Akwai abubuwa uku. Biyu daga cikinsu an yarda da su, su ne tsawon lokaci da kaucewa ayyukan da ke karya azumi, yayin da na uku kuma ana sabani a kansa, shi ne furta niyya.

There are three elements. Two of them are agreed upon, and, these are duration and abstinence from acts breaking the fast, while the third is disputed, which is formulation of the intention.

Element na farko, wato tsawon lokaci, an raba shi zuwa nau'i biyu. Na farko shi ne lokacin wajibi, wato watan Ramadan, yayin da na biyu shi ne lokacin kamewa daga abubuwan da ke karya azumi, kuma wannan ya shafi lokacin rana na kwanakin wannan watan, don haka banda dare. Da kowane ɗayan waɗannan lokuta akwai muhimman batutuwa da malamai suka yi sabani a kansu. Za mu fara da waɗanda suka shafi lokacin wajibi. Na farko daga cikinsu shi ne ƙayyade iyakokin biyu na wannan lokaci. Na biyu ya shafi gano hanyar da ake samun sanin alamomin iyaka ga kowane mutum da kuma ga sararin sama daban-daban. Dangane da iyakokin biyu na lokacin (azumin wajibi), masana shari'a sun yarda cewa watan Larabawa yana tsawon kwana ashirin da tara, wani lokaci kuma talatin, kuma ma'aunin ƙayyade watan Ramadan shi ne ganin sabon wata, saboda faɗar Annabi (tsira da amincin Allah su tabbata a gare shi), "Ku yi azumi idan kun gan shi [wata], kuma ku karya azumi idan kun gan shi". Ganin nan yana nufin fitowar sabon wata a karon farko bayan faɗuwar rana. Sun yi sabani kan hukuncin lokacin da akwai abubuwan da ke ɓoye ganin wata su hana shi. Haka kuma sun yi jayayya game da lokacin da ya dace a duba sabon wata. Game da sabaninsu lokacin da wata ya ɓoye (a cikin gajimare), yawancin malamai sun tabbatar da cewa hukuncin a irin wannan yanayi shi ne a cika lokacin watan da ya gabata (Sha'aban), kwana talatin. Idan wata ya ɓoye a farkon wata (wanda ake tsammani), to a lissafa watan da ya gabace shi da kwana talatin. Don haka ranar farko ta Ramadan za ta kasance washegari. Idan wata ya ɓoye a ƙarshen wata (na Ramadan), mutane za su yi azumi kwana talatin. Ibn ʿUmar na da wata ra'ayi daban, wato, idan wata ya ɓoye a farkon watan Ramadan, to ranar da take bi, wacce ake kira Ranar Shakka, ana yin azumi a cikinta. An rawaito daga wasu daga cikin magabata (malaman fiqhu na farko) cewa idan wata ya ɓoye, sai a koma ga lissafin falaki, kuma wannan ita ce ra'ayin Mutarrif ibn al-Shikhkhir, ɗaya daga cikin manyan Tabi'un. A cikin riwayar Ibn Surayj daga al-Shafi'i, ya ce: "idan mutum ƙwararre ne a falaki, kuma bisa ga lissafinsa sabon wata zai iya ganuwa da ba don toshewar da ke tsakani ba, to yana iya (ya kamata ya) fara azumi, kuma azuminsa zai inganta."

The first element, which is duration, is divided into two kinds. The first is the period of obligation, which is the month of Ramadan, while the other is the period of abstinence from acts that break the fast, and this covers day-time of the the days of this month, thus, excluding the nights. To each of these periods are related fundamental issues over which they disagreed. We begin with those that relate to the period of the obligation. The first of these is the determination of the two ends of this period. The second relates to the identification of the method by which a knowledge of the limiting signs is attained with respect to each individual and to the various horizons. With respect to the two ends of the period (of obligatory fasting), the jurists agreed that the Arabic month spans over twenty-nine days that are sometimes thirty, and that the criterion for the determination of the month of Ramadan is the sighting of the new moon, because of the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Fast with its [the moon’s] sighting and break it with its sighting”. By sighting here is meant the first appearance of the new moon after the declining of the sun. They disagreed about the hukm when; there are factors that conceal sighting and make it impossible. They also disputed the proper time for sighting the new moon. As to their disagreement when the moon is concealed (in clouds), the majority maintain that the hukm in such a case is to complete the period of the preceding month (Shahan), thirty days. If the moon is concealed at the (probable) beginning of the month, the month before it is to be counted as having thirty days. Thus, the first day of the Ramadan would be the next day. If the moon is concealed at the end of the month (of Ramadan), the people will fast for thirty days. Ibn TJmar held a different opinion, that is, if the concealed moon is that of the beginning of the month of Ramadan, the next day which is called the Day of Doubt is to to be observed as a fast. It is related from some of the predecessors (early jurists) that if the moon is concealed recourse is to be had to astronomical calculation, and this is the opinion of Mutarrif ibn al-ShikhkhTr, one of the leading Tabi un. In a narration by Ibn Surayj c from al- Shafi T he said that c if a person is proficient in astronomy, and according to his calculation the new moon could be sighted had it not been for the obstruction he may (should) commence fasting and his fast would be valid.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga rashin cikakken bayani (ijmal) a fadin Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi), "Ku yi azumi idan kun ga wata, kuma ku sha azumi idan kun ga wata. Idan an boye muku shi, to ku yi kiyasi a kansa (fa yaqduru lahu)". Mafi yawan malamai sun tabbatar da cewa wannan na nufin "a cika kwanaki talatin". Wata kungiyar masana fiqhu sun ce ma'anar taqdir a nan shi ne a tsaida lokacinsa ta hanyar lissafi. Wasu daga cikinsu ma sun ce mumini ya tashi yana azumi, wanda shi ne ra'ayin Ibn 'Umar, kamar yadda muka ambata. Sai dai wannan fassara ta nesa ce. Mafi yawan malamai sun dauki fassararsu ne saboda ingantaccen hadisin Ibn 'Abbas cewa Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya ce, "Idan an boye muku shi, to ku cika kidayar kwanaki talatin". Hadisin farko, a cewarsu, ba shi da cikakken bayani, kuma wannan shi ne bayaninsa, don haka wajibi ne a fahimci abin da ba a yi bayaninsa ba ta hanyar bayaninsa. Wannan hanya ce wadda babu sabani a kanta tsakanin masana usul, domin babu wani rikici kwata-kwata tsakanin mujmal da mufassar. Ra'ayin mafi yawan malamai a kan wannan batu shi ne mafi gamsarwa, Allah ne mafi sani.

