Al-Baqarah: (185)
(The month of Ramadan) ... This is a subject (mubtada’), whose predicate is the relative pronoun (al-mawsul) that follows it. The mention of this sentence acts as an introduction to the obligation of fasting by mentioning its excellence; or it is [governed by] "so whoever witnesses...", with the fa indicating the inclusion of the meaning of a condition, because it is described by the relative clause; or it is the predicate of an omitted subject, the estimation being: "That time during which fasting was prescribed for you is the month of Ramadan," or "The prescribed [time] is the month of Ramadan." Alternatively, it is a substitute (badal) for "fasting" (al-siyam), a total substitute, assuming a genitive (mudaf), meaning: "Fasting was prescribed for you—the fasting of the month of Ramadan." What intervenes between them [in the text] is connected to "prescribed" (kutiba) either in wording or in meaning, so it is not considered extraneous at all. If you consider it a substitute of inclusion (badal al-ishtimal), you dispense with the need for estimation, except that the previous ruling—which is the obligation of fasting—being the primary intended meaning, and the mention of the substituted term (mubdal minhu) not being intended to lead toward the substitute, makes that unlikely.
It has been recited as (shahra) in the accusative case, as the object of an omitted verb "fast" (sumu). It has also been said: it is the object of "and that you fast" (wa an tasumu), but this requires separating the parts of the masdar (infinitive) clause from the predicate. It is also permitted that it be an object for "you know" (ta’lamun), assuming a genitive, meaning: "The honor of the month of Ramadan and the like." Others said: There is no need for estimation, and the meaning is: "If you possess knowledge of the month itself and do not doubt it." This contains an indication that fasting should not be performed while in doubt, but this is a weak position, as is not hidden.
The shahr (month) is the defined period whose beginning is the sighting of the crescent moon. Its plural for a small number is ashhur and for a large number is shuhur. Its origin is from "to make a thing visible" (shahara); because it serves as a designated time for acts of worship and transactions, it becomes "well-known" (mashhur) among the people. Ramadan is the verbal noun (masdar) of ramada (with a kasra on the ’ayn), meaning: "when it burned." In Shams al-’Ulum, it is noted as one of the verbal nouns in which the action forms are shared, like fa’lan (with a fatha on the fa’), and it mostly comes in the sense of coming, going, and agitation, like khafaqan (palpitation), ’asalan (running), and lama’an (shining). It has also come for meanings other than coming and going, as in shana’tuhu shana’anan when you hate him. Therefore, what is in the Bahr (al-Muhit) claiming that its being a verbal noun requires textual evidence—on the basis that fa’lan is not the masdar of an intransitive verb and if any exists it would be anomalous—is better viewed as murtajal (original/untransferred) rather than transferred, and this claim [in the Bahr] stems from a lack of research.
Al-Khalil says: It is from the ramad (with a sukun on the mim), which is rain that comes before autumn, cleansing the face of the earth from dust. The combination of the mudaf and the mudaf ilayh has been made a proper noun for the known month; were it not for that, the annexation (idafa) of "month" to it would not be elegant, just as "human of Zayd" is not elegant. The annexation of a general term to a specific term is only correct if it is well-known that the specific is one of its members; this is why "month of Rajab" or "month of Sha’ban" is not heard. In short, they have agreed that the proper noun in three months is the combination of the mudaf and the mudaf ilayh: shahr Ramadan, shahr Rabi’ al-Awwal, and shahr Rabi’ al-Thani. In the remaining ones, "month" is not annexed to them. Some have composed this, saying: "Do not annex 'month' to the name of a month, except for what the beginning is mentioned." He excluded Rajab from it, for it is forbidden because, in what they reported, it was not heard.
