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.