The reason for their disagreement arises from the lack of detail (ijmdl) in the saying of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), “Fast on sighting it and break the fast on sighting it. If it is concealed, make an assessment about it (fa yqduru lahu)”. The majority maintained that this means “complete the period of thirty days”. One group of jurists said that the meaning of taqdir here is to fix its time by reckoning. Some of them even said that the believer should wake up fasting, which is the opinion of Ibn TJmar, as we have mentioned. This, however, is a remote interpretation. The majority decided upon their interpretation due to the authentic tradition of Ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “If it is concealed from you, then, complete the count of thirty days”. The former (tradition) lacks detail (they said) and this is its explanation, thus, it is necessary to construe the unelaborated through its explanation. This is a method over which there is no dispute among the experts on usul, as there is in fact no conflict at all between the mujmal and the mufassar. The opinion of the majority on this point is more convincing, Allah knows best.

Sun'ancan rigimarsu game da lokacin ganin wata da ya halatta, da farko sun yarda cewa idan an ga wata da yamma, watan yana farawa ranar da za ta biyo baya (farawa bayan faɗuwar rana). Sun sabawa juna a lokacin da aka ga wata da rana a ranar ƙarshe ta Sha'aban, wato a karo na farko da aka gan shi. Ra'ayin mafi yawan malamai shi ne cewa idan an fara ganin wata da rana, to wata na ranar gobe ne, kamar yadda yake idan an gan shi da yamma. Wannan ra'ayi Malik, al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa da mafi yawan almajiransu suka riƙe. Abu Yusuf, almajirin Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri, da Ibn Habib, ɗaya daga cikin almajiran Malik, sun riƙe ra'ayin cewa idan an ga wata kafin rana ta karkata, yana na daren da ya gabata ne, amma idan an gan shi bayan rana ta karkata, yana na daren da ke tafe.

In their disagreement about the legitimate time of sighting, they first agreed that if it is sighted in the evening the month begins on the next day (starting after sunset). They disagreed when it was sighted during the daytime on the last day of Shahan, that is, the first time of its sighting. The opinion of the majority is that if the first sighting of the moon is during the day, it is the moon of the next day, just like its sighting in the evening. This opinion was held by Malik, al-Shafi T, Abu Hanifa, and the majority of c their disciples. Abu Yusuf, the disciple of Abu Hanifa, al-ThawrT, and Ibn Habib one of the disciples of Malik held that if the moon is sighted before the declining of the sun it belongs to the previous night, but if it is sighted after the declining of the sun it belongs to the coming night.

Sababin rashin jituwarsu shi ne barin amfani da gogewa, inda gogewa ke samar da mafita, da kuma komawa ga rahotanni a kan lamarin. Babu wata hadisi daga Annabi (tsira da amincin Allah su tabbata a gare shi) da za a koma gare shi a kan wannan lamari. Akwai, duk da haka, hadisai biyu daga Umar (Allah ya yarda da shi). Daya daga cikinsu na gabaɗaya ne, dayan kuma na bayani ne. Wasu mutane sun dogara ga rahoton gabaɗaya, yayin da wasu suka dogara ga na bayani. Rahoton mai ma'ana ta gabaɗaya al-A'mash ne ya ruwaito shi daga Abu Wa'il, ɗan'uwan Ibn Salama, wanda ya ce: "Wasika daga Umar ta zo mana, a lokacin da muke Khaniqayn, cewa wata yakan bayyana da girma daban-daban. Wani lokaci yana bayyana babba, wani lokaci kuma yana bayyana ƙarami. (Wasikar ta ce:) 'Idan kuka ga wata a lokacin rana, kada ku daina azumi har sai mutum biyu sun shaida cewa sun ga sabon wata a daren da ya gabata'." Hadisin da ma'anarsa ta musamman kuwa shi ne wanda al-Thawri ya ruwaito daga gare shi, cewa wani rahoto ya isa ga Umar cewa wasu mutane sun ga sabon wata bayan rana ta karkata, sai suka karya azumi. Ya rubuta musu yana tsawatar musu saboda haka, ya ce: "Idan kuka ga wata a rana kafin rana ta karkata, ku karya azumi, amma idan kun gan shi bayan rana ta karkata, kada ku karya shi."

The reason for their disagreement is the relinquishment of experience, where experience provides a way out, and having recourse instead to reports on the issue. There is no tradition on this issue from the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) to which recourse can be had. There are, however, two traditions from TJmar (God be pleased with him). One of them is general and the other is explanatory. One group relied upon the general report, while the other relied upon the explanatory. The report with the general implication is related by al-A<mash from Abu Wa’il, the brother of Ibn Salama, who said, “A letter from TJmar came to us, when we were at Khaniqayn that the crescent moon appears in different sizes. Sometimes it looks large and it may look small. (The letter said:) ‘If you sight the moon during day-time, do not stop fasting till two men testify that they have seen the new moon during the (previous) evening’”. The tradition with the particular implication* is what is related by al-ThawrT from him that a report reached TJmar that some people had sighted the new moon after the declining of the sun and had broken their fast. He wrote to them reprimanding them for it and said: “If you sight the moon during the day before the declining of the sun, break your fast, but if you see it after the declining of the sun do not break it”.

Alƙalin Alƙalai, Ibn Rushd, ya ce: "Abin da qiyas da gwaji suke nunawa shi ne cewa wata ba zai iya a gani ba muddin rana bata faɗi ba, sai dai idan yana nesa da ita, domin a wannan lokacin ya fi girman baka na gani, duk da cewa yana canzawa, yana ƙaruwa ko yana raguwa, amma ba zai yiwu ba, Allah ne mafi sani, ya zama babba har a iya ganinsa alhali rana bata faɗi ba tukuna. Mafi kyawun dogaro a wannan al'amari shi ne kan gwaji, kamar yadda muka faɗa. Babu bambanci a nan ko yana kafin rana ta karkata ko bayan ta karkata, abin da ya kamata a duba shi ne ɓacewar rana."

