Seeing the Crescent with Armed Eye

Author: Seyyed Muhammadmahdi Noormofidi

• abstract

Seeing the crescent with armed eye (in persian: رؤیت هلال با چشم مسلح) is of the novel and challenging issues of contemporary jurisprudence, which has been raised with the advancement of technology and the emergence of new observation tools such as telescopes. In the recent century, Islamic jurists have faced the question of whether seeing the crescent moon with armed eye is as valid as seeing it with the bare eye. Contemporary jurists’ well-known response to this day has been negative. They argue based on reasons such as the seeing is not absolute and particularly refers to unaided seeing, non-validity of seeing with a telescope, impossibility of choosing between least and most and contradiction with the practice of Muslims in early Islam. On the other hand, some contemporary researchers and jurists, relying on the absolute seeing in hadiths and unity of the criterion, have tried to prove the validity of using new tools. Also, some contemporary Sunni jurists count seeing the crescent with armed eye of the ways of proving [the appearance] of the crescent.

Explaining the issue and its importance

Seeing the crescent with armed eye, which means seeing the moon crescent using new means and tools such as cameras and telescopes, is of the challenging, influencing and novel issues in contemporary jurisprudence. Given that in Islamic jurisprudence the time limit for many of Muslims’ duties and obligations such as fasting and Hajj has been determined based on lunar months, determining the beginning, end and the various days of lunar months is of significant importance. Determining the first day of Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, Day of ‘Arafah, Eid al-Adha, Nights of Qadr (destiny) and other Islamic occasions is tied to this issue. Since early Islam, the main way for determining the beginning of a lunar month has been the direct and sensory sighting of the crescent, without the use of tools and equipment. However, with the emergence of new tools such as telescopes and the possibility of seeing the moon more precisely, the debate has been raised as to whether it is jurisprudentially possible to prove that the lunar month has begun and its moon eclipse has appeared with new tools, referred to as “armed eye.” At first, jurists’ response to this question was negative. However, with the passage of time and the discussions that took place around it, some contemporary jurists have considered seeing the crescent with armed eye as valid. Since seeing the crescent with armed eye may happen one night earlier than seeing it with the unaided eye, the difference between the two views becomes more important. Moreover, in case of using modern tools, there will be no such problems as the disagreement between the testifiers of seeing the crescent. The notion of ‘armed eye’ has a wide scope which includes normal and weak cameras to precise and giant telescopes. According to critics, one of the ambiguities of the theory of seeing the crescent with armed eye is that, given the variety of precision, power and function of the observation tools for seeing the crescent and other celestial objects, it is not exactly clear which of the tools do the supporters of this theory consider to be valid.

Review of literature and ideas

Throughout the history of jurisprudence, until before the recent century, sensory seeing of the crescent with no tools, beside the passage of thirty days of the month and the decree of the ruler, were the main religious criteria for determining the beginning of the lunar month. However, since no tool whatsoever existed in the past, predecessors cannot be considered as opponents of this theory. The first trace of this discussion among the jurists can be found in Muhammad Hussein Na'ini’s (1936) negative response to a question in this regard. After him, Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (1980), Imam Khomeini (1989), Sayyid Abulqasim Khu'i (1992) and other famous contemporary Shi’a Maraji‘ and jurists rejected seeing the crescent with armed eye, as well. Some of the maraji‘, like Sayyid Abulqasim Khu'i, reject seeing the crescent with new tools. However, they do not completely reject using these tools and accept them as means to help find the place of the crescent to see it with the bare eye. Sayyid Muhammad al-Sadr (1999) has counted other juridical effects for using the armed eye in his Mavara' al-Fiqh book, such as proving observability in case of obstruction, and rejecting the testimony of those who claim to have observed the crescent in case if a telescope proves that it is not possible to observe it with the unaided eye. In contrast to most jurists, in recent years, a number of contemporary jurists and maraji‘ such as Muhammad Fadil Lankarani (2007), Muhammad Taqi Bahjat (2009), Sayyid Abdulkarim Musavi Ardabili (2016), Sayyid Ali Khamenei and Muhammad Ali Girami considered seeing the crescent moon with the armed eye as valid. Sayyid Mahmud Hashimi Shahrudi (2018) and Yusuf Sani'i (2020), while distinguishing between different tools and instruments of observation, based on the conventional view, accepted seeing with a camera, but considered seeing with specialized and more accurate tools such as a telescope to be invalid.

