the second a superlative noun, providing a sense of accumulation without doubt. Referring the pronoun back to "whoever" (meaning: the volunteer is better than the other because of the volunteering) is not hidden in its remoteness.

(And that you fast): Meaning, O you who have the capacity—the residents, the healthy, the elderly, the pregnant/nursing, or those allowed to break their fast from both groups, as well as the sick and travelers. There is a shift here from the third person to the second person to compensate for the hardship of fasting with the delight of being addressed directly. Ubayy read "And fasting is better for you" than the ransom, or than volunteering the good, or than delaying to perform the compensation.

(If you only knew): What virtue is in fasting. The response to "if" is omitted, relying on its obviousness—i.e., "then you would choose it." It is also said: Its meaning is, if you are among the people of knowledge, you would know that fasting is "better for you" than that. Thus, the sentence serves as a confirmation of the superiority of fasting; on the first view, it is an establishing of the premise.