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...."