Explanation of the Fifth Hadith: The Hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) who said: "The people looked for the new moon"

The Shaykh : Now, our hadith is the fifth one, and it clarifies how the new moon of Ramadan is established? Does the matter require a large number of witnesses, or is one just witness sufficient for that?
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says: And from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) who said: "The people looked for the new moon, so I informed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that I had seen it; so he fasted and ordered the people to fast." It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and authenticated by al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban.
This hadith is, in reality, one of the authentic hadiths, and it was authenticated by those mentioned by the author, al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban. However, it would have been preferable, from the hadith and terminological perspective, to mention Ibn Hibban before al-Hakim; because he said: "It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and authenticated by al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban." If he had reversed it and said: "It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and authenticated by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim," it would have been closer to hadith terminology in two respects. The first respect is that Ibn Hibban is of a higher rank; that is, he is earlier than al-Hakim in terms of era. The second respect is that the authentication by Ibn Hibban, despite the leniency in it that we mentioned in the previous lesson, is still cleaner than the authentication by al-Hakim; because what is said about al-Hakim's authentication is what we said yesterday about Ibn Hibban's authentication, plus something else; which is that al-Hakim not only authenticates hadiths in whose chains there are unknown narrators, but he goes beyond that to authenticating some hadiths in whose chains there are those accused of lying and fabrication regarding the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is something in which Ibn Hibban does not fall. Therefore, it is certain among the scholars of hadith that al-Hakim is more lenient in authentication than Ibn Hibban, and that "Sahih Ibn Hibban" is cleaner than "Sahih al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim." For what we have mentioned regarding the high rank of Ibn Hibban first, and because his leniency in authentication is less than al-Hakim's leniency; it was preferable to mention Ibn Hibban before al-Hakim, saying: "It was narrated by Abu Dawud, and authenticated by Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim."
This hadith is, in reality, of authentic chain, and in it—as is clear—the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) established the new moon of Ramadan by the sighting of one man; namely Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both). So in this hadith is an indication of the school of thought that restricts the establishment of the new moon of Ramadan to one witness. The issue is a matter of scholarly disagreement among the jurists; some say what this hadith indicates, some make it obligatory that two or more testify, and some do not restrict the witnesses to two, but make it obligatory that a group be present such that confidence is achieved in the truthfulness of their sighting of the new moon.
We say: This hadith is considered a basis for sufficing with one witness to establish the new moon of Ramadan. However, people differ in terms of leniency in reporting what they saw and verification of what they saw, and even in truthfulness; this varies according to the difference in time and place. So the matter at that time returns to the legal judge to whom the establishment of the new moon of Ramadan was entrusted. If a witness comes to him and he knows him well, that he is truthful and that he is shrewd and alert, and not one of the negligent people who might say he saw the new moon while in reality he saw a hair from his eyebrow between him and the horizon and imagined it to be the new moon; if a Muslim man comes to the judge whose truthfulness, intelligence, and alertness he knows, it is permissible for him legally to establish the new moon of Ramadan by the mere testimony of this one Muslim. But if he is not reassured by his report, he verifies and wants a second or third witness according to the remaining people who come and testify before him; there is no harm in that so that the matter is not rushed and the new moon of Ramadan is established while in reality it has not been established; because no witness whose testimony he trusts has come to him.
We know today that there are, among the judges—as was the case since ancient times—groups known as the certifiers who certify people. Do you know so-and-so? Yes, by Allah, I know him. And what is his knowledge of him? Very superficial knowledge. So there is no doubt that the judge who is careful to establish the month of fasting in a satisfying and reassuring manner is not satisfied by merely saying: "This so-and-so, by Allah, I know him, he is a truthful man," unless he is able to know him by his own method by which he is convinced.
In summary, this hadith indicates that the original ruling in establishing the new moon of Ramadan is that one witness is sufficient, but it should be that this witness is known to the responsible authority who announces the establishment of the new moon of Ramadan based on his reliance on this one witness.
You have heard that the one who saw the new moon in this hadith is Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, so he is a Companion's son of a Companion, and he is known to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with complete knowledge. So it is no wonder that he (peace and blessings be upon him) relied on his report of his sighting of the new moon of Ramadan and established the month of fasting based on it. But it is not so with these witnesses who testify in these days, especially if we want to apply the conditions of the just Muslim witnesses stipulated in the books of jurisprudence, some of which are undoubtedly correct without doubt. Then we cannot establish the new moon of Ramadan today except through very few individuals. Let us mention an example we strike, and we—as it is said—are hitting two birds with one stone: It has been stipulated in the books of the Hanafis that the one who shaves his beard, his testimony is not accepted. So do the rulers today, if an informer comes to them to establish the new moon of Ramadan and he is beardless, do they accept his testimony or not?
They accept it, while it is stipulated that his testimony is not accepted. The reason for that is that shaving the beard is a sin, and this sin, by the agreement of the four Imams—there is no difference between Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad; all agree that shaving the beard is a sin; because in that is the commission of many violations established in the Sunnah. It is sufficient in that—for example—the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): . The Jews and Christians shave their beards, so you should differ from them. So those who are afflicted among the Muslims today, and no blame on the attendees afflicted with this sin; then as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said. They said: For whom, O Messenger of Allah? He said: . So we are from the general Muslims, and it is obligatory for one of us to advise the others; because religion is advice, as you have heard.
Therefore, shaving the beard is a sin according to the consensus of the four Imams. The Hanafis explicitly stated, as far as I know—and others may have stated it as well—that the testimony of one who shaves his beard is not accepted. However, nowadays, shaving the beard has become a common occurrence. On the contrary, the one who grows his beard is viewed with great strangeness by the masses of people, as if he were a savage, or as they say today, a reactionary. They never realize that growing the beard is one of the matters of the fitrah (the innate natural disposition) upon which Allah created people. Therefore, all the prophets, and especially the last of them, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), had beards. In the Noble Qur'an: to the end of the verse. Aaron (peace be upon him), like the other prophets, preserved this fitrah. Today, the masses of Muslims, due to the prevalence of Western customs when the Europeans invaded the lands of Islam with their bodies and their customs, these sinful and deviant customs spread among the masses of Muslims, except for a few of them whom Allah (Mighty and Majestic) guided to know that their Prophet and their only role model had a noble beard, and that this noble Prophet commanded them to grow their beards and not to imitate the disbelievers. Because most people are afflicted today, these rulers have become lenient in the matter and have accepted the testimony of the one who shaves his beard.
And I want to say from this example that there is leniency in the qualification of witnesses. Therefore, if the judge is careful and does not restrict the proof of the Ramadan crescent to the testimony of a single Muslim, there is no harm in that. Because this Muslim will not be like Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab in terms of his faith, truthfulness, alertness, and intelligence, on the one hand. And on the other hand, this witness will not usually be known to the judge as Abdullah ibn Umar was known to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).
In summary: It is obligatory for the judge who wants to establish the Ramadan crescent to be careful in establishing this crescent. If a man comes whom he knows well, and he is a just Muslim, he should establish it based on the testimony of this single Muslim, as indicated by this authentic hadith.