an excuse for which he has no control, so it is like menstruation.

Section: If he breaks his fast due to travel that permits breaking the fast, there are two possibilities in the words of Ahmad; the more apparent of which is that it does not break the continuity. For he said in the narration of al-Athram: "Travel is different from illness, and it is not appropriate for it to be more emphasized than Ramadan." The apparent meaning of this is that it does not break the continuity. This is the view of al-Hasan. It is also possible that it does break the continuity, which is the view of Malik and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y). The scholars of the Shafi'i school have differed; some of them said: There are two views regarding it, as in the case of illness. Others say: The continuity is broken, as a single definitive position, because travel occurs by his own choice, so it breaks the continuity, just as if he had broken his fast without an excuse. The argument for the first view is that it is a breaking of the fast for an excuse that permits breaking the fast, so it does not break the continuity, like a woman's breaking of the fast due to menstruation; it differs from breaking the fast without an excuse, as that is not permitted. If he eats thinking that dawn has not broken, while it had already broken, or breaks the fast thinking that the sun has set, while it has not, he has broken his fast. There is a deduction regarding the interruption of continuity involving two views; one of them is that it does not break it, because it is a breaking of the fast due to an excuse. The second is that it breaks the continuity, because it is an act in which he erred, so it is similar to when he thinks he has completed the two months and it turns out otherwise. If he breaks his fast while forgetting the obligation of continuity, or being ignorant of it, or thinking he has completed the two months, the continuity is broken, because he broke his fast due to his ignorance, so he broke the continuity, just as if he thought the requirement was one month. If he is compelled to eat or drink, such as by having food or drink forced upon him, he does not break his fast. If he eats out of fear, al-Qadi said: He does not break his fast. He mentioned nothing else. There is another view regarding this, which is that he does break his fast. On that basis, does it break the continuity? There are two views; one of them is that it does not break it, because it is an excuse that permits breaking the fast, so it is like illness. The second is that the continuity is broken, and this is the school of al-Shafi'i, because he broke his fast by his own action due to a rare excuse.