Its Majlisul-Ulama (ONE SCHOLAR) on one side and 9 separate UIama organisations on the other side. Forget Shariah but does even common sense or decent ethics and morality warrant you to start making accusations on the character of multiple Ulama based on the testimony of one Alim?
The Shaf’aes in Cape Town are 1350+ KM away from Johannesburg so rightly (according to Shaf’ae) Fiqh they need to follow (their) local sighting and people (outside of South Africa) and within need to understand the dynamics and Fiqh of the situation and not get carried away.
If the horizons are clear for Sha'baan and ordinary people didn't sight the moon but some people came forward with a testimony of sighting the moon then there testimony will not be accepted until Jamme-Ghafeer (a large group) testifies to sighting the moon. If just a few people give testimony and there is no confirmation from the length and breadth of the country then the Qadhi will reject the testimony because it is easier for us to make an assumption that some people have made a mistake instead of assuming that the rest of the Ummah is blind (because they have not seen the moon).
Ulama have various opinions regarding Jamme-Ghafeer, some have recorded a minimum number of 500, some have given an opinion of 1000 while it has been narrated from Imam Abu Yusuf (RA) to be 50. The correct opinion is that the decision of this number is delegated to the Imam (or his deputy) and whatever number he decides will be considered Jamme-Ghafeer. The summary is that the amount of people whose testimony proves the matter to be "Shariah Knowledge" which is sufficient affirmation of belief. Author of Ad-Durr-ul-Mukhtar writes:
If there are no clouds etc preventing the sighting of the moon then the testimony of such a large group will be accepted whose testimonies (combined) give "Shariah Knowledge". This "Shariah Knowledge" here refers to sufficient affirmation of belief and this "amount of people" is consigned to the Imam and no numerical determination is necessary. However many testimonies the Imam deems necessary to attain sufficient affirmation of belief (is Jamme-Ghafeer) whether this number is lower or higher.
Allamah Tahtawi (RA) further elaborates on "Shariah Knowledge" and explains:
This "Shariah Knowledge" in terms of Fiqh is what is deemed according to principles of Fiqh i.e. what is deemed sufficient affirmation of belief for extracting and enforcing rules and regulation as opposed to "Shariah Knowledge" in terms of Aqaid (beliefs) which requires categorical lifting of doubting and absolute certainty. In terms of Aqaid (beliefs) sufficient affirmation of belief is not trusted (i.e. certainty needs to be established).
