Muhammad Abdul Hayee Nasir, Student, Jamia Ahmadiyya International Ghana
Image: Pir Sümeyra/Pexels
Muslims across the globe await the blessed month of Ramadan throughout the year with deep longing and excitement. As the fast is broken and the day gently fades, the hearts of believers turn towards the mosque, drawn by a special act of worship that has become one of the beloved symbols of this blessed month: the tarawih prayer.
What is tarawih?
Tarawih is a special voluntary prayer performed during the nights of the month of Ramadan after the Ishaobligatory prayer. The tarawih prayer consists of eight rak’aat followed by three rak’aat of witr. Conversely, some also follow the practice of performing 20 rak’aat for the tarawih prayer, while others follow the practice of 36 rak’aat.
The word tarawih comes from the Arabic root word r-w-h (روح). This root carries meanings related to rest, relaxation and comfort.
“Explaining the etymology of the word tarawih, the commentator of Sahih al-Bukhari, Hazrat Ibn Hajar al-Asqalanirh, writes that tarawih is the plural of tarwihah, and tarwihah is a single instance of taking rest. The reason for naming the prayer offered in congregation on the nights of Ramadan ‘tarawih’ is that when the noble Companions first gathered to offer this prayer, they would pause for a ‘tarwihah’, that is, a period of rest, after every two sets of salaams (four rak’aat).” (“Answers to Everyday Issues – Part 85”, alhakam.org, 2 September 2025)
Historical foundation of tarawih
The origin of the tarawih prayer dates back to the blessed time of the Holy Prophetsa, and we know this from authentic narrations in the ahadith. Initially, the Holy Prophetsa performed tarawih in congregation only for a few nights. On the first night, the Holy Prophetsa went out one night at midnight and offered prayer in the mosque, and some men also prayed following him. When people awoke in the morning, they informed one another of it.
So, on the second night, more people gathered and Huzoorsa offered the prayer, and they prayed with him. When the people awoke in the morning, the news spread further among the people. On the third night, those who gathered in the mosque became very numerous and the Holy Prophetsa came out and offered the prayer, and they prayed following him.
When the fourth night came, the crowd became so large that the worshippers could not be accommodated in the mosque. However, on that night, he did not come out for the tarawih prayer until morning came. When he came out for the Fajr prayer and completed the Fajr prayer, he turned toward the people and recited the tashahhud. Then, he said:
Thus, the regular congregational arrangement of tarawih did not continue during the time of the Holy Prophetsa. However, Muslims continued praying tarawih in congregation among themselves and in their own groups, while others offered it individually. It was during the time of Hazrat Umarra that he gathered the Muslims to pray tarawih in congregation in the mosque, establishing it as a communal practice.
This is proven from the following narration:
“One night in Ramadan, I went out toward the mosque with Hazrat Umarra ibn al-Khattab, and we saw that people were divided into separate groups. One person was praying individually and another person was praying in such a manner that a few people were following him in prayer.
“So, Hazrat Umarra said: ‘I think that if I gather them together under the leadership of a single reciter, it would be better.’ Then he made a firm decision and gathered them behind Hazrat Ubayy ibn Ka’abra. Then, on another night, I went out with him, and the people were praying behind their reciter.
“Hazrat Umarra said: ‘What a good innovation this is. And that part of the night in which these people sleep is better than the part in which they pray.’ Meaning that the latter part of the night is better, and people used to pray tarawih at the beginning of the night.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab salat at-tarawih, Hadith 2010)
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra while explaining how the tarawih prayer was instituted, states:
“When Islam spread widely and many weak people also began to enter it, Hazrat Umarra realised that many would not be able to perform tahajjud. Therefore, he adopted the method of offering tarawih at the earlier part of the night so that people could hear the Holy Quran in the mosques. Thus, this method was instituted by the Companions, whereas the way of tahajjud is the practice of the Holy Prophetsa.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmood, Vol. 20, pp. 450)
Thus, while the practice began with the Holy Prophetsa individually or in small groups, it became a widespread, systematic congregational tradition during the time of Hazrat Umarra.
Virtues of tarawih prayer
The tarawih prayer holds immense spiritual significance and comes with several virtues. The main ones are as follows:
1. Forgiveness of sins: The Holy Prophetsa said, “Whoever prayed at night in the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, then all his previous sins will be forgiven.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab salat at-tarawih, Hadith 2009)
2.Recitation and reflection of the Holy Quran: Allah commands Muslims: “Stand up [in prayer] at night except a small portion thereof – half of it, or make it a little less than that or make it a little more than that – and recite the Quran slowly and thoughtfully.” (Surah al-Muzzammil, Ch.73: V.3-5)
Tarawih is usually performed with long recitations of the Holy Quran. Listening to or reciting the Quran during these prayers strengthens one’s understanding, reflection and connection with the words of Allah. This is precisely the reason Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra attributes the arrangement of tarawih during Ramadan to helping members listen to the Holy Quran. (Khutbat-e-Mahmood, Vol. 20, pp. 450)
3. Spiritual purification: One of the main objectives of Ramadan is to attain spiritual purification and piety (taqwa). Allah the Almighty states in the Holy Quran: “O ye who believe! fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may become righteous.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V. 184)
The tarawih prayer helps develop taqwa and self-discipline, as it encourages a focus on worship, patience and humility.
Are tarawih and tahajjud two separate prayers?
In essence, they are the same type of prayer, although tahajjud carries a greater significance. The Promised Messiahas once said:
“Tarawih prayer is not a separate prayer. In reality, to offer the eight rak’aat of tahajjud prayer in its earlier time is called tarawih. Both forms mentioned in the question are permissible. The Holy Prophetsa has done it both ways. But most of the time, the practice of the Holy Prophetsa was to offer this prayer in the latter part of the night at home, alone.” (Malfuzat [English], Vol. 10, pp. 24-25)
The Promised Messiahas also stated:
“Tarawih is also Sunnah. Observe it, and sometimes offer it at home by yourself because tarawih, in reality, is tahajjud and not a new prayer.” (Ibid., p. 30)
Similarly, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra states:
“Tarawih and tahajjud are the same thing. Some people consider them to be two separate acts of worship and perform both [with this mindset]; this is a mistake.” (Farmudat-e-Musleh-e-Maud, p. 170)
In one of his Friday sermons, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra said:
“By tarawih is meant the very tarawih that is established from the practice of the Holy Prophetsa, which in reality is the tahajjud prayer itself.” (Khutbat-e-Mahmud, Vol. 22, p. 476)
How many rak’aat are there in tarawih?
Someone once asked the Promised Messiahas about the tarawih prayer. Specifically, he asked that if tarawih is tahajjud, then what is the Promised Messiah’sas view about twenty rak’aat because tahajjud is only eleven or thirteen rak’aat including witr. The Promised Messiahas said:
“The everlasting Sunnah [practice] of the Holy Prophetsa is only the eight rak’aat and he used to offer them at the time of tahajjud, and this is the preferred method. However, it is also allowed in the earlier part of the night as well. In one narration, it is stated that the Holy Prophetsa offered them at the earlier part of the night. Twenty rak’aat were introduced later, but the Sunnah of the Holy Prophetsa was indeed that which has been stated earlier.” (Malfuzat [English], Vol. 10, p. 143)
With regards to the rak’aat of tarawih, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira states:
“Among the Companions, three practices regarding establishing Ramadan [Qiyam-e-Ramadan] were prevalent: some used to offer twenty rak’aat in congregation, some eight rak’aat and some would perform only tahajjud at home.” (Irshadat-e-Noor, Vol. 1, p. 345)
At another place, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira said:
“Offering tarawih in the blessed month of Ramadan is necessary and it should be performed in congregation because the fear that it might become obligatory no longer remains. There is considerable disagreement among the scholars of Hadith and the jurists regarding tarawih. According to the Malikis, it is thirty-six rak’aat, while among the Hanafis, it is twenty rak’aat.
“Among the scholars of Hadith, more than eleven rak’aat is not established. I myself also prefer eleven rak‘aat, but I do not oppose anyone [who follows another view].” (Irshadat-e-Noor, Vol. 2, p. 489)
Is tarawih a bid’ah (innovation)?
Someone asked Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira that it is not proven from the practice of the Holy Prophetsa that he offered the tarawih prayer for more than four days; therefore, some people call it an “innovation” started by Hazrat Umarra.
Huzoorra replied: “Even if the Holy Prophetsa offered the tarawih prayer for only one day, it still became a Sunnah. By not observing it continuously, a Sunnah does not cease to be a Sunnah. Yes, its obligation is not proven, but a Sunnah should still be acted upon.
“And as for calling it an innovation of Umarra, what harm is there in that? Let it be the innovation of Umarra. Allah the Exalted says:‘And [as for] the foremost [among the believers], the first of the Emigrants and the Helpers, and those who followed them in the best possible manner, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him.’ (Surah at-Taubah, Ch. 9: V. 100)
“From this verse, the command to follow Umarra is also derived. The Companionsused to follow hundreds of his directives simply because of the command of Allah […].’” (Irshadat-e-Noor, Vol. 1, pp. 345–346)
Tarawih: Voluntary, but important
Explaining the importance of voluntary sacrifices that are done collectively, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra states:
“It is voluntary sacrifices that bring a person close to God the Exalted. As I have already explained, these sacrifices are of two kinds: individual and collective. An example of the individual one is tahajjud – some people rise for it while others do not.
“And an example of collective voluntary sacrifices is tarawih in Ramadan. Everyone knows the enthusiasm that exists for tarawih. In fact, people observe it so regularly that although they do not rise for tahajjud, they still go for tarawih.
“Indeed, we have never seen anyone distribute sweets after offering tahajjud, but at the completion of tarawih, I have seen people even distribute sweets. This is just like the case where a person who offers daily prayers is not called ‘namazi’(the one who prays), but if someone performs Hajj once, he begins to be called a ‘haji.’
“Similarly, the one who fasts and offers tarawih in the mosque for a month begins to consider himself deserving of some recognition, feeling that since he has accomplished such a great act, his mouth should be sweetened. In short, voluntary sacrifices which also have a collective aspect create a magnificent [spiritual] awakening within the community.” (Anwar-ul-Ulum, Vol. 14, pp. 105-106)
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Ira while explaining the excellence of tahajjud over tarawih prayer, said:
“A person who regularly offers twelve rak’aat of tahajjud should continue to offer the same twelve rak’aat in the latter part of the night during the blessed month of Ramadan; he does not need tarawih. The reward of tahajjud is greater and its excellence is higher. The reward of congregational prayer applies to obligatory or necessary prayers. One who observes the five daily prayers in congregation is not considered to be neglectful of the congregation.” (Irshadat-e-Noor, Vol. 2, p. 56)
In his recent Friday Sermon, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa advised us that,
“Nowadays, we are passing through Ramadan, and some opportunity for tahajjud does come. Even if it does not, one should still try. No doubt, tarawih is offered in the mosque and it serves as an alternative for the weak, the sick or those who cannot wake up in the morning on time or cannot give more time, but it is not a substitute that can fully fulfil the right.
“The practice of the Holy Prophetsa and of his most ardent servant [i.e. the Promised Messiahas] is that one should rise at night and offer tahajjud. Therefore, even if one has offered tarawih, one should still try to pray tahajjud, even if it is only two or four voluntary rak’aat.” (Friday Sermon, 20 February 2026)
Conclusion
Thus, tarawih is a blessed means through which the nights of Ramadan come alive with the remembrance of Allah and the recitation of the Holy Quran. While it provides ease and a collective opportunity for worship, the true spirit of this practice is to lead a believer towards the deeper, more rewarding prayer of tahajjud.
