التوحيد at-Tawhid

Author Topic: FATAWA REGARDING RAMADHAAN & FASTING, IBN TAYMIYYAH  (Read 2559 times)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
FATAWA REGARDING RAMADHAAN & FASTING, IBN TAYMIYYAH
« on: 01.06.2016, 01:41:46 AM »
بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Fatawa (pl., Fatwa; Religiously Verdicts) Regarding Ramadhaan & Siyaam (Fasting), Ibn Taymiyyah

Ruyat'ul Hilal (Sighting the Crescent)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

فإنا نعلم بالاضطرار من دين الإسلام أن العمل في رؤية هلال الصوم أو الحج أو العدة أو الإيلاء أو غير ذلك من الأحكام المعلقة بالهلال بخبر الحاسب أنه يُرَى أو لا يُرَى لا يجوز ، والنصوص المستفيضة عن النبي بذلك كثيرة ، وقد أجمع المسلمون عليه ، ولا يُعرف فيه خلافٌ قديمٌ أصلاً ، ولا خلافٌ حديثٌ إلا أن بعض المتأخرين من المتفقهة الحادثين بعد المائة الثالثة زعم أنه إذا غُمًّ الهلالُ جاز للحاسب أن يعمل في حق نفسه بالحساب ، فإن كان الحساب دل على الرؤية صام وإلا فلا وهذا القول وإن كان مقيدا بالإغمام ، ومختصا بالحاسب ، فهو شاذ مسبوق بالإجماع على خلافه ، فأما اتباع ذلك في الصحو أو تعليق عموم الحكم العام به فما قاله مسلم

"It is a basic fact of Islam that we must perform Ruyat’ul Hilal (sight the crescent moon) with regard to Sawm (fasting), Hajj (pilgrimage), Iddah (the post marital waiting period; the period of time that follows a woman’s divorce or death of her husband), Ila (period of four months abstention which is required if a man swears an oath that he will not have marital relations with his wife) and other rulings that are connected to the lunar calendar. There are Nusus (pl., Nass; textual proofs) from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) which indicate that, and the Muslims made Ijmaa (unanimously agreed) upon that. No difference of opinion was known concerning that in the past or in modern times, apart from some Fuqaha (pl., Faqih; jurists) after the third century AH, who claimed that if the new moon is covered by clouds it is permissible for an astronomer to follow calculations himself, so that if his calculations indicate that the moon could have been sighted he may fast, otherwise he should not. This view, even though it is subject to the condition that there be clouds and it applies only to the astronomer, it is Shazz (an odd) view that is outweighed by Ijmaa (the consensus) on the opposite view. With regard to following calculations when the sky is clear or applying the results of the calculations to the general public, this is something that no Muslim has ever suggested." (Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 5/132-133)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimehullah) also said:


وأيضاً - عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: " إنا أمة أمية: لا نكتب ولا نحسب، الشهر: هكذا هكذا، يعني مرة تسعة وعشرين، ومرة ثلاثين ". رواه البخاري و مسلم
فوصف هذه الأمة، بترك الكتاب والحساب، الذي يفعله غيرها من الأمم في أوقات عباداتهم وأعيادهم، وأحالها على الرؤية، حيث قال - في غير حديث: " صوموا لرؤيته وأفطروا لرؤيته "، وفي رواية: " صوموا من الوضح إلى الوضح "، أي من الهلال إلى الهلال
 وهذا: دليل على ما أجمع عليه المسلمون - إلا من شذ من بعض المتأخرين المخالفين، المسبوقين بالإجماع - من أن مواقيت الصوم والفطر والنسك: إنما تقام بالرؤية عند إمكانها، لا بالكتاب والحساب، الذي تسلكه الأعاجم: من الروم، والفرس، والقبط والهند، وأهل الكتاب من اليهود والنصارى
 وقد روي عن غير واحد من أهل العلم: أن أهل الكتابين قبلنا إنما أمروا بالرؤية - أيضاً - في صومهم وعباداتهم،وتأولوا على ذلك: قوله تعالى: {كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ}، ولكن أهل الكتابين بدلوا


"Again, it was narrated from Ibn Umar (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

إنا أمة أمية: لا نكتب ولا نحسب، الشهر: هكذا هكذا، يعني مرة تسعة وعشرين، ومرة ثلاثين

"We are an unlettered nation; we neither write nor calculate. The month is like this and like this; meaning that sometimes it is twenty-nine and sometimes it is thirty." (Bukhari, #1913; Muslim, #1080; Abi Dawud, #2319; Nasa’i, #2140-2141) Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim.

He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) described this Ummah  as refraining from writing and calculation, which other nations do with regard to their rituals and festivals. This Hadith indicates that the Ummah should resort to sighting the moon, as he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said in another Hadith:


صوموا لرؤيته وأفطروا لرؤيته

"Fast when you see it (the new moon) and break the fast when you see it." (Bukhari, #1909; Muslim, #1080-1081; Tirmidhi, #684, #688; Nasa’i, #2116-2130;)

According to another report:


صوموا من الوضح إلى الوضح

"Fast from newborn to newborn" (Tabarani, al-Kabir, 1/190, #504; Tabarani, al-Awsat, 3/192, #2900; Suyuti, al-Jami’us Saghir, 2/103; Bazzar; Haythami, al-Majma'uz Zawaid, 3/158) that is, from new moon to new moon.

This is indicative of what the Muslims made Ijmaa (unanimously agreed) upon -apart from Shazz (odd) views on the part of some Mutakhhirin (later dissenting scholars) whose views are outweighed by Ijmaa of the early scholars- that the times for beginning and ending the fast and for Nusuk (i.e., rituels of Hajj) are based on Ruyah (sighting the new moon) when possible, not by means of writing and calculation, which are methods followed by non-Muslims such as Rum (the Byzantines), Farisi (Persians), Qıbti (Egyptians), Hind (Indians) and Ahl’ul Kitaab (the People of the Book), namely Yahud (the Jews) and Nasara (Christians).

More one of Ahl’ul Ilm (the People of Knowledge i.e., the scholars) have narrated that Ahl’ul Kitabayn (the People of the Two Books i.e., the Jews and the Christians) before us were also enjoined Ruyah (to sight the moon) with regard to their fasts and worship, based on the verse in which Allah Ta’ala says:


كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ

"Observing Sawm (the fasting) is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you." (al-Baqarah 2/183)

but Ahl’ul Kitabayn changed it." (Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtida'is Siraat'il Mustaqim li Mukhaalifat Ashaab'il Jahim, 1/285-286)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimehullah) said the following regarding the Hadith in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) reported to say:


إِنَّا أُمَّةٌ أُمِّيَّةٌ، لاَ نَكْتُبُ وَلاَ نَحْسُبُ الشَّهْرُ هَكَذَا وَهَكَذَا

"We are an unlettered (illiterate) nation, we do not write or calculate. The month is such-and-such or such-and-such; meaning sometimes it is twenty-nine and sometimes it is thirty." (Bukhari, #1913; Muslim, #1080; Ibn Ma'ajah, #4431; Nasa'i, #2140-2141)

So he (rahimehullah) said:

"The phrase:


إنا أمة أمية "We are an unlettered nation" is not telling them to be like that. They were unlettered before Islam came, as Allah Ta'ala says:

هو الذي بعث في الأميين رسولاً منهم

"He it is Who sent among the unlettered ones a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves." (al-Jumu’a 62/2);

وقل للذين أوتوا الكتاب والأميين أأسلمتم

"And say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?" (Al-i Imran 3/20)

Although this is how they were before the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) was sent to them, they were not commanded to become like that. Some of the implications of being unlettered were to remain, but as we shall see, they were not commanded to remain as they were in every sense.

(...)

Among the nation to which Allah sent him were some who could read and write a great deal, just as there were among his Companions. There were also some who could calculate. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) was sent with some obligations which involve calculation. It was narrated that when the person he had appointed to take care of Zakaah, Ibn'ul Latabiyyah, came to him, he  calculated the total amount collected. He had a number of scribes, such as Abu Bakr (radiyallahu anh), Umar (radiyallahu anh), Uthman (radiyallahu anh), Ali (radiyallahu anh), Zayd (radiyallahu anh) and Mu’awiyah (radiyallahu anh), who would write down the Revelation, and would write contracts and write his letters to the people to whom Allah had sent him, the kings of the earth and the leaders of groups, and to his workers, governors, etc. Allah says in His Book:


لتعلموا عدد السنين والحساب

"… that you might know the number of the years and the reckoning." (Yunus 10/5; al-Isra 17/12)

This is mentioned in two places in the Qur’an, where Allah tells us that He has created (the sun and moon) so that the calculations may be known.

The word Ummi (unlettered or illiterate) comes from the same root as the word Ummah (nation). It refers to one who is not distinguished from the rest of the people by knowing how to read or write. It is akin to the word Ammi which is used to describe a regular person (one of the Ammah or masses) who is not distinguished from them by having knowledge which they do not have. It was also said that the word Ummi is connected to the word Umm (mother), because he has learned no more than his mother taught him, and so on.

The distinction which takes him out of the ranks of the regular, unlettered people into the ranks of those who have specialized knowledge may be a virtue in and of itself, as in the case of those who read Qur’an and understand its meaning, or it may be a means which helps to reach that level of virtue, as when a person is distinguished from them by his being able to write and read. So the one who uses that knowledge to pursue perfection is to be praised, whilst the one who neglects it or uses it for evil purposes is to be condemned. Whoever does away with it in favor of something that is more beneficial is more perfect, and if you can achieve the aim without using these means, then that is even better.

Thus it is clear that being distinct from the unlettered is of two types. The first nation to which the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) was sent was the Arabs, through whom the Message was conveyed to all the other nations, because it was sent in their tongue. They were mostly illiterate, and they had no advantage of having knowledge or a scripture etc., although by nature they were more ready to learn than other nations. They were like a plowed field that is ready to be sown, but there was no one to do the task and they had no scripture they could read that had been revealed from Allah, as the People of the Book had, or any analytical science like the Sabaeans and others had. Writing existed among them, but to a very small extent. They had some knowledge of the type that is acquired by common sense, but which does not make an individual distinct from any other unlettered person; for example, they knew of the Creator, and they held good characteristics in high esteem, and they had some knowledge of astronomy, genealogy and poetry. So they deserved to be called unlettered in all senses of the word, as Allah said concerning them:


هو الذي بعث في الأميين رسولاً منهم

"He it is Who sent among the unlettered ones a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves." (al-Jumu’a 62/2)

The statement of Allah Ta'ala


قل للذين أوتوا الكتاب والأميين أأسلمتم فان أسلموا فقد اهتدوا وإن تولوا فإنما عليك البلاغ

"And say to those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?" (Al-i Imran 3/20)

So the unlettered or illiterate were described as being opposite to the People of the Book, for Kitaabi (one of the People of the Book) is something other than Ummi (the unlettered).

When he was sent among them, it became obligatory upon them to follow the Book that he brought and to ponder its meanings, understand it and act upon it. Allah made this Book an explanation for all things, and their Prophet taught them everything, even (the etiquette of) defecation. They became people of a Book and people of knowledge, indeed, they became the most knowledgeable of people and the best of them in beneficial knowledge. They lost the feature of blameworthy and imperfect illiteracy, which is the lack of knowledge and a revealed Book, and they gained knowledge of the Book and wisdom. They inherited the Book, as Allah said concerning them:


هو الذي بعث في الأميين رسولاً منهم يتلو عليهم آياته ويزكيهم ويعلمهم الكتاب والحكمة وإن كانوا من قبلُ لفي ضلال مبين

"He it is Who sent among the unlettered ones a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves, reciting to them His Verses, purifying them (from the filth of disbelief and polytheism), and teaching them the Book (this Qur’an, Islamic laws and Islamic jurisprudence) and al-Hikmah (as-Sunnah: legal ways, orders, acts of worship of Prophet Muhammad). And verily, they had been before in manifest error." (al-Jumu’a 62/2)

They were unlettered in every sense of the word, but when he taught then the Book and al-Hikmah, Allah said concerning them:


ثم أورثنا الكتاب الذين اصطفينا من عبادنا فمنهم ظالم لنفسه ومنهم مقتصد ومنهم سابق بالخيرات بإذن الله

"Then We gave the Book (the Qur’an) as inheritance to such of Our slaves whom We chose (the followers of Muhammad). Then of them are some who wrong their own-selves, and of them are some who follow a middle course, and of them are some who are, by Allah’s Leave, foremost in good deeds." (Fatir 35/32)

The statement of Allah Ta'ala:


وهذا كتاب أنزلناه مبارك فاتبعوه واتقوا لعلكم ترحمون أن تقولوا إنما أُنزل الكتاب على طائفتين من قبلنا وإن كنا عن دراستهم لغافلين أو تقولوا لو أنا أُنزل علينا الكتاب لكنا أهدى منهم

"And this is a blessed Book (the Qur’an) which We have sent down, so follow it and fear Allah (i.e., do not disobey His Orders), that you may receive mercy (i.e. saved from the torment of Hell). Lest you (pagan Arabs) should say: The Book was sent down only to two sects before us (the Jews and the Christians), and for our part, we were in fact unaware of what they studied. Or lest you (pagan Arabs) should say: If only the Book had been sent down to us, we would surely, have been better guided than they (Jews and Christians)." (al-An'am 6/155-157)

And Allah answered the prayer of al-Khalil (Ibrahim) for them, when he said:


ربنا وابعث فيهم رسولاً منهم يتلو عليهم آياتك ويعلمهم الكتاب والحكمة ويزكيهم إنك أنت العزيز الحكيم

"Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own (and indeed Allah answered their invocation by sending Muhammad), who shall recite unto them Your Verses and instruct them in the Book (this Qur’an) and al-Hikmah (full knowledge of the Islamic laws and jurisprudence or wisdom or Prophethood)." (al-Baqarah 2/129)

So there are kinds of illiteracy which are Haraam, kinds which are Makruh (disliked) and kinds which are a shortcoming and failure to do that which is better. A person who does not know how to read al-Faatihah or any part of the Qur’an, is called by the Fuqaha in their discussion on Salaah (obligatory daily prayer), Ummi (unlettered), the opposite of whom is qari (one who reads or recites). They say: it is not correct for Qari (a Qur'an reciter) to be led in prayer by an Ummi, but it is permissible for an Ummi to lead another ummi in prayer; and they discuss other issues of the same nature. What they mean by Ummi here is one who cannot read what is necessary, regardless of whether he can write and calculate or not.

This illiteracy also includes neglecting what is obligatory, for which a man will be punished if he is able to learn it but he does not do so.

There is also the kind of illiteracy which is blameworthy, such as that which Allah described in the case of the People of the Book, when He said:


لقد منَّ الله على المؤمنين إذ بعث فيهم رسولاً من أنفسهم يتلو عليهم آياته ويزكيهم ويعلمهم الكتاب والحكمة

"And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess." (al-Baqarah 2/78)

This is a description of one who does not understand the word of Allah or act upon it; all he does is to recite it. Hasan al-Basri said: The Qur’an was revealed to be acted upon, so recitation implies acting upon it. The Ummi in this sense may read the letters of the Qur’an, etc., but he does not understand it; when he speaks about matters of knowledge, he speaks superficially, based on conjecture. This person is also regarded as Ummi and deserves to be blamed, just as Allah condemned him for his lack of obligatory knowledge, whether this knowledge is Fard Ayn (obligatory on each individual) or Fard Kifayah (obligatory on the community as a whole but not on each individual).

There is also the kind of "illiteracy" which is better and more perfect, such as the one who only reads a part of the Qur’an and he only understands what he has learned. He only understands as much of Shari'ah as he has to know. Such a person is also called Ummi (illiterate), and others who learn and act upon the Qur’an are better and more perfect than him.

These matters which distinguish a person are virtues, and if a person fails to attain them, he is missing out on something that is obligatory either on him as an individual (fard ayn) or is obligatory on the community (Fard Kifayah) or is Mustahabb (recommended). These attributes of perfection and virtue may be attributed to Allah and His Prophets in general terms. Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise, and He combines knowledge and beneficial speech in all that He wants, tells and wills. The same is true of His Prophets and our Prophet, the leader of the knowledgeable and wise.

With regard to the distinguishing features which are means to attaining virtues, but which one can do without and use alternative means, these are things like writing and numeracy. If a person does not have these abilities, knowing that virtue cannot be achieved without them, not having them is a sign of imperfection. If a person acquires them and uses them to perfect himself –like the one who learns how to read and then uses that to read the Qur’an and read useful books or write other things that will be of benefit to people– then this is a virtue in his case. But if he uses it for purposes that will harm him or other people –like the one who reads misguided books or writes things that will harm people, like forging the writing of rulers, judges and witnesses– then this will be bad for him, and will be a sin and imperfection. Hence Umar forbade teaching women how to write. If it is possible to do without it yet still achieve perfect knowledge, then this is better, and this was the case with our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), of whom Allah said:


ومنهم أميون لا يعلمون الكتاب إلا أماني وإن هم إلا يظنون

"Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e., Muhammad) whom they find written with them in the Tawrah (Torah) and the Injil (Gospel)…" (al-Araf 7/157)

His being unlettered did not mean that he was lacking in knowledge or the ability to recite by heart, for he is the leader of all imams in that regard. What it meant was that he was not able to write or to read anything that was written, as Allah said of him:


وما كنت تتلو مِن قبله مِن كتاب ولا تخطه بيمينك

"Neither did you (O Muhammad) read any book before it (this Qur’an), nor did you write any book (whatsoever) with your right hand…" (al-Ankabut 29/48)

(...)

When this is compared with his comment that the month may be thirty or twenty-nine days, it becomes clear that what is meant is that with regard to the new moon (beginning of the month), we have no need for writing or calculations, because sometimes it is (thirty days) and sometimes it is (twenty-nine days). What differentiates between them is the sighting (of the new moon), there is nothing else that differentiates between them, such as writing or calculation.

Thus is becomes clear that the "illiteracy" mentioned here is a characteristic which is praiseworthy in several senses:

- it means doing without writing and calculations in favor of something which is clearer and more apparent, namely, (sighting) the new moon.

- writing and calculation may involve errors." (Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majma'ul Fatawa, 25/164-175)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #1 on: 04.06.2016, 05:53:35 AM »
Fasting on the Cloudy Day and on the Day of Shakk (Doubt)

"Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked:

Is it Waajib (obligatory) or not to fast on the cloudy day? Is this Yawm’ul Shakk (the Day of Doubt) when fasting is prohibited, or not?

He (rahimahullah) answered:

As for fasting on the day when cloud prevents or it is difficult to perform Ruyat’ul Hilal (sighting of the crescent), Ulama (pl., Alim; scholars) have a number of views that are found in Madhhab of Ahmad and others as well:

The First (View): It is prohibited to fast that day. Is this prohibition is Tahrim (absolutely unlawful), or Tanzih (severely discouraged)? There are two views on this. This is Mashhur (the dominant) position in the Madhhab of Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmad, in one of the two views of him. It is also the view of a group among his Ashab (companions) such as; Abu’l Khattab, Ibn Aqil, Abu’l Qasim, ibn Mandah al-Asbahani and others.

The Second View: Fasting on that day is Waajib (obligatory) which was preferred by Qadi (i.e., Abi Ya’la), al-Kharqi and others among the Ashab of Ahmad. It is said: This is the well-known view narrated from Ahmad however established view of Ahmad for those who are familiar with the Nusus (pl., Nass i.e., textual proofs) and Lafdh (wording) is that it is Mustahab (recommended) to fast on the cloudy day by following Abdullah ibn Umar (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) and others among the Sahaba. Abdullah ibn Umar (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) did not obligate it (i.e., fasting on the cloudy day) on people rather he used to do it Ihtiyaatan (out of caution) as did other Sahaba whom this is narrated are Umar (radiyallahu anh), Ali (radiyallahu anh), Mu’awiyah (radiyallahu anh), Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh), Ibn Umar (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain), Aishah (radiyallahu anha), Asma (radiyallahu anha) and others.

Among the Sahaba were some who would not fast on that day and they are the majority of the Sahaba. Among the Sahaba were who would prohibit fasting on that day such as Amar ibn Yasir (radiyallahu anh), and others. So Ahmad (radiyallahu anh) would fast on the cloudy day out of caution.

As for obligating fast on the cloudy day, there is no Asl (base) for it in the statements of Ahmad or in the statements of any one of his companions. Rather many of his companions believe that it is obligatory according to his Madhhab and they supported this view.

