Moonsighting decisions of Jamiat and Hizbul Ulama. How its done!

Decide for yourself "where does Majlis Qadhaa ul A'alaa come in, is there even a connection with them?"

Assalamualaikum,

Respected Ulama,

Awesome or not, I think what i stated briefly resonates with alot of our ulama on this group and beyond. I am not sure how that amounts to being "in the process of rejecting and not respecting the other camp and their opinions never mind how glaringly incorrect they may be to others."

Why can we have an honest and objective discussion? I am going to take this opportunity to try to generate a discussion regarding this thorny issue, and any responses are welcome, but I merely ask that they be objective.

I will begin with my own personal experience over a number of years of how Ramadhan and Eideyn are announced according to he Saudi dates.

Many of you will be aware that Jamiatul Ulama sometimes with the presence of Hizbul Ulama, generally hold their meetings in Bradford, and until very recently this was at Br Ayub Laher's house. The meetings would normally take the following format: Some Ulama and committe members gather at the venue for food/iftaari. Executive Members of Jamiat phone a few personal contacts, according to my experience upto about 3, who reside in Saudi. These are not official contacts of any government department, but Ulama like Molana Abdul Hafeez Makki sahib and a Molana Saeed sahib. Sometimes they get through to them, other times not. More importantly, in my experience, they are not necessarily waiting for a call from England. On many occasions, in my experience, the Ulama concerned have gone for salaah or they are out. Meanwhile, most of the remaining attendees, ulama and laiety, are engaged in their own conversations, or eating food etc. On the whole, they are not [at least fully] aware of exactly what has gone on. When news is received and a decision recorded on paper, all attendees sign. I am personally uncomfortable with this as such signatures amount to a shahaadah, while the majority have not even been aware of what has transpired. I have always sat at the decision making end of things and observed from there, but I have never signed the paper in view of my discomfort.

After numerous such experiences, it appeared to me that the condition of Istifaadhah is sometimes not satisfied at these meetings. I expressed my fears to a senior Mufti who agreed but said that istifaadhah is achieved in spite of these meeting due to the various methods of reporting [radio/tv etc, contact with relatives performing umrah and haj etc] that eventually arrise.

Last Ramadhan, the meeting was held in Masjid Bilal in Bradford, and not a single member of the Moonsighting committee was present! This was pointed out at the meeting by Molana Ibrahim Khan who ultimately ended up being a part of the decision making progress and drafting out the decision. The attendees were under pressure to make a decision as news had been recieved from Saudi over sky etc since before Asr that it was Ramadhaan. Immediately after maghrib Ramadhaan was announced. No sighting was even attempted.

With Saudi as the default criterion, many people dont even ring to find out the committee's decision anymore. They just go by satellite tv and wonder why the committee is taking so long. The committee are under immense pressure to announce a decision and Maghrib cannot come soon enough. Local sighting, well that is just out of the question.

Up until very recently, we in the Uk, at least to any great length in the deobandi fraternity, have not even attepted at observation and could be said to be guilty of forsaking a communal obligation. It is only recently, that wifaqul ulama have revived this, and not surprisingly, their decisions differ from the Saudi announcement. May Allah give them steadfasness in their endeavours and sincerity in their intentions.

Before I go any further, I will say I cannot agree with Mufti Ibrahim Desai sahib that following Saudi amounts to persuing a munkar. [I dont remember the exact words.]

However, I will say:

The Saudi decision often goes against astronomical considerations, some of which are qat'ee while others are zanni. But that is not what I want to elaborate on at the moment. [If any one is interested in the details, I will elaborate some other time.]

My question to the members for discussion is:

It is not uncommon for the Saudi authorities to base their decision on the testimony of a couple or even solitary witness despite clear skies. There have been very prominent cases in the last few years. While this is fine in the Hanbali madhhab, according to the Hanafi madhhab this position is not correct. On the contrary, a large group of witnesses [jamme ghafeer] is required. The testimony of a couple of witnesses is insufficient. Therefore, as Hanafis, while we agree that they are fully entitled to hold their view, we consider their decision to be erroneous [khata] and our position to be correct [sawaab]. While we are in Saudi this is not a problem. We must follow their decision as hukm al-hakim rafi li al-khilaaf. However, that is not so while we are in the UK as the Saudi decision is only binding within their borders. So while we are in the UK and consider their decision to be khata, how then do we then follow that decision which, as far as we as Hanafis are concerned, is wrong?

Any answers? I am looking for a fiqhi answer. [Please do not respond with our teachers and elders follow it so it must be ok.]

The issue of ittihaadi mataali cannot also be offered here. i.e., we cannot say that the position of the hanafi madhhab is that we must follow the first confirmed sighting. so saudi it is. This year, after a few years of absence, I attended the moonsighting meeting in Bradford, at Masjid Abdullah bin Masood run by, you guessed it, Molana Ibrahim Khan. A staunch proponent of saudi and a personal friend, he is now a member of Jamiat. Anyway, on the evening in question, news of reported sightings in afghanistan and china were received by asr salaah. Why did we not pursue them if ittehaad mataali is the adopted position? Rather, the decision was made according to saudi by default who you all know started Ramadan after completing 30 days of Shaban.

Lastly, with regards to the silence of the darul ulooms and that of eminent Ulama, while many, my own asaatidhah included, express their reservations in private, they are loathe to decare anything publicly. It appears that they are not willing to enter the quagmire as they are not very hopeful of any change. There are not willing to be a part of the dispute, which at timeshas not been played with the appropriate decorum. Not all the players are respectful of the opinions of others and underhand tactics are not uncommon. In short, it is just not worth the hassle.

I have met many that are privately happy at the emergence of wifaaqul ulamaa and would like them to prosper and succeed. If they do, they seem to be more than willing to hop aboard.

Personally, I am not fond of the maslahah card. I feel it is merely a cop-out and masks the real issue. If we all acted on maslahah, where would we be then?

Wassalaam

Mohammed Zubair Butt