Some people appear in a video clip to challenge the validity of Jordan's fasting, claiming that the crescent was two days old, and that the start of the fasting was based on a mistake. When his statement is reviewed, it becomes apparent that the issue does not rest on any official report or documented scientific evidence, but rather on personal speculation and individual analysis.
Therefore, I say, seeking help from Almighty Allah:
First: The basis for the judgment regarding the entry of the month of Ramadan is determined by a clear text, namely the sighting or completing thirty days of Sha'ban. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: Fast when you see it and break your fast when you see it; if it is obscured to you, then complete thirty days of Sha’ban. Thus, the legal reason which determines the ruling, whether present or absent, is the sighting or completion, not the astronomical age of the crescent. Accordingly, introducing "the age of the crescent" as an independent standard for validating or invalidating it is the creation of a criterion not indicated by any text or consensus.
Secondly: One of the fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence is that general legal rulings are based on visible, precise characteristics that all the accountable persons can perceive, not on hidden estimates or specialized calculations that are not carried out by the public. The sighting is a visible, precise characteristic, whereas calculating the age in hours and days is an arbitrary mathematical matter not originally set by the legislator as a basis for judgment.
Thirdly: The establishment of the month's beginning is dependent on the competent judicial authority that examines the testimonies and verifies them. Scholars have determined that a ruler's ruling resolves differences in matters of ijtihad (independent reasoning). Therefore, if the authorized body declares the month's confirmation through a legally valid method, the ruling is established and the people must comply with it, and individual, later speculations that contradict the public announcement are not considered.
Fourthly: Transitioning from personal speculation about the age of the crescent to declaring the invalidity of the fasting of an entire country is a leap that is not disciplined in terms of fundamentals, and it involves recklessness in issuing serious judgments that affect a significant collective worship, without substantial evidence or a correct method of deduction.
Lastly, I say that the statement that the fasting of the people is valid as long as it is proven by a legally valid method, whether by correct sighting or by completing the period, and it is not invalidated by individual analysis or speculation in a video clip. For, religion is not built on assumptions, nor are the worships of the community annulled by personal claims that do not rest on a considered legal foundation.
