Post by zeeshan on May 27, 2017 14:41:25 GMT
Book Review
Asim Yusuf, Shedding light on the Dawn
UK: Nur al-Habib Productions, 2017, Hardback 350pp, ISBN: 978-0-9934979-1-9
The discussion in regards to ‘ishā, fajr and subsequently suḥūr timings have affected Muslims in the UK from the onset of the first generation of Muslim migrants. To add to the confusion UK witnesses approximately 2 months of perpetual twilight, which places a big question mark on the beginning of ‘ishā and the ending for suḥūr. Currently two calendars are dominant in the UK: the Ḥizb al-‘Ulamā’ calendar and the 18 degrees calendar. The former is meant to be based on actual sightings while the latter on a fixed degree which is meant to coincide with the phenomenon.
Asim Yusuf attempts to provide an exhaustive study of the issue from both the astronomical side (modern and classical) as well as the jurisprudential (also modern and classical). Without a doubt this is a huge contribution to the topic which brings together a wide spectrum of literature and more importantly original research. Due to the difficulty for me to review the science aspect of the discussion, as it is outside the scope of my studies, a colleague and student of mine, Syed Hussain, has tackled that section.
The main arguments of the book begin from chapter 4, with chapters 1-3 attempting to frame the discussion as well as defining key terms.
Syed Hussain
Chapter 4 deals with ’The Science of Twilight’. After defining all necessary terms in chapter 3 and concluding that al-ṡubḥ al-ṡādiq is not synonymous with Astronomical Dawn, the author introduces the chapter by discussing the importance of the science of twilight. It is argued, that the repeated observations of the synchronicity of Astronomical Dawn and al-ṡubḥ al-ṡādiq does not necessitate they must do so in all times and places, as it is assumed by many. Changes in the causal conditions may lead to dawn being observed at a different angular depression and details the science behind the phenomena, to understand the fallaciousness of such inductive arguments.
Thereafter, a description of the night sky is given, saying that the night sky is never completely dark because of the presence of sky-glow: a mixture of celestial and terrestrial light. Twilight is the illumination of the lower atmosphere by scattered sunlight occurring before sunrise and after sunset. The period of twilight, when sunlight is visible but the Sun itself isn’t, commences when scattered sunlight becomes distinguishable from the sky-glow. It is crucial to note, that the observation of sunlight establishes the prayer times of fajr (and hence the fast) and ‘ishā, not the position of the Sun, as scattered light can be in the atmosphere but not intense enough for the eyes to detect.
The phenomenon of twilight is due to an interaction of four things: sunlight, sun-earth positions, the atmosphere and the human optical system. Each factor is discussed, with the aid of figures and with particular emphasis on the atmospheric aspect, as twilight is an atmospheric phenomenon and their variability causes a change in observing twilight directly affecting prayer times.
Light travels in straight lines, but the deflection of light by the particles in the atmosphere, allows light to be visible even when the Sun is below the horizon. The deflection of light is towards the ground, of which some of the deflected light is observed by the eye. Direct sunlight first hits the atmosphere when the Sun is approximately 18˚ below the horizon and anything shallower; light does not hit the upper atmosphere and is not deflected to the ground. As the sun rises below the horizon, more sunlight hits the atmosphere, which gets denser towards the lower atmosphere. Thus, exponentially more rays of light are scattered in all directions including the observer’s eye.
Since the earth is tilted on its axis and is on an elliptical orbit around the sun, this causes a change in seasons and the length of the day and night. The higher the latitude the more exacerbated the changes are, thus high latitude countries have very long summer days and the converse in winter. It is found for height latitude countries that the transit of the sun below the horizon in the summer, at dawn and dusk is much shallower. In essence, the sun is moving more horizontally than vertically towards the horizon line.
The shallow gradient means the initial light at dawn will be initially observed at some distance away from the point of sunrise. It also means the intensity of the sunlight being discerned by the eye increases only slowly because the sun's height is only increasing in small amounts. The human eye detects changes in intensity rather than absolute light intensity. Thus, the faster the rate of change, the quicker to detect. Since the rate of intensity of the sunlight in the summer changes slowly, the longer it takes to detect. Thus, first light can only be detected when the sun has risen further below the horizon.
