|
The ensuing
discussion is a response to the discussion paper by Dr Zulfiqar Ali Shah
entitled, 'Astronomical Calculations - a Fiqhi Discussion'. This presentation
attempts only to briefly highlight a few pertinent oversights by the Respected
Doctor and should in no way be considered as exhaustive.
The commencement
and ending of Ramadhaan has always been a hotbed of contention and dispute
amongst communities globally especially in the North American States. So far
reaching are the effects of these disputes that, at times, communities would be
divided multipally and at times families. It is the dictate of Imaan, that it
should be the heartfelt desire of every believer to see a united Muslim Ummah
and to contribite to the realisation thereof.
Having appreciated
this need and desire, it should be borne in mind that true unity can only be
achieved on the purport of the Shari'ah enshrined in the Qur'aan and the Hadith
as expounded by the illustrious scholars. Unity at the expense of the dictates
of the Shari'ah, although outwardly seems workable, translates only to
destruction.
Having the
commendable desire to see an United Ummah, the Respected Doctor, identifying a
method that will facilitate its realisation, adopts a policy of academic
gymnastics and pooling together of solitary opinions of scholars in an attempt
to galvanise support for this theory.
A few pertinent
errors and the responses thereto follows:
1.
Harj (difficulty): The
Respected Doctor contends, seeking support with the opinion of Dr Yusuf al-Qardhawi,
that not accepting astronomical calculations is a cause of great difficulty in
that the month of Ramadhaan cannot be predicted beforehand creating amongst
others logistical problems. He mentions, 'Therefore, the argument of hardship levelled by al-Nawawi
and others loses its ground.'
At this juncture, we wish to clarify that the
ruling of non-dependance on astronomical calculation only is not based on Harj
(difficulty). The ruling is based on the Hadith 'soomuw li ru'yatihi' which
requires physical sighting of the moon. Harj was only cited as one of the
possible wisdoms and rationale behind basing the ruling on actual sighting.
Therefore, irrespective of the existence of Harj (for which one will be greatly
rewarded) or not, because the fundamental requirement of actual sighting is
proven from the Hadith ofNabi [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], this ruling
can never be changed.
2.
The Respected Doctor
then attempts to prove that Ru'yah (sighting) is not an Ibaadat in itself and
that this should not be understood literally. He points out that we rely on
astronomical calculations for Salaat times without physically observing sunset,
sunrise, etc. For Iftaar and Suhoor purposes, one is not required to
physically observe the dawn signalling the commencement of fasting. He
further quotes various verses of the Qur'aan and Ahaadith which contain
variables of the word 'Ru'yah' in which context it does not constitute
physical observance. He contends that being sure of the precondition being
found is sufficient and one needs not physical observance thereof.
In response, any person possessing an elementary
understanding of Usool-ul-Fiqh will know that the literal meaning of a word must
always be adopted. One may only move away from the literal meaning of the word
if it cannot be applied in the context of the scenario in question. The
Respected Doctor has cited examples where the literal meaning cannot be applied
thus necessitating another meaning to be adopted. In the Hadith, 'soomuw li
ru'yatihi' the literal meaning of the word can be applied and therefore one may
not adopt any other meaning.
Physical observance of the crescent is not an
Ibaadat in itself. However, it is a precondition for the commencement of the
month. For Salaat times as well as the dawn signalling commencement of the fast,
physical observance is not a precondition. Once the precondition is found, e.g.
sunset, Zawaal, etc. and one is sure thereof, this is sufficient irrespective of
whether it was observed physically or not. However, in the case of the crescent,
physical observance is a precondition in itself and surety only is not
sufficient.
The doctor further makes an erroneous analogy
with the incident when Nabi [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] took an oath to
be away from his wives for a month and then emerged from his chambers after a
mere 29 days without physically observing the crescent and also not enquiring
about the crescent. When asked why he emerged after 29 days, Nabi [sallallaahu
alayhi wasallam] replied that a month is 29 days. In response, this incident
can never be used to prove that physical observance is not a condition. The
Hadith does not point out that Nabi [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] went
into seclusion in the first of the month. Why would he be required to sight the
crescent? What if he made his oath on the 10th. Nabi [sallallaahu alayhi
wasallam] mentioned that a month is 29 days indicating that since he made an
oath of seclusion for a month, he had fulfilled his oath by staying away for 29
days. To use this incident to prove that physical observance is not a condition
is absurd.
3.
