For those having now started to fast, it has probably become apparent that the next few days will serve to normalise daylight abstinence. The apprehension that preceded Ramadan was driven for many by the unwarranted coverage it received from major media outlets citing, as the BBC put it, our leading scholar Usama Hasan who demands that we should fast in moderation, be balanced, and take the rather more enlightened non-literalist approach. This vernacular that views every Muslim issue through the lens of securitisation is something with which we have become accustomed. Instead of discussing fasting as a means to God’s grace through sacrifice, fasting somehow becomes a battle against nefarious religious literalism.
In this context there has, once again, been a number of declarations fraudulently re-termed fatwas. Let alone qualifying as religious verdicts – the definition of which is very specific – these declarations fail to meet the requirement of nominal acumen, their authors provide insipid arguments and opt for artificiality in order to attract superficial attention. As we have seen time and again, when their arguments fail to make traction, they throw hissy fits with politicised ad hominem remarks, throwing around accusations of extremism or radicalism. All of which is not only disgraceful sportsmanship but a pitiable attempt to intimidate interlocutors when pseudo-scholarship falls on its face.
Rather than radicals promoting an extreme interpretation of the fasting period, the case is that Muslims are simply continuing to do what they have done for thousands of years. Thus it is perplexing that there is a need to offer a fatwa, not to those who have sought one, but to the national press as if to infer that to support the 19 hour fast is indicative of radicalism. The term moderate repeatedly crops up as if Mr Hasan’s view is most easy-going, yet the irony is that the concession conferred by God is far more progressive: if the fast is so difficult that one’s wellbeing is threatened then simply do not fast and make them up at a time of one’s convenience before the next Ramadan: “And whoever from amongst you is unwell or on a journey then (fast for) a period on other days.” (Quran 2:185)
However, Mr Hasan takes the restrictive approach rather than accepting the flexibility and leniency God offers, so clearly this isn’t really about a progressive and moderate shariah – he rejects it when proposed. In his fatwa he views the concession God offers to make up fasts at another time as equivalent to illegitimately moving Ramadan out of the summer and into the seasons of autumn, something abominable in his eyes. Yet he inconsistently advocates moving the fast out of its specified period into an arbitrary timeframe for those who might struggle a little. And where God permits the sick to make up the fast at another time Hasan’s reasoning implies that God Himself is moving Ramadan out of the summer and into the seasons of autumn. Putting this aside, even if it were the case, if God is fine with it why should Mr Hasan object?
Every one of Mr Hasan’s arguments are poorly constructed, matters are either conflated or arbitrarily identified. He fallaciously associates those who might become unwell with those who find the fast a bit of a struggle. The shari’ah very clearly demarcates between the two; the former are offered a very lenient concession and the latter is essentially the purpose of fasting. The overarching notion that Mr Hasan continuously asserts is one that religion is easy, which it certainly is, but fails to nuance such ease with the fact that the obligation of fasting, or any other act of worship for that matter, is predicated by taklif. Whilst the technical term means ‘legal obligation’, the Arabic word means hardship, thus the commandments of God are meant to be testing, and it is through perseverance through such tests that paradise is earned. This is where the balance of the shari’ah actually lays. God tests mankind and offers opportunities to earn paradise, but the tests themselves are neither beyond what humans can bear nor are they ever on the extreme end. And given the variance of ability amongst humans, for those who have their own personal impediments, God confers dispensations.
