Women and the moon (4)

The previous blogs are important here (especially Women and the moon (2) and (3)...this is a continuation).

Secondly, there are 6 points to note about the narrations (these might not all make sense as I have not included all the narrations in the previous blog but I am including these points to help us all understand how scholars work!):
1. There are three types of language used: either "I do not allow","it is not allowed" or "it is not accepted"
2. 4 of the 6 relevant narrations are from Halabi or Hammad bin Uthman or Hammad from Halabi
3. Muhammad bin Muslim did not mention the name of the Imam as his source, but the narration was the same as the narration from Hammad or Halabi
4. The content of Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub's narration is the same as that of Halabi
5. There are two narrations from Hammad bin 'Uthman from Halabi, one with the phrase from Ali ibn Abu Talib: "I do not allow", and one "it is not allowed"
6. In 'Abd Allah bin Sannan's narration, the term "Muhammad bin 'Isa from Yunus" is mentioned, and this is not an accepted chain based on Shaykh Saduq relating from his teacher Muhammad bin Hasan bin Walid that he did not accept this chain (refer to Maamqani, Tanqih al-Muqal 3:167, Number 11211).

Taking these 6 into consideration, it seems that all the narrations are pointing to the same thing, and it is our aim to find out what that is. The difference between "I do not allow" and "is not allowed" is important, but only one of them can be what the Imam intended. And whenever Jafar al-Sadiq mentions "from Ali ibn Abu Talib who said", he uses the phrase "I do not allow". It thus seems likely that the narrators might have narrated this sentence by what they thought it meant i.e. "it is not allowed" rather than "I do not allow".

Regardless, even if this is not accepted, there are two possibilities: "I do not allow" and "is not allowed", and whenever there are two differing narrations, you must take what is common between them (when they are both as reliable...etc.) to try and resolve this apparent contradiction.

"I do not allow" - means it is not allowed for that time as the Imam did not allow it*
"It is not allowed" - means that it is not allowed for all time

The common/joint meaning is that it is not allowed for that time (think of it as a Venn diagram with the circle representing the first phrase entirely inside the second).

(*e.g. in Wasa`il al-Shi'a, Volume 1, Page 457, Book of Ritual Purity, Chapters on Wudu, Chapter 38, Hadith 1: Zurara asked Imam about Taqiyya about wiping your sandals and Jafar al-Sadiq replied: "I do not do Taqiyya in 3 things: drinking wine, wiping my sandals, and Mut'a of Hajj". What is clear from the hadith is that the Imam is not saying NOBODY can do taqiyya on those things, just that HE in particular does not)

There might have thus been specific conditions at the time of Imam Ali that pushed him specifically to not allow women's testimony when it comes to sighting the crescent. Thus Saanei reaches the result that we cannot place any credence to the ruling that women's testimony does not ever count with regards to sighting the moon.

He notes also (again) that based on custom and what the rational person would think, there is no difference between the testimony of a man and a woman as the goal is confirming that the moon is actually seen. This is confirmed by his explanation of the Qur`anic verse:

"And seek two witnesses to testify from your men" (2:282) when it comes to debts. Why did God mention "from your men"? Because normally, without that phrase, it would be obvious based on the rational person's understanding that there is no difference between men and women when it comes to testimony. In this case, God wants to make clear that there is a difference in this case for an external reason, which is shown by the next phrase: "If you do not have two men, then a man and two women" (2:282). Therefore, whenever something is mentioned by God or the Prophet/Imams that is against what the rational person would think, he would explain it by giving external evidence. So in this verse, God is saying that the rational person's general understanding (in this time and context) is not applicable when it comes to debts.

Thus in this context, God has not said the rational person's general understanding is not applicable so we have two apparently contradictory sources:
1. The narrations that are above concerning (at the minimum) women's testimony not being applicable when it comes to Ramadan and Shawwal (at that time or all time)
2. The law and rational person's understanding that there is no difference between men and women's testimony when it comes to seeing the crescent because what matters is that they are just people who actually saw the crescent and not their gender

Therefore, taking the narrations at face value, given the second point does not make sense, and we have to realise that as there is no reason mentioned anywhere (like there was with the debts - forgetfulness and carelessness, refer to previous blogs), the value of both's testimony must be equal.

[the problem with this, however, is that one may argue that God has explained that rational person's general understanding is not applicable through the Prophet/Imams in the narrations!]

Having discussed the Quran and Hadith, Ayatullah Saanei then moves onto consensus. Consensus (Ijma') is often used as a strong piece of evidence to suggest that something is correct, as if all the scholars believe something to be true, then that (assuming there is no other information e.g. they are all taught by one scholar...etc.) is a good reason to suggest that their opinion is correct, as they are all independently coming to a decision using the sources at their disposal.

