In a previous article, I dealt with the perceptions of disagreement about establishing the crescent of Ramadan, and that the difference cannot be reduced to simple binaries such as following the apparent versus following the objectives, or like adopting modern science (astronomical arithmetic) in exchange for sticking to the traditional means (visual vision) and coming up with broad claims such as violating science or mind.

I had indicated that there is a political dimension to the discussion on the subject, related to the perceptions of the concept of the Islamic nation and its political unity, which some of them may have considered fasting and breaking the fast as one of its manifestations, and I promised to discuss it in a separate article, which is the purpose of this article.

The question about whether fasting and breaking the fast have a political dimension or appearance can be addressed through 4 issues discussed by the previous jurists and contained in their scattered fiqh books, which are books from the pre-modern nation-state, and these issues are as follows:

If a Muslim sees the crescent of Ramadan alone, should he fast?

If the crescent is seen by the people of a country, should the rest of the Muslims fast according to them?

Is there a difference between the crescent of Ramadan (fasting) and the crescent of Shawwal (the feast) or does the same law apply to them?

In the event of clouds and the disappearance of the crescent moon, does the political imam have a role in deciding the matter so that his words are the criterion for fasting or breaking the fast?

As for the first issue, the jurists differed as to who sees - alone - the crescent of fasting (Ramadan) or the crescent of Eid al-Fitr (Shawwal).

Does he fast and break the fast or not?

And is his seeing himself sufficient evidence that fasting is obligatory in his right to enter the month in his right, or does he follow people in fasting and breaking the fast, contrary to his certainty?

On the issue there are 3 sayings of the jurists, and the three were also narrated from Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, and they are as follows:

He fasts and breaks his fast in secret, and this is the view of al-Shafi’i.

Ibn Aqeel al-Hanbali said: He must break the fast secretly.

Because he is certain that that day is a feast day, and he is forbidden from fasting.

And the conclusion of this saying is the generality of his saying, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him: “Fast when seeing him.” The prophetic discourse is directed to individuals in authenticity. As for his fasting and breaking his fast in secret;

Because if he showed it, he exposed himself to accusation and punishment.

He fasts alone, but does not break his fast except with people, and this is the well-known view of the imams Ahmed, Malik and Abu Hanifa.

The Hanbalis have stated that whoever sees the crescent and his testimony is rejected, it is obligatory for him to fast for himself, because he, peace and blessings of God be upon him, said: “Fast when seeing it.”

If he breaks his fast with intercourse on that day, he must make up for it and make penance.

Because he broke his fast on one day of Ramadan in his belief, that is, there is no correlation here between the religious (individual) and the judicial (collective), so he acts - in his own right - as if his testimony was accepted.

As for the case of breaking the fast, he does not break the fast if he sees it alone.

When it was narrated that two men approached Madinah and saw the crescent, and the people were fasting, so they came to Umar and mentioned that to him, so he said to one of them: Are you fasting?

He said: Rather, it breaks the fast.

He said: What made you do this?

He said: I would not fast when I saw the crescent.

The other said: I am fasting.

He said: What made you do this?

He said: I would not break the fast while people were fasting.

He said to the one who broke his fast: If it were not for this place, I would have hurt your head!

He fasts with people and breaks his fast with people.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: This is the most obvious statement.

The Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “Your fast is the day you fast, your breaking your fast is the day you break your fast, and your sacrifice is the day you sacrifice.”

Some scholars interpreted this hadith as meaning that fasting and breaking the fast are only with the congregation.

This showed the sayings;

The Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “Your fast is the day you fast, your breaking your fast is the day you break your fast, and your sacrifice is the day you sacrifice.”

Some scholars interpreted this hadith as meaning that fasting and breaking the fast are only with the congregation.

This showed the sayings;

The Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: “Your fast is the day you fast, your breaking your fast is the day you break your fast, and your sacrifice is the day you sacrifice.”

Some scholars interpreted this hadith as meaning that fasting and breaking the fast are only with the congregation.

As for the second issue, if the people of a country see the crescent, is it obligatory for all people to fast, regardless of their geographical locations?

This issue is expressed by the jurists with the issue of “different readings.”

Here, an important clarification must be made, which is that the disagreement is not about the same difference of sight and whether it is true or not.

It is an astronomical issue and a fact that is witnessed in the difference in time of day and night between the countries of the world, and the rise of the moon is like the rise of the sun in difference, and if the sun passes in the east, it does not have to go away in the west, and so on.