Now the topic of shar’i dispensations, or rukhas, it is an entire subject of study in Islamic jurisprudence. The Prophet said: “God loves that His concessions be availed, and abhors that He be disobeyed” (Ahmad) Al-Zarkashi in his Bahr al-Muhit defined a legal concession as being: “an (divinely) established ruling in opposition to the evidence due to a (valid) reason.” Al-Shatibi wrote in his opus al-Muwafaqat: “that which has been decreed (by God) due to an extremely testing reason; it is an exception to a fundamental rule that would normally necessitate a prohibition, and restricted to circumstances of necessity.” For every situation that can be reasonably termed unbearable or unmanageable, Allah offers a way out. But Mr Hasan’s preoccupation seems to be with making it easy for those who do not like the idea of a long fast. Whilst our compassion might incite empathy, it is not our job to decree on behalf of our Lord. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims will be fasting everyday points to one very undeniable fact; the summer fast is not intrinsically unbearable. Whilst the month starts off as somewhat difficult, it quickly becomes normal and millions of people effortlessly adjust. The discomfort of a dry throat and empty stomach is what makes fasting so commendable to God – “I shall reward him, he forsakes his desires and food for my sake.”(Muslim) The perseverance one must exhibit in having to maintain levels of productivity but with less energy than normal is what earns paradise. The idea that we shall simply waltz into heaven is a complete misnomer – “do people assume that they shall be left to say: ‘we believe’ and not be tested?” (Quran 29:2)
Is the shari’ah about balance and flexibility as Mr Hasan put it to the BBC? Well not exactly, and such a statement fails to display the precision with which legal scholars are trained to reflect. The shari’ah is about serving God, the perpetual struggle for divine grace, the practice of effectuating the love of Allah and having it reciprocated, “say if you love Allah, follow me, Allah will love you and forgive your sins.” (Quran 3:31) As the ancient jurisprudents would put it: ‘it is to act in concordance with divine directives and avoid what God has prohibited.’ Yes, balance and flexibility underpin the mercy of God and His expectations of imperfect mortals, but given the indeterminate nature of such notions and their dependence on context, this is something we glean from wilful compliance to the law and not through the process of abolishing it.
The unfortunate case of Mr Hasan’s insights is that they have neither been decreed by God nor is his use of scholastic precedence sound. The opinion of the Azharite scholars he cites in his declaration very much revolves around their idea of a moderate fast, where the things that make a fast difficult are not only the length of the fast but also other factors such as temperature and the lifestyle of citizens. In the Middle East temperatures easily reach 40-50 Celsius with many Muslims engaged in manual labour throughout the day. Whilst the UK might be warm, an average of 20 Celsius is hardly synonymous, as well as the fact that we live in a highly industrialised society where work takes on a different nature. If we were to work on balance, an 18-19 hour fast in 20 Celsius might be said to equal a 13 hour fast in 40 Celsius for those performing manual labour. In fact, the latter scenario is probably far more unmanageable than the former.
A pertinent point that has been overlooked when discussing the length of the fast is that the British fast commences from the early hours of the morning which means that the vast majority of Muslims will sleep through a substantial portion of it. Thus the actual hours of conscious abstinence – one cannot find difficult something one is unconscious of – are approximately 13-14 hours which, by Mr Hasan’s own admission, is rather moderate given that he would like British Muslims to adopt Makkah’s observance times which can be up to 15 hours. The arbitrary nature of his revision was characterised by his BBC interview where he couldn’t make up his mind telling us: “12 to 14, 15, 16 hours…” So 16 hours would be deemed moderate yet an extra two or three completely unmanageable?
Oddly, for all of Mr Hasan’s talk of British Islam, he refers to a number of modern mainly Egyptian scholars who neither had much to do with the UK nor actually experienced Ramadan in its summer months. In fact, his assertion that we might follow Makkah’s observance times is somewhat peculiar given his advocacy to abandon Makkan moon sighting in favour of a British practice. This contradictory attitude comes across as impulsive and unconsidered. First we’re told we mustn’t move Ramadan out of the summer and into the seasons of autumn but are encouraged to move the fast out of its specified period. Then it is suggested we shouldn’t follow Makkah in deciding when to start the season of fasting since we live in the UK, but it is perfectly fine to do so when dictating the length of the fast?
The inattention and nonchalance with which the issue has been approached is unreflective of the scholastic training and erudition required to provide British Muslims with shar’i solutions to complex contemporary problems. It is further exacerbated where there is an inability to differentiate between shortcomings that require spiritual cultivation and legitimate shar’i concerns. And where the entire affair is projected with the use of a vernacular that has served in the demonisation of an entire religious community and the politicisation of their religious practice, the matter isn’t simply one about fatwas and adab al-ikhtilaf (the etiquette of differing) but the need to assert a confident and sound expression of the Islamic faith and pronounce a rejection of godlessness dressed as piety.
