Shaykh Haidar Hobbollah - an introduction to his way of thinking (2/4)

In the last post, we covered Shaykh Hobbollah's view on the scope of Shari'a. This has major ramifications, when considered alongside some of his other views. 

In this post, we are going to start to cover the main differences between Shaykh Hobbollah’s approach to fiqh, and the majority of (Shi’a) scholars?

Whilst there are many differences, the three he highlighted as the most important in his lecture at Mahfil Ali (which he asked not to be recorded) were the below [in my view, the most impactful is the second one]:

1. He does not believe there is a requirement to adhere to any form of consensus (ijma’) or the majority opinion of the scholars (shuhra), because neither of these lead to certainty and therefore do not have authority. Whilst in most contemporary usul al-fiqh works, consensus or majority opinion of scholars does not have any authority (hujjiyya) unless it uncovers an Islamic rule (kashifiyya) [noting this is also dhanni], in reality, the final ruling in the fiqh works (risala ‘amaliyya) of most contemporary scholars often does adhere to the views of the majority, by use of obligatory precaution (ahwat wujubi). This is not the position he takes.
   
   
2. He does not believe that you can rely upon narrations by themselves, unless there are enough of them to give you certainty (or unless there are sufficient other contextual indicators [qara`in] that together will help reach certainty).
   
   Another way of putting this, is that he adheres to the position that khabar al-wahid al-dhanni does not have authority. This viewpoint had been held by major scholars of the past, but is not held by any (?) other senior contemporary scholar. The traditional scholarship considers that Allah has certainly given us permission to use khabar al-wahid despite it being a probable source of law. Shaykh Hobbollah disagrees with this conclusion.
   
   
3. He does not believe in the principle of tasamuh fi adillat al-sunan which some scholars use. This is a principle which allows the use of weak sources of evidence to derive a law (what I call the “why not, as there’s no harm” principle). This is often used by some scholars to justify rulings when there are only a small number of weak narrations. It is worth noting that this is not a position held by all scholars and many contemporary scholars do not use this principle.

The conclusion from these methodological differences – which in and of themselves in practice have precedent amongst the major scholars of our current time and/or of the past (including point 2) – is that the threshold required to reach an Islamic law is significantly higher than for most scholars.

This means that there are far fewer Islamic rules that can be derived compared to the majority.

This may be problematic if you had a view that the Shari’a has to be comprehensive [although you could say that the gap could be filled by principles such as bara’a, or you could use the argument of insidadis, who say that you can derive rulings without certainty (authority of Mutlaq al-dhann)]. However, given Shaykh Hobbollah does not have this view, it is not problematic.

In the next post, we will look at some of the other important ways his approach to fiqh differ from the majority.

Useful sources:

His short analysis on the authority of ijma’ and shuhra:  https://hobbollah.com/araa/%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%85%d9%88%d9%82%d9%81-%d9%85%d9%86-%d8%ad%d8%ac%d9%8a%d9%91%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a5%d8%ac%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%b9-%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%b1%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%81%d8%aa%d9%88/

His 779-page book on hadith, Hujjiyat al-Hadith (2016/2017): https://hobbollah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/HojietAlhadith.pdf

His essay on the topic of Tasamuh (November 2021): https://hobbollah.com/araa/%d8%b9%d8%af%d9%85-%d8%ab%d8%a8%d9%88%d8%aa-%d9%82%d8%a7%d8%b9%d8%af%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%ad-%d9%81%d9%8a-%d8%a3%d8%af%d9%84%d9%91%d8%a9-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d9%86%d9%86/  

 

Shaykh Haidar Hobbollah - an introduction to his way of thinking (1/4)

It has been 7 years since my last post, and apologies for this! Perhaps I may start more regularly again. 

However, rarely have I been so impressed by a scholar, as I was when I met with Shaykh Haidar Hobbollah. On the one hand, he has decades of experience teaching at the highest levels (bahth kharij) in Qum complemented by a plethora of books and essays on complex topics, with innovative ideas. Yet on the other hand, he has also retained the respect of traditional scholarship despite having significantly different views.