The QadT (Ibn Rushd) said: “What is dictated by analogy and experience is that the moon cannot be seen when the sun has not gone down, unless it is far away from it, for at that time it is greater than the arc of vision, though it varies growing greater or lesser, but it is unlikely, Allah knows best, to be so large as to be seen when the sun has not gone down yet. The best reliance in this matter is on experience, as we have said. There is no difference here whether it is before the declining of the sun or after it, and the thing to be considered is the disappearance of the sun”.

Game da sabanin da ke tsakaninsu kan ingancin ilimin ganin wata, akwai hanyoyi biyu a kan haka. Ɗaya daga cikinsu yana kan gani da hankali (fahimta), ɗayan kuma yana kan rahotanni. Malamai sun yarda cewa mutumin da shi kaɗai ya ga watan wajibi ne ya yi azumi, sai dai Ibn Abi Rabah, wanda ya ce ba zai yi azumi ba sai wani mutum banda shi ya ga watan shi ma. Sun yi sabani kan ko zai iya daina azumi bisa ganinsa da kansa. Malik, Abu Hanifa, da Ahmad sun ce bai kamata ya daina azumi ba. Al-Shafi'i ya ce zai iya daina azumi, kuma haka ra'ayin Abu Thawr ya ke. Wannan sabani ba shi da ma'ana, domin Annabi (ﷺ) ya sanya yin azumi da karya azumi su dogara ga ganin wata, kuma ganin wata yana ta hanyar fahimta. Idan da ba a yi ijma'i ba kan yin azumi bisa rahoton ganin wata, saboda zahirin wannan hadisi, to sanya wajibcin azumi bisa rahotanni zai zama abin nesa da hankali. Waɗanda suka bambanta tsakanin watan farawar azumi da na karya azumi, sun yi haka ne domin hana da'awar ƙarya da masu yaudara za su iya yi, waɗanda za su daina azumi ba bisa ka'ida ba, suna cewa sun ga wata alhali kuwa ba su gani ba. Saboda haka Al-Shafi'i ya ce idan ya ji tsoron zargi, ya kamata ya guji ci da sha ya ɗauki kansa a matsayin wanda ya daina azumi. Malik ya saɓa da wannan ya ce duk wanda ya ga wata shi kaɗai ya karya azumi, to ya wajaba a kansa ƙadha da kuma kaffara. Abu Hanifa kuwa ya ce ya wajaba a kansa ƙadha kawai.

As far as their disagreement about the legitimate knowledge of sighting is concerned, there are two methods for it. One of these is based upon the senses (perception) and the other upon reports. The jurists agreed that a person, who alone sights the moon, is under an obligation to fast, except for (A|3? ibn AbT Rabah, who said that he is not to fast unless another person besides him has sighted it too. They disagreed about whether he can stop fasting on the basis of his own sighting. Malik, Abu HanTfa, and Ahmad held that he is not to cease fasting. Al-Shafi T said that he c is to stop fasting, and this was also the opinion of Abu Thawr. This dispute has no meaning, as the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) made fasting and breaking the fast dependent upon sighting, and sighting is by perception. Had there been no consensus about fasting on the basis of a report of sighting, because of the apparent meaning of this tradition, the imposition of an obligation of fasting on the basis of reports would be far-fetched. Those who made a distinction between the moon of fasting and that of terminating the fast did so for the prevention of improper claims that may be made falsely by the devious, who may cease fasting illegitimately, claiming they have seen the moon when in actual fact they have not. Al-Shafi<T, therefore, said that if he fears accusations he should abstain from eating and drinking and consider himself as having ceased fasting. Malik deviated from this and said that the person who sights the moon alone and breaks his fast is liable to qada* as well as expiation. Abu HanTfa said that he is only liable for qadtf.

Sun sami sabani game da wasu batutuwa masu alaƙa da rahoton ganin wata. Da farko, sun yi sabani game da adadin masu ba da rahoto waɗanda dole ne a karɓi rahotonsu, sannan kuma game da cancantarsu. Malik ya ce ba a halatta a fara azumi ko a daina azumi bisa shaidar ƙasa da mutum biyu amintattu. Al-Shafi'i, a cikin riwayar al-Muzani, ya ce ana fara azumi bisa shaidar mutum ɗaya game da ganin wata, amma ba a daina azumi da shaidar ƙasa da mutum biyu. Abu Hanifa ya ce idan sama ta yi girgije, ana karɓar shaidar mutum ɗaya, amma idan sama ta share a babban birni, ba a karɓar shaida sai ta mutane masu yawa. An kuma riwaito daga gare shi cewa zai karɓi shaidar mutum biyu masu adalci idan sama ta share. An riwaito daga Malik cewa ba zai karɓi shaidar mashaidi biyu ba idan sama ta yi girgije. Sun yarda cewa domin karya azumi, shaidar ba za ta gaza mutum biyu ba, sai dai Abu Thawr, wanda bai bambanta tsakanin fara azumi da karya azumi ba, sabanin al-Shafi'i.

They disagreed regarding certain questions related to the report of moon sighting. First, over the number of reporters whose reports must be accepted, and then about their qualifications. Malik said that it is not permitted to commence fasting or to cease fasting on the testimony of less than two trustworthy men. Al-ShafiT, in a narration by al-MuzanT, said that fasting is to commence on the testimony of one man about sighting, but fasting is not to be stopped with the testimony of less than two men. Abu HanTfa said that if the sky is overcast the testimony of one person is accepted, but if it is clear in a large city only the testimony of a large number of persons is acceptable. It is also related from him that he would accept the testimony of two morally upright persons when the sky was clear. It is related from Malik that he would not accept the testimony of two witnesses when the sky was overcast. They agreed that for breaking the fast not less than two witnesses are acceptable, except for Abu Thawr who did not make a distinction between fasting and breaking the fast, unlike al-Shafi T.