The Third View: It is Ja’iz (permissible) to fast on the cloudy day and it is also Ja’iz to eat (i.e., not fast). This is the Madhhab of Abi Hanifah and others. This is Sarih (clearly-stated) Madhhab of Ahmad. This is the Madhhab of many or most of the Sahaba and Tabiin (successors).

This is similar to the following cases:

When there is something obstructing the observance of Fajr (dawn) then it is Ja’iz to do Imsak (i.e., refraining from eating, drinking, intercourse etc.) or not. If he wants he can fast, if he wants he can eat until he is sure that it is Fajr.

Likewise if he has a Shakk (doubt) whether or not he has passed wind? If he wants he will perform Wudu (ablution) and if he does not want he won’t perform it.

Likewise if he has a Shakk about whether it is time to pay Zakaat or not?

Likewise if he has a Shakk about whether the amount due for obligatory Zakaat is onehundred or hundredtwenty? (He has the choice of either the cautious view is) to pay Ziyadah (higher amount).

All the principles of the Shari’ah uphold the fact that Ihtiyaat (caution) is neither obligatory nor prohibited in matters such as this. Fasting either with Niyyat’ul Mutlaq (the general intention) or Niyyat’ul Muallaq (the particular/conditional intention) i.e., fasting it as a day of the month of Ramadan then this is a fast of Ramadan, otherwise it is not. It is Ja’iz in the Madhhab of Abi Hanifah and Ahmad which is the sounder view of two views narrated from him. It was narrated Marwadhi and others. It was the preference of al-Kharqi in his explanation of Mukhtasar, the preference of Abi’l Barakat and other then them.

The Second View: It is not Ja’iz except with the Niyyah (intention) that it is (a day of fasting) Ramadan and this is the other view of the two view of Ahmad and preference of Qadi (Abi Ya’la) and a group of his Jama’ah.

The heart of this issue is whether or not it is Waajib (obligatory) to specify one’s Niyyah, i.e., that one’s fast is for the month of Ramadan. There are three views in the Madhhab of Ahmad.

The First (View): It is not Ja’iz except with the specified Niyyah for Ramadan, fasting with the Niyyat’ul Mutlaq, or with the Niyyat’ul Muallaq or with the Niyyat’ul Nawafil (supererogatory) or for the Nadhr (vow). Being it is not Ja’iz is the Mashhur view in the Shafii Madhhab and Ahmad in one of the two views narrated from him.

The Second View: It is Ja’iz with the (Niyat’ul) Mutlaq as it is in the Madhhab of Abi Hanifah.

The Third View: It is Jaiz with the Niyat’ul Mutlaq and it is not (Ja’iz) without specified Niyyah other than Ramadan and this is the third view narrated from Ahmad and it is the preference of al-Kharqi and Abi’l Barakat.

The solution of this issue is that Niyyah follows Ilm (knowledge). If a person knows that the next day is Ramadan, then they must specify their Niyyah and it would not be sufficient to intend Nafilah (voluntary) or Mutlaq fast. This is because Allah has ordered them to seek to fulfill their obligation, which is the fast of the month of Ramadan, so if they do not carry out the obligation, their responsibility has not been lifted.

If they do not know that the next day is the month of Ramadan, and then it is not obligatory to specify the intention, whoever obligates specification here with Ilm is combining two contradictory matters.

If it was said: It is Ja’iz to fast with this fasting with the Niyyat’ul Mutlaq or (Niyyat’ul) Muallaq it is fine. As for intending a voluntary fast that day, and then it becomes apparent that it was the month of Ramadan, then the most likely answer is that this is sufficient as well, just like the following case: A man has some wealth deposited with another person, who does not know this (or has forgotten). Second person donates that sum to him, and later finds out that it is his share, he does not need to give him that amount again. Rather he can say that this sum that you received from me was owed by me to you anyway. Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows) the realities of all matters!..

The view that is attributed to Ahmad is that the people’s Niyyah follows that of their Imam (ruler), on the basis that fasting (beginning) and eating (ending) Ramadan is according to the (consensus of the) people, as is recorded in the Sunan (Abi Dawud) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


صَومُكُم يوم تصومون، وفطركم يوم تفطرون، وأضحاكم يوم تضحون

"Your fasting begins on the day that you fast. Your fasting ends on the day that you break the fast. Your festival of sacrifice is on the day that you sacrifice." (Abi Dawud, #2324)

The people have disputed about Hilal (the Crescent); does this name apply to an object that appears in the sky even though no-one sees it? Or is it only known as Hilal when people see it and know of it?

There are two views on this in the Madhhab of Ahmad and others.

This leads to the dispute over the day after a cloudy evening: Is it Yawmi Shakk (day of doubt)?

There are three views in the Madhhab of Ahmad and others:

The First (View): This is not (a day of) Shakk (doubt). Rather Shakk is when there is possibility for Ruyah (moon sighting). This is the view of many of Ashab of Shafii, and others.

The Second View: This is (a day of) Shakk, since Hilal may be present.

The Third View: This is legally treated as part of Ramadan (out of caution), so it is not Yawmi Shakk. This is the preference of a group among the Ashab of Ahmad, and others.

Fuqaha (pl., Faqih i.e., the jurists) have disputed about the person who sees Hilal by himself at the beginning and ending of Ramadan. Will he start or end his fast alone or not? Will he start or end his fast with the people? Or will he begin fasting alone and end it with the people?

There are three well-known views in the Madhhab of Ahmad and others (i.e.,

- he should begin and end the fasting alone;
 
- he should only begin and end the fasting with the people and

- he should begin the fasting alone but end it with the people)." (Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyya, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 25/98-103)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #2 on: 05.06.2016, 03:40:56 AM »
The Matter of Ittihad’ul Matali & Ikhtilaaf’ul Matali

As for the issue; there is Idtirab (uncertainty) as to whether Ruyah (the sighting) in one place is valid for all places, for Ibn Abd’il Barr has narrated that there is Ijma (consensus) that Ikhtilaaf (the disagreement) is limited to places with similar horizons. As for an example, Andalusia and Khurasan, there is no Khilaaf (disagreement) that a sighting in one place is not valid for the other place.

Imam Ahmad relied on the Hadith of the Bedouin who testified that he saw Hilal the previous evening, so Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered the people to follow this Ruyah (sighting), even though it had happened outside the city (of Madinah), and it could have been further than the distance of Qasr (shortening prayers), but the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not enquire about the distance. This Istidlaal (deduction) does not contradict Ibn Abd’il Barr’s statement, but what is the limit (of horizons)?

Those who said that Ruyah (a Hilal-sighting) is not valid for all lands, such as most of the Ashab of Shafi’i, have different views:

Some of them limited the validity (of the sighting) to the distance of Qasr (shortening prayers); and some of them limited it to different horizons (regions), such as the Hijaz and Sham, Iraq and Khurasan, etc.

Both of these views are Dhayif (weak), since: The distance of Qasr has no relation with the Hilal, and as for regions or provinces, how does one define their boundaries? Further, both of these views are mistaken from a number of aspects:

The First (Aspect): Ruyah (Hilal-sighting) depends on how easterly or westerly the location is, so if Hilal is seen in the east, it must be seen in the west, but not vice-versa. This is because sunset occurs later as we move further west. If Hilal has been seen in a particular location, its illumination and distance from the sun and its rays will increase at sunset to the west, and will therefore be more easily visible. The reverse case does not apply, i.e., if Hilal is seen in the westerly location, since a factor in its visibility may have been the later sunset there, such that Hilal’s distance from the sun and illumination will have increased, whereas it was closer to the sun in the easterly location.

Further, when Hilal is seen in the westerly location, it would already have set at the easterly location. This a matter observed with the senses regarding the setting of the sun, Hilal, planets and stars. This is why when the time of the sunset prayer begins in the west, it has already begun in the east, but not vice-versa. Similarly, when dawn appears in the west, it has already appeared in the east, but not vice-versa. The rising and setting of the stars and planets occur earlier in the east.

As for Hilal, its appearance and visibility is more apparent in the west, because it appears (i.e., rises) in the west. There is nothing else in the sky that appears (i.e., rises) in the west. The reason for its appearance is its distance from the sun: The later the sunset, the greater the moon’s distance from the sun. Therefore, whoever considers only the distance between inhabited lands has not held on to any Shari’ (legal) or physical Asl (principle).

Also, with Hilal of the Hajj (pilgrimage): the Muslims have always accepted Ruyah (the sighting) testimonies of returning pilgrims, even if this involved a distance greater than that for Qasr (shortening prayers).

The Second Aspect: If we consider a (geographical) limit (i.e., to the validity of a sighting) such as the distance for Qasr or the border of a region, then a person at the furthest edge of this distance or region would be obliged to fast, break the fast or begin the pilgrimage rites whilst another person, a stone’s throw further away, would do none of that, and this is not from the religion of the Muslims!

The correct view in this matter Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows best) is what is indicated by his (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) statement:


‏صومكم يوم تصومون، وفطركم يوم تفطرون، وأضحاكم يوم

"Your fasting begins on the day that you fast. Your fasting ends on the day that you break the fast. Your Id al-Adha (Festival of Sacrifice) is on the day that you sacrifice." (Abi Dawud, #2324; Tirmidhi, #697)

Thus, if a witness testifies on the evening after the 29th day of Sha’ban that he saw Hilal in a place that is near or far, fasting becomes obligatory (i.e., Ramadan has begun).

Similarly, if people receive testimony of Ruyah (Hilal-sighting) during the next day before sunset, they must refrain (from eating, drinking and sexual intercourse) for the rest of the day, whether this testimony comes from one or more regions.

Knowledge about a Hilal-sighting is only valid for consideration if it is received in time. If a people learn of a sighting (from the previous evening) after their local sunset, they must of course fast the next day, but should they make up the fast of the day that has just passed?

It often happens that they learn during the month of Ramadan that Hilal was seen (a day earlier) in a distant region, but not nearby. The most appropriate answer is that if it was seen in a place close enough such that it would have been possible to receive news of the sighting within a day, this would be similar to it being seen in their (own) land, but the news not reaching them.

However, if Hilal was seen in a place further away than one day’s communication distance, they would not have to make up a fast. This is because people can only be obliged to fast on a day when it is possible for them to have seen Hilal (or heard of its sighting). However, in this case, it was not possible for them to have seen Hilal or heard of its sighting, so it cannot be a day of fasting for them. The cases of Id al-Fitr and the Hajj are similar.

However, should these people celebrate Id al-Fitr early based on the confirmed news of that earlier Hilal-sighting reaching them during Ramadan? (Yes, they should,) unless only one person saw Hilal earlier. This is because they have received confirmed knowledge during Ramadan that necessitates that they celebrate Id al-Fitr, even though they do not make up a missed fast at the beginning of the month.

Thus, they fast 29 days, and their situation is similar to that under the “local sighting” view where a person begins Ramadan and then travels to a place where they began fasting a day earlier based on their sighting: He must celebrate Id al-Fitr with them, and does not need to Qada (make up a missed fast).

However, if their sighting was a day later, our Ashab (i.e., Hanbali scholars) differ: If they say he should celebrate Id by himself, there is a contradiction because this is equivalent to the situation where a non-traveller saw Hilal alone, a day earlier. In our Madhhab, he does not celebrate Id by himself according to Mashhur (the dominant) position. However, if he fasts with them, he will have fasted for 31 days.

The most appropriate answer for this issue is that our Ashab must logically derive two views about this matter, analogous to the case of the person who sees Hilal of Ramadan by himself. In both cases, a person must not celebrate Id by himself. The Ramadan Hilal-sighting by the people of one city but not another is like the sighting of a group of people within a city, but not by the rest of the population in that city.

As for Hilal of Id, if the lone person’s sighting is confirmed on the same day, the people of his city will follow it. However, if it is confirmed after that, there will be no benefit except for the record, for Id is the day when people celebrate the festival.

The fixed rule here is that this matter depends upon information, due to his saying:


‏صوموا لرؤيته

"Fast upon its sighting." (Bukhari, #1909; Muslim, #1080-1081; Tirmidhi, #684, #688; Nasa’i, #2116-2130)

Therefore, whoever is informed that Hilal has been sighted, Ramadan has conclusively begun for him, with no consideration at all given to distance (i.e., no matter how near or far he is from the place of sighting).

This corresponds to Ibn Abd’il Barr’s statement that there is no effect of news reaching built-up areas after the month is over, unlike places where news arrives during the month, where it may have an impact.

Therefore, reflect upon these matters:

The (beginning of the) obligation of fasting; refraining (from food, drink and sex, i.e., upon receiving news of a Hilal-sighting from the previous evening); the obligation of making up a missed day; the obligation of celebrating Id based on that sighting; the sighting by a person in a distant location (i.e., more than one day’s communication distance away); receiving information once the worship has ceased.

This is why Fuqaha (the jurists) said: If all the pilgrims are mistaken (about Hilal of the Hajj) and stand at Arafah on the wrong day, their standing is acceptable because of the consideration of the information they have received. However, if some are mistaken (and some are correct), their standing is not acceptable because of the possibility of correct information being received, for information is Mu’tabar (decisive), even if those who have the knowledge are distant or few in number. What I have mentioned is the view of our Ashab (i.e., Hanbali jurists), except for the issue of Qada (making up a missed fast) when it was not physically possible for information to be received (within one day).

Hujjah (the decisive argument) about this is that we know with certainty that Hilal has always been sighted in some cities of the Muslims, but not others, from the eras of Sahaba (the Companions) and Tabiin (the Followers) until the present. This is one of those usual matters that does not change. Therefore, news of earlier Hilal-sightings must have reached people during Ramadan: If it was obligatory for them to make up a missed fast, they would have striven to the utmost to ascertain its sighting across all the lands of Islam, just as they would do for their own land; making up a missed fast would have been a common obligation in most Ramadans. Had such a thing occurred, it would certainly have been transmitted to us: Since it has not been transmitted, this indicates that such a matter has no basis, and the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain)1 also indicates this.

Our Ashab (i.e., Hanbali scholars) could reply that it is also not transmitted that they would base their Id al-Fitr on the basis of an earlier Hilal-sighting report received during Ramadan.

In reply, we would say that this is a matter in which people do not strive their utmost to ascertain, because it involves not fasting for one day. Thus, if the earlier sighting is established in their view, they end the fasting, otherwise caution dictates that they fast, because that report could be weak; furthermore, this matter (of ending Ramadan based upon an earlier Hilal-sighting) is debatable.

It could be said that if they receive the report during the month, they continue based on their own sighting (and disregard the earlier sighting report), unlike the case of receiving the report on the possible first day of fasting. This would be an understandable view. In fact, if a person only hears of an earlier sighting during the month, it is debatable whether or not they should make up a missed fast even though they can celebrate Id early on its basis. This is because his saying:


‏صومكم يوم تصومون‏

"Your (month of) fasting begins on the day that you all fast." (Abi Dawud; Tirmidhi) is an indication that the earlier day was not a day of our fasting. Moreover, Taklif (legal responsibility) is subordinate to knowledge: If there is no knowledge or manifest indication, there is no obligation.

This can be supported by saying that if Hilal is confirmed during the day, whether before or after people have eaten, they should complete their fast or refrain from eating and drinking, and they do not have to make up a missed fast. This is similar to the case of a child attaining puberty or a madman regaining sanity during the day, according to the most correct of the three views, which are that:

It is said:

He must refrain (from eating and drinking) for the rest of the day, and make up the fast, it is said:

He neither has to refrain nor make up a fast and it is said:

He must refrain but not make up the fast.

This is because the word Hilal is derived from Dhuhur (manifestation) and the raising of voices. Thus, its appearance in the sky has no consequence, Baatin (inwardly) or Dhahir (outwardly), if it is not manifested on the earth. The name Hilal is derived from the action of men.
 
It is said: "ahlalna’l hilal i.e., we began the month with the new crescent moon, covering ourselves with it" and "istahlalna’l hilal i.e., we raised our voices with the new crescent moon, pouring out at it." Thus, there is no Hilal if voices are not raised at it. If one or two persons raise their voices at it but do not inform others, it is not a Hilal: no Hukm (legal judgment, ruling) is based upon it until they inform others about it. Their communication is then Ihlal, which is the raising of voices in reporting it to others. Moreover, Taklif (legal responsibility) is subordinate to knowledge: If knowledge of it is not possible, it is not obligatory to fast.

(…)

To summarize:

Whoever is informed of the sighting of Hilal within the time that such information can necessitate fasting, ending the fast or pilgrimage, there is no doubt that such information must be considered. The Athar (texts and traditions) of Salaf (the early Muslim generations) indicate this.

The view that a Hilal-sighting’s applicability is limited to the distance of Qasr (shortening prayers) or to regional borders, is contrary to Aql (logic) and Shari’ah (the Law).

Whoever receives this information only after completing worship that cannot be made up, such as Id and Nusuk (i.e., rituals of the Hajj), then the news has no effect; there is Ijma (consensus) upon this, as quoted by Ibn Abd’il Barr.

If the information is received during the time of worship, does it obligate making up a missed fast, and celebrating Id early?

My view is that the former is not obligatory, whilst the latter is debatable. This is the moderate view in the matter, for any other position leads to horrible implications, especially for those who believe in multiple horizons. The latter view necessitates conclusions about the Hajj that are known to be contrary to the religion of Islam, if some or all delegations of pilgrims see Hilal and then arrive in Mecca, and Hilal had not been seen in the vicinity of Mecca. The wrong view leads to the pilgrims in Mecca observing rituals on different days, whereas our view leads to legally-approved unity: Each group follows something that allows them to harmonize with others.

The reality of this knowledge about Hilal is indicated in the statement:


‏هِيَ مَوَاقِيتُ لِلنَّاسِ وَالْحَجِّ‏

"(They ask you concerning the new moons. Say:) They are time-markers for the people, and for the Pilgrimage." (al-Baqarah 2/189)

This indicates that He meant that which is known by sight or hearing. This is why it is the position of Shafi’i, and one of the two narrated from Ahmad, that if the sky is clear but no-one sees a Hilal, then this is not a (day of) Shakk (doubt), since there is no doubt about the fact that there is no Hilal, even if one may be in doubt as to whether or not the moon is above the horizon. This indication is from two aspects:

The First (Aspect): Hilal, morphologically speaking, has the Wazn (form) fi’al. This form is used in the speech of the Arabs for a tool by which something is done. As an example; Izar (a wrapper for the lower body), Rida (a wrapper for the upper body), Rikab (a mount), Wi’a (a vessel to hold its contents), Simad (compost with which the soil is covered), Isab (a cord for tying with) and Sidad (a stopper by which a gap is filled). This form is commonplace amongst nouns. Therefore, Hilal is a name for that by which voices are raised, and this only happens by seeing or hearing. This is also indicated by the poet’s line:


يهل بالفرقد ركبانها
كما يهل الراكب المعتمر


"The riders of the Farqad raise their voices with it
As the riding pilgrim raises his voice in prayer."

(…)

Similar to this is His saying:


‏وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللّهِ‏

"… and whatever has the name of other than Allah invoked over it." (al-Baqarah 2/137) i.e. over which words are voiced, whether or not the voicing is loud or quiet, for words have been said, uttered and expressed for the sake of other than Allah.

The Second Aspect: He made Hilals markers of time for the people: They cannot be so unless they are observed via sight and the news transmitted via hearing. If there is no observation, there is no marking of time, so they are not Hilals. This is the most that can be established via the senses, since to specify the location where Hilal first appears by way of Hasab (calculation) is not correct in the least, and I have written something about that.

This matter depends on the latter also, for it is not within human capability to determine specific times and locations for seeing Hilal. People can only be sure about what they see with their eyes or hear with their ears. Since the obligation upon the person who sees Hilal is to follow his sighting, and upon the person who does not see it is to follow the news that he hears, someone who neither sees nor hears anything has not achieved Ihlal.

