Swimming when fasting? (4)

In the previous blog, we showed how the narrations show there is a real contradiction, which Ayatullah Khui does not beleive can be reconciled.

Therefore, we are left with a discussion as to how to best prefer one group of narrations over the other.

Method 1: "the numbers game"

The group that prevents one from immersing one’s head in water are many, and well-known (mash-hur) such that we can be sure that overall at least some came from the Imam (AS); whilst the one narration of ibn Ammar is by itself – then normally the latter would be discarded.

Method 2: Prefer those that are in line with the Qur`an

If the above method is not sufficient (and many do not look at the numbers of narrations), then we can try and prefer narrations that are in line with the Qur`an: 2:187 is the only relevant verse which does not talk about immersing one’s head in water so cannot help here

Method 3: Prefer those that are different to the Sunni position 


None of the Sunni schools say immersing one’s head invalidates the fast; although the Hanbalis say it is makruh unless it is for making oneself cool, or for ghusl

Therefore, given the muwathaq narration (allowing you to immerse your head in water) is in line with the Sunni opinion, it can be attributed to taqiyya and is therefore discarded.

[A reminder - the reason for this rule / methodology, although it is not used by all, is that at the time of the Imams (AS), there were dangers to their lives. Therefore, it is possible that on some occasions the Imams (AS) might have said the Sunni opinion in public, or if a Sunni asked a question - to avoid any risk to his followers.]

Therefore, according to Ayatullah Khui, the strongest opinion is that it invalidates the fast.

A reminder that the above discussion is only Ayatullah Khui's opinion - but by reading the above, you should be able to infer how the other opinions are likely to have been derived.

In the next set of blogs, we will look at smoking when fasting!

Swimming when fasting? (3)

In the previous blogs, we saw two sets of narrations - both of which advised against immersing your head in water, one of which implying directly that it breaks the fast.

Now we come to the third narration that explicitly seems to suggest it does not break the fast: the Muwaththaq narration of Ishaq ibn Ammar: “I said to Abu Abdullah (AS): ‘Does someone fasting who immerses [their head] into water intentionally have to do a qadha fast for that day?’ He said: ‘He does not have to do a qadha fast, nor does he have to repeat it.’” (Wasa`il, volume 8, page 27; chapters on what someone who is fasting should abstain from, chapter 6, hadith 1)

The chain of narration is Muhammad ibn al-hasan [Shaykh Tusi] with his chain from ibn Sa’d, from Imran ibn Musa, from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Abdullah ibn Jabla from Is-haq ibn Ammar.

However, some might claim there is a problem with the chain due to Imran ibn Musa (see http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=7682 and http://www.alkhoei.net/arabic/pages/book.php?bcc=718&itg=36&bi=70&s=ct for details of this discussion) but Ayatullah Khui dismisses these as misunderstanding which Imran ibn Musa it is – not al-Khashshab as some erroneously think but al-Zaytuni, who is trustworthy.

 

Therefore, this narration is in contradiction to the previous narrations – as this is absolutely clear in saying that it does not break the fast. 

When there is a contradiction, the first thing to do, is to try and reconcile the narrations i.e. find a ruling that allows all the narrations to be valid. 

Consider the following options to try and re-interpret the first and second sets of narrations:

• Consider the first group of narrations as haram taklifi given that the fact that qada of the fast / repeating the fast is not required implies it is haram only [and does not invalidate the fast] but Ayatullah Khui notes that this does not deal with the sahih narration of ibn Muslim (group 2)

• Consider the first group of narrations as makruh wad’iyya (i.e. it is makruh whilst in the state of fasting) considering that the “idrar” is of different levels with eating and drinking affecting the fast strongly and breaking it; whilst immersing one’s head only affects it to the level of makruh. However, Ayatullah Khui says this does not work as it is one sentence and it is unlikely that the audience would differentiate between “eating and drinking” and “immersing one’s head in water”. 

Therefore, there is a real contradiction between this Muwath-thaq narration and the previous narrations. In the next blog, we will look at methods of actually reconciling this apparent contradiction.