Dalilin sabanin su ya samo asali ne daga rikicin hadisai a kan wannan batu, da kuma yadda hadisi ke jujjawa tsakanin shiga rukunin shaida da rukunin rashin adadin da aka kayyade (na masu shaida). Hadisan sun hada da abin da Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga Abdur-Rahman bn Zaid bn al-Khattab cewa ya yi jawabi ga mutane a ranar shakka, ya ce: "Na kasance ina zama tare da Sahabban Manzon Allah ﷺ, ina tambayarsu, dukkansu sun ruwaito mini cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: 'Ku fara azumi idan kun ga watan, ku daina azumi idan kun ga watan. Idan an boye muku shi, to ku cika kwanaki talatin. Idan shaidu biyu suka bayar da shaida (na ganin wata), to ku fara azumi ko ku daina azumi'." Haka kuma hadisin Ibn Abbas cewa ya ce: "Wani Balarabe ya zo wurin Annabi ﷺ ya ce: 'Na ga wata a daren nan.' Sai ya ce: 'Kana shaida cewa babu abin bautawa da gaskiya sai Allah, kuma Muhammadu bawansa ne kuma Manzonsa ne?' Ya ce: 'Eh.' Sai ya ce: 'Ya Bilal, ka sanar da mutane su yi azumi gobe'." Al-Tirmidhi ne ya rubuta shi, ya ce akwai sabani a kan isnadinsa, domin wata jama'a sun ruwaito shi a matsayin mursal. Akwai kuma hadisin Ribi bn Hirash (Hirash?).

c The reason for their disagreement stems from the conflict of traditions on the subject, and the vacillation of a tradition between falling under the category of testimony and the category conveying no stipulated number (for witnesses). The traditions include what has been related by Abu Dawud from cAbd al- Rahman ibn Zayd ibn al-Khattab that he addressed the people on a Day of Doubt and said, “I used to mix with the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and asked them, and all of them related to me that the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Commence fasting on sighting it and cease fasting on sighting it. If it is concealed from you, then, complete a period of thirty (days). If two witnesses render testimony (of sighting the moon), commence fasting or cease fasting’”. They also include the tradition of Ibn <Abbas that he said, “A Bedouin came up to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) and said, ‘I sighted the moon tonight.’ He said, ‘Do you testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his servant and messenger?’ He replied, ‘Yes’. He (the Prophet) said, ‘Bilal, announce to the people that they are to fast tomorrow’”. This is recorded by al-TirmidhT, who stated that there is a dispute about its isnad as a group has reported it as mursal. There is also the tradition of Rib T ibn Khirash (Hirash?)

c wannan da Abu Dawud ya ruwaito daga Ribʿī ibn Khirāsh, daga wani daga cikin Sahabbai, wanda ya ce: "Mutane suna azumi a ranar ƙarshe ta Ramadan, sai wasu Balarabe biyu suka tashi suka shaida wa Annabi ﷺ cewa sun ga wata da yamma ta jiya. Manzon Allah ﷺ ya umarci mutane su karya azumi, su kuma je wurin sallah."

c that is recorded by Abu Dawud from Rib€T ibn Khirash from one of the Companions of the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who said, “The people were fasting on the last day of Ramadan, when two Bedouins stood up and testified to the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) that they had sighted the moon the previous evening. The Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the people to break the fast and to go to the place of [ £/j prayer”.

Masana shari'a sun karɓi hanyoyin fifita ko hanyar sulhunta hadisai a waɗannan hadisai. Al-Shafi'i ya sulhunta hadisan Ibn Abbas da Rib'i ibn Khirash bisa ga ma'anoninsu na zahiri, don haka ya ɗauki farawar azumi a matsayin wajibi bisa shaidar mutum ɗaya, kuma ƙarewarsa bisa shaidar mutum biyu. Malik kuwa ya fifita hadisin Abdurrahman ibn Zayd bisa dalilin kiyas, wato ya ɗauke shi kamar shaida a sauran da'awoyi. Ya bayyana cewa Abu Thawr bai ga wani sabani tsakanin hadisin Ibn Abbas da na Rib'i ibn Khirash ba. Wannan saboda shi (Annabi ﷺ) ya yanke hukunci bisa shaidar mutum biyu kamar yadda hadisin Rib'i ibn Khirash ya nuna, kuma a hadisin Ibn Abbas ya yanke hukunci bisa shaidar mutum ɗaya. Wannan (in ji Abu Thawr) yana nuna halaccin dukkansu, ba cewa akwai sabani ba. Haka kuma babu wata alama da ke nuna cewa hukuncin na farko na farawar azumi ne kawai, na na biyu kuma na ƙarewarsa, domin irin wannan ra'ayi zai dogara ne akan zaton akwai sabani. Haka lamarin yake ga sabanin hadisan Abdurrahman ibn Zayd da Ibn Abbas, sai dai idan an yi da'awar sabani bisa ishara ta kai tsaye ta nassi, wanda hakan rauni ne domin nassi yana adawa da hakan. Don haka, muna ganin cewa ra'ayin Abu Thawr, duk da karkacewarsa daga ra'ayin mafi yawa, shi ne ya fi bayyana, duk kuwa da cewa kwatanta ganin wata da ruwaya ya fi kusanci da kwatanta ganin wata da shaida. Dalili kuwa shi ne: a cikin shaida, sanya adadi (na shaidu) ko dai shiriya ce daga wahayi, don haka ba za a iya yi masa fassara ta hankali ba, domin ba a halatta a yi kiyas daga gare shi ba; ko kuma ana iya cewa sanya adadin saboda rikicin shari'a da ke tare da da'awoyi, da shakkar da ke tattare da shaidar mutum daga wajen masu jayayya. Don haka, Ana buƙatar shaidu da yawa don hukunci ya zama mafi ƙarfi kuma karkatar zuciya zuwa ga da'awar ɗaya daga cikin masu ƙara ta ƙaru. Adadin bai wuce biyu ba domin gabatar da shaida kada ya zama mai wahala, don haka a ɓata da'awoyi. Babu wani shakku da ke tare da shi saboda abokin hamayya a al'amarin ganin wata, wanda zai sa a buƙaci a bayyana shi ta hanyar ƙara adadi.

