I assume this question relates to Islamic fasting during Ramadan (which includes abstaining from drinking any water or eating any food, or for that matter chewing gum or smoking) during daylight?

As a bit of background, the daily fasting period is bookended by a pre-dawn breakfast, the suhoor, and a literal breaking of the fast, the iftar, at sundown. Fasting, it is worth emphasizing does not include a total reduction in the overall number of calories consumed. It's actually a bit of a joke among practicing Muslims that the iftars and suhoors can be so lavish that many actually gain weight during Ramadan.

Because the Islamic calendar is lunar, the timing of Ramadan shifts against the solar calendar about ten days earlier each year. The timing of Ramadan is itself variable because it depends upon the sighting of the moon. There are substantial disputes between the four primary Sunni legal schools over the timing and calculation of the start of Ramadan, and between the Sunnis and other Islamic sects. These differences are arcane, legalistic, and complicated; the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on them suggests as further reading a dozen books in five languages. Anyways, this is a bit of a digression.

The shortest answer to your question is that while fasting is obligatory for all Muslims, there are categories of people exempted from the fast. These include (among others) 1. travelers, 2. soldiers on campaigns. At least in the Shafii school, those engaged in heavy physical labor should start the fast, but are permitted to break it if they must.

The exemption for soldiers is made clear in the hadith, the collected sayings of the prophet, and more generally of the example set by his companions. For example:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported:

We went out on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) during Ramadan and neither the observer of the fast was found fault with for his fasting, nor the breaker of the fast for breaking it.

Edit: The word "expedition" in the Arabic is an explicitly military expedition, "ghazw", originally in etymology a raid, but by extension the holy raids led by Muhammad and holy conquests and expeditions more generally. The Arabic word for "Holy Warrior" being "Ghazi" which can also be an honorific title. Anyways, I digress. [End of edit]

I'm not familiar enough with the source history of the Ottoman armies to know whether any individual soldiers or officers held their fast during Ramadan, but as I have described they were not obligated to do so.

It's impossible to prove a negative, I can't say definitively that fasting or non-fasting had no effect on Ottoman armies, but I will point to two things:

One, if there was an effect, it was of so little importance that the word "Ramadan" appears only once in the first three volumes (a couple thousand pages) of the Cambridge History of Turkey.

Two, the modern understanding of hydration on combat effectiveness wasn't understood until the 20th century. My understanding is that most of the pioneering studies on this were conducted by the Israelis, who for somewhat obvious reasons have always been on the lookout for a competitive edge in desert combat.

The point being that even if binging food and water in the pre-dawn and after-sundown hours isn't precisely the best thing for combat effectiveness, it's not as though non-Muslim opponents of the Ottomans would have any better an idea of the importance of hydration and food.

That's of course leaving aside that what constituted "effectiveness" in pre- and early-modern combat would have looked wildly different to commanders of that era than they do to us today. This isn't exactly my area of specialty, but just look at how important many such commanders and soliders throughout history thought it was vitally important to be drunk during battle. Whatever strictures Islam places on the consumption of alcohol, the Ottoman troops might well have enjoyed this "advantage" as well.

Sourcewise:

Aside from the ones referenced, see the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry on "Sawm" (fasting).

edit (ninja?): typo

Edit (definitely not ninja): More typos. Also I'm happy to try to take on followup questions if anyone has them.

Hey all,

If you frequent the sub, you know the drill. If you're here from /r/all, or browse only occasionally, please be aware we have strict rules here intended to enforce the very high bar we expect from comments, so before posting, please read our rules. We remove comments which don't comply, and consider everyone forewarned. If you have feedback or commentary about how things are run here, please don't post it in this thread. We'll just remove it. We love to hear thoughtful, constructive feedback via modmail however.

It can take time for an answer to show up, so we thank you for your patience. We know you're here because the question sounds interesting, and we eagerly await an answer just like you! While you wait though, there is tons of great content already written, which you can find through our Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly "Best Of" feature, and Facebook. If you don't want to forget to check back late, consider a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot.

Again though, please remember the rules, and keep them in mind while you browse. If you don't like how this subreddit is run, keep in mind that this method has seen us continue to succeed and grow for years, and isn't going to change, so at least try and make your complaint original. /r/AskHistory exists, so complaining about the rules to us is like going into a fancy restaurant to complain they don't sell chicken nuggets, even though Chick-fil-A is nextdoor.

Allow me to add to a few of the questions that were mentioned somewhere else in this thread, but first the original question.