This series of short posts aims to bring to light how he approaches Fiqh, why it is important, and what the consequences are. I have framed it as a question-and-answer dialogue, even though it is my interpretation of his perspectives, because I believe it will be easier to understand his thought process. The sources for this, is a mixture of (A) his own published works; (B) what I have heard directly from him; and (C) what he said at Mahfil Ali on 27 May 2022 (and/or what I understood from my conversations with him). I will put useful sources under each question for the more interested readers (who can understand Arabic legal texts).

[One note: I have used the term “Shaykh” throughout to refer to Shaykh Hobbollah. Some may believe this does not accurately reflect the extremely high stature of Shaykh Hobbollah, and some may prefer to use a term such as Mujtahid or Marja’. However, Shaykh Hobbollah is truly humble and does not prefer these titles, even if they appear to be a fairer reflection of his scholarship and abilities. He also dislikes the term Ayatullah because he believes we should not associate human fallible scholarship with Allah].

All errors in the below are mine, and mine alone.

What is the scope of Shari’a?

Shaykh Hobbollah covers this issue comprehensively in his 820 page book entitled “The comprehensiveness of the Shari’a” (shumul al-shari’a), and in 113 lectures on his website under the title “The comprehensiveness of the Shari’a: the limits and scope of Fiqh”. This topic is pivotal to understanding his approach to deriving Islamic laws.

He recognises that the vast majority of Muslim scholars believe that the Shari’a is comprehensive and that there is no situation without an Islamic rule (i.e. it is obligatory, prohibited, recommended, discouraged or allowed), which can be derived based on the standard sources of evidence or base principles. [I will not cover the nuance here about mintaqat al-firagh, which is the view of scholars like Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr].

In contrast to this vast majority, Shaykh Hobbollah’s conclusion is that the Shari’a is not comprehensive i.e. it does not provide an answer for every question. He does not go so far as to say that the scope of Shari’a is extremely limited or even non-existent, like Soroush, Shabastari, Ali Abd al-Razzaq, Mahdi Bazargan…etc..

Instead, Shaykh Hobbollah’s view is that the Shari’a only covers a specific number of issues, and many of issues that we face, should be resolved not by an Islamic injunction, rather they should be resolved through other mechanisms such as ethics, rationality or values (as long as they do not contravene any established Islamic law). More accurately he believes in the goals of shari’a (maqasid) or what he calls in his book the the rules of the constitution (al-qawaid al-dusturiyya). The difference here, is that the conclusions derived through these other mechanisms are human and fallible, able to be discussed and disagreed with, as they are importantly not part of the Shari’a. They therefore cannot be attributed to the religion or to Allah (swt).

For example, if one were to conclude that the Shari’a does not cover issues such as cloning, then Shaykh Hobbollah’s view is that there is no Islamic ruling on this issue, and that any ruling e.g. by the government or by society, which does not contradict an Islamic ruling or one of the maqasid al-Shari’a (goals of Shari’a), would be appropriate. If a rule was instituted by the government, it would be an Islamic duty to not break the law, but there would be no specifically Islamic rule related to cloning i.e. you could say this rule is not against Islamic law, but you could not say there is an Islamic law on this issue.

There is an important nuance to highlight here. Where there is insufficient evidence to derive an Islamic ruling, traditional scholars would often conclude that the Shari’a states that you are free to act in any way (asalat al-bara`ah). Shaykh Hobbollah would argue that there is no Shari’a ruling instituted by Allah (ja’l) in the first place.

You might think that this means there is no practical difference between these two positions (even if there is a major theoretical difference). In and of itself, this may be true. However, when this position is combined with the other differences of methodology by Shaykh Hobbollah (see below), the practical differences become very apparent.

 

Useful sources:

A short summary of his views on the topic (19 May 2022): http://hobbollah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/shomoolshariaa.pdf

His written publication on the topic (2018): https://hobbollah.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ShomolAlshariat.pdf

His bahth kharij lectures on the topic (2017-2019): https://hobbollah.com/mohazerat_category/%D8%B4%D9%85%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9/

Translations of his position can also be seen here:

https://www.iqraonline.net/book-summary-part-1-comprehensiveness-of-the-shariah-discussions-on-extents-of-legal-reference-between-intellect-and-revelation/

https://www.iqraonline.net/book-summary-part-2-comprehensiveness-of-the-shariah/

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.

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.