Is Fasting by Force? Hisba’s Controversial Arrests.

In the northern regions of Nigeria, the enforcement of fasting during the holy month of Ramadan has sparked debate, raising questions about religious freedom and human rights. Hisba, the Islamic religious police operating in some northern states, has continued to arrest individuals who are found eating or drinking in public during daylight hours, citing the need to uphold Islamic teachings. However, this practice has ignited discussions on whether fasting is an obligation that should be enforced by law or a personal act of devotion.

Fasting during Ramadan is one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and it is regarded as a fundamental religious obligation for all adult Muslims. The Quran explicitly states the necessity of fasting in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:183, which reads:

“O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous.”

This verse establishes fasting as a mandatory religious duty for Muslims, except for those who have valid exemptions, such as the sick, pregnant women, travelers, and the elderly. Surah Al-Baqarah 2:185 further clarifies:

“The month of Ramadan [is that] in which was revealed the Quran, a guidance for the people and clear proofs of guidance and criterion. So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it; and whoever is ill or on a journey – then an equal number of other days. Allah intends for you ease and does not intend for you hardship.”

These verses demonstrate that fasting is a deeply spiritual exercise meant to instill discipline and piety. However, they do not indicate that fasting should be enforced upon individuals through legal or punitive measures.

Hisba, the Islamic morality police, operates in several northern states under Sharia law, including Kano, Zamfara, and Sokoto. The group is tasked with ensuring compliance with Islamic norms, including dress codes, alcohol prohibition, and fasting during Ramadan. In past years, reports have surfaced of individuals being arrested, detained, or publicly humiliated for eating in public during fasting hours.

Critics argue that Hisba’s actions contradict the principles of personal religious conviction, as fasting is meant to be an act of sincere devotion rather than forced compliance. Others contend that Hisba’s enforcement of fasting encroaches on the rights of non-Muslims and even some Muslims who may have valid exemptions from fasting.

While Nigeria’s Hisba police actively enforce fasting, many other Muslim-majority nations do not impose such strict measures on individuals. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran have legal restrictions on eating in public during Ramadan, but enforcement varies. In contrast, nations such as Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia allow individuals the freedom to fast or not, without legal repercussions.

Even in strict Islamic countries, authorities often focus on discouraging public eating rather than making arrests. In the UAE, for instance, non-Muslims and exempted individuals can eat in designated areas without interference. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, fasting remains a personal decision, with no legal enforcement.

The enforcement of fasting by Hisba raises broader questions about religious freedom and the role of the state in personal religious observances. While Islam mandates fasting, it is ultimately a matter of personal faith and devotion. The coercion of individuals to fast not only contradicts the spirit of voluntary worship but also risks alienating those who might otherwise willingly observe the practice.

Human rights advocates argue that individuals should be allowed to practice their faith freely, without fear of punishment. In a diverse country like Nigeria, where religious pluralism exists, the enforcement of Islamic practices on individuals—Muslim or non-Muslim—remains a contentious issue.

As Ramadan continues, the debate over Hisba’s role in enforcing fasting persists. While some see it as a means of preserving religious values, others view it as an infringement on personal liberties. The question remains: should religious obligations be enforced by law, or should they remain a matter of personal conscience?