it was obligatory [then breaking one's fast was not permitted], for "abstaining" was only termed "fasting" metaphorically, as evidenced by his statement: "Whoever has entered the day in a state of breaking the fast, let him fast the remainder of his day." He did not distinguish between one who broke the fast by eating and one who did otherwise. Al-Bukhari (7) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) ordered a man: "Announce to the people that whoever has eaten, let him fast the remainder of his day." Abstaining for the remainder of the day after eating is not a legal fast, but he termed it "fasting" metaphorically. Furthermore, even if it were established that it is a fast, the difference between it and Ramadan is that the obligation of fasting was renewed in the middle of the day, so the intention sufficed for him at the time the obligation was renewed, like someone who was fasting a voluntary fast and then vowed to complete the fast for the rest of his day; his intention at the time of his vow suffices him, unlike when the vow precedes it. The difference between voluntary and obligatory fasts is twofold: First, the voluntary fast can be initiated during part of the day, provided there are no breakages at its beginning, as evidenced by his statement (peace be upon him) in the hadith of 'Ashura': "Let him fast the remainder of his day." Thus, if one intends the voluntary fast during the day, he is considered fasting for the remainder of the day, though not for its beginning, whereas the obligatory fast must be held (8) throughout the entire day, and one cannot be fasting without the intention. Second, the voluntary fast is treated with leniency regarding the intention from the night in order to encourage it, for the intention to fast may occur to a person during the day, and requiring the intention from the night would prevent that; therefore, the Shari'a made it easier, just as it made it easier to omit standing in a voluntary prayer, or to omit facing the qibla in it while traveling, in order to encourage it, unlike the obligatory fast. Once this is established, if one intends it at any part of the night, it suffices him, regardless of whether he performed acts that invalidate the fast, such as eating, drinking, or sexual intercourse, after the intention or (9) did not. Some of al-Shafi'i's companions stipulated that one must not commit an act invalidating the fast after the intention. Some of them stipulated that the intention must exist during the latter half of the night, just as the adhan for dawn and departing from Muzdalifah are restricted to that time. Our evidence is the implication of his statement (peace be upon him): "There is no fast for one who does not resolve to fast from the night" (10), without further detail; and because he intended it from the night, his fast is valid, just as if he had intended it during the latter half of the night and did not do anything that invalidates the fast; and because restricting the intention to the latter half of the night leads to missing the fast, as it is the time of sleep, and many people do not wake up then nor remember to fast. The Lawgiver (the Prophet) only granted a concession to advance the intention before its commencement due to the difficulty of considering it at the start, so it should not be restricted to a place where the hardship is not alleviated by such a restriction. Furthermore, restricting it to the latter half of the night is an arbitrary imposition without evidence, and it is not valid to equate fasting with the adhan and the departure from Muzdalifah, because both of those are permissible after dawn, so preventing them in the first half does not lead to missing them, unlike the intention for fasting. Additionally, their restriction to the latter half is in terms of their permissibility, whereas stipulating the intention is a matter of obligation and necessity, such that missing the fast results from missing it during that time, which involves hardship and harm, unlike mere permissibility. Moreover, preventing them in the first half does not lead to their being restricted to the latter half, because they are permitted after dawn, while the intention for fasting is different. As for if he annulled the intention, such as if he intended to break the fast after having intended to fast, that annulled intention does not suffice him, because it has ceased to exist both in ruling and in reality.

Section: If one intends on the day [for the following day] to fast, that intention does not suffice him, unless he carries it over to a part of the night. Ibn Mansur narrated from Ahmad, regarding someone who intends to fast to make up for Ramadan during the day without having intended it from the night, that there is no harm in it, unless he had annulled the intention after that. The apparent meaning of this is that the intention suffices when made during the day, except that al-Qadi said: "This is construed as meaning that he carried the intention over to a part of the night." This is correct.