The next consequence of the shallowness of the sun’s transit is the length of twilight. It is up to 3 hours long in the summer because of the shallowness of the lower transit, compared to 90 minutes in the spring. Unlike mid-latitude regions where the variation is about 20 minutes throughout the year. This means fixing a duration for twilight is impossible. A table comparing the start and end of twilight in Birmingham and Cairo is given to show the variability.
Less studied, is the atmospheric implications to twilight. The conclusion of this is the atmosphere varies in height, density and the number of large particles for high latitude regions. The height increases from the poles to the equator, meaning sunlight can be scattered at a larger solar depression than in higher latitudes. A study by Newton and Pelz, (1968), showed the atmospheric density in regions above 55˚ latitude was twice as much as the equatorial regions. Thus, when the sun is below the horizon, the rays of light have to travel through a denser amount of air, thus scattering more and delaying the onset of the perception of dawn. The last factor, large particles, although not specific to high latitude regions, there is a large number of environmental pollutants which would scatter the horizontal light at dawn and dusk away from the eye.
Finally, a discussion in the physiology of the human eye is presented. With respect to the optical system, twilight is said to be the interaction between the eye, the retina and the brain. It goes into detail about the light receptors in the eye and their sensitivity to light and colour differentiation. The optical system of the eye, is dynamic which reacts to changes in light intensity rather than the presence of light unlike a camera where it operates fundamentally differently. In that, they do not have a brain to discern inputs and react to stimulus.
After these discussions, a passage is dedicated to two important factors in dawn observation, light pollution and dark adaptation. The presence of light pollution, as argued, can delay the seeing of dawn by up to 8˚ of solar depression. Dark adaptation refers to the receptivity level of the observer’s eye is set at. The eye can only detect a thousand-fold change in intensity, at one time, meaning if one is in a bright room, very faint lights will be impossible to detect. It takes 20-30 mins to adapt to total darkness, so this much time has to be taken into account. Also, age plays a factor, which is said to result in many false-positive observations.
Finally, the author provides a description of twilight with the science added into the description. The description incorporates much of the science without going into too much detail, providing a succinct overview of the science of twilight, while incorporating the different elements discussed and providing a vivid description of the phenomena.
Zeeshan Chaudri
Chapter 5 provides a detailed overview of the legal discussions surrounding the topic. Providing basic definitions to key terms, he turns to the issue of al-ṡubḥ al-ṡādiq. The reality of ṡubḥ centres around the Quranic verse:
‘Eat and drink until the white thread becomes clearly distinct to you from the black thread at fajr.’ (2:187)
The word used here is tabayyun which means to become ‘clearly separate, and for which was hidden to become apparent (p.99). Various positions are cited of the early jurists who attempt to explain the nature of tabayyun, with even the odd position attributed to al-A’mash (d.147) which suggests the permissibility of delaying the suḥūr to nearly sunrise. This was obviously not acted upon (p.102). Yusuf moves onto focus on the Ḥanafī position on the topic. The sum of the section can be provided by a quote from Ibn Māzah (d.616) in his al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī:
‘The beginning of fajr is when the second (true) dawn rises, which is the horizontal dawn that spreads across the horizon; when fajr enters, ’ishā time has ended. The rising of the second dawn is related from our masters, but it is not transmitted from them whether they deemed that consideration be given to the onset of first light (awwal al-ṭulū’) or its spreading (istitārah) and becoming widely spread (intishār). Our Shaykhs (asḥābunā) consequently differed about this.’ (p.106)
This would mean that there are 3 possible entry times (or 2 if istitārah and intishār are considered the same) for al-ṡubḥ al-ṡādiq. According to Yusuf, based on his reading of the fiqh literature, the following appear to be his understanding of the 3 times when carrying out his own observations.
Awwal al-ṭulū’: This is divided into two,
1) The first moment that any of the observers felt that they detected a light at dawn.
2) Definite ṭulū’ when multiple observers agreed that ṭulū’ al-fajr had definitely occurred.
Istitārah: when the glow of dawn light began to spread across the horizon.
Intishār: when the glow of dawn had become ‘widely spread’, which was set to a horizontal band covering a 60 degree stretch of the horizon, thus min al-ufuq ilā al-ufuq (pp.254-255).