...
”Ù…Ø±Ø§Ø¯Û Ø§Ù„Ø´Ø±Ø¹ÛŒ Ø§Ù„Ù…ØµØ·Ù„Ø Ø¹Ù„ÛŒÛ ÙÛŒ الاصول Ùیشمل غالب الظن والا Ùالعلم ÙÛŒ ÙÙ† التوØید ایضا شرعی ولا عبرة بالظن Ûناک“Û” (Û·) Û´- اگر Û²Û¹/ شعبان Ú©Ùˆ مطلع ابر آلود ÛÙˆ تو Ûلال رمضان Ú©Û’ لئے ایک عادل ‘مستور الØال مسلمان بھی چاند دیکھنے Ú©ÛŒ خبر دے تو رویت Ûلال ثابت ÛÙˆ جائے Ú¯ÛŒ اور Ûلال رمضان Ú©ÛŒ رویت Ú©ÛŒ خبر دینے والے Ú©Û’ لئے دوسرے گواÛÙˆÚº Ú©ÛŒ Ø·Ø±Ø Ù†Û Ù„Ùظ ”اشÛد“ Ú©Ûنا ضروری ÛÛ’ اور Ù†Û Ù…Ø¬Ù„Ø³ قضا ضروری ÛÛ’ اور Ù†Û Ø¯Ø¹ÙˆÛŒÙ° دائر کرنے Ú©ÛŒ ضرورت ÛÛ’‘ اس سلسلے میں صاØب درمختار لکھتے Ûیں: ”وقبل بلا دعویٰ‘ وبلا Ù„Ùظ اشÛد‘ وبلاØÚ©Ù… ومجلس قضاء‘ Ù„Ø§Ù†Û Ø®Ø¨Ø± لاشÛادة للصوم مع علة کغیم وغبار‘ خبر عدل او مستور علی ما صØØÛ Ø§Ù„Ø¨Ø²Ø§Ø²ÛŒ علی خلا٠ظاÛر الروایة لاÙاسق اتÙاقا“Û” (Û¸) یعنی دعویٰ‘ Ù„Ùظ اشÛد‘ ØÚ©Ù… اور مجلس قضاء Ú©Û’ بغیر ایک آدمی Ú©ÛŒ خبر جو عادل ÛÙˆ یا مستور الØال‘ صوم رمضان Ú©Û’ لئے قبول Ú©ÛŒ جائے Ú¯ÛŒ‘ Ú©ÛŒÙˆÙ†Ú©Û ÛŒÛ Ø®Ø¨Ø± ÛÛ’ Ø´Ûادت Ù†Ûیں‘ ÛŒÛ Ø§Ø³ وقت Ø¬Ø¨Ú©Û Ù…Ø·Ù„Ø¹ ابر آلود ÛÙˆ یا غبار آلود․․․․ Ûلال رمضان Ú©ÛŒ رویت Ú©Û’ بارے میں جاننے Ú©Û’ بعد Ûلال عید Ú©ÛŒ بھی مختل٠صورتیں Ûیں‘ ان میں دو صورتیں ÙˆÛÛŒ Ûیں جو Ûلال رمضان میں بتائی گئیں۔ Ûلال عید Ú©ÛŒ رویت Ú©ÛŒ دو صورتیں Ûلال رمضان Ú©ÛŒ رویت سے مختل٠Ûیں۔ Û±- اگر مطلع صا٠ÛÙˆ تو پھر رویت Ûلال عید Ú©Û’ لئے جم غÙیر کا دیکھنا ضروری ÛÛ’‘ جمع غÙیر Ú©ÛŒ ØªØ´Ø±ÛŒØ Ù…Ø§Ù‚Ø¨Ù„ میں گزر Ú†Ú©ÛŒ ÛÛ’Û” For those who don't know English the relevant section of Shaykh (Mufti) Taha Karaan (HA) has been highlighted. "I have read recently that while one (Shafi'i) opinion is for a horizon to be confined to a north-south stretch of maximum 81km [i.e., the distance of Qasr or travelling]" ++Fa’ida++ The mawaqit connected to the crescents [ahilla] (as opposed to the mawaqit of the sun) are (these involve the Five sacred rulings, so know their times throughout all the months of the year and not only the three of them, so you may be rightly guided): Salat al-‘Id; the fast of Ramadan; Zakat al-Fitr; the fast on ‘bright’ days; the fast of ‘Ashura and various other recommended fasts connected to a date; the offensiveness of fasting after the middle of Sha‘ban; the Six Fasts of Shawwal; the various du‘as connected to a specific date throughout the year; the Zakat; knowledge of the ages of the Shat, cattle and camels; the vowed I‘tikaf; the fast of the ten days of Dhu l-Hijja; the Hajj; the Wuquf of ‘Arafa; the fast of ‘Arafa; the ‘Id al-Adha sacrifices; the ‘Aqiqa; the Hady [sacrificial act during Hajj as expiation]; the Ajal [deferred time for a loan]; the Salam [forward-buying contract]; the Bulugh [onset of puberty upon reaching 15 years