What is the ruling on fasting for those whose day in their country is more than twenty hours, or for those whose day lasts six months?

The questioner : Regarding fasting in countries where the day is long, more than twenty hours, twenty-two hours, I have seen those who issue fatwas saying it is permissible to fast according to the nearest Muslim country, meaning they fast sixteen hours, and then they fast sixteen hours.

The Shaykh : Why do they say this?

The questioner : They take the hadith of the forty days.

The Shaykh : And does the hadith indicate this?

The questioner : By analogy.

The Shaykh : By analogy? I see you are rushing me. Analogy of what to what?

The questioner : The hadith...

The Shaykh : So, better than this is to ask what is the opinion in this issue, as a preparation to reach the stronger opinion. I will say: Is it possible for one whose fasting is twenty hours? Is that possible or not? This is first. And second, do they have the appearance of dawn and the setting of the sun, or not? It appears not. There is no such thing, or such a thing, as long as you say twenty hours. Oh, what is this, what is this?

The questioner : Is this by Al-Albani?

The Shaykh : No, by the Turkish one. If the question were, "What is the ruling for one whose day lasts six months, as exists in some countries, and after these six months pass, what takes its place?"—the night, six months—then what you referred to regarding the analogy to the forty days of the Dajjal would apply. How many days are the forty days? Or what? A day whose length is like a year, and a day whose length is like a month, and the rest of its days are like your days. But here, your question, I do not know if it was intentional or by mistake. By mistake? Oh, what is this, what is this? This is by the Turkish one. If it was not by mistake, then the argument from the hadith of the Dajjal does not apply here, because there is the appearance of dawn and the setting of the sun. All that can be brought up on this occasion is: Can those obligated to fast fast for twenty hours? In my belief, they can. And this answer is general, but some of them may not be able to. So now we are speaking about those who can. It is not permissible for them to issue a fatwa that they should fast according to the hours of the nearest country to them, and that this ratio of "nearest" varies from country to country, has no standard, and has no system. But Allah the Exalted said: This is a clear, decisive rule that has not been abrogated. So if fasting in some countries is sixteen hours and in other countries less, the ruling does not change regarding the obligation of fasting due to the system of the number of hours being more or less. The standard here is to say: If they see the dawn appearing, they abstain from food, and if they see the sun setting, they break their fast. This is their obligation. And it is not said here what might come to mind: "This contains something resembling injustice." Far from it, because we will say that they will calculate the other days where, instead of fasting twenty hours, they may fast ten hours. So, as is the case with all the seasons, the ruling is that fasting is obligatory upon whoever is able to do it. It is not permissible for them to look to another country where they are equal to them in the appearance of dawn and the setting of the sun. And I believe, from my personal experience, that a person has the ability and energy, if he is in harmony with the rulings of the Shari'ah, to fast night and day, not just fast twenty hours and break his fast for four hours. He does not follow the night and the day. And some of the Salaf used to continue fasting, and indeed some of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) intended to continue fasting night and day, so the Messenger (peace be upon him) forbade them. They said to him, "O Messenger of Allah, you do continue fasting." He said: So, since there were people who fasted a time that is not legislated, which is continuing the night with the day, it is even more likely that they can be able to do this fasting if their country, by the ruling of the Shari'ah, obligates them to abstain from food at the appearance of dawn and to break their fast at the setting of the sun. This is possible. And I myself did it, because you may have read in some of my books that I fasted forty days from anything called food and from anything called drink, except drops of water. You all know, regarding the experience of all individuals, that whoever eats a lot drinks a lot, and whoever is hungry and does not eat does not crave water except very rarely, just to preserve himself. And so, in these forty days, only a very small amount of water entered my body, very little. So how can I not be able to fast twenty hours and then break my fast, especially with the method of breaking the fast that we have become accustomed to today? What we lose during the day, we gain by breaking the fast. Therefore, I see a serious error in this situation where there is the appearance of dawn and the setting of the sun, to refer them to another country. As for the other situation where there is no day and no night, they are mixed, and this exists often in the North Pole, here it is said they fast according to the nearest country. It can be said this. And we can take from the hadith as it came in the hadith regarding the prayers. It is possible that the estimation regarding fasting is not in relation to the neighbors, but it is possible that it is in relation to themselves, because they see the day very, very long, half a year, and they see the night very, very long, another half year. It can be said that these people take the middle, for example, and fast twelve hours, and that is it. So this is where estimation can be said, either in the known way or in this new way. But as long as there is an appearance and a setting, it is not permissible.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good. The hadith of Ibn 'Amr, the hadith in Sahih Muslim, you mentioned it as weak... and the response to al-Tirmidhi, what is the defect in it?

The Shaykh : It is Sahih Muslim. In my belief, its narration differs. Muslim's narration differs from al-Tirmidhi's and others. Al-Tirmidhi's narration contains 'Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jad'an, but Muslim's narration is through Abu Nu'ayrah from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. So Muslim's narration is authentic, while al-Tirmidhi's narration is weak. So I do not know why you are pointing to it?