Rather, the disagreement is taking place among the jurists in the impact of the difference of sightings, and is it considered a legal ruling based on it or not?

That is, should every people consider their ascendant only so that no one is obliged to work at the beginning of another, or is the difference in sighting not considered total, and work must be done by sighting those who preceded the crescent and his ruling applies to the rest of the Muslims?

The jurists differed on this, with two sayings:

First:

The difference in sightings is not considered here with regard to fasting and breaking the fast, despite its presence.

The vision of the people of a country is sufficient to prove the entry of the month for everyone in every place;

Since it has been proven that the month has begun - by seeing some of them - this must be done by everyone, fasting and breaking the fast.

This is the apparent meaning of the narration, and the fatwa is based on it according to the Hanafi school, and it is adopted by the Malikis and Hanbalis.

They did not work according to readings;

For the textual evidence of Sharia, including the generality of his saying, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him: “Fast when seeing him,” where the speech - in practice - was attached to the absolute vision without restricting it to a place, unlike the times of prayers, and it is a speech to the entire nation, and Ibn Abdeen expanded on this in one of his letters He also indicated that in his footnote.

The second:

The difference in sightings is influential, for every people has their vision of the new moon, just as every people have the same times for their prayers, which is the adopted school of view according to the Shafi’is, and some Hanafis, such as Al-Zayla’i and others, followed it, and some Malikis, such as Al-Qarafi and others, where they distinguished between distant countries and nearby cities.

They said: Because all people are addressed with what they have, as in the times of prayer, so dinner - for example - is not obligatory for those who lose their time;

Because it must enter the time.

Al-Qarafi Al-Maliki considered that fasting is obligatory, for all regions, by sighting the crescent in one of them, far from the rules, and the evidence did not dictate that.

Al-Nawawi Al-Shafi’i said: “Every country has their vision, and the sighting of the crescent in a country does not prove its ruling when it is far from them.”

And they inferred that Ibn Abbas did not act upon the people’s vision of the Levant for a grievous hadith that Umm Al-Fadl bint Al-Harith sent him to Muawiyah in Levant. He said: When did you see?

I said: We saw him on Friday night.

He said: Have you seen him?

I said: Yes, and the people saw him and fasted, and Muawiyah fasted. Ibn Abbas said: We saw him on the night of Saturday, so we will continue to fast until we complete thirty or we see him.

I said: Are you not satisfied with seeing Muawiyah and his fast?

He said: No.

This is how the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, commanded us.

As for the third issue

, it relates to whether it is possible to distinguish between the ruling on the crescent of Ramadan in fasting, and the ruling on the crescent of Shawwal in the case of Eid al-Fitr and Eid.

The well-known view of the imams Ahmad, Malik and Abu Hanifa - as previously mentioned here - is that whoever sees the crescent alone, he fasts alone, but he does not break his fast except with people.

It is as if they joined the breaking of the fast (the feast) with the sacrifice (the pilgrimage), just as it does not stand in Arafat alone, so it does not enter into the feast alone;

Because these are collective rituals such as Eid prayers and Hajj rituals.

While others went to linking the two days of al-Fitr and fasting (i.e. the beginning of Ramadan and the beginning of Shawwal), and that God Almighty did not command His servants to fast 31 days;

Whoever has completed thirty must break the fast.

Regardless of the rest of the people.

If we contemplate the paths of reasoning and their perceptions in the construction of rulings here, we find that their revolve is on universal issues such as working with the certainty of the individual in whom the vision is established and giving him priority over himself over the group’s belief, emphasizing the aspect of individual responsibility in worship which is the basis of assignment, and the distinction between the religious aspect and the judicial aspect.

This distinction between the crescent of fasting and the crescent of Eid al-Fitr may have two meanings:

The first meaning:

that fasting is an act of worship in which precaution is required, while breaking the fast is a fortune for the soul, and it tends to be looser often, so following people is safer and more secure in order to investigate not following the psychological inclination or to deny the accusation of bringing a benefit to the soul (which is the breaking of the fast) unlike the crescent of Ramadan, which is not charged In it, and for this reason some jurists distinguished between the crescent of Ramadan and the crescent of Shawwal also in the number of witnesses for proof. In the crescent of Ramadan, some of them were satisfied with one witness;

Because it is to enter worship, and worship is based on precaution, and because they carried it on the narration and accept the news of one, while they did not accept less than two witnesses on the crescent of Shawwal;

Because they carried him on the testimony and it is not less than two, then it is a testimony to the exit from worship (fasting), and he was attached to the rights, asking for a discharge of responsibility.