Allah is He who is asked to complete His favour upon us and upon all Muslims!.." (Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 25/103-113)


Footnotes:


Quote
1-عَنْ كُرَيْبٍ، أَنَّ أُمَّ الْفَضْلِ بِنْتَ الْحَارِثِ، بَعَثَتْهُ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ بِالشَّامِ قَالَ فَقَدِمْتُ الشَّامَ فَقَضَيْتُ حَاجَتَهَا وَاسْتُهِلَّ عَلَىَّ رَمَضَانُ وَأَنَا بِالشَّامِ فَرَأَيْتُ الْهِلاَلَ لَيْلَةَ الْجُمُعَةِ ثُمَّ قَدِمْتُ الْمَدِينَةَ فِي آخِرِ الشَّهْرِ فَسَأَلَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ - رضى الله عنهما - ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ الْهِلاَلَ فَقَالَ مَتَى رَأَيْتُمُ الْهِلاَلَ فَقُلْتُ رَأَيْنَاهُ لَيْلَةَ الْجُمُعَةِ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَنْتَ رَأَيْتَهُ فَقُلْتُ نَعَمْ وَرَآهُ النَّاسُ وَصَامُوا وَصَامَ مُعَاوِيَةُ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ لَكِنَّا رَأَيْنَاهُ لَيْلَةَ السَّبْتِ فَلاَ نَزَالُ نَصُومُ حَتَّى نُكْمِلَ ثَلاَثِينَ أَوْ نَرَاهُ ‏.‏ فَقُلْتُ أَوَلاَ تَكْتَفِي بِرُؤْيَةِ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَصِيَامِهِ فَقَالَ لاَ هَكَذَا أَمَرَنَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم

“Kuraib reported that Umm Fadl, daughter of Harith, sent him (Fadl, i.e., her son) to Mu'awiyah (radiyallahu anh) in Syria. I (Fadl) arrived in Syria, and did the needful for her. It was there in Syria that the month of Ramadan commenced. I saw the new moon (of Ramadan) on Friday. I then came back to Medina at the end of the month. Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) asked me (about the new moon of Ramadan) and said:

When did you see it? I said: We saw it on the night of Friday. He said: (Did) you see it yourself? I said: Yes, and the people also saw it and they fasted and Mu'awiyah (radiyallahu anh) also fasted, whereupon he said: But we saw it on Saturday night. So we will continue to fast till we complete thirty (fasts) or we see it (the new moon of Shawwal). I said: Is the sighting of the moon by Mu'awiyah (radiyallahu anh) not valid for you? He said: No; this is how Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has commanded us.” (Muslim, #1087; Abi Dawud, #2332; Tirmidhi, #693; Nasa’i, #2111)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #3 on: 07.06.2016, 05:15:06 AM »
Articulating Niyyah (Intention) For Fasting and Other Types of Ibadaah (Worship)

سئل شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية
عن النية في الدخول في العبادات من الصلاة وغيرها، هل تفتقر إلى نطق اللسان؟ مثل قول القائل: نويت أصلي، ونويت أصوم؟
فأجاب
الحمد لله ، نية الطهارة من وضوء، أو غسل أو تيمم، والصلاة والصيام، والزكاة والكفارات، وغير ذلك من العبادات؛ لا تفتقر إلى نطق اللسان باتفاق أئمة الإسلام، بل النية محلها القلب باتفاقهم، فلو لفظ بلسانه غلطا خلاف ما في قلبه فالاعتبار بما ينوي لا بما لفظ
ولم يذكر أحد في ذلك خلافا، إلا أن بعض متأخري أصحاب الشافعي خرج  وجها في ذلك، وغلطه فيه أئمة أصحابه، ولكن تنازع العلماء هل يستحب اللفظ بالنية ؟ على قولين: فقال طائفة من أصحاب أبي حنيفة، والشافعي، وأحمد: يستحب التلفظ بها لكونه أوكد
وقالت طائفة من أصحاب مالك، وأحمد، وغيرهما: لا يستحب التلفظ بها؛ لأن ذلك بدعة لم ينقل عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا أصحابه ولا أمر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أحدا من أمته أن يلفظ بالنية ولا علم ذلك أحدا من المسلمين، ولو كان هذا مشروعا لم يهمله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأصحابه، مع أن الأمة مبتلاة به كل يوم وليلة
وهذا القول أصح ، بل التلفظ بالنية نقص في العقل والدين : أما في الدين فلأنه بدعة ، وأما في العقل فلأن هذا بمنزلة من يريد أكل الطعام فقال : أنوي بوضع يدي في هذا الإناء أني آخذ منه لقمة، فأضعها في فمي فأمضغها، ثم أبلعها لأشبع فهذا حمق وجهل
وذلك أن النية تتبع العلم، فمتى علم العبد ما يفعل كان قد نواه ضرورة، فلا يتصور مع وجود العلم به أن لا تحصل نية، وقد اتفق الأئمة على أن الجهر بالنية وتكريرها ليس بمشروع  بل من اعتاده فإنه ينبغي له أن يؤدب تأديبا يمنعه عن التعبد بالبدع، وإيذاء الناس برفع صوته ، والله أعلم


"Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) was asked about Niyyah (the intention) when starting to do an act of Ibadaah (worship) such as Salaat (daily prayers) and other than that, do we need to utter it by Lisaan (verbally), such as saying: "I intend to pray, I intend to fast"?
 
He (rahimahullah) replied:

Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah)!..
 
The intention of purifying oneself by doing Wudu (ablution) Ghusl (major ablution) or Tayammum (dry ablution), of Salaat, Siyaam (fasting), paying Zakaah (obligatory charity), offering Kafaarah (expiation) and other acts of Ibadaah does not need to be uttered verbally, according to Ittifaaq (agreement) of Aimmat’ul Islam (the Imaams of Islam). Rather the place of Niyyah is the heart, according to the Ittifaaq among them. If a person utters something mistakenly that goes against what is in his heart, then what counts is what he intended, not what he said.
 
No one has mentioned Khilafan (any difference of opinion) concerning this matter, except that some of Mutaakhhirin (the later) Ashab (followers) of Shaafa’i expressed approval of that, but some of Aimmah (the leaders) of this Madhhab said that this was wrong. But in the dispute among Ulama (pl., Alim; the scholars) as to whether it is Mustahabb (recommended) to utter one’s intention, there are two points of view. Some of the companions of Abu Hanifah, Shaafa’i and Ahmad said that it is Mustahabb to utter the intention so as to make it stronger.
 
Some of the companions of Malik, Ahmad and others said that it is not Mustahabb to utter it loud, because that is a Bid’ah which was not narrated from neither Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) nor his Ashab (companions) did it or Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had not commanded anyone among his Ummah (nation of Islam) to utter the intention out loud. Also it is not known from any of the Muslims. If that was Mashru (legal) it woul had been prescribed then both Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Ashab would not have neglected it, as it has to do with worship which the Ummah does every day and night.
 
This is the more correct view. Indeed, uttering the intention verbally is indicative of Naqisa fi'l Aql wa'd Din (of defect; irrational thinking and falling short in religious commitment). In terms of falling short in religious commitment, that is because it is (religiously innovation). In terms of irrational thinking, that is because it is like a person who wants to eat some food saying: "I intend to put my hand in this vessel, take out a morsel of food, put it in my mouth and chew it, then swallow it, and eat until I have had my fill." This is sheer foolishness and Jahl (ignorance).
 
Niyyah is connected to Ilm (knowledge). If a person knows what he is doing then he has obviously made an intention. It cannot be imagined, if he knows what he wants to do, that he has not formed an intention. Aimmah made Ittifaaq that speaking the intention out loud and repeating it is not Mashru (prescribed) in Islam, rather the person who has made this a habit should be disciplined and told not to worship Allah by following Bid’ah and not to disturb others by raising his voice. Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows best)!.." (Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 1/214-215; Majmu’ul Fatawa, 22/230-232)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) also said:


والإنسان قد يكون في قلبه معارف وإرادات ولا يدري أنها في قلبه فوجود الشيء في القلب شيء والدراية به شيء آخر ولهذا يوجد الواحد من هؤلاء يطلب تحصيل ذلك في قلبه وهو حاصل في قلبه فتراه يتعب تعبا كثيرا لجهله وهذا كالموسوس في الصلاة فإن كل من فعل فعلا باختياره وهو يعلم ما يفعله فلا بد أن ينويه ووجود ذلك بدون النية التي هي الإرادة ممتنع فمن كان يعلم أنه يقوم إلى الصلاة فهو يريد الصلاة ولا يتصور أن يصلي إلا وهو يريد الصلاة
فهذا نية الصوم وهو حين يتعشى يتعشى عشاء من يريد الصوم ولهذا يفرق بين عشاء ليلة العيد وعشاء ليالي شهر رمضان فليلة العيد يعلم أنه لا يصوم فلا يريد الصوم ولا ينويه ولا يتعشى عشاء من يريد الصوم وهذا مثل الذي يأكل ويشرب ويمشي ويركب ويلبس إذا كان يعلم أنه يفعل هذه الأفعال فلا بد أن يريدها وهذه نيتها فلو قال بلسانه أريد أن أضع يدي في هذا الإناء لآخذ لقمة آكلها كان احمق عند الناس فهكذا من يتكلم بمثل هذه الألفاظ في نية الصلاة والطهارة والصيام


"A person may have ideas and intentions in his heart that he does not realize are in his heart; the presence of something in the heart is one thing and realizing it is there is something else.

Hence you may find one of these people trying to create intention in his heart when it is already there. So you see him exhausting himself a great deal because of his Jahl (ignorance). This is like the one who is affected by  Waswaas  (whispers from the Shaytan i.e., Devil) during Salaat (the daily prayers). That is because everyone who does an action voluntarily, knowing what he is doing, will inevitably have the intention in his heart to do it; for that to happen without intention in the heart, which is the will, is not possible.

If a person knows that he is getting up to pray, then he is intending to pray. It cannot be imagined that he would pray without intending to pray. So striving to form the intention in this case is the result of ignorance of the nature of intention and how it exists in the heart.

(In the same manner), if a person knows that tomorrow will be the month of Ramadan and he is a Muslim who believes that it is obligatory to fast and he wants to fast, this is Niyyah of fasting, and when he has his supper, he is having the supper of a person who intends to fast.

Hence there is a difference between supper on the night before Id and supper on the nights of Ramadan. On the night before Id, a person know that he is not going to fast, so he does not want to fast and he does not intend to fast, and he does not eat like one who wants to fast. This is like a person who eats, drinks, walks, rides and put on his clothes; if he knows that he is going to do these things, then he inevitably intends to do them and this is his Niyyah. If he says out loud: "I intend to put my hand in the vessel to take a morsel of food and eat it", then people would regard him as foolish. The same applies to the one who utters similar phrases when it comes to Niyyah to pray, Taharah (purify oneself) or fast." (Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaaj’us Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 5/398-399)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

وجميع ما أحدثه الناس من التلفظ بالنية قبل التكبير، وقبل التلبية، وفي الطهارة، وسائر العبادات فهي من البدع التي لم يشرعها رسول اللّه صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏ وكل ما يحدث في العبادات المشروعة من الزيادات التي لم يشرعها رسول اللّه صلى الله عليه وسلم فهي بدعة، بل كان صلى الله عليه وسلم يداوم في العبادات على تركها، ففعلها والمداومة عليها بدعة وضلالة من وجهين‏

"All the things that people have innovated such as articulating Niyyah (the intention) out loud before Takbir (saying: Allahu Akbar!), before reciting the Talbiyah, when performing Taharah (purifying themselves) and in all acts of Ibadaah, are all kinds of Bid’ah which were not prescribed by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam). Everything that is innovated in prescribed acts of worship, such as doing extra things that were not prescribed by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) is a form of Bid’ah because Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) used to do those acts of worship without doing these extra things. So doing them and persisting in doing so is a form of Bi’ah and Dalalah (misguidance)." (Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 22/223)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked about an Imam of a congregational Masjid who was a Hanafi, who mentioned to his congregation that he has a book which states that fasting in Ramadhan without an intention before Isha of the previous night, or after it, or the time of Suhur (the pre-dawn meal), then such fasting will not be rewarded. Is this correct or not?

He (rahimahullah) answered:

Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah)!.. Every Muslim should believe that the fast is obligatory for him, and he wants to fast the month of Ramadan. If he knows that the next day is a day of Ramadan, he has to intend fasting and to know that the intention is only by the heart. Everyone who knows what he wants should intend it whether he utters his intention or does not utter it.

Utterance of the intention is not obligatory according to the consensus of the Muslims. Masses of the Muslims fast while having this intention, and their fast is sound without any dispute between the scholars.

As for determining the intention for (fasting) the month of Ramadhan: Is it obligatory?

There are three views in the Madhhab of Ahmad:

The First (View): The fast will not be rewarded for without the intention to fast the month of Ramadan. If he fasts with Niyyat’ul Mutlaq (the general intention), or Niyyat’ul Muallaq (the particular/conditional intention/specific) or Niyyat’ul Nawafil (intention for supererogatory) fast, or to fulfill Nadhr (a vow), he should be rewarded for none of these, as is Mashhur (well-known) in the Madhhab of ash-Shafi'i, and Ahmad in one of the two narrations.

The Second View: It is worthy of reward in (Niyat’ul) Mutlaq (general), according to the Madhhab of Abi Hanfiah.

The Third View: Fasting with Niyyat'ul Muallaq is worthy of reward, except in the case of Niyyah of Ramadhan. This is the third narration from Ahmad. It is the preference of al-Kharqi and Abu'l Barakat.

The truth of this issue is that Niyyah follows Ilm. If he knows that the coming days is a day of Ramadan, he has to define the intention in accordance with it.

If he intends to observe Nafilah (optional) fast, or Muallaq (undefined) fast, his fast is not liable to be rewarded. Since Allah, the Almighty, commanded him to intend fulfilling an obligatory fast which is the month of Ramadan, which he knows is obligatory. If he does not do the obligatory action, he does not meet his obligation.

But if he does not know that the coming day is of the month of Ramadan, he is not required to define the intention. Whoever (of the scholars) considered it obligatory while he did not know, he is obliging the existence of two contradicting things simultaneously.

If it is said that his fast is Ja'iz, and he fasts in such case with either Niyyat’ul Mutlaq or (Niyyat’ul) Muallaq, then his fast is worthy of reward. But if he intends an optional fast, then he comes to know that it was of the month of Ramadan, his fast is liable to be meritorious. His case is like the case of a man who had some amount of money due from him without knowledge of it, then he gave it anyway as a form of charity. Later it became known that he actually owed that amount to whom he paid it. Thus he is not required to pay it again. He will say: "What I gave you was what I owed you." Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows) the realities of all matters!..

As for the narration from Ahmad which states that the people are to follow the Imam (ruler) in his intention, and that fasting and breaking the fast is to be done in accordance with what the people know; this is based upon what is recorded in the Sunan; Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


‏صومكم يوم تصومون، وفطركم يوم تفطرون، وأضحاكم يوم

"Your fasting begins on the day that you fast. Your fasting ends on the day that you break the fast. Your Id al-Adha (Festival of Sacrifice) is on the day that you sacrifice." (Abi Dawud, #2324; Tirmidhi, #697)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked: "What about one intending fast; does he need to form the intention every day or not?"

He (rahimahullah) answered:

Everyone who knows that the coming day is a day of the month of Ramadan and he knows that he is to fast it, then he has intended to whether he proclaimed it or not. This is what the masses of the Muslims do, all of them intend to fast." (Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Haqiqat'us Siyaam)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #4 on: 12.06.2016, 08:18:53 AM »
فَصْل فيما يفطر الصَّائم ومَا لا يفطره
Chapter: Things that Break the Fast and Things that Do Not Break the Fast

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 25/219-258

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim (In the Name of Allah; the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful),

Praise be to Allah. We praise Him, seek His Help, and ask his Forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil of our souls and the evil of our deeds. Whomever Allah guides, there is no one to mislead him. And whomever He misleads, there will be no guide for him. We testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, ascribing no partners to Him. And we testify that Muhammad is His Servant and His Messenger (salallahualayhi wa sallam).


Things that Break the Fast
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 25/219-233


What breaks one’s fast is of two kinds: One type will break the fast according to Nass (the texts) and Ijmaa (consensus). This includes: Eating, drinking, and Jima (sexual intercourse). Allah Ta’ala (the Almighty), said:

فَالآنَ بَاشِرُوهُنَّ وَابْتَغُواْ مَا كَتَبَ اللّهُ لَكُمْ وَكُلُواْ وَاشْرَبُواْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكُمُ الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنَ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ مِنَ الْفَجْرِ ثُمَّ أَتِمُّواْ الصِّيَامَ إِلَى الَّليْلِ

"So now have sexual relations with them and seek that which Allah has ordained for you (offspring), and eat and drink until the white thread (light) of the dawn appears to you distinct from the black thread (darkness of night), then complete your fast till the nightfall." (al-Baqarah 2/187)

Thus, (Allah) permitted sexual relations (during the night of the fast), so, it is inferred from that fasting it to abstain from: Mubaasharat (sexual intercourse), eating and drinking. Since Allah Ta’ala, said before this:


عليكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ‏

"Fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you." (al-Baqarah 2/183)

Then it is understood that fasting was known to them as Imsaak (abstaining) from eating, drinking and Jima, and that the word (fast) was known to them before Islam and they acted according to it with this meaning, as recorded in Sahihayn (the two Sahih i.e., Sahih of Bukhari and Sahih of Muslim) from A’ishah (radiyallahu anha):


أن يوم عاشوراء كان يومًا تصومه قريش في الجاهلية

"The Quraysh used to fast Yawm’ul (the day of) Ashura in Jaahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic era)." (Bukhari, #1893, #2002, #3831, #4504; Muslim, #1125; Tirmidhi, #753; Abi Dawud, #2442; Malik, Muwatta, #667)

It has been narrated through more than one routes (of narration) that before prescribing the fast in the month of Ramadan, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered fasting on Yawm’ul Ashura and he sent a herald to proclaim that. Thus, it is inferred that the word (Sawm i.e., fasting) was known to them.

It is also established by Sanad (the chain of narrations) and Ittifaaq (agreement) of the Muslims that Haydh (the menstruation blood) invalidates the fast, hence, the menstruating woman does not fast, but she performs Qada (makes it up).

It is textually established from the narration of Laqit ibn Sabirah that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said to him:


وبالغ في الاستنشاق إلا أن تكون صائمًا‏

"Exaggerate in Istinshaaq (inhaling and exhaling) of water (in your nose) unless you are fasting." (Abu Dawud, #142; Tirmidhi, #38; Ibn Ma’ajah; Nasa’i, #87; Nawawi, Riyad’us Salihin, #1243; Bayhaqi, Sunnan)

It is inferred from this, that water reaching the stomach through the nose breaks one’s fast. And this is the opinion of the majority of Ulama (pl., Alim; the scholars).

There are two Hadith in the Sunnan, one of them is narrated by Hisham bin Hasan, from Muhammad bin Sirin, from Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahuanh) who said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


‏من ذَرَعَهُ قَيءٌ وهو صائم فليس عليه قَضَاءٌ، وإن استقاء فليقض‏

"Whoever is overpowered by vomit while fasting, he does not have to make it up. But if he vomits (intentionally), then he makes it up." (Abi Dawud, #2380; Tirmidhi, #720 and also by Malik, Muwatta, #680 from Ibn Umar radiyallahu anhuma ajmain)

This Hadith is not confirmed according to Taifah (a group) of Ahl’il Ilm (the People of Knowledge i.e., the scholars). Rather they say: "It is the words of Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh)."

Abu Dawud said: "I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal saying: "It is not of any worth." Khattabi said: "Meaning (of Imam Ahmad’s statement); it is not preserved." Tirmidhi said: "I asked Muhammad ibn Ismail Bukhari about it (i.e., this Hadith) and he said that he did know it except through Isa ibn Yunus, and he (i.e., Bukhari) added: I do not think it is preserved." He (i.e., Tirmidhi) also narrated that Yahya ibn Kathir narrated on the authority of Umar ibn’ul Hakam that Aba Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh)’s opinion was that vomit does not break fast."

Khattabi said: "Abu Dawud mentioned that Hafs ibn Ghiyath narrated it from Hisham just as it was narrated by Isa ibn Yunus." Khattabi said: "I do not know that there is any difference between Ahl’ul Ilm over the question that whoever was overpowered by vomit does not have to make it up, nor that who intentionally vomits, then he has to make it up. However they only made Ikhtilaaf (differed) over Kaffarah (the atonement). Aimmat’ul Ahl’ul Ilm (the Leaders of the People of Knowledge) said: "There is nothing for him except he has only to perform Qada (make it up)." But Ata said: "He has to perform Qada and fulfil the Kaffarah (the atonement)." This was quoted from Awza’i, and it is the saying of Abi Thawr."