c The jurists adopted the methods of preference or the method of reconciliation for these traditions. Al-Shaf^T reconciled the traditions of Ibn c Abbas and Rib<T ibn Khirash through their apparent meanings and, thus, deemed the commencement of fasting obligatory on the testimony of one person and its cessation on the testimony of two. Malik preferred the tradition of cAbd al-Rahman ibn Zayd on the basis of analogy, that is, holding it to be similar to testimony in other claims. It appears that Abu Thawr did not see a conflict between the traditions of Ibn cAbbas and that of RibT ibn Khirash. This is so as he (the Prophet) decided on the testimony of two witnesses according to the tradition of Rib<T ibn Khirash, and in the tradition of Ibn SAbbas he decided on the the testimony of one witness. This (Abu Thawr said) indicates the permissibility of both, and not that there is a conflict. Nor is there an indication that the decision in the first was specific to the commencement of fasting and that in the second to its cessation, for such an opinion would be based on the assumption of a conflict. The same appears to be true for the conflict between the traditions of cAbd al-Rahman ibn Zayd and Ibn Abbas, unless c the conflict is claimed on the basis of the indirect indication of the text, which is weak as the text opposes it. Thus, we see that the opinion of Abu Thawr, despite its deviation (from the majority view), is more evident, although comparing sighting to narration is closer than comparing sighting to testifying. The reason is that in testimony the stipulation of a number (for witnesses) may either be guidance by revelation, and thus it cannot be subjected to intellectual interpretation as it is not permitted to draw an analogy from it, or it may be said that the stipulation of number is due to the litigation that accompanies claims and the doubt that is associated with the testimony of a person by the litigants. Thus,. a multiplicity of witnesses is stipulated so that the conviction becomes predominant and the inclination toward the claims of one litigant is strengthened. The number did not go beyond two so that adducing evidence does not become difficult thereby vitiating claims. There is no accompanying doubt due to an opponent in the case of the sighting of the moon that should necessitate its clarification through an increase in number.

Yana da kama da al-Shafi'i ya bambanta tsakanin watan azumi da watan karshen azumi bisa dalilin shakkar da ke tattare da mutane wajen ganin watan karshen azumi, wadda ba ta cikin halin ganin watan azumi. Ra'ayin Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir ya yi daidai da ra'ayin Abu Thawr, kuma ina ganin shi ne ra'ayin Zahiriyyah ma. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir ya yi hujja da wannan hadisi wajen cewa an samu ijma'i a kan wajabcin karya azumi da daina ci bisa shaidar mutum daya. Don haka ya zama wajibi a yi hukunci iri daya ga shiga cikin wata da fita daga cikinsa, domin dukkansu alamomi ne masu raba lokacin rashin azumi da lokacin azumi.

It appears that al-ShaficT made a distinction between the moon of fasting and the moon of cessation of fasting on the basis of the suspicion that is associated with people in the sighting of the moon of cessation of fasting, but is not present in the case of the moon of fasting. The opinion of Abu Bakr ibn al- Mundhir is the same as the opinion of Abu Thawr, and I believe it is also that of the Zahirites. Abu Bakr ibn al-Mundhir argued on the basis of this tradition for the occurrence of a consensus for the obligation of breaking the fast and abstaining from eating on the testimony of one person. It therefore becomes necessary that the matter be the same for entering into the month and moving out of it, as both are signs separating the period of non-fasting from the period of fasting.

Idan muka ce ana ɗaukar ganin wata a matsayin wanda ya tabbata ga waɗanda ba su gani ba bisa hujjar rahoto, to shin wannan za a iya miƙa shi daga wata ƙasa zuwa wata? Ina nufin, shin wajibi ne ga mutanen wata yanki, idan ba su ga wata ba, su karɓi ganin da aka yi a wata ƙasa, ko kuwa ganin wata wajibi ne ga kowace ƙasa? Akwai saɓani a kan wannan. Ibn al-Qasim da malaman fiqhu na Masar (waɗanda ke bin Malik) sun ruwaito daga Malik cewa idan ya tabbata ga mutanen wani gari cewa mutanen wani garin sun ga wata, to suna da wajibci na qadha ga ranar da wasu suka yi azumi ko sallah a cikinta, wadda su kuma suka rasa. Wannan kuma ra'ayin al-Shafi'i da Ahmad ne. Malaman Madina sun ruwaito daga Malik cewa ganin wata bisa hujjar rahoto ba ya wajabta ga mutanen da ba sa zaune a ƙasar da aka yi ganin a cikinta, sai dai idan shugaba (imam) ya umarce mutane su yi haka. Wannan shi ne ra'ayin Ibn al-Majishun da al-Mughira daga cikin almajiran Malik. Sun yarda cewa wannan ba a la'akari da shi ga ƙasashen da suke nesa da juna, kamar al-Andalus da al-Hijaz.

If we say that sighting is established for those who have not sighted it on the basis of a report, then, can this be extended from one land to the other, I mean, is it obligatory upon the people in one region, if they have not sighted the moon, to adopt the sighting in another land, or is sighting necessary for every land? There is disagreement over this. Ibn al-Qasim and the Egyptian jurists (who follow Malik) have related from Malik that if it is established for the people of one town that the people in another have sighted the moon, they are under an obligation of qadffi for the day observed by others and missed by them. This was also the opinion of al-ShafiT and Ahmad. The Medinites have related from Malik that sighting on the basis of a report is not binding upon people not living in the land in which sighting occurred, unless the imam requires the people to do so. This was the opinion of Ibn al-Majishun and of al-MughTra from among the disciples of Malik. They agreed that this is not to be taken into account for lands distant from each other, like al-Andalus and al- Hijaz.