Yusuf makes an interesting inference that the above difference first appears in Transoxiana where the latitude was higher. In mid-latitudes the difference of 3 degrees only results in a 9-12 minute difference, whereas in higher latitudes it can result in up to an hour difference. It’s a possibility that this is the reason why these jurists considered intishār as more accommodating while the Egyptian al-Shurunbulālī (d.1069) considered ṭulū’ and istitārah the same thing (p.111).
As for al-ṡubḥ al-kādhib then Yusuf questions the idea that this is in reference to the zodiacal light. Although he provides objections to this understanding and offers the view that al-ṡubḥ al-kādhib is a faint glimmer before the horizontal light (as this also follows his own observations), he accepts that this is an issue which requires further research (p.113).
The entry of ‘ishā, either through the absence of al-shafaq al-aḥmar or al-shafaq al-abyaḍ, is discussed. The former position being held by most of the jurists including Imam Abū Yūsuf and Imam Muḥammad and a number of later Ḥanafī scholars. As for abyaḍ, then this being the position of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah and a number of Ḥanafī scholars. Although many Ḥanafī authorities preferred the position of the two companions of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah, with some even claiming Imam Abū Ḥanīfah’s retracting from his view, Yūsuf sides with the likes of al-Țaḥṭāwī (d.1231) who do not see any reason to leave Imam Abū Ḥanīfah’s position, especially considering that Imam Abū Ḥanīfah’s positions are the default in the madhab (p.118).
Although not mentioned by Yusuf, Qāsim ibn Quṭlūbughā (d.879) criticises those Ḥanafīs who preferred Imam Abū Yūsuf and Imam Muḥammad’s position over that of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah and cites evidences in support of Imam Abū Ḥanīfah. He also rubbishes the claim that Imam Abū Ḥanīfah retracted his view by stating that abyaḍ is mentioned from Imam Abū Ḥanīfah in al-Aṡl, and as for the supposed retraction then that comes from Asad ibn ‘Amr (d.188). al-Aṡl being Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah cannot be discarded for an odd report. (al-Taṡḥīḥ wa al-Țarjīḥ, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, pp.154-157, similar arguments were made by his teacher Ibn al-Humām (d.861)).
Yusuf does conclude that the relied upon position in the madhab is abyaḍ (p.118), although it is common in this case to for one to find the scholars saying that aḥmar is awsa’ (accommodating) while abyaḍ is aḥwaṭ (more cautionary). (from the Indian scholars, see Imdād al-Fatāwā, Karachi: Maktabat Dār al-‘Ulūm 1/150 footnote, Kifāyat al-Muftī, Karachi: Idārah Fārūq, 3/476). Yusuf does mention this position.
Yusuf notes that the jurists tended to be silent about mathematical astronomy of twilight when discussing these issues in their works, which means that the actual factor here is observation, not calculations. So it is not necessarily the presence or absence of light which is considered, it is the observation which is central (pp.121-123). When observation is not possible (like most days in the UK) then as a secondary measure we resort to astronomical calculations.
This is a lengthy section which discusses perpetual twilight and what to do in regards to ‘ishā. One would have to refer to the book for the details (there is also further detail on the issue exploring the Ḥanafī view in the form of an appendix which is very useful). But just to summarise, there is a difference of opinion within the Ḥanafī school on the obligation of ‘ishā, with some stating that ‘ishā will be dropped and others preferring for the obligation to remain although it would be considered to be an obligation to make up the prayer (qaḍā) rather than performing within its time (adā’). The vast majority of modern Ḥanafī scholars state that the obligation remains, with many opting for the classical Shāfi’ī method of taqdīr or a new modern form of taqdīr (pp.139-142, 155-156). The taqdīr preferred by Yusuf is a ‘ratio-based time determination on the basis of the average yearly twilight length, which works out to about 1/6th of the night for maghrib. 1/6th for fajr and the remainder for ‘ishā (p.180). Although niṡf al-layl is mentioned as one such method, some have argued that there is a beginning for fajr, as at niṡf al-layl the spreading of the light of dawn begins. Hence doing taqdīr for fajr is incorrect (see ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/480/problems-implementing-aqrabul-ayyam-last), Yusuf does not appear to tackle this position although a response can be gleaned from his research. He ends by saying the different methods mentioned are valid ijtihāds.