old]; the Musaqa [crop-sharing contract]; the Ijara [hiring things]; the Luqta [lost and found articles]; the Ajal al-‘Unna [probationary term for impotence]; the ‘Ila’ [forswearing sexual intercourse]; the fast-expiations [kaffara bi l-sawm] for Wiqa‘ [sexual intercourse during Ramadan], Zihar [injurious comparisons] and Qatl [killing]; the ‘Idda [post-marital waiting period] for a Mutawaffa [deceased husband]; Ayisa [menopausal] and Istibra’ [absolution after the menstrual intervals]; the Rida‘ [suckling]; the Kiswa al-Zawja [clothing support for the wife]; and the Diyat [various indemnities]; and others like it. He explained clearly tonight to us that the preferred view of the Madhab is that of Imam Nawawi (as Sh Akiti mentioned above). In this regard imam Nawawi differed with Imam Rafi and we know that in the Madhab when that occurs, preference is given to Nawawi. Dear brother Muadh Khan
- Û²Û¹/شعبان Ú©Ùˆ مطلع صا٠ÛÙˆ عام لوگوں Ú©Ùˆ چاند نظر Ù†Ûیں آیا اور بعض لوگوں Ù†Û’ چاند دیکھنے Ú©ÛŒ Ø´Ûادت دی تو ان Ú©ÛŒ Ø´Ûادت اس وقت قابل قبول ÛÙˆÚ¯ÛŒ جب Ú©Û Ø§ÛŒÚ© جم غÙیر چاند Ú©Ùˆ دیکھنے Ú©ÛŒ Ø´Ûادت دے‘ اگر گنتی Ú©Û’ چند آدمی ÛŒÛ Ø´Ûادت دیں Ú©Û Ø§Ù†ÛÙˆÚº Ù†Û’ چاند دیکھاÛÛ’ اور ان Ú©ÛŒ تصدیق ملک Ú©Û’ طول وعرض سے Ú©Ûیں سے بھی Ù†Ûیں Ûوئی تو قاضی ان Ú©ÛŒ Ø´Ûادت Ú©Ùˆ مسترد کردے گا‘ Ú©ÛŒÙˆÙ†Ú©Û ÛŒÛ Ø®ÛŒØ§Ù„ کرنا Ûمارے لئے آسان ÛÛ’ Ú©Û Ø§Ù† چند آدمیوں Ú©Ùˆ دھوکا Ûوا ÛÛ’‘ بجائے اس Ú©Û’ Ú©Û ÛÙ… تمام امت Ú©Ùˆ بے بصر اور نابینا تصور کرلیں۔
جم غÙیر Ú©Û’ متعلق علماء Ú©ÛŒ متعدد آراء Ûیں۔ بعض Ù†Û’ اس Ú©Û’ لئے پانچ سوکی تعداد بتلائی ÛÛ’ کسی Ù†Û’ ایک Ûزار اور امام ابویوسÙ سے مروی ÛÛ’ Ú©Û Ù¾Ú†Ø§Ø³ Ú©ÛŒ تعداد جم غÙیر ÛÛ’‘ لیکن صØÛŒØ Ù‚ÙˆÙ„ ÛŒÛ ÛÛ’ Ú©Û Ø§Ø³ امر کا ÙÛŒØµÙ„Û Ø§Ù…Ø§Ù… یا اس Ú©Û’ نائب Ú©Ùˆ تÙویض کیا جائے گا‘ جس تعداد Ú©Ùˆ ÙˆÛ Ø¬Ù… غÙیر قرار دے اس تعداد Ú©ÛŒ رویت سے Ûلال Ú©ÛŒ رویت ثابت ÛÙˆ جائے Ú¯ÛŒ Û” Ø®Ù„Ø§ØµÛ ÛŒÛ ÛÛ’ Ú©Û Ø§ØªÙ†ÛŒ تعداد Ú©Ùˆ جم غÙیر Ú©Ûا جائے گا جن Ú©ÛŒ Ø´Ûادت سے علم شرعی ثابت Ûوتا ÛÛ’ اور علم شرعی سے مراد ØºÙ„Ø¨Û Ø¸Ù† ÛÛ’‘ صاØب درمختار اس سلسلے میں لکھتے Ûیں:
”بلاعلة جمع عظیم یقع العلم الشرعی ÙˆÛÙˆ غلبة الظن بخبرÛÙ… ÙˆÛÙˆ Ù…Ùوض الی رای الامام من غیر تقدیر بعدد“Û” (Û¶)
یعنی اگر چاند دیکھنے سے بادل ÙˆØºÛŒØ±Û Ù…Ø§Ù†Ø¹ Ù†Û ÛÙˆÚº تو ایسی عظیم جماعت کا قول قبول کیا جائے گا جس سے علم شرعی Øاصل Ûوجائے اور اس علم شرعی سے مراد ØºÙ„Ø¨Û Ø¸Ù† ÛÛ’ اور ÛŒÛ Ø§Ù…Ø± امام Ú©Û’ سپرد ÛÛ’‘ کسی عدد Ú©Û’ تعین Ú©ÛŒ ضرورت Ù†Ûیں یعنی جس عدد سے امام Ú©Ùˆ چاند Ú©Û’ Ûونے کا ØºÙ„Ø¨Û Ø¸Ù† Øاصل Ûوجائے Ø®ÙˆØ§Û ÙˆÛ ØªØ¹Ø¯Ø§Ø¯ Ú©Ù… ÛÙˆ یا زیادÛÛ”
Ø¹Ù„Ø§Ù…Û Ø·Øطاوی علم شرعی Ú©ÛŒ وضاØت کرتے Ûوئے لکھتے Ûیں:
یعنی علم شرعی سے مراد ÙˆÛ Ø¹Ù„Ù… ÛÛ’ جو اصول ÙÙ‚Û Ú©ÛŒ Ø§ØµØ·Ù„Ø§Ø Ù…ÛŒÚº علم شرعی Ú©ÛلاتاÛÛ’ (جو استنباط اØکام Ú©Û’ لئے کاÙÛŒ ÛÛ’) اور ÛŒÛ ØºÙ„Ø¨Û Ø¸Ù† Ú©Ùˆ شامل ÛÛ’‘ ÙˆÚ¯Ø±Ù†Û Ø¹Ù‚Ø§Ø¦Ø¯ Ú©Ùˆ بھی علم شرعی Ú©Ûا جاتاÛÛ’ (لیکن ÙˆÛاں اس سے مراد علم یقینی Ûوا کرتاÛÛ’‘ Ú©ÛŒÙˆÙ†Ú©Û Ø¹Ù‚Ø§Ø¦Ø¯ Ú©Û’ ثبوت Ú©Û’ لئے دلیل قطعی درکار ÛÛ’) ÛŒÛاں ØºÙ„Ø¨Û Ø¸Ù† کا اعتبار Ù†Ûیں۔
Draft Shaf'ae Madhab response to Shaykh (Mufti) A. S. Desai (HA):
Comprehensive and detailed response of South African Shaf'aes on the position of their Madhab and moon sighting (Arabic):
Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller Shaf'ae (HA) writes in Reliance of the Traveler (Jordan):
SIGHTING THE NEW MOON
i1.9 If the moon is seen in one city but not another, then if the two are close (O: i.e. in the same region), the ruling (n: that the new month has come) holds for both. But if the two are not close, then not (O:i.e. the people far from the place where it was seen are not obliged to fast), not close meaning in different regions, such as the Hijaz, Iraq, and Egypt. Shaykh (Mufti) Taha Karaan Shaf'ae (HA) (South Africa):
The two eid conflict in Western Cape
Muslims in the Western Cape are divided into 2 parties regarding the celebration of the 2 Eids. Some celebrate according to local sighting while others follow Saudi Arabian sighting. While this issue has been examined from various angles none have resolved the differences. What is the way forward for concerned Muslims?
[Taken from an article written by Ml. Taha Karaan for inclusion in a work on� The Eid Conflict by Sh Amien Fakier]
Centralised decision making in public matters
The root of the problem�
While much has been said, and probably will still be said, concerning the various fiqh arguments that support the celebration of �Id al-Adha in accordance with a regional sighting of the moon or in conjunction with Makkah, the real root of the problem does not lie in the comparative values of those particular arguments of fiqh.
By the above I do not mean that the issue is not fiqh related. On the contrary, I would insist that this is most certainly a matter of fiqh. However, the jurisprudential fulcrum of the issue does not lie in whether the plural form of the imperative in the hadith of Ibn �Umar sanctions universal application, or whether the hadith of Kurayb is absolutely unambiguous in localising moonsighting. Beyond semantics, it is unrelated to the validity of calculations, and transcends even the avant-garde association of our local �Id with Makkah. It is to another area of fiqh that we have to look in order to discover the root of our problem. That area has in recent decades acquired a name of its own:�fiqh al-aqalliyyat, the fiqh of minorities.