I (i.e., Ibn Taymiyyah) say: This is implied also by one of the two narrations form Ahmad answering about Kaffarah for cupping. Since if it was necessary for the cupped, then even more so for intentional vomiting. But what is Dhahir (apparent) from his Maddhab is that Kaffarah is not Waajib (obligatory) except in the case of Jima as stated by Shafi`i.

Those who do not affirm the Hadith in question do so because it has not reached them through a dependable route. They indicate that it has a deficiency, in that it was narrated exclusively by Isa ibn Yunus. But as is clear, he is not alone with it, rather it was also narrated by Hafs ibn Ghiyath, and the other Hadith supports it. That is the Hadith recorded by Ahmad and Ahl’us Sunnan (i.e., the Sunnan compilers), like Tirmidhi, on the authority of Abi’d Darda (radiyallahu anh) that:


النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قاء فأفطر

"Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) vomited and broke his fast." (Abi Dawud, #2381; Ahmad, Musnad)

That was mentioned to Thawban (radiyallahu anh) who said:


صدق، أنا صببت له وضوءًا

"He (Abi’d Darda) has told the truth. I, myself, poured the water for his Wudu (ablution)."

But the wording of Ahmad is as follows:


أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قاء فتوضأ ‏

"Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) vomited and performed ablution."

Recorded by Ahmad on the authority of Husayn Mu’Alim. (Tirmidhi, #87; Ahmad, Musnad)

Athram said: "I said to Ahmad: They have contradicted each other with this Hadith. Ahmad said: But Husayn Mu’Alim’s narration is good." Tirmidhi said: "This Hadith of Husayn is the most correct thing on this topic."

Accordingly, the obligation of Wudu for vomiting was inferred from it. Yet it does not support this. For he may have intended that Wudu is legislated for that, since it says nothing but that he performed Wudu, and merely performing it does not indicate its being Waajib. Instead, it only indicates that Wudu in such case is Mashru (legitimate). If it is said: "It is Mustahabb (desirable)," then such would be applicable from the Hadith.

Similarly, in the case of what was narrated from some Sahabah (companions) about Wudu in the case of bleeding, there is nothing in such narrations (as a Dalil) to prove doing so is obligatory. Rather it only indicates its being Mustahabb. There is nothing in the Shari’ah indicates its being Waajib as anything to support requiring that. Rather, Daraqutni and others recorded from Humayd that Anas (radiyallahu anh) that he said:


احتجم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يتوضأ، ولم يزد على غسل محاجمه

"Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was cupped, and did not perform Wudu. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not wash other than the location of the cupping."

Ibn’ul Jawzi recorded it in his book entitled: "Hujjat’ul Mukhalaf", and he did not weaken it, although his habit is to act upon the disparaging remarks reported wherever possible.

As for the narrated Hadith which says:


ثلاث لا تفطر‏:‏ القيء، والحجامة، والاحتلام

"Three (things) do not break the fast: Vomiting, cupping, and wet dreams." (Tirmidhi, #719)

In another wording:


لا يفطرن لا من قاء ولا من احتلم ولا من احتجم

"They have not broken (their fast): Not the one who vomits, nor the one who has a wet dream, nor the one cupped." (Abi Dawud, #2376)

Its Sanad (chain of narration) is confirmed. What is narrated by Thawri and others, from Zayd ibn Aslam, from a man among his Ashab (companions), from a man among Ashab of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

"Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: ..."

Likewise it was recorded by Abu Dawud, and this man is not known. Abd’ur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam reported it from his father from Ata from Abu Sa`id from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi sallam); but Abd’ur Rahman is weak according to the scholars of Ahl’il Ilm’ur Rijal (Knowledge of the Men of Hadith).

I (ibn Taymiyyah) say: His two Marfu (elevated) narrations from Zayd do not contradict his Mursal (hurried) narration, rather it supports them. So the Hadith is confirmed from Zayd ibn Aslam, but contains the wording:


إذا ذرعه القيء

"When one is overpowered with vomiting."

As for the Hadith about Hijamah (wet cupping), it is either Mansukh (abrogated) or Naasikh  (abrogating); due to the Hadith of Ibn Abbaas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) which says that:


أنه احتجم وهو محرم صائم

"(The Prophet of Allah) was cupped while fasting and in a state of Ihram." (Bukhari; Abi Dawud, #2373; Tirmidhi, #775, #777; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1752, #3199; Ahmad, Musnad)

And perhaps vomiting, if it is included under the meaning of intentional vomiting, then it may also be Mansukh. This supports the view that the prohibition of Hijamah came later. It is known that if there are two contradicting texts, one changing the rule and other remaining upon it, the one changing is given preference since it is abrogating the other, and the earlier is more likely to be the abrogated.

And others have reported it from Zayd ibn Aslam in Mursal form. Yahya ibn Ma’in said: "The Hadith of Zayd ibn Aslam is nothing." And if it were correct, it would mean: "Whoever was overpowered by vomit." Because he connected it with having a wet dream, and one does not have Ihtilam (a wet dream) by choice, since he is asleep, so it does not break ones fast according to Ittifaaq of the people.

As to him who does Istimna (masturbates) then Inzal (ejaculates), he breaks his fast. Ihtilam (the wet dream) only applies to the one who ejaculates while asleep.

By Qiyaas (analogy), a group (of scholars) thought that no emission breaks the fast, and that the one who intentionally vomits only breaks his fast since it is likely that some of the vomit will return (to the stomach). Others say that the mere fact that Haydh breaks the fast contradicts such Qiyaas.

As we have explained about Usoul (the fundamentals), there is nothing in the Shari`ah that contradicts Qiyaas’us Sahih (the sound analogy).

If it is said: You have said that the one who intentionally breaks his fast with out (valid) Udhr (excuse), his doing so is one of Ka'bah’ir (the Major Sins), similarly the one who intentionally delays the day prayer until the night without any excuse, his deed is considered one of Ka'bah’ir, and that it would not after that be acceptable from him according to Dhahir (the most apparent) of the two sayings of Ulama. But the one who missed Jumu’ah (the Friday Prayer) or throwing the pebbles (During Hajj) or other cases of acts of Ibaadah (worship) whose time is limited then he has been ordered to perform its Qada.

It is also narrated in the Hadith about the one who has sexual intercourse in the day of Ramadhan that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded him to make it up? Then the response to this is that:

He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded him (i.e., the one overpowered by vomit) to make it up since man only vomits uncontrollably, like the patient who gets better by vomiting, or the one intentionally vomiting after eat some doubtful food, as was done by Abu Bakr (radiyallahu anh) when he knew that the food he had eaten was earned by Kahin (a soothsayer).

So if one who vomits, is Madhur (has an excuse for doing so), then what he has done is Ja’iz (permissible), and thus, he entered the category of the sick who are entitled to making it up. He is not one of those Ahl’ul Ka'bah’ir (the People of Major Sins) who broke their fast without excuse. As for his command to the one that had sexual intercourse (in the day of the month of Ramadhan) of making it up, it is Daif (a weak Hadith). More than one of Huffaz (the Major Scholars of Hadith) classify it as Daif.

This Hadith is confirmed by many routes in Sahihayn via the narration of Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh) and the narration of A’ishah (radiyallahu anh), and none of them mentioned the command to make it up. Had the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded him to make it up, they would not have neglected to mention it; since it is a legislative ruling that must be declared. Since the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not command him to make it up, it follows that making it up would not have been acceptable from him. This indicates that he intentionally broke his fast, hence he was neither forgetful nor Jaahil (ignorant).

As for the one who has sexual intercourse during the days of Ramadan out of forgetfulness, there are three views from the Madhhab of Ahmad and others, and there are three narrations mentioned about it.

The First (View): Neither making it up nor Kafaarah are required. This is the view of Shafi`i, Abi Hanifah, and most of the others.

The Second (View): He must make it up, without atonement. This is the view of Malik.

The Third (View): He must do both. This is Mashhur (the well-known) position of Ahmad.

The first is Dhahir (more obvious) as has been properly explained in its appropriate place. It is confirmed by evidence in the Kitaab (the Book i.e., Qur’an) and the Sunnah that whoever does a prohibited deed mistakenly, or out of forgetfulness, then Allah will not punish him for that, so his status is like the status of one who did not at all, there is no sin upon him, and the one who does not commit a sin is neither considered disobedient nor having a committed a prohibited act. In his case he did what he was commanded and did not do what he was prohibited. Such a case does not invalidate his Ibadaah, his worship is only invalidated when he does not do what he was commanded or he does what he has been prohibited from him.

Contrarily; Hajj (pilgrimage) is not invalidated by doing any of Mahdhuraat (the forbidden things) mistakenly or out of forgetfulness, not Jima (sexual intercourse) or other than that, and this is Dhahir views of Shafi`i.

As for Kafaraah and the ransom, they become obligatory because they replace the value of the thing destroyed. Likewise, if a boy, Majnun (an insane person), or sleeping person were to destroy it, he becomes responsible for replacing it. Diyah (the ransom) in case of killing game mistakenly or out of forgetfulness has the status of ransom for accidental murder. Kafaarah for accidental murder is obligatory based upon Nas (textual proofs) of the Qur’an and Ijmaa (the consensus) of the Muslims.

As for the other Mahdhuraat (violations) during Hajj, such as clipping one’s nails, shortening one’s moustache, using perfume and wearing normal clothing, they cannot be classified under this topic. Even if one pays ransom for such actions, this does not make it similar to the ransom of killing game; since the latter is a means of replacing the value of the thing that was destroyed. Thus, the one doing a prohibited deed mistakenly or out of forgetfulness pays ransom alone, only in the case of killing game.

There are different opinions among people here:

This (first view) is one of them, it is the saying of the Dhahiriyah.

The second (view) includes both things during forgetfulness, as said by Abi Hanifah, and preference of Ahmad, and Qadhi (i.e., Abi Ya’la) and his Ashab (companions) also chose it.

The third (view) makes a distinction between what causes damage, such as killing game, shaving hair, and clipping nails; and what does not cause damage, such as perfume and dress. This is the view of Shafi`i and Ahmad in the second narration from him, and Ta’ifah among his Ashab chose it as well. This view is better than the other, but removing hair and clipping nails should be classified along with the dress and perfume, not under killing game. In this case this view would even be better (stronger).

The fourth (view) is that mistakenly killing game should not be included. This is according to a narration from Ahmad. This applies even more so to removing hair and clipping nails.

Contrarily, if the fasting person eats, drinks, or has sexual intercourse out of forgetfulness or mistakenly, he does not have to make it up. This is the view of Ta’ifah of Salaf (Predecessors) and Khalaf (those after them). Some of them said that in the case of forgetfulness or being mistaken the fast is broken. This was the view of Malik. Abu Hanifah said: "This is his Qiyaas (analogy). But he is contradicted by the Hadith of Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh) about forgetting."1 

Some others say that the one eating mistakenly has broken his fast while the one who has forgotten has not. This is the view of Abi Hanifah, Shafi`i and Ahmad. Abi Hanifah gave preference to the position of the one who forgot. As for the followers of Shafi`i and Ahmad they say: "Forgetfulness does not break the fast because it is uncontrollable. On the contrary, in the case of the mistaken, it was possible for him not to break his fast until he was certain that the sun had set, and that he refrain from eating when he is not sure about the beginning of Fajr."

This distinction is deficient, and the opposite is actually the case. According to the Sunnah, the fasting person is commanded to hasten to break his fast and to delay Suhur (predawn meal). In case of overcast, a long time must pass before one is sure whether it is time to break the fast or not. This may cause him to miss the (reward of) hastening to break his fast and of performing the Maghrib prayer which he is required to expedite. If he is not sure of sunset, he would have to postpone the Maghrib prayer until he is sure of its time. In this case he may postpone it until the dusk goes away and still be unsure. It is reported from Ibrahim an-Nakha`i and others among Salaf (the predecessors) -and it is the view of Abi Hanifah- that in the case of cloudy weather, they considered it recommended to delay the Maghrib and the Dhuhr prayers, and advancing the Isha and the Asr prayers. There are also texts in that regard from Ahmad and others. Some of the followers of Abu Hanifah thought that this was done in an attempt to pray when the two times meet. This is not the case, because immediately after this “precautionary time of meeting” is the time of Asr and Isha. But this was done because these two sets of prayers may be combined in the case of some excuse, and cloudy weather is a case of an excuse. So the first of the two prayers is delayed and the second of them is advanced, for the sake of two benefits:

The first (benefit) is to ease the matter for people to perform them one time for fear of rain, so it is like the case of Jam (combining the prayers) for rain.

The second (benefit) is to be sure of time of Maghrib. The same with combining Dhuhr and Asr according to the most apparent of the two views, and this is one of the two reports from Ahmad. This means combining them due to thick mud, strong wind and the like as the most apparent statement that Ulama state. This is the view of Malik, and the more apparent of the two sayings in the Madhhab of Ahmad.

In addition, the potential wrong committed by advancing Asr and Isha is preferred to that of advancing Dhuhr and Maghrib; since performing a prayer before its time is not permissible under any circumstances. While it is permissible to perform them during the time of Dhuhr and Maghrib; since this is their due time in the case of an excuse. The state of uncertainty is a case of an excuse. Thus, Jam (to combine two prayers) in the case of uncertainty is more reasonable than praying them individually during a time of Shakk (doubt).

This is related to what is said by those who say it was done in order to catch the time the two prayers meet. But such a time only occurs in the case of prayers that share a time. Do not see that they did not recommend delaying Fajr, Isha or Asr? If the reason for all of this was actually for fear of performing the prayer before its time, then this would have also applied to Fajr, Asr and Isha.

It is narrated that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) urged us to hasten performing the Asr prayer:


‏بَكِّروا بالصلاة في يوم الغيم، فإنه من ترك صلاة العصر فقد حبط عمله‏

"Expedite the prayer on the cloudy day. Indeed, whoever leaves the Asr prayer, his deed will be in vain." (Bukhari, #553, #594; Nasa’i, #474)

If it is said: "If it is Mustahabb (desirable) to delay Maghrib during cloudy weather, then breaking the fast would also be delayed." Then we say that: It is only Mustahabb to delay along with advancing Isha, such that they are prayed before dusk disappears. But if one delays it until he fears the disappearance of dusk, then this is not Mustahabb (recommended), nor is it Mustahabb to delay breaking the fast until that time.

Thus, the legislated Jam (combining prayers) for rainy weather is Jam’ul Taqdim (the combining in advance), at the time of Maghrib. It is not Mustahabb to delay Maghrib until the disappearance of dusk. This would cause a great hardship on people, while combining has been legislated to ease matter for the Muslims.

Both Takhir (the delay) and Taqdim (the advancement) that are Mustahabb do not mean the performance of the two prayers without any time in between. Rather Dhuhr is delayed and Asr advanced, but there may be a short period of time between them. The same with Maghrib and Isha, the pray one, and wait for the other, but only a time in which none would need to go to their home and then return. This type of Jam (combining prayers) is allowed. It is not conditional based upon instantaneous succession, according to the most correct view of the two views as we mentioned in different place.

It is confirmed in Sahih Bukhari from Asma bint Abi Bakr (radiyallahu anha) who said:


أفطرنا يومًا من رمضان في غيم على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ثم طلعت الشمس

"One day, during the lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) we broke our fast in Ramadan on a cloudy day, then, the sun appeared again." (Bukhari, #1959; Abi Dawud, #2359; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1744; Daraqutni; Ahmad, Musnad, 6/346; Bayhaqi, Sunnan’ul Kubra, 4/217)

Two rulings are inferred from this narration:

(The First Inference) It is not Mustahabb to delay breaking the fast during cloudy weather until one is sure of sunset. They did not do this, nor did Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) order them to. It is well known that Sahabah along with their Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) are well aware of the rulings, and they are the more compliant to Allah, and to His Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) than those who followed them.

The Second (Inference) Making up the fast is not Waajib. Since, had Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded them to make it up, it would have been popular among them and it would have been conveyed to us, just as their breaking their fast was conveyed to us. Since it was not conveyed, it is inferred that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not command it.

If it is said: "Hisham ibn Urwah was asked: Were they commanded to make it up. And he said: Isn’t making it up essential?" Then the response is that: This is mere Ra’y (opinion) of Hisham, and then they did not report it with the Hadith (he narrated). Proving that he had no knowledge about that is what Ma’mar narrated: "I heard Hisham saying: I do not know whether they made it up or not." Bukhari reported this. Hisham narrated this Hadith from his wife, Fatimah bint’ul Mundhir from Asma (radiyallahu anha).
 
Hisham also narrated from his father Urwah that they were not commanded to make it up, and Urwah is more knowledgeable than his son. This is the view of Ishaq ibn Rahawayh. Ahmad said: "By analogy, it does not break his fast. We only left this view because of the Hadith of Umar." Ishaq bin Rahawayh is a colleague of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and he is in agreement with his Madhhab, in its Usoul (fundamentals) and its Furu (branches). And many of their sayings are in accord. Kawsaj asked his questions from Ahmad and Ishaq. Likewise Harb al-Kirmani asked his questions from Ahmad and Ishaq as did others. Similarly Tirmidhi combined the sayings of Ahmad and Ishaq, for he reported both of their sayings from the issues of Kawsaj.

Abu Zu`rah, Abu Hatim, Ibn Qutaybah, and other Aimmat’us Salaf wa Sunnah wa’l Hadith (Imams of the Salaf, Sunnah and Hadith) used to learn the Madhhab of Ahmad and Ishaq and give preference to their views over the views of the others. Aimmat’ul Hadith such as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’i and others who followed them are all among those who took Ilm (knowledge) and Fiqh (jurisprudence) from them, as well as Dawud who took from the companions of Ishaq. Whenever Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked about Ishaq, he used to say: "Am I asked about Ishaq? Nay, Ishaq should be asked about me."

Shafi`i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq, Abu Ubayd, Abu Thawr, Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi, Dawud ibn Ali and their like are all Fuqaha (pl., Faqih; jurists) of Hadith (radiyallahu anhum ajmain). Additionally Allah said in His Book:


‏وَكُلُواْ وَاشْرَبُواْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكُمُ الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنَ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ‏

"...eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears..." (al-Baqarah 2/187)

The verse along with the authentic Ahadith (pl., Hadith) of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) clearly state the command to eat until Fajr appears plainly. Thus, even in the state of doubt concerning Fajr, one is commanded to eat, as has been clarified.
 

Footnotes:


Quote
1- It was narrated from Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said the following regarding a person who eats or drinks while he is fasting out of forgetfulness:

مَنْ أَكَلَ نَاسِيًا وَهْوَ صَائِمٌ فَلْيُتِمَّ صَوْمَهُ، فَإِنَّمَا أَطْعَمَهُ اللَّهُ وَسَقَاهُ

"Whoever forgets while fasting then eats or drinks let him complete his fast; since Allah has fed him and caused him to drink." (Bukhari, #1933, #6669; Muslim, #1155; Tirmidhi, #721; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1743)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #5 on: 20.06.2016, 08:04:57 PM »
Things that Do Not Break the Fast
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 25/233-258


As for kohl, injections, drops dropped into urethra, and the stomach and brain treatments, the scholars differ over them. Some of them are of the opinion that none of them break the fast. Some ruled out kohl, some others ruled out eye drops, and a group ruled out kohl and eye drops and considered all else as breaking the fast. The most apparent view is that none of these break the fast.

The fast is one pillar of the religion of Muslimin (i.e., Islam) about which all people, Khass (the specialized) as well as Amm (the average) must be aware. Had these things been prohibited by Allah and His Rasul (Messenger) for the fasting person, or had they invalidated one’s fast, it would have been necessary for the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to clearly explain that. If Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had clarified it, the companions, would have reported it to the nation as they have with the rest of the legislative matters.

Since none of the knowledgeable scholars reported a Hadith -neither Sahih (authentic), Dhayif (weak), Musnad (connected), or Mursal (broken)- from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then it is known that he mentioned nothing in this concern.

The reported Hadith related to the kohl is Dhayif (weak) and it is recorded by Abu Dawud in his Sunnan. No one else recorded it. It is neither included in the Musnad of Ahmad nor in other Mutamad (reliable) compilations of Hadith.

The wording of the Hadith is as follows: "Abu Dawud said: an-Nufayli narrated to us: Ali ibn Thabit narrated to us; Abd’ur Rahman ibn’un Nu’man ibn Ma’bid ibn Hawdhah narrated to us on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) that he commanded using kohl when going to sleep, and said:


ليتقه الصائم

"Let the fasting person stay a way from it." (Abi Dawud, #2377)

Abu Dawud said: "Yahya ibn Ma’in said to me: This Hadith is Munkar (rejected)." al-Mundhiri said: "Yahya ibn Ma’in said (the narrator), Abd’ur Rahman is weak." And Abu Hatim ar-Razi said: "He (i.e., Abd’ur Rahman) is Saduk (truthful), but who knows his father and his trustworthiness and memorization abilities?"