There is no need for a fatwa; the practice of British Muslims fasting the entire month makes is rather evident. For those unwell the Most High confers a concession. For those unwilling to meet the decree of God aggravated by the prospect of being taken out of their comfort zones, the Prophet put it plainly: “With what then will you enter paradise?” (al-Hakim)
[1] Quran 2:185
[2] Musnad Ahmad; narrated by Abdullah b. Umar
[3] Muslims; narrated by Abu Hurairah
[4] Quran 29:2
[5] Quran 3:31
[6] al-Hakim; narrated by Bashir b. al-Khasasiyah
5 comments
Mashallah
Incredibly insightful and copper-bottommed
Salams brother Nizami
I actually agree with the content of your post in relation to the hours of fasting. I am no sheikh but even I posted a very similar response in relation to the exemption we are offered for fasting where our health is threatened just as you said:
” …if the fast is so difficult that one’s wellbeing is threatened then simply do not fast and make them up at a time of one’s convenience before the next Ramadan: “And whoever from amongst you is unwell or on a journey then (fast for) a period on other days.” (Quran 2:185) …”
However, for me personally, the continual references to brother Hasan and the generally negative tone of comments towards him as an individual, as opposed to his opinion on the issue, seems unnecessary. Ctrl+F shows you referred to him 12 times in the piece. Particularly referring to “godlessness dressed as piety” seems a little too takfiri to me.
As an ummah it would surely be best if we can disagree with people’s opinions without needing to make assumptions about their intentions or motivations. Only Allah can know our intentions.
Allah knows best.
Wa alaikum salam Joe.
Many thanks for reading the article, and I pray your Ramadan is going well.
If you would kindly note, this article is a repost from last Ramadan, not this one. In the context of when the article was written, Hasan had been on television, not merely pronouncing a religious opinion (for that would be his prerogative), but explicitly tying the view of fasting a full summer day to extremism or some form of ‘radicalised’ thinking.
In an abstract setting my negative tone would be completely unwarranted; a simple fiqhi issue such as this would be met with a scholastic response devoid of wider considerations, and I am recognised amongst colleagues and friends as one who does not resort to ‘labelling’ no matter how preposterous a religious verdict (and I do not consider Hasan’s opinion significantly wayward, I think he has simply erred in some of his considerations). In fact I remain liberal on fiqhi issues, let all present their argument and leave it to believers as to decide what they think is the most definitive path to God’s grace.
However, to demonise those who opine the obligation of fasting a long summer’s day as extremism, perpetuating the lens of securitisation and even assisting in extending it to simple ritual matters is not only the height of ignominy and shameful posturing, but increasingly harmful to those who wish to worship God (and that’s what concerns me). Note that the issue doesn’t concern those in the political arena but simple worshippers going about their business. It serves as an invitation to increasingly draconian policies aimed at peaceful believers, legitimised by so-called scholars and shaikhs, evidenced by poorly constructed Islamic arguments. The references to Hasan exists simply because he was the only one offering his verdict and demonising others in this way – to be fair you are not the only one who has expressed his/her uncomfortability with the piece (since last year), but if you would allow me: Are you more perturbed by my reference to him than his previous undertakings to demonise the likes of you and I to the entire country for a simple position we hold? Do believers out there take umbrage for me openly disparaging his actions (which affects us all) or take umbrage at his politicisation of a religious opinion evidently held by most British Muslims (and their demonisation) to the entire country? If I were not to say something, what would happen – or should happen? Are we to let Hasan proceed onto the next ritual matter, such as those who believe that the Ka’bah is the only qiblah (in the name of pluralism why not show how we venerate Jerusalem)?
As for being ‘takfiri’ I often counsel believers not to throw out the baby with the bath water. There is takfir, censure, and praise. All three are very different things, and even takfir can be obligatory in specific circumstances. These are important theological issues not to be conflated. In revelation we find many statements of God or His Prophet refering to some as criminals, depraved, sinners and so on; many a time it is God censuring a person but not classifying them as disbelievers. Calling a person a ‘kafir’ doesn’t have a spectrum (such as being ‘too’ takfiri), but the description of being ‘takfiri’ has been appropriated from theology and introduced into secular political vernacular as means of illegitimately impeding religious denunciation, which in the correct context is obligatory as a command from God “enjoin ma’ruf and denounce munkar”. Unfortunately the term becomes used rather inaccurately and doesn’t reflect the actuality of what is going on – such as there being no actual takfir pronounced. I’m not sure how asserting something ‘godlessness dressed as piety’ is takfiri (I held it to mean a faux religiousity), but I will certainly give it some thought.