The Respected Doctor
presented the different narrations of the Hadith that asserts physical
observance of the crescent and then contends that the ending portion of the
Hadith which requires completion of the month with an additional day in the
event of non-observance of the crescent cannot be relied upon. The above
contention is a glaring example of to what extent the Doctor will go in order to
assert his opinion. It is surprising to note that great Fuqahaa, Muhadditheen
and Mujtahideen of the past had never mentioned this nor alluded to it. But,
alas, in the 21st century, the Doctor and his contemporary has beefed up the
courage to declare these narrations as unreliable. The narration in question are
sourced from the most authentic books of Hadith including Bukhari and Muslim. It
is further interesting to note that the great Muhaddith, Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani
in Nukhbatul Fikr, quotes the same narrations refuted by the doctor as example
of Ahaadith that support one another in meaning.
One who has studied Hadith and Usool al-Hadith
will be aware that narrators do not narrate the Hadith exactly with the words
they had heard it. The majority of the Ahaadith are narrations where the
narrators use their own words to convey the Hadith yet maintaining the meaning
and purport of the Hadith. If we were to reject a Hadith merely because the
narrator was using his own words, we would be required to refute majority of the
Ahaadith found in the books of Hadith. Moreover, even if we accept that the
narrators had expounded the meaning of the Hadith of their own, who would better
understand the meaning of the Hadith than the narrators of the Hadith
themselves. Notwithstanding, if we accept that the ending portion of the Hadith
cannot be relied upon, the beginning of the Hadith as also conceded by the
Doctor cannot be refuted. Therefore, the precondition of physical sighting of
the moon still remains as required by beginning portion of the Hadith.
4.
The doctor cites the
practice of ibn Umar [radhiallaahu anhu] of fasting on the day after the
29th of Sha'baan if the moon was not sighted due to some obscurity, contesting
that the Hadith of which ibn Umar [radhiallaahu anhu] himself is the
narrator would best be explained by his own actions. The doctor questions, 'Is ibn Umar [radhiallaahu anhu] going against the Prophet's command which he
himself is narrating by fasting on the day next to the 29th day of Sha'baan in
case of obscurities?'
In response, the Hadith of ibn Umar [radhiallaahu
anhu] also requires the commencement of the month with the physical sighting
of the moon. Is the Doctor suggesting that ibn Umar [radhiallaahu anhu]
would go contrary to the teachings of Nabi [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]
(which he himself is narrating) without physically sighting the moon? The day
after the 29th of Sha'baan is called the 'day of doubt' if there is speculation
of the moon being sighted but it is not confirmed. The learned would fast on
this day as a matter of prudence. This was the practice of ibn Umar [radhiallaahu
anhu]. This practice cannot be used to prove that ibn Umar [radhiallaahu
anhu] considered this day as the first of Ramadhaan. This is merely an
assumption and is not proven from the narration. Had this been the case, he
would have announced to the people (being the narrator of the Hadith) and
compelled the people to fast the Ramadhaan fast. No narrations alluding to this
exist. Why has the Respected Doctor conveniently not mentioned the practice of
the galaxy of other Sahaaba on this issue who were also narrators of the very
same Hadith?
In conclusion, we
reiterate that physical sighting of the crescent signalling the commencement of
a month is a precondition because it is proven from multiple Ahaadith of Nabi [sallallaahu
alayhi wasallam]. This has always been the opinion of the vast majority of
scholars as the doctor himself concedes repeatedly. What then is the rationale
of moving away from the ruling of the majority? Would it be prudent to follow
the majority or the minority?
On majority of the
rulings of the Shari'ah, there exists the opinion of the minority. If we were to
accept the minority view on all these issues, the result would be propesterous.
If not, then why make an exception for the sighting of the Hilaal?
The contention that
surety of the presence of the Hilaal (and not physical sighting) is also
erroneous due to the fact that Nabi [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] was
receiving divine revelation and could easily have established surety of the
presence of the Hilaal. However, the method that he advocated was the physical
sighting of the moon. Furthermore, the contention that in the past astronomical
calculations were rejected due to their inaccuracy is also erroneous. This was
never cited as a reason by the Fuqahaa. Allaamah Subki [ra] who was a scholar of
7th century, reports that astronomical calculations are conclusive. The view was
to reject reliance on astronomical calcultations only without establishing
physical sighting of the crescent.
It is, therefore,
our humble view that unity is of paramount importance and every attempt should
be made to create a united Ummah, but this should never be at the expense of the
teachings of Nabi [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam]. The commencement of the
Islamic month is dependent on physical sighting of the crescent (or completion
of 30 days) as has always been the opinion of the vast majority of the Ummah.
Astronomical calculations will not be rejected. They will be used to
authenticate reports on physical sighting.
And Allah Ta'ala
Knows Best
Mufti Imraan Hattia
CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai
|