The same with Ma’bid (the other narrator); he was contradicted by another Dhayif Hadith compiled by Tirmidhi with his Sanad (chain), to Anas ibn Malik (radiyallahu anh) who said: "A man came to Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and said:


اشتكيت عيني أفأكتحل وأنا صائم‏؟‏

"My eye is sore. Am I permitted to apply kohl while fasting? The Prophet said:

نعم

Yes." (Tirmidhi, #726)

Tirmidhi said: "Its chain of narrators is not Qawiyy (strong). Nothing is Sahih from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) on this topic, and it has Abu Atikah in it (i.e., chain of narration) who is Dhayif."

Bukhari said about Ma’bid: "He is Munkar’ul Hadith (his narrations are rejected).

Those who said that these things like injections and stomach and brain treatment break the fast have no Hujjah (proof) from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) they deduced their view from Qiyas (analogy). Their strongest proof is the saying of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam):


وبالغ في الاستنشاق إلا أن تكون صائمًا

"Exaggerate in Istinshaaq (inhaling and exhaling) of water (in your nose) unless you are fasting." (Abu Dawud, #142; Tirmidhi, #38; Ibn Ma’ajah; Nasa’i, #87; Nawawi, Riyad’us Salihin, #1243; Bayhaqi, Sunan)

They say: This indicates that whatever one causes to reach the brain breaks the fast. The same Qiyas would include whatever one causes to reach the stomach through injections etc., whether it reaches the stomach through normal passageway or whatever way it enters the stomach.

Those who ruled out eye drops say: The eye drops do not reach directly to the stomach but they seep; but what goes through the urethra/rectum is like what reaches the stomach through the mouth and the nose.

Those who ruled out kohl say: The eye is not a normal passageway like front and Dubr (i.e., the sex organ and the anus); but kohl is absorbed in the body like water and oil.

They (i.e., those who said that kohl breaks one’s fast) say: It reaches inside the throat till the fasting person expectorates it because there is a passageway from the eye to the throat.

As has been explained, all of them rely upon Qiyas. The fast is not invalidated this way for the following reasons:

The First (view): Qiyas is Hujjah (proof) if its conditions are correct, we have previously mentioned Ahkaam’ush Shari’ah (judgments of the Shar’iah) are clarified by Nusus (pl., Nass; textual proofs), Qiyas’us Sahih (the correct analogy) will only prove what is also proven by texts.

So when we know that Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) neither prohibited nor imposed anything, then we know that it is neither Haraam (unlawful) nor Waajib (obligatory) and that Qiyas that states that it is Waajib or Haraam is Fasid (invalid).

We are well aware that there is neither in Kitaab (the Book i.e., Qur’an) nor in the Sunnah what shows that such things break the fast. Thus, we know that they do not break the fast.

The Second (view): Ahkaam (pl., Hukm; the rulings) which the Ummah needs to be aware of must be made publicly clear by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and transmitted throughout the Ummah. If this has taken place, then it is known that such rulings are not from Din of Allah. For example, we know that fasting any other month besides the month of Ramadhan has not been made obligatory, and there is no Hajj (pilgrimage) to Bayt (a house) other than Bayt’ul Haraam (the Sacred House i.e., Ka’bah), and there is no daily obligatory prayer other than the five prayers. It is known also that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not impose making Ghusl (major ablution) for merely fondling one’s wife if there is not ejaculation of semen. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also did not impose Wudhu (minor ablution) for being scared nearly to death, although there might be some excretions that occur. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also did not order two Rak’ah (unit of prayer) to be performed after the Sa'i between Safa and Marwah as he ordered after Tawaf around Bayt (the House i.e., the Ka’bah). In this way, we came to know that Mani (semen) is not Najis (filthy); since it was not reported through any Isnad (chain of narrators) that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded the Muslims to wash it off, neither from their bodies nor from their clothing, although most of the people would experience it. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded menstruating woman to wash menstruation blood from her underwear, although there is no dire need for this. He did not command the male Muslims to wash semen, neither from their bodies nor from their clothes.

The Hadith narrated by some Fuqaha, which says:


يغسل الثوب من البول والغائط والمني والمذي والدم‏

"The dress should be washed from urine, stool, semen, prosthetic fluid, and blood."

Is not the saying of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). It has no value since none of the reliable compilations of the Hadith contain it. None of Ahl’ul Ilm bi’l Hadith (the specialists in the science of Hadith) collected it with a reliable Isnad (chain of narrators). It is narrated from Umar.1 It seems that it is his, own saying.

As for the washing and scratching the semen from the clothes of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) by Aishah (radiyallahu anha)2, it is not an evidence that doing so is an obligation. Since the clothing is also washed to remove dirt, mucus, and spittle. The commandment of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) for anything is the only factor to consider any affair obligatory; especially when we know that the Messenger did not command the Muslims to wash it off of their clothing. Besides, it was not reported that he ordered Aishah (radiyallahu anha) to wash it. He only silently approved of her doing so. This implies its permissibility, or that it is an agreeable endorsement or a recommendation. As far as an obligation is concerned, there must be Dalil (a proof).

In this way we came to know that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not impose Wudhu because of touching women nor from Najasah (filthy matters) that come out of the organs other than via Sabilayn (i.e., the two ducts). It has not been narrated with Isnad which established that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded such action; although the people used to vomit, and were being cupped, and were wounded in the battlefield. The vein of some of his companions was cut, and bled, yet none reported that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded them to perform ablution because of it.

In addition, the people used to touch their wives Shahwah (lustfully) and without lust, yet none of the Muslims reported that he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded them to perform Wudhu because of this. Besides, the Qur’an does not refer to this; since what is intended by the touching is sexual intercourse as has been explained in its proper place.

His commandment to perform ablution for touching the sexual organ is merely a recommendation, regardless whether it excites the man or not. It is also Mustahabb (recommended) for one who gets excited when he touches a woman to perform Wudhu. This ruling applies to the one who contemplates sexual desire, and then his sexual organ becomes erect.

Performance of ablution when one is excited carries the ruling of the performance of the ablution when one gets angry. This is recommended because of the narration in the Sunnan that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


إن الغضب من الشيطان، وإن الشيطان من النار، وإنما تطفأ النار بالماء، فإذا غضب أحدكم فليتوضأ

"Anger is from Shaytan (Satan). Shaytan is created from the fire. And the fire is distinguished by water. Thus, if one of you gets angry, let him perform ablution." (Abi Dawud, # 4784; Ahmad, Musnad)

Uncontrollable Shahawah (sexual desire) is from the Shaytan and the Naar (Fire i.e., Hell-fire). So the order of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) to perform Wudhu for what has been touched by fire is because what was touched by fire mixes with the body, and thus the order for Wudhu is one of the recommendations. There is nothing in Nusus proving that this is Mansukh (abrogated), rather Nusus prove that it is not Waajib. Saying that it is Mustahabb is more just than the other views; the view that it is Waajib, and the view that it is Mansukh. This is one of the two views in the Madhhab of Ahmad and others.

In this way we come to know that both the urine and the dung of the animal whose flesh is eaten is, not Najis, for these people were shepherds of camels and sheep. They used to sit and pray in their animal pens which would be full of their dung. Had these places been considered as Hushuwsh (the places where one answers the call of nature), Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would have commanded them to avoid them and not to stain their bodies and clothes in them nor pray in them.

It is established that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Ashab (companions) performed prayer in sheep pens, and he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded praying in sheep pens but he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) prohibited praying in camels pens. Thus, it is known that this was not due to Najashah (the filth) of the dung, but to the reason for which he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) commanded performing Wudhu after eating camel meat. When he was asked about Wudhu after eating the meat of sheep, he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


إن شئت فتوضأ، وإن شئت فلا تتوضأ‏

"If you wish, perform ablution. And if you wish, do not perform it." (Muslim, #360)

He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) further said:


‏إن الإبل خلقت من جن، وإن على ذروة كل بعير شيطانًا‏

"Camels were created from the Jinn. There is a devil on the hump of each camel."

He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also said:


‏الفَخْرُ والخُيلاءُ في الفدادين أصحاب الإبل، والسكينة في أهل الغنم‏

"Boasting and haughtiness are among the Faddadin (uncivil) camel owners, tranquility is with the sheep herders." (Bukhari, #3301, #3499, #4388; Muslim, #52; Tirmidhi, #2243)

Since camels have devilish characteristics that Allah (the Almighty) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) dislike, people were commanded to perform Wudhu after eating their meat, and prayer in their pens was prohibited just as he prohibited its performance in bathrooms because they are the dwelling places of the devils.

Prayer should be avoided in the dwelling place of Ruh’ul Habith (the evil souls), and evil bodies, nay evil souls are beloved by the evil bodies.

Since Shayatin (pl., Shaytan; devils) attend Hushuwsh, prayer in them is more worthy to be avoided than in Hamaam (the bath house), and camels pens, and more worthy than polluted land. There is no specific text concerning Hushuwsh because it was well known to the Muslims, thus, they did not need a specific Bayaan (clarification). For this reason, none of the Muslims used to sit in Hushuwsh or pray in them. They would go out in the open to answer the call of nature before they had water closets in their houses.

When they heard his prohibition of praying in the bath houses or camel pens, they knew with all the more reason that prayer in Hushuwsh was strictly prohibited. Although there is a Hadith narrated which prohibits the performance of the prayer in the grave yard, the slaughter house, the dump, Hushuwsh, the middle of the road, the camel pens, and the surface of Baytullah’ul Haraam (i.e., the Ka’bah).3

But Ashab’ul Hadith (the People of Hadith i.e., the scholars of Hadith) are in disagreement about it. The companions of Ahmad have two opinions: Some of them see this to hold the position of a prohibition, while others say that the Hadith is not confirmed. I did not find either a prohibition or a commandment in Ahmad’s sayings, although he disliked the performances of prayer in places of Azab (punishment). This was reported by his son Abdullah in a Hadith recorded in the Musnad from Ali, it was also recorded by Abu Dawud. It mentions Hushuwsh, camel pens and the bath houses. These three were also mentioned by Kharqi and others.

The ruling concerning this depends on one’s view. He may clarify it by Qiyas to the other mentioned Nass (textual proof), or he may affirm the Hadith. Whoever disagrees would have to negate the Hadith and explain the distinction. Besides, the prohibition can be a prohibition of Karaha (dislike) or Tahrim (a prohibition of unlawfulness).

Since these are Ahkaam concerning average everyday practices, and they must be clarified publicly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and they must be conveyed by the Ummah, and it is well known that kohl and other common things -such as oil, taking a bath, scent and perfume are used by most people- then were it that such things break the fast, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would have explained it. Since he did not explain this, we come to know that it can be classified under scent, musk and oil. Scent may pass to the brain through the nose. Tissues absorb the oil which strengthens man. He gains strength from the scent. Since the fasting person was not prohibited from such things, then this proves that fragrance, oil, and kohl are permissible. During the life time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) the Muslims used to suffer wounds whether in the Jihaad or otherwise; they also suffered wounds in the stomach and the head and used to be treated with the prescribed medical substances. Had this been breaking the fast, he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would have clarified this. Since he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not prohibit the fasting person from doing this, we know that it does not break the fast.

The Third Wajih (view): Affirming that something breaks the fast by Qiyas must be done by Qiyas Sahih (an analogy that is correct). This will either be by comparing two things that are in the same category, or by eliminating any distinguishing factors between them. So either evidence supports the reason for Asl (the basic case), then it is applied to its Furu (branches), or it is known that there is no difference between them in their characteristics from the view of the Shari’ah. As for the case in question, Qiyas is negated.

This is because there is nothing among the evidences stating that what Allah (Ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) appointed as breaking the fast is that which goes to the brain or the body, or what reaches through a passageway (other than the normal one), or reaches the stomach (through passageways other than the mouth) etc. This seems to be what the people of this view want to impose as criteria on Allah (Ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). They are saying: "Allah (Ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) made eating and drinking among the things that break the fast because they have the joint meaning of substances used to treat stomach and head ailments that reach the brain and the stomach. Or other things that reach the stomach like kohl, something injected, or what passes through the urethra (rectum) etc."

Since there is no Dalil from Allah and His Messenger from which to derive this description, then the saying: "Allah (Ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) only ranked these as things that break the fast for this reason" is a saying without Ilm (knowledge). And the statement, "Allah made it Haraam (unlawful) for the fasting person to do this" then this is a claim of "this is Halaal (lawful) and this is Haraam" without Ilm, claiming that Allah has said something without Ilm. This is not Ja’iz (permissible).

Any of Ulama (pl., Alim; the scholars) who believe that the joint meaning determines Hukm (the judgment), then he is in the same category as one who believes that his Madhhab is Sahih (correct) when it actually is not Sahih. Or he is like the one who tries to prove something that was not even mentioned by Rasul (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). This is their own Ijtihad (judgment) for which they will rewarded; but it is not required the Muslim to consider their saying a Shari’ah evidence that is necessary to be followed.

The Fourth Wajih (view): Qiyas can only be Sahih if the Shari’ah does not indicates the reason for Hukm after we study its Asl (basic qualities), and it will not apply except in the case of the same qualities. Since we have affirmed that Asl (the basic reason) corresponds to or is akin to, or resembles contrary to what these people say, then it must be investigated. And if we find that there are two basic descriptions, then it is not possible that we say this Hukm applies to one of them but not the other.

It is well known that both Nass and Ijmaa affirm that eating, drinking, Jima (sexual intercourse), and Haydh (menstruation) break the fast. We also have known that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has forbidden the one performing Wudhu to be excessive in Istinshaaq (rinsing his nose) if he is fasting. Istinshaaq as an analogy is their Qawiyy (strongest) Hujjah (argument) as previously explained. But it is still Dhayif Qiyas (a weak analogy). This is because when one inhales water into the nostrils, water descends to the throat then to his stomach. So the result is the same as the result when drinking with the mouth. His body is nourished by this water, his thirst is removed, the food in his stomach is digested, all just the same as in the case of drinking water. If Nass have not mentioned a prohibition of this, then reason leads one to know that this falls under the same category as drinking, there is no distinction between the two cases except for the means by which the water enters the mouth, and that is not relevant because the mere entrance of water in the mouth does not break the fast. So it does not break the fast nor does it fall under the category of something that does due to the absence of the results in question.

Rather, it is a means that leads to breaking the fast. But this is not the case with kohl, and injections, and stomach and brain medicines, for kohl does not provide nourishment, nor does anyone put kohl in their stomach, nor via the nose nor mouth. Similarly, injections do not provide any nourishment in anyway; it only goes through the branches of the body. Just like inhaling some type of laxative or being frightened until one expels what is in his stomach.

So the injection does not reach the stomach and the medicine that reaches the stomach in the case of treatments from stomach surgery or for the brain are not like what reaches the stomach for nourishment.

Wallahu Subhanahu said:


‏كُتِبَ عَلَيْكُمُ الصِّيَامُ كَمَا كُتِبَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ‏

"Fasting is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you." (al-Baqarah 2/183)

The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


‏الصوم جنة‏

"Fasting is a shield." (Bukhari, #7492; Muslim, #1151; Tirmidhi, #764; Nasa’i, #2215-2217, #2224-2233; Ibn Ma’ajah, #3973)

He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) also said:


إن الشيطان يجري من ابن آدم مجرى الدم، فضيقوا مجاريه بالجوع بالصوم‏

"Indeed, Satan rushes through the blood of the son of Adam so constrict him by hunger and fast." (Bukhari, # 7171; Muslim, #2174; Abi Dawud, #4719; Tirmidhi, #1172; Ibn Ma’ajah, # 1851; the second part is without a source)

The fasting person has been prohibited from eating and drinking because they are the cause of strength. Thus, eating and drinking produce much blood, the medium in which Satan rushes. Such blood is the blood produced from food. It is not produced from the injection, nor from kohl. It is not produced from the medications taken by the one treated for stomach or head wounds, but it is produced from the water inhaled through the nose, hence the prohibition of exaggerating during Istinshaaq (rinsing the nose) keeps one’s fast intact.

If such meanings are contained in the firm Asl (fundamental) by Nass and Ijmaa, thus, their allegation that Shari (the Legislator i.e., Allah) bases His Hukm concerning what breaks the fast in accordance of theirs, turns out to contradict what is mentioned. A contradiction in the Asl voids all kinds of Qiyas as long as it is not clarified that the description they claim is for another reason beside that.

The Fifth Wajih (view): It is well known that Nass and Ijmaa establish the prohibition of the fasting person from eating, drinking, and Jima (sexual intercourse). It is authentically reported that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


إن الشيطان يجري من ابن آدم مجرى الدم

"Indeed, Satan rushes through the son of Adam’s blood." (Bukhari, # 7171; Muslim, #2174; Abi Dawud, #4719; Tirmidhi, #1172; Ibn Ma’ajah, # 1851)

Undoubtedly, blood is produced from eating and drinking; so when one eats or drinks, the ducts of Shayatin (i.e., the veins) widen. So it is said:


‏فضيقوا مجاريه بالجوع‏ "so constrict the ducts by hunger."

Some say this is a Marfu (elevated report that reaches to the Prophet of Allah). Similarly the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


‏إذا دخل رمضان فتحت أبواب الجنة وغلقت أبواب النار وصفدت الشياطين

"When Ramadhan begins the gates of Paradise are opened, the gates of the Fire are closed, and the devils are chained." (Bukhari and Muslim, # 1079; Tirmidhi, #682; Nasa'i, #2097-2098, #2102; Ibn Ma’ajah, # 1711; Malik, Muwatta, #692)

If these ducts were constrained and the hearts rushed to do Khayraat (the good deeds) by which the gates of Jannah (Paradise) are opened, and abstained from Munkaraat (evil deeds) then Shayatin (the devils) are chained which the gates of Naar (the Fire i.e., Hellfire) are opened, so their effects lessens due to being chained. They will be unable to do what they used to do in the months other than Ramadhan. The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not say that they would be killed or die. He said:
صفدت "Chained". The chained devil may cause some harm, but his harm in the month of Ramadhan is less and weaker than in other months. This depends on the perfection or imperfection of the fast. Thus, he whose fast is perfect repels the devil better than the one whose fast is imperfect. This is the wisdom behind prohibiting the fasting person from eating and drinking. The ruling is stabled only on what is in agreement to it. The Shari’ah proves (that the fast is broken in) cases with these qualities and effects, and these things are negated in the case of injections and kohl and their like.

If it is said: "Kohl descends into the body and changes into blood."

Then the reply is: This is like what was said about humidity that ascends from the nose to the brain then changes into blood, and the oil absorbed by the body as well. The prohibited is only what reaches the stomach like nourishment, and changes into blood that circulates the body.

(The Sixth Wajih): We have made this a sixth view, so we have compared the kohl, injections, and the like with the incense, and oil etc., by finding the common characteristic between them i.e. they do not nourish and produce blood from the stomach. This characteristic is that which necessitates that such a thing does not break the fast. And this may be found in the cases of dispute. Furu (the branch) may be based upon two Asl (fundamentals), each of them joined to what has Sifaat (pl., Sifat; the qualities/characteristics) that resemble it according to what is relevant to the Shari’ah, and we have already mentioned what is relevant here to the Shari’ah.

If it is said: "What would be the cause if one were to eat dust, pebbles or the like which are not nourishing and provide no benefit?" Then the reply is that these are processed by the stomach and changed into blood which supports the body, but they are incomplete forms of nourishment. This is like the case of the one who has taken poison or something else that causes him harm. And like the one who ate too much food and suffered indigestion. Prohibition of such things in the fast is more obvious; since it is prohibited while not fasting. This is like the prohibition of a husband from having sexual intercourse with his wife so it is more obvious that he is prohibited from Zina (adultery).

If it is said: "Then sexual intercourse breaks the fast and menstruation blood breaks the fast; although there is no relation between them."

Then the reply is: These Ahkaam (pl., Hukm; rulings) are established by Nass (the text) and Ijmaa (the consensus), so there is no need to use Qiyaas (analogies) to prove them. The reasons may vary, thus, the prohibition of eating and drinking is for one reason and the prohibition of Jima (sexual intercourse) while fasting and the fact that it breaks the fast is for another reason. The fast is broken by Haydh (menstruation) for a certain reason, yet we do not say that Hayhd is forbidden. This is because things that break by Nass and Ijmaa are divided into matters of choice that are not lawful for the servant, like eating and Jima, and things that there is no choice for like Haydh. So in this way there are different reasons.