Najafi, for example, in his book Jawahir al-Kalam (12:363) says: "Similarly the testimony of women does not count independently of men, and this is true by Ijma' and using the texts".

However, Saanei (as in the earlier chapter and in an earlier blog) explains that in Shi'i Fiqh, Ijma' is not an independent source, especially when there are narrations and practices of the Prophet. This is because the Ijma' might have come from the narrations, in which case, it is not an independent source of evidence.


So overall:
1. There is no Qur`anic verse directly relevant
2. Ijma' is inapplicable here as there are narrations
3. The narrations, when studied in depth, show that perhaps the inadmissability of women's testimony in the field of sighting the moon in Ramadan and Shawwal at the time of Imam Ali, but that is as far as it goes, and is unlikely to be applicable now as there is no evidence to suggest that
4. The general view of a rational person that the goal of testimony is to find out whether the crescent was there or not, so the gender is irrelevant. This last point can be cancelled if there is any strong evidence that can be relied on, which there is not here.

Therefore, women's testimony is equal to men's (even) on the topic of sighting the moon.

The rest of Saanei's book (we have reached P109 out of 242) is split:

1. Topics such as Women's testimony in Divorce, Marriage, Breastfeeding, Murder

2. A chapter on the general rule of not accepting the testimony of women

3. Equality of the testimony of men and women in terms of number - study and analysis

4. ًWomen's testimony as evidence for hudud punishments

I have not read these yet but I think that there may be a lot of repetitition in terms of methodology so I will only mention interesting (and new) ideas/thoughts. My guess is that Saanei will say everywhere that women's testimony is equal to man's.....but we shall see!

Following this, I think the next steps will be:
- Maybe other books by Ayatullah Saanei?
- Use Ayatullah Khui's major work on Istidlal (extracting rulings from the sources) to show another one or two examples of how he specifically has extracted certain rulings. (if you have any preferences on this, please get in touch)
- Use Ayatullah Fadlallah's work on Istidlal on some topics to show how he has done so in other rulings.
- I am unaware of any Istidlal work by Ayatullah Seestani but his work is likely to be very similar to Ayatullah Khui in methodology
- Alternatively, I think I might move focus onto Ilm al-Rijal and Usul al-Fiqh to just develop the grounding for further work...

From these, the aim is that the reader should have a good overall understanding as to how rulings are extracted. There will be details that are not known but these can be picked up at later stages. Following this, I think we can focus on summarising developments from the email group:

"I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me...."

Women and the Moon (3)

You probably have to read previous blog - otherwise this won't make much sense!

Firstly, Saanei notes that most narrations in both groups are only to do with sighting the moon of Ramadan and Shawwal (as they mention fasting or ending fasting), and therefore, not necessarily valid for other months.

Therefore, due to the absence of any impermissibility in other areas, women's testimony would be accepted in other matters such as when a debt is completed. For example, if two women testify that this day is the 1st of Ramadan, someone can say that their debt is over (where applicable).

This is with the exception of 4 narrations (Wasa`il al-Shi'a, Volume 10, Page 287-9, Book of Fasting, Chapters on the rules of the Month of Ramadan, Chapter 11, Hadith 3, 7, 8, 9) like the authenticated tradition from Hammad bin Uthman from Halabi: "women's testimony is not accepted when it comes to sighting the crescent; only two just men's testimony [is accepted]" and that of Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub who said: "I only allow two men [when it comes to testimony] with regards to divorce and [sighting] the crescent." And these four by themselves imply that women's testimony does not count in any month.

If, however, these narrations were put together with the majority of traditions, some of which are mentioned in the previous blog, then we have an apparent contradiction:

- Majority of traditions which talk only about Ramadan and Shawwal
- These 4 which talk about all months

In general, in such situations, scholars try and resolve the contradiction by finding a way of accepting both sets of traditions. Here, this could be that what is actually meant in these 4 when it says "sighting the crescent" is sighting the crescent of Ramadan or Shawwal. This idea of solving an apparent contradiction in narrations by using one group (here the majority) to explain the other (the 4), is a very common tool used amongst scholars in Usul al-Fiqh when they are deducing rulings.

Some may believe that this does not work
(And perhaps there is a point here - one may argue that the reason for the majority of traditions being about Ramadan and Shawwal, is because they are the most important months.)

To them, there is another argument. When there are a majority of narrations that only say women's testimony is not acceptable in Ramadan and Shawwal, and a minority which say that it is not ever acceptable when sighting the moon, then there is a possibility that this second group could be not true. Therefore, we come to the famous rule: "If possibility [i.e. not certainty] enters [the mind], then any deduction [using them] is invalid" (the Arabic is more poetic: فإذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال).

