as that is a concession (rukhsa), so it requires an intention to utilize the concession. What they mentioned is invalidated by [the rule of] continuity between the units of prayer (rak'at). The people of knowledge have reached a consensus that a woman fasting consecutively who menstruates before completing it, shall make it up once she becomes pure, and she shall continue [from where she left off]. This is because menstruation is unavoidable during the two months, unless she delays it until reaching menopause, which involves risking the fast, as she might die before then. Postnatal bleeding (nifas) is like menstruation in that it does not break the continuity, according to one of the two views, because it is on the same footing in its rulings, and because breaking the fast does not occur in either of these [states] by their own action; rather, that time is like the time of the night in relation to them. The second view is that postnatal bleeding does break the continuity because it is an act of breaking the fast that could have been avoided, and it does not recur every year, so it breaks the continuity, like breaking the fast without an excuse. It is not valid to draw an analogy to menstruation because it is rarer than it, and it is possible to avoid it. If she breaks the fast due to a dangerous illness, the continuity is also not broken. This is narrated from Ibn Abbas, and it is the view of Ibn al-Musayyab, al-Hasan, Ata', al-Sha'bi, Tawus, Mujahid, Malik, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, Abu Thawr, Ibn al-Mundhir, and al-Shafi'i in his early (qadim) view. In his later (jadid) view, he said: The continuity is broken. This is the view of Sa'id ibn Jubayr, al-Nakha'i, al-Hakam, al-Thawri, and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y), because he broke the fast by his own action, so it is mandatory for him to restart, just as if he had broken the fast for travel. Our view is that he broke the fast for a reason that was not of his own doing, so it did not break the continuity, like the woman breaking the fast for menstruation. What they mentioned regarding the principle is rejected. If the illness is not dangerous but permits breaking the fast, Abu al-Khattab said: There are two views regarding it; one of them is that it does not break the continuity because it is an illness that permits breaking the fast, similar to a dangerous one. The second is that it breaks the continuity because he broke the fast by choice, so the continuity is broken, just as if he had broken the fast without an excuse. As for the pregnant and breastfeeding woman, if they break their fast out of fear for themselves, they are like the sick person. If they break their fast out of fear for their children, there are two views; one of them is that the continuity is not broken. This was chosen by Abu al-Khattab because it is a breaking of the fast permitted for them due to a reason not related to their choice, so the continuity is not broken, just as if they had broken it out of fear for themselves. The second is that it is broken, because the fear is for others, and for that reason, they are obligated to pay a ransom along with the makeup. If he breaks the fast due to insanity or fainting, the continuity is not broken because it is