Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup
الفتح الربانی
Fath al-Rabbani
كتاب الصيامBook of Fasting
بَابُ مَنْ يَكْتَفِي بِشَهَادَتِهِ بِرُؤْيَةِ الْهِلَالِ فِي الصَّوْمِ وَالْفِطْرِChapter: Whoever Suffices with His Own Testimony of Sighting the Crescent for Fasting and Breaking the Fast
Hadith 3697
اُردوEn
عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي لَيْلَى قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ فَأَتَاهُ رَجُلٌ فَقَالَ: إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ الْهِلَالَ هِلَالَ شَوَّالٍ، فَقَالَ عُمَرُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ: يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَفْطِرُوا
Abdur Rahman bin Abi Laila says: I was with Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) when a man came to him and said that he had seen the crescent of Shawwal yesterday. So Sayyiduna Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: O people! Break your fast.
Brief Explanation
Benefits: … From the authentic and marfu‘ (attributed directly to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) hadiths of this chapter, it is understood that for the sighting of the crescent (hilal), the testimony of at least two upright (adil) Muslims is necessary. However, from the following hadith, the acceptance of the testimony of a single Muslim is established:
Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma says: “The people tried to sight the crescent, so I informed the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that I had seen it. He then fasted and ordered the people to fast.” (Abu Dawud: 2342)
Now, whether reliance should be placed on the testimony of one person for the sighting of the crescent, or the testimony of two is necessary, there are three opinions on this matter:
(1) The testimony of a single Muslim is also permissible and valid, because the hadiths in which the testimony of two individuals is commanded, their implication is that the testimony of one should not be accepted, whereas the explicit wording (mantuq) of the aforementioned narration of Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma is that the testimony of one can also be accepted. And it is an established principle of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) that when there is a contradiction between implication (mafhum) and explicit wording (mantuq), preference is given to the explicit wording.
(2) The testimony of two individuals is necessary, as is required by the hadiths of this chapter. As for the hadiths in which the testimony of one individual is mentioned, according to this view, they are interpreted to mean that it is possible that other people also informed the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam of the sighting of the crescent.
(3) For the beginning of Ramadan, the testimony of one individual is sufficient, but for the end of Ramadan, the presence of two witnesses is necessary, so that the suspicion of falsehood is removed, because it is natural for people to be inclined for Ramadan to end on the evening of the 29th. In our view, the first opinion is the strongest. The interpretation made by the adherents of the second view regarding the hadiths of the testimony of one individual is an unnecessary supposition; the apparent wording of these hadiths does not permit this. Similarly, making a distinction between the beginning and end of Ramadan without evidence is baseless; just as Ramadan can be started on the testimony of one individual, it can also be ended on the same basis.
‘Adil (upright): An upright person is one who is a Muslim, sane, mature, and protected from immorality and wickedness.
Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma says: “The people tried to sight the crescent, so I informed the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that I had seen it. He then fasted and ordered the people to fast.” (Abu Dawud: 2342)
Now, whether reliance should be placed on the testimony of one person for the sighting of the crescent, or the testimony of two is necessary, there are three opinions on this matter:
(1) The testimony of a single Muslim is also permissible and valid, because the hadiths in which the testimony of two individuals is commanded, their implication is that the testimony of one should not be accepted, whereas the explicit wording (mantuq) of the aforementioned narration of Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Umar radi Allahu anhuma is that the testimony of one can also be accepted. And it is an established principle of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) that when there is a contradiction between implication (mafhum) and explicit wording (mantuq), preference is given to the explicit wording.
(2) The testimony of two individuals is necessary, as is required by the hadiths of this chapter. As for the hadiths in which the testimony of one individual is mentioned, according to this view, they are interpreted to mean that it is possible that other people also informed the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam of the sighting of the crescent.
(3) For the beginning of Ramadan, the testimony of one individual is sufficient, but for the end of Ramadan, the presence of two witnesses is necessary, so that the suspicion of falsehood is removed, because it is natural for people to be inclined for Ramadan to end on the evening of the 29th. In our view, the first opinion is the strongest. The interpretation made by the adherents of the second view regarding the hadiths of the testimony of one individual is an unnecessary supposition; the apparent wording of these hadiths does not permit this. Similarly, making a distinction between the beginning and end of Ramadan without evidence is baseless; just as Ramadan can be started on the testimony of one individual, it can also be ended on the same basis.
‘Adil (upright): An upright person is one who is a Muslim, sane, mature, and protected from immorality and wickedness.
