The Islamic-hijrī calendar is a lunar calendar based on the revolution of moon around the earth. The calendar is still used to determine the beginning and the end of the month of fasting (i.e. Ramaḍān) and the beginning of the month of Islamic pilgrimage or ḥajj (i.e. Dhū al-Ḥijjah), if not for other purposes.
Traditionally, sighting of the waxing crescent (hilāl) has been used to mark the end of one lunar month and the beginning of the next. This is in accordance with Qur’an and the recorded practice of Muḥammad (ṣallá allāh ‘alayhi wa-sallama) that identify hilāl as a marker of the beginning of a month. However, neither Qur’an nor the recorded practice of the messenger forbid the use of other means to establish the end of a month and the beginning of the next.
Awaiting the beginning of Ramaḍān 1433 last night, I was puzzled and somewhat disturbed by the way some organizations in Vancouver, Canada announced Friday, July 20 to be the first day of Ramaḍān and others delayed it until Saturday, July 21.
While some members of the Muslim community are concerned about unity (or disunity) of Muslims across a country (as large as Canada) or even a continent, and some others are concerned about adhering to the Islamic texts as closely as possible, I am most troubled by the beginning of Ramaḍān or the celebration of ‘īd on two different days within the same city, sometimes within the same household. Of course, difficulty scheduling your days off from work is an issue too, but not so big as two members of the same family celebrating ‘īd on two different days.
Last night, most Islamic organizations in Vancouver, BC that claim to follow the “calculation” method (as if there is just one type of calculation) announced the beginning of Ramaḍān from Friday, July 20. Two organizations that insist on actual moon-sighting delayed the beginning of Ramaḍān until Saturday, July 21. Pro-calculation Muslims quickly responded to the announcement of Ramaḍān by organizations that have the reputation of being pro-calculation. Even though I am pro-calculation myself, I was troubled by the fact that hilāl was impossible even by calculation in Vancouver last night, yet the pro-calculation organizations announced the beginning of Ramaḍān. The moon set in Vancouver at 9:05 pm, three minutes before sunset (9:08 pm) on July 19. Today, on July 20, the moon will set at 9:32 pm, twenty five minutes after sunset (9:07 pm) – today is the first time the waxing crescent will last on the horizon for a few minutes after sunset, whether we see it or not.
How do organizations that announced the beginning of Ramaḍān last night justify their decision then? They appeal to another fiqhī precept that the moon sighted in one part of a Muslim state is enough of a justification to start Ramaḍān throughout the state – even if hilāl is impossible in some towns. The view dates as far back as Abū Ḥanīfah. Here the question arises: why should such anomaly be tolerated if the initial justification for substituting actual moon-sighting with “calculation” was the “certainty” and “accuracy” conferred by modern astronomical calculations? How can people appeal to the certainty/accuracy offered by astronomical calculations to abandon actual moon-sighting, and then abandon the same accuracy of astronomical calculations for their city to join such transnational organizations as ISNA or FCNA in beginning and ending Ramaḍān? This does not make sense!
Organizations that forsake the accuracy of astronomical calculation as well as actual moon-sighting for their towns to join transnational organizations or even Saudi Arabia may cite the desire for unity across countries, continents, even the globe as a justification for this. Yet there will be people (like myself) in every town, who would delay beginning or ending Ramaḍān until hilāl is actually possible in their town. The inevitable result is that people in the same city will celebrate ‘īd on two different days. Why? Because some of us seek transnational unity while ignoring the need for unity within a town and within a household!
I argue for a shift of emphasis from transnational and trans-continental unity to unity within a city and a household. That is only possible if people are more concerned with when its going to be hilāl (either by calculation or by actual sighting of the moon) in their own towns. And, of course, they will have to stop looking up to transnational organizations like ISNA and FCNA to tell them when to start or end their Ramaḍān. (At some point, these transnational organizations will have to be told too that they need not cater to every town in a continent – or if they so want to help, they should tell individual towns when its going to be hilāl for them.)
Local unity is easier to achieve than global unity. Moreover, if we are truly concerned about beginning and ending Ramaḍān when its really due, unity beyond a town is neither desirable nor possible. When a country is huge, hilāl is possible in some cities before others. Why should we even try to get people from distant cities to begin Ramaḍān or celebrate ‘īd the same day? Yet, it is desirable that people residing in the same city begin Ramaḍān and celebrate ‘īd the same day.
So how do we proceed? How do we effect a shift in emphasis from global to local unity? As difficult as it may seem, we cannot escape the need for consensus among members of the Muslim community. That consensus, if at all possible, cannot be achieved without educating the Muslim public and seeking their opinion in turn. Thus, the issue will have to be publicly debated, and consensus built by passing resolutions. Some individuals, mosques, and/or organizations who do not fear individual Muslims' agency will have to take the initiative. Others will come along later.
It is difficult, but not impossible. What we need is vision and will!
PS: Some of my friends have objected to my advocacy of “unity”. I understand unity is an over-rated (and arguably a false) value, but I think it is impossible to escape the desirability of “unity” (at the level of a town) in a “comm-unity” affair like ‘īd. Even so, I have not gone so far as to suggest formulae for “uniting” pro-calculation and pro-sighting Muslims in a town. This is because I do not think people should forsake their principled stances for the sake of unity. From my point of view, if only the calculationist Muslims showed greater concern for the possibility (or impossibility) of hilāl in their own town than joining transnational organizations or the Government of Saudi Arabia, Muslims in any city would be much likelier to begin Ramaḍān and celebrate ‘īd the same day.