Swimming when fasting? (2)

There are three groups of narrations relevant to this topic, the first two of which I will cover in this blog.

Group 1 – advise against immersing your head in water whilst fasting

                                            

·         Sahih narration of Hariz from Abu Abdullah (AS): “He said – ‘the person fasting and the person in ihram does not immerse their head into water’” (Wasa`il, volume 8, page 24; chapters on what someone who is fasting should abstain from, chapter 3, hadith 8)

·         Sahih narration of al-Halabi from him (AS): “He said: ‘a person who is fasting can soak himself in water (يستنقع) but does not immerse his head.” (Wasa`il, volume 8, page 24; chapters on what someone who is fasting should abstain from, chapter 3, hadith 7)

The implication of these narrations in advising against doing it, but are not clear in implying they are haram in and of themselves rather they imply that these should not be done whilst fasting.

And therefore, from these narrations alone, one cannot infer that immersing one’s head breaks the fast, only that it is not allowed whilst fasting [note that this would only be the understanding if there were no other narrations on the topic].

Group 2 – imply that immersing your head in water breaks the fast but is not forbidden

Marfu’ narration in Saduq’s al-Khusal from Abu Abdullah (AS): “He said: ‘5 things break the fast: eating, drinking, intercourse, immersing into water and lying against Allah, the Prophet and the Imams (AS).” (al-Khusal of al-Saduq, page 286, hadith 39) – however, the chain of narration is weak due to it being marfu’.

There are some narrations that are good enough to use (mu’tabar) which are close to being clear about implying immersing your head in water breaks the fast e.g.:

·         Sahih narration of Muhammad ibn Muslim: “I heard Abu Ja’far (AS) say: the one who is fasting is not affected by what occurs if he avoids three things: eating and drinking, women and immersing [one’s head?] in water.” (Wasa`il, volume 8, page 18; chapters on what someone who is fasting should abstain from, chapter 1, hadith 1)

Here it is clear that “is not affected” is because of the fast, not because of the person fasting himself – and this must mean it results in the fast not counting.

One might say that the apparent meaning of the narration is that you should avoid these things in general when fasting (even for non-wajib fasts) – but for non-wajib fasts, it cannot be haram to dip one’s head in water so therefore “is not affected” must be with regards to it invalidating the fast, not that it is haram taklifi.

If there was nothing other than these two sets of narrations, one might conclude that immersing one’s head in water would invalidate the fast. However, there is another narration that suggests the opposite, which will be discussed in the next post.

Swimming when fasting? (1)

After a long break, as the month of Ramadan is approaching, I thought I would tackle a few pertinent issues about fasting that people often ask.

This set of blogs will be a detailed analysis of Ayatullah Khui's view on whether immersing one's head in water breaks the fast.

Before we start - the views of other major scholars:

• Ayatullah Sistani: highly discouraged but not haram (http://sistani.org/index.php?p=831716&id=5&pid=601)
• Ayatullah Fadlallah: it is haram as a precaution, but does not invalidate the fast (e.g. http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/ListingFAQ2.aspx?cid=321&Language=1)
• Ayatullah Makarem Shirazi: invalidates the fast (Ihtiyat Wajib), if the entirety of the head is immersed in water (http://makarem.ir/Question/ViewQuestion.aspx?lid=2&mid=238250)

For Ayatullah Khui's view, we refer to his main work (al-Mustanad fi sharh al-urwat al-wuthqa, vol. 11, p160 e.g.http://www.alkhoei.net/arabic/pages/book.php?bcc=718&itg=36&bi=70&s=ct) - I will go through his main argument, which has the following approach: sets out the differences of opinion and the major scholars of the past who had these opinions; then lays out the different groups of narrations (which imply different rulings) with an attempt to reconcile these different groups at the end.
  
