The expression (___________= ve alellezine yutikunehu) means ‘those who are able to fast it’. But, most of the scholars have given it a negative meaning. It is quite a strange situation. Now let’s try to see the commands that derive from its affirmative original meaning and the reasons and consequences of its reshaping into the negative form.

 

If the fraction (__________= those who are able to fast it) of the 184^th verse of Al Baqara is given its positive meaning, the pronoun ‘it’ points to both the subsequent accomplishment of the Ramadan fasting unable to be accomplished at the time from the sick people and the travelers and to the fasting mentioned in the 183^rd verse, (____=es-siyam).

 

According to those who consider the ‘it’ pronoun in the 184^th verse pointing and being the replacing of the fasting mentioned in the 183^rd verse, at the beginning fasting was a deliberate worshiping even for those who were not sick and on a journey ; those who desired fasted the other ones could feed a poor. Later the verse “Whoever of you is in life during Ramadan, he shall fast therein.” (Al Baqara/The Cow 2/185) descended and abrogatingthis command, discharging it[1]. According to this the 184^th verse’s explanation becomes:

“Fast for a certain number of days. Whoever among you is sick or on a journey and cannot fast, then he shall fast the same number some other days. If those who are not sick or on a journey and don’t fast it, need to give a fee to feed a poor man…”

So, at the beginning sick people and travelers were obligated to fast subsequently the number of days they didn’t at the time but those who could fast were free; if they didn’t fast deliberately, instead the could pay an amount as high as to feed a poor man. This is controversial and there can be no controversy in the book of Allah. This insinuation can be criticized for three other points:

a-      The text of the verse does not express ‘muhayyerlik’ but ‘vucub’. (____________=ve alellezine yutikunehu fidyetun taamu miskin.) The sentence “Those who are able to fast it, a fee to feed a poor man are needed.” is a noun sentence[2]build from mubteda and information. The information, which derives from ef’al-i amme has been hafz. The noun sentence expresses continuity and subut. This verse commenting the nutrition of the baby has the structure. (________________=ve ale’l-mevludi lehu rizquhunne ve kisvetuhunne bi’l-ma’ruf.). “The maintenance and the clothing (of the feeding mother) is the duty of father (the baby) has been born for.”(Al Baqara/The Cow 2/233). There is no support for giving to only the previous verse ‘muhayyelik’ meaning, while this one and all the others in this structure have been given the ‘vucub’ meaning. 

b-     Abrogation cannot possibly be part of this discussion, because a verse abrogates another in only two cases; if it establishes the same command with the previous one or if it establishes a command easier to accomplish. The Glorified Allah commands: “Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one in its place or one equivalent to it.” (Al Baqara/ The Cow 2/106). In this case, the abrogation has been done to the authorization insinuated to have been given at the beginning to those who were able to fast, so that the command has become stricter. Such an abrogation is not possible. In relation with the issue of abrogation the chapter of this book entitled “The Abrogation of the Stoning Punishment” can be examined.

c-      The third point is this. This verse makes word about the subsequent fasting of sick people and travelers that did not fast at the time. As the grammatical rule is that the pronoun always points to the noun nearer to itself. If the ‘it’ pronoun should have had point to the noun ‘fasting’ in the 183^rd verse then a sing would have been used. Wherever we read and searched we didn’t find the trace of such a sign. In our opinion the sign might be the vitr fee supposed to be given for the Ramadan Eid. In that case the meaning of the verse becomes: “Those who are able to fast it (the Ramadan), should give a fee to feed a poor man.”