By following the beautiful example of the Holy Prophetsa and the guidance of the Promised Messiahas and his Khulafa, we should strive to make these nights a source of lasting spiritual transformation. May this Ramadan enable us not only to stand in prayer, but to rise in nearness to Allah and carry this light beyond the month itself. Amin!
“Out, damned spot!” cries Lady Macbeth nervously and fearfully as she washes her hands, attempting to rid herself of the imagined bloodstains and, of course, the overwhelming guilt of murdering the king.
In life, unimaginable actions like murder and rape give rise to guilt. Guilt, in its purest form, is what makes humans just that: human. It is among the best deterrents to committing evil. Yet, what happens when one falls so deeply into sin, into acts so heinous, that even the idea makes one wonder how such people can continue to live in this world?
Murder, rape, and other terrible sins are among the most cruel actions a person can commit, and they have existed since the beginning of humanity. When Adam’s son, Cain, slew his brother, Abel, even then the murderer felt guilt. Guilt, indeed, serves as a reminder of our human nature. No matter how far humans wander into sin, guilt is what pulls people back to humanity, back to their human selves.
However, what happens when one lacks righteousness and a moral compass? What happens when sin and heinous deeds become a habit? Does it still pull us back to our human selves? Does guilt still leave a stain on our conscience?
The stains left by Jeffrey Epstein in the world have and will continue to have a lasting ripple effect. With much that has come to light and some matters still unrevealed, it has left a deep stain on the fabric of society, one so profound that what was once dismissed as conspiracy theories no longer seems theoretical.
This is not an article meant to argue over Epstein’s actions or rationalise them. Rather, it is a brief examination of why people sin. Since the latest release of the files, many might be wondering: “What makes one sink into a sinful life so that it no longer seems like a sin for them?” Here is an Islamic overview and five reasons why humans sin.
The nafs and its nature
Plato said that the soul is like a charioteer with two horses, one noble and the other ignoble. Before we talk about why humans sin or, for that matter, do anything, we must understand that we are not bodies with souls but rather souls occupying a body.
So, to truly understand the self, along with humans’ internal struggles and desires, we are compelled to look at the soul. In the Holy Quran, we are told of three types, or stages, of the soul. The first stage is callednafs al-ammarah. (Surah Yusuf, Ch.12: V.54)
Humans have a nafs, a soul, often understood as the self or ego, which, if left unbalanced, unchecked, and unregulated, can make one lean toward sin. The nafs al-ammarah is defined in the Quran as the self that incites to evil. It provokes and nudges a person to simply satisfy their immediate cravings without moral restraint.
This, in itself, is dangerous to keep unchecked. The Quran quotes Hazrat Josephas: “‘And I do not hold my own self to be free from weakness; for, the soul is surely prone to enjoin evil.’” (Surah Yusuf, Ch.12: V.54) This demonstrates that if the soul is not disciplined through faith, through self-reflection, and through righteous deeds, it can push a person toward evil.
From this, it would not be incorrect to conclude that one of the primary reasons humans sin is their lack of control over, or failure to properly regulate, the soul. So, the soul must be tamed, as it naturally leans toward desire and passion. If it is overlooked and not disciplined, it certainly dominates the heart. This is why spiritual acts and purification are required to restrain it.
When Prophet Mosesas was commanded to go to Pharaoh, he invited him first and foremost toward purification. The Holy Quran states: “Go thou to Pharaoh; he has rebelled. And say [to him], ‘Wouldst thou [like to] be purified?’” (Surah An-Nazi‘at, Ch.79: V.18-19)
Here, it must be kept in mind that if doing religious obligations were always easy, they wouldn’t truly change us. The effort and struggle applied is actually the point. Having to push yourself to do what’s right in turn trains your self-control, shapes your character, and makes you stronger inside.
So the struggle itself is a gift from God, because through it, your soul, your nafs, becomes more disciplined, you grow as a person, and you slowly become better than you were before.
If all acts of worship were easy, they would not, in any way, help to exercise restraint. Take fasting, for example; the very act of abstaining from food exercises self-control, and one begins to realise that if they can abstain from what is lawful and necessary, then they can certainly abstain from that which is sinful and immoral.
Lack of taqwa (righteousness)
A heart that is mindful of God does not follow its desires of the lower and base self. In contrast, the heart that fails to be mindful and forgets God allows it to wander and commit sins. The lack of righteousness is another factor that leads humans to sin.
When we do not fear our Creator, or even the results of our actions, we begin to transgress. It is in this habit of transgression that man leaps forward in sin to such an extent that they no longer see their actions as damaging to their society. God states in the Holy Quran:
When one truly follows Islam and has a moral compass, they develop taqwa. The absence of taqwa is, in essence, the absence of awareness of Allah. When a person lacks consciousness of God, when they forget or ignore that Allah is watching and that all will be held accountable, they are left to act solely according to their desires.
As explained above, they will act through the soul that incites towards evil, since the soul is naturally inclined toward evil, the default direction a person will gravitate toward is sinful behaviour and corrupt vices.
The lack of taqwa is fundamentally a state in which a person forgets God. It’s like when one is driving on the highway and knows that there is no camera to catch them speeding; they feel more confident to speed, even if it might be reckless. Thus, we find why having a moral compass, be it religion or morals and ethics, is necessary.
Satan’s influence
The influence of Satan finds mention in all holy scriptures. Satan desires for man to fall. He tempts and lures humans, beautifying the lusts of this world and committing evil deeds. The whispers of Satan only take effect when the first two reasons, the unregulated nafs and lack of taqwa, are left unchecked.
“[As to] those who are righteous, when a suggestion from Satan assails them, they remember [God]: and behold! they begin to see [things rightly].” (Surah al-A‘raf, Ch.7: V.202)
The Quran also says that Satan stands in the path between man and God, always striving to misguide people. This is why we seek refuge in Allah from Satan when reciting the Quran. (Surah an-Nahl, Ch.16: V.99) Those who lack faith and awareness of God are like individuals with no experience who step into a boxing ring against a heavyweight fighter. Satan himself has voiced that he will do everything in his power to lead human beings away from the straight path. (Surah al-A‘raf, Ch.7: V.18)
Thus, evil actions often begin when a person gives in to the whispers that make sin appear attractive and harmless.
Desire for power
The lust for power has always been a driving force that allows the lower self (i.e. the nafs al-ammarah) and the lack of taqwa to go unchecked, leading to the outbreak of sinful deeds. Whether it is power or greed, ultimately prudence fails to stay afloat, and what remains are simply urges that cloud reason, divert man away from God and lead to pride.
Everyone eventually learns that the desire for wealth, status, or control can blind a person’s moral sense. Arrogance, referred to in the Quran as kibr, is a disease that eats away at the soul.
The example of Pharaoh and those like him illustrates how arrogance can lead a person to demand worship and view themselves as divine. His pride blinded him to the truth, to the point that he rejected the very messenger who was raised in his own household.
This reveals that arrogance can totally block one from perceiving guidance, much like bats that cannot tolerate light. Such people, like Pharaoh, behave as though they are above ethical principles and even divine law.
Habitual sinner
Habits make us who we are. When we continue to trek a path of good or evil, we ultimately marinate in our doings. Even if a person is not intrinsically evil, their deeds shape them. This is why small, consistent acts of righteousness are often encouraged more than rare grand gestures; continuity matters. We become what we do, just as we become what we eat. And when one continues to commit evil, their heart becomes rusted, as God says:
When an individual constantly engages in an action, it can gradually lose its moral weight, whether that action is good or evil. The constant committing of evil over time brings about a feeling of normalised evil behaviour.
An example of this is evident even in today’s age of social media, where memes and online content often downplay serious offences. For example, racist memes often create the image that such attitudes are acceptable, leading to their “normalisation.” When the rights of others are ignored, evil takes root and grows.
Indeed, wrongdoing often flourishes when it is socially tolerated or even encouraged.
It seems that sin becomes almost unavoidable when faith is neglected and God is ignored. It is no wonder, then, that the first point of belief in Islam is the recognition of one Almighty God. The above five reasons for the depravity of certain people can serve as a warning to us all. We must tread the paths of righteousness and avoid the paths of sin, no matter how small they seem.
We’ve all heard this saying before. It basically means: when you’re in a particular place, you follow the customs and traditions of that area. You move how everyone else is moving. In simple words, you adapt.
Now let’s think about that, but through the lens of Ramadan.
When the month of Ramadan arrives, the entire atmosphere changes. The mosque feels fuller. The Holy Quran comes off the shelf more often. Our tongues become moist with the remembrance of Allah and we become more present in our religion.
Then, of course, our nights become longer. Our hearts feel softer. It’s the month in which Allah revealed the Holy Quran to the Holy Prophetsa a month, and an opportunity, steeped in mercy.
And naturally, we step up. We pray more and occupy ourselves with good deeds. We refrain from idle talk that we might struggle with during the rest of the year. We feel that spiritual high.
But, I want you to ask yourself: Is that change really you? Or is it just the environment carrying you?
Because it’s easy to be good when everyone around you is being good. It’s easier to wake up for Tahajjud when your sleep schedule revolves around sahoor. It’s easier to open the Holy Quran when reminders are everywhere. But what happens when Shawwal hits? When the routine goes back? When life picks up speed again?
This verse undoubtedly resonates with all of us on a personal level. We know ourselves better than anyone else. We know if our repentance is sincere or seasonal.
So the million-dollar question remains: Does Ramadan automatically reform us? Or does it merely present us with the tools and leave the real work to us?
Why showing up matters
Let me give you an example easy to relate to. Imagine a person, fully invested, signs up for a gym membership. They buy the fresh outfit and the new trainers, hoping for a “new beginnings” arc. Realistically, they know that they’re not going to see overnight changes. So they wait.
Then, six months go by, and one day they look in the mirror and say, “Why haven’t I changed? Why haven’t I gained muscle? Why do I look the same?” So they decide to go to the gym and “see what’s going on”.
But here’s the twist in the entire scenario that flips the script. They haven’t actually been going. They signed up. They paid the membership fee. They liked the idea of transformation. But they’ve just been at home the whole time, expecting that simply being associated with the gym would, somehow, produce results. I’m sure we’d laugh at that, right?
But, before we laugh, we must observe this pattern deeply. Because we all know the obvious truth: a membership doesn’t change your body. In actuality, it’s the effort, the consistency, the discipline that helps us change. It’s all about showing up when you don’t feel like it. The gym is just a facility. The progress comes from the work. And Ramadan is no different.
Ramadan is akin to a spiritual training camp. It definitely provides us with the structure. The setting. The momentum. The reminders. But the results? They depend on whether you actually engage, whether you push yourself, whether you carry that discipline even beyond the month.
Logically, it’s clear that we can’t expect a life changing reform in 30 days if the things we do aren’t changing our lives. We must have the intent of an active transformation.
Ramadan doesn’t automatically reform a person. It allows them to reform themselves. And just like the gym, the question isn’t whether the system works. The question is much simpler: did you?
To seek mercy from the Merciful is a sign of His mercy
No doubt, this month offers a huge chance to change ourselves and strengthen our bond with God and do good for humanity. If the idea of improving even crosses your mind, know this: it is itself a mercy from Allah. For it is He who has instilled in your heart the desire to change and live more in line with Islam.
