to him, and therefore it does not suffice him. Furthermore, the intention is one of the two pillars of fasting, so it does not suffice on its own, just as withholding alone does not suffice. As for sleep, it is a habit and does not remove awareness completely; whenever one is awakened, they wake up. Unconsciousness, however, is an ailment that removes intellect, so it resembles insanity. If this is established, the loss of intellect occurs in three ways: The first is unconsciousness, which we have already mentioned. Whenever the fast is invalidated by it, the unconscious person must make it up, without any disagreement that we are aware of; this is because its duration is not typically prolonged, and legal guardianship is not established over the person in that state, so the obligation of worship and making up for it does not cease, just like in sleep. Whenever the unconscious person regains consciousness in any part of the day, his fast is valid, whether it is at the beginning or the end of it. Al-Shafi'i said, in one of his two opinions: Consciousness must be regained at the beginning of the day, so that the ruling of the intention is achieved at the start of it. Our argument is that consciousness was regained in a part of the day, so it suffices, just as if it were found at the beginning of it. What they mentioned is not correct; for the intention has already been achieved from the night, so there is no need to repeat it during the day, just as if he had slept or been heedless of the fast. If the intention were only achieved by regaining consciousness during the day, the obligatory fast would not be valid through that regaining of consciousness, because it does not suffice with an intention made during the day. The second is sleep, which does not affect the fast, whether it occurs throughout the entire day or only part of it. The third is insanity, and its ruling is the same as that of unconsciousness, except that if it occurs during the entire day, making up for it is not required. Abu Hanifa said: Whenever an insane person regains consciousness in any part of Ramadan, he is obligated to make up for what has passed of it; because he attained a part of Ramadan while being sane, so fasting it became binding upon him, just as if he had regained consciousness in a part of the day. Al-Shafi'i said: If insanity is present in any part of the day, it invalidates the fast; because it is a condition that prevents the obligation of fasting, so its presence in any part of it invalidates it, like menstruation. Our argument is that it is a condition...