From this, we can say that this discussion of women and the moon is nothing to do with being a woman or women's rights and not accepting their testimony (if this is the case), is something specific when it comes to fasting. Even for two just men testifying about seeing the crescent, there are extra conditions that are not normally relevant when it comes to testimony in general such as they should be outside the town (if being inside would prevent them seeing the moon) or they should be people who in general enter and leave the city (there are traditions indicating this). Therefore, it is clearly not to do with their inferiority...etc. but to do with the specificity of sighting the moon being special.

Women and the moon (2)

Saanei begins by noting that on this topic: "Women's testimony when it comes to sighting the moon", there is no Qur`anic verse used by any Shii or Sunni scholar when deriving the ruling about the lack of value to women's testimony. So the main discussion is on narrations from the Prophet or Imam. There are two groups of narrations:

1. Those that say that it is enough to have two just people, and there is no specific indication about whether the witness should be male or female.
2. Those that specifically say that only two just males are allowed as witnesses when it comes to sighting the crescent


Group 1 - No specific disregard for women's testimony when it comes to sighting the moon

1. A hadith whose chain of narration is authenticated, narrated from Mansur bin Hazim from Jafar al-Sadiq: "[Start] Fast[ing] when the crescent is sighted, and stop fasting when it is seen; if two satisfactory witnesses, testify [they have seen it] in front of you, then accept it because they have seen it" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 253, Book of Fasting, Chapters on the Rules of Month of Ramadan, Chapter 3, Hadith 8)

2. A narration from Zayd bin Shahham from Jafar al-Sadiq: "...Only if evidence of just people reaches you, if they witness that they have seen the crescent before that, then accept that day" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 262, Chapter 5, Hadith 4)

3. A narration from Muhammad bin Qays from Muhammad al-Baqir, who said: "if two witnensses testified to the Imam that they saw the crescent 30 days earlier, the Imam said that it was the end of fasting" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 275, Chapter 6, Hadith 1)

There are many others but I do not think it adds much to our discussion (if you would like references, please email me).

The common understanding by any rational person reading such narrations is that you can rely on a testimony if the person is "just" or "satisfactory".

Some may say that these narrations refer to men, but even in such cases the reason is not that they are men but they are just or satisfactory in their testimony, in which case women are not excluded.

But the thing that Saanei finds very important to point out is that: " 'Aalim" (scholar), " 'Aadil" (just person) and similar terms, are more general than masculine or feminine, and the importance of these terms are their meaning at their core i.e. a scholar is a scholar due to his knowledge; a just person is just due to his justice...etc., and this is not to do with their inherent masculinity in any sense.

Group 2 - Specific mention of women's testimony not counting when it comes to sighting the moon

This will obviously be the focus of the discussion and a few of them are:

1. A hadith whose chain of narration is authenticated, narrated from Halabi from Jafar al-Sadiq that Ali bin Abu Talib said: "I only allow two just men's testimony when concerning [sighting] the crescent" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 286, Chapter 11, Hadith 1)

2. A narration from Hammad bin Uthman from Jafar al-Sadiq from Ali bin Abu Talib: "The testimony of women is not accepted when it comes to the crescent; and only two just men's testimony is allowed" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 288, Chapter 6, Hadith 8)

3. A narration from Shu'ayb bin Ya'qub from Jafar al-Sadiq from his father, from Ali ibn Abu Talib: "I only allow two men's testimony when it comes to [testifying about] divorce and [seeing the] crescent" (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 289, Chapter 6, Hadith 9)

4. A narration from Muhammad bin Muslim: 'He said: "the testimony of women is not allowed with regards to [sighting] the crescent, or when it comes to divorce" and I asked him about women - is their testimony [ever] accepted. He said: "yes, when it comes to determining virginity and after birth"'. (Wasa-`il al-Shi'a, volume 10, Page 289, Chapter 6, Hadith 9). Although this does not mention who it comes from, the nature of Muhammad bin Muslim is such that he always narrated from one of the Imams so that is not a problem here.

[I included this narration mainly to show how scholars sometimes accept narrations even when the Imam's name is not mentioned - normally they do not, but for specific people, who are known to only narrate from trustworthy people, they are accepted]

This should give an insight into the main narrations on this topic. In the next blog, we will discuss Saanei's critique.

Women and the moon

Ok...so now I'm back from America and I'm going to move onto the next chapter of Saanei's book: "The testimony of women in sighting the crescent".

The main value for me in discussing this part of the book is threefold:
1. Reinforce the methodology of Saanei in a (slightly) different context
2. Topical (as the moon issue will undoubtedly rear its head again as Eid is coming again!)
3. It's the next chapter of the book!