When we read the story of Adamas, we see that it was Allah who taught him words by which he sought forgiveness (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.38). Even in this, there is a subtle but powerful lesson: when we turn to Allah, it is not entirely our own decision. It is by His grace that we are given the ability to turn to Him, to reform ourselves.
A final thought to contemplate on
I want you to imagine meeting yourself, or perhaps, your potential self. The self you could become if you fully exerted your God-given faculties: the best version of yourself. Imagine, for a moment, reaching such spiritual heights that your connection with the Divine is so unbreakable and unshakable.
If you met that version of yourself, would you be inspired?
Often, the limitations we feel within are not the limits of our ability, but the laziness of our nafs. What if we are capable of becoming something greater? What if Ramadan is the training ground, the opportunity to start that transformation, to begin shaping ourselves into the version we were always meant to be?
Know this: the human being is ever a witness over their own nafs, even if they offer excuses. It is only we who know the potential of who we can be. The real question is: can we begin polishing the mirror in which we see ourselves?
It was during World War 2 that, for the first time in history, control of the skies would determine the fate of nations. Without sufficient aircraft, even the strongest empire could fall.
In this tense and uncertain period, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra saw a striking and vivid dream that was fulfilled so precisely and perfectly that it stands as a testament to his divine connection with the heavens.
Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra narrates the fascinating dream and its subsequent fulfilment in his own words:
“During the days when France had been defeated by Germany and the British were facing grave danger, I saw in a dream that I had gone to England and that the British had entrusted me with the task of defending England. I said that I first wished to inspect the military positions so that I could assess whether we lacked anything, and if so, how that deficiency could be made good. Accordingly, I visited all the military headquarters and government offices, and I reported to the Ministry that England lacked only airplanes. If airplanes were provided to me, I could carry out the defence of England very well.
“Meanwhile, still within the dream, a man came to me and handed me a telegram with the following words:
“‘The British Representative from America wires that the American Government has delivered 2,800 aeroplanes to the British Government.’
“After reading the telegram, I said that now the work had been accomplished and that we no longer lacked anything.
“I narrated this dream during those very days to Chaudhry Zafrulla Khan Sahib, and he mentioned it to several British representatives and other distinguished Indian officers of the government.
“I saw this dream in June 1940. In the month of July, one day, I was sitting in Masjid Mubarak when a man came running and said that an urgent phone call had come for me. When I went, I heard the voice of Chaudhry Zafrulla Khan Sahib, but I sensed that his voice was trembling. He is a man of great courage, yet at that time there was a quiver in his voice. He said, ‘Have you read today’s latest news?’ I replied, ‘I have read it, but I did not notice anything particularly special in it.’ He said, ‘Congratulations, your dream has been fulfilled! A telegram has just arrived in which it is written:
“‘The British Representative from America wires that the American Government has delivered 2,800 aeroplanes to the British Government.’
“Thus, the very same words that had been shown to me in the dream were fulfilled within a month, and the British representative informed the Government of England from America that the American Government was giving 2,800 airplanes to the British Government.” (Sair-e-Ruhani, pp. 329-331)
Historical confirmation of this dream’s fulfilment
Historical documentation proves that this dream was fulfilled precisely as was narrated by Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra. In July 1940, one month after Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra saw this dream, newspaper headings published the statement of the spokesman of the British Purchasing Commission, stating that precisely 2800 airplanes had been delivered by the U.S. to Britain.
The Strait Times, 27 July 1940, Page 9
The specificity of the number strengthens the significance of the spiritual insight of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra. It was not a general prediction about war, but a specific and measurable figure that was revealed to Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIra.
For a religious leader living far from the European frontlines to see such a specific number in a dream, and for that number to be publicly confirmed soon after, is certainly a sign of Divine insight.
This incident invites reflection and is a stark reminder that in an era defined by material power, true believers must continue to rely on Divine guidance communicated through Allah’s appointed Khalifa. With new tensions and uncertainties shaping the modern world, the underlying principle remains unchanged: a divine connection to Heaven will continue to illuminate human affairs in times of trial.
Iftekhar Ahmed, Ahmadiyya Archive & Research Centre
Image: Library/AI Generated
The Holy Quran, in Surah al-Baqarah, discusses the obligation of fasting during the month of Ramadan. A key question arises from verse 185 concerning the traveller:
Is refraining from fasting (fitr) a binding specification of the ruling for the traveller – whether termed an obligation (‘azima) or an obligatory concession (rukhsa wajiba) – meaning the traveller must not fast and perform makeup days (qada’) later? Or is it merely a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba), leaving the fast optional?
This distinction is important to understanding the correct legal ruling.
Terminology note: In this article, fitr denotes non-observance of the fast on a given day, i.e., not fasting or breaking the fast, not the communal sunset meal commonly called iftar.
“O ye who believe! fasting is prescribed for you, as it was prescribed for those before you, so that you may guard against evil.” (Surah al-Baqarah, Ch. 2: V.184)
The term “prescribed for you” indicates a universal command. Thus, the original state (asl) is the obligation to fast. The discussion centres on interpreting verse 185 and how it modifies this initial instruction. The central point is: Is the verse to be read in its literal sense (haqiqa) or according to a non-literal reading (majaz) that posits an implied clause (idmar/taqdir)?
The Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd (d. 595/1198), in Bidayat al-Mujtahid, frames this as follows:
والسبب في إختلافهم: تردد قوله – تعالى -: ﴿فمن كان منكم مريضا أو على سفر فعدة من أيام أخر﴾ [البقرة: ١٨۵] بين أن يحمل على الحقيقة […] أو يحمل على المجاز فيكون التقدير: فأفطره فعدة من أيام أخر […] فمن حمل الآية على الحقيقة […] قال: إن فرض المسافر عدة من أيام أخر لقوله – تعالى – ﴿فعدة من أيام أخر﴾ [البقرة: ١٨٤] ومن قدر (فأفطر) قال: إنما فرضه عدة من أيام أخر إذا أفطر. وكلا الفريقين يرجح تأويله بالآثار
“The reason for the disagreement is based on the interpretation of the words of the Exalted, ‘And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days,’ whether the verse is taken literally […], or it is taken metaphorically, in which case the underlying implication would be: ‘[And whosoever of you is sick or on a journey] and he does not fast (fa-aftara), [only then] (let him fast the same) number of other days’ […]. Those who interpret the verse literally […] said that the obligation of the traveller is [fasting] a number of other days, because of the words of the Exalted, ‘(let him hast the same) number of other days’. Those who assumed the implied words ‘and he does not fast’ (fa-aftara) said that his obligation is a number of other days in case he does not fast. Both groups support their interpretation on the basis of traditions (athar).” (Ibn Rushd, Bidayat al-mujtahid wa-nihayat al-muqtasid, ed. Farid ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Jundi [Cairo: Dar-Hadith, 2004], Vol. 2, pp. 57-58)
Quranic text: Ramadan fasting and ‘other days’
The relevant verses, 185 and 186 of Surah al-Baqarah, provide the textual foundation. Verse 185, following the general command to fast in verse 184, specifies the ruling for the sick and the traveller. It does not simply state that they are allowed to refrain from fasting. Instead, it prescribes a different timeframe for their fasting duty: “(let him fast the same) number of other days.” The wording functions as an assignment of when the obligation is to be discharged (“other days”), rather than as a conditional allowance that only applies if the traveller first chooses not to fast.
This verse thereby establishes two distinct periods for fulfilling the fast: (1) The “fixed number of days” (ayyaman ma‘dudat) of Ramadan applies to the general population who are resident (hadir) and healthy (salim). (2) In contrast, the “other days” (ayyamin ukhar) are designated for the sick and the traveller. The latter is presented as the alternative way in which they have to fulfil their fasting duty, not as an option alongside fasting in Ramadan.
Furthermore, the Andalusian scholar Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064) stresses that this verse, Ch.2, V.186, is decisive (muhkam), its command regarding the traveller is general (‘amm) covering all types of journeys, and it functions to explicitly transfer the obligation to “other days,” rather than merely present an option. (Ibn Hazm, al-Muhalla bi-l-athar, ed. ʻAbd al-Ghaffar Sulayman al-Bindari [Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya]), 1988, Vol. 4, pp. 384, 399)
The general population is commanded to fast during Ramadan. The sick and traveller are commanded to fast an equal number of other days. The Quran makes a distinction in when the obligation is fulfilled for these groups.
This raises the question: How can fasting during Ramadan be considered optional for the traveller, when the Quran assigns them other days? If mere permission were intended, different wording could have been employed. The specific instruction for makeup days (qada’) on “other days” establishes this ruling as a binding obligation (‘azima) for the traveller.
Ar-Razi’s grammatical analysis: Evidence for obligation (‘azima)
Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi’s (d. 606/1210) grammatical analysis of fa-‘iddatun, in Surah al-Baqarah, Ch.2: V.185, provides significant support for the ‘azima position. He shows the phrase can be read in two distinct grammatical cases, each suggesting the obligation (wujub) of makeup days (qada’), and thus, the necessity of refraining from fasting (fitr) during Ramadan for the sick and traveller. (Ar-Razi, at-Tafsir al-kabir [Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi], 1999, Vol. 5, p. 245)
When fa-‘iddatun is read in the nominative case (marfu‘), the verse implies: “Then upon him is [the obligation of] fasting an equal number of other days” (fa-‘alayhi sawmu ‘iddatin min ayyamin ukhar). This reading necessitates an implied “upon him” (‘alayhi) when understood literally. Ar-Razi states that “upon” (‘ala) here signifies obligation (wujub). The nominative reading directly emphasises the obligatory nature of qada’, showing that making up missed days is the primary requirement, not a consequence of choosing to refrain from fasting. (Ibid.)
Alternatively, when fa-‘iddatan is read in the accusative case (mansub), the verse, when understood literally, functions as a command: “Then let him fast an equal number of other days” (fa-l-yasum ‘iddatan min ayyamin ukhar). This imperative form also underscores the compulsory nature of making up the missed days. Ar-Razi indicates that this accusative reading also signifies obligation (ijab). (Ibid.)
Importantly, whichever grammatical reading is adopted – and both are valid – the verse clearly establishes the binding nature of qada’. This inherent, grammatically demonstrable obligation necessitates refraining from fasting (fitr) during Ramadan. The Quran does not say, “If you refrain from fasting, then make it up.” It states directly, “Your obligation is to fast an equal number of other days.” The duty of qada’ is primary, not conditional upon fitr. (Ibid.)
This grammatical understanding is taken up by later grammarians and exegetes like Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi (d. 754/1344), who notes the default reading of fa-‘iddatun is nominative, implying an underlying structure: “Then upon him is [the obligation of] a number […] or: the obligation is a number, or: the ruling is a number [of other days]” (fa-‘alayhi iddatun […] aw: fa-l-wajib, aw al-hukmu ‘iddatun). (Abu Hayyan, al-Bahr al-muhit fi t-tafsir, ed. Sidqi Muhammad Jamil, Beirut: Dar al-Fikr [1992], Vol. 2, p. 184)
This construction, i.e., treating ‘a number [of days]’ (‘iddatun) as the predicate of an implied obligation, supports the reading that the traveller’s primary duty is fasting on other days (qada’), rather than fasting during the journey itself. (Ibid.)
