SHARIAsource

Fatwā concerning the legality, based on their interpretation of Islamic law, of fasting in the month of Ramadan, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The answer provided by Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei on 19 April 2020 is that individuals must fast during Ramadan, unless an individual has a reason to believe that fasting will 1) cause an illness, 2) intensify an illness, 3) prolong an illness, or delay one’s recuperation. 

This case was brought on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, prison officials (Warden Jack Lee, Assistant Warden Gene Shinault, and Correctional Officer K. Lester). Petitioner Leroy Lovelace was removed from a “pass list” (which gives inmates access to Ramadan prayer services and special meals) after prison officials claimed that he broke his fast by eating during the day. Lovelace argued that his removal was due to his complaints about expired food, and was thus in violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and the requirements of Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) (protecting prisoners from having their religious practices substantially burdened, without a compelling government interest). Section 3 of RLIUPA states that “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person--is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C.A. §2000cc-1(a). The Court vacated the grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Lester, the prison official who reported the alleged fast breaking, as well as against Warden Lee, who was in charge of overseeing the prison, concluding that both officials played direct roles in the incident. The Court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether the plaintiff had made out a valid due process claim, and the Court affirmed the remainder of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

The Plaintiff Akeem Muhammad, an inmate in the Florida penal system, filed suit against the Respondents (prison officials Marvin Davis, Alex Taylor, and R. Graham; the Food Service Administrator of the Fla. Dept. of Corrections; and the Assistant Warden and Warden of Florida State Prison) for their refusal to provide him with a daily pre-fasting meal. The District Court determined that the plaintiff could not sue individual Respondents for monetary damages under RLUIPA. The District Court also determined that the Respondents failed to demonstrate that the policy of refusing to provide Muslim prisoners with a pre-twilight meal during Ramadan is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling governmental interest. Therefore, the District Court denied the Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment on the RLUIPA claim.

Plaintiff Leo Pittman-Bey, a Muslim inmate, sued Texas prison officials for allegedly violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and his constitutional right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment by denying him after-sunset meals during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Previous prison regulations allowed practicing Muslim inmates to receive after-sunset meals during Ramadan, but only if they had attended jumuʿa (Friday prayer) services in the 60 days prior to Ramadan or had received a special exception from the Muslim chaplain. Pittman-Bey did not attend the services because, as an adherent of the Ḥanafī school of Sunnī Islam, he said he believed that jumuʿa services are not proper if conducted in nonpublic settings like prisons. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, determining that denying Ramadan meals in accordance with the jumuʿa attendance policy did not violate the First Amendment.

This fatwa states that prayer (shalat) and fasting times in areas in which daytime and nighttime are not of equal length are to be adjusted to accord with the local time of the nearest place where daytime and nighttime are of equal length.

Phillip Jean-Laurent brought an action against South Carolina prison officials for allegedly violating his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his Islamic religious tenets and the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the respondents prevented his attendance at Islamic religious services during Ramadan as retaliation for him using the law library, and deprived him of evening and morning meals required by Muslim religious exercises during Ramadan, in preparation for fasting during daylight hours. The District Court found that the respondents properly answered the interrogatories as to the policy of forbidding the plaintiff to attend prayer services, but that the respondents did not properly answer questions in document requests regarding the plaintiff's and other Muslim prisoners’ ability to secure Ramadan morning meals.

This ministerial decree stipulates the commencement date of Ramadhan for the year 1436 H/2015 M. It ensures that the ummah are aware of when they need to commence fasting (ibadah puasa).

The plaintiff, Dominic Ali, a Muslim inmate at the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility, sued several prison officials for allegedly violating his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and the state's constitution. The plaintiff alleged that the prison failed to provide jumu'a (Friday prayer) services for Muslim inmates, failed to ensure that he was provided with healthy food during Ramadan (the Islamic month of fasting), and denied him the ability to observe Ramadan by removing his name from the prison's internal Ramadan fasting list. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing suit. The Court agreed: it found that the plaintiff had not brought his grievances to the attention of the prison's commissioner, and therefore granted the defendants' motion.

This fatwa regulates the slaughter of sacrificial animals during the Hajj al-Tamattu. Said slaughter is to be carried out on haram land, and if a person cannot afford to purchase such an animal (generally, a goat), they may instead fast for 10 days: three days on haram land, seven days upon their return home.