We say: In the case of Jima (sexual intercourse), in essence it is the cause of Inzaal (ejaculation) of Mani (semen) which carries the same ruling as that of Istirfagh (intentionally vomiting). Haydh, and Hijaamah (wet cupping), we will explain later Inshallah (Allah willing). Sexual intercourse is a process of emission. It is not a process of replenishing like eating and drinking. But from the view that it is one of the two lusts, it carries the same ruling as eating and drinking.

In the Sahih Hadith, Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said that Allah Ta’ala (the Almighty) said:


قال‏:‏ الصوم لي وأنا أجزي به، يدع شهوته وطعامه من أجلي‏

"Fasting is for Me, and I reward for it. One leaves his desire and food for My sake." (Bukhari, #1894, #7492; Muslim, #1151; Nasa'i, #2215; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1707; Malik, Muwatta, #691)

The human leaving what he desires for the sake of Allah is the objective that the worship will be rewarded for. In the same way that the one in a state of Ihram is rewarded for leaving usual dress, perfume and the like of physical luxuries. Jima (sexual intercourse) is one of the most loved lusts of the body. It pleases the soul and brings it delight. It moves the lust, the blood, and the body as a whole more than eating. Since Shaytan flows through Ibn Adam (Son of Adam i.e., mankind)’s blood, and nourishment produces the blood which is his medium, then when man eats or drinks, his soul tends to lust, and its will and love for the acts of worship weakens. This is more apparent in the case of Jima. Its effect in strengthening will of Nafs (the soul) for desire and weakening it for worship is greater. In fact Jima is the dominant desire; it is a greater desire than that of eating and drinking. For such reason one having Jima during the day of Ramadhan has to pay Kafaarah (the ransom) equal to that for Dhihar. Itq (emancipation) or its equivalent is obligatory on him according to the Sunnah and Ijmaa. Because it is more grave, its temptation is stronger, the corruption resulting from it is more severe. This is the greater of the two reasons for the prohibition of Jima (sexual intercourse).

As for as it weakening the body, being a form of Istifragh (emission), this is the other reason. In this view it becomes like eating and Haydh (menstruation), but it is graver, so it spoils the fast more than eating and Haydh.

If we think about Hikmah (the wisdom) behind Hayhd (menstruation) in accordance with Qiyas (the analogy), then we say: The Shari’ah delivers Adl (justice) in all affairs, Israaf (exaggeration) in Ibadaah (worship) is a form of injustice which Shari’ah prohibits, for it orders moderation in Ibadaah. For this reason, it commands rushing of breaking the fast and delaying Suhur (the predawn meal). This is why it prohibited Wisaal (uninterrupted fasting). The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


أفضل الصيام وأعدل الصيام صيام داود عليه السلام، كان يصوم يومًا ويفطر يومًا، ولا يفر إذا لاقَى

"The best style of fast is that of Dawud; he used to fast every other day, and he did not flee when facing the enemy." (Bukhari, #1976; Muslim, #1159; Tirmidhi, #770; Abi Dawud, #2427; Nasa'i, #2387-2393)

Thus, Adl (justice) in acts of Ibadaah (worship) is one of the greatest objectives of the Shari’ah. For this reason, Allah (Ta’ala) says:


يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ لاَ تُحَرِّمُواْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللّهُ لَكُمْ‏

"O you who believe! Make not unlawful the wholesome things that have been made lawful to you. And transgress not. Indeed, Allah does not like the transgressors." (al-Ma’idah 5/87)

So prohibited Halaal (the lawful) has been categorized as an antagonist to Adl. He (Ta’ala) also said:


فَبِظُلْمٍ مِّنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُواْ حَرَّمْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ طَيِّبَاتٍ أُحِلَّتْ لَهُمْ وَبِصَدِّهِمْ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ كَثِيرًا وَأَخْذِهِمُ الرِّبَا وَقَدْ نُهُواْ عَنْهُ‏

"For the wrong doing of the Jews, We made unlawful for them certain good foods which had been lawful for them, and for their hindering many from Allah’s Way. And their taking Riba (interest), though they were forbidden from taking it." (an-Nisa 4/160-161)

Since they were Dhalim (unjust), their punishment was the prohibition of the good, lawful food. To the contrary, for Ummat’ul Wasat’il Adl (the just and moderate nation of Islam) Tayyibat (all the wholesome things) were made Halaal (lawful) to them, while Habaith (all the filthy things) were made Haraam (unlawful) for them.

Since this is the case, the fasting person has been prohibited from food and drink which strengthens and nourishes him, he must be prohibited from the emission of what weakens him and empties the substance with which he is nourished. Otherwise it will be harmful for him and at odds with his act of worship, not a just form of it.

Emissions are of two types:

A type one has no control to prevent, or its emission causes him no harm. These are not prohibited for him, like two Habaith (i.e., urine and stool), their emission causes him no harm, and he is not able to prevent them, when it is time, they will come out. Their evacuation is not harmful to him but rather beneficial to him. Likewise vomiting emits the food and drink that the stomach turns into nourishment, the same with Ihtilaam (masturbation) because of the desire associated with it, it is Istimna (the process of the emission of semen) which is internally turned into blood, so it is an emission of the blood which nourishes him. For this reason, excessive emission of semen may be harmful for humans, even coming out red.

The blood that is discharged during Haydh (menstruation) is a form of blood emission, so the menstruating woman is able to fast another time outside of her menstrual period when her blood does not flow. Her fasting in such circumstances is just because the blood that strengthens her body is not being discharged. If she were to fast during her period then the blood which gives her strength would be discharged as well, weakening her body, then her fasting would no longer be just, and so she has been commanded to fast while she is not menstruating.

The case with Mustahadhah (one having Istihadhah i.e., irregular bleeding) is different. Since her bleeding takes a long time, and it is impossible for her to be commanded to make the fast up later; since during another time she may also be bleeding. Thus, her bleeding is uncontrollable exactly as the case of uncontrollable vomiting, blood discharge due to abscesses, Ihtilaam (a wet dream) and the like. These things have the limited time based upon which one may exercise some control. Therefore these are not considered to negate the fast as is the case with Haydh (menstrual blood).

Contrary to this is the drainage of blood through Hijaamah (wet cupping), venesection and the like. Ulama (pl., Alim; the scholars) differ over whether Hijaamah breaks the fast or not. There are many Ahadith (pl., Hadith) mentioned from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) saying:


أفطر الحاجم والمحجوم

"The one performing Hijaamah (wet cupping) and the one cupped have broken (the fast)." (Abi Dawud, #2367-2371; Tirmidhi, #774; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1749-1751)

Aimmat’ul Huffadh (the preserving Hadith scholar Imams) have explained them. Among Sahabah (the companions) many did not like the fasting person to be cupped, and some of them would only do it during the night. The people of Basrah would close Hijamaah shops when the month of Ramadhan began. The view that Hijamaah breaks the fast is that of most of Fuqaha (pl., Faqih; jurists) scholars of Hadith such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn’ul Mundhir and others.

The Fiqh scholars among the people of Hadith are the closest in following the commandments of Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). Those who do not see that Hijaamah breaks the fast base their opinion on the narration reported in the Sahih which says:


أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم احتجم وهو صائم محرم

"Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was cupped while fasting and in Ihram." (Bukhari, #1938; Tirmidhi, #775-777; Ibn Ma’ajah, # 1752, # 3199-3200)

Ahmad and others criticized Ziyadah (addition in the wording)
وهو صائم "while fasting." They say that the established narration is that he was cupped while محرم "Muhrim (in the state of Ihram)." Ahmad said: "Yahya ibn Sa’id said: Shu’bah said, Hakam on the authority of Miqsam from Ibn Abbaas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) that:

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم احتجم وهو صائم محرم

"Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was cupped while fasting and Muhrim (in the state of Ihram)." (Bukhari, #1836, #5695-5701; Muslim, #1202; Abi Dawud, #1835-1837, #2373; Tirmidhi, #839; Ibn Ma’ajah, #3082, #3481; Nasa'i, #2845-2850; Malik, Muwatta, #779)

Muhanna said: "I asked Ahmad about the Hadith of Habib Ibn’ush Shadid on the authority of Maymun ibn Mihran from Ibn Abbaas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was cupped while fasting and in the state of Ihram. Ahmad said: It is not Sahih (correct)." Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Ansari rejected it (saying that the Hadith of Maymun ibn Mihran from Ibn Abbas amount to only about fifteen Hadith). Athram said: "I heard Abu Abdullah (i.e., Ahmad ibn Hanbal) mentioning this Hadith, and saying it is Dhayif (weak)." He also said: "The books of al-Ansari were lost during the turmoil and he used to narrate from the books of his slave. This is one of those."

Muhanna also said: "I asked Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) about the Hadith of Qubaysah on the authority of Sufyan on the authority of Hammad on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr from Ibn Abbaas.4 Ahmad said: It is a mistake on the part of Qubaysah. I asked Yahya about Qubaysah. He said: He is a trustworthy, but he is mistaken in what he narrates from Sufyan from Sa’id."

Again Muhanna said: "I asked Ahmad about the Hadith of Ibn Abbas which says:


أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم احتجم وهو محرم صائم

"Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was cupped while in the state of Ihram and fasting."

Ahmad said: It does not include
صائم "fasting". It includes only محرم "in the state of Ihram," similar was mentioned by Sufyan from Amr ibn Dinar from Tawus from Ibn Abbaas.

احتجم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على رأسه وهو محرم

"Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had Hijaamah on his head while he was Muhrim." (Bukhari, #5700-5701; Abi Dawud, #1836)

Also from Tawus from Ata and it’s similar from Ibn Abbaas. And from Abd’ur Razzaq from Ma’mar from Ibn Khaytham from Sa’id ibn Jubayr from Ibn Abbaas. These followers of Ibn Abbaas did not mention anything about
صائما "while he was fasting".

This is what has been mentioned by Imam Ahmad, and it is what was agreed upon by Shakhyan (the Two Shaykhs i.e.,) Bukhari and Muslim. For this reason they rejected the narration which mentions:
حجامة الصائم "cupped while fasting." They agreed only on the narration that mentions حجامة المحرم "cupped while in the state of Ihram." Their best argument in this regard is the saying of Shafi'i and others that it was Mansukh (abrogated). This saying was on (the eighteenth of) Ramadhan, his Hijamaah while fasting and being in Ihram was after this; since the Ihram was after (the month of) Ramadhan. But this view is also Dhayif (weak) because his cupping while he was in Ihram and fasting has nothing to do with being after Ramadhan.

Some interpreted the Hadith mentioning cupping in ways that are weak; such as they were backbiting, and that it was something else they did that broke their fast.

The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) adopted the state of Ihram in the sixth year, on the year of Hudaybiyah in the month of Dhu’l Qa’dah. He also adopted the state of Ihram for Umrat’ul Qadha (the Umrah to be made up) in the year that succeeded the sixth year in the month of Dhu’l Qa’dah. In the eight year he adopted Ihram from al-Ji’ranah in the month of Dhu’l Qa’dah, during the year of Fath (the Conquest i.e., Makkah). Then he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) adopted the state of Ihram in the tenth year for the Farewell Pilgrimage. Thus, the narration that mentions cupping while fasting does not clarify in which one of the four times of Ihram he was cupped.

All of this supports the view that he was cupped while in Ihram before the year of the Conquest of Makkah when he said:


‏أفطر الحاجم والمحجوم‏

"The one cupping and the one cupped have broken (the fast)."

This was said during the year of the Conquest without a doubt, as reported in the most authentic Hadith.

Ahmad said: Isma’il informed us from Khalid al-Hadhdha from Abi Qilabah from al- Ash’ath from Shaddad ibn Aws that in the year of Fath (the Conquest of Makkah) he passed with Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) by a man who was being Hijamaah in Baqi after eighteen days passed during the month of Ramadhan. At that time the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


أفطر الحاجم والمحجوم

"The one cupping and the one cupped have broken (the fast)."

Tirmidhi said: "I asked Bukhari who said: On this topic, there is not a Hadith more authentic than the Hadith of Shaddad ibn Aws and the Hadith of Thawban. I (i.e., Tirmidhi) said: What about the contradictions? He (i.e., Bukhari) said: Both of them are Sahih in my opinion; since Yahya ibn Sa’id narrated it from Abi Qilabah from Abi Asma from Thawban (radiyallahu anh), and he also narrated from Abu’l Ash’asth from Shaddad as two Hadith together."

I (i.e., Ibn Taymiyyah) say: What Bukhari said is among the clearest proofs to the soundness of the two Hadith Abi Qilabah reported. As for him saying that there is some confusion in the narration it is because it was narrated with two different chains of narrators.

A proof that this Hadith is not preserved -neither from Anas nor Thabit -is what Bukhari narrated in his Sahih on the authority of Thabit saying: "Anas bin Malik was asked: Did you (companions) dislike cupping for the fasting person? He said: No except for fear of weakness."

There is another narration that adds the words:

"During the lifetime of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)."

This is Thabit who narrated cupping on the authority of Anas, and there is nothing in this except that they disliked cupping for the sake of the weakness it causes. If he knew that it breaks the fast he would not say this, and if he knew that there was permission for it then he would not say they disliked what the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) permitted. So it is known that Anas only knew what he thought which was that the companions who only disliked cupping because of the weakness it causes.

This meaning is sound, and it is the reason for breaking the fast just as it is broken by intentionally vomiting and by the menstruation blood of the woman.

What supports the view that breaking the fast by cupping is the abrogating rule, is what is reported from most of his close companions who accompanied him in both residence and traveling and who knew what the others did not know of his affairs like Bilal, A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with them. And like Usamah, and Thawban his two freed slaves may Allah be pleased with them, the Ansar (the helpers) who were his entourage, like Rafi ibn Khadij and Shaddad ibn Aws.

In the Musnad of Imam Ahmad; Abd’ur Razzaq narrated to us, Ma’mar narrated to us from Yahya ibn Kathir from Abdullah ibn Qaridh from as-Sa’ib ibn Yazid on the authority of Rafi` ibn Khadij that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


أفطر الحاجم والمحجوم

"The one cupping and the one cupped have broken (the fast.)"

Ahmad bin Hanbal said: "The most authentic Hadith in this topic is the Hadith of Rafi."

The First: The fast of the one cupped is broken not the one cupping; since the one cupping does not do anything that would break the fast. This was mentioned by Kharqi since he mentioned "when one is cupped" among the times that break one’s fast, but he did not mention when one cups. But what is popularly written from Ahmad and Jumhur (the majority) of his companions is that both matters break the fast, and this is what is proven by Nass (the texts), so there is no way to avert it, even if we did not understand the wisdom behind it.

The Second: It breaks the fast only in case of the one cupped whose blood is drained, cases of venesection and other things that are not covered by the term "cupping" do not break the fast. This is the saying of Qadhi and his companions. This is the view mentioned by the author of Muharrar. Then, according to this saying, does slitting the ear fall under the category of cupping or not? Mutaakhirin (the later scholars) differ over this. Some of them said that is a kind of cupping. This is what was said by our Shaykh Abu Muhammad Maqdisi, and it is supported by all the scholars' statements. For there is nothing in their sayings that make an exception for such incisions, and if it was something that did not fall under the category of cupping then they would have mentioned it therefore it is known that, according to them, incision area a kind form of cupping. Our Shaykh Abu Muhammad said: "This is what is correct." Up to his saying.

The Fourth: This is the right view and the choice of Alim (the knowledgeable) and Adl (the just) Wazir Abu’l Muzaffar ibn Hubayrah, that both cupping, venesection and the like break the fast. That is because the meaning (action) done in cupping is done in venesection legislatively, reasonably, and naturally. Since Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) has persuaded cupping and even ordered it, his persuasion would include what falls under its meaning like venesection and the like. The extreme heat in hot lands agitates the blood which rises under the skin, then it is drained by cupping. As for cold lands, the blood sinks in the veins due to the cold; since like things attract. Likewise; stomachs get hot in winter and cold in summer. Thus, the inhabitants of cold lands practice venesection and incisions in the veins, while those of the hot countries practice cupping. There is no difference whatsoever between the, neither Shari (legislatively) nor from the view of Aql (reason)."

We have clarified that the view that cupping breaks the fast is in accordance with both Asl (the fundamentals) and Qiyaas (analogy), and that it is in the same category as Haydh (menstruation blood), intentional vomiting, and Istimna (masturbation). Based on this, any way that one intends to drain their blood would break their fast, just as it is broken by intentional vomiting by any means; whether one puts his hand inside his mouth, inhales what helps throw up the food in his stomach, or if one puts his hand under his belly to vomit intentionally. These are different ways to vomit intentionally. These are different ways to vomit intentionally, and the other cases are different ways to drain blood. Similarly the drainage of blood by any means mentioned, this one or that one is the same from the view that it is an attempt to Taharah (purify). Thus, the perfection of the Shari’ah, its justice, and its moderation is clarified, and that what has been established by texts and their meanings conform and concur with each other. Allah, the Almighty, says:


وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللّهِ لَوَجَدُواْ فِيهِ اخْتِلاَفًا كَثِيرًا

"Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein many a contradiction." (an-Nisa 4/82)

As for the one cupping, he removes the air in the cup by sucking the air from it. Then the air attracts the blood therein. It happens that some tiny drops of the blood ascend with the air and reach his throat while he is unaware of it. The rule in the case of something subtle but probable is that of presumption. For example; the sleeping one who passes wind while not knowing is commanded to perform the ablution. This applies to one cupping even more so because some of the drained blood may reach his stomach through his saliva while he does not perceive it.

The blood falls into the category of the greatest fast breakers. It is Haraam (unlawful) by itself since it encourages Shahwah (lusts) and transgressing Adl (the just) limits. The fasting person is commanded to reduce its quantity (by fasting). The (suckled) blood increases the blood of the one cupping, and this is prohibited. For this reason the fast of the one sleeping is nullified even though he is not sure he passed wind, since it may occur while he is unaware. The case is the same since the blood may enter the throat of the cupper while he is unaware of it.

As for the one making an incision, he is not a cupper; since he is not liable to have blood in his throat, his fast is not broken. Therefore if a cupper does not suck on the cup, or has someone suck the blood instead of him, or he drains the blood a different way, then his fast would not be broken.

The statement of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was meant only for the familiar cupper, although the wording is Amm (general). Even if he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) meant only a specific person, the ruling still applies to all others under his category. The legislative rule is that if a duty is applied to one person in the community then it applies to all of the community. Thus, anyone or anything not falling under definition of the word is not intended by the word and the concerned ruling is not applied to him in accordance with the Shari’ah and with Aql (reason).

Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows)!.. Walhamdulillahi Rabb’il Alamin (All praise to Allah, Lord of all the worlds)!.. May Salaat and plenty of Salaam upon –our Nabi (Prophet)- Muhammad!.. Alihi (his family) and Sahibhi (his companions)!..


Footnotes:


Quote
1- عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ يَسَارٍ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ، صَلَّى بِالنَّاسِ الصُّبْحَ ثُمَّ غَدَا إِلَى أَرْضِهِ بِالْجُرُفِ فَوَجَدَ فِي ثَوْبِهِ احْتِلاَمًا فَقَالَ إِنَّا لَمَّا أَصَبْنَا الْوَدَكَ لاَنَتِ الْعُرُوقُ ‏.‏ فَاغْتَسَلَ وَغَسَلَ الاِحْتِلاَمَ مِنْ ثَوْبِهِ وَعَادَ لِصَلاَتِهِ

"It was nararted from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Umar ibn’ul Khattab (radiyallahu anh) led the people in the Subh prayer and then went out to his land in Juruf and found semen on his clothes. He (radiyallahu anh) said:

"Since we have been eating rich meat our veins have become fulsome."