Sababin wannan sabani shi ne karo tsakanin hadisai da hankali. Hankali ya nuna cewa idan lokacin fitowar rana da taurari a ƙasashe daban-daban bai bambanta sosai ba, to wajibi ne a bi juna, domin ta hanyar hankali suna da sararin sama ɗaya. Amma idan bambancin ya yi yawa, to ba wajibi ba ne ga yanki ɗaya ya bi wani. Hadisin kuwa shi ne abin da Muslim ya riwaito daga Kurayb, cewa Umm al-Fadl 'yar al-Harith ta aike shi wurin Mu'awiya a Sham. Ya ce: "Na isa Sham, na aikata abin da ta umarce ni. Watan Ramadan ya zo mini ina cikin Sham, na ga wata a daren Juma'a. A ƙarshen wata na koma Madina, inda Abdullahi ɗan Abbas ya tambaye ni, ya ambaci wata, yana cewa: 'Yaushe kuka ga wata (a Sham)?' Na ce: 'Mun gan shi a daren Juma'a.' Ya ce: 'Ka gan shi da kanka?' Na ce: 'Eh, kuma mutane ma sun gani. Suka yi azumi, Mu'awiya ma ya yi azumi.' Ya ce: 'Amma mu mun gan shi a daren Asabar, kuma za mu ci gaba da azumi har sai mun cika kwana talatin ko mun ga wata.' Na ce: 'Ba ka ɗaukar azumin Mu'awiya a matsayin isasshe ba?' Ya amsa: 'A'a! Haka Manzon Allah ﷺ ya umarce mu.'" Ma'anar zahiri a cikin wannan hadisi tana nuna cewa kowace ƙasa, ko kusa ko nesa, dole ne ta ga wata. Sai dai bincike ya nuna akwai bambanci tsakanin ƙasashe masu nisa da waɗanda ke kusa, musamman waɗanda ke da nisa sosai ta fuskar tsawon wuri da faɗin wuri. Idan labarin ganin wata ya kai matakin tawatur, to babu buƙatar a tallafa masa da shaida. Waɗannan su ne batutuwan da suka shafi tsawon lokacin wajibi.

The reason for this disagreement comes from the conflict of traditions and reasoning. The reasoning is that if the timing of the rising of the sun and the stars in different lands does not differ very much, it is necessary that one should follow the other, as by reason they have the same horizon. If it does differ much, however, then it is not binding upon one region to follow the other. The tradition is what is related by Muslim from Kurayb that Umm al- Fadl bint al-Harith sent him to Mu^wiya in Syria. He said, "I reached Syria and did what she had required. The moon of Ramadan came upon me while I was in Syria, and I sighted it on the night before Friday. Near the end of the month I moved to Medina where cAbd Allah ibn cAbbas questioned me and then-mentioned the moon, saying, ‘When did you.sight the moon (in Syria)?’ I said, ‘We saw it on the night before Friday.’ He asked, ‘Did you, yourself, see it?’ I said, ‘Yes, and so did the people. They fasted and Mu^wiya fasted too’. He said, ‘But we sighted it on the night before Saturday, and we continue to fast till we either complete thirty days or sight it’. I said, ‘Do you not consider MuSiwiya’s fasting as sufficient?’ He replied, ‘No! This is what the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) ordered us to do’”. The apparent meaning in this tradition implies that each land, near or distant, must sight the moon. Investigation, however, reveals a difference between distant and near lands, especially those that are at a great distance in terms of longitude and latitude. If the report (about sighting) reaches the level of tawatur there is no need to support it with testimony' These, then, are the issues related to the duration of the obligation.

Game da batutuwan da suka shafi tsawon lokacin kamewa, sun amince cewa yana ƙarewa da faɗuwar rana, saboda maganar Maɗaukaki, "Sannan ku cika azumi har zuwa dare."213 Sun sabama game da lokacin farawarsa. Mafi yawa sun ce yana farawa ne da bayyanar alfijir na biyu, farin layi (sararin sama), bayyanar haske na gaskiya na safiya, saboda an tabbatar daga Manzon Allah ﷺ, wanda ya bayyana shi da farin layi mai yaɗuwa, kuma saboda maganar Maɗaukaki, "Ku ci ku sha har sai farin zare ya bayyana a gare ku daga baƙin zaren alfijir."214 Wata ƙungiya ta karkata tana cewa shi ne jan alfijir da ke bayyana bayan fari, kuma kwafi ne na jan magariba (hasken faɗuwar rana). An riwaito wannan daga Hudhaifa da Ibn Mas'ud.

On the issues related to the duration of abstinence they agreed that it is terminated by the setting of the sun, because of the words of the Exalted, “Then strictly observe the fast till nightfall”.213 They disagreed about the time of its commencement. The majority said that it is at the appearance of the second dawn, the white line (horizon), the appearance of the true morning twilight, because it is established from the Messenger of Allah (God’s peace and blessings be upon him), who defined it as the spreading white line (horizon), and also because of the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white .thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn”.214 One group deviated saying that it is the red dawn that appears after the white and it is a replica of the red dusk (the evening twilight). This is related from Hudhayfa and Ibn Mas ud.

Dalilin sabani ya samo asali ne daga karon hadisai game da wannan mas'ala, da kuma ma'anar kalmar "alfijir" wadda ake amfani da ita wajen nufin ko dai farar alfijir ko kuma ja. Hadisan da suka dogara da su wajen muhawara sun hada da hadisin Zarr daga Abu Hudhayfa, wanda ya ce: "Na ci abinci tare da Manzon Allah ﷺ kafin wayewar gari, kuma da na so zan iya cewa rana ce, amma rana ba ta fito ba tukuna." Abu Dawud ya rawaito daga Qays ibn Talq daga mahaifinsa cewa Manzon Allah ﷺ ya ce: "Ku ci ku sha, kada farin hasken da ke tashi ya tsoratar da ku. Ku ci ku sha, har sai kun ga jan hasken yana yaduwa [a sararin sama]." Abu Dawud ya ce wannan hadisi mutanen Yamama ne kadai suka rawaito shi, kuma wannan karkacewa ce, domin fadin Mai girma da daukaka: "Ku ci ku sha har sai farin zaren ya bayyana muku," [Al-Qur'ani, 2:187] yana bayyana a sarari, ko kusan a sarari, a cikin wannan. Wadanda suka ce layin farin alfijir mai yaduwa ne, kuma su ne mafi yawa, wadanda kuma suke kan hujja mafi karfi, sun sabawa juna game da iyakar daina ci da sha da makamantansu. Wata kungiyar malamai sun ce, shi ne fitowar alfijir da kanta. Wata kungiyar kuma ta ce, shi ne sanin mai kallonsa da shi. Idan bai san da shi ba, to kiyaye dokar hani ba wajibi ba ne a kansa, ko da kuwa alfijir ya riga ya bayyana. Muhimmancin wannan banbanci shi ne, idan mutum ya gano cewa alfijir ya riga ya bayyana kafin ya san da shi, to, bisa ga wadanda iyakar ita ce fitowar alfijir da kanta, yana cikin wajibcin ramako (qadha). Wadanda suke ganin iyakar ita ce sanin mutum da shi, sun ce ramako ba wajibi ba ne a kansa.