The majority (jumhur) view: An unnecessary implication (muqaddar)
The majority of scholars (jumhur), viewing the allowance for travellers as merely a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba), posit an implied phrase (muqaddar) within verse 185 of Surah al-Baqarah and thus interpret it in a figurative sense (majaz). This approach, as summarised by figures like Ibn Rushd, involves interpreting the verse by inserting “if he refrains from fasting” (fa-aftara) before the command to fast other days (fa-‘iddatun min ayyamin ukhar). (Ibn Rushd, ibid.)
Ar-Razi explains this exact argument used by the jumhur, stating that their position is that the verse necessitates an ellipsis (idmar) because the implied meaning (taqdir) would be: “and he does not fast, then [upon him is] a number of other days” (fa-aftara fa-‘iddatun min ayyamin ukhar). (Ar-Razi, ibid.)
This insertion of a muqaddar is unnecessary and forced. It appears designed to reconcile the verse with a pre-determined conclusion – that fasting during travel is optional – rather than allowing the Quranic text to speak for itself.
The argument for obligation (‘azima) requires no such addition. The necessity to refrain from fasting (fitr) for the traveller is derived directly from the literal understanding of the verse assigning them “other days,” effectively replacing the Ramadan obligation with the obligation of qada’. The verse, as it stands, is complete and coherent.
Indeed, classical exegetes like Abu Hayyan recognise the strength of reading the text as it stands. He invokes the interpretive principle (asl) that the text should be read without assuming omitted words (la hadhf). Based on this principle, he notes that the apparent (zahir) and literal meaning of the verse directly assigns the makeup days (‘idda) as the obligation of the traveller. Importantly, Abu Hayyan points out that a necessary consequence of reading the text literally, following this rule, is that should a traveller fast during Ramadan, that fast would not suffice (lam yujzihima) to meet the obligation, leaving the requirement for makeup days firmly in place. (Abu Hayyan, ibid., p. 186)
This perspective is strongly echoed by jurists like Ibn Hazm, who emphatically rejected the insertion of such an implied condition like “in case he does not fast” (fa-aftara) as a forged claim with no evidence (da‘wa mawdu‘a bi-la burhan), unsupported by the explicit Quranic text. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 399)
The claim that both interpretations require a muqaddar is incorrect. The jumhur add words to create a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba) where none is explicitly stated. The ‘azima position, conversely, derives the necessity to refrain from fasting (fitr) from the literal Quranic text without additions. The obligation (‘azima) is inherent in the structure of the verse. (Ar-Razi, ibid., pp. 245-246)
Ar-Razi’s refutation of majority (jumhur) arguments
Fakhr ad-Din ar-Razi not only supports the obligation (‘azima) view grammatically but also directly refutes the main arguments used by the majority (jumhur) to justify implying “in case he does not fast” (fa-aftara).
Al-Qaffal (d. 365/976) argued that verse 186 (“Therefore, whosoever of you is present at home in this month, let him fast therein”) establishes fasting as a universal obligation upon everyone without exception. If this is the case, then verse 185 cannot simply mean what it appears to say on its own. It must contain an implied, unstated phrase (idmar), namely, “and he does not fast” (fa-aftara), to make sense alongside verse 186’s blanket command.
Ar-Razi, however, responds by exposing a problem with this reasoning. If we truly read verse 186 as universally binding on everyone with no exceptions, then verse 186 itself would also need an implied phrase to exclude the sick and the traveller, since everyone agrees that they are not obligated to fast during their illness or travel. In other words, al-Qaffal’s reading creates the very same problem it tries to solve.
Ar-Razi then invokes a well-known principle of legal interpretation (qa‘ida usuliyya): when there is a conflict between reading a verse as a specification (takhsis), i.e., narrowing the scope of a general rule, and reading it as containing an unstated implication (idmar), specification is always preferred. Accordingly, verse 185 has to be understood as specifying and narrowing the general command of verses 184 and 186, defining what the traveller and the sick person is obligated to do, rather than being forced to carry an unstated hidden phrase. (Ibid., p. 246)
Similarly, Ibn Hazm countered the majority’s reliance on the general command, “Therefore, whosoever of you is present at home in this month, let him fast therein” (Ch.2: V.186). He argued that this general command is immediately qualified by the very next clause concerning the sick and the traveller, stating that Allah explicitly designated “other days” for them, thereby transferring the obligation due to travel and negating the applicability of the initial general command to the traveller during the journey itself. (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)
Al-Wahidi (d. 468/1076), in his book at-Tafsiral-Basit, offered a different argument. He reasoned as follows: the obligation to make up missed fasts (qada’) only arises when someone has actually not fasted (fitr), not simply because they were sick or travelling. So, since the verse commands makeup fasting, and makeup fasting logically presupposes that one did not fast, the verse must contain a hidden, unstated phrase: “and he does not fast” (fa-aftara).
Ar-Razi considers this argument “extremely weak” (wa-hadha fi ghayat as-suqut), and his refutation rests on a careful reading of the verse’s actual wording. He points out that Allah did not say “upon him is the making up of what he missed” (fa-‘alayhi qada’u ma mada). Rather, what Allah actually said was: “upon him is the fasting of an equal number of other days” (fa-‘alayhi sawmu ‘iddatin min ayyamin ukhar). This is an important distinction. The verse is simply imposing an obligation to fast on a different set of days; it is not framed as compensating for days one did not fast. And if the verse is simply saying “fast on other days instead,” this does not logically require that the non-fasting must have already occurred. Therefore, al-Wahidi’s claim that the verse inherently implies a prior non-fasting is unfounded. (Ar-Razi, ibid.)
Finally, the jumhur cite ahadith like that reported by Hamza al-Aslamira to justify implying fa-aftara. In this hadith, Hamzara asked the Holy Prophetsa:
أَأَصُومُ فِي السَّفَرِ؟
“Should I fast while traveling?”, and he used to fast frequently. The Holy Prophetsa replied:
Ar-Razi states that using such a hadith to override the direct implication of the Quran is jurisprudentially invalid, as it would constitute abrogation of the Quran by a solitary hadith (naskh al-Qur’an bi-khabar al-wahid), which is impermissible. The explicit Quranic text takes precedence. (Ar-Razi, ibid.)
Quranic evidence: Divine intent for ease
Beyond refuting the majority (jumhur) view, the Holy Quran offers direct textual support for fitr, i.e., refraining from fasting, being the obligation (‘azima) for the traveller. A key piece of evidence lies in the theological statement within verse 186:
In his analysis, Abu Hayyan connects the divine intention for ease (yusr) mentioned in the verse specifically to the concession to the traveller, explaining that refraining the fast (fitr) aligns with this intended ease, while fasting during the journey represents the hardship (‘usr) that Allah does not desire for them. (Abu Hayyan, ibid., p. 199)
It has been reported from notable early authorities, including ‘Alira, Ibn ‘Abbasra, Mujahid and ad-Dahhak, that they specifically identified the “ease” (yusr) mentioned in this verse with refraining from fasting (fitr) while travelling, and the “hardship” (‘usr) with fasting during the journey. This directly links the Quranic statement about desiring ease to the specific act of the traveller refraining from fasting, suggesting that refraining from fasting (fitr)is the divinely intended path of ease for them. (Ibid.)
Building on this understanding of divine ease (yusr), ar-Razi convincingly argues that this declaration of divine intent must be understood in the immediate context of the preceding discussion about fasting obligations. The “ease” (yusr) Allah desires for the sick and traveller is specifically not to fast (fitr) during Ramadan and fulfil their obligation through makeup days (qada’) later. Conversely, the “hardship” (‘usr) Allah does not desire is compelling them to fast during Ramadan despite their condition. This interpretation aligns perfectly with the ‘azima position, indicating a divine preference for the traveller not to fast during the journey itself, but rather to utilise the concession provided. (Ar-Razi, ibid., p. 245)
Sunnah and Companion practice: Affirming obligation
The Sunnah and the understanding of the Companionsra further affirm the position that fitr during Ramadan travel is an obligation (‘azima), not merely an option.
Most telling is the Holy Prophet’ssa categorical dissociation of righteousness from fasting during travel:
While the jumhur often limit this to hardship, the fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence and Quranic exegesis “consideration is given to the general wording, not just the specific occasion” (al-‘ibratu bi-‘umum al-lafz la bi-khusus as-sabab) – strongly emphasised by authorities like Ibn Hazm in this context – suggests broader application, negating righteousness (al-birr) from the act of fasting during travel itself. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 400)
Furthermore, the statement attributed to ‘Abd ar-Rahman ibn ‘Awfra underscores this:
“The one who fasts while traveling is like the one who refrains from fasting while resident.” (Sunan an-Nasa’i, Hadith 2285)
This powerful analogy equates the perceived piety of fasting in travel with violating the obligation of refraining from fasting when resident, indicating that the rukhsa is required (wajiba). Ibn Hazm notably considered the chains for this statement to be rigorously authentic (fi ghayat as-sihha). (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 404)
Hazrat Aishara was also reported to have explicitly forbidden fasting during Ramadan travel. Abu Salama b. ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awf narrated from his father, ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. ‘Awfra, who said:
“‘Aishara, the Mother of the Believers, forbade me from fasting Ramadan during travel.” (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 403)
This direct prohibition (nahatni) from Hazrat Aishara adds significant weight to the position that refraining from fasting (fitr) was considered the required practice.
Further Prophetic evidence underscores this obligation, using language that indicates the removal of the duty itself. The Holy Prophetsa is reported to have said regarding the traveller:
“Indeed, Allah Almighty has lifted from the traveller the fast”. (Jami‘ at-Tirmidhi, Hadith 715)
This direct statement, employing the verb wada‘a, meaning lifted, removed or relieved of, strongly indicates that the very obligation of fasting during Ramadan is suspended for the traveller. It signifies not merely a permission to refrain from fasting, but that the requirement itself is temporarily removed by divine decree, reinforcing the position that refraining from (fitr) becomes the designated and required course during the journey.
The following actions and explicit statements of key Companions like Hazrat Umarra, Ibn ‘Umarra, Ibn ‘Abbasra, Abu Hurairahra, and Abu Sa‘id al-Khudrira confirm this understanding.
Ibn ‘Umarra stated:
إِنْ صَامَ قَضَاهُ
“If he fasts, he must make it up.” (an-Nawawi, al-Majmu‘ sharh al-Muhadhdhab, ed. Muhammad Najib al-Muti‘I (Jeddah: Maktabat al-Irshad), 1980, Vol. 6, p. 269)
He further underscored the gravity of insisting on fasting by using a powerful analogy regarding this concession:
“It [the concession] is only a charity that Allah has bestowed upon you. Do you see? If you were to give a charity and it was rejected back to you, would you not become angry?” (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 403)
Ibn Hazm noted that this implies ‘Ibn Umarra viewed fasting during Ramadan travel as something potentially angering to Allah, a description not used for merely permissible acts. His disapproval was also practical. When a woman travelling with him insisted on fasting, Ibn ‘Umarra reportedly told her, “Do not accompany us (la tashabina)!” (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)
Moreover, Ibn ‘Abbasra said:
لا يجزئه الصيام
“Fasting [in Ramadan while traveling] does not fulfil the obligation.” (an-Nawawi, ibid.)