The ‘fidye’ is a fee that should be paid in order to recompense the deficiency in the accomplishment of the worshiping[3]. According Ikrime based on the relating Ibn Abbas: “The Prophet made the fitre obligatory to be paid to people in need for their feeding as a way of compensation and cleansing for the bad and avoidable words that came out from the mouth of the fasting person. Whoever gives it before the Eid prayer gains the reward of a satisfactory zekat. Whoever gives it after the prayer gains the reward of a charity donation like many others.[4]”  

Abdullah b. Omer stated: “The Messenger of Allah (s.a.v.) made the fitre or the Ramadan donation obligatory to be given for every male, female, free person and slave as much as a sa’[5] of dates or a sa’ of barley. People evaluated it to be equal to half sa’ of wheat.[6]”

Fasting is compulsory for every Muslim; male, female, free or slave. The hadiths have explained that fitre is compulsory as well. The expression “those who are able to fast it’ is in full compliance with this hadith.

 

 

Those who judge that the pronoun ‘it’, in the fraction “those who are able to fast it”, to be pointing to the subsequently accomplished fasting are divided in two.

1. The first view: The sick people and the travelers are divided in two; the first ones are not able to endure the fasting, so that they fast later, while the other group can fast with not much trouble. The verse has left this second group muhayyer between the fasting and the fee. Fahrettin Razi claims that no other view can be taken in consideration beside this one[7].

In our opinion the meaning of the verse expresses vucub so it cannot be commented as it was muhayyer. 

According to Ebu Hayyan, Imam Malik commented the verse thus: When the month of Ramadan comes those who had fasting unaccomplished from the previous Ramadan, although they had the health conditions to fast should pay the fee[8]. Evidence is necessary to support this view; no evidence has reached us.

2. The second view: Those who did not fast because they were sick or on a journey, should accomplish their subsequent fasting and at the same time they should pay the fee[9]. Ebubekr el-Cessas (who died in 370 according to the hicri calendar) is he who transmitted this view, but he did not explain whose view it is neither provided us with any evidence or support.

In our view this idea can be supported. According to the grammatical rules of the Arabic language a pronoun substitutes the noun closer to it; in order to point to a more distant noun the stressing sign is required. The notion closer to the ‘it’ pronoun is the ‘fasting during the other days’, in other words the notion of ‘kaza’; the subsequent accomplishment of the worshiping. The fee compensation beside the subsequent accomplishment in the following days of the Ramadan fasting for those who were sick and on a journey during this period is more appropriate to the meaning the Qur’an gives to the notion of fee paying. The Glorified Allah commands:

“And accomplish the pilgrimage and the visit for Allah, but if, you are prevented, (send) whatever offering is easy to obtain, and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches its destination; but whoever among you is sick or has an ailment of the head, he (should effect) a compensation by fasting or alms or sacrificing.” (Al Baqara/ The Cow 2/196)

As for the completion of both the long and the short pilgrimage, not shaving is essential; those who shave have a deficiency. The verse had commanded us to fill this deficiency with the fidye. In the verse about the fasting the command: “Fasting is better for you.” clearly shows that although sick and on a journey there is a deficiency in the level of goodness for those who could not fast during Ramadan. Whoever accomplishes the fasting afterwards and pays the fee, he has rubbed the deficiency out. If no chance for accomplishing the subsequent fasting has been given to the individual there is nothing to be done. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Allah won’t weigh upon anyone a duty higher than the level of his capability. This command, at the same time, is a considerable obstacle in front of the justification of the reason for not accomplishing the worshiping as the shaving of the head or the fasting left to be performed subsequently. So that he, who is not in a real difficult situation cannot profit from the authorization.

 

 

What misleads those who give the expression (___________) in the 184^th verse of surah Al Baqara a negative meaning is the incorrect significance given to the word ______=et-takatu. (__) which means power and strength. The word has even entered the Turkish dictionary as ‘takat’ and signifies the same. While in the Qur’an we are advised to plea Allah thus:

 “Our Lord! Do not impose upon us what we have not the strength to bear…” (Al Baqara/ The Cow 2/286). The meaning of this verse is: “do not burden upon us loads we would have difficulties in bearing” and it is not: “do not burden upon us what we are not able to bear”[1]because not imposing upon people burdens they are unable to bear is one from the laws of Allah. He commands: “Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability” (Al Baqara/The Cow 2/286)         