Arguments of the supporters

Proponents of seeing with the armed eye cite the following reasons:

Absolute seeing in narrations

The most important reason provided by those who say that seeing with tools is sufficient is based on the absolute "seeing" in hadiths. Mohammad Javād Fāḍil Lankarānī, professor of Qom Seminary, believed that “seeing” in hadiths includes seeing with the armed eye as it applies to seeing with the bare eye. Therefore, if the moon is observed with a telescope, the sighting is right and the application is real; as in respect of looking at non-Maḥram ones and the similar rulings, there is no difference between looking with instruments and looking without them.

The hadith narrated by Ali ibn Ja‘far

In a hadith narrated by Ali ibn Ja‘far from Imam Kazim (AS), a sharp-eyed person’s sighting is considered valid for himself. It seems that, first, Abulqāsim Khiz‘ali cited this hadith in his argument. Hāshimī Shāhrūdī has also deduced the validity of unconventional sighting from this hadith. Muhammad Taqī shahīdī, a professors of Qom seminary, however, believes that this narration, in addition to being contradicted, does not include seeing with an armed eye. Mohammad Surūsh Maḥallātī, a researcher and seminary professor, also considers this narration to be valid about a sharp-eyed person’s sighting, which is itself an example of seeing with an unaided eye. Because of its outstanding difference with seeing with an armed eye, however, he believes that the two cannot be compared.

Unity of the criterion

According to Fāḍil Ṣaffār, jurisprudence researcher and professor at Najaf Seminary, custom does not consider any specialty for seeing with the bare eye. The criterion for this ruling is proving that the moon has appeared; and there is no difference between seeing it with a bare eye or with an armed eye in the realization of this criterion. Muhammad Surūsh Maḥallātī, researcher and professor at Qom seminary, has gone further to believe that, basically, seeing has been presented as a conventional way to ensure the appearance of the crescent moon and the start of the new month, and it is not a subject in itself. Also, hadiths have only sought to negate acting based on doubt. Based on his argument, definitive calculations of the exact time of the birth of the moon are also juridical proofs for the appearance of the moon. Muhammad Javād Fāḍil Lankarānī, as well, believes the criterion to be the moon leaving the umbra and considers no significance for the sighting and the crescent.

Arguments of the opponents

Opponents of seeing the crescent with armed eye have also presented reasons to reject this theory:

The Ahillah verse

Sayyid Ali Sistani and Sayyid Musa Shubayri Zanjani, of the contemporary maraji‘, have cited verse 189 of surah al-Baqarah (يَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْأَهِلَّةِ قُلْ هِيَ مَوَاقِيتُ لِلنَّاسِ وَالْحَجِّ) to reject the authoritativeness of seeing the crescent with armed eye. They have argued that the mentioned verse has set the crescent moon as the general agreement to determine the month for Hajj and other affairs. Therefore, the general people must be able to perceive the moon in that way, while new tools such as telescopes are not generally available and only certain people have access to them. A similar argument had earlier been presented by Husain Ali Muntaziri, a contemporary jurist.

Non-absolute seeing in hadiths

Opponents of seeing the crescent moon with armed eye reject its absoluteness in various ways. According to Ja'far Subhani, the contemporary marja‘, in hadiths, seeing is exclusive to the conventional sighting that was common in the age of revelation, which is seeing with the senses and without the use of tools. It is also said that since it was not possible to set limits because of the absence of new tools, it is meaningless to consider it absolute. Nasir Makarim Shirazi, the contemporary commentator and marja‘, also believes that considering cases such as خفاء جدران (not seeing the city walls) in determining the Limit of Tarakhkhus for a traveler’s prayer where the criteria is based on unaided vision, rules generally consider a common person, while seeing with armed eye is not common and normal. Therefore, this type of vision cannot be absolute. Nonetheless, according to the proponents of using the armed eye, since religious rules are truthful and eternal matters, and since reference to something cannot be realized based on the dominance of existence, the abslutness of seeing in hadiths is not damaged. According to this view, if we refer all absoluteness [of the words of hadiths] back to the ordinary people at the time when the rules were issued, in general, no absoluteness can be used about upcoming issues while some opponents of using the armed eye refer to the inclusiveness of hadiths in such matters. Referring to the hadith narrated by Ali ibn Ja‘far in which the vision of a sharp-eyed person is accepted, Hāshimī Shāhrūdī rejects excluding seeing to a common normal person.