Classical fiqh almost always presupposes that the Muslim community to which it addresses itself lives in an Islam-dominated land where everyone, both government and citizen, is subject to the Shari�ah. The first major loss of political power came when Islam was driven out of Spain, and the few pockets of Muslims who remained in Ferdinand and Isabella�s Catholic Spain, who managed in some way or the other to escape forcible conversion, were probably the first to experience what it is like to become a Muslim minority. Colonisation brought several Muslim minorities into existence (our own community at the Cape being one of those); but the major factor behind the existence of Muslim minorities has to be the migration of Muslims from their own countries to especially the West.
To the individuals forming these minorities the observance of their religious duties has always been a matter of conscience. Accordingly they created structures and founded institutions within their societies to enable them to carry out their duties as Muslims. Thus they were not much different from their brethren in Muslim countries in respect of their masajid and madaris and the activities that took place therein. As such, there was no need for a specific adaptation of fiqh to regulate their activities in this regard.
The one area in which Muslim minorities found themselves markedly different from Muslim majorities was that of centralised decision making in public matters. I would define public matters here as those matters which entail the observance of public occasions by the Muslim community at large. Obvious examples of such matters would be the observance of Ramadan and the two �Ids. Determining how and when to observe these occasions is undoubtedly a matter of Shari�ah, but when differences of opinion arise amongst the fuqaha, the selection of one of the various rulings becomes a matter of state.
In countries with Muslim majorities this has never posed a problem. All the state does is to delegate this authority to an appointed official or a body, such as a state mufti or a ministry of Islamic affairs. Whatever decision this official or body makes is binding on all Muslim individuals in that country. Even a very erudite faqih living in that country who holds an opinion at odds with the one promulgated by the official mufti or the ministry is not at liberty to enforce his view upon the general public.
With Muslim minorities the situation is different. They too, find themselves at that place in the road where two divergent fiqh opinions fork away from one another. But because they do not hold the reins of government in their hands, they are unable to resolve the issue in the straightforward manner that a Muslim country would. This is where alien factors like ethnic divisions, petty politics and devotion to personalities find the space to start playing havoc. Year after year we see the same painful scenes of disunity being replayed, and the fact that these scenes are enacted exclusively in countries like England, France, America, Australia and South Africa points unmistakably to the fact that this problem affects only Muslim minorities.
These minorities have two options. They could request their non-Muslim government to use its authority in order to create for them the centralised structure that would decide upon its public matters. This option would expectably be unpalatable to many, smacking as it does of non-Muslim interference in Muslim religious matters.
The other option is for initiatives to create such decision making structures to arise from within the Muslim minority communities themselves. This was the path favoured by most, if not all Muslim minorities. In the case of the Cape this step was taken over half a century ago, with the founding of the Muslim Judicial Council in 1945. Subsequent years saw the founding of similar bodies in other provinces of the country, and in the late 1980s an agreement was reached between the various �ulama bodies in terms of which not only South Africa, but the whole of southern Africa would celebrate Ramadan and the �Ids in unison. The federalisation of the South African �ulama bodies into the United Ulama Council of South Africa was another positive step towards centralising the decision making process for public matters.
The 1963 fatwa of al-Azhar included in this volume [i.e. the original work by Sh. Amien Fakier] affords not only a ratification of this process as the proper Shar�i way for minorities to conduct their affairs, but serves also to underscore in the clearest possible terms the authority of the Muslim Judicial Council to make decisions on public matters. This authority was upheld and probably even invoked by all those who had at some stage been members and office bearers of the Council. The great test would come upon the departure from the ranks of the Council of personalities who had once been its chief executives: Would the authority of the Council be afforded the same esteem it enjoyed before their departure? Or would their departure signal the end of their acknowledgement of the Shar�i authority vested in the Council? The answer is known to all and sundry.
The process of creating decision making structures within minority situations suffers from one major weakness: Abiding by its decisions cannot be enforced. If anyone wishes to go against its rulings there would be no one to compel him to abide. If any particular mosque or imam decides to pursue its own agenda there are no structures in place to ensure that the unity of the community at large is not destroyed.
