by intentions" (19). Does he not mean that he must intend that it is from Ramadan? He said: No, if he intends from the night that he is fasting, it suffices him. Abu Hafs al-Ukbari narrated from some of our companions that he said: If he intended to fast a voluntary fast on the night of the thirtieth of Ramadan, and it happened to coincide with Ramadan, it suffices him. The Qadi said: I found this statement as a preferred view of Abu al-Qasim, which he mentioned in his "Sharh". Abu Hafs said: It does not suffice him unless he believes from the night without doubt or hesitation (21). Thus, according to the second opinion: If he intended to fast during Ramadan in an absolute sense, or intended a voluntary fast, it counts for Ramadan, and his fast is valid. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa if he was a resident, because it is an obligatory duty due at a specific time, so it is not necessary to specify the intention for it, like the circumambulation of visitation (Tawaf al-Ziyarah). Our argument is that it is an obligatory fast, so it is necessary to specify the intention for it, like making up a missed fast and the Tawaf al-Ziyarah, as in our issue regarding its need for specification. If he performed Tawaf intending it for the Farewell Tawaf (Tawaf al-Wada'), or performed Tawaf with the intention of Tawaf in an absolute sense, it does not suffice for the Tawaf al-Ziyarah. Furthermore, Hajj [differs from fasting], and for this reason, it is contracted in an absolute sense and is diverted to the obligatory. If he performed Hajj on behalf of another and had not yet performed Hajj for himself, it counts for himself. And if he intended to enter into Ihram with the same intent as so-and-so, it is valid, and it is contracted as corrupt, unlike fasting.
Section: If he intends on the night of doubt, "If tomorrow is from Ramadan, I am fasting it as an obligation, otherwise it is voluntary," it does not suffice him according to the first narration because he did not firmly specify the fast of Ramadan, but it does suffice him according to the other because he has intended to fast. If he had a fast to make up from the year 1405, and he intended that he is fasting for the year 1406, or intended the fast for Sunday while it was Monday, or thought that tomorrow was Sunday and intended it, and it was Monday, his fast is valid because the intention to fast itself did not fail, but rather he was mistaken (23) regarding the time.
(19) Its verification was provided previously in 1/156. (20) In manuscript M, there is an addition: "as a voluntary act, it counts for Ramadan, and his fast is valid. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifa. Some of our companions said: Even if he intended". This is a repetition of what will come shortly after. (21) In the original: "talawwum" (hesitation). (22) In A, B, and M: "differs from fasting".
بِالنِّيَّاتِ" (١٩). أليس يُرِيدُ أن يَنْوِىَ أنَّه مِن رمضانَ؟ قال: لا، إذا نَوَى من اللَّيْلِ
أَنَّه صَائِمٌ أجْزَأهُ. وحَكَى أبو حَفْصٍ العُكْبَرِىُّ، عن بعضِ أصْحابِنَا أنَّه قال: ولو نَوَى (٢٠) أن يَصُومَ تَطَوُّعًا لَيْلَةَ الثَّلَاثِينَ من رمضانَ، فوَافَقَ رمضانَ، أجْزَأَهُ. قال القاضى: وَجَدْتُ هذا الكَلامَ اخْتِيَارًا لأبى القاسمِ، ذَكَرَهُ في "شَرْحِه". وقال أبو حَفْصٍ: لا يُجْزِئُه، إلَّا أن يَعْتَقِدَ من اللَّيْلِ بلا شَكٍّ ولا تَلَوُّمٍ (٢١). فعلَى القَوْلِ الثانِى: لو نَوَى في رمضانَ الصَّوْمَ مُطْلَقًا، أو نَوَى نَفْلًا، وَقَع عن رمضانَ، وصَحَّ صَوْمُه. وهذا قَوْلُ أبى حنيفةَ إذا كان مُقِيمًا؛ لأنَّه فَرْضٌ مُستْحَقٌّ في زَمَنٍ بِعَيْنِه، فلا يَجِبُ تَعْيِينُ النِّيَّةِ له، كطَوَافِ الزِّيَارَةِ. ولَنا، أنَّه صَوْمٌ واجِبٌ، فوَجَبَ تَعْيِينُ النِّيَّةِ له، كالقَضاءِ وطَوافِ الزِّيارَةِ، كمَسْأَلَتِنَا في افْتِقَارِه إلى التَّعْيِينِ، فلو طَافَ يَنْوِى به الوَدَاعَ، أو طَافَ بِنِيَّةِ الطَّوَافِ مُطْلَقًا، لم يُجْزِئْه عن طَوَافِ الزِّيَارَةِ. ثم الحَجُّ [يُخالِفُ الصَّوْمَ] (٢٢)، ولهذا يَنْعَقِدُ مُطْلَقًا، ويَنْصَرِفُ إلى الفَرْضِ. ولو حَجَّ عن غيرِه، ولم يَكُنْ حَجَّ عن نَفْسِه، وَقَعَ عن نَفْسِه. ولو نَوَى الإِحْرامَ بمثل ما أَحْرَمَ به فُلَانٌ، صَحَّ، ويَنْعَقِدُ فَاسِدًا، بخِلافِ الصَّوْمِ.
فصل: ولو نَوَى لَيْلَةَ الشَّكِّ، إن كان غَدًا من رمضانَ فأنا صَائِمٌ فَرْضًا، وإلَّا فهو نَفْلٌ. لم يُجْزِئْهُ، على الرِّوَايَةِ الأُولَى، لأنَّه لم يُعَيِّن الصَّوْمَ من رمضانَ جَزْمًا، ويُجْزِئُه على الأُخْرَى؛ لأنَّه قد نَوَى الصَّوْمَ. ولو كان عليه صَوْمٌ من سَنَة خَمْسٍ، فنَوَى أنَّه يَصُومُ عن سَنَة سِتٍّ، أو نَوَى الصَّوْمَ عن يَوْمِ الأحَدِ، وكان الاثْنَيْن، أو ظَنَّ أنَّ غَدًا الأحَدُ، فنَوَاهُ، وكان الاثْنَيْن، صَحَّ صَوْمُه؛ لأنَّ نِيَّةَ الصَّوْمِ لم تَخْتَلَّ،
(١٩) تقدم تخريجه في: ١/ ١٥٦.(٢٠) في م زيادة: "نفلا وقع عنه رمضان وصح صومه وهذا قول أبي حنيفة. وقال بعض أصحابنا: ولو نوى". وهو تكرار لما سيأتى بعد قليل.(٢١) في الأصل: "تلاوم".(٢٢) في أ، ب، م: "مخالف للصوم".