Arguing based on the word crescent in hadiths

Some opponents of seeing with the armed eye, such as Sayyid Abulqasim Khu'i, argue based on the interpretation that they present for crescent to reject the theory of using the armed eye. This contemporary jurist believed that the crescent is realized when there is general visibility and before that, even if the moon has been born, the crescent is not realized. According to him, seeing is a path. However, he considers the crescent to be significance in itself; therefore his theory is identified seeing. According to this contemporary marja‘ and jurist, whenever the possibility of unaided seeing is proved in some way, it proves that the crescent moon has appeared, even if actual seeing has not been realized. Riḍā Mukhtārī, researcher in jurisprudence, rejects the realization of the crescent moon when it is seen with a telescope in its primary state based on the literal root of the word هلال (Hilal), which means appearance and emergence. He believes that when the bright edge of the moon has not reached a level of appearance to be visible for the general people, it cannot be referred to as the crescent moon. In response to this argument, beside rejecting the significance of the crescent in itself, Surūsh Maḥallātī does not consider the lexical naming as an evidence and cites the usage of the word هلال and its reference to the beginning of the month according to lexicologists.

Impossibility of choosing between least and most

Given that the proponents of the theory of armed eye do not reject the use of bare eye, some researchers of jurisprudence cite the absolute impossibility of choosing between the least and the most to disprove this theory. In this point of view, according to the armed eye theory, the Mukallaf (a competent person responsible for his religious duties) is allowed to choose between seeing with the armed eye or with the bare eye, while the first criterion is always realized before the second. In response to the mentioned argument, Muhammad Javād Fāḍil Lankarānī considered the two titles as superficial and, in fact, two ways to prove one matter. He believed that choosing between least and most is impossible when involving two real matters, not when dealing with appearances. Another answer that has been proposed is that basically there is no choice in this matter, because the two titles do not stand side by side, but along the same line. This means that the lawmaker has established the criterion of seeing the crescent with unaided eye if it is not possible to see the crescent with the armed eye. Therefore, in reality, there is no choice.

Contradiction with the practice of Muslims in early Islam

Nasir Makarim Shirazi has tried to reject this theory by stating that the armed eye theory requires considering the action of Muslims since the beginning of the Prophet (PBUH)’s mission as wrong; because in his opinion, given that seeing the crescent moon with a telescope is usually realized one night earlier, then the prerequisite is [to believe] that the Prophet and Muslims must have missed the obligation of fasting in many cases or have fasted on the day of Eid. Such a prerequisite, however, is not binding. Sayyid Ali Sistani has also presented a similar argument. On the other hand, some of the supporters of the armed eye theory, relying on the distinction between the apparent and real ruling, believe that the duty of the predecessors was based on the apparent ruling and thus they were excused. It has also been said that identifying the beginning of the month is like identifying the Qibla, which is of the type of identifying the issue, not the ruling, and, as in the past, the determination of the Qibla was not accurate, and the jurists considered the approximate determination of the direction of the Qibla as sufficient and correct, in the matter of sighting, the two criteria are placed along one another. This means that for those who have access to tools the first criterion is valid, and for those who do not, the second criterion is valid. According to this statement, the theory of the armed eye does not lead to considering the actions of the predecessors as wrong and is included in the scope of the recognition of the issue by the Mukallaf. Similarly, when there used to be a doubt about proving the parent of a child in the past, the rule الولد للفراش was used. Today, however, with the advancement of the medical science and the development of DNA testing, the mentioned rule is no longer used; because, this test alleviates the doubt and the subject of that rule.

Requirements of the practical principle

If the evidence is not enough to prove the authoritativeness of seeing the crescent with armed eye, in case of doubt, one should refer to the practical principle. Various explanations have been presented about the requirements of the practical principle in an issue. Fāḍil Ṣaffār, professor at the Najaf seminary, considers the present practical principle in this matter to be rejecting the obligatory use of armed eye. Muhammad Taqī Shahīdī, however, considers the Istishab principle (principle of presumption of continuity) for the rule to be present and believes that rejecting the obligation of fasting at the beginning of the month is opposite to rejecting the prohibition of fasting at the end of the month. In any case, if it comes to the practical principle, [validity of] seeing the crescent with the armed eye cannot be proven.