Regarding the annexation, one considers the causes for preventing declension (sarf), and the prohibition or obligation of the lam (definite article) in the state of the mudaf ilayh. Therefore, it is forbidden in the likes of "shahr Ramadan" and "Ibn Dayah" to be declined or to enter the lam. It is declined in the likes of "shahr Rabi’ al-Awwal" and "Ibn Abbas," and it comes with the lam in the likes of "Imru’ al-Qays" because it became a part [of the name] while it was being decorated with the lam. It is permitted in the likes of "Ibn Abbas"—as for its entry, it is because of looking to the origin, and as for its absence, it is because of its being bare in the origin. Based on this, phrases like "Whoever fasts Ramadan" [are used] by deleting the part of the proper noun to avoid confusion. This is what is said, but there is debate here: Firstly, because the annexation of the general to the specific returns to taste (dhawq); this is why it is elegant at times, like "trees of Arak," and ugly at others, like "human of Zayd." Its ugliness in "shahr Ramadan" is not recognized except by one whose taste has changed due to the effects of fasting. Secondly, because their saying "it was not heard [about] month of Rajab" is something heard among the later scholars and has no origin. In Sharh al-Tashil, it is permitted to annex "month" to all names of the months, which is the opinion of most grammarians; therefore, the claim of consensus is not agreed upon. The origin of the later scholars' error is what is in Adab al-Katib, that it is a convention of the scribes. He said: Because when they established the calendar in the time of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and made the beginning of the year Muharram, they would not write "month" in their dates except with Ramadan and the two Rabi’s. Thus, it is a conventional matter, not a linguistic-lexical one. Its justification in "Ramadan" is the agreement with the Quran, and in Rabi’, the separation from the separation. That is why Sibawayh validated the permissibility of annexing "month" to all month names, and he differentiated between its mention and its absence by stating that where it is mentioned, it does not imply generalization, and where it is deleted, it does. Based on this, the difference between "human of Zayd" and "shahr Ramadan" appears, and the crescent of that [month] is not obscured. Thirdly, because his saying "then in the annexation..." is something the grammarians explicitly differed on, for "Ibn Dayah" was heard being prevented from declension and also being declined... [The discussion continues on the nature of the proper noun being the combination].
In summary, the reliable view is that "Ramadan" alone is the proper noun, and it is a generic proper noun for what you know. Some forbade saying "Ramadan" without "month" based on what Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu al-Shaykh, Ibn ’Adi, al-Bayhaqi, and al-Daylami reported from Abu Hurayrah, both marfu’ and mawquf: "Do not say 'Ramadan', for Ramadan is one of the names of Allah the Exalted; rather say 'the month of Ramadan'." Mujahid held this view. The correct [view] is that it is permissible, as it has been narrated in the Sahih, and the precaution is not hidden. The month was named so because sins are "burnt" (tarmadu) in it; Ibn Umar said this, and it was narrated from Anas and ’Aisha as marfu’ to the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with him). It is also said: because it occurred during the days of the burning heat, when they transferred the names of the months from the ancient language, and its name before that was Natiq. Perhaps what was narrated from him (may Allah be pleased with him) is explaining what the mode of naming should be for Muslims; otherwise, this name existed long before the obligation of fasting, as is apparent.
(In which the Quran was revealed) That is, its revelation was initiated in it. That was the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr), as Ibn Ishaq said. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Ibn Jubayr, and al-Hasan that it was revealed in its entirety to the lowest heaven, then revealed in stages to the earth over twenty-three years. It is also said: The Quran was revealed concerning its affair, which is His saying: "Fasting is prescribed for you." Imam Ahmad and al-Tabarani reported from the hadith of Wa’ilah ibn al-Asqa’ from the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: "The scrolls of Abraham were revealed on the first night of Ramadan, the Torah was revealed after six days passed, the Gospel after thirteen, and the Quran after twenty-four." Since there is a great correspondence between fasting and the revelation of divine books, this month, which is distinguished by their revelation, is also distinguished by fasting, which is a great type of sign of servitude and a strong cause for removing the human attachments that prevent the radiance of divine lights.
(A guidance for the people and clear proofs of the guidance and the Criterion) These are two necessary states (hal) from the "Quran," and the operator for both is "revealed" (unzila). That is, it was revealed while being a guidance for the people through its miracle that is specific to it, as suggested by the indefiniteness, and clear signs among the divine books that guide to the truth and distinguish between truth and falsehood by their inclusion of divine knowledge and practical rulings, as suggested by making it "clear proofs from it." Thus, it is a guide by means of two things, specific and non-specific; therefore, "guidance" is not redundant. It is said: It is redundant for the sake of glorification and exaltation of its affair, and to emphasize the meaning of guidance in it, as you say "a scholar, a writer."