In this blog, I will focus on the differences of opinion that Ayatullah Khui discusses:

• Majority consider it breaks the fast (some claimed there was consensus but there cannot be given the below group, for example did not agree) – Ayatullah Khui

• A group (including Allama Hilli, Shahid al-Thani and Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in Shara`i al-Islam, and the author of al-Madarik (al-Syed Muhammad al-Amili)) say that it is haram when you are fasting (so is a sin) but does not break the fast and therefore does not require you to do qada ((1) الاستبصار 2 : 85 ، المختلف 3 : 270 ، المسالك 2 : 16 ، الشرائع 2 : 15 ، المدارك 6 : 48 .) – Ayatullah Fadlallah (he uses the term it should be avoided as a precaution)

• Some say that it is makruh (i.e. not sinful) e.g. Sayyid Murtada and ibn Idris ((2) جمل العلم والعمل (رسائل الشريف المرتضى 3) : 54 ، السرائر 1 : 386 ـ 387 .) – Ayatullah Seestani

In the next blog, I will look at some of the narrations used to justify these positions.

Moonsighting (12)

Unity

 

It is interesting to note that very few (if any at all) Shi’i scholar considers the unity of the community as a factor in determining when the first of a month is, other than for Hajj, where it is agreed by all scholars that the day of Arafah is the same for all – and based on the Saudi decision. 

For Ramadan, this is not a factor, and the rationale is that unity itself does not have a legal standing in this matter, given the presence of sahih narrations on the topic (that would specify [and take precedence over] any general pronouncement on the importance of unity).  

From a traditional Shi’i perspective, this can only change in one of three ways:
 

1. If all scholars could all sit in a room, and agree (an idea brought by the late Shahid Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr). The main problem is that it requires a scholar to allow someone to follow a rule that contradicts his own methodology in cases – and that is very difficult, especially given the majority’s understanding of taqlid. Furthermore, it may slow down thought development, as alternative opinions outside the agreements would be frowned upon. A way to overcome this, would be to focus on only issues where unity may be considered important such as this but this may be seen as inconsistent! 
2.  If the methodology of the derivation of Islamic law were to change. This could be either to make it more results-based and using utilitarian concepts such as those of maslaha (public interest), which is a way of thinking that was proposed in the Shi’i world by Ayatullah Khumayni; or it could be “progressive” methodology which considers the context of the narration in the past limiting its usage i.e. the fact that the Prophet (SAW) did not have a telescope or access to communications like we do, means that we cannot apply the narration blindly without considering this fact and contextualising the narration. This second approach is very “radical” and is one of the ways that many “progressive” scholars are trying to reform the way Islamic law is derived in general 
3. The final way, is a specific change in this area e.g. if the qunut of Eid, is used as a specific narration indicating the importance of unity for Eid itself. This (I believe) is the view of Sayyid Kamal Hayderi, who also seems to be an advocate of a change in the usul al-fiqh methodology, with a greater role for time and place in the derivation of law.

It is interesting to see whether these methods will be used in the coming years.

We have finally come to the end of the series on Moonsighting! In the next few blogs, we will move onto Hajj – and the discussion surrounding the Shi’i view on putting on Ehram at Jeddah (or if you have to go to Juhfa).

Moonsighting (11)

So far we have discussed what is "seeing" the moon (i.e. with your eye / optical aid / calculations), and the two most popular opinions as to where the moon must be seen (i.e. sharing the night and sharing the horizon). This blog will briefly cover the two less common opinions and ones that I think do not have any supporters nowadays! 

Opinion 3 about where the moon must be seen: 

If it is seen in one location, it is considered the same for all locations west of that location. I have not seen a rationale for this point of view but believe it was held by the late Ayatullah Sabzwari and Gulpaygani⁹. The problem with this position, is that astronomical calculations show that being further westwards does not affect sightability at all latitutdes.

Opinion 4 about where the moon must be seen: 

Saudi Arabia / Makkah - i.e. it must be seen / possible to be seen in Makkah for it to count around the world (this is not the view of any major Shi'i scholar as far as I'm aware but major Sunni schools do use this)

 
In the next blog, we will look at the final section – unity!