Ramadan 2013 has ended and Muslims in Finland, particularly must be heaving a sigh of relief.
My Muslim friends are far too polite to directly compare our Lent with their Ramadan but there is always the unspoken criticism that hangs on the air "How can you call Lent a period of fasting when you may still eat three meals a day?"
But Lent and Ramadan are as different as chalk and cheese.
The Catholic Lent is a sustained period of moderate (depending on the attitude and ability of the individual) fasting, a constant source of modest mortification.
Never so severe that our capacity to carry out a surgical operation or drive a bus is placed in jeopardy.
Ramadan, on the other hand, insists on a fast period from dawn to dusk, hard in Britain, even harder in the land of the midnight sun.
A shade easier in the Middle East where dusk occurs in the early evening.
But, at either end of the Muslim fast, there is the unseemly gorging of food and drink (remember, no liquids and no food during daylight hours is the rule). Vast quantities of bulky carbohydrates and protein are eaten in an attempt to see them safely through the day.
And now, as today is the start of the feast of Eid, marking the end of Ramadan, the real feasting begins....not dissimilar to the Christian over indulgence at Christmas.
I have long claimed that Muslims who work in charge of potentially life threatening technology, should be excused duties during Ramadan. The human body was not created to undergo such extremes of feast and famine and it would be interesting to see some statistical evidence such as a rise in A & E admissions during this period.
I still do not understand Ramadan and the Muslims that I have consulted on the matter equally do not seem to be clear as to why they fast.
The most convincing answer has been that it helps the individual understand what it is like to be poor.
An admirable aim but it would be made better still if they adopted the Lent format which reflects on poverty for 24 hours a day, for 40 days of the year.
| Feast or Famine? But not both |
My Muslim friends are far too polite to directly compare our Lent with their Ramadan but there is always the unspoken criticism that hangs on the air "How can you call Lent a period of fasting when you may still eat three meals a day?"
But Lent and Ramadan are as different as chalk and cheese.
The Catholic Lent is a sustained period of moderate (depending on the attitude and ability of the individual) fasting, a constant source of modest mortification.
Never so severe that our capacity to carry out a surgical operation or drive a bus is placed in jeopardy.
Ramadan, on the other hand, insists on a fast period from dawn to dusk, hard in Britain, even harder in the land of the midnight sun.
A shade easier in the Middle East where dusk occurs in the early evening.
But, at either end of the Muslim fast, there is the unseemly gorging of food and drink (remember, no liquids and no food during daylight hours is the rule). Vast quantities of bulky carbohydrates and protein are eaten in an attempt to see them safely through the day.
And now, as today is the start of the feast of Eid, marking the end of Ramadan, the real feasting begins....not dissimilar to the Christian over indulgence at Christmas.
I have long claimed that Muslims who work in charge of potentially life threatening technology, should be excused duties during Ramadan. The human body was not created to undergo such extremes of feast and famine and it would be interesting to see some statistical evidence such as a rise in A & E admissions during this period.
I still do not understand Ramadan and the Muslims that I have consulted on the matter equally do not seem to be clear as to why they fast.
The most convincing answer has been that it helps the individual understand what it is like to be poor.
An admirable aim but it would be made better still if they adopted the Lent format which reflects on poverty for 24 hours a day, for 40 days of the year.