 

But, Ragib el-Isfahani gave a meaning to the word (__) which in fact opposes even what he himself claimed. :_______________________

So that, ‘takat’ became a noun standing for as much as a person can support or achieve by forcing himself to the maximum of his capability, with considerable difficulty. This shows the situation of lacking the needed strength. According to this comment those who have the ‘takat’ to fast, in fact are those who have difficulties in fasting. While, those who lack the ‘takat’ to fast in fact are those who fast easily. This because two negations one after the other bring to light an affirmation. And still according to this reasoning the verse: “Our Lord! Do not impose upon us that which we have not the strength to bear”, then overtakes a meaning such as “Our Lord! Impose upon us what we have difficulties in bearing”. Obviously this is to alter the meaning of the sentence to its total opposite. In other words, it is erroneous to give the word ‘takat’ the previously mentioned significance as having the required ‘takat’ in fact means to fast without difficulties.

In our opinion the source of this error is the commentary of el-Isfahani or a mistake of any of the people who wrote this book in order to leave it behind. The original and correct version of the previously mentioned expression should be like this: ___________. So, ‘takat is a noun standing for what a person can support or achieve with no difficulties. The reason of the whole situation is the absence of the word (__ = dun) in this sentence, what can be understood easily without spoiling the wholeness of the sentence itself. Starting from this point the expression (________) has been given a meaning such as those who fast affronting (considerable) difficulties. As this is ‘the situation of not being able to fast’, many have abbreviated the whole expression into ‘those who cannot fast’. The part related to this issue in the translated commentary of the Religious Affairs of Turkey is like this:

“… (those people -aged or sick that don’t endure the hope of being cured-, who have a constant valid excuse like this and) are not able to fast need (to give) fidye to feed a poor man…)

While in the edition “The way of Qur’an, Translation into Turkish and Commentary” published from the Religious Affairs of Turkey as well, the given comment is: “For those who have difficulties in fasting the recompense equal to the money needed to feed a poor man (for every day) is sufficient.[2]” This comment has been explained like this:

“As a result of the grammatical usage of the verb ‘yutikune’ or because of the numerous meanings it can encounter, the expression we translated as “those who have difficulties in fasting” from a number of scholars has been understood and of course translated as “those who are able to fast”. In compliance to this idea, at the beginning till the time the believers got used to fasting, those who were in the condition of fasting could fast or were allowed to accomplish this worshiping by paying the fee. Later, this permission was suspended and every person, who is in the condition of fasting, has been seen necessary to fast.

 

According to our opinion and translation of what we grabbed, those, who fast with considerable difficulties because of their physical conditions or as a result of their circumstances and situation, who has difficulties in fasting, who if continues to fast is afraid of becoming sick or of not being able to fulfill the job he is inescapably responsible of, instead of fasting can pay the fee for every day. In the past, people weak from age, pregnant women and women nourishing babies have been mentioned as examples to the category of ‘those who have difficulties in fasting’. It has been agreed that elders instead of fasting could pay the fee. While for the other two groups according to the Shafi and Malik sects they are supposed to pay the fee and fast subsequently the same number of days, after having overcome the excused period. According to the Hanefi sect, these two groups don’t pay the fee, but fast subsequently after their excused period is over.

 

Most theologians agree that workers of heavy labor, like the labors in mines, excavation, and betony, workers in road buildings, weight carriers and tellak enter the category of ‘those who have difficulties in fasting’, too. This group too can pay the compensation fee instead of fasting if they encounter troubles with fasting[3].”

As the true meaning of the expression (_______) is ‘those who are able to fast’ the translation and explanation above are incorrect. With the exception of an earlier error they have no other support. The supporting evidence regarding them who can fast subsequently like sick people and those on a journey are, has been commanded like this: “Allah desires ease for you, and He does not desire for you difficulty” (Al Baqara/The Cow 2/185). So these are the people who encounter difficulties when fasting. If even they are commanded to fast subsequently, instructing the nourishing mother, the pregnant women, and those who work in heavy works like the betony, mine labors, tellak and weight carriers to pay the fee is totally controversial.