(So whoever among you witnesses the month, let him fast it) "Whoever" (man) is conditional or relative, and the fa is either the response to the condition or redundant in the predicate. "Among you" (minkum) is in the position of the accusative as a state (hal) from the hidden [pronoun] in "witnesses" (shahida). This restriction is to exclude the child and the insane. "Witnesses" (shahida) is from shuhud (presence/witnessing); the structure indicates attendance, either physically or by knowledge. It has been said that it implies either of these here. "The month," in the first case, is an adverbial object of place; the direct object is left out because there is no goal in mentioning it, so estimating "the town or city" is not substantial. In the second case, it is a direct object with the omission of the genitive (mudaf), meaning "the crescent of the month." In both estimates, the al is for familiarity (’ahd), and the noun is used in place of the pronoun for glorification. The accusative of the attached pronoun in "fast it" (yasumhu) is by extension, because "fast" (sama) is intransitive. The meaning is: "Whoever is present in the month and is not a traveler, let him fast in it," or "Whoever knows of the crescent of the month and is certain of it, let him fast." The content of the verse based on this is the non-obligation of fasting for one who is in doubt about the crescent. The genitive was estimated because witnessing the month in its entirety only happens after its completion, and there is no meaning in the obligation of fasting being contingent upon it after its completion. Based on this, His saying: "And whoever is sick or on a journey, then a number of other days" is a specification with respect to both the sick and the traveler. Based on the first [view], it is a specification with respect to the first but not the second, and its repetition then is for that specification, or to prevent it from being thought abrogated as its peer was abrogated. The first, as they say, is according to the opinion of those who stipulated that the specifier must be delayed and connected, and the second is according to the opinion of those who permitted it to be preceding. This is by making the specifier the previous verse. "What" here is merely to repel confusion. The first meaning is favored by not needing estimation and by the fact that the fa in "so whoever witnesses" falls in its place, detailing what was generalized in His saying: "the month of Ramadan" regarding the obligation of glorification derived from what follows it, for everyone who reaches it, whether present or traveling. So whoever is present, his ruling is such-and-such, etc. It is not elegant to say "whoever knows the crescent let him fast" and "whoever is sick... then let him make it up," because the inclusion of the second category in the first occurs, and the detailed conjunction requires distinction between them. So it is said, but mentioning the sick strengthens its being a specifier, as it is included in "whoever witnesses" according to both views. That is why most grammarians went to the view that "the month" is a direct object, and the fa is for causality or sequence, not for detailing.
(Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship) ... out of the utmost compassion and vast mercy. The Mu’tazilah used the verse as evidence that sometimes there occurs from the servant that which Allah does not want, because if the sick and the traveler fast until the fasting exhausts them, they have acted contrary to what Allah intended, for He intended ease and His intent did not occur. It was answered that Allah intended ease and not hardship for them by permitting the breaking of the fast, and this was achieved simply by the command in His saying: "then a number of other days" without any failure. In al-Bahr, it is interpreted that "intent" here means "the request," and in this is a commitment to the Mu’tazilite school that His (the Exalted) intent for the actions of the servants is an expression of the command, and that He did not "request" ease from us but rather legislated it for us. The interpretation of "ease" as "what is easy" is far-fetched.
(And so that you may complete the period, and glorify Allah for that which He has guided you, and so that you may be thankful) This is the cause for an omitted verb indicated by "So whoever among you witnesses the month..." etc. That is: He legislated for you the totality of what was mentioned—the command for the witness to fast the month, derived from His saying "let him fast it," and the command for the excused person to make up the days whether consecutively or separately, and to observe the number of days he broke the fast without any reduction, derived from His saying "a number of other days," and the permission derived from His saying "Allah intends for you ease..." Or it is from His saying "a number of days..." etc. for you to "complete..." etc. The first is the cause for the command to observe the count of the month by performance during the state of witnessing the month, and by making up the fast in the state of breaking it for an excuse; thus it is the cause for two caused things. Meaning: We commanded you with these two matters so that you may complete the count of the month by performance or making it up, and thereby attain its benefits, and nothing of its blessings escapes you, whether its days are reduced or complete.
