CRITIQUE ON SHEIKH JAQMAL AND SHEIKH MUBARAK'S "FATWA" OF NON-EXISTENCE OF KAFAARA ON ONE WHO BREAKS HIS FASTING INTENTIONALLY

CASE OF KAFAARAH

Claimant 1: Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal is of the view that there is no kafaara for someone who intentionally eats or had sex with his wife while fasting during the month of Ramadan.

Why? He cited three reasons:

1. Qur'an did not mention it.
2. Abu Huraira's Hadith on kafaara is rejected
3. The fact that some people who are capable of fulfilling the kafaara (expiation) conveniently are abusing it by continuing sinning while paying the kafaarah.

Claimant 2: Sheikh Saheed al-Mubaraq supports the ruling of Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal by "exposing" Abu Huraira's hadith in which the Prophet fixed punishment [of freeing a slave or feeding 60 people or fasting two consecutive months] for intentionally fast breaker.

INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSES

There is no doubt that whoever intentionally breaks his fasting has deliberately disobeys Allah.


Allah says:

" Permitted to you, ON THE NIGHT OF THE FASTS, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you, AND EAT AND DRINK, UNTIL THE white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; THEN COMPLETE YOUR FAST TILL THE NIGHT; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are Limits (set by) Allah: Approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men: that they may learn self-restraint. [Quran 2: 187].

The mafhum (understanding) of this noble verse is that it is not permitted (i.e haram) to approach one's wife during the day of fasting. And it is also not permitted to eat between dawn and night.

# No doubt, whoever breaks these commandments has indeed committed great sins.

KAFAARA IN THE QURAN?

Why has Allah kept mute on its (i.e breaking of fasting intentionally) expiation when even (as "small" as) breaking of oath is given expiation in the Qur'an?

First, both Sunni, and especially Shiah have narrated various ahadith on the expiation of intentional breaking of fast.


# If all these traditions are put together, *one will realize various judgements due to circumstances or situation of the sinner*.

THE JUDGEMENT

In both Sunni and Shi'ah traditions, the expiation is ranging from feeding X number of people, freeing slave or fasting consecutive X months. Yet, there is a situation where the person is required to pay charity of whatever he can afford or could be pardoned due to not having capability of any of the above-mentioned expiations. And in Shi'ah traditions, a situation of this crime might even warrant death penalty.

FOR SUNNI HADITHS:

1. Sunan Tirmidhi, hadith no. 724 reported by Abu Huraira: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:724

The same hadith is also in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1936: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/43

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 1935, reported by Aisha: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/42

FOR SHIAH HADITHS:

Sheikh Al-Kulayni documents various ahadith in his al-Kaafi:
https://thaqalayn.net/chapter/4/2/22


❄️ Answer to the initial question as to why Allah did not mention expiation in the case of breaking fast intentionally is that:

1. Allah knows best

2. However, based on the above-cited varying judgements according to books of ahadith, it is crystal clear that it allows AL-SHAARI' - the Legislator i.e the Prophet or his true successors to assess the circumstances and situations of the sinner before dishing out a suitable judgement. If the Qur'an is to mention (few) possible circumstances and situations of intentionally fast breakers, the verse might not only lose its cohesion due to cumbrousness but also would have close the door for other circumstances or situations not mentioned.

And once Allah has said "Obey Allah and His Messenger..."[sura Aali Imran: 32], "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority amongst you... [sura al-Nisa: 59], "Say, (O Muhammad): If ye love Allah, follow me... [sura Aali Imran: 31]; "...So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.[sura al-Hashr: 7]; so a believer should not look for excuses but must follow and obey Allah's legislated Legislators (the Prophet and his true successors).

THOSE WHO ABUSE KAFAARA

Expiation is very important to ditter sinners from repeating the act. In the Shari'a, if there's deliberate continuous repetition of sinful act (even if he pays expiation which has now becomes ineffective), the person might get death penalty as he will be judged as those who causes fitnah and fasad on the land. [Sura al-Ra'd: 25, sura al-Maidah: 33]. And who knows whether a deliberate persistent sinner will eventually surrender to his Lord [sura az-Zumar: 53]. Therefore, it is wrong to close the door of Forgiveness by saying "there is no kafaarah because a few abuse it." Why should we close the door because of deviant to deny non-deviants? Did Allah and His Messenger not know there would be deviants? So, it is very wrong to rule over Allah and His Messenger's judgements.