This is a valuable example that shows how the mistake of an earlier scholar led the later ones to incorrectness of these dimensions.

 

---

 

The command: “Do not go near them until they have become clean” shows that women during her menstrual discharge are not clean. The verse that commands the prayer cleansing or the full cleansing before the prayer ends like this: “Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you.” (Al Ma’edah/ The Feast 5/6)

As the woman during her menstruation is not considered pure she cannot possibly perform her prayer. Consequently, she is not responsible for the prayer during this period as the Glorified Allah commands: “Allah does not impose upon anybody a duty but to the extent of its ability.” (Al Baqara/ The Cow 2/286)

When Ummu Habiba binti Jahsh complained to the Messenger of Allah about her bleeding he responded: “For as long as your menstruation continues don’t perform your prayer, after cleanse yourself and perform it.[1]” 

As the woman during her menstruation is not responsible for the accomplishing of her prayer, she is not responsible for praying it subsequently, ‘kaza’. Once a woman revolved this question to Hz Aisha, “Should we perform the prayer of that period subsequently after cleansing ourselves?”

-         Are you from the Haruras’?[2]

-         No I am not from the Haruras but I am asking a question.

-         When this happened to us we were commanded to perform the fasting subsequently but not the prayer. – replied[3].

The command of the performing of the prayer subsequently, considering that the fasting is not the same to the prayer, shows that the menstruation bleeding doesn’t obstacle the fasting. In the verse 187 of surah Al Baqara the actions mentioned to spoil the fasting are eating, drinking or the sexual interaction. The menstrual bleeding is not included in any of these categories.

In Arabic the word that means fasting is ‘savm’= (___). Savm has the same meaning as the word ‘imsak’ and both mean to control, prevent and obstacle yourself. The person fasting prevents himself from eating, drinking and sexual interactions[4]. There is no normal way of intervening for the woman to prevent herself from the menstrual bleeding. This is why it is to impose a duty higher from the extent of her ability by judging her menstrual bleeding as something that spoils the fasting; it is against the self preventing command.

The previous verse considered the menstrual discharge of the woman as a tormenting discomfort. In other words it is something that troubles the person. Concerning the fasting it can be evaluated as illness. The Glorified Allah after giving to sick people and to travelers the permission of not fasting commands: “Allah desires ease for you, and He does not desire for you difficulty.” (Al Baqara/ The Cow 2/185)

 

The possibility of not fasting during Ramadan is an authorization Allah offers sick people. The sick person that uses this authorization fasts the same number of days subsequently. It is the same for the woman on her menstrual discharge. The option of not fasting is a permission offered to her. This is why the Prophet commanded the women who don’t fast because of their menstrual discharge to fast subsequently. If the menstruation had been an obstacle to the fasting, the women wouldn’t have been supposed to fast subsequently, just like she is not supposed to perform the prayer of these days after her menstrual discharge is over.

Theologians after forbidding the women on their menstrual discharge from fasting, command her to fast the same number of days subsequently. They never show any evidence or any supporting idea for forbidding the accomplishment of a worshipping action -ibadet- and the request of its subsequent performing. Although Allah in contrary to the other worshiping forms, has explained the fasting in details and has commanded:

 

“These are the limits of Allah, so do not go near them. Thus does Allah make clear His communications for men that they may guard (against evil).” (Al Baqara/The Cow 2/187)

 As Allah has clearly defined the limits of fasting, as the fasting of the woman on her menstrual discharge has been defined in the Qur’an and as there is no fact that points that the Prophet somehow considered the menstruation obstacle to the fasting, judging the menstrual discharge as an obstacle to the fasting is not to approach the limitations, it is to transgress them. Nobody has such a right.

---