The Ahl al-Sunnah point of view

The issue of seeing the crescent with armed eye has also received attention by late Sunni jurists. Lajna al-Dā’imah Iftā’ in Saudi Arabia, while denying astronomical calculations, has accepted seeing by instruments and tools. Also, referring to the hadiths about seeing that have been narrated in the Sunni juridical encyclopedias, Abdulaziz bin Baz, a sunni jurist, has considered seeing with the armed eye an instance of seeing and authentic. Ḥisām al-Dīn Mūsavī ‘Afānah, Palestinian jurist and Mufti, has also accepted reliance on tools and instruments and astronomical calculations.

Study resources

Template:Main The most important work on seeing the crescent can be Ru’yat-i Hilāl by Riḍā Mukhtārī et al., that has been published in five volumes and about four thousand pages. This book, while investigating verses and traditions and categorizing them, has collected sections related to seeing the crescent moon from the jurisprudence books written by both Shia and Sunni jurists. It has also collected important articles in this field and introduced other articles as well. It has been published by Būstān-i Kitāb institute in 2008. Also the books I‘tibār-i Abzār-i Jadīd dar Ru’yat-i Hilāl by Muhammad Javād Fāḍil Lankarānī (2022, with plenty of additions and explanations) and Tavallud-i Māh yā Ru’yat-i Hilāl? By Sorūsh Maḥallātī (2023) are of the resources available for research about seeing the crescent. The first book includes the article “I‘tibār-i Abzār-i Jadīd dar Ru’yat-i Hilāl” [validity of new tools in seeing the crescent], Riḍā Mukhtārī’s controversies in criticizing the mentioned article, response to the controversies and the text of the author’s presentations in two scientific meetings around the subject of seeing the crescent moon with armed eye. And the second book also examines in detail various opinions on proving the [appearance of] the crescent, including seeing the crescent with naked eye, and strengthens the possibility of proving the [appearance of] the crescent through definitive calculations of the birth of the moon. Also Muhammad Taqī Shahīdīpūr has written the Arabic article “Qarā’inah Naqdīyyah li Adillat al-Qaul bi ’I‘tibār al-Ajhizat al-Ḥadītha fī Ru’yat al-Hilāl,” published in the second issue of the Tā Ijtihād journal, in which he comprehensively explores the reasons for the validity of new tools in seeing the crescent.

