Abstract

The imsāk time, which was declared by adding the tamkīn time to the time when the sun was 19 degrees below the horizon until 1982, was changed to -18 degrees as of 1983 with the new application of the Presidency of Religious Affairs, and the tamkīn practice was completely abolished. The change decision, which caused heated discussion and confusion in the public, caused some criticism and accusations to the Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs. In particular, it is seen that criticism focus on two issues: The first is whether the moment when the enlightenment of sun first appears or the moment when it spreads well will be taken as the basis for determining the al-fajr al-sādiq, which is the beginning time of fasting. The second is whether the altitude angle of the sun will be -19 degrees or -18 degrees in determining the al-fajr al-sādiq. According to the claimers, on both issues, Islamic scholars prefer the first view, while European Christian astronomy scholars prefer the second view. The Presidency of Religious Affairs, on the other hand, abandoned the view of Islamic scholars and adopted the view of Christians. This article deals with the examination, analysis and criticism of the criticism made by Prof. Dr. Ahmet Şimşirgil about the change in the beginning of the fast and also expressed by some calendar makers. The aim of the study is to determine whether the arguments put forward in the criticisms expressed by the claimants are correct. In other words, this study deals with the criticism of the criticisms directed at the change in the time of imsāk. In the study, whether the of the parties to the relevant decision of the Presidency of Religious Affairs and the evidence they put forward overlap with the information in the basic fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and astronomy works, based on text analysis, is discussed in a comparative way. There is no consensus among the scholars of fiqh and astronomy on the both issues according to the obtained results, and the evidence put forward for the criticism does not prove the claims. The research is important in terms of making a critical contribution to the current imsāk debates, which occupy a large part of the society, and placing the discussions on a scientific basis.