Islamic Propagation Office of Qom Seminary, Khorasan Razavi Branch Journal of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence 2476-7565 7 4 2022 02 20 A Deliberation on the Ruling of Invalidation of the Fast by Immersing the Head in Water A Deliberation on the Ruling of Invalidation of the Fast by Immersing the Head in Water 133 160 68063 10.22034/jrj.2020.54625.1716 FA Mohammadreza Kaykha Associate Professor at Department of Jurisprudence and Foundations of Islamic Law, Zahedan; 0000-0003-3434-287x Hamid Moazzeni PhD Sudent at Department of Jurisprudence and Foundations of Islamic Law, Zahedan; moazzeni62@gmail.com Journal Article 2019 06 02 There is a substantial disagreement among Shīʿī fuqahā (jurists) on the ḥukm (ruling) of immersing of the head in water by a fasting person. There is also a disagreement between Sunni fuqahā. According to some reports, early Muslims used immersion (irtimās) to reduce the difficulty of fasting. In terms of conventional understanding, immersion has no objection to imsāk (abstention) and the reality of fasting therefore, proving its mufṭirāt (things that break the fast) will be proof of a pure devotional matter and is contrary to conventional understanding. On the other hand, the concept of muftir can be used in a meaning that includes both prohibition and divine transcendence. Thus, it is mentioned in some narrations that lying invalidates the wuḍū (ablution) and backbiting invalidates the fasting. There is also a conflict between the narrations in this regard. This study, which has been done by descriptive-analytical method, shows that the evidence of the generally accepted view is debatable and the proof of invalidation, qaḍā (fulfillment of neglected duties), and kaffārah (atonement) for this action is a matter for serious consideration. As a result, according to the iṭlāq (inclusiveness) of the Holy Qurʼān which indicates the lack of conventional and obligatory prohibition, it seems that a combination of evidence with the view of kirāhah (disapproval), which was chosen by Āyatullāh al-Sīstānī, the contemporary faqīh, is more acceptable and it is the selected view. There is a substantial disagreement among Shīʿī fuqahā (jurists) on the ḥukm (ruling) of immersing of the head in water by a fasting person. There is also a disagreement between Sunni fuqahā. According to some reports, early Muslims used immersion (irtimās) to reduce the difficulty of fasting. In terms of conventional understanding, immersion has no objection to imsāk (abstention) and the reality of fasting therefore, proving its mufṭirāt (things that break the fast) will be proof of a pure devotional matter and is contrary to conventional understanding. On the other hand, the concept of muftir can be used in a meaning that includes both prohibition and divine transcendence. Thus, it is mentioned in some narrations that lying invalidates the wuḍū (ablution) and backbiting invalidates the fasting. There is also a conflict between the narrations in this regard. This study, which has been done by descriptive-analytical method, shows that the evidence of the generally accepted view is debatable and the proof of invalidation, qaḍā (fulfillment of neglected duties), and kaffārah (atonement) for this action is a matter for serious consideration. As a result, according to the iṭlāq (inclusiveness) of the Holy Qurʼān which indicates the lack of conventional and obligatory prohibition, it seems that a combination of evidence with the view of kirāhah (disapproval), which was chosen by Āyatullāh al-Sīstānī, the contemporary faqīh, is more acceptable and it is the selected view.

http://jostar-fiqh.maalem.ir/article_68063_ecd3618971cc9a1eedb954b0ca314171.pdf