Furthermore, Ibn ‘Abbasra explicitly described the allowance to refrain from fasting during travel as a binding ruling (‘azima):
الْإِفْطَارُ فِي رَمَضَانَ فِي السَّفَرِ عَزْمَةٌ
“Refraining from fasting in Ramadan during travel is a binding ruling (‘azma).” (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)
He also advised taking the path of ease Allah intended, contrasting it with hardship. When asked about fasting during travel, he reportedly said:
يُسْرٌ وَعُسْرٌ خُذْ بِيُسْرِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى
“[When it comes to] ease and hardship, take the ease of Allah the Exalted.” (Ibid.)
These statements underscore his view that accepting the concession of fitr was not merely permissible but the required course, aligning with Allah’s intent for ease (yusr).
“He ordered a man who fasted [in] Ramadan while traveling to make it up”. (‘Abd ar-Razzaq, Al-Musannaf, ed. Habib ar-Rahman al-Aʻzami (Johannesburg: al-Majlis al-‘Ilmi, 1983), Vol. 4, p. 270)
Abu Hurairahra also held this view, stating as a general principle:
مَنْ صَامَ فِي السَّفَرِ فَعَلَيْهِ الْقَضَاءُ
“Whoever fasts during travel, he must make up (qada’) [the fasts].” (Abu Hayyan, ibid., p. 186)
Consistent with this view, Abu Hurairahra instructed his own son who had fasted during travel, as reported:
Al-Muharrar b. Abi Hurairah said: “I fasted [in] Ramadan during travel, so Abu Hurairah ordered me to redo it when I was back home with my family and to make it up, so I made it up.” (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 404)
This demonstrates his clear view that the fast performed during travel was invalid for fulfilling the Ramadan obligation.
Abu Sa‘id al-Khudrira expressed his strong disapproval of a traveller insisting on fasting by saying:
لَوْ مَاتَ مَا صَلَّيْتُ عَلَيْهِ
“If he were to die, I would not pray on him [i.e., I would not perform the funeral prayer for him].” (Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, al-Matalib al-ʻaliya bi-zawaʼid al-Masanid al-thamaniya, ed. ʻAbd Allah b. ʻAbd al-Muhsin b. Ahmad al-Tuwayjiri, Riyadh: Dār al-ʻAsima; Dar al-Ghayth, 1998, Vol. 6, p. 87)
This shows the gravity of disregarding the allowance.
Reflecting the understanding that the Holy Prophet’ssa final instructions were decisive, the esteemed tabi‘i Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri (d. 124/742) stated:
“Refraining from fasting (fitr) was the latter of the two practices [regarding fasting or not fasting while travelling] from the Messengersa of Allah, and one takes from the command of the Messengersa of Allah the later of his commands, whichever is later.” (Ibn Hazm, ibid.)
This important principle highlights that the Holy Prophet’ssa final ruling emphasising fitr implies abrogation (naskh) of any earlier permission.
The leading tabi‘i Sa‘id b. al-Musayyib (d. 94/715), one of the seven fuqaha’ of Medina, directly countered the argument of personal strength, which is often used to justify fasting during travel. When asked by a man if he should fast while travelling, asserting his ability to do so (inni aqwa ‘ala dhalik), Sa‘id replied:
“No, […] the Messengersa of Allah was stronger than you, yet he used to shorten [the prayer] and refrain from fasting.” (Ibid.)
This response firmly grounds the ruling in the Holy Prophet’ssa established Sunnah, dismissing personal capacity as a relevant factor for overriding the concession.
This understanding continued among other prominent tabi‘un, such as Sa‘id b. Jubayr (d. 95/714), Ibrahim an-Nakha‘i (d. 96/714), ‘Ata’ b. Abi Rabah (d. 114/732) – who explicitly disallowed the obligatory fast during travel while permitting voluntary ones, ‘Urwa b. az-Zubayr (d. 94/713) – who mandated qada‘ and was another one of the seven fuqaha’ of Medina, ash-Sha‘bi (d. 103/723), Zayn al-‘Abidin (d. 94/712)– the great-grandson of the Holy Prophetsa, his son Muhammad al-Baqir (d. 114/733) and al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr (d. after 105/723) – grandson of the first Caliph, Abu Bakrra, and also one of the seven fuqaha’ of Medina, all of whom disapproved of and/or prohibited fasting during Ramadan while travelling, demonstrating a strong consensus among the succeeding generation.
Addressing Hamza al-Aslami’sra hadith of choice
The majority (jumhur) use certain ahadith to argue for the permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. A primary example they cite is the hadith reported by Hamza b. ‘Amr al-Aslamira:
إِنْ شِئْتَ فَصُمْ، وَإِنْ شِئْتَ فَأَفْطِرْ
“If you wish, fast, and if you wish, refrain from fasting.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1943)
The jumhur interpret this as a general authorisation applicable even during Ramadan. However, this interpretation faces several jurisprudential challenges:
Firstly, the hadith’s wording is general (‘amm), encompassing fasting during travel without specifying Ramadan, whereas verse 185 is specific (khass) and addresses the traveller’s Ramadan duty by directing it to “other days” (ayyamin ukhar). According to the established principle of takhsis al-‘amm bi-l-khass, when a general text and a specific text address the same subject but the specific text carries a distinct ruling, the specific governs its own domain. Since verse 185 provides an explicit directive for the specific case of Ramadan travel – mandating that the traveller fast on other days – the hadith’s general permission of choice cannot override this specific Quranic ruling. The hadith therefore pertains to voluntary or non-Ramadan fasts, while the Quran’s explicit directive regarding Ramadan travel remains determinative.
Secondly, the reliance on tark al-istifsal, i.e., arguing that the Holy Prophet’ssa general reply encompasses Ramadan because he did not ask Hamzara for specifics, does not settle the matter. The principle of tark al-istifsal holds that when a questioner poses a general question and the Holy Prophetsa provides a general answer without requesting clarification, the answer is taken to cover the full scope of the question. However, this principle operates on the assumption that no contextual indicator (qarina) narrows the scope of the question. In Hamza’sra case, such a qarina exists: the narration itself describes him as someone who used to fast frequently, a characterisation pointing to a habitual devotional practice rather than the Ramadan obligation. This contextual detail provides strong grounds for understanding the question as pertaining to the maintenance of his voluntary fasting habit during travel, not to the communal Ramadan duty, which would not ordinarily occasion such an individual inquiry. The Holy Prophet’ssa permissive reply, “if you wish, fast, and if you wish, refrain from fasting,” fits naturally as an answer to a question about voluntary practice, where choice is indeed appropriate. The tark al-istifsal argument, therefore, cannot be invoked without first accounting for this contextual indicator, which significantly limits the question’s likely scope. Moreover, even if one were to set aside this qarina and treat the reply as general in its fullest sense, the resulting generality would still remain subject to specification (takhsis) by verse 185, as established above.
Thirdly, usuli methodology requires that reconciliation (al-jam‘) between texts be attempted before resorting to abrogation (naskh). The jumhur claim to achieve reconciliation by reading both texts as granting a choice during Ramadan travel: the Quran assigns other days in case the traveller refrains from fasting and the hadith confirms that fasting is also permissible. However, this form of reconciliation comes at a significant cost. It effectively reduces the Quran’s specific directive [“(let him fast the same) number of other days”] from an operative command defining the traveller’s obligation to a mere conditional permission that applies only if the traveller happens to choose fitr. On this reading, the Quranic verse’s independent force is stripped away. It ceases to prescribe anything and instead becomes dependent on a prior voluntary act that the verse itself never mentions. This is not genuine reconciliation but the subordination of one text to the other. A more methodologically sound reconciliation, one that preserves the full operative meaning of both texts, is achieved through takhsis: the hadith establishes a general permission of choice for fasting during travel, applicable to voluntary and non-Ramadan fasts, while the Quran specifies the ruling for the particular case of Ramadan travel, where the traveller is directed to fast on other days. Neither text is set aside or reduced to redundancy. The hadith governs its domain and the Quran governs its own.
Furthermore, Ibn Hazm critiqued the versions of this tradition that grant an unrestricted choice during Ramadan travel, raising both chain-based (isnad) and contextual (matn) objections. On the chain-based level, he identified weaknesses in the transmission paths of those versions that explicitly mention Ramadan in their wording, finding their reliability diminished compared to the base narration, which contains no such specification. The addition of a Ramadan context in these weaker versions cannot, therefore, be treated as established. On the contextual level, Ibn Hazm reinforced the point about Hamza’sra devotional character by drawing on the specific description of him as one who maintained constant fasting (asrada as-sawm). He argued that this description marks a pattern of supererogatory devotion, an individual practice exceeding the norm, and therefore points to a question about voluntary fasting rather than the universally observed Ramadan duty. This strongly suggests that his question concerned whether he should maintain his voluntary fasting habit during travel and the Holy Prophet’ssa permissive answer addressed that specific concern. The permissive answer, therefore, cannot be straightforwardly extended to the Ramadan obligation. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 398)
Having established above that the hadith most likely pertains to voluntary fasting and not the Ramadan obligation, a further, concessive argument may be advanced: even if one were to accept, for the sake of argument, that this hadith pertains to Ramadan travel, the jumhur’s interpretation still overlooks a significant detail in another version of this incident narrated in Sahih Muslim:
“It is a concession (rukhsa) from Allah, so whoever takes it, it is good (hasan), and whoever loves to fast, then there is no sin on him (fa-la junaha ‘alayhi).” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1121e)
The wording here draws a clear distinction between the two options. Accepting the concession and not fasting is described with the commendatory term hasan, which implies positive merit. Fasting, by contrast, is merely declared free from sin (la junaha ‘alayhi). In both Quranic and juristic usage, the expression la junaha consistently functions to lift a potential prohibition or apprehension of wrongdoing, rather than to affirm the merit of an act. Applied here, the same linguistic function implies that fasting during travel was the act requiring reassurance of permissibility, not refraining from fasting. The resulting hierarchy – commendation (hasan) for refraining from fasting and mere permissibility (la junaha) for fasting – suggests only the absence of prohibition for fasting, not that it fulfils the specific obligation or reward of Ramadan, thereby supporting the view that accepting the concession is the primary, rewardable act (rukhsa wajiba).
Finally, some proponents of the jumhur’s position claim that this hadith post-dates the revelation of verse 185, arguing that it therefore modifies or effectively abrogates the Quranic directive. This claim faces two difficulties. First, the precise chronology of this incident relative to the verse’s revelation has not been definitively established. Second, even if the hadith were shown to post-date the verse, a solitary report (hadith ahad) cannot abrogate or override a Quranic ruling. The jumhur might respond that they are not claiming outright abrogation (naskh) but rather specification (takhsis) or clarification (bayan) of the Quran by the hadith. However, verse 185 already addresses the specific case of the traveller during Ramadan and assigns a determinate ruling – fasting on other days. There is no ambiguity or generality in the verse’s treatment of Ramadan travel that requires further specification or clarification by an external text. To use a solitary report to render this explicit Quranic directive inoperative for the very case it was revealed to address is, in substance, abrogation, regardless of the terminology employed. Furthermore, the hadith’s own wording, using la junaha for fasting, as discussed above, reads more naturally as a concession operating within the Quranic framework than as an abrogation of it.
