Thoughts on local and regional moonsighting

 بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

There are various opinions on moonsighting and the start of a month of the Islamic calendar. These revolve around local sightings, regional sightings, global sightings, and astronomical calculations. Many different articles just present the evidences for their side but it appears to me that the articles advocating the global moonsighting position haven’t been as comprehensive as those for local moonsighting and calculations. This short post gives some short thoughts on some things to consider, hopefully improving the discussion in sha Allah. The thoughts don't aim to be exhaustive. 

Local and regional moonsighting fiqh approaches have some issues that can lead to disunity or the contradiction of Hanafi usul:

1)     Is a sighting that is only via optical aid, like binoculars or telescopes, acceptable? Modern scholars have disagreed on this. Optical aid can lead to different historical Islamic calendar results compared to the time of Sahaba and most of Islamic history and if this argument is used consistently, it entails the rejection of only using optical aid. This issue affects the local, regional, and global moonsighting approaches and can cause disunity in each.

2)      It is argued that the sighting of countries far away (even if only a few hours time difference) makes it practically impossible to adopt a global moonsighting position. For example, should people fast or do Eid the next day, or pray tarawih tonight? Generally, the distance between two nearby Muslim cities in ancient times was of multiple days e.g. Makkah and Madinah, so news of a moonsighting in this other city would arrive multiple days later, causing possible confusion on, for example, should people fast or do Eid the next day, or pray tarawih tonight? Thus, the same issues of modern times (e.g. UK vs American sighting) applied in the past if the moonsighting of even nearby cities was to be adopted (i.e. a modern “local” approach). If each city has its own moonsighting and calendar in modern times, then that is closer to the historical Muslim practice. However, the classical Hanafi opinion adopting global opinion discussed what to with reports about moonsighting from another country or city coming the next day or days after. For example, the people would need to make up a fast if the accepted report from another country or city shows that the receiving people were short of a fast.

3)      It has been argued that global moonsighting must be rejected because it can lead to different historical Islamic calendar results compared to the time of Sahaba and most of Islamic history. However, this problem also arises by adopting a calendar based on anything exceeding the moonsighting of a city (and its surrounding areas). This entails rejecting most (if not all) of the modern local and regional approaches.

4)      There is a large difference on what is considered “local” in local moonsighting. Is it a village, city, country? For example, in the Shafi school, a matla (sighting zone) is defined as the distance of qasr (travelling), or 1.5 times the qasr distance, or a deviation of 6 degrees or 8 degrees (the latter being the stronger Shafi view). Other madhabs, like the Hanafis, have other definitions. This shows the ijtihadi nature of the matali. Similar issues occur on what is considered “regional” in regional moonsighting because the boundaries of each region can be arbitrary and based on modern notions of nation-states etc. For example, should Morocco be included in the regional sightings for the UK? Each option can be a cause of disunity and lead to different calendar results. In fact, different moonsighting committees in America have different understandings of a matla, causing disputes about the calendar. The onus and burden is on the claimants of the various definitions of the matla and matali need to bring their evidences from the Islamic legal sources.

5)      The concept of the matali (sighting zones) in relation to the calendar start appears to be a development after the time of the Sahaba, especially if considered as an astronomical term, even though it has been used by various later scholars arguing for a non-global sighting. Related to this is that research is needed on when was the concept of matali first mentioned.

6)      The hadith on the ummi nature of moonsighting is used to reject calculations by those who support local and regional moonsighting. However, the discussions on the matla contradict the hadith on the ummi nature of moonsighting in that case too.

7)      There are logical and practical problems of one region or locality having 29 days and another 30 days, as entailed by local and regional moon sightings. Both calendars would be correct and true per the local or regional moonsighting approaches. As for practical problems, an example is that business transactions can become problematic due to disagreements on dates according to the calendar of each party. This is a haraj for the Muslims.

8)      If one follows only sightings of the East then what about city in West that sights moon but is 50 miles away? This has various differences of opinion.

9)      Some scholars have argued that fasting on the Day of Arafah is tied to Makkah. See the discussion and argument by the Usuli Maliki scholar Mawlud (https://youtu.be/RWW-0Fif50s?si=Ozt-uGoYLytvAAYX).  This is often not possible under local and regional moonsighting approaches.

10)  Different days of Laylat  al-Qadr can arise based on local or regional approaches. For example, one country or region can have Laylat al-Qadr on the 27^th and another on the 26^th because they started on different days. Both calendars would be correct and true per the local or regional moonsighting approaches.  This appears to contradict the texts that imply that it is one night in the year.

11)  How many reliable people are needed to affirm the start of a new month? Is it 1, 2 or a large group? What about whether it is the start or end of Ramadan? What about if it is cloudy or not? Do the witnesses need to testify? Each option can be a cause of disunity and lead to different calendar results. This issue affects the local, regional, and global moonsighting approaches.

12)  There is a famous usuli principle in the Hanafi madhab, based on Imam Abu Hanifa, that when the Lawgiver has not given any legal limit, then we don’t specify a specific limit. This difference is spelt out famously in the fiqh of a “large body of water”. This principle entails a rejection of the local, regional or matali (sighting zones) boundaries and supports the global moonsighting position.

13)  Per Hanafi usul, the aam (general) and mutlaq (unqualified) nature of the nusus (revelation) supports the global moonsighting position, and the Qur’an takes precedence over ahad hadiths that are reinterpreted appropriately. For example,  there is no verse or Sahih hadith of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) stating that a moonsighting is restricted to a specific location. Thus, such Hanafi scholars, like Ibn al-Humam, reconciled the global moonsighting position with the Sahih Muslim hadith of Kurayb in multiple ways e.g. by arguing that it can refer to requiring a large mass to report the moonsighting in unobstructed conditions. See Ibn al-Humam's discussion in Fath al-Qadir ( https://shamela.ws/book/21744/83).

Thus, although it is claimed that a local or regional moonsighting approach can unite the Muslims in a country, the preceding shows that that is very difficult due to the many differences of opinions in it. Furthermore, the problem is not solved by adopting the minority position of the sole reliance on astronomical calculations, which has its many issues and differences. This is why many major scholars of the Hanafi school rejected the local and regional moonsighting approaches (adopted by some Hanafis) as well as sole reliance on astronomical calculations. One can see by their wordings and arguments that they intended global moonsighting, despite the reinterpretations of some modern scholars.