This question addresses the reasons why some religious authorities continue to confirm the sighting of the crescent moon despite advancements in astronomy.
🤖
AI Notice: This translation was generated by AI and is currently awaiting human verification.
1 Answer
Peace be upon you.
Ayatollah al-Uzma Sayyid Sistani (may Allah protect him):
This is a specialized discussion that may not be fully accessible to those outside the field, but we will mention what can be understood by others as well.
We say: The Holy Quran indicates that the lunar crescents are established as times for people to rely on in their religious and worldly affairs. Allah says: (They ask you about the crescents. Say, They are times for people and for Hajj). What is suitable as a time for the general public is the crescent that appears on the local horizon in a way that is visible to the naked eye. However, what can only be seen with telescopes is not suitable as a time for the general public.
In other words, the ruling on the crescent on the first night and the subsequent nights of the month is akin to the hands of a clock. Just as the hands indicate the times of night and day through their cyclical movement, the moon, in its various phases—growing brighter night after night and then diminishing until it disappears—indicates the number of nights in the lunar month. The purpose of establishing the crescents as times for people is that their appearance in different phases serves as a visible celestial counter for the general public, allowing them to determine the days of the lunar month to organize their religious and worldly affairs. This necessitates that the criteria for sighting the crescent be based on what can be verified by the general public, not just by those who possess advanced equipment to detect the crescent when others cannot verify it.
From this, it is understood that the refusal to accept telescope sightings for confirming the crescent is not due to a reluctance to utilize modern devices in determining the subject of religious rulings. Rather, it is because what has been established as a subject must be something that can be verified by the general public who have normal eyesight, including those in rural areas and remote regions who have no means to verify the crescent's appearance except with their own eyes.
For example, one of the causes of ritual impurity (janabah) is the discharge of semen from a man. If a man undergoes a prostatectomy, this may lead to the semen returning to the bladder and being expelled with urine. If a sample of his urine is examined under a microscope and sperm is found, he is not required to perform a ritual bath (ghusl) because the requirement is the actual discharge of semen, which has not occurred. The presence of sperm in the urine, detected by modern devices, does not affect the obligation of ghusl since the subject of the ruling has not been met.
Similarly, if someone leaves their homeland and is in a position where they cannot see it except through a telescope, or cannot hear the call to prayer except through sound amplification devices, they are not delayed in reaching the threshold for permission to shorten prayers or break their fast during Ramadan. They reach this threshold if the people of their homeland cannot see it with the naked eye—according to one opinion, if they cannot hear the call to prayer with their normal hearing—because the subject of the ruling regarding the obligation to shorten prayers and the permission to break the fast is the distance from their homeland, not the inability to see or hear.
Likewise, if a fish is cleaned of its blood—something that is forbidden to eat even if it is pure—but microscopic examination reveals tiny blood particles that are not visible to the naked eye, this does not affect the permissibility of eating it, as the subject of the prohibition is what is considered blood in common understanding, and those particles do not qualify as such.
These cases differ from others where modern devices can play a role in establishing the subject of a religious ruling. Examples include:
1. If one doubts whether something impure has fallen into a glass of water, and they look with the naked eye and find nothing, but then use a microscope and discover a particle of impurity not visible to the naked eye, the water is deemed impure because the subject of impurity is contact with impurity, even if it is just a particle, and this can be verified with a microscope.
2. If one looks at something forbidden to gaze upon—such as the body of non-mahram women—through a telescope or similar device, they are deemed sinful because the subject of the prohibition is the act of looking, which has been fulfilled even with the aid of a device.
3. If one eavesdrops on others using modern listening devices, they have committed a sin, as eavesdropping is the subject of the prohibition, and there is no particularity to eavesdropping without a device.
4. If a pregnant woman’s husband dies and the inheritance is to be divided among the heirs after setting aside the share for the unborn child, if an ultrasound is used to determine whether the child is one or multiple, male or female, this information must be acted upon because the subject of the ruling regarding setting aside the share for the unborn child is based on the possibility of its being singular or plural, male or female, and if this can be determined with modern devices, it must be followed.
5. If there is doubt about whether a newborn is the son of a particular man, and a DNA test is conducted revealing a match in genetic material, this must be accepted because the subject of the ruling regarding the paternity of the child is its formation from the man's sperm, which can be verified by the mentioned test.
In summary, the distinction between cases where modern devices can assist in verifying the subject of a religious ruling and those where they cannot is based on the differences in the subjects of the rulings. The jurist is bound to adhere to this based on what they derive from the evidence.
In the case of the crescent moon, most scholars have derived from the establishment of the crescents as times for people—as stated in the blessed verse—that they serve as a temporal measure accessible to the general public for organizing their living and religious affairs, not as a measure that is only available to some, where others can only benefit by referring to those who possess the equipment to see the crescent.
Thus, it is understood that if scholars had developed telescopes during the time of the infallibles, they would not have relied on their sighting for the crescent, not out of reluctance to use modern devices, but because a crescent that is not visible to the general public has not been established as a time for them.
With this evidence, it becomes clear that the sighting mentioned in the texts regarding fasting and breaking the fast is a means to the appearance of the crescent on the local horizon in a way that is visible to the naked eye for the general public, and it does not extend to include sightings through telescopes.
Furthermore, if it were established that the beginning of the month is based on the appearance of the crescent in the horizon in a way that is visible—even with the strongest telescopes and devices—this would imply that the fasting, breaking of fast, and pilgrimage of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Imams (peace be upon them) on specific days of the months would not occur on their actual days. It is clear that they (peace be upon them) relied on the common sighting to determine the beginnings of the lunar months, even though they—and many knowledgeable people of their time—were aware that the crescent is rarely seen clearly and high in the sky on a night unless it was visible the previous night with a strong magnifying tool if it had been available. Why then did neither they nor others rely on that to count the crescent for two nights when it was seen clearly and high for the first time?
May you be successful in all good.
Source: Official Website