It is here where Muslim communities such as our own are called upon to display greater maturity and sensibility than the average Muslim community in Muslim countries. Unity in the celebration of �Id is to them a matter of forced compliance; for us it is a matter of choice. For us, unlike them, the ball is in our court. Having suffered the pain and turmoil of a split �Id for so many years, no one would know better than our community just how desirable a unified �Id is. But few of us seem to know just how close within our reach it really lies.
The pursuit of politically motivated agendas has seen many a novel development, the latest of which is an absurdly baseless and jurisprudentially unjustifiable absolutisation of the relative position that �Id ought to be celebrated in conjunction with Makkah. The process of bridging the yawning chasm that separates us will never be served by such excrescences. The first step in the journey that will take us back to the harmony that we knew before 1989 would be to reaffirm ourselves to the rule of Shar�i law. The particular law referred to here has nothing to do with whether celebrating �Id with Makkah is an obligation or not. It has no relation to generalising or localising moonsighting. It does not at all impinge upon the validity of using astronomical calculations. Rather, it is the simple requirement that for their public observances, Muslims in a minority situation can have only one decision making body. Abiding by the decision of that body, while by no means enforceable, is a sure sign of a mature, sensible and responsible community. Shaykh (Dr) Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti' Shaf'ae (HA) writes (UK):
This is definitely not the Qawl Mu‘tamad in our school concerning the maximum extent [tahdid] of the matla‘ or sighting-zone. Instead, as Imam Nawawi al-Jawi makes clear: “the reference of it is to the position’s longitude [tul] and its latitude [‘ard], whether the distance is near or far; pay no attention to whether it is the distance of travelling or not” [Nihayat al-Zayn, 185]. The reliable position and the Qawl Sahih [Sound Position] is farther than the distance of Qasr, in that another area will be considered local when it has ‘the same’ rise and set times of celestial bodies (the stars and constellations including, minimally, our sun) when compared to the rising and setting times in the reference town (i.e., the dabit is: ghurUbu sh-shamsi wa TulU‘uhA fI l-maHallayni fI waqtin wAHidin [the two positions have ‘the same’ rising and setting times of the sun] [Nihayat al-Zayn, 184]; “the same” means to a fixed degree of deviation, and in this, there is room for minor variances amongst our jurists).*
*Notes for students of Fiqh & Falak: Throughout our long history, Shafi‘i jurists who possess knowledge of astronomy have come up with various figures for the extent of the matla‘ (all of them were in fact qualifying or specifying the legal meaning of “fi waqt wahid” above). These fuqaha’ have used their specialist knowledge in astronomy and planetary models [hay’a] and trigonometry [muthallathat] along with the zijs, ephemerides and observation tables available to them in their day to arrive at the various extents of the matla‘, because, as most of our early jurists had already realized, that which Imam al-Nawawi famously restated: “the consideration concerning the different [sighting-]zones comes practically to astronomical computation and the judgement of astronomers” [Tuhfa, 4:506]. The efforts and results of some of them are listed below in reverse chronological order (all of the authors are distinguished Shafi‘i jurists). (As for the figures in degrees, it is understood that the deviation calculated through them refers to a non-Easterly position from the local one as Imam al-Fadani makes clear; and this is evident because of the physical fact, “nightfall is earlier in the East”: this ‘inevitable cause’ is the same basis for the famous rule of Imam al-Subki invoked in the Third Question below on the precedence of a sighting in the East over the local position:)
(1) The polymath of our time, Imam al-Fadani: if the crescent has been sighted at a position West (but not East) of the local one, it is inevitable that it would have been sighted in the local position, as long as the deviation between the two positions does not exceed 8 degrees [Sharh al-Thamra, 63]. This, and the rest of the section mean, a sighting to the east is immediately admitted, but to the west only at 8 (to 6) degrees of deviation is accepted.
(2) Qadi al-Batawi: if the deviation is 6 degrees or more, then the two zones are considered different: “The meaning of ‘difference in sighting-zones’ [ikhtilaf al-matali‘] mentioned in the chapter of fasting [in the books of fiqh], is the difference with regard to the positions of sighting [the moon] so that [at the moment] when it is sighted in one of them, it cannot be sighted [yet] in the other. That [difference in sighting-zones] takes place only when the deviation [tafawut] between the [two] positions is six or more degrees in the arcs of day and night**”; [Sullam, 1:10]. (Note: this conservative calculation of 6 degrees by Qadi al-Batawi, the teacher to Imam al-Fadani above, is the Ihtiyat [precautionary position] and not the minimum fiqh ruling.)