Traditionally, sighting of the waxing crescent (hilāl) has been used to mark the end of one lunar month and the beginning of the next. This is in accordance with Qur’an and the recorded practice of Muḥammad (ṣallá allāh ‘alayhi wa-sallama) that identify hilāl as a marker of the beginning of a month. However, neither Qur’an nor the recorded practice of the messenger forbid the use of other means to establish the end of a month and the beginning of the next.
Awaiting the beginning of Ramaḍān 1433 last night, I was puzzled and somewhat disturbed by the way some organizations in Vancouver, Canada announced Friday, July 20 to be the first day of Ramaḍān and others delayed it until Saturday, July 21.
While some members of the Muslim community are concerned about unity (or disunity) of Muslims across a country (as large as Canada) or even a continent, and some others are concerned about adhering to the Islamic texts as closely as possible, I am most troubled by the beginning of Ramaḍān or the celebration of ‘īd on two different days within the same city, sometimes within the same household. Of course, difficulty scheduling your days off from work is an issue too, but not so big as two members of the same family celebrating ‘īd on two different days.
Last night, most Islamic organizations in Vancouver, BC that claim to follow the “calculation” method (as if there is just one type of calculation) announced the beginning of Ramaḍān from Friday, July 20. Two organizations that insist on actual moon-sighting delayed the beginning of Ramaḍān until Saturday, July 21. Pro-calculation Muslims quickly responded to the announcement of Ramaḍān by organizations that have the reputation of being pro-calculation. Even though I am pro-calculation myself, I was troubled by the fact that hilāl was impossible even by calculation in Vancouver last night, yet the pro-calculation organizations announced the beginning of Ramaḍān. The moon set in Vancouver at 9:05 pm, three minutes before sunset (9:08 pm) on July 19. Today, on July 20, the moon will set at 9:32 pm, twenty five minutes after sunset (9:07 pm) – today is the first time the waxing crescent will last on the horizon for a few minutes after sunset, whether we see it or not.
How do organizations that announced the beginning of Ramaḍān last night justify their decision then? They appeal to another fiqhī precept that the moon sighted in one part of a Muslim state is enough of a justification to start Ramaḍān throughout the state – even if hilāl is impossible in some towns. The view dates as far back as Abū Ḥanīfah. Here the question arises: why should such anomaly be tolerated if the initial justification for substituting actual moon-sighting with “calculation” was the “certainty” and “accuracy” conferred by modern astronomical calculations? How can people appeal to the certainty/accuracy offered by astronomical calculations to abandon actual moon-sighting, and then abandon the same accuracy of astronomical calculations for their city to join such transnational organizations as ISNA or FCNA in beginning and ending Ramaḍān? This does not make sense!
Organizations that forsake the accuracy of astronomical calculation as well as actual moon-sighting for their towns to join transnational organizations or even Saudi Arabia may cite the desire for unity across countries, continents, even the globe as a justification for this. Yet there will be people (like myself) in every town, who would delay beginning or ending Ramaḍān until hilāl is actually possible in their town. The inevitable result is that people in the same city will celebrate ‘īd on two different days. Why? Because some of us seek transnational unity while ignoring the need for unity within a town and within a household!
I argue for a shift of emphasis from transnational and trans-continental unity to unity within a city and a household. That is only possible if people are more concerned with when its going to be hilāl (either by calculation or by actual sighting of the moon) in their own towns. And, of course, they will have to stop looking up to transnational organizations like ISNA and FCNA to tell them when to start or end their Ramaḍān. (At some point, these transnational organizations will have to be told too that they need not cater to every town in a continent – or if they so want to help, they should tell individual towns when its going to be hilāl for them.)
Local unity is easier to achieve than global unity. Moreover, if we are truly concerned about beginning and ending Ramaḍān when its really due, unity beyond a town is neither desirable nor possible. When a country is huge, hilāl is possible in some cities before others. Why should we even try to get people from distant cities to begin Ramaḍān or celebrate ‘īd the same day? Yet, it is desirable that people residing in the same city begin Ramaḍān and celebrate ‘īd the same day.
So how do we proceed? How do we effect a shift in emphasis from global to local unity? As difficult as it may seem, we cannot escape the need for consensus among members of the Muslim community. That consensus, if at all possible, cannot be achieved without educating the Muslim public and seeking their opinion in turn. Thus, the issue will have to be publicly debated, and consensus built by passing resolutions. Some individuals, mosques, and/or organizations who do not fear individual Muslims' agency will have to take the initiative. Others will come along later.
It is difficult, but not impossible. What we need is vision and will!
PS: Some of my friends have objected to my advocacy of “unity”. I understand unity is an over-rated (and arguably a false) value, but I think it is impossible to escape the desirability of “unity” (at the level of a town) in a “comm-unity” affair like ‘īd. Even so, I have not gone so far as to suggest formulae for “uniting” pro-calculation and pro-sighting Muslims in a town. This is because I do not think people should forsake their principled stances for the sake of unity. From my point of view, if only the calculationist Muslims showed greater concern for the possibility (or impossibility) of hilāl in their own town than joining transnational organizations or the Government of Saudi Arabia, Muslims in any city would be much likelier to begin Ramaḍān and celebrate ‘īd the same day.
No comments:
Post a Comment