References

• The noble Quran
• Ḥurr ‘Āmilī, Muhammad ibn Hasan, Tafṣīl-i Vasā’il al-Shī‘ah ilā Taḥsīl-i Masā’il al-Shar‘īyyah, Qom, Āl al-Bayt publication, 1989
• Ḥillī, Ja‘far ibn Hasan, Sharāyi‘ al-Islam fī Masā’il al-Ḥalāl va al-Ḥarām, Qom, Ismā‘īlīān, 1989
• Ḥillī, Hasan ibn Yūsuf, Tazkirat al-Fuqahā’, Qom, Āl al-Bayt, 1993
• Bahjat, Muhammad Taqī, Rasālah fī Ru’yat al-Hilāl, Qom, Mu’asasat al-Bahjat, 2021
• Khamenei, Sayyid Ali, U’jūbat al-Istiftā’āt, Qom, the Leader’s office, 2003
• Khomeini, Sayyid Rūḥullāh, Taḥrīr al-Vasīla, Qom, Dār al-‘Ilm, no date
• Khū’ī, Sayyid Abulqāsim, Mausū‘a al-Imām al-Khū’ī, Qom, Institute for Revival of Imam Khū’ī’s Works, 1997
• Darvīsh, Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Razzāq, Fatāvī al-Lajnah al-Dā’imah, first collection, Riyadh, Al-Ri’āsat al-‘Āmmat li al-Buḥūth al-‘Ilmīyyah va al-Iftā’, 2003
• Dasūqī, Vā’il ibn Ali, Kitāb Buṭlān al-‘Amal bi al-Ḥisāb al-Falakī, no publisher, no date
• Subḥānī, Ja‘far, Ru’yat al-Hilāl, Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt journal, No. 27
• Surūsh Maḥallātī, Muhammad, Tavallud-i Māh yā Ru’yat-i Hilāl, Tehran, Mīrāth-i Ahl al-Qalam, 2023
• Sīstānī, Sayyid Ali, As’ilat Ḥauli Ru’yat al-Hilāl Ma‘a Ajvabatihā, Najaf, Maktab Samāḥa al-Sayyid al-Sīstānī, 2010
• Shubayrī Zanjānī, Sayyid Mūsā, Kitāb al-Ṣawm, Qom, Ra’y Pardāz research institute, 1998
• Shahīdī, Muhammad Taqī, Qarā’inah Naqdīyyah li Adillat al-Qaul bi ’I‘tibār al-Ajhizat al-Ḥadītha fī Ru’yat al-Hilāl, Tā Ijtihād institute, No. 2
• Shukat, Muhammad, Al-Hilāl bayn al-Ḥisāb al-Falakī va al-Ru’yah, Islamonline.net
• Ṣāni‘ī, Yūsuf, Majma‘ al-Masā’il, Qom, Meytham Tammār, 2008
• Ṣadr, Sayyid Muhammad Bāqir, al-Fatāvī al-Vāḍiḥah Vifqan li Maẓhab-i Ahl al-Bayt, Beirut, Dār al-Ta‘āruf li al-Maṭbū‘āt, 1983
• Ṣadr, Sayyid Muhammad, Māvarā’ al-Fiqh, Dār al-Aḍvā’, Beirut, 2009
• Ṣadūq, Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Babavayh, Al-Muqni‘, Qom, Imam Ḥādī (AS), 1994
• Ṣaffār, Fāḍil, Ru’yat al-Hilāl bi al-Ajhizat al-Falakīyyah (Dirāsat Faqīhīyyah), Karbala, Muḥāḍirāt fī Markaz al-Abḥāth al-Falakīyyah fī Jāmi‘ah Ahl al-Bayt, 2018
• Ṭūsī, Muhammad ibn Hasan, Al-Mabsūṭ, Tehran, Al-Maktabat al-Murtaḍavīyyah li Iḥyā’ al-Āthār al-Ja‘farīyyah, 1967
• ‘Afānah, Ḥisām al-Dīn ibn Mūsā, Fatāvī Yas’alūnak, Al-Khalil, Maktabat Dandīs, 2007
• Girāmī, Muhammad Ali, Al-Mu‘allaqāt ‘Alā al-‘Urvat al-Vuthqā, Qom, Tawḥīd, 1994
• Fāḍil Lankarānī, Muhammad Javād, ‘I‘tibār-i Abzār-i Jadīd dar Ru’yat-i Hilāl, Qom, Markaz-i Fiqhī-yi A’immi-yi Aṭhār, 2021
• Fāḍil Lankarānī, Muhammad, Ayatollah Fāḍil Lankarānī’s official website
• Mukhtārī, Riḍā, and others, Ru’yat-i Hilāl, Qom, Būstān-i Kitāb, 2009
• Mufīd, Muhammad ibn Nu‘mān, Muṣannafāt al-Shaykh al- Mufīd, Qom, Al-Mu’tamir al-‘Ālamī li Alfīyyah al-Shaykh al- Mufīd, 1993
• Makārim Shīrāzī, Nāṣir, Chand Nukti-yi Muhim dar Bāri-yi Ru’yat-i Hilāl, Qom, Imam Ali ibn Abi Ṭālib (AS) school, 2005
• Muntaẓirī, Hussain ali, Al-‘Ufuq va al-Āfāq, Tehran, Sāyeh, 2005
• Mūsavī Ardabīlī, Sayyid Abd al-Karīm, Nahj al-Rashād, Qom, Nijāt, 2010
• Nā’īnī, Muhammad Hussein Gharavī, Al-Fatāvī, Qom, Naṣā’iḥ, 2002
• Nūrmufīdī, Sayyid Muhammad Mahdi, ’I‘tibār Sanjī-yi Muḥāsibāt-i Qaṭ‘ī-yi Tavallud-i Māh dar Ithbāt-i Shar‘ī-yi Hilāl, Fiqh va Ijtihād quarterly, No. 15
• Vaḥīd Khurāsānī, Hussein, Risālah Touḍīḥ al-Masā’il, Qom, Imam Bāqir (AS) school, 2007
• Vizārat al-Auqāf va al-Shu’ūn al-Islāmīyyah, Al-Mausū‘ah al-Faqīh al-Kuwaytīyyah, Kuwait, Vizārat al-Auqāf va al-Shu’ūn al-Islāmīyyah, 2003
• Hāshimī Shāhrūdī, Sayyid Mahmud, Thubūt al-Shahr bi Ru’yat al-Hilāl fī Balad al-Ākhar, Fiqh-i Ahl al-Bayt journal (Arabic), No. 31
• Hāshimī Shāhrūdī, Ayatollah Hāshimī Shāhrūdī’s website (Arabic), www.hashemishahroudi.org