This qanun regulates the shari'a courts (Mahkamah Syar'iyah) of Aceh, as well as the personnel and hierarchy therein. It also defines the areas of law over which the courts have jurisdiction, those being al-syakhshiyah (family law), mu'amalah (civil and commercial law), and jinayat (criminal law). The elucidation of the qanun defines jinayat as including offences such as zina (extra-marital sex), accusation of zina, murder, physical abuse, alcohol consumption, gambling, and failure to abide by prayer and fasting requirements.

This fatwa states that the use of anti-menstrual medication while performing the hajj is permissible (mubah). The fatwa states that the use of such medication to assist during Ramadhan is disliked (makruh), but for women for whom it is difficult to fast on other days, it is permissible. The use of anti-menstrual medication for other reasons depends on the person's intent. If, however, it is for reasons that contravene religious law, then the use of such medication is forbidden (haram).

This regional regulation makes provision for public order in Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi. Specifically regarding Islamic rituals, art 19(1) prohibits all persons and restaurant owners from preparing food and opening their establishment between 6.00am and 4.00pm. It permits restauranteurs to prepare food during those hours if the restaurant itself is closed. Article 19(2) prohibits all persons from eating and smoking in public, which may disturb people fasting (ibadah puasa). Article 19(3) prohibits all persons from lighting fireworks during Ramadhan, while art 19(4) prohibits the playing of arak-arakan sahur artistic instruments before 1.00am.

Prison inmate Lawrence Cochran filed a §1983 claim against prison officials for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights by not allowing him to have food in his cell at night to break the Ramadan fast and by limiting his attendance of religious services. The Court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that incarceration necessarily curtails some freedom, and that, in this context, the curtailment did not go so far as to place a substantial burden on Muslim inmates’ ability to practice their religion.

This regional regulation prohibits places of entertainment, restaurants, kiosks (warung, rombong), and the like, from opening during the month of Ramadan. It similarly prohibits eating, drinking and/or smoking in restaurants, kiosks, and the like, from sunrise to sundown. Exceptions to the rule are:

1. Restaurants opening from 5 pm preparing to serve patrons breaking the fast;
2. Markets opening from 3 pm preparing to serve patrons breaking the fast;
3. Hotels and restaurants that serve international guests, after obtaining special dispensation from the Mayor, based on the consideration of the Regional People's Representative Council (DPRD) (this does not apply to places of entertainment that serve international guests).

The Regulation permits its implementation to be monitored by police and law enforcement agencies. Contravention of these provisions can warrant a prison sentence of, at most, 6 months and/or a fine of as much as 5 million rupiah. Contravention of the exceptions can result in a prison sentence of, at most, 10 days and/or a fine of as much as 100,000 rupiah. These sanctions were subsequently amended in Banjarmasin Municipal Regulation No. 4 of 2005.

The Plaintiff Nathaniel Hallman, a federal prisoner at the Lexington County Detention Center and an observing Muslim, brought this suit against the Respondents, Trinity Food Group, the Sheriff of Lexington County and several sheriff employees, for allegedly refusing to provide adequate and appropriate meals during Ramadan. The Respondents filed for summary judgment, asserting that the Ramadan meals provided to Muslim inmates were adequate. The Magistrate judge found that the prisoner requested to participate in Ramadan, during which members of the Islamic faith fasted during daylight hours. The detention center inmates observing Ramadan were not served a meal during the lunch period, but are provided a breakfast meal before sunrise and a dinner meal after sunset. The Magistrate judge recommended that the motions for summary judgment should be granted because the menu served to the inmates observing Ramadan was approved by a licensed dietician to ensure that the menu met those inmates' caloric and nutritional needs.

The parties were married on 18 July 2012 and had one child. Initially, the marriage had been harmonious. By the beginning of 2014, however, when the plaintiff enrolled in an undergraduate university degree, the parties began to quarrel regularly. The plaintiff submitted that the defendant would become unnecessarily jealous, and intoxicated frequently. The defendant also had an aversion to praying (sholat) and fasting. In May 2014, after another argument, the defendant left the parties' home, since which time the parties had remained separated. During those seven months the defendant had also failed to provide the plaintiff with any financial support. The plaintiff, pursuant to art 19(f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sought an irrevocable divorce (talak satu bain sughra) on the grounds of ongoing conflict.