**Notes for students of Falak: The classical explanation from falak of why there is the deviation in the arcs of day and night [al-tafawut min qus al-layl wa l-nahar] is: it is a result of the unequal length of night and day in the various areas by reason of the declination of the sun [mayl al-shams] from the equinoctial line [da’ira mu‘addal] and the elevation [irtifa‘] of the north pole above the horizon.
(3) The historian and usuli, an expert in both of the scriptural and rational sciences [al-Jami‘ bayna l-manqul wa l-ma‘qul], and author of works from mathematics to fiqh, Habib al-Shilli: 8 degrees or less [Sharh al-Thamra, 63].
(4) The Mufti of Yemen of his time (i.e., in the 16th century), Habib Bamakhramah: if the deviation between the two positions is 8 degrees or less, then the two are in the same sighting-zone; if it is more than this, even if for only some seasons of the year, then it is in a different sighting-zone or in an ambiguous one [Bughyat, 109].
(5) The mufassir and muhaddith, usuli and mathematician, Imam Taj al-Din al-Tibrizi (a son of Azerbaijan, who lived thereafter in Baghdad and finally died in Cairo): the maximum distance [musafat al-ba‘id] between two positions for it to be considered to be of the same sighting-zone should be more or less one and a half times the distance of travelling (i.e., 24 farsakh [i.e., 3 marhala] (24 x 6 km = 144 km) [I‘anat, 2:219]. (Note: according to Imam al-Qalyubi, this is a weak position that cannot be adopted just like the other older rejected position that the maximum extent of the matla‘ is the distance of Qasr [Hashiyatan, 2:64]).
%%Nukat for students of Fiqh%% The technical meaning in fiqh of ‘the same/local sighting-zone’ [ittihad al-matla‘ or balad muttahid matla‘ihi or in older texts: balad wahid or balad qarib / nearby region], is:
(A) with respect to latitudinal positions, are areas sharing the same longitude, such as Greenland and Brazil. There is basically no fixed extent in this case, so that a sighting of the crescent in the south, for instance, will establish the new moon for the north; and
(B) with respect to longitudinal positions, are areas having the same latitude, such as Mexico and the Middle East. In this, there is a fixed but minor Easterly to Westerly extent so that if a Western region further than the fixed extent sighted the crescent, the new moon is not considered sighted in the Eastern region, because they are in different sighting-zones (i.e., ikhtilaf al-matali‘ or balad ba‘id / distant region).
Among the legal bases [adilla] used by our school for defining the different sighting-zones (i.e., type B above), where each matla‘ has a fixed East-to-West extent, are: (1) scriptural texts associating the start and end of the obligatory ‘ibada by cycles of the moon that sanction the different times (such as al-Baqara, 2:189 and the Hadith of Kurayb below); (2) the general consensus [Ijma‘] (as reported by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr and others) that a sighting in a given area does not necessarily establish the sighting for all areas; (3) analogy [Qiyas] to the Salat of which the ‘illa [basis] is the prayer times [mawaqit] which is based also, like the different moon-zones, different sun-zones [ikhtilaf matali‘ al-shams] because of the physical differences in the solar cycles; and (4) rational arguments [dalil ‘aqli] such that the waning and waxing of the crescent is physically different in the regions moving from East to West. Shaykh (Mufti) Taha Karaan Shaf'ae (HA) (South Africa) in his talk on 22nd of August 2014 (Summarised from an attendee):
The valid view is not one of the distance of travel , it is one of Ikhtilaful Mataali. Which is explained correctly (above).
Ml also said that the incorrect view as expressed by the one who is casting doubts on the moon sighting of this years Eid ul Fitr is probably due to not understanding the structure and terminology of let alone the madhab, but the sources which the person himself had accessed. MJC Statement (South Africa) email (26AUG2014):
Wa alaykum Assalaam ! !
