Participant A: Global sighting is allowed.
Participant B: Why don't you pray Isha same time as Saudi? Do global Isha namaz.
Participant A: Because the moon has the same phase globally while the sun has a diff phase in a diff location. Simple.
Participant B: That is incorrect. Visibility is local, not global.
Participant A: Salah is based on shadow in locality or place of sun. The crescent is for the whole world.
Participant B: You are wrong. To see a new crescent it needs to be at a certain height and visibility at the local sunset to be seen.
Participant B: Let's just agree global sighting should not be allowed. Sightings should be region based.
Participant A: The analogy of moonsighting with local prayer times is a disanology. Two different criteria.
Participant B: Sure you would say that because you are wrong. The analogy is correct because both criteria rely on the observer's horizon and the relative position of a celestial body at sunset.
Participant A: OK then. If I see the moon in Birmingham can people Walsall follow that?
Participant B: It has to big regions like countries with borders, you are already advocating for global sightings why would you move to walsall birmingham distance? Be practical. No offence but I feel like you are not qualified for this debate, you are not giving factual information and you are running hypocrisy through your own points.
Participant A: So now you are saying a sighting per country. So if we see the moon in England it aint valid for France or Wales?
Participant B: Why are you wasting time? You are bickering over semantics whereas I said "like" countries as an example, not setting a rigid law.
Participant A: So what is the scope of validity? Region based.
Participant B: The scope is the Matla, using borders or countries is a practical way to manage this geographic reality.
Participant A: But the night covers half the globe so it should be valid for half the globe.
Participant B: That's scientifically incorrect. Just because it's night doesn't mean the moon has risen on your specific horizon. More importantly, your "half the globe" theory directly contradicts the Hadith of Kuraib (Sahih Muslim 1087). Sham and Madinah shared the same night, but Ibn Abbas rejected the sighting because the horizons were different. Are you saying Ibn Abbas was wrong?
Participant A: Then what is a Matla. What do you mean? You said no Arabic.
Participant B: I didn't say no Arabic, I said if you use Arabic words translation would be appreciated, but you require translation for Matla, I thought you knew Arabic?
Participant A: I want to know what you mean by Matla.
Participant B: More like you want to try to pivot the debate to more semantic traps.
Participant A: No. What is Matla?
Participant B: Matla is the rising point of the moon.
Participant A: So how do we determine up to where the sighting determines the new month?
Participant B: Why didn't Ibn Abbas accept the sighting from Sham? By your logic, the night covers half the globe, so it should have been valid for Madinah too?
Participant A: That was based on those times and communication being difficult. The travel between Makkah and Syria is by weeks. Witnesses couldn't relay the news and be scrutinised.
Participant B: If your half the globe theory is correct, Ibn Abbas was wrong to follow the prophets command. Are you prepared to say that? Then we will move on to your point about "based on those times".
Participant A: No. I am saying in times of lack of communication you go by local sighting. As Ibn Abbas did. But with modern communication you now go by global.
Participant B: I am talking about your statement "But the night covers half the globe so it should be valid for half the globe." Sham and Medina had the same night, so why was the sighting rejected?
Participant A: Sighting can be rejected due to 1 witnesses being unreliable 2 means of communication being invalid 3 jurists following local which is fine but global is fine too.
Participant B: You are making things up to protect your theory.
Ibn Abbas did not say Kuraib was unreliable. He accepted his testimony as fact but said it didn't apply to Madinah. Khuraib also said "and the people saw it and they fasted, and Mu"awiyah fasted."
You keep talking about communication, but communication only carries the news, it doesn't change the moon's position. Ibn Abbas had the news from Kuraib before the end of the month and he still said "No."
You claim "global is fine too" but Ibn Abbas said: "This is how the Messenger of Allah commanded us." That is a command (Amr), not an optional choice.
