Length of a fast - my understanding of the view of Shaykh Arif on the key / obvious concerns/questions

An alternative way of looking at the length of the fast has been presented by the renowned UK scholar Shaykh Arif. 

Firstly, it is important to understand that these are reasoned and scholarly discussions that do not deserve derision / mockery but critique / analysis - and that the idea of a shorter fast has been previously promoted by Ayatullahs Makarim and Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi (e.g. see https://www.facebook.com/notes/miqdaad-versi/length-of-fasts-should-there-be-a-maximum/10152811508540981). This idea of a shorter fast has also gained public traction following the very minority ruling of the Sunni scholar Usama Hasan (https://unity1.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/fatwa-on-fasting-in-ramadan-during-the-uk-summer/). 

It is important to start by emphasising that this is a very minority opinion but one that should not be just ignored but deserves analysis. For those who are interested in the topic, please see http://miqdaad.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/length-of-fast-summary-of-article-about.html which provides a summary of an article Shaykh Arif is planning to publish on the topic.

However, below is a summary of my understanding of the position of Shaykh Arif on the issues that I have heard discussed.

-----------------------

Why is another ruling required? The mainstream opinion provides many opportunities for not fasting (e.g. illness, if you are on a journey, age, if a woman is on her period) or of breaking one's fast (health, hardship, danger, travelling) - which covers excessively long fasts as well. In addition, people have been doing this for many years. In addition, in Makkah, for many people, shorter fasts in extreme heat is harder – but this has not pushed to change the rule. So why do we need another rule now for here?

A) The traditional ruling does not provide an answer to the idea of fasting for, say, 23 hours - other than to travel, migrate or fast as long as possible (then re-do the fast later). Similarly, there is no answer for 1 or 2 hour fasts. Some sort of limit on each side, seems plausible. And when an entire community is facing a circumstance that makes the purpose of fasting difficult and not easy as outlined in the Qur'an [see below for details] (e.g. people might be fasting 20 hour fasts but are the majority able to fulfill the purpose of fasting when fasting 20 hours?) - then the rule itself has to be re-looked at.

B) Separately, these exceptions only allow an "all or nothing" option i.e. if you cannot fast the entire fast in a complete way, your fast does not count. However, what about someone who is able to do an "almost" fast but is prevented from doing so forever due to an illness - should they not be counted? For example, consider those suffering from some chronic illnesses (e.g. requiring one injection during the day) who based on the traditional ruling, would not be allowed to fast at all for the rest of their lives even if they could "almost" do so. Is this fair? (Note this is different from those who are temporarily ill, who have to pay fidya and do a qada fast as there is no duty on them as outlined in the Qur’an)

So what is the alternative rule suggested?

A) In order to remain true to the purpose of fasting as outlined in the Qur'an, there should be a maximum length of fasting that the community agrees to, which means that the community as a whole is able to easily reach the purpose of fasting. Similarly, there should be a minimum length of fasting. Also see question 8 below for the situation of a fast in extremely hot conditions.

B) For exceptions, a gradation approach for the fast conditions should be taken for those who are not able to perform a full fast for the remainder of their life. For example, consider an individual facing a chronic illness (e.g. diabetes) that requires the individual to do something that would normally break the fast (e.g. an injection) to prevent the person from harm. If a doctor believes that an injection would be sufficient to prevent the harm, then the minimum number of injections the doctor advises would be allowed, and the fast would be valid. However, the advice from the doctor should be sought on a case-by-case basis.

And of course, this is not for the majority of people - only for exceptions. 

And such an approach is not required for those who are explicitly exempted from fasting in the first place e.g. women on their period, those ill on a specific day / temporarily, those on a journey.

---------------------------

Question 1: The Qur’an says to “complete your fast until layl”. Why does it say this, if it is not meant as a condition of fasting?
[I am ignoring the question of whether layl means sunset or when the redness rises, as that requires a separate discussion]

Firstly, it is important to understand that just because a word is used in the Qur'an, does not mean that its literal meaning is the meaning in every circumstance.

For example, it says in the Qur'an: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands" (5:38) but this is not an absolute rule - all scholars agree that there are conditions for this to be applicable. Similarly, it is plausible that the "night" when referring to fasting in the Qur'an only has a literal meaning under certain circumstances - but not in the case where the length is excessively long.

In addition, the idea of “day” and “night” when used in the Qur’an may not be meant literally in terms of daylight but perhaps in terms of their function. This can be justified by the verses of the Qur’an that state, for example:

“And we have made the day for livelihood” (78:11) and “It is out of His Mercy that He has put for you night and day, that you may rest therein (i.e. during the night) and that you may seek of His Bounty (i.e. during the day), and in order that you may be grateful.” (28:73)

Therefore, it can be justifiably argued that “night” is not necessarily meaning the physical night - but it could be a "functional" night i.e. when you stop working.