Please be informed that in view of the aim to have a unified Ramadaan and Eid in South Africa – all over the country- the Muslim Judicial Council with all its Ulama who had acquired their Islamic knowledge in Arabia, Egypt, India and Pakistan had had the intention and aim of having a unified Eid and Ramadaan throughout the coutry for many years and already sometime in 1961 had already decided to move away from the known Shafi view that while EId and Ramadaan would be compulsory in the area where the crescent moon is sighted, it would not be compulsory for Muslims in far off places beyond the masaafatul-qasr to follow such sightings. The Ulama accepted to accept the views of other mazaahib which indicated that the sighting of the crescent moon in any part of the country may take such sighting as binding upon them. Hence when the United Ulama Council of South Africa was formed it became an automatic decision that a sighting anywhere in South Africa would suffice for the whole country instead of each province having its own Eid on instead of there having to be three or four Eid celebrations in one country as we find in some parts of Europe.
The MJC has looked at all the various options open to us ,like accepting astronomical calculations, ikhtilaaful matauli’, accepting sightings from Mecca and Hjaaz, accepting sightings from countries of origin like Malaysia, India, Pakistan or Indonesia or accepting sightings from the nearest Muslim country to our borders and we have found that to accept the views of other mazaahib have proven to be the best for us. Even if the known Shafi view is that they accept the idea of ikhtilaaful matauli’ we feel under no circumstances finding ourselves bound to this regulation at all costs.Moreover it seemed much more intelligent to accept the views of the other three mazaahib than for us to accept only that they should discard their views to follow ours.
And Allah Knows best.
W-Salam,
Correct.
Let me also ask you two further common sense questions:
I am fully cognisant of the fact that scientifically this sighting is dubious but why are people questioning the unanimous judgement of Ulama and casting doubts on Ibaadat on spurious grounds? I could understand fully if Shaykh (Mufti) A. SD. Desai (HA) had solid scientific grounds
The issue at heart here is that there is no population/witnesses ratio or geography/witnesses ratio formula which comprises of Jamm-e-Ghafeer.
22 Witnesses were verified and many left unverified due to time constraints and both Sister MMB and Shaykh (Mufti) A. S. Desai (HA) are smelling a rat due to time taken. Imagine if they actually verified 250 witnesses (or whatever) :P
The point of Shaykh (Mufti) A. S. Desai (HA) is that he already has a problem with Ulama and he is saying that their testimony CANNOT be accepted (because they are Fasiq/Fajir) no matter what they do so the facade about number of witnesses or Shaf'ae Madhab is pointless!
If UUCSA had 122 witnesses or 522 because the decision making is from UUCSA it would still have been unacceptable to Hazrat Shaykh (Mufti) A. S. Desai (HA) because they are not reliable!
Ofcourse the process needs to be improved but he is not looking for improvement he is looking for dismantling the whole infrastructure (he is clear in his words).
In the long run what I am already hearing is that there are a number of active youth (who are turning away from Deobandi Ulama) in South Africa (like UK) because of these issues.
The main problem in South Africa is "Halal Certification" and rest is just petty tittle-tattle which gets dragged around.
I fully understand and agree with your views but the issue has gotten out of hand due to Fatwa to make up one fast! The Fatwa DOES NOT help at all!
Saudi Arabia has been wrong since 1973, South Africa has made one (possible) error and the repercussions for blowing this out of proportion are huge for British Muslims.
There should be improvement in the process but the post by Sister MMB is a clear sign of where this is going in South Africa. Investigating proper Jamme-Ghafeer is an issue of Ijtehad (not an issue of certainty) but acting according to unanimous opinion of Ulama in 8 provinces of South Africa is CERTAINTY.
We have two groups in our countries which will exploit this to the hilt:
Both of these groups are rubbing their hands with glee over this issue and are super-excited about this.
May Allah (SWT) help the Ummah of Sayyidina Rasul-ullah (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) [Ameen]
Problem is that all sides think that they are acting out of sincerity so if divisions occur as a result of their actions; so be it!
This cannot be undone and I am sure it will be greatly appreciated.
Please wait...