The court, pursuant to art 19(a) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(a) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds of both the defendant's alcoholism and ongoing conflict. It also acknowledged that the purpose of marriage, being a happy and joyful domestic life, as prescribed in art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, as well as a peaceful, hopeful and loving marriage, as contained in art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and verse 21 of the Qur'an, Surat Ar-Rum, was no longer feasible.

The parties were married on 6 November 1999, after which they had lived with the plaintiff's parents. They had four children, all of whom were now in the care of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the parties' marriage had always been quarrelsome because the defendant had been reluctant to adhere to the requirements of Islam, that is, praying five times a day (shalat) and fasting for Ramadhan. Problems escalated in September 2004, the defendant leaving the plaintiff without her knowledge, after yet another argument. Since then the defendant had not provided the plaintiff with any financial or emotional support, and was no longer in contact with the plaintiff or their four children. Owing to her own impecuniosity, the plaintiff requested that the state bear her court costs.

The Court acknowledged that the parties' marriage had deterioriated and no longer represented that envisaged by art 1 of Law No. 1 of 1974, art 3 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and the Qur'an in surat Ar-Rum, verse 21, that being an everlasting and joyful, as well as peaceful, hopeful and loving (sakinah, mawaddah dan rahmah) domestic life. It acceded to the plaintiff's request on the grounds that the parties had been separated for more than two consecutive years, as well as ongoing conflict, per art 19(b) and (f) of Government Regulation No. 9 of 1975, and art 116(b) and (f) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws.

This fatwa acknowledges the recent development of a stream of Islamic leadership established by Ahmad Moshaddeq which teaches a creed (syahadat) that differs from traditional Islamic teachings. The fatwa finds that, contrary to Islamic teachings, this new stream of Islam:

1. states: "Asyhadu alla ilaha illa Allah wa asyhadu anna masih al-Mau'ud Rasul Allah" ("I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear witness that the promised Messiah is the Messenger of God");
2. teaches that there is a new prophet/messenger (nabi/rasul) who came after the Prophet Muhammad SAW; and
3. does not oblige its followers to pray (shalat), fast (puasa) or perform the hajj (haji).

The fatwa declares that followers of this particular stream of Islam are apostates (murtad). It also urges the government to prohibit the dissemination of this interpretation of Islam, to close all places associated with it, and to silence its leadership, pursuant to current legislative provisions.

This regional regulation prohibits all persons from opening restaurants, roadside stalls (warung), shops, and the like, as well as from serving food and drink during the month of Ramadhan in Tanah Laut regency, South Kalimantan (art 2(1)). Similarly, it prohibits all persons from eating, drinking, and/or smoking in public places (art 2(2)). These prohibitions apply from predawn (imsak) until the fast is broken (art 2(3)). All persons are also prohibited from conducting activities that disturb the peace, including conducting activities to wake people for their last meal (bagarakan sahur) if they disturb the peace (art 2(4)). The earliest such bagarakan sahur activities may start is 3.00am (art 2(5)). In addition, the operations of all places of general entertainment, such as karaoke, discotheques, and the like, are prohibited during Ramadhan (art 2(6)).

Contravention of art 2(1) or (6) carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of IDR 50 million (art 5(1)), while contravention of art 2(2) or (4) carries a maximum penalty of 15 days' imprisonment and/or a fine of IDR 100,000 (art 5(2)).

This regional regulation prohibits all persons from conducting the operations of any type of restaurant during Ramadhan in Banjarbaru, South Kalimantan (Kalimantan Selatan) (art 2(1)). Similarly, it prohibits all persons from eating, drinking, and/or smoking in such places, and in public (art 2(2)), and from disturbing the peace (art 2(3)). It also prohibits all persons and legal entities from carrying on the operations of any place of entertainment, such as karaoke establishments, discotheques, cafes, and salons (art 2(5)).

All persons operating an eatery of any sorts for people breaking the fast may open from 5.00pm (17.00) (art 3(1)), and all persons that sell food and drink in market places may commence trading from 3.00pm (15.00) (art 3(2)).

Contravention of art 2(1) and (5) carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment and/or a fine of IDR 50 million (art 5(1)), while contravention of art 2(2) and (3) carries a maximum penalty of 15 days' imprisonment and/or a fine of IDR 100,000 (art 5(2)).