c The reason for disagreement emanates from the conflict of traditions oh the issue and the equivocality of the term “dawn”, that is, it is applied to mean either the white or the red. The traditions on the basis of which they argued include the tradition of Zarr from Abu Hudhayfa, who said, “I had meals with* the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) before daybreak, and had I liked I could have said it was daytime, yet the sun had not risen”. Abu Dawud had recorded from Qays ibn Talq from his father that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Eat and drink, and let not the rising white light intimidate you. Eat and drink, until you see the red light spreading across [the horizon]”. Abu Dawud stated that this tradition was narrated by the people of Yamama alone, and this is deviation, for the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you”,215 Qur The are explicit, or almost explicit, in this. Those who held that it is the spreading white line of the dawn, and these are the majority, who are on firmer ground, disagreed about the exact limit for abstention from such things as eating (and drinking). A group of jurists said that it is the breaking of the dawn in itself. Another group said that it is its awareness for the person looking at it. If he does not become aware of it, then, observance of abstention is not obligatory, even if it is already daybreak. The significance of the, distinction is that if the person discovers that .it was daybreak before he became ,aware of it, then, according to those for whom.the limit is the break of the dawn itself, he is liable for qadd*. Those who consider the limit to be the person’s own awareness of it, hold that qadd is not obligatory for him.

Rigar da ake yi a kan wannan ta samo asali ne daga yiwuwar fassarori na kalmomin Mai Girma da Ɗaukaka: "Ku ci kuma ku sha har sai zaren fari ya bayyana a gare ku daga zaren baƙi na alfijir". Shin kamewa (azumi) yana farawa ne lokacin da bambancin ya bayyana ga mutum, ko kuwa da zarar abin ya faru a zahiri? Larabawa suna amfani da wannan kalma a ma'anar alama (majazi) domin nuna faruwar wani abu da ke biye da wani. Don haka kamar an ce: "Ku ci kuma ku sha har sai zaren fari ya bayyana a gare ku daga zaren baƙi". Idan abin ya bayyana a kansa, to ya bayyana a gare mu. Don haka, danganta bayyanarsa da mu shi ne dalilin takaddamar, domin yana iya kasancewa ya bayyana kuma ya bambanta a kansa, amma ba ya bayyana a gare mu ba. Ma'anar zahirin nassi tana sa kamewa ya haɗu da sanin ainihin lamarin, yayin da qiyas kuwa yana haɗa shi da ainihin abin da ke faruwa. Ina nufin qiyas da aka yi daga hukuncin sallar magariba da daga dukkan sauran ibadu masu iyakar lokaci, kamar sallar azahar wadda take farawa lokacin da rana ta karkata, da sauransu. Abin la'akari a duk waɗannan yana kasancewa ne a kan ainihin hakikanin lamarin kansa, ba a kan saninsa ba. Sanannen ra'ayin Malik, wanda kuma mafiya yawan malamai suke riƙe da shi, shi ne cewa aikata abubuwa kamar ci na iya ci gaba har zuwa farkon wayewar gari (alfijir). Sai dai an ce ya kamata a daina kafin alfijir. Hujjar ra'ayin farko ita ce abin da aka ruwaito a cikin Sahihin Bukhari, kuma ina ganin an ruwaito shi a wasu sigogin hadisin, cewa Annabi (tsira da aminci su tabbata a gare shi) ya ce: "Ku ci kuma ku sha har sai Ibn Umm Maktum ya yi kiran sallah (na alfijir), domin ba ya yin kiran sai dai idan alfijir ya riga ya fito". Wannan a bayyane yake kan wurin takaddamar, ko kusan a bayyane, kuma yana dacewa da kalmomin Mai Girma da Ɗaukaka: "Ku ci kuma ku sha har sai zaren fari ya bayyana a gare ku daga zaren baƙi na alfijir". 218 Waɗanda suka tabbatar da cewa hani (na azumi) ya fara kafin wayewar gari sun yi haka ne don taka tsantsan da kuma rufe hanyoyin keta haddi. Wannan ra'ayi ya fi tsaurin ra'ayi, amma ɗayan ya fi dacewa da ƙiyas, kuma Allah ne mafi sani.

The disagreement over this is caused by the possible interpretations of the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn”. Is abstinence to commence when the distinction becomes evident to the person or as soon as it actually happens? Arabs employ the .term figuratively for the occurrence of a phenomenon to denote another that follows it. It was thus as if it was said, “Eat and drink until the white thread becomes distinct to you from the black thread”. If it becomes evident in itself it becomes evident to us, thus, attributing its becoming evident to us is the reason for the dispute, because it may have become evident and distinct in itself and still not be evident to us. The. apparent meaning necessitates the linking of abstinence to actual knowledge, while analogy associates it with the actual fact. I mean, analogy drawn from the hukrn of the sunset prayer and from all the other religious obligations attached to time-limits, like the zuhr prayer starting at the declining of the sun, as well as others. The consideration in all of these is attached to the actual realities themselves, not to their knowledge. The well-known opinion from Malik, which is also held by the majority, is that engagement in acts like eating may go up the beginning of daybreak (dawn). It is said, however, that abstinence should be prior to dawn. The evidence for the first view is what is related in the Sahih of al-BukharT, and I believe in some versions of the tradition, that the Prophet (God’s peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Eat and drink until Ibn Umm Maktum makes the call [for the dawn prayer], for he does not make the call unless it is the break of the dawn”. This is explicit on the point of dispute, or almost explicit, and conforms with the words of the Exalted, “Eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the.black thread of the dawn”.218 Those who maintained that abstinence is to commence prior to the dawn did so as a precaution and for the prevention of means (to violation). This is a more conservative opinion, but the other is more in line with analogy, Allah knows best.