The potential problem here is that there are riwayaat (reports from the Prophet/Imams), and consequently fatawa (religious rulings) that give no value at all to women's testimony in this field.

For example, there is a sahih (chain is authenticated) hadith from Jaffar al-Sadiq (reported by Hammad bin Uthman in Jawahir al-Kalam [apologies for lack of lines in transliteration], Page 355, Hadith 17):

"The testimony of women is not accepted concerning the sighting of the crescent, and only two just men's testimony are accepted."

However, there is one hadith that Najafi (the author of Jawahir al-Kalam) includes and that is of Dawud bin Hasin from Jaffar al-Sadiq (Page 361, Hadith 36), which says:

"The testimony of women is not allowed for Eid al-Fitr - only two just men [are allowed]. [But] there is no problem of women's testminoy when it comes to the [first] fast, even if it is just one woman"


Because of this apparent contradiction, there are three opinions in this regard:

1. The testimony of two just men is sufficient (prevalent opinion amongst scholars)
2. The testimony of two just men is not sufficient if there was something preventing them seeing the moon e.g. clouds/fog; but otherwise, it is sufficient (opinoin of Saduq, Tusi..)
3. The testimony of two just men does not count at all, as you cannot be sure of what they see exacfly (Muhaqqiq al-Hilli)


In terms of Shi'i scholars nowadays, I can quote:
1. Ayatullah Seestani: [Sighting the moon] "is not confirmed by the testimony of women" (Minhaj al-Salihin - http://www.najaf.org/arabic/book/1/, Book of Fasting, Confirming the moon is sighted number 1)
2. Ayatullah Fadlallah: "The testimony of women is not sufficient, even if they are just, unless you reach Itmi'nan*, then you can accept it, as reaching Itmi'nan itself by any method is sufficient..." (http://arabic.bayynat.org.lb/marjaa/fekhalshari3a-1.pdf, Page 384)
3. Ayatullah Khamanei: "The testimony of 4 women, or 2 women and one man...is not counted with regards to confirming the sighting of the moon" (http://www.leader.ir/tree/index.php?catid=13, Book of Fasting, Method of confirming the crescent's sighting for Ramadan and Shawwal, Issue 3)

*Itmi'nan is a term used to basically mean "peace of mind". Some try and say it is 90%+ certainty but I think that peace of mind is sufficient in this regard.

As a side point, it is important to note that Fadlallah here is not accepting women's testimony but he is saying that reaching peace of mind is enough by any means (he includes calculations as a possibility here).

Saanei then goes on to discuss the methods used by the scholars to reach this conclusion and critiques it....which will be the next blog!


Finally, (I am going to put this at the bottom of every few posts now!) I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me....

Contextualising the Qur`an within the Qur`an

"Contextualising the Qur`an within the Qur`an"

A very nice one-line summary of Saanei's methodology - provided by a friend but also just to clarify - as someone asked - this is fundamentally different and goes much further than "Commentary of the Qur`an with the Qur`an" (Tafsir al-Qur`an bi al-Qur`an - advocated by many including Tabatabai in his al-Mizan) for the following reasons:

1. It is not using verses of the Qur`an only to understand other verses; it is using the overall view and principles of the Qur`an

2. These principles can be used outside the Qur`an as equivalent to Qur`anic verses, when trying to explain something or propose a law to a new theory...

Couple of things to clarify

Sorry for the delay since the last blog - I am currently abroad on holiday!

Following discussions with a couple of friends, there are two main issues that I need to discuss before moving forward here....

This methodology of Saanei in this regard (using the Quranic worldview to supplement Quranic verses, over and above even sahih ahadith), although in line with many western liberal thinkers (as defined in an earlier blog), is not the only methodology that is worth discussing. There is also a strong movement to a philosophically-based principles approach to discerning the Islamic way of life. The advocates of this approach consider the approach of Saanei to still be too limiting in a growing world, and believe the Quran is a living, growing book, whose true inner meaning will only be discovered through developing independent rational and philsophical principles, that can and will grow with time. This approach similarly has many very powerful implications and I hope to discuss some of the thought in this viewpoint after giving the methodology of Saanei due service.

Secondly, I am in the process of creating an e-group, which will supplement this blog. The e-group is there specifcally to identify areas where the current methodology is failing and where it seems that the spirit of the Islamic way of life is being lost. Having identified several rulings, the aim will be to rationally consider possible alternatives, and scholars amongst the group will be there to put their point of view (whether they believe it is in line with their philosophical grounding). The ideal of course is to have a philosophical framework, which would feed this discussion, but even without it, the exercise is still useful as the thing that has not yet been done is think about these issues in a critical manner. Anyone interested in this - please just email me....