A very good case is brought against the position of shortening fasts in accordance to the Makkah times, first articulated by Muḥammad ‘Abduh (d.1905) and then followed by some Azhari scholars (this position was advocated in recent years again by the dubious Usama Hasan, see unity1.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/fatwa-on-fasting-in-ramadan-during-the-uk-summer/). Yusuf demonstrates how this position is flawed from a classic uṡūlī perspective, as well as the fact that modern medical knowledge does not support such a notion, meaning that general claims of hardship due to a mere counting of hours does not take into consideration weather conditions (pp.165-169). This is then followed by a very relevant section on the definition of hardship with its levels and when rulings can change due to them (pp.169-177).
Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the relationship between astronomy and observations, with an analysis of observations made within the UK and other mid-latitude countries. Due to the length of this analysis, here only the section on the Ḥizb al-‘Ulamā sightings and 18 degrees will be looked at, due to their direct relevance.
The Ḥizb al-‘Ulamā sightings and subsequent calendar have been by far the most influential in UK. This calendar was said to have been based on observations, not on any astronomical calculations. Sixty sightings were carried out between 1987-1989 and the summary of the findings were that tulū’ al-fajr occurred at around 13 degrees, tabayyun at around 10.5-11 degrees. As for al-shafaq al-aḥmar, then that occurred around 13-15 degrees while abyaḍ at around 15-16 degrees. The most significant aspect of this was that setting 18 degrees as the marker was not valid, at least in the UK (pp.212-213). These observations were utilised by Khalid Shaukat to form a calendar based on a unique way of calculating (p.214).
Yusuf critiques the Hizb al-‘Ulamā sightings, very much agreeing with the criticism put forth by Wifāq al-‘Ulamā. The two main problems being that the observations were riddled with various methodological and practical shortcomings and that the subsequent calendar formed was based on ‘a non-transparent algorithmic mechanism that was not properly explained and even conflicted with their own observations (p.216). He provides a thorough analysis of the Ḥizb al-‘Ulamā findings, and to which degree their observations would coincide with. Where Yusuf disagrees with the Wifāq al-‘Ulamā was that the underlining reason for their critique was due to their view that ‘the only twilight that is significant to the Muslims for prayer is the one at which the last light disappears and the first light appears- this is astronomical twilight at its maximum’ (p.217 quoting from a Wifāq al-‘Ulamā paper).
18 degrees is also critiqued from various angles. The claim of consensus throughout history on 18 degrees is challenged by presenting quotes to the contrary and actually questioning the quotes provided in favour (p.208). Also the idea of fixing a degree falls contrary to the practice of the vast majority of jurists who simply mentioned the need for observation (mentioned above). It is also argued that although 18 degrees is the point of when light begins to appear on the horizon but it is not visible to observe, this fact is supported by Yusuf’s own observations. It is also speculated whether when the astronomers of old stated 18 degrees, then it was not the same 18 degrees as understood by astronomers today. As the former were measuring stellar elevation, not recording solar depression.
On pp.230-232 the various observations that have been conducted within the UK and other mid-latitude countries are summarised in a very useful table. This then is followed by Yusuf’s own observations which are entitled ‘The Subḥ Project’. Yusuf provides all the details to his team’s observations where he also includes obstacles they faced. Much of the problems of sighting which were highlighted in chapter 4 is mentioned along with attempts to overcome them. The places chosen were Exmoor National Park, which is recommended for dark sky observations and for comparison Lickey Hills in Birmingham and the North Sea coast in Scotland (pp.248-252).
As noted above, this observation was for attempting to sight awwal al-ṭulū’, istitārah and intishār (as defined above). Awwal al-ṭulū’ was further divided into the earliest possible sighting of a person and tawāfuq, when multiple people agree on awwal al-ṭulū’ as having occurred. Based on 18 observations, the mean angles for the 4 categories were 15.5 degrees for awwal al-ṭulū’, 14.5 degrees for awwal al-ṭulū’ with tawāfuq, 13.3 degrees for istitārah and 12.1 degrees for intishār. As for the ‘ishā times (which had less observations), al-shafaq al-abyaḍ disappeared at 15-16 degrees, yellowish light disappeared at 13.5 degrees and al-shafaq al-aḥmar at 12 degrees. What is significant was that at 18 degrees for fajr there was ‘no change in any observation by any observer’ (p.263).
