and in it is evidence for the permissibility of the judge breaking the fast and making up a day in its place, even though there is the aforementioned discussion. However, the burden of proof is on the one who claims that it is not permissible for the judge to break the fast. I say: Firstly, the ḥadīth does not contain what he claimed regarding permissibility, and the command to make up the fast does not necessarily imply the permissibility of breaking it, as is clear, if Allāh wills. Do you not see that it is not permissible to break the fast in Ramaḍān through intercourse by consensus, and yet the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) commanded the one who broke it to make up a day in its place along with the expiation, and this is established through its various chains, as I have explained in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abū Dāwūd" (2073). For this reason, al-Ḥāfiẓ strengthened it, and al-Shawkānī himself followed him in "al-Nayl" (4/184-185) and in "al-Sayl" (2/120-121). So his (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) command to Umm Hāniʾ to make up the fast if she had broken it does not mean the permissibility of what she did, especially since her breaking the fast was from a voluntary fast. Secondly, she said in a narration by al-Tirmidhī and others: "I have sinned, so seek forgiveness for me." He said: "And what is that?" She said: "I was fasting and then broke it." He said: "Was it a fast you were making up?" She said: No. So, when she admitted her mistake in her assumption, there was no room to deny her breaking the fast—even if it was a make-up fast—and all that remained was to clarify the obligation to repeat it, and this is what the ḥadīth indicates. Abū Dāwūd added in a narration following what was mentioned: "He said: It does not harm you if it was a voluntary fast." Its implication is that it would harm her if it was a make-up fast. This is clear, if Allāh wills. Thirdly, the evidence is considering the original ruling, just as it is not permissible to invalidate the fast in Ramaḍān without an excuse, likewise, it is not permissible to break a make-up fast, and whoever differentiates must provide evidence
" وفيه دليل على جواز إفطار القاضي ويقضي يوما مكانه وإن كان فيه المقال المتقدم ولكن الدليل على من قال: إنه لا يجوز إفطار القاضي ". وأقول: أولا: ليس في الحديث ما ادعاه من الجواز والأمر بالقضاء لا يستلزم جواز الإفطار فيه، كما لا يخفى إن شاء الله تعالى، ألا ترى أنه لا يجوز الإفطار في رمضان بالجماع اتفاقا ومع ذلك أمر صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي أفطر به أن يقضي يوما مكانه مع الكفارة وهو ثابت بمجموع طرقه كما بينته في " صحيح أبي داود " (٢٠٧٣) ولذلك قواه الحافظ وتبعه الشوكاني نفسه في " النيل " (٤ / ١٨٤ - ١٨٥) وفي " السيل " (٢ / ١٢٠ - ١٢١) ، فأمره ﷺ بالقضاء لأم هانىء لو كانت أفطرت منه لا يعني جواز ما فعلت، فكيف وإفطارها كان من تطوع؟ ثانيا: أنها قالت في رواية للترمذي وغيره: " إني أذنبت فاستغفر لي "، فقال: " وما ذاك؟ "، قالت: كنت صائمة فأفطرت. فقال: " أمن قضاء كنت تقضينه؟ "، قالت: لا. فإذا اعترفت بخطئها في ظنها لم يبق مجال لينكر عليها إفطارها - ولو كان من القضاء - ولم يبق إلا أن يبين لها وجوب إعادته، وهذا هو ما دل عليه الحديث. وزاد أبو داود في رواية عقب ما تقدم: " قال: فلا يضرك إن كان تطوعا ". ومفهومه أنه يضرها لو كان قضاء. وهذا واضح إن شاء الله. ثالثا: الدليل هو اعتبار الأصل، فكما لا يجوز إبطال الصيام في رمضان بدون عذر، فكذلك لا يجوز إفطار قضائه ومن فرق فعليه الدليل.