1) For a major part of Islamic history, especially earlier on, being well-fed was not part of the equation. The prophet and many of his followers were cited as being constantly hungry and going into several famines. The following record could shed light on the average meal of a fighter during battle at that age:

The Prophet (SAWS) in the Battle of Badr said: "Fight to get a Heavens-Earth-width Paradise". Umair Bin al-Hamam said: 'Is it a Heavens-Earth-width Paradise?' The prophet said: "Yes". Umair said: 'Oh... Oh...', "Why you say Oh... Oh...?" The Prophet (SAWS) asked. Umair replied: 'by Allah, it is only the wish to be of its inhabitants'. The Prophet (SAWS) said: 'You are'! Umair took some dates to eat, but he thought if he is going to eat the dates it will be a long time between him and Paradise, so he threw them away and fought to death". [Muslim]

Several other similar records cite “a handful of dates” as a common meal during battle and out of it. A stronger indication that Arab armies at the time did not mind fighting on an empty stomach could be seen in a particular fight between the famous Islamic general Khalid bin AlWaleed and the Byzantines. Mainly to gain the element of surprise, Khalid chose to drag his army through a treacherous and unforgiving desert. To keep enough water for the trip, as what they could carry wasn’t enough to get them through the desert, Khalid ordered camels be brought to water and made to drink water to their fullest. Then, the mouths of camels were sealed shut and water was harvested from their stomachs upon need after slaughter. Reaching into the enemy lands with an army that suffered this much under hunger was not out of the question. The standards were simply different at the time.

2) Most competent broke their fast during Ramadan, as u/CptBuck kindly explained. A small point I would like to make clear is that while they are certainly exempt from fasting at the time, they needed to fast the same number of days later when they are able. One could trace Islamic battles across centuries, sects, and empires, and show that they all encouraged their fighter s to break their fast even if certain individuals chose not to. Here’s a criminally abbreviated list:

During the War of Liberation of Mecca, the Prophet fasted with his troops until they got closer to Mecca then broke his fast, saying:

You’ve nearly reached your enemy, and breaking fast would leave you stronger.

Similarly, at the time of Abu Bakr during a battle between the Islamic and Persian empires:

[The war general] AlMuthanna urged all Muslims to break their fast, and so they did, leading to an unquestionable victory, parallel to that of the Battle of Tabuk.

Several centuries later during the battle of Shakhab between the Mongols and the Mamalik Islamic empire:

The Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taimia gave the fatwa for all Muslim combatants to break their fast, and personally walked among the generals and foot soldiers alike while eating to show that he was not fasting.

Even a more recent example, during the Ramadan War/October War/Yom Kippur War/Arab-Israeli war, several fatwas were issued and distributed between Arab fighters encouraging them to break their fast.

3) There was a general deterrence to fighting in Ramadan among the later Islamic empires. In Islam, battles are categorized as either offensive of defensive. The distinction is important as, for example, offensive battles are forbidden four certain months of the year. Ramadan is NOT one of those months. However, especially during the Ottoman Empire, offensive battles were avoided during Ramadan. Moreover, certain Ottoman Ramadan traditions required the Sultan himself to be present in Istanbul to visit a specific room with some of the Prophet’s belonging at the midday of Ramadan along with a lot of his war generals. A mapping out of battles to months during that period shows a clear decline, although all fatwas would have still stayed true to point (2).

Now to add to some of the points already mentioned here:

“I'm just wondering if you could be more specific on "travelers"? Is the exemption for those who are too far away to know when the fasting would start? Or is it more for people who travel a lot and might have a need to break the fast (in the same way marching soldiers might)?”

As with most questions regarding Islamic rulings, this is a matter of debate. I can only list a few fatwas that define a “traveler” differently but I can’t back up the validity of one over the other.

Those who are too far away and can’t look out for the new moon themselves are generally told to observe the nearest Islamic city as u/CptBuck eloquently stated. Nothing else can be said there as most scholars agree on this part. Most scholars also agree that the purpose behind allowing certain individuals under special circumstances to delay fasting until they can do it in the future is to ease the burden of worship on the believers. A lot of Quran verses and Hadith indicate that Allah, the Muslim god, does not require nor suggest worship under extensive labor. The divide starts here.

Two major schools of Islamic scholars exist, and I am severely simplifying here and would probably get into a fist fight because of this over simplification. One school believes in causality, that fatwas drive their ruling from causes, and the manipulation of those causes does change the Islamic ruling. Followers of this school could say, among other things, that if you are traveling but there is no burden, in today’s commodity, then you need not breakfast. The other school believes that rulings are obsolete and should be taken for face value. With that in mind, here are several fatwas that are all over the spectrum, all which answer your question differently:

• Traveling is left for the culture to decide. If the average person would agree that hopping the fence to your neighbor’s backyard, which is in another country, then you are a traveler and you could break your fasting.
• Traveling is defined by the specific minimum distance the Prophet was cited to break fast in, around 300km in today’s numbers.

What about the length of the trip?

• Traveling is exactly seven days and seven nights, if you are staying in a place for more than seven days and nights then you are not a traveler and should fast.
• Traveling is defined by intentions, as long as you are not planning to settle then you are a traveler. Basically, where do you call home?
• Traveling is defined by burden, as long as you are staying in a non-muslim country where the general public does not help you to abide by the Islamic rulings to the T (think something like not allowing a prayer break) then you can adopt the easier rulings of a traveler.

There are more fatwas than this, and more specifics you can ask that branch into even more fatwas. But I think this gives an idea of how open to interpretations this matter is. What needs to be understood is that a traveler and a combatant, although sometimes intersecting, are not one and the same and they follow different fatwas.

I’d be happy to answer any further questions.