Q. 1. Is it
all right for me to follow the Jamia Mosque for Eid-ul-Adha celebration
although I do not agree with this decis- ion to celebrate it with Hajj
day in Saudi Arabia (i.e.next to Hajj day).
2. What is the true significance of the details given in the attached
brochure on the light of the Fiqh followed in different schools?
3. Does it agree with the decision taken by Fiqh council of Saudi
Arabia which has members from all over the Muslim world.
(A Canadian Muslim)
A. I have gone through the article enclosed with your letter and
published in the Newsletter of the Islamic Society of North America, Vol.2
No.2. With my utmost respect to the sentiments of muslim unity expressed
in the article, I am forced to say that the view explained in the article
is in total disagreement with the teachings of the Holy Quran, the Sunnah
of the Holy Prophet ( Sallaho Alaihai Wasallam ) and with the Shariah
position recognised throughout the countries. This is an unprecedented
view which has never been adopted by any of the Muslim Jurists during
the past 14 hundred years, and it has a number of intrinsic defects and
anomalies, some of which are summarized hereunder :
1. The article states that the celebration of Eid-ul-Fitr should
be tied up with the sighting of the moon in each relevant country and
should not be linked with the celebration of Eid-ul-Fitr in Saudi Arabia.
But at the same time the article argues for the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha
according to the Saudi Calender. In the first place, I am unable to understand
how this scheme work reasonably? Suppose, the American Muslims have declared
1st of July as 28th of Zulqa'dah according to their local sighting of
the moon. But the Saudi authorities have announced the same date to be
the first of Zulhijjah.
If the American Muslims follow the Saudi declaration, as proposed by Isna
in the said article, it will mean that the month of Zulqa'dah will and
up on the 27th or 28th day, which is an absurd position on the face of
it, because an Islamic month cannot have less than 29 days, as it is expressly
mentioned by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) in the well-known ahadith. The other
alternative possibility in such a situation would be to run the celendar
according to the Saudi calendar irrespective of the local dates. But this
option will be even worse, because it will mean that Eidul-Adha is being
celebrated in America on 8th or 9th of Zulhijjah and not on the 10th.
One can easily appriciate that this option is more un-acceptable than
the first one, because Eid-ul-Adha can only be celebrated on 10th of Zulhijjah.
It is thus clear that the theory proposed in the article is not practicable
in any way.
2. The article has laid much emphasis on the concept of the unity
of Muslim Ummah which cannot be denied by any one. But at the same time
one must appriciate that the unity does not mean that the whole Muslim
Ummah throughout the world should perform their acts of worship at one
time and at the same time, because it is not possible at all. It is evident
that when the people offer their fajr prayer in Saudi Arabia, the Muslims
of America offer their 'Isha prayer of the previous day, and when the
people offer their Fajr prayer in Los Angeles, the Muslims of Pakistan
and India offer their Maghrib or the 'Isha prayers of the same day.
If it is made obligatory on all the Muslims of the world to offer their
acts of worship at one time for the sake of unity, this type of unity
can never come into existence. It is, therefore, obvious that the difference
of time while offering acts of worship can in no way disturb the concept
of Muslim unity. What the concept of Muslim unity does actually mean is
that all the Muslims should treet each other with brotherly sympathy and
affection and should not spread disorder and dissension among them, nor
should they invent new ideas foreign to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah which
may divide the Muslims and raise quarrels between them.
It is also astonishing that the article takes the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha
in different days as against the concept of unity, while in the matter
of the celebration of Eidul Fitr this concept of unity is not applied.
It is not understandable that if the celebration of Eidul Fitr in different
days does not harm the concept of unity, how can it be said to harm the
unity in the case of Eid-ul-Adha?
3. It is true that the Eid-ul-Adha falls immediately after the
day of Arafat in Saudi Arabia, but it is not necessary that the Muslims
of every country should follow the same dates in their respective areas.
Hajj is, no doubt, tied up with a particular place, but the celebration
of Eid-ul-Adha is not confined to that place alone. It is celebrated everywhere
in the world. Therefore, it cannot be held as a celebration which should
in any case conform to the Saudi calendar, as suggested in the article.
4. It is admitted in article itself that the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha
in other countries was never linked with its celebration in Saudi Arabia
throughout the 14 centuries of our past. But, according to the author
of the article, it was due to the lac of communication between the countries,
because in the absence of telecommunication, the people living outside
Saudi Arabia could hardly know the exact date on which the Hajj was being
performed in Saudi Arabia. The author of the article argues that this
phenomena has totally changed with the progress of telecommunication and
other scientific resou- rces, and it is now known to everybody on what
date the Hajj is being performed in Arafat, therefore, the celebration
of Eid-ul-Adha can easily be tied up with its celebration in Saudi Arabia.
But this argument itself is a clear admission on the part of the author
to the effect that it is not obligatory according to the Holy Qur'an and
Sunnah to celebrate Eid-ul-Adha according to the Saudi Calendar. Had it
been so, the Muslims would have tried their best to know the exact date
of Hajj in Saudi Arabia. It is not correct to say that it was not possible
in those days for the people living outside Saudi Arabia to know the exact
date of Hajj, because the date of Hajj is normally determined on the very
first night of Zulhijjah, and the Hajj is performed after a period of
nine days was more than suffic- ient to acquire the correct information
about the exact date of Hajj. But no single jurist has ever stressed upon
collecting such information in order to celebrate Eid-ul-Adha according
to the dates of Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, if this argument of the author is accepted, and it is held that
the real intention of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah was to link the celebration
of Eid-ul-Adha with the Saudi dates, as a mandatory provision for all
the Muslims of the world, it will mean that the Shari'ah has stressed
on a principle which was not at all practicable for more than 1300 years.
Is it not against the Qur'anic declaration that Allah does not make a
thing mandatory unless it is practicable for the human beings?
If the author means to say that the celebration of Eid-ul-Adha was not
linked with the dates of Makkah in our past, but it has now become a mandatory
requirement of Shari'ah, then the question arises who has abrogated the
previous principle and on what basis? There is no provision in the Holy
Qur'an or in the Sunnah which orders the Muslims to celebrate Eid- ul-Adha
according to their local dates up to a particular time and to link it
with the dates of Makkah thereafter. Whoever considers this and similar
other questions arising out of this unprecedented theory advanced by the
author of the article can easily appreciate it fallacy.
At the end, I would like to inform you that the question of sighting of
the moon in each lunar month including Zulhijjah was thoroughly discussed
in the annual session of the Islamic Fiqh Academy (held in jordan between
11th and 16th October 1986) consisting of more than 100 outstanding scholars
of Shari'ah and the resolution adopted by the Academy has reco- mmended
all the Muslim countries to determine all the lunar months including Zilhijjah
on one basis (and not to have one basis for Eid-ul-Fitr and another for
Eid-ul-Adha). This resolution represents the consensus of the Muslim jurists
through- out the world. But the proposal given by the author off the article
is totally against this consensus.
Before parting with the subject, I would like to emphasize that such unprecedented
proposals can never advance the cause of Muslim unity, rather, they may
create a new point of disunity and dissension among the Muslims. Before
issuing such opinions as a definite 'fatwa' they should be discussed at
some reliable international forum of contemporary Muslim jurists like
International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah. I would propose to refer
this matter to the Academy and to wait for its answer before implementing
this proposal.
|