(And to glorify Allah) is the cause for the command to make it up and an explanation of its manner. (And so that you may be thankful) is the cause for the permission and ease. The change of style is to point to this desired object as a hoped-for thing due to the strength of the causes involved in its attainment, which is the appearance of the permission being a favor, and the addressee is certain of the completeness of His compassion and generosity without losing the blessings of the month. This is a type of laff (intertwining) with a subtle path that is rarely guided to, because the requirement of the surface meaning would be to omit the waw (and) because they are causes for what preceded. Therefore, he said—he who has not reached the degree of perfection—that it is redundant, or a conjunction to an estimated cause. The justification for his choice: as for the first, it is apparent; and as for the second, it is because of the increased care for the previous rulings without artificiality, because the estimated verb, being inclusive of what preceded in summary, makes what preceded a sign of it while keeping the justification as it is. Because it is different from it in summary and detail, it is correct to conjoin it to it. In mentioning the rulings in detail first and in summary second, and justifying them without specification, there is confidence in the listener's understanding that he considers them time after time and returns each cause to what is appropriate for it, which contains a level of care that is not hidden. It is permitted that they be causes for estimated verbs, each verb with its cause, and the estimation: "And so that you complete the number of days, He obligated for you a number of other days," "And that you glorify Allah for what He guided you," [meaning] He taught you the manner of making it up, "And that you may be thankful," [meaning] He permitted you to break the fast. If you wish, you can make it conjoined to an estimated cause, i.e., "so that it may be easy for you," or "so that you may know what you are doing," and "so that you complete..." etc. And make the combination a cause for the previous rulings, either by considering them themselves or by considering the informing of them. So his saying "so that it may be easy" or "so that you may know" is a cause for what preceded considering the information, and what is after it is a cause for the rulings mentioned as passed. You may also not estimate anything at all and make the conjunction to "ease," i.e., "He intends for you [ease] so that you complete..." etc., and the lam is redundant, with "that" (an) estimated after it. It was added, as is said, after the verb of intent as an emphasis for it, because of the meaning of intent in it, in your saying "I came to you for your honoring." It is said: it is in the meaning of "that," as in satisfaction, except that this view necessitates that "and so that you may be thankful" be a conjunction to "intends," for there is no meaning to our saying "He intends... [so that] you may be thankful." At that point, the separation between the conjoined parts occurs, and it is far-fetched. Because of the necessity of this view for that, and the frequency of omission in some of the previous views and the hidden nature of some of them, some have turned away from all of them and made the speech from the leaning to the meaning, because what preceded it is a cause for the permission; it is as if it were said: "You were permitted in that because of His intent for ease for you," rather than "so that you may complete..." etc. What is most appropriate for the concern of the Great Book is not hidden from you.
The intended meaning of "glorification" is praise and extolling metaphorically, because it is a member of it; for this reason, it is connected with ’ala (on). Considering it as implication, i.e., "that you glorify while praising," is not considered, because praise is the very act of glorification. Because it is, upon this, a verbal worship, it is fitting to make it the cause for the command to make up [the fast], which is also a verbal blessing. Ibn al-Mundhir and others reported from Zayd ibn Aslam that the intended meaning is the glorification on the day of Eid. It is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that it is the glorification at the sighting [of the moon]. Ibn Jarir reported from him that he said: "It is a right upon the Muslims, when they see the crescent of Shawwal, that they glorify Allah the Exalted until they finish their Eid, because Allah the Exalted says: 'And so that you may complete the period and glorify Allah'." According to these two opinions, it does not fit the justification of the previous rulings. "What" (ma) can be a verbal noun or a relative pronoun, i.e., "that which He guided you to." The meaning of "gratitude" is more general than praise, and for this reason, it is fitting that its request be a cause for the permission, which is an active blessing. Abu Bakr reported from ’Asim: "And so that you complete" (li-tukammilu) with the shaddah.