Question 2: Whilst layl in the Qur’an could refer to a functional fast based to the answer to question 1, why not use the physical meaning of layl as that is the apparent (ẓāhir) or most likely meaning?

It is unanimously agreed that:

1.     The purpose of fasting, as mentioned in the Qur’an, is “to attain taqwa (God-consciousness)” (2:183).

2.     The whole of the section in the Qur’an on fasting (2:183-187), seems to be trying to demonstrate that fasting is something that is not meant to be extremely hard:

a.      Pre-Islamic fast: abstain from sexual intercourse even during the night-times and if you fall asleep and miss the night meal, you cannot eat even if you wake up before dawn. Islamic fast: these are all allowed as demonstrated in the verses.

b.     If you are ill or on a journey – then you do not need to fast

c.      And those who are able to fast but with hardship – do not need to fast

d.     “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship”

Now consider extremely long fasts, which impact on either (or both) of the above i.e. that do not help you become more God-conscious, and that is not in line with the idea of the fast not meant to be extremely hard. This supports the conclusion that perhaps layl might not mean a literal night and is functional – this will allow fasting to actually be in line with attaining taqwa (and self-development).

Question 3: What should be the length of fasting then? Would not any amount be arbitrary? Would it not be against the idea of a collective fast as a society, if everyone breaks their fast a different time?

In an ideal world, the collective Muslim body in a region should aim to have uniformity and choose a length of fast that is in line with the unanimously agreed principles of being possible to attain taqwa for the community (and more broadly to help develop one’s self), whilst also not being excessively difficult. Whilst there remains an element of arbitrariness about the choice made, that arbitrariness is preferable to the alternative of excessively long fasts.

Some argue that a way to deal with arbitrariness is to choose Makkah (or Karbala) - a place where the Prophet / Imams (AS) used to live (with a fast length of 12 hours, say). Now consider a community that believes 18 hours is the limit of a fast's length - in a nearby town where the fast length is 17 hours and 50 minutes, they would fast the full amount but a town a bit north, they would exceed the 18-hour boundary, and suddenly fast 12 hours. This major discrepancy is not a reasonable outcome.

Question 4: Based on the idea of aiming to attain taqwa, should there also be a fast that has a minimum length?

Extremely short fasts lack any difficulty and any discernible value – therefore, there should be a minimum length of fast as well, aligned with the above principles i.e. based on the agreement of the community.

Question 5: But why did the Prophet or Imams (AS) not make this modification to a functional rather than a physical night?

Whilst the 8^th Imam (AS) is said to have fasted in excess of 17 hours in Tus, the Imams (AS) never experienced excessively long fasts (17 hours would not be considered excessively long) or extremely short fasts. 

In addition, consider the example of the Hajj – where an earlier Imam said that tawaf of the Ka’ba should be between the Rukn and Maqam only (anything else is void) However, a later Imam said that there was no problem when asked by a companion due to the excessive number of pilgrims.

Therefore, given we have textual evidence of the purpose of fasting and more broadly, we understand the function of human existence to be development of the self, we can confidently claim that there is evidence that excessively long fasts does not align with its essence - and it is legitimate for us to make this assertion.

Question 6: Could this principle be extended to those who are unable to fast because of a chronic illness for example.

Yes – consider someone who is suffering from a long-term illness that does not allow them to fast the whole time e.g. needs injections every few hours – but is otherwise willing and capable of fasting. The traditional framework would not allow such individuals to fast at all, preventing them from all the physical, spiritual and cultural value of fasting. However, if they were allowed to eat / drink a small amount, they can still retain the purpose of fasting.

This can be supported by the fact that on one occasion a person came to the sixth Imam al-Sadiq and complained of the excessive thirst his daughter felt during the fast, the Imam allowed her to take sips of water and continue to fast. (I am yet to find the source of this narration)

The obvious question would be – why can this not be the solution to anyone living in a place with an excessively long fast i.e. why should their fast be shortened rather than giving them leeway like the case above. The response is that this is an exceptional rule rather than one for the masses.

Question 7: How is this different to the views of Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi and Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi?

The conclusion of Ayatullah Makarim Shirazi / Sayyid Sadiq Shirazi would mean that if someone lives in an area that has a dawn-sunset length of 17 hours and 50 minutes, they have to fast the entire amount; but if they lived further north and had a dawn-sunset length of 18 hours and 1 minute, they would be fasting a "normal" length of 16 hours - a major discrepancy.

This viewpoint (of Ay. Shirazi) does not allow the ability to fast for those with chronic illness and does not provide a solution for construction workers working in excessive heat, for example.

Question 8: Does this ruling also allow, like Ayatullah Zanjani, for a person who is suffering from extreme heat to sip water, if he cannot bear the heat, rather than not fast? Was this not experienced at the time of the Prophet / Imams – and if so, why is there no evidence that he allowed this?