Participant A: With regard to Ibn Abbas, the report reached him later. When the sighting reaches late it doesn't apply as you just go by local. But with modern communication that issue is resolved. Imam Shafi took local sighting and Imam Abu Hanifah took the international sighting view.
Participant B: The news did not reach Ibn Abbas "late" in a way that made it irrelevant. Kuraib arrived before the 30th day was over in Madinah. If your theory were correct, the moment Kuraib delivered the news, Ibn Abbas would have said "Since I now have proof the moon was seen on Friday, we must break our fast today." Instead, he did the opposite.
Participant A: How long did it take to travel from Damascus to Makkah. Ibn Abbas was in Makkah not Madinah?. Re-read the report.
Participant A: It doesn't take a day to travel.
Participant B: You need to re-read the report yourself. Sahih Muslim 1087 explicitly says: "I then came back to Madinah at the end of the month."
Participant B: And where are you getting from that it took him a day to travel?
Participant A: Let me check. (By the way I am working while answering and on the motorway)
Participant A: When I get home I will check it with imam nawawi commentary
Participant A: Imam Nawawi says Ibn Abbas never accepted Kuraib is differed. Those ulama who said they follow global said its due to Kuraib being a single witness. Those who follow local sighting said due to distance.
Participant A: Hanbalis, Hanafis, Malikis, follow global position. Shafi's follow local (they have global position too). Muslims are free to follow what they want.
Participant B: You are just giving false information and running in circles, I already answered your single witness theory and stop making nawawi commentary up.
Participant A: I was on the road and didnt check the hadith. I said I will check Sharh Nawawi when I get home. I checked it. Imam Nawawi writes 2 things.
Participant A: I ain't against local sighting. I am saying there are two views and both are valid.
Participant B: You didn't start this by saying both views are valid. You started by telling me I was wrong and claiming my position was based on "slow communication."
Participant B: Now that I've proven Ibn Abbas had the news and still rejected it and that you got the location and the commentary wrong-you've shifted to "both are valid" because you have no other move left.
Participant B: You're supposed to be a hadith expert? Lol
Participant A: I aint making it up. Its in there. Check it
Participant A: These are ad hominems. If you want I can start that.
Participant B: You claimed the location was Makkah, the Hadith says Madinah. You claimed Ibn Abbas rejected it due to communication lag, the Hadith says he rejected it due to a Prophetic command. You claimed al-Nawawi supports your view, al-Nawawi's own chapter title says local sightings are not binding on distant lands.
Participant B: You are trying to use later legal debates to hide from a clear statement of a Sahabi
Participant A: No. I was saying you can't say international sighting is wrong.
Participant B: My point remains: Ibn Abbas didn't say "both are valid." He said "No" to the global sighting and cited a command of the Prophet as his reason. I am following the specific practice of the Sahaba and the clear text of the Hadith. If you want to follow a later legal interpretation, that's your choice, but don't claim it has more authority than a direct Prophetic command. We're done here
Participant A: Did you check what imam nawawi wrote?
Participant B: I have checked it, and the chapter title itself provides the conclusion: "Every land has its own sighting... it is not binding on those far away."
Participant A: I was on motorway and recalling the hadith from memory whether it was Makkah. Thats not a big deal.
Participant A: Then I went home and checked it. Read what Imam Nawawi writes.
Participant B: If you are actually looking at the text now, read the chapter title. It is not an interpretation; it is the definitive heading Imam al-Nawawi chose to summarise the ruling: "Every land has its own sighting, it is not binding on those far away." The fact that he mentions other debates in the footnotes doesn't change his primary conclusion. You can keep looking for "two interpretations" to avoid the truth, but the text is clear. Ibn Abbas followed the local sighting because it was a command of the Prophet, and al-Nawawi recorded it exactly that way. Stop trying to find excuses in a book that actually proves you wrong.
Participant A: Quote what Imam Nawawi writes if you can even read it. And check my claim at the begining. I say international sighting is valid but I never say local sighting is an invalid position. I wouldnt say that because unlike you I did fiqh for 30 years and with teachers. I think we are done.