Sun yarjejeniya a kan cewa kauracewa abinci, abin sha da jima'i wajibi ne ga mai azumi a lokacin azumi, saboda maganar Mai girma da ɗaukaka: "Saboda haka ku sadu da su, kuma ku nemi abin da Allah ya wajabta muku, kuma ku ci kuma ku sha har sai fari ya bayyana a gare ku daga baƙi na asuba." Sun yi sabani a kan wannan game da al'amura, wasu daga cikinsu ba a bayyana su a cikin shari'a ba, wasu kuma an bayyana su. Waɗanda ba a bayyana su ba sun haɗa da batun abubuwan da ke shiga ciki amma ba abinci ba ne, da batun abubuwan da ke shiga ciki ta wata hanya banda hanyar abinci da abin sha, kamar allurar enema, da kuma matsalar abubuwan da ke shiga wasu sassan jiki banda ciki, kamar waɗanda ke shiga ƙwaƙwalwa amma ba su kai ga hanyar narkewar abinci ba.

They agreed that abstinence from food, drink, and sexual intercourse is obligatory, on the person fasting, during the period of the fast due to the words of the Exalted, “So hold intercourse with them and seek that which Allah hath ordained for you, and eat and drink until the white thread becometh distinct to you from the black thread of the dawn”. They differed in this over issues some of which are not expressly stated in the law while others are. Those that are not expressly stated include the question of things entering the stomach but are not food, that of things entering the stomach from other than the passage for food and drink, like enema, and the problem of things entering some parts of the body other than the stomach, like those entering the brain but not reaching the digestive tract.

Dalilin sabanin da ke tsakaninsu game da wadannan abubuwa ya samo asali ne daga kiyasin da aka yi da abinci ga abubuwan da ba abinci ba. Hakan ya faru ne saboda abubuwan da aka ambata a fili sun zama abinci. Wadanda suka yi tunanin cewa manufar azumi tana da ma'ana mai ma'ana (ta hankali) ba su hada abubuwan da ba abinci ba da abinci ba. Wadanda suka tabbatar da cewa ibada ce wadda ba ta da ma'ana ta hankali, kuma cewa manufar azumi kawai ita ce kaurace wa abubuwan da ke isa ga ciki, sun dauki abinci da abubuwan da ba abinci ba a matsayin abu daya (ga wannan manufa). Takaitaccen ra'ayoyin Malik shi ne cewa wajibi ne a kaurace wa abubuwan da ke isa ga makogwaro ta kowace hanya, ko sun kasance abinci ne ko ba abinci ba.

The reason for their disagreement over these things stems from the analogy drawn from food for those that are not food. This is so as things expressly mentioned are food. Those who thought that the purpose of fasting has a rational meaning did not link non-food with food. Those who maintained that it is a worship that does not have a rational meaning and that the aim of fasting is abstinence alone from things that reach the stomach held food and non-food to be the same (for this purpose). The summary of Malik’s opinions is that it is obligatory to abstain from Things that reach the gullet through any opening, whether they are food or non-food.

Bahasin niyya an tattauna shi ta fuskoki daban-daban. Waɗannan sun haɗa da ko niyya sharaɗi ne na ingancin wannan ibada, kuma idan sharaɗi ne, to wane irin ƙudiri ne ake ɗauka mai inganci? Haka kuma, shin sabunta ta kowace rana ta Ramadan wajibi ne, ko kuwa niyyar da aka bayyana a ranar farko ta isa? Idan mutum ya yi ƙuduri, menene lokacin wannan ƙuduri da yake sa azumi ya inganta, ta yadda idan ba a bayyana ta a wannan lokaci ba, azumin ya ɓaci? Shin rashin yin niyya yana wajabta karya azumi, kuma me za a ce idan mutum bai karya azumin ba? Malamai sun sha banban a kan kowace ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan tambayoyi. Ra'in mafi yawan malamai shi ne cewa niyya sharaɗi ce ga ingancin azumi, amma Zufar ya ɓace daga wannan ra'i, ya ce watan Ramadan ba ya buƙatar niyya, sai dai idan mutum yana da dalilin da zai kubuce daga wajibcin azumi, kamar kasancewa a tafiya, amma yana son yin azumi. Dalilin saɓanin su yana komawa ne ga tunaninsu game da yanayin azumi, ko ibada ce mai ma'ana ta hankali ko kuwa ba ta da irin wannan ma'ana. Waɗanda suka ce ibada ce wadda ba ta da manufar hankali sun sanya niyya wajibi, yayin da waɗanda suka ce ibada ce mai manufar hankali suka ce manufar tana cimmawa ko da mutum bai yi niyya ba. Iyakance wannan hujja da Zufar ya yi ga wasu nau'ukan azumi kawai yana da rauni. Da alama ya kafa ra'insa ne bisa dalilin cewa ba a halatta dakatar da azumi a cikin kwanakin Ramadan ba, kuma duk azumin da aka yi a cikin waɗannan kwanakin na wata yana cika wannan sigar azumin da aka wajabta, kuma wannan wani abu ne na musamman ga waɗannan kwanakin.

The discussion of intention is undertaken from different aspects. These include whether it is a condition for the validity of this worship, and if it is a condition, then, what kind of determination is considered valid? Further, whether its renewal every day of Ramadan is obligatory or is the intention expressed on the first day sufficient? If the subject makes the resolve, what is the time of this resolve that makes the fast valid, so that if it is not expressed at such time it is nullified? Does failure to form the intention necessitate breaking the fast, and what if the person does not break the fast? The jurists differed on each of these questions.The opinion of the majority of the jurists is that intention is a condition for the validity of the fast, but Zufar deviated and said that the month of Ramadan does not require intention, unless .the person happens to have reason to be relieved from the obligation of fasting, such as being on a journey, but wishes to fast. The reason for their disagreement stems from their notion about the nature of fasting whether it is a worship having a rational meaning or it has no such meaning. Those who maintained that it is a worship having no rational purpose made intention obligatory, while those who maintained that it is a worship with rational purpose said that the purpose is attained even if the person does not form an intention. The confining of this reasoning by Zufar to only some kinds of fasting presents some weakness. It appears that he formed his opinion on the grounds that it is not permitted to cease fasting during the days of Ramadan and that any fast kept during these days of the month fulfils this form of prescribed fasting, and this is something specific to these days.