# Is the daytime ban on eating and intimacy in Ramadan stated in the Quran or inferred?

*Reading 2:187 in full: mafhum al-mukhalafa, a hypothetical Quranist, and verses that need the tradition*

- URL: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/onzjd7xmdhe/s/22/
- Date: 2025-10-18 · Kind: discussion · Transcript tier: machine · Recording: Br Muhammad MFG | Quranist Only Belief - A Dialogue | MindTrap #82 - Mufti Abu Layth (1:50:02–1:55:37)
- Status: latest answer on its topic; general teaching
- Watch from the start of the segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONzjD7XMDhE&t=6602s
- Recording page: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/onzjd7xmdhe/

**Topics:** Legal theory and method; What breaks the fast; Quran-only movement

**Summary (not a quotation; machine-made, unchecked):** The daytime prohibition of eating and intimacy in Ramadan comes from 2:187 by mafhum al-mukhalafa, an adverse inference Mufti Abu Layth accepts but which is not the explicit reading, so some verses need the tradition's explanation; the guest says each reader is rewarded according to his understanding.

## Longer summary

The guest reads 2:187, that it is lawful on the night of the fast to approach one's wives and to eat and drink until the white thread of dawn, then to complete the fast until night, and asks whether Mufti Abu Layth honestly thinks it allows intercourse by day. Mufti says he is not saying that; the verse does not state the daytime prohibition, so the guest is using reason to complete it. He explains that in usul al-fiqh this is mafhum al-mukhalafa, the adverse judgment, a fifth category of textual indication that some accept and some do not, distinct from the explicit wording and the other indications; he accepts it himself, but it is not the explicit reading. He proposes a hypothetical: another Quranist reads the verse as not prohibiting intercourse by day. The guest says he could, and that everyone will present to God what he built: a five-minute prayer earns a five-minute reward, an incorrect understanding has its consequence and a better one its reward, which is how the Book is a living book. Asked what he would say to such a reader, Mufti says he would call it wrong because he believes in the Islamic tradition, which taught otherwise; the guest says Mufti thereby admits the verse is sufficient and that the problem lies in the reader. Mufti says his argument is that some verses, not all, require explanation by the people of the tradition who studied it, with whom one need not always agree but who set out rules.

## Sources and names cited

- Br Muhammad (MFG, MuhammadFromGod channel)
- Quran 2:187 (lawful for you on the night of the fast; eat and drink until the white thread): https://quran.com/2/187
- mafhum al-mukhalafa (adverse inference)
- usul al-fiqh

## Transcript (machine tier, 1:50:02–1:55:37)

[1:49:48] Some people I infer it from that. Now you say well look I no that's wrong. It's not even I disagree with your inference. It's wrong. Now I asked you what breaks the fast and can you show me where Allah says this? Now you show a verse where Allah does not say it. Now you say oh but you can infer it. So I said but I want you to show me through the Quran where Allah says it.

[1:50:12] So when lawful for you the night of the abstinence to lust after your wives. So this inference is not is not accurate  that therefore when he says lawful for you is the night of the abstinence the fasting to go after your wives. They are covering for you and you are covering for them. God knows that you have been cheating yourself. So he has forgiven you and has pardoned you. So copulate with them now and seek what God has decreed for you and eat and drink.

[1:50:39] Eat and drink until the threadish white becomes clear to you. Okay. From the black thread of dawn, then conclude the abstinence at night. So you're saying that this verse is clearly telling you that during the morning during the morning that you can have sex with your wives. Is that that's what you're understanding from this verse? Be honest.  No. So no, I'm I'm being very honest with you. It's not I'm not saying it allows you to do that. I'm saying you can No. No. Listen.

[1:51:04] You can infer but the verse doesn't explicitly say. So you're using reason to complete what is missing in the verse. The verse does not say this. The verse does not say you cannot have intercourse during the day. It does not say this.  So let me present to you what you're doing. So you're going so lawful for you is the night of the abstinence to lust after your wives. Oh okay. So wives are there and therefore it is talking about uh the best wife you have.

[1:51:33] Look what I'm what I'm trying to say to you look uh uh Muhammad is that by your principle the you see inul you have something known as you have is you have right you have right now this what you're speaking about is the fifth category which some don't accept and some do it's called okay inul this is called adverse judgment that when a verse comes It states something but we can take the adverse ruling to also and assert that as a ruling.

[1:52:10] Now this is practiced by faukah of Islam. I too accept malif but it is not from the ibara from the explicit reading. It's not even from the dalala or the ishara in that sense. You're taking it as a as an adverse judgment. Now look that's fine but my point of saying this is that look you were discussing a moment ago about clear readings of the Quran. Would it be acceptable for me to say because a moment ago you said look for salah Quranists can come and whatever they engage the Quran with like you engage it like let's say another Quranist comes here now his name I don't know let's say some some person I'm going to pick a

[1:52:50] random name from here right called somebody is called jetim right now this person comes and he says look I'm going to interpret salah like this could he interpret s differently  yes  so he could say to him. He feels that he during the day doesn't violate.  Sure. And guess what? So the way that this works Yeah. The way that this works, whatever, that's what I want you to understand.

[1:53:15] Yeah.  Yeah. Yeah. And whatever you're going to be presenting yourself in the day of judgment with what God is revealing to you. And if you had an understanding that you could have been wrong and you persisted to be wrong, then you're going to get what you built. You see what I mean? So if somebody gives a five minute prayer, he's going to get the reward of a five-minute prayer. And if somebody's going to pray for 30 minutes, that's the reward that he's going to get. If somebody has a understanding of the verse and it's an incorrect understanding, he's going to get the consequence of that understanding.

[1:53:43] And if somebody has a better understanding, he's going to get the reward both here and in the hereafter. So this is how the book itself is a living book. The closer you are to the truth, the better your life is. If somebody is going to come and tell me that abstinence means that you can't talk for the day and you show them clearly in the Quran that it's talking about sex, it's talking about food, it's talking, that's what and that's fine. That's fine. If you want to play that kind of argumentation, I'm just saying that person came and said this is talking about hypothetically.

[1:54:15] So if a person said that's about the night but it doesn't say it's not in the day interpretation now  cool but according to me and you if someone made that interpretation what would you say  I would say it's wrong I would say it's wrong because obviously I believe in the Islamic tradition and the tradition has taught us  the tradition the the verse is not sufficient to tell you that  is sufficient no so the verse has an adverse judgment  so what a minute so you're you're agreeing that the verse is sufficient and you're arguing that because the person is not understanding what the verse is clearly saying.

[1:54:47] I'm going to need your tradition.  When a person, you see, because when a person says, So, here's the argument. The argument is saying that there are verses of the Quran, not all, but there are some verses of the Quran that do require explanation by the people that are of the tradition. Allah says in the people of revelation no it's of the people of the Quran the people who have who who else are referring to no it's no but the people of the tradition the people of the tradition of the Quran that have studied it the tradition the

[1:55:26] the the you don't have to agree with all of them I don't we don't agree with all of them but they highlight rules okay look let's not I don't want to just you know go off stay too much on one point. Look here's an interesting point. This theory that look cuz and sorry the final concluding point is if everything in the Quran is already locked does our reason have some play?

## Cite

Mufti Abu Layth Archive, segment ONzjD7XMDhE/s/22. https://muftiabulayth.org/r/onzjd7xmdhe/s/22/

Not a fatwa: these answers were given to specific people at specific times. Ask a qualified scholar about your own situation.