He (radiyallahu anh) did Ghusl, washed the semen from his clothing, and did his prayer again."
(Malik, Muwatta, #114)

2- It was narrated form Aishah: (radiyallahu anha) that she said:


أَنَّهَا كَانَتْ تَغْسِلُ الْمَنِيَّ مِنْ ثَوْبِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم، ثُمَّ أَرَاهُ فِيهِ بُقْعَةً أَوْ بُقَعًا

"I used to wash the semen off the clothes of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them." (Bukhari, #232, #229, #231; Muslim, #288-290; Abi Dawud, #373, #371; Ibn Ma’ajah, # 579)

3- It was narrated from Ibn Umar (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) that:


أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم نَهَى أَنْ يُصَلَّى فِي سَبْعَةِ مَوَاطِنَ فِي الْمَزْبَلَةِ وَالْمَجْزَرَةِ وَالْمَقْبُرَةِ وَقَارِعَةِ الطَّرِيقِ وَفِي الْحَمَّامِ وَفِي مَعَاطِنِ الإِبِلِ وَفَوْقَ ظَهْرِ بَيْتِ اللَّهِ

"Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) prohibited Salat from being performed in seven places: The dung heap, the slaughtering area, the graveyard, the commonly used road, the wash area, in the area that camels rest at, and above the House of Allah (the Ka'bah)." (Tirmidhi, #346)

4- which says: "Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was cupped while fasting and in the state of Ihram."
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #6 on: 23.06.2016, 07:29:09 AM »
Various Fatawa Regarding Fasting

Categories of Days with Regard to Fasting

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"Examining the issue may give a clue to the reason for this prohibition. To explain further, a man may say:

Do not give to this poor person, because he is an innovator. Then another poor person who is an innovator may ask of him and he may say: Do not give to him. And that poor person may be an enemy of his. So do we conclude that the reason (for advising not to give) the fact that he is an innovator, or is the matter not clear cut because the reason may be that he is an enemy of his?

If we see that Shari (the Lawgiver) issued a decree concerning something, and we examine it and see that there is something that is an appropriate reason for the ruling, but the Lawgiver did not refer to that reason or mentioned it as a reason for another ruling that is similar to the first ruling, then this is what we may call an appropriate yet strange reason, because there is no reference to that reason in Shari'ah and the Lawgiver did not refer to it or even hint at it. So some scholars said that it is acceptable to refer to this reason and others said that it is not. This is like working out the reason why the Lawgiver issued a particular ruling on the basis of our rational thinking, without any indication from the Lawgiver for that reasoning. However, we may work out the reason for a particular ruling through examination of the matter and other indications.

Once this is clear, our issue comes under the category of reason that is referred to in one particular text concerning a situation, yet may be applicable in another situation. The issue is that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) forbade singling out certain days for prayer or fasting, but he allowed that if it is not done by way of singling them out. Muslim narrated in his Sahih from Abu Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


لاَ تَخْتَصُّوا لَيْلَةَ الْجُمُعَةِ بِقِيَامٍ مِنْ بَيْنِ اللَّيَالِي وَلاَ تَخُصُّوا يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ بِصِيَامٍ مِنْ بَيْنِ الأَيَّامِ إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ فِي صَوْمٍ يَصُومُهُ أَحَدُكُمْ

"Do not single out the night before Friday for Qiyaam apart from other nights, and do not single out the day of Friday for fasting apart from other days, unless that is by way of regular fasts that one of you observes." (Muslim, #1144)

In Sahihayn it is narrated that Abu Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh) said that he heard Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) say:


لاَ يَصُومَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ، إِلاَّ يَوْمًا قَبْلَهُ أَوْ بَعْدَهُ

"No one among you should fast on Friday unless he also fasts the day before it or after it." (Bukhari, #1985; Muslim, #1144; Abi Dawud, #2420; Tirmidhi, #743; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1794)

Bukhari narrated:


عَنْ جُوَيْرِيَةَ بِنْتِ الْحَارِثِ ـرضى الله عنهاـ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا يَوْمَ الْجُمُعَةِ وَهْىَ صَائِمَةٌ فَقَالَ:‏ أَصُمْتِ أَمْسِ‏‏.‏ قَالَتْ لاَ‏.‏ قَالَ:‏ تُرِيدِينَ أَنْ تَصُومِي غَدًا‏‏.‏ قَالَتْ لاَ‏.‏ قَالَ: ‏فَأَفْطِرِي

"It was narrated from Juwayriyah bint’ul Haarith (radiyallahu anha) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) entered upon her on a Friday when she was fasting. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

Did you fast yesterday? She said: No. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Do you intend to fast tomorrow? She said: No. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: Then break your fast."
(Bukhari, #1986)

In Sahihayn  it is narrated that Muhammad ibn Abbaad ibn Ja'far said:


سَأَلْتُ جَابِرَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ - رضى الله عنهما - وَهُوَ يَطُوفُ بِالْبَيْتِ أَنَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنْ صِيَامِ يَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ فَقَالَ نَعَمْ وَرَبِّ هَذَا الْبَيْتِ

"I asked Jaabir ibn Abdullah (radiyallahu anh), as he was doing Tawaf (circumambulating) the Ka'bah:

Did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) forbid fasting on Fridays? He said: Yes, by the Lord of this Bayt (House i.e., Ka’bah)." (Bukhari, #1984; Muslim, #1143; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1724) This version was narrated by Muslim.

It was narrated from Ibn Abbaas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

"Do not fast Friday on its own." (Ahmad, Musnad, 4/374) It was narrated by Imam Ahmad.

A similar report was narrated in Sahihayn from Abu Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh) from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) who said:


اَ يَتَقَدَّمَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ رَمَضَانَ بِصَوْمِ يَوْمٍ أَوْ يَوْمَيْنِ، إِلاَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ رَجُلٌ كَانَ يَصُومُ صَوْمَهُ فَلْيَصُمْ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمَ

"No one among you should precede Ramadan by fasting one or two days before it, unless he is a man who regularly fasts, in which case he may fast that day." (Bukhari, #1914; Muslim, #1082; Abi Dawud, #2335; Tirmidhi, #684-685; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1719)

This version was narrated by Bukhari. What is meant is one who habitually fasts.

From the above we may understand that the Lawgiver has divided days into three categories with regard to fasting:

Those on which it is prescribed to fast either as an obligation, as in the case of Ramadan, or as a recommendation, as on Yawm’ul Arafah (the Day of Arafah) and Ashura.

Those on which it is forbidden to fast in all cases, as on Iydan (the two Id).

Those which it is forbidden to single out for fasting, such as Friday and the last days of Sha'baan. But if one of these days is fasted along with another day, it is not  Makruh (disliked). So if it is singled out by one's actions, that is not allowed regardless of whether the one who wants to fast intended to single it out or not, and regardless of whether he believes that there is some additional virtue in that or not." (lbn Taymiyyah, Iqtida’us Siraat’il Mustaqim li Mukhaalifat Ashab’ul Jahim, 2/608+)


The states of the One who Breaks His Fast

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

إذَا أَفْطَرَ فِي رَمَضَانَ مُسْتَحِلًّا لِذَلِكَ، وَهُوَ عَالِمٌ بِتَحْرِيمِهِ، اسْتِحْلَالًا لَهُ: وَجَبَ قَتْلُهُ وَإِنْ كَانَ فَاسِقًا: عُوقِبَ عَنْ فِطْرِهِ فِي رَمَضَانَ، بِحَسَبِ مَا يَرَاهُ الْإِمَامُ وَإِنْ كَانَ جَاهِلًا: عُرِّفَ بِذَلِكَ

"If a person breaks the fast in Ramadan, believing that to be permissible although he is aware of the prohibition on doing so, but he thinks that it is permissible for him, he must be executed.

If he is Faasiq (an evildoer), he should be punished for breaking the fast of Ramadan, as the ruler sees fit.

If he is Jaahil (ignorant), he is to be taught the ruling." (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 2/473)


One who Deliberately Does Not Fast

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

ولا يقضي متعمد بلا عذر : صوماً ولا صلاة ، ولا تصح منه

"The one who deliberately did not fast or pray with no excuse cannot make it up, and it is not valid on his part." (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Ikhtiyarat'ul Fiqhiyyah, 460)

Time For Iftaar (Breaking Fast)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

إذا غاب قرص الشمس : حينئذ يفطر الصائم ، ويزول وقت النهي ، ولا أثر لما يبقى في الأفق من الحمرة الشديدة في شيء من الأحكام

"When the disc of the sun has disappeared, at that point the fasting person may break his fast, and the time when offering supererogatory prayers is disallowed has come to an end. The deep red afterglow that may remain on the horizon does not affect any rulings at all." (Ibn Taymiyah, Sharh Umdat’ul Fiqh, 169)

One Who Breaks His Fast Due to Not Knowing that It Breaks The Fast

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said the following regarding the one who breaks his fast due to not knowing that it breaks the fast:

الصَّائِمُ إذَا فَعَلَ مَا يُفْطِرُ بِهِ جَاهِلا بِتَحْرِيمِ ذَلِكَ : فَهَلْ عَلَيْهِ الإِعَادَةُ ؟ عَلَى قَوْلَيْنِ فِي مَذْهَبِ أَحْمَدَ . . . وَالأَظْهَرُ أَنَّهُ لا يَجِبُ قَضَاءُ شَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ , وَلا يَثْبُتُ الْخِطَابُ إلا بَعْدَ الْبَلاغِ , لقوله تعالى

"If the fasting person does something that breaks the fast because he does not know that it is haraam, does he have to repeat the fast? According to two opinions in the Madhhab of Ahmad, it seems that he does not have to make up any of those fasts, because accountability only comes until after the message reaches a person, because Allah Ta'ala says:

لأُنْذِرَكُمْ بِهِ وَمَنْ بَلَغَ

"This Qur’an has been revealed to me that I may therewith warn you and whomsoever it may reach." (al-An’am 6/19);

وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولا

"And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)." (al-Isra 17/15);

لِئَلا يَكُونَ لِلنَّاسِ عَلَى اللَّهِ حُجَّةٌ بَعْدَ الرُّسُلِ

"…in order that mankind should have no plea against Allah after the (coming of) Messengers." (an-Nisa 4/165)

وَمِثْلُ هَذَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ مُتَعَدِّدٌ , بَيَّنَ سُبْحَانَهُ أَنَّهُ لا يُعَاقِبُ أَحَدًا حَتَّى يُبَلِّغَهُ مَا جَاءَ بِهِ الرَّسُولُ . وَمَنْ عَلِمَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ فَآمَنَ بِذَلِكَ , وَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ كَثِيرًا مِمَّا جَاءَ بِهِ لَمْ يُعَذِّبْهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَا لَمْ يَبْلُغْهُ , فَإِنَّهُ إذَا لَمْ يُعَذِّبْهُ عَلَى تَرْكِ الإِيمَانِ بَعْدَ الْبُلُوغِ , فَإِنَّهُ لا يُعَذِّبُهُ عَلَى بَعْضِ شَرَائِطِهِ إلا بَعْدَ الْبَلاغِ أَوْلَى وَأَحْرَى , وَهَذِهِ سُنَّةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم الْمُسْتَفِيضَةِ عَنْهُ فِي أَمْثَالِ ذَلِكَ . فَإِنَّهُ قَدْ ثَبَتَ فِي الصِّحَاحِ أَنَّ طَائِفَةً مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ ظَنُّوا أَنَّ قوله تعالى

There are several such verses in the Qur’an, in which Allah states that He does not punish anyone until the message that was brought by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) reaches him. Whoever knows that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and believes in that, but does not know much of the message that he brought, will not be punished by Allah for that of which he did not hear, for He only punishes people for not believing after the message reaches them. This is the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) which narrated in many reports. It is proven in the books of Sahih that a number of the Sahabah thought that the words of Allah Ta'ala:

الْخَيْطُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنْ الْخَيْطِ الأَسْوَدِ

"...until the white thread appears to you distinct from the black thread." (al-Baqarah 2/187)

هُوَ الْحَبْلُ الأَبْيَضُ مِنْ الْحَبْلِ الأَسْوَدِ . فَكَانَ أَحَدُهُمْ يَرْبِطُ فِي رِجْلِهِ حَبْلا . ثُمَّ يَأْكُلُ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ هَذَا مِنْ هَذَا فَبَيَّنَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بَيَاضُ النَّهَارِ , وَسَوَادُ اللَّيْلِ . وَلَمْ يَأْمُرْهُمْ بِالإِعَادَةِ اهـ

referred to a white string and a black string, so one of them would tie strings to his leg and eat until he could distinguish the one from the other. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) explained that what was meant by the white thread was the day, and by the black the night, but he did not command them to repeat their fasts." (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 2/19)

How Fast is the Fast to be Broken?

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked: about the sunset: "Is it permissible for the fasting person to break his fast as soon as the sun sets?"

He (rahimahullah) answered:

If the whole disc of the sun disappears, the fasting person permitted to break his fast, it does not matter if the red color still remains in the horizon.

When the whole disc disappears, darkness appears from the east. The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


إِذَا أَقْبَلَ اللَّيْلُ مِنْ هَا هُنَا، وَأَدْبَرَ النَّهَارُ مِنْ هَا هُنَا، وَغَرَبَتِ الشَّمْسُ، فَقَدْ أَفْطَرَ الصَّائِمُ

"When the night comes from here, and the day ends up there, and the sun has set, indeed the fast is to be broken." (Bukhari, #1954; Muslim, #1100-1101; Abi Dawud, #2351)

Eating After the Earlier Adhan

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked about a fasting person who ate after the Adhan (call for the prayer) of Subh (i.e., morning) prayer during Ramadhan: "What would the case be?"

He (rahimahullah) answered:

Praise be to Allah. If the Mu’adhdhin (caller of Adhan) was calling the Adhan before Fajr has entered -as Bilal (radiyallahu anh) would call the Adhan before Fajr began during the time of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and as the Mu’adhdhins do in Damascus and in other countries before Fajr begins- then there is no harm in eating or drinking after this for a little while.

If he is in doubt about whether Fajr has entered or not, then he is permitted to eat and drink until it is clear that it has entered. If after that he learns that he had eaten after Fajr had begun then there is a difference of opinion over whether it is obligatory for him to do Qadha (make it up) or not.

The most apparent view is that it is not obligatory for him to make it up as is confirmed from Umar (radiyallahu anh). A group of predecessors and the successors have the same view. But making it up is the popular ruling according to the Madhhabs of the Four Imams. And Allah knows best.


Fasting and Shortening the Prayer for the Traveler

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked also about the traveler in the month of Ramadhan who is fasting and is rebuked for doing so. He is called ignorant, and it is said to him that breaking his fast is better.

And what is the distance required in order to Qasr (shorten the prayers)? If the day has begun in which one is to travel does he break his fast? Is the fast broken by those who lease out donkeys for hire, merchants, those who lease out camels, the sailor, and those traveling by sea? And what is the difference between traveling for an act of obedience and traveling for an act of disobedience?

He (rahimahullah) answered:

Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah)!.. Breaking the fast for one traveling is permissible according to the agreement of the Muslims, whether one is traveling for Hajj, Jihaad, trading etc., or other cases of travels that are not disliked by Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

They disputed over traveling for an act of disobedience, like one who travels for highway robbery and the like, for which there are two views, and they also disputed over Qasr (shortening the prayer).

In the case of the journey for which shortening prayer is allowed, breaking the fast is permissible as long as it is later made up according to the agreement of the Imams. Breaking the fast is allowable for the traveler whether he was able to fast or unable to fast, whether it was easy for him to fast or not. Even if he was traveling in the shade with provisions and a servant, he is allowed to break his fast.

Whoever alleges that breaking the fast is only allowed for one unable to fast, then such a person is to be asked to make Tawbah (repent). He either repents, or he is to be killed. Whoever condemns the traveler who breaks his fast is also sought to repent. Whoever says the traveler who breaks his fast commits a sin, he is also sought to repent. All of these cases contradict the Book of Allah, and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and they contradict Ijmaa (the consensus) of the Ummah.

It is also the Sunnah for the traveler to pray the four Rak’ah (units of prayer) prayer as two Rak’ah only. Shortening is better than performance of the normal four Rak’ah of the prayer according to the four Muslim Imams; Malik, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad and Shafi'i in the most correct of his views.

The Ummah did not dispute over the permissibility of breaking fast for the traveler. They disputed over the permissibility of fasting. A group of the predecessors and the successors consider that the one fasting while traveling is like the one breaking his fast while a resident, and that his fast is not rewarded at all and he must make it up. This is reported from Abd’ur Rahman ibn Awf (radiyallahu anh), Abi Hurayrah (radiyallahu anh), and others among Salaf (the predecessors). And this is the Madhhab of the Dhahiriyah.

In Sahihayn, it is recorded that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


لَيْسَ مِنَ الْبِرِّ الصِّيَامُ فِي السَّفَرِ

"It is not an act of righteousness to fast while traveling." (Bukhari, #1946; Muslim, #1115; Abi Dawud, #2407; Tirmidhi, #710; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1733-1734; Nasa'i, #2256-2262)

But the Madhhab of the four Imams is that it is permissible for the traveler to fast or to break his fast. As reported in the Sahihayn on the authority of Anas (radiyallahu anh):


كُنَّا نُسَافِرُ مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَلَمْ يَعِبِ الصَّائِمُ عَلَى الْمُفْطِرِ، وَلاَ الْمُفْطِرُ عَلَى الصَّائِمِ

"We used to travel with Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam); some of us would fast, and some of us would break their fast. Neither the fasting would criticize the one breaking his fast, nor would the one breaking his fast criticize the one fasting." (Bukhari, #1947; Muslim, #1118; Abi Dawud, #2405; Malik, Muwatta, #657)

Allah Ta’ala said:


وَمَن كَانَ مَرِيضاً أَوْ عَلَى سَفَرٍ فَعِدَّةٌ مِّنْ أَيَّامٍ أُخَرَ يُرِيدُ اللّهُ بِكُمُ الْيُسْرَ وَلاَ يُرِيدُ بِكُمُ الْعُسْرَ

"And whoever is ill or on a journey, the same number (of fasting days missed must be made up) from other days. Allah intends ease for you, and He does not want to make things difficult for you." (al-Baqarah 2/185)

It is recorded in the Musnad that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

"Indeed, Allah likes that His permission be adopted, just as He hates that acts of disobedience be committed." (Ahmad, Musnad)

It is recorded in the Sahih that a man said to the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam):


يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي رَجُلٌ أَصُومُ أَفَأَصُومُ فِي السَّفَرِ قَالَ إِنْ شِئْتَ فَصُمْ وَإِنْ شِئْتَ فَأَفْطِرْ

O Rasulullah! I am a man that fasts often. Am I allowed to fast while traveling? He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

If you break your fast, this is good. And if you fast, there is no harm."
(Bukhari, #1943; Muslim, #1121; Tirmidhi, #711; Nasa'i, #2294-2302; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1662; Malik, Muwatta, #658)

In another Hadith he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:

The best among you are those who shorten their prayers and do not fast while traveling." (Abd’ur Razzaq)

As for the distance for shortening the prayer and breaking one’s fast: In accordance with the Madhhab of Malik, Shafi’i and Ahmad, it is a journey of two days on foot or by camels. It is sixteen Farsakhs (approx. three miles each), equal to the distance between Makkah and Usfan, or Makkah and Jeddah.

Abu Hanifah said it is a journey of three days. A group of Salaf and Tabi’in (the successors) said that one is permitted to shorten the prayer and break the fast for traveling for less than two days. This is a strong view since it is confirmed that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would perform the prayer at Arafah, Muzdalifah, and Mina in shortened fashion. Behind him were the inhabitants of Makkah and others following him. He did not command any of them to complete the prayer.

If one travels during a day, it is permissible for him to break his fast? There are two well known sayings of the scholars of Fiqh, both of which are reported via two narrations from Ahmad.

The most apparent one of them is that it is allowed. As confirmed in the Sunnan that some of them companions used to break his fast if they initiated their journey during the day, and they mentioned that it was a Sunnah of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam).

It is confirmed in the Sahih that the Prophet intended to travel while fasting, then he asked for a water container and broke his fast while the people were watching him.1

As for the second day (of the travel), undoubtedly, one breaks his fast, even if his journey is only for two days, according to the majority of the Imams and the Ummah.

But if the traveler returns during the second day, the scholars of Fiqh have different well known views about the obligation of breaking his fast. But he has to make it up whether he breaks his fast or not.

Those who regularly travels, breaks his fast when he has a place to resort to. Like the trader who imports food and other commodities, the one who hires out his mounts, the courier who travels for the Muslim interests and the like. The sailor who has a place on the land where he lives, they all have the same ruling.

As for the one who has his household with him on the ship and permanently travels, he is not permitted either to shorten the prayer or to break his fast.