Refuting arguments from ‘no censure’ and the conquest journey
In addition to the hadith of choice, the jumhur also point to narrations describing Companions travelling with the Holy Prophetsa where some fasted and others broke their fast without mutual censure (la ya‘ibu). An example is the report from Anasra:
“Indeed, the Companions of the Messengersa of Allah used to travel, and neither the one fasting would find fault with the one refraining from fasting, nor the one refraining from fasting with the one fasting.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1118b)
The jumhur argue that this would demonstrate general permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. This conclusion, however, does not follow from the evidence. It is important to note, first, that this narration describes the Companions’ general travel practice, “they used to travel” (kanu yusafirun), without specifying that these journeys took place during Ramadan. The fasting and refraining from fasting it describes may well pertain to voluntary fasting during travel at other times, making it irrelevant to the specific question of the Ramadan obligation. Moreover, even if Ramadan were assumed, the mere absence of mutual censure is a descriptive observation about interpersonal conduct, not a normative legal pronouncement establishing optionality. The absence of open reproach among individuals does not establish that both practices were equally valid before Allah. Several factors could account for this: some Companions may not yet have received the final ruling, others may have exercised forbearance in avoiding public correction, or these events may predate the Holy Prophet’ssa definitive later commands on the matter. Drawing a legal ruling of permissibility from the silence of individuals would be an argument from absence, which cannot override the positive textual evidence from the Quran and the Holy Prophet’ssa explicit statements.
Another significant event cited by the jumhur is the Holy Prophet’ssa journey for the Conquest of Mecca. They highlight his initial fasting during this journey as proof that fasting during Ramadan travel is permissible, overlooking the significance of his later action. As narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:
عن رسول الله ﷺ أنه خرج في شهر رمضان لغزوة الفتح، فسار حتى بلغ الكديد، ثم أفطر، وأمر الناس بالفطر
“The Messengersa of Allah went out in the month of Ramadan for the Conquest of Mecca, and he proceeded until he reached al-Kadid, then he broke his fast, and ordered the people not to fast.” (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘azim, ed. Sami b. Muhammad as-Salama [Riyadh: Dar Tiba li-n-Nashr wa-t-Tawziʻ], 1999, Vol. 1, p. 503)
The decisive point is not that the Holy Prophetsa initially fasted, but that he subsequently broke his fast and explicitly ordered others to do so (amara an-nasa bi-l-fitr). The initial fasting, whatever its basis, was superseded by this definitive public command during the same journey. This command established fitr as the expected and required course, supporting the ruling of obligation (‘azima). The jumhur’s attempt to restrict this command solely to the context of impending battle constitutes an unfounded specification (takhsis), limiting the Holy Prophet’ssa general order to refrain from fasting to a particular military context without any textual evidence for such a restriction. This contradicts the established principle that consideration is given to the general wording, not the specific occasion (al-‘ibratu bi-‘umum al-lafz la bi-khusus as-sabab). The Holy Prophet’ssa command was phrased in general terms, “he ordered the people to refrain from fasting,” and there is no indication in the narration that this order was conditioned upon the imminence of battle.
Indeed, when some persisted in fasting despite this command, the Holy Prophetsa responded by characterising them as:
أُولَئِكَ الْعُصَاةُ
“Those are the disobedient ones.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1114a)
Jurists like Ibn Hazm viewed this designation as a definitive statement establishing fitr as obligatory (fard) for the traveller, rendering continued fasting after the command an act of disobedience (ma‘siya). The jumhur’s attempt to limit this designation to the specific battle context faces the same objection outlined above: the Holy Prophet’ssa words, “those are the disobedient ones,” are a general characterisation of those who refused the command to refrain from fasting, and restricting it to combat situations requires a limitation unsupported by the text. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 399)
Ibn Hazm further emphasised that the Holy Prophet’ssa own action of refraining from fasting while travelling in Ramadan serves as the definitive interpretation of Allah’s command in verse 185, he being the one most knowledgeable of divine intent and the source from whom the ruling must be taken. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 395)
Addressing further hadith contentions
Further ahadith presented by the majority (jumhur) to support optional fasting also fail to negate the obligation (‘azima) of fitr for the traveller.
“The Messengersa of Allah was on a journey and saw a crowd and a man who was being shaded. He asked, ‘What is this?’ They said, ‘A fasting person.’ He said, ‘It is not of righteousness (al-birr) to fast while traveling.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1946)
The jumhur interpret this statement as limited to cases of extreme hardship, arguing that the Holy Prophetsa negated righteousness only because the man in question had reached a state of visible distress. However, the Holy Prophet’ssa words are formulated as a general proposition: “It is not of righteousness to fast while traveling” (laysa min al-birr as-sawmu fi s-safar). He did not say, “It is not of righteousness to fast when it causes you such difficulty,” nor did he qualify his statement by reference to the man’s specific condition. Again, according to the established principle that consideration is given to the general wording, not the specific occasion (al-‘ibratu bi-‘umum al-lafz la bi-khusus as-sabab), the Holy Prophet’ssa negation of righteousness from fasting during travel carries general applicability. The specific occasion, i.e., the sight of a man in distress, prompted the statement, but does not limit its legal scope. This implies that accepting the rukhsa of fitr is the correct and righteous course for the traveller, and that fasting during travel, regardless of the traveller’s physical state, falls outside the category of birr.
The jumhur also cite the hadith of Abu ad-Darda’ra:
“We went out with the Messengersa of Allah in the month of Ramadan during intense heat […] and none among us was fasting except the Messengersa of Allah and ‘Abd Allah b. Rawahara.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1122a)
They argue that the Holy Prophet’ssa own fasting during this Ramadan journey demonstrates the permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. However, this argument requires examination. Ibn Hazm questioned whether the fast the Holy Prophetsa and ‘Abd Allah b. Rawahara observed on this occasion was necessarily the obligatory Ramadan fast or a voluntary fast undertaken during the month of Ramadan. Within the framework of the ‘azima position, the traveller’s Ramadan obligation is transferred to other days. Accordingly, any fast a traveller undertakes during the journey, even in the month of Ramadan, would be voluntary rather than a fulfilment of the Ramadan duty. The narration itself does not specify the nature of the fast, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Companions were not fasting is itself noteworthy, suggesting that fitr was already the prevailing practice among them. Moreover, even if the fast were understood as a Ramadan fast, this incident is situated chronologically before the Holy Prophet’ssa later, definitive commands establishing fitr as the required practice, including the command during the Conquest journey and the designation of persistent fasters as “disobedient” (al-‘usat). Following az-Zuhri’s principle that one takes from the Holy Prophet’ssa commands the later of them, this earlier practice would be considered superseded (mansukh) by the later instructions. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 397)
Finally, a narration from Sunan ad-Daraqutni concerning ‘A’ishara fasting and completing prayers during Ramadan travel faces serious reliability challenges on both levels of hadith criticism. Regarding the chain of transmission (isnad), the narrator ‘Ala’ b. Zuhayr has been subject to criticism by hadith scholars, and there are well-established doubts about whether ‘Abd ar-Rahman b. al-Aswad actually heard from ‘A’ishara directly, introducing a probable discontinuity (inqita‘) in the chain. Regarding the content (matn), the narration mentions an ‘umra performed in Ramadan, a detail that sits uneasily with the established records of ‘A’isha’sra pilgrimages and raises questions about the report’s overall accuracy. Given these combined weaknesses in both chain and content, this narration cannot be reliably adduced as evidence for the permissibility of fasting during Ramadan travel. (Sunan ad-Daraqutni, 2293)
Obligatory concession (rukhsa wajiba) for the traveller
The preceding analysis has established, through Quranic text, Prophetic statements and Companion practice, that fitr during Ramadan travel functions as the traveller’s reformulation of the obligation (‘azima). This conclusion is further reinforced by a recognised principle in Islamic jurisprudence: that of the obligatory concession (rukhsa wajiba). According to this principle, accepting a divinely granted concession (rukhsa) is not always merely permissible (mubaha) or recommended (mustahabba). Rather, when the conditions warranting the concession are met, accepting it becomes obligatory (wajib). In the case of travel during Ramadan, where the Quran itself transfers the traveller’s fasting duty to other days and declares that Allah desires ease for His servants, refusing the concession amounts to rejecting a divinely ordained arrangement.
The Holy Prophetsa underscored the importance of accepting concessions, stating:
“Indeed, Allah loves that His concessions (rukhas) be accepted, just as He loves that His obligations (‘aza’im) be fulfilled.” (Ibn Hibban, al-Musnad as-sahih, ed. Muhammad ‘Ali Sunmiz; Khalis Ay Damir, Beirut: Dar Ibn Hazm, 2012, Vol. 5, p. 474)
Al-Mundhiri graded the chain (isnad) of this hadith as good (hasan). The wording is significant: it does not merely permit acceptance of concessions but declares that Allah loves their acceptance in the same manner as He loves the fulfilment of obligations. This places the acceptance of applicable concessions on the same plane of divine expectation as the performance of standard duties. Specifically, regarding Ramadan travel, the Holy Prophetsa commanded:
“It is upon you to adhere to Allah’s concession which He has granted you.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1115c)
The imperative form ‘alaykum bi, a construction that denotes binding instruction in Arabic usage, makes this a clear directive, not a mere suggestion or recommendation.
Moreover, specific versions of the laysa min al-birr incident include the explicit command “so accept it!” (fa-qbaluha). Ibn Hazm argued forcefully that this direct command (amr) transforms the concession into a mandated obligation (rukhsa muftarada), reinforcing the duty to accept Allah’s ordained ease. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 401)
Ibn ‘Umarra further emphasised the gravity of refusing this concession. When a man claimed he was physically capable of fasting during travel, Ibn ‘Umarra did not engage with the claim of personal strength but responded with a Prophetic warning:
Abu Tu‘ma narrated to us that he said: I was with Ibn ‘Umar when a man came to him and said: “O Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahman, I am capable of fasting while traveling.” Ibn ‘Umarra said: “I heard the Messengersa of Allah say: ‘He who does not accept Allah’s concession, the weight of his sin will be like the mountains of ‘Arafa.’” (Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, Cairo: Dar al-Hadith, Vol. 5, p. 51)
The context in which Ibn ‘Umarra deployed this hadith is itself instructive. The man’s claim of personal strength, “I am capable of fasting while traveling,” is precisely the reasoning many use to justify fasting during Ramadan travel. Ibn ‘Umar’sra response dismisses personal capacity as irrelevant to the ruling and redirects the matter to the acceptance or rejection of a divine concession, with a severe warning of sin attached to refusal. Under genuine travel conditions, therefore, accepting this concession by refraining from fasting is not simply an easier option. It is the divinely intended, and thus required, action.
The majority (jumhur) often misapply the phrase “And fasting is good for you” (wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum) in verse 185, claiming it endorses fasting during Ramadan travel as preferable. This interpretation detaches the phrase from its specific context within the verse. Two main lines of reasoning refute this misuse:
Firstly, Ibn Hazm argues strongly that this phrase is misapplied entirely to the traveller. He explains that it relates specifically to the provision regarding fidya for those who could fast only with extreme difficulty (wa-‘ala lladhina yutiqunahu) mentioned earlier in verse 185. That context, involving a choice between fasting with great difficulty or offering fidya, is distinct from the traveller’s situation, which involves the transfer of the fasting obligation to makeup days (qada’). The phrase “And fasting is good for you” addresses those who face the fidya option and encourages them that fasting, despite their difficulty, is the better of the two alternatives available to them. Applying this phrase, which is textually situated within the fidya discussion, to the traveller’s entirely different legal scenario is, according to Ibn Hazm, a distortion (tahrif) that twists the Quran’s meaning. While the understanding of the historical application of the fidya provision varies among scholars, Ibn Hazm’s core point rests on the phrase’s undeniable textual link to the fidya context within verse 185, making its application outside that specific scenario incorrect. (Ibn Hazm, ibid., p. 393)
Secondly, even if one were to consider the phrase applicable beyond the fidya context, as a general exhortation to fast, it still does not support fasting during travel. Verse 185 addresses distinct groups and assigns each a specific obligation. For the healthy resident, who is obligated by verse 186 to fast during the month itself, “fasting is good for you” naturally refers to fasting during Ramadan. For the sick and the traveller, whose obligation is modified to qada’ on “other days” (ayyamin ukhar), “fasting is good for you” pertains to their own assigned duty, that is, fasting on those other days. The phrase wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum, read within this framework, encourages each group to fulfil its respective obligation diligently. It encourages the traveller to fulfil the obligation of qada’ later, not to fast during the journey in place of the obligation that has been transferred from them.