Participant B: If you have been doing Fiqh for 30 years, you should know that a chapter title in a Hadith collection represents the author's legal conclusion.
Participant A: Nawawi takes 1 interpretathon and gives that chapter heading. But a minority Shafi group, all Hanafis, Malikis, and Hanbalis take the other interpretation of the hadith Ibn Abbas. Please read it.
Participant B: You are now hiding behind other schools because the primary text of the Hadith does not support your theory.
Imam al-Nawawi is a primary authority for the Shafi school. If he titled the chapter to say sightings are local and non-binding on distant lands, that is the official position of the school based on this Hadith. You cannot dismiss the author's own conclusion as just "one interpretation" when he explicitly labels it as the correct one (Al-Sahih).
The fact that other schools try to interpret the Hadith differently doesn't change what Ibn Abbas actually said and did. He was presented with proof of a Friday sighting and he rejected it, citing a command from the prophet.
By labeling it a "minority" view, you have finally admitted it is a valid, Hadith-based position. This kills your original claim that the local view was only due to "slow travel" or "communication lag" Ibn Abbas was told the news and still chose the local sighting because it was a command from the Prophet. 30 years of Fiqh cannot rewrite the clear words of a Sahabi. We are done.
Participant B: Also you did you did imply local sighting was invalid by claiming it was just a result of "slow communication" or "lag." By framing it as a logistical limitation rather than a Sunnah, you were dismissing its validity in the modern age. You only switched to "both are valid" once I proved Ibn Abbas rejected the news even though he got the new before the 30th fast. I am following the Hadith and the Sunnah, you are following a modern preference.
Participant A: Show me a single unequivocal statement where I state local is invalid. 2 You haven't made it clear whether international sighting is a valid position. 3 You havent quoted Imam Nawawi's comment on the Kurayb hadith.
Participant B: 30 years of Fiqh please read the above
Participant A: Can you read what Imam Nawawi wrote?
Participant B: 1. You claimed the Sunnah was just a result of "slow communication." That is a direct attempt to invalidate its religious authority by reducing it to a historical accident. 2. I am not here to validate your position. I am following the Sunnah of Ibn Abbas, who rejected international news because of a command from the Prophet. 3. Since you keep asking, here is the quote from Sharh Sahih Muslim (Vol 7, p 197): "The correct position (Al-Sahih) according to our companions is that the sighting does not apply generally to all people, but is specific to those at a distance where prayer is not shortened."
Participant A: Thats not the full quote.
Participant A: My statements you assert are from the point of view of the international sighting. The full quote of Nawawi will clarify that.
Participant B: It is the full legal conclusion. The fact that he mentions other opinions afterward does not change his verdict. In Shafi Fiqh, once the Imam says "The Correct Position (Al-Sahih) is...", that is the final relied-upon ruling of the school.
Participant A: Of that school, yes. But there is valid ikhtilaf and thus the other 3 take another interpretation of Ibn Abbas reasoning. I will send you screenshot.
Participant A: I am sending Imam Sharani quote too
Participant B: You just admitted I was right about the Shafi school. If you knew there was "valid ikhtilaf," you wouldn't have spent the last hour trying to "correct" me.
Participant B: I am not following the other three schools, I am following the Hadith of Ibn Abbas and the relied upon position of the school we were actually discussing.
Participant A: I corrected you on your claim that international sighting isn't allowed.
Participant A: Its fine to follow the athar of Ibn Abbas with either interpretation. Both are valid interpretation.
Participant A: That concludes our discussion. Thank you for your patience.
Participant B: You did not correct me; you conceded that my position is the Sahih one. You are now attempting to gracefully exit by calling both "valid" because the text of Imam al-Nawawi left you with no other choice. I am following the correct interpretation as defined by the school and the explicit command mentioned by Ibn Abbas. This concludes our discussion.