The dwellers of the desert, like the Bedouin Arabs, the Kurds, and the Turks who spend winter in one place and spend summer in another place; while they are traveling from their winter residence to their summer residence they shorten prayers. When they reach their winter or summer residences they are not permitted to shorten their prayers or to break their fast, even if they were moving from one location to another in search of pastures. And Allah knows best.


Fasting for the Traveler: Better or Worse

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked about a traveler during Ramadhan who suffered neither hunger, thirst, nor toil. What is better for him; to fast or break his fast?

He (rahimahullah) answered:

As for the traveler he breaks his fast according to the consensus of the Muslims, even if there is no inconvenience. Breaking the fast is better for him. If he fasts, it is allowed according to the majority of scholars; but a group of them say that there is no reward for him.


If Fasting Causes Fainting and Madness

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked about a man who, whenever he wants to fast, he faints, and speaks incomprehensibly. He may continue for days in this state. Some people accuse him of madness, although this is not apparent from him?

He (rahimahullah) answered:

Alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah)! If fasting causes such illness for him, he is permitted to break his fast and make it up. If this happens whenever he fasts, then he is unable to fast. Hence he is required to feed a poor person for everyday he breaks the fast. And Allah knows best.


The Case of A Pregnant Woman

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked about a pregnant woman who saw discharge similar to that of Haydh (menstruation). The blood seems regular. The midwives advised her to break her fast for the embryo’s health. The woman felt no pain. Is she permitted to break her fast or not?

He (rahimahullah) answered:

If the pregnant woman fears any harm may befall her embryo, she is permitted to break her fast, then make up a day for a day and feed a poor person for each day of the days she broke her fast a pound of bread with its condiment." (Ibn Taymiyyah, The Nature of Fasting)

Footnotes:


Quote
1- It was narrated from Tawus that Ibn Abbaas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) said:

سَافَرَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي رَمَضَانَ، فَصَامَ حَتَّى بَلَغَ عُسْفَانَ، ثُمَّ دَعَا بِإِنَاءٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ فَشَرِبَ نَهَارًا، لِيُرِيَهُ النَّاسَ، فَأَفْطَرَ حَتَّى قَدِمَ مَكَّةَ‏

"Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) travelled in the month of Ramadan and he fasted till he reached (a place called) Usfan, then he asked for a tumbler of water and drank it by the daytime so that the people might see him. He broke his fast till he reached Mecca."

Ibn Abbas (radiyallahu anhuma ajmain) used to say:


صَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي السَّفَرِ وَأَفْطَرَ، فَمَنْ شَاءَ صَامَ، وَمَنْ شَاءَ أَفْطَرَ

"Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) fasted and sometimes did not fast while traveling, so one may fast or may not (on journeys)." (Bukhari, #4279)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #7 on: 25.06.2016, 09:42:48 PM »
Laylat'ul Qadr (the Night of Decree) and Its Signs
Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu’ul Fatawa, 25/284-286

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (radiyallahu anh wa ardha) was asked about Laylat’ul Qadr, whilst imprisoned in the mountain citadel (in Cairo) in the year 706H.

So he (rahimahullah) responded:

"Alhamdulillah (All praise is for Allah)!.. Laylat’ul Qadr (the Night of Decree) is in the last ten (nights) of the month of Ramadaan. This is what is Sahih (authentic) from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), that he said:


‏هي في العشر الأواخر من رمضان‏ وتكون في الوتر منها‏
"It is within the last ten of Ramadaan, and it is within the odd nights from them."

However the odd nights may be counted with reference to what has already passed by, such that it should be sought on the night of the twenty first, the night of the twenty third, the night of the twenty fifth, the night of the twenty seventh, and the night of the twenty ninth; and they may otherwise be counted with reference to what remains, just as Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


‏لِتَاسِعةٍ تَبْقِى، لِسَابعةٍ تبقى، لخامِسةٍ تَبْقَى، لِثَاِلثةٍ تَبْقَى‏
"On the night when nine remain, on the night when seven remain, on the night when five remain, on the night when three remain."

So based upon this, if the month is of thirty days, then that will be one of the even nights. So the twenty second will be (the night) when nine remain, the twenty fourth will be when seven remain; and this is how Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (radiyallahu anh) explained it in the Sahih Hadith; and this is how Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) established it in the month. If, however, the month is of twenty nine days, then counting in accordance with what remains will then be just the same as counting in accordance with what has passed.

So, this being the case, it is befitting that the Mu’min (the Believer) seeks it out in all of the last ten, just as Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:


‏تَحروها في العشر الأواخر‏
"Seek it out in the last ten."

And it occurs more frequently in the last seven; and it occurs most frequently on the twenty seventh, just as Ubayy ibn Ka’b (radiyallahu anh) used to swear an oath that it was the twenty seventh night. So it was said to him:


بأي شيء علمت ذلك‏؟‏ فقال‏:‏ بالآية التي أخبرنا رسول اللّه أخبرنا أن الشمس تطلع صبحة صبيحتها كالطَّشْت، لاشعاع لها‏
"How have you come to know that? So he (radiyallahu anh) replied: On account of Ayat (the sign) which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) informed us of. He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) informed us that the sun rises on the morning following it being like a brass dish, having no rays."

So this Alaamat (sign) which Ubayy ibn Ka’b (radiyallahu anh) reported from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is from the most well known signs occurring in Hadith; and it is related regarding its signs that:

It is a night that is "bright, shining"; and it is "calm; it is not very hot, nor very cold".

It may occur that Allah reveals it to some of the people in a dream, or whilst awake, such that he sees its light, or he sees one who says to him:

"This is Laylat’ul Qadr"; or He may open his heart to witnessing such things that make the affair clear to him.

Wallahu Ta’ala A’lam (and Allah, the Most High, knows best)!.."


The Superiority of the Last Ten Nights of Ramadhân and the First Ten Days of Dhu’l Hijjah
Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû’ul Fatâwâ, 25/287

Shaykh’ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah Rahimahullâhu Taâlâ was asked regarding the (first) ten (days and nights) of Dhu’l Hijjah and the last ten (days and nights) of Ramadhân. Which one is more virtuous?

Shaykh’ul Islâm Rahimahullâh responded by saying,

“The (first) ten days of Dhu’l Hijjah are more virtues than the (last) ten days of Ramadhân. The last ten nights of Ramadhân are more virtues than (the first) ten nights of Dhi’l Hijjah. (...) As for the (last) ten nights of Ramadhân, then they are the nights of Ihyâ (revival) which Rasûlullâh Sallallâhu Alayhi wa Sallam used to Ihyâ (revive) of all of it. In it is a night (Laylat’ul Qadr; the Night of Decree) which is better than a thousand months. So whoever responds with other than this explanation, it is not possible for him to deduct a Sahîh Hujjah (sound proof).”
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #8 on: 02.07.2016, 08:38:20 AM »
Zakat’ul Fitr/Sadaqat'ul Fitr (Fast Breaking Charity)

Zakat’ul Fitr has to do With the Number of People, Not Wealth

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"Hence Allah Ta’ala has enjoined that it be in the form of food, just as He has enjoined that Kaffarah (expiation) be in the form of food. Based on this view, it is not permissible to give Zakaat’ul Fitr except to those who are entitled to receive food given as expiation, and they are those who take it because they are in need of it, so it should not be given to those whose hearts are to be reconciled or to slaves etc. This is the strongest view, based on Dalil (the evidence).
 
The weakest opinion is that of those who say that it is Waajib (obligatory) for every Muslim to give his Sadaqat’ul Fitr to twelve or eighteen or twenty-four or thirty-two or twenty-eight and so on, because this is contrary to the practice of the Muslims at the time of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and Khulafa Rashidin (the Rightly-Guided Caliphs) and all the Sahaabah. No Muslim did this at that time, rather the Muslim would give his own Sadaqat’ul Fitr and the Sadaqat’ul Fitr of his family to one Muslim. If they had seen someone sharing the sa between umpteen people, giving each one a handful they would have denounced that in the strongest terms and regarded it as a reprehensible Bid’ah (innovation) and objectionable deed. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) stated that the enjoined amount is a sa of dates, or a sa of barley, or half a sa or a sa of wheat, based on the amount that is sufficient for one poor person, and he stipulated that it should be food for them on Yawm’ul Id (the day of Id) to make them independent of means. If Miskin (the needy) takes a handful of food he will not benefit from it and it will not go very far. The same applies to the debtor and Ibn Sabil (wayfarer); if they take a handful of wheat it will not benefit them.

(...)

Shari’ah is above such Munkarat (a reprehensible action) which no wise person would approve of and which none of the Salaf or Aimma of this Ummah did.

Moreover, the words of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam):


طُعمة للمساكين

"as food for Miskin (the needy)." (Abi Dawud, #1609; Ibn Ma’ajah, #1827; Hakim, 1/409; Ibn Hajar, Bulugh al-Maram, Kitaab’uz Zakaat, #630)

show that this is the right of Miskin, as Allah says in the verse of Thihaar:


فإطعام ستين مسكيناً

"Should feed sixty Masakin (needy)." (al-Mujadilah 58/4)

So if it is not permissible to give it to these eight categories, then the same applies here." (Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 25/73-78)


Types of Food that may be Given as Zakat’ul Fitr

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"If the people of a region eat one of these types of food as a staple food, it is undoubtedly Ja’iz (permissible) to give it for Zakat’ul Fitr. But can they give staple foods other than that, such as if they eat rice and corn as staple foods, can they give wheat or barley, or is it acceptable for them to give rice and corn?

There is Mashur (a well-known) difference of opinion concerning that, but the most correct view is that it should be given in the form of what he eats as a staple food, even if it is not one of these types. This is the view of the majority of scholars, such as Shaafi‘i and others, because the basic principle with regard to charity is that it is enjoined as a means of helping Fuqara (the poor) as Allah Ta’ala says:


مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ

"on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families." (al-Ma’idah 5/89)

Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) enjoined Zakat’ul Fitr: a sa of dates or a sa of barley, because that was the staple food of Ahl’ul Madinah (the People of Madinah). If that had not been their staple food, and their staple food had been something else, he would not have obliged them to give something that was not their staple food, just as Allah did not enjoin that in the case of Kaffarah (expiation).1"(Majma’ul Fatawa, 25/68)


Footnotes:


Quote
1- for broken oaths, as mentioned in the Ayah:

لاَ يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِي أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَـكِن يُؤَاخِذُكُم بِمَا عَقَّدتُّمُ الأَيْمَانَ فَكَفَّارَتُهُ إِطْعَامُ عَشَرَةِ مَسَاكِينَ مِنْ أَوْسَطِ مَا تُطْعِمُونَ أَهْلِيكُمْ أَوْ كِسْوَتُهُمْ أَوْ تَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ فَمَن لَّمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ ثَلاَثَةِ أَيَّامٍ ذَلِكَ كَفَّارَةُ أَيْمَانِكُمْ إِذَا حَلَفْتُمْ وَاحْفَظُواْ أَيْمَانَكُمْ كَذَلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللّهُ لَكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَشْكُرُونَ

"Allah will not call you to account for what is void in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful." (al-Ma’idah 5/89)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Ramadhaan & Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #9 on: 03.07.2016, 05:58:17 AM »
Tarawih Prayer (Qiyaam’ul Layl in Ramadan)

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"A Taifah (group of scholars) said: It was proven in Sahih from Aishah (radiyallahu anha) that:


أن النبى لم يكن يزيد فى رمضان ولا غيره على ثلاث عشرة ركعة

"Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) had never prayed more than thirteen Rakah (units of prayer) not in Ramadhaan nor in any other month." (Muslim, #738; Abi Dawud, #1341; Malik, Muwatta, 7/263)

Some people found it problematic since it was opposing with Sahih Hadith and proven Sunnah of Khulafai Rashidin and Amal (the practice) of the Muslimin.

The correct view is that all of that is good, as was stated by Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah), and there is no particular number with regard to Qiyaam’ul Layl in Ramadhaan. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not specify any number for that. As that is the case, one may offer more or fewer Rak‘ah, according to how long or short one wants to make the standing. Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) used to make his standing lengthy, as it is proven from him in Sahih, in the Hadith of Hudhayfah (radiyallahu anh)1, that he used to recite in one Rak‘ah al-Baqarah, an-Nisa and Al-i Imran. Making the standing lengthy suffices instead of praying a greater number of Rak‘ah. When Ubayy ibn Ka‘b (radiyallahu anh) led them in praying Qiyaam, when they were a single congregation, he would not make the standing lengthy for them, so he prayed a greater number of Rak‘ah, instead of making the standing lengthy, and they made the number of Rak‘ah double that of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), for he used to pray eleven or thirteen Rak‘ah of Qiyaam’ul Layl. Then after that the people in Madinah grew too weak to make the standing lengthy, so they increased the number of Rak‘ah until it reached thirty-nine." (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majma‘ul Fatawa, 23/113)


Footnotes:


Quote
1- Hudhayfah (radiyallahu anh) reported:

صَلَّيْتُ مَعَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ذَاتَ لَيْلَةٍ فَافْتَتَحَ الْبَقَرَةَ فَقُلْتُ يَرْكَعُ عِنْدَ الْمِائَةِ.‏ ثُمَّ مَضَى فَقُلْتُ يُصَلِّي بِهَا فِي رَكْعَةٍ فَمَضَى فَقُلْتُ يَرْكَعُ بِهَا.‏ ثُمَّ افْتَتَحَ النِّسَاءَ فَقَرَأَهَا ثُمَّ افْتَتَحَ آلَ عِمْرَانَ فَقَرَأَهَا يَقْرَأُ مُتَرَسِّلاً إِذَا مَرَّ بِآيَةٍ فِيهَا تَسْبِيحٌ سَبَّحَ وَإِذَا مَرَّ بِسُؤَالٍ سَأَلَ وَإِذَا مَرَّ بِتَعَوُّذٍ تَعَوَّذَ ثُمَّ رَكَعَ فَجَعَلَ يَقُولُ

"I prayed with Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) one night and he started reciting al-Baqarah. I thought that he would bow at the end of one hundred verses, but he proceeded on; I then thought that he would perhaps recite the whole (Surah) in a Rak'ah, but he proceeded and I thought he would perhaps bow on completing (this Surah). He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then started an-Nisa, and recited it; he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) then started Al-i Imran and recited leisurely. And when he recited the verses which referred to the Glory of Allah, he glorified (by saying Subhanallah; Glory to my Lord the Great), and when he recited the verses which tell (how the Lord) is to be begged, he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would then beg (from Him), and when he recited the verses dealing with protection from the Lord, he sought (His) protection and would then bow and say:

سُبْحَانَ رَبِّيَ الْعَظِيمِ

Glory be to my Mighty Lord

فَكَانَ رُكُوعُهُ نَحْوًا مِنْ قِيَامِهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ

His bowing lasted about the same length of time as his standing (and then on returning to the standing posture after Ruku i.e., bowing) he would say:

سَمِعَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ

Allah listened to him who praised Him.

ثُمَّ قَامَ طَوِيلاً قَرِيبًا مِمَّا رَكَعَ ثُمَّ سَجَدَ فَقَالَ

He would then stand about the same length of time as he had spent in bowing. He would then prostrate himself and say:

سُبْحَانَ رَبِّيَ الأَعْلَى

Glory be to my Lord most High.

فَكَانَ سُجُودُهُ قَرِيبًا مِنْ قِيَامِهِ

His prostration lasted nearly the same length of time as his standing.

قَالَ وَفِي حَدِيثِ جَرِيرٍ مِنَ الزِّيَادَةِ فَقَالَ

In the Hadith transmitted by Jarir the words are:

He (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) would say:


سَمِعَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ رَبَّنَا لَكَ الْحَمْدُ

Allah listened to him who praised Him, our Lord, to Thee I the praise." (Muslim, #772; Abi Dawud 874; Nasa'i, #1009, #1133, #1664)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Ummah

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
  • O people! Respond (with obedience) to Allah's Call
Re: Fatawa Regarding Ramadhaan & Fasting, Ibn Taymiyyah
« Reply #10 on: 04.07.2016, 09:00:23 AM »
Yawm’ul Iyd (the Day of Iyd)

Having Breakfest Before Salaat’ul Iyd (Iyd Prayer)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"Hence it is Mustahabb (recommended) to hasten to break the fast and to delay Sahur (meal before dawn during Ramadhaan), and to eat before the prayer on Yawm’ul Fitr (the day of Iyd’ul Fitr), and it is disallowed to anticipate Ramadhaan by fasting one or two days before it." (Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 2/359)


No Call for Salaat’ul Iyd

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"There is no call for the Iyd prayer or Istisqa (rain prayer). This is the view of a number of our companions (i.e., Jurists of Hanabilah)." (Mardawi, al-Insaaf, 1/428)


Iyd Greetings

Shaykh’ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) was asked:

Does the common Iyd greeting that is on people’s lips
عِيدُك مُبَارَكٌ "Iyduka Mubaarak" etc., have any basis in Shari’ah or not? If there is a basis for that in Shari’ah, what should we say?
 
He (rahimahullah) replied:

With regard to the greeting on the day of Iyd, which people say to one another when meeting after Iyd Prayer;
تَقَبَّلَ اللَّهُ مِنَّا وَمِنْكُمْ "Taqabballahu minna wa minkum (May Allah accept -this worship- from us and from you)" or saying; وَأَحَالَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْك "Ahaalahullah alayka (May Allah change you to be better/May you live to see another Iyd)" etc., this was narrated from a number of the Sahabah who used to do that and allow others to do so too, and from Aimmah (pl., Imam) such as Imam Ahmad. But Ahmad said: "I do not initiate this greeting with anyone. But if someone greets me in this manner I return his greeting." That is because returning a greeting is Waajib (obligatory), but initiating this (Iyd) greeting is not a Sunnah that is enjoined, but neither is it forbidden. The one who does it has an example (from Salaf) and the one who does not do it also has an example (from Salaf). Wallahu A’lam (and Allah knows best)!.." (Ibn Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 24/253; Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Fatawa al-Kubra, 2/228)

If Iyd Prayer Falls On a Jumu’ah (Friday)

Shaykh'ul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said:

"If Jumu’ah and Iyd come together on the same day, then Ulama (pl., Alim; scholars) have three sayings with regards to it. The third of them; which is Sahih (correct) is that: whosoever attends the Iyd, then the Jumu’ah falls away from him. However; it is upon the Imam to establish the Jumu’ah (prayer), to allow anyone to wishing to attend to do so, as well as those that did not attend Iyd (prayer). Since this is what has been conveyed from Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and his Ashaab (companions), there is no differing known amongst Sahabah in that. So one who does not attend the Jumu’ah (prayer) instead prayers Dhuhr (Noon Prayer), thus the Dhuhr is prayed in its time." (Durar’us Saniyyah fi’l Ajwibat'in Najdiyyah, 5/50 See also Ibn Taymiyyah, Majma’ul Fatawa, 24/211-213)
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said:

إِنَّ النَّاسَ دَخَلُوا فِي دِينِ اللهِ أَفْوَاجًا، وَسَيَخْرُجُونَ مِنْهُ أَفْوَاجًا

"Verily, the people have entered into the religion of Allah in crowds and they will also leave it in crowds." (Ahmad, Musnad)

Asad'us Sunnah

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 208
  • فَفِرُّوا إِلَى اللَّهِ
Re: FATAWA REGARDING RAMADHAAN & FASTING, IBN TAYMIYYAH
« Reply #11 on: 05.05.2019, 09:17:45 AM »
Bismillâh,

Just a Reminder!
Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah (Rahimahullâh) stated,

والعالم يعرف الجاهل؛ لأنه كان جاهلا، والجاهل لا يعرف العالم لأنه لم يكن عالما

"The Âlim (scholar) recognizes the Jâhil (ignorant) since he was once a Jâhil. The Jâhil does not recognize the Âlim since he has never been an Âlim." (Shaykh'ul Islâm Ibnu Taymiyyah, Majmû'ul Fatâwâ, 13/235)

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1286 Views
Last post 11.07.2015, 09:31:39 AM
by Ummah
4 Replies
1393 Views
Last post 30.07.2015, 09:31:21 PM
by Ummah
0 Replies
529 Views
Last post 26.12.2015, 07:06:34 AM
by Fahm'us Salaf
0 Replies
381 Views
Last post 27.06.2017, 08:27:50 PM
by Uswat'ul Hasana
0 Replies
19 Views
Last post 05.05.2019, 09:20:22 AM
by Asad'us Sunnah