The people of Palestine have no state of their own, and they have no established sighting of the crescent moon, so some fast with Saudi Arabia and some with Jordan.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Shaykh, the question regarding the first issue, which was about fasting. We know that in Palestine there is no state. So when the festival was confirmed, the people of Gaza celebrated with Saudi Arabia, but the rest of the people of the West Bank, perhaps they also differed in some places and fasted with Jordan. So what is the ruling in that case?
The Shaykh : In such a case, they should fast with the country closest to them, which is Jordan.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, we say the country closest to them is Jordan, but in some other countries, like Syria and Lebanon, perhaps they differ. That is, Jordan and Syria differ, and it becomes a source of confusion between them. And then there is a second issue related to that. That is, why do we, as Muslims, allow these political borders to divide Muslims, especially since, as you said before, the scholars said that is general? So why don’t we fast, for example, with Saudi Arabia, because Saudi Arabia, or any country that confirms it first, we fast with them...
The Shaykh : You are now repeating what has already been answered. What is the benefit? Shall I repeat my previous statement? I do not think you want that. You are saying, why do we make geographical borders? Did I say that?
The questioner: No, no.
The Shaykh : Or did I deny it?
The questioner : You denied it.
The Shaykh : So what is the solution to the problem? I told you the fundamental solution is that all Muslims fast together. This is not a reality due to the existing disagreement between governments. Okay, we need... the disagreement within the same people. So the meaning of your words is that, by Allah, these people who were...
The questioner : In Gaza, they celebrated, yes.
The Shaykh : In Gaza, okay, they celebrated with Saudi Arabia. But originally, to which country do they belong? If it is necessary to implement the opinion I explained earlier, based on the principle of "compelling your brother is not a crime," I did not say that the Shari'ah obligates us to contradict the initial announcement.
The questioner : I did not say that.
The Shaykh : No, I am telling you, I am repeating to you. Why did I say that? Do you want me to repeat my previous statement? That is what you want, and that is what happened. I did not say that, but I said, in order to reduce harm, one people should fast with their country. One people? So we need to note this observation. We are not contradicting the original principle in order to reduce harm. So now, tell me, is reducing harm your view, or might someone else say, no, this is not Shari'ah-compliant!
The questioner : This is the preferred option, meaning.
The Shaykh : Good. What is the reduction of harm for the people of Gaza? Is it that they fast with the Jordanians or with the Saudis?
The questioner : No, of course they fast with the Jordanians.
The Shaykh : So? Your question is a repetition of what has passed!
The questioner : No, my question, which I want to ask, is as follows. Suppose they celebrated with the Saudis, or let us assume here in Jordan, many people broke their fast based on the Saudi announcement. What is their ruling? That is, is it not permissible for them to break their fast, is it wrong, do we consider it so? It is no doubt that this disagreement exists, but what is the ruling? Did they err in this matter? That is, do we order them to make up this day?
The Shaykh : May Allah guide me and you. Say, amen. Either their breaking the fast is correct or it is wrong. Is there a middle ground?
The questioner : ... No, of course not.
The Shaykh : Okay, we did not know from our previous answer what is correct.
The questioner : Shaykh, I know. I am now one who asks me, he said, so-and-so broke his fast with Saudi Arabia. Does he have to make it up or not?
The Shaykh : I said if he broke his fast in Saudi Arabia and he is a Jordanian, he owes nothing.
The questioner : He is a resident here, he did not leave.
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. I am repeating to you. If he broke his fast there, he owes nothing. But the one who broke his fast here contradicted the correct ruling that we are establishing now by ijtihad, not by explicit text. So we say he must make it up.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : When you say, look, this issue is extremely precise and not easy. If, for example, you, or someone below you, or someone more knowledgeable than you, saw that he does not have to make it up, does that mean he must break his fast, correct?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Okay, you say he must break his fast in this case? For example, here in Jordan, you heard the Saudi radio. Do you think he must break his fast?
The questioner : I do not see in...
The Shaykh : Okay, so there is no middle ground, my brother. Either you break your fast and you are correct, or you break your fast and you are wrong. There is no middle ground. This is my opinion[Yusuf 12:76].
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : In such a case, they should fast with the country closest to them, which is Jordan.
The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, we say the country closest to them is Jordan, but in some other countries, like Syria and Lebanon, perhaps they differ. That is, Jordan and Syria differ, and it becomes a source of confusion between them. And then there is a second issue related to that. That is, why do we, as Muslims, allow these political borders to divide Muslims, especially since, as you said before, the scholars said that
Fast when you see it...
صوموا لرؤيته ...The Shaykh : You are now repeating what has already been answered. What is the benefit? Shall I repeat my previous statement? I do not think you want that. You are saying, why do we make geographical borders? Did I say that?
The questioner: No, no.
The Shaykh : Or did I deny it?
The questioner : You denied it.
The Shaykh : So what is the solution to the problem? I told you the fundamental solution is that all Muslims fast together. This is not a reality due to the existing disagreement between governments. Okay, we need... the disagreement within the same people. So the meaning of your words is that, by Allah, these people who were...
The questioner : In Gaza, they celebrated, yes.
The Shaykh : In Gaza, okay, they celebrated with Saudi Arabia. But originally, to which country do they belong? If it is necessary to implement the opinion I explained earlier, based on the principle of "compelling your brother is not a crime," I did not say that the Shari'ah obligates us to contradict the initial announcement.
The questioner : I did not say that.
The Shaykh : No, I am telling you, I am repeating to you. Why did I say that? Do you want me to repeat my previous statement? That is what you want, and that is what happened. I did not say that, but I said, in order to reduce harm, one people should fast with their country. One people? So we need to note this observation. We are not contradicting the original principle
Fast when you see it...
صوموا لرؤيته ...The questioner : This is the preferred option, meaning.
The Shaykh : Good. What is the reduction of harm for the people of Gaza? Is it that they fast with the Jordanians or with the Saudis?
The questioner : No, of course they fast with the Jordanians.
The Shaykh : So? Your question is a repetition of what has passed!
The questioner : No, my question, which I want to ask, is as follows. Suppose they celebrated with the Saudis, or let us assume here in Jordan, many people broke their fast based on the Saudi announcement. What is their ruling? That is, is it not permissible for them to break their fast, is it wrong, do we consider it so? It is no doubt that this disagreement exists, but what is the ruling? Did they err in this matter? That is, do we order them to make up this day?
The Shaykh : May Allah guide me and you. Say, amen. Either their breaking the fast is correct or it is wrong. Is there a middle ground?
The questioner : ... No, of course not.
The Shaykh : Okay, we did not know from our previous answer what is correct.
The questioner : Shaykh, I know. I am now one who asks me, he said, so-and-so broke his fast with Saudi Arabia. Does he have to make it up or not?
The Shaykh : I said if he broke his fast in Saudi Arabia and he is a Jordanian, he owes nothing.