Both lines of reasoning demonstrate that using wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum to justify fasting during Ramadan travel is incorrect. The phrase, whether understood within its immediate fidya context or as broader exhortation, does not contradict the obligation (‘azima) ruling derived from the command of qada’ for the traveller.
Conclusion: The obligation of fitr for the traveller
The interpretation of Surah al-Baqarah, verse 185, regarding the traveller’s fast in Ramadan distinguishes between taking the text literally (haqiqa) or implying unstated conditions (majaz). This analysis demonstrates that the position of ‘azima, where refraining from fasting (fitr) becomes the modified obligation requiring makeup days (qada’), aligns directly with the Quran’s plain and literal meaning. The verse assigns travellers “other days,” a structural and grammatical directive, as demonstrated through ar-Razi’s analysis of the nominative and accusative readings of fa-‘iddatun, reinforced by the principle of divine ease (yusr) mentioned in verse 186 and supported by the interpretive rule, upheld by Abu Hayyan and Ibn Hazm, that the text should be read without assuming omitted words.
This Quranic understanding is strongly supported by the Sunnah and the practice of the early Muslims (salaf). Prophetic statements negating the righteousness (al-birr) of fasting during travel, the definitive later commands establishing fitr as the final ruling, as emphasised by az-Zuhri’s principle that one takes from the Holy Prophet’ssa commands the later of them, and the consistent understanding and actions of prominent Companions and tabi‘un who mandated qada’ or deemed the fast invalid (la yujzi’), all point to fitr being required. The principle of rukhsa wajiba, emphasising the obligation to accept Allah’s concessions, further solidifies this view.
Conversely, the common view of a permissible or recommended concession (rukhsa mubaha/mustahabba) relies on an unnecessary textual insertion (muqaddar/mudmar), critiqued by both ar-Razi and Ibn Hazm, and on interpretations of ahadith that overlook established principles: the precedence of the specific (khass) Quranic text over general (‘amm) narrations through takhsis, the proper methodology of reconciliation (al-jam‘) that preserves rather than neutralises the operative force of each text and significant distinctions within the ahadith themselves, such as the hierarchy between hasan and la junaha in the Sahih Muslim version. Furthermore, applying wa-an tasumu khayrun lakum to the traveller detaches the phrase from its specific textual context within verse 185.
Therefore, the collective evidence firmly concludes that fitr for the traveller during Ramadan is an obligation, regardless of whether it is called ‘azima or rukhsa wajiba. It is the modified divine requirement, replacing the duty to fast in Ramadan with the duty to perform qada’ on other days, reflecting divine wisdom and mercy.
Mankind, since time immemorial, has been preaching the unity of God. Look back millennia to the time of Prophet Adamas or look to any of the Abrahamic faiths; all profess a message of one Supreme, Almighty, All-Powerful God. The Islamic declaration of faith is laid upon the foundation of belief in one, singular God. The Holy Quran goes as far as to say:
God repeatedly and emphatically commands believers to never associate any equal with Him, be it apparent or hidden. In fact, idolatry is the one sin that God will not forgive. He admonishes:
“Allah will not forgive that anything be associated with Him as partner, but He will forgive what is short of that to whomsoever He pleases. And whoso associates anything as partner with Allah has indeed strayed far away.” (Surah an-Nisa, Ch.4: V.117)
But why does God care so deeply about the worship of such insignificant creatures? He is definitely not in need of any praise. He is exalted above anything which man may associate with Him. So what is the big deal?
Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmadra, on the occasion of Jalsa Salana Qadian 1921, delivered a brilliant address on the Being of God the Exalted. In this speech, he outlined the four main reasons for God’s disdain of idolatry. (Hasti Bari Ta’ala, pp. 148-150)
Firstly, Huzoorra explains that idolatry sparks the غیرت (honour, self-respect) of God. He dislikes that something else be given His glory, because all others are completely undeserving of it. In fact, the trait of غیرت is one of the perfect attributes of Allah, not a flaw.
Secondly, God has immense mercy and compassion for His creation. The reality is that most people, out of sheer complacency, will consider the worship of small idols enough. They will never strive towards that which is beyond their idols and will be deprived of the worship of the true God. Such men are deprived of spiritual progress. So, according to His infinite mercy and to protect man from ruin, God specifically forbids the evil of idolatry over other vices. This warning is for man’s own good.
Thirdly, if the false notion that idols besides God held divine power was permitted to persist, then it would be tantamount to God, allowing a divide or veil to come in between Him and mankind. Man was created to attain the nearness of the Divine. Idolatry is a hindrance to this objective. It lessens devotion to God. More dangerously, it obscures the actual purpose of creation. If God allowed idolatry to persist, then man would be misled to think God desires a barrier between us. God the Almighty wants to eradicate this conjecture. Because it is only through monotheism that perfect divine love can be acquired.
Fourthly, Huzoorra explains that shirk fosters falsehood, ignorance and cowardice. God does not want His servants to delve into such sins. Thus, He forbids the root cause of these impurities. Falsehood in shirk is to assign powers to things that God has not granted. Ignorance is derived from the fact that those things that God sent for the benefit and service of man are made into those in command, and, accordingly, man fails to acquire the intended benefit. He is led to seek benefit from those things that could never benefit him. Cowardice results from idolatry because man fears things that cannot harm him.
Shirk terribly limits man. It is a cancer that destroys courage and purpose. It misleads people to believe that one cannot reach God directly without a mediator. Spiritual progress is impossible until this false belief is rooted out. It erects a wall between man and his Creator. Allah the Almighty desires that a bond of devotion and affection be sparked between Himself and each one of us. This is why He hates shirk. Out of his infinite love and mercy, He desires the best for His servant. God would never be a bystander, as His servants strayed farther and further into moral destruction. Thus, His hatred for shirk is the manifestation of His love for us.
Saima Fazeel, Secretary Nasirat, Lajna Imaillah Australia
Image: Australia Jamaat
Nasirat-ul-Ahmadiyya Sydney, Australia, held a two-day Summer Camp on 10-11 January 2026 with an attendance of 98 nasirat on Day one and 86 on Day two. The event was designed to foster spiritual growth, personal confidence and sisterhood among the participants, allowing them to fully enjoy their time at the mosque.
The first day began with registration after which members were encouraged to write their personal goals on a “Goal Wall” of what they would like to achieve by the end of the camp. This was followed by the formal proceedings, including tilawat, hadith and nazm, and a briefing on camp rules and general housekeeping.
The morning session, titled “My Superpowers,” focused on self-discovery. The members identified their personal strengths, aspects they liked about their religion and what they enjoyed about being nasirat. After lunch, the afternoon was filled with diverse activities, including a presentation on current “Trends” by the nasirat themselves. A cooking class was held, followed by an Art and Crafts session and indoor sports. The day concluded with dinner and Maghrib prayer.
The second day commenced with a presentation and group discussions on maintaining a healthy digital balance, titled “Freeing Our Families From the Harmful Use of Technology.” This was followed by outdoor sports and a creative workshop. The highlight of the day was the “Talent Show and Tell,” where members displayed a variety of handmade items, showcasing their immense creativity.
Throughout the two days of the Summer Camp, various amila members were invited to introduce their respective departments to the nasirat. This provided them with an opportunity to gain insight into the different areas of work within Lajna Imaillah, ask questions and express their interests. The interactive sessions encouraged engagement and helped them better understand how they can serve the Jamaat in the future. At the conclusion of Day two, the members were asked to write their names along with the departments they were most interested in, allowing us to identify areas of interest and begin early guidance and training as they prepare to transition intoLajna Imaillah. The programme concluded with speeches by my humble self and Sadr Lajna Imaillah Australia.
Ataul Mujeeb Rashed, Missionary-In-Charge, Jamaat UK
During the months of January and February 2026, a series of Jalsa Seerat-un-Nabisa was organised across the United Kingdom. These gatherings served to illuminate the magnificent life, noble character and sublime qualities of the Holy Prophet Muhammadsa.
In the London and Southern regions, Jalsa Seerat-un-Nabisa was held at numerous mosques, where speakers addressed the themes of compassion, justice, moral excellence and the timeless relevance of the blessed example of the Holy Prophetsa.
These gatherings took place at the Baitul Ahad Mosque in Newham, Baitul Ata Mosque, Baitul Aman Mosque in Hayes, Baitun Noor Mosque in Hounslow North, Bilal Centre Mosque in Tooting, Nasir Mosque in Gillingham, Baitus Subhan Mosque in Croydon, Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden and in Surbiton, with an average attendance of 300-350 members at each venue. The attendance at the Baitul Futuh Mosque was 2700 and it was 120 in Surbiton.
The Midlands region witnessed equally spirited programmes. In the East Midlands, the Baitul Ikram Mosque in Leicester hosted a well-attended Jalsa with approximately 200 participants, similar to the Baitul Hafeez Mosque in Nottingham, while in the West Midlands, gatherings at the Darul Barakat Mosque in Birmingham and Baitul Ghafoor Mosque in Halesowen drew an average of 300-350 members. At the Baitul Ata Mosque in Wolverhampton, a total attendance of 100 was recorded.
In the North and North West, Jalsa Seerat-un-Nabisa was organised at the Baitul Haleem Mosque in Keighley, Darul Aman Mosque in Liverpool and Baitul Aman Mosque in Manchester. The Liverpool Jamaat recorded an attendance of approximately 150 participants. A Jalsa was also held by the Jamaat in Northern Ireland.
My humble self joined several of these programmes, for instance, at the Baitul Aman Mosque in Manchester, Baitun Noor Mosque in Hounslow North, Baitul Ahad Mosque in Newham and Baitus Subhan Mosque in Croydon.
In total, over 3000 members across the United Kingdom participated in these programmes.
A glimpse into the rich history of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat
Hazrat Maulvi Sher Alira sahib
20 February 1915: On this day, Hazrat Sufi Ghulam Muhammadra set off from Qadian to Mauritius to establish a mission. He reached his destination on 15 June, spending months in Sri Lanka to establish a local chapter on this island. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 4, p. 169)
20 February 1944: On this day, a special Jalsa Musleh-e-Maud was arranged in Hoshiarpur, India, where Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra delivered a powerful and insightful speech. During the Jalsa, 18 missionaries shared the tabligh achievements of their respective countries. After these faith-inspiring accounts, Huzoorra proceeded to Bait-ud-Du‘a (the room where the Promised Messiahas would often pray in seclusion in Qadian), where he remained occupied in supplication for a heavenly sign. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 8, p. 580)
21 February 1899: The book of the Promised Messiahas, Haqiqatul Mahdi (The True Nature of the Mahdi) was published on this day. As far as the language of this book is concerned, Urdu, Persian and Arabic are all used.
Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi, having been thwarted in all his attempts to demean Hazrat Ahmadas, started a campaign of vilification against the Promised Messiahas, and to incite the Government against him, he indulged even to the extent of fabricating lies and claiming that Hazrat Ahmadas was – God forbid – a rebel and more dangerous than the bloodthirsty Sudani Mahdi. However, the government did not show leniency to him.
21 February 2003: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IVrh announced the establishment of a fund for the marriage of underprivileged girls. In his Friday sermon of 28 February, Huzoorrh named it the “Maryam Shadi Fund”. (Al Fazl, 25 February 2003, p. 1)
22 February 1935: On this day, Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra graciously donated 500 rupees towards the fund for the construction of Gurdwara Patna Sahib. The local press lauded this act of generosity. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 7, p. 281)
22 February 2014: Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa addressed the delegates of the European Annual Symposium of the International Association of Ahmadi Architects and Engineers (IAAAE). During his address, Huzooraa congratulated the members of the IAAAE for their continued commitment to selflessly serving humanity. Huzooraa said the Association had now installed or rehabilitated thousands of water pumps in Africa that were providing clean drinking water to thousands of deprived people.
‘‘Report: Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad Addresses Concluding Session of Annual IAAAE Symposium’’ www.pressahmadiyya.com
23 February 1901: On this day, I‘jaz-ul-Masih, a book of the Promised Messiahas, was published by Zia-ul-Islam Press, Qadian. This remarkable Arabic work was written in response to the deceptive tactics of Pir Meher Ali Shah. The Promised Messiahas composed this masterpiece in an exceptionally short period.
23 February 1966: On this day, upon assessing the situation in Pakistan in a sitting, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IIIra emphasised the importance of building strong ties between West Pakistan and East Pakistan. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 23, p. 487)
24 February 1990: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IVrh delivered a lecture in the English language at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre in London. This important lecture about Islamic solutions to contemporary problems was later expanded and published in book form under the title Islam’s Response to Contemporary Issues. (Silsila-e-Ahmadiyya, Vol. 4, p. 862)
24 February 2012: On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa inaugurated the Baitul-Wahid Mosque in Feltham, UK. On this occasion, Huzooraa also urged the Jamaat to pray for the Ahmadis of Hyderabad Deccan, India, where non-Ahmadi Muslims were attempting to occupy the Ahmadiyya mosque.
Speaking at the formal reception that was held in the evening, Huzooraa said, “The world today is fraught with danger and turmoil. We sit at an extremely critical juncture and so there is an urgent need for us to all recognise our Creator and to fulfil the rights of His creation. Otherwise, if we fail to uphold and discharge each other’s due rights, it will undoubtedly lead to great destruction in the world.” (“Love for All, Hatred for None: Baitul Wahid Mosque Opens in Feltham, London”, www.reviewofreligions.org)
25 February 1921: On this day, a Sikh religious leader from Kartarpur district, Jalandhar, India, visited Qadian and enjoyed the blessed audience of Hazrat Musleh-e-Maudra.
To read more about his visit, see: “The Guru of Kartarpur, Jalandhar, in Qadian” at www.alhakam.org (18 June 2021, p. 13).
25 February 1994: On the completion of 100 years of the extraordinary heavenly sign of the truthfulness of the Promised Messiahas – the sign of the solar and lunar eclipse – the Jamaat commemorated the occasion in a special manner. On this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IVrh delivered his Friday sermon at Fazl Mosque, London, shedding light on this subject. Huzoorrh also mentioned that in Pakistan, Ahmadis were prohibited by the government from holding gatherings to mark the occasion. (Khutbat-e-Tahir, Vol. 13, pp. 139-158)
To read more about this sign, see: ‘‘Observatory images of eclipses of the time of Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi’’ at www.alhakam.org (16 October 2023, pp. 12-13).
26 February 1936: On this day, Hazrat Maulvi Sher Alira set out for England with the aim of translating the Holy Quran into English. He stayed there for three and a half years and returned to Qadian on 9 November 1938. Despite his old age, he made this long journey only to complete the English translation of the Holy Quran. (Tarikh-e-Ahmadiyyat, Vol. 7, p. 301)
26 February 2010: During his Friday sermon on this day, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa shed light on the Islamic teachings regarding taking care of orphans and advised Ahmadis living in Western countries to participate in the Orphans Fund, which serves orphans in Pakistan.
Huzooraa said he wants to especially encourage the Pakistani Ahmadis residing in the West to participate in this fund because what could be more fortunate for a believer than being in the company of the Holy Prophetsa in paradise as a result of their caring for orphans, as has been mentioned in a hadith. Huzooraa added, there is ample room for everyone to contribute, and he estimated that if each Ahmadi family member in the West donated seven to ten pounds annually, it would go a long way in helping the orphans in Pakistan and this small amount can play a significant role in transforming the lives of many orphans.
Between October 1925 and December 1925, a total of fifty-three American men and women, residing in various cities across the United States, entered the fold of Islam Ahmadiyyat. Some of these individuals accepted the faith of Islam through correspondence, while others embraced this pure religion as a result of the dedicated missionary efforts of American Ahmadi preachers.
Missionary efforts in America
Among our missionaries, the services of Sheikh Ahmad Din of St. Louis, Sheikh Karam Ilahi of Indianapolis, and Sheikh Mustafa of New York City are particularly noteworthy. These friends are carrying out the work of Islamic propagation with great diligence, devotion, and self-sacrifice.
Sheikh Karam Ilahi and Sheikh Ahmad Din frequently travel beyond their own localities to nearby towns and villages for the preaching of Islam.
Majlis-e-Shura
Sheikh Ahmad Din, in fact, is presently away on such a preaching tour. Upon his return, I intend to convene a special gathering of the Ahmadis of this city, wherein consultation will be sought regarding the future means and methods through which the propagation of Islam may be further expanded. It is hoped that this Majlis-e-Shura (consultative assembly) will strengthen and invigorate our missionary endeavours.
Conversion of an enthusiastic student
Among these fifty-three new converts is a particularly passionate young man whose Islamic name has been given as Muhammad Latif. He is a native of the Philippine Islands and a graduate of Glasgow. At present, he is pursuing studies at the Divinity College of the University of Chicago. His original intention had been to qualify as a Doctor of Divinity (DD) and thereafter serve in the propagation of Christianity.
From Christian divinity to Islamic mission
However, when he came to hear about our mission of Islam Ahmadiyyat, he began attending our gatherings. After participating in only two such gatherings, he became convinced of the truth of the Islamic message. He has since commenced a thorough study of our literature and now aspires to become an Islamic missionary himself.
He states that he will strive with all his ability in the propagation of Islam and in the refutation of Christianity. After accepting Islam Ahmadiyyat, he withdrew from the divinity course and instead enrolled in English Literature.
Social and financial trials
Owing to his acceptance of Islam, Muhammad Latif was compelled to relinquish his employment. Furthermore, the landlord of the residence in which he had been living issued him a strict notice to vacate the premises within twenty-four hours and treated him with considerable harshness.
Despite these trials, by the grace of God, he has demonstrated steadfastness, perseverance, and a true Islamic spirit in every respect. Friends are requested to pray that Allah the Almighty may grant him steadfastness in faith.
Five-year work
It has now been five years since the establishment of the mission of Islam Ahmadiyyat in America. During this period, the nature and extent of the work accomplished have continued to appear before friends and supporters through various reports and publications.
Up to the present time, 1221 men and women in this country have entered the fold of Islam. The central Chicago Mission, along with its four branches established in other cities, is progressing day by day.
The role and suspension of The Muslim Sunrise
For the propagation of Islamic teachings and beliefs, the magazine The Muslim Sunrise was launched. It continued to run successfully for three years; however, for the past year and a half its publication has remained suspended.
The reason for this discontinuation was the high cost of printing and circulation in contrast with the relatively small number of subscribers. The financial condition of our central association and the American Mission was not such that it could continue to bear this heavy burden.
There is no doubt that this magazine – Shams-ul-Islam – served as the right arm of our preaching efforts, and through it our mission attained considerable recognition even in foreign countries.
The need for literature
In addition to a capable missionary and a regularly issued monthly journal, another extremely vital requirement for propagation is adequate literature. No leader or missionary can spread his beliefs or mission unless he possesses sufficient means and written material.
Literature in the hands of a missionary is akin to a rifle and ammunition in the hands of a soldier. If a missionary possesses no literature, how can he carry out the work of preaching?
This need is especially acute in a country like America, for it is the land where literature and advertisements are the founders of present-day civilisation. The lives of its people have become so deeply intertwined with modern civilisation that they scarcely find time to attend to religious matters. If high-quality literature were available, we could distribute it among the people in trains and automobiles, in parks and places of entertainment, and in factories, offices, and shops – and in this manner properly fulfil the obligation of tabligh.
The nature and form of missionary literature
Literature printed in India, or written in an Indian style of composition, cannot be regarded with the same appreciation in America. Consequently, such literature cannot produce the effective results that are required, nor can it meet the intellectual and cultural needs of the American audience in the manner that locally produced material can.
It is therefore necessary that different kinds of literature be prepared and printed here in America itself, according to local requirements, and issued in the form of handbills and pamphlets for immediate use in missionary work.
Growing disenchantment with Christianity
As knowledge continues to advance, people are gradually and naturally drifting away from Christianity. In the eyes of other nations, this country is considered strongly bound to the Christian religion, primarily because numerous American missions are established abroad.
Perceptions vs. reality of American Christianity
The abundance of missionaries and the extensive propaganda carried out by the clergy create the impression that the American nation is deeply and firmly Christian. I myself received an education in an American mission school and had heard many admirable accounts regarding America. However, upon arriving and living here, I found reality to be quite the opposite of what I had imagined.
Personal observations cross social classes
I have interacted with various segments of society: I have dealt with the labouring classes, lived through student life here, associated with businessmen, and met individuals belonging to both higher and middle social circles. I have also engaged in frequent dialogue with scholars and clergy.
After this prolonged experience, I cannot refrain from expressing the view that in America, no more than ten per cent may truly be called Christians – by which I mean those who genuinely believe in the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the concept of atonement.
Religious demographics and identity
Approximately one-tenth of this country is populated by people of the Jewish faith. Of the remaining nine-tenths, based on my five years of experience, I would say that not more than another one-tenth can be described as Christian in the doctrinal sense defined above.
Large portion of society receptive to Islamic Monotheism
In summary, nearly half of the population of this country does not, in reality, belong to any particular religion – though nominally they ascribe themselves to Christianity.
Readers should understand that a large portion of the population believes in Divine Unity and is averse to doctrines such as Atonement and the divinity of Christ. In other words, they stand intellectually closer to Islam.
A question of religious affiliation
The question naturally arises: if such people feel aversion toward Christianity, why do they continue to identify themselves as Christians?
The answer is quite simple: if they do not call themselves Christians, what else are they to call themselves?
There exists before them no widely recognised alternative religion whose affiliation they might adopt. Our mission, however, remains unaware of – or unable to reach – these individuals.
Yet this is hardly surprising, for the mission itself has not attained sufficient recognition. And how could it when it lacks adequate resources and literature?
From Muhammad Yusuf Khan (BSc),
4448 Wabash Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois, USA.
(Translated by Al Hakam from the original Urdu, published in the 19 February 1926 issue of Al Fazl)