The notion of ummah has become rather confused in modern times, and what your sentiments (and I attempt to assert this with all conventions of politeness and respect) might not consider is: what do you make of a fellow ‘ummati’ that seeks to demonise a standard religious opinion and paint its advocates as extremists (or at least those on the cusp) in the public domain, speaking to a majority non-Muslim audience, full well recognising the political ramifications? Are they a part of our ummah, or more meaningfully put: us? If the Prophet said, “whoever cheats us is not from us” (and other similar hadith), is one who seeks to illegitimately demonise us so as to make our lives hard, restrict our freedom to shape ritual practice, and impede the way we’d like to spend our fasting day ‘one of us’? An important consideration we must make, I humbly assert.
Lastly, on the point of making assumptions about intentions, this is a common phrase perpetuated by many, and one that I empathise with. Whilst it is certainly a praiseworthy view to have in general, the sharia applies limits to it. Yes it is obviously the case that Allah knows our intentions, but I don’t think anybody (of any faith or none – that is if this even has anything to do with faith) would reject that certain indicators or markers can offer us reasonable conclusions. The Prophet said in somewhat opposite to your sentiment, “we judge by what is apparent and it is God that takes charge of inner secrets.” Many of the ahadith referring to intentions were those that forbade killing a person when they had outwardly professed faith but were indicted as secretively holding disbelief. And in many cases, the Prophet didn’t negate the indictment, but upheld the rule that judicial killing could only be upheld on established proof of treachery or treason. Take the example of Abdullah b. Ubay b. Salul the head of the munafiqin (to be clear: I’m not charging anybody with nifaq). In the context of what happened last year, I would present the hadith “A believer is not bitten in the same place twice.” But that would also necessitate recognising that one had been bitten ratherthan overlooking it.
As a Muslim community we have gone through a lot of sectarianism, from takfiris to tabdi’is to God knows what. The entire experience has left many jaded with any form of censure and rebuke which is completely understandable. I thank God that I was not part of those experiences which can leave one reactionary (I’m not suggesting yourself at all). But based on that, many have now taken the religious realm to be a free for all, the democratisation of religious opinion where legitimacy is determined by ‘likes’, airtime, and whoever has the loudest bark.
It remains as aspect of my responsibility to clarify some things, highlight others, and suggest things where needed. Of course, it is up to the believer to accept, reject, deny or ignore. I appreciate your engagement and strive to remain balanced, heavily leaning on revelation, the hermeneutics of the ancient righteous, and the conduct of the godly – to remain liberal, open-minded, tolerant, empathetic and sincere, but also principled, resolute and decisive on certain fundamentals. I pray Allah guide me, and all others, to what is good and leads to divine acceptance.
I apologise for the long response, I have merely written this as a clarification for yourself and others who might feel the same way.
Many thanks, and may you be blessed in this holy month.
Salams brother. Many thanks for taking the time for such a long and considered response. By way of very brief follow up, I made the reference to “takfiri” in relation to “godlessness” which to me has a very clear meaning. If one is “godless” then surely by definition one is not a believer. Also, I accept of course the hadith about ““we judge by what is apparent…”. I do think though that what is “apparent” to you or to me or to anyone else is based on our own experiences, environment and upbringing. So what is apparent to you may not be apparent to me and vice versa. My personal life experience tells me that many Muslims who I disagree with across the spectrum of opinion actually are entirely sincere that their beliefs and statements are for the benefit of all Muslims and on some occasions for the benefit of the wider population. I simply feel that what is ‘apparent’ can often be misleading and it is very rare that the motivation or belief behind an action is very, very difficult to judge. By definition therefore, it is hard to define “what is apparent”… rather like the classic advert for the Guardian with the skinhead and the businessman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bfO1rE7Yg
I don’t know what Usama Hasan said exactly but I agree with you.
He has no authority over anyone, just the respect of a lot of non Muslims- so what he says is irrelevant. Unfortunately he gets media attention because of his employer.
Anyhow a great article!