"O you who believe! be not forward in the presence of Allah and His Apostle, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing." [sura al-Hujurat: 1]


SHEIKH AL-MUBARAK'S GROSS ERROR

#  Why has Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal reject Abu Huraira's hadith?

He did this because Abu Huraira was unreliable. Yes, he was unreliable even amongst the sahabah themselves, and he had been caught red-handed for lying against the Prophet. However, in this case of kafaara (and even other cases), one needs to prove the unreliability of Abu Huraira before rejecting his hadith. Interestingly, A'isha also narrated similar hadith as documented in Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 1935, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/42

So, why can't A'isha's narration too be rejected as well?

#  Sheikh Saheed al-Mubarak in a bid to defend Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal's unsubstantiated rejection of Abu Huraira's hadith tried to "expose the falsity" of Abu Huraira's hadith by bringing the hadith of Salman bin Sakhr Al-Ansari.

Summary of the Hadith is that Salman had sexual intercourse with his wife AFTER LIKEN HER BACK TO HIS MOTHER'S. Incidentally, the intercouse happened AT THE NIGHT of Ramadan. Then, he went to the Prophet and the later dished out kafaara (expiation) of freeing a slave or feeding 60 poor to him. When Salman expressed his inability of either of these expiations, Prophet gifted him a large basket (of dates probably) to feed 60 poor.

This hadith can be read in the links below:

1. Tirmidhi hadith 1200
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1200

2. Tirmidhi 1199
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1199

The conclusion of Sheikh al-Mubarak is that Abu Huraira "tapped" (i.e plagiarised) this hadith, edited it and formulate his narration. Let's take a look at Abu Huraira's hadith once again.

SUMMARY: A man came to the Prophet that he slept with his wife WHILE IN A STATE OF FASTING. And the Messenger of Allah fixed kafaara for him to free a slave or feed 60 poor or fast two consecutive months. When this man expressed his inability to fulfill any of these, Prophet gave him a full basket of dates to feed the poor. Yet, the man expressed how needy he himself is and the Prophet said he should instead used the dates to feed his family.

Again, this hadith is in:

1. Sunan Tirmidhi, hadith no. 724 reported by Abu Huraira: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:724

The same hadith is also in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1936: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/43

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 1935, reported by Aisha: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/42

Questions:

# Sheikh Saheed al-Mubarak must answer how Abu Huraira plagiarised and edited the hadith of Salman? Is it not possible to say it was Abu Huraira's hadith that was plagiarised and edited to make Salman's hadith? Yes it is. Our Sheikh was not objective at all in his submissions.

# What Salman bin Sakhr Al-Ansari committed is called ZIHAR which Qur'an explains in sura Mujadalah: 1 - 4. And he did it at the night of Ramadan, meaning he was not fasting then. Besides, it doesn't matter when he did it, Ramadan or no Ramadan.

On the other hand, what "a man" in Abu Huraira and A'isha's narrations committed is breaking his fasting during the day of Ramadan which Qur'an has made haram in sura al-Baqarah: 187.

These two incidents (in their mawdu'aat - subject matters) are completely different from each other even though their hukm (judgement) is similar. And talking about that hukm, it is wrong to conclude that because of their similarity, Abu Huraira might have plagiarised and edited the hadith. This is because, hukm (judgement) for killing a believer unintentionally is also similar [sura al-Nisai: 92].

And the last difference in the two hadiths is that in the end, Salman ibn Sakhr Al-Ansari "feed" the sixty poor but "a man" in the hadith of Abu Huraira was granted permission by the Prophet to feed his poor family instead.

Therefore, Sheikh Saheed al-Mubarak's criticism, allegation and submission and the fatwa of Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal hold no water. It is just a mere unsubstantiated attempt and a futile fatwa that has no basis.

CONCLUSION

It is haram and a great sin to deliberately breaks one's fasting during the month of Ramadan, and whoever does must repent sincerely, pay expiation (kafaarah) for it and make up the missed fast.


Writing by: Abdulwasi Olawale Agboola