Yes, the ruling does allow for this - because the core of this ruling is about the purpose of fasting, which is affected by extreme heat as well.  

There has not been the push from the Middle East to re-look at the ruling, which might demonstrate that it is not a serious concern for the vast majority of people in attaining its purpose – other than the exceptional cases of those out in the heat e.g. construction workers. This might be due to the fact that in such countries, there is a different working culture.

And the Prophet / Imams (AS) perhaps did not experience these exceptions. Furthermore, this can be supported by the narration above where a person came to the sixth Imam al-Sadiq and complained of the excessive thirst his daughter felt during the fast, after which the Imam allowed her to take sips of water and continue to fast. (I am yet to find the source of this narration).

Question 9: But is not the consequence of this ruling – that even prayer times might be changed?

There are two main reasons why there is a difference between prayers and fasting that provide greater evidence in the case of fasting:

1.      Quran says specifically about fasting – in the section about fasting – that “Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship”. This is a specific inclusion in the topic about fasting, which is not the case for fasting

2.      The purpose of fasting is explicitly mentioned in the text as “to attain taqwa” and therefore, it is legitimate to question what happens when the community as a whole determines that the length of the fast prevents the very purpose of the fast.

Not that my view counts for much, but I find the above arguments interesting and specifically, would like to find the narration cited above and understand the traditionalist response to it. On the other hand, I would also like more understanding of the implications of this methodology in other cases – so it is a holistic alternative framework. Finally, I would like to see more on why the limit should be 17 hours rather than 20 hours, say; and a stronger and more nuanced medical consensus to support some of the ideas.

Length of a fast - summary of article about to be published by Shaykh Arif

Below is my summary of an article that is about to be published by Shaykh Arif related to the length of the fast. If there are any errors in understanding, they are mine!
The traditional fiqh system operates in a very specific and formal way, trying to understand the word of Allah literally in the first instance i.e. dawn and "layl" (sunset/night) are essential limits of a fast.

Shaykh Arif argues that the ethos of the Shari'a is conveyed by the Qur'an where the laws are value-based ("to attain taqwa" - 2:183) and bearable (“Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship” - 2:185). 

In such a case, he considers the traditionalist understanding of the dawn-"layl" limit as being literal to be arbitrary, and possibly in conflict with the ethos of value and ease, when not within the Middle Eastern context.

As opposed to this, he states that within what he terms an existentialist framework, where there is a distinction of form and essence, we can arrive at a more appropriate understanding of the regulations. This would mean that the essence of regulations were given a form dependent on the context when they were revealed i.e. the form is not principally of value.

He argues that the judicial precepts and jurisprudential principles that the traditional camp employs to nullify duty at hardship (e.g. the "la haraj" principle) are actually "meta-legal principles" that govern the formulation of the regulations in any given context i.e. these are treated as exceptions at the secondary stage of deriving a law, rather than affecting the primary law itself.

Therefore, contrary to the traditional view of "all or nothing" (i.e. either you fast the entirety of the fast, or it does not count), he states that values can be attained from a more appropriate approach depending on the situation; and also that the length of the fast should be determined by the community at large, given it affects the majority.

The consequence of the traditional view for people living in countries such as the UK, is either to fast lengthy fasts, travel to a place with shorter days or travel less than ten days to avoid obligation of fast. Shaykh Arif argues that precepts of lack of hardship and the precept of feasibility are the governing principles in the new formulation of the regulation.

After this, he discusses the nature of fasting from the texts of the Qur’an and hadith as being bearable hardship in avoiding consumption and sexual intercourse flatly for healthy individuals within a determined timescale. 

As for chronic sufferers, the fast is general abstention from consumption (i.e. you can eat / drink / have an injection in as far as it is necessary) and absolute abstention from sexual consort within a fixed timeframe. 

As for the non-chronic sufferers, they should not fast. 

What this means is that sunrise and sunset are mere forms and as such are arbitrary. The reason for the Qur’an to state dawn and night limits is due to its pragmatic nature and the day and time of Makka being appropriate for that context. 

Accordingly extremely long and short fasts are not fasts since the first is inconsistent with bearable hardship and possibly harmful whilst the second is without value. 

In terms of determining the meaning of night and day, he contends that they are in the capacity of functional day and night as described by the Qur’an e.g. “And we have made the day for livelihood” (78:11) and “It is out of His Mercy that He has put for you night and day, that you may rest therein (i.e. during the night) and that you may seek of His Bounty (i.e. during the day), and in order that you may be grateful.” (28:73).

Based on this he concludes that the maximum length of a fast has to be capped at 16 to 17 hours maximum whilst the shortest fast should be extended to a minimum of 11 to 12 hours.