The last chapter offers recommendations of how to go about calculating ‘ishā and fajr times in the UK. Based on the premise that al-shafaq al-aḥmar and abyaḍ are valid positions, as well as awwal al-ṭulū’ and intishār coupled with the principle of hardship (ḥaraj), Yusuf advises to change between these positions depending on the time of year. So as aḥmar would be at 12 degrees and abyaḍ at 16 degrees, in the winter months 16 degrees should be followed (Yusuf is even open to 18 degrees here) and in the summer months 12-13 degrees (p.276). This would minimise the days in which ‘ishā would be absent and also remove the difficulty of late ‘ishā in the summer months. In regards to al-subḥ al-ṡādiq, then most of the year should be at 14.5 degrees (awwal al-ṭulū’) and in the summer months (May-July) it would be at 12.5 degrees (intishār). In extreme northerly areas where even intishār does not enter, then taqdīr will be done. In the days where there is no ‘ishā, Yusuf believes many of the proposed methods are impractical and incoherent, so he prefers the position of taqdīr (the taqdīr he prefers is mentioned above).
A not so much discussed issue is the very late ishā. As even taking aḥmar at 12 degrees as the entry time for ‘ishā results in ‘ishā occurring for a longer period but for many days it would occur very late. A solution to this, which Yusuf calls a ḥīla (legal stratagem), is that in the times where aḥmar causes very late ‘ishā, abyaḍ should be switched. In that case ‘ishā would not occur and one would be forced to do taqdīr. Again this position is based on taking a valid position due to a public benefit and removing hardship (p.287).
The study finishes with 5 appendices which touch on different topics like what is a madhab, the case of Bulghār, Muslim engagement with astronomy and a stratification of observational quality. Appendix C is one of real interest, as it presents the position of some earlier Ḥanafīs in regards to a few relevant scenarios. For example there were some lazy people of Bukhara who would pray fajr at the time of sunrise. When Shams al-A’immah al-Ḥalwānī (d.448) was asked regarding this, he told them to not prevent them. As it is unlikely that they would go home and pray, and some Ḥadīth scholars have permitted prayer at sunrise. It is better to pray in a time where some scholars have permitted than to leave prayer itself (p.332) [1]. This is meant to demonstrate the flexibility many jurists worked with when dealing with real life cases.
Yusuf provides a very persuasive case for his views and attempts to situate himself within the classical madhab traditions. He attempts to accurately present the positions of his opponents and provides the pros and cons of each position. Differentiation is made between valid positions, those that are strong and those which are weak. But there are those views which are considered to be outside the scope of validity either due to absurdities which result in the position or complete lack of evidence. This book is by far not the last word on the topic. Some technical terms require further elaboration, such as the concept of al-ṡubḥ al-kādhib, definition of intishār and also further observations are needed so as to get greater accuracy.
A general advice (for a possible second edition) would be to improve the referencing and inconsistent footnotes. For example on pp.126-127 he quotes al-Shurubulālī’s Imdād al-Fattāh without citing the volume or page number. The inconsistency is in reference to the fact that certain jurists get a short biography whereas other jurists go by without any details. There are other mistakes such as it is said that Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah is in reference to 6 books of Imam Muḥammad (p.313), but recent studies have shown it to be 5 books (al-Khalīlī, Lu’ayy, Asbāb ‘Udūl al-Ḥanafiyyah ‘an al-Futyā bi Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, Amman: Dār al-Fatḥ, p.56-63).
Looking past this, Asim Yusuf has to be commended for his efforts in regards to this vital topic and hopefully this research can encourage others to add and critique in a healthy and academic manner. Naturally it was not possible to cover all the issues discussed in the book, for that everyone is advised to give it a read.
Allāh knows best.
[1] This incident is mentioned by Ẓahīr al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī (d.506) from his teacher Abū Shujā’ (his death date does not seem to be mentioned, al-Qurashī states that he was a contemporary of Imam ‘Alī al-Sa’dī who died 461, al-Jawāhir al-Muḍiyyah 2/254). Yusuf inaccurately ascribes the book to al-Marghīnānī whereas the author of Jawāhir al-Fatāwā is in fact Rukn al-Dīn al-Kirānī (d.565) who is citing al-Marghīnānī, (see Khalīlī, Lu’ayy, La’āli’u al-Maḥār fī Takhrīj Maṡādir ibn Ᾱbidīn, Amman: Dār al-Fatḥ, 1/225-226).