The second meaning:

that fasting is observed in the individual aspect of worship, and breaking the fast is noted in the collective and social aspect in which the feast is only a feast, and perhaps it is used in this what the Hanafis stipulated to establish the crescent of Shawwal - in the case of awakening - which is that the witnesses be a group, the judge obtains knowledge of their news, and stipulated The Malikis in the crescent of Shawwal extensive vision or testimony of two just from those who testify in public rights.

As for the fourth issue

, which is whether the political authority decides the matter in the event of clouds that prevent the sighting of the crescent, so that the decision of the ruler is the criterion in choosing to fast or break the fast in the event that the crescent veils clouds?

It was narrated on the authority of Imam Ahmad 3 narrations on this issue, only one of them says: People are followers of the Imam, so if they fast they fast, and if they break their fast they break their fast, and this is the saying of Al-Hasan Al-Basri and Muhammad bin Sirin also, and their take on it is the saying of the Prophet, peace be upon him: “Fasting is the day you fast, And the breaking of the fast is the day you break your fast, and Al-Adha is the day you sacrifice.” Its meaning - as previously - is that fasting and breaking the fast are with the group and most people, because if we carried it on its apparent meaning, the speech would be idle talk and the conversation would be broken!

As for the second narration, it is that it is obligatory to fast, and this fast is acceptable if it turns out after that that that day is from the month of Ramadan, and this narration was chosen by most of the Hanbalis, and it is the madhhab of Umar and his son, Amr ibn al-Aas, Abu Hurairah, Anas, Muawiyah, Aisha and the names of the two daughters of Abu Bakr, and with it Said more than one of the followers.

As for the third narration, it is that fasting on that day is not obligatory, and his fasting does not suffice him for Ramadan if he fasts, and this is the saying of most scholars, including Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi’i, and those who follow them.

It is noteworthy that the previous four issues confirm several things:

The first:

it completely excludes the idea of ​​astronomical calculation from the jurisprudential thinking in the worship of fasting, and we dealt with it in a previous article, and we said that astronomical calculation is not sufficient to resolve the issue as it is imagined.

The second:

the centrality of the transmission evidence in the construction of rulings, although I did not investigate the evidence previously, but I mentioned some of them for brevity.

This is the practice of jurists in devotional issues where the textual evidence is the imam, but the will of the legislator is investigated in it, and diligence in it is narrow and restricted by texts and the approach of each sect in its interpretation and working with the saying of the companion and building the necessary justifications.

the third:

If we contemplate the paths of reasoning and their understanding of the construction of rulings here, we find that its revolve is on universal issues such as working with the certainty of the individual in whom the vision is established and giving priority to himself over the group’s belief, emphasizing the aspect of individual responsibility in worship which is the basis of the assignment, and the distinction between the religious aspect and the judicial aspect. His testimony was rejected in the judiciary, for this does not change the truth of his certainty, and does not render his belief void.

Rather, he has to work with what has been proven to him in secret, to achieve internal harmony first and the coherence of the general order secondly, and thus the individual and collective dimensions are combined, taking care of the nature of the rituals themselves, and that some of them can only be achieved in a group, such as the Eid prayer and standing at Arafah, unlike the beginning of fasting, the aspect The individual is dominant, and so on.

Fourth:

The role entrusted to political authority in a worship such as fasting is very marginal in previous jurisprudential discussions.

For it is entrusted to the Muslim community, not to political power, let alone the Qatari state.

And the political imam might have had only a marginal role according to some of them, as it became clear from a narration by Imam Ahmad and in one case, which is if clouds appeared and the crescent was needed, yet his doctrine was adopted in contrast to it, and the doctrine of the public is that the imam has no role in this pure worship of God Almighty.

On the other hand, most of what is being done today in Muslim countries and groups, is to take different sights, and here the political authority governed by issues of sovereignty and geographical borders plays an important role in determining the start and end of fasting;

Although it is a religious worship linked to two dimensions: individual (religious) on the one hand, and collective (social and judicial) on the other, it is neither political nor sovereign, yet it has become part of the organizational authority of the nation-state.

If we observe countries such as the Gulf states, it is difficult to find a country in the vicinity of Saudi Arabia - for example - that precedes or contradicts it in determining the beginning and end of fasting, with the exception of the Sultanate of Oman and Iran in most cases;

Although even the one who said with different readings, he only said about distant countries, not nearby cities, yet Saudi Arabia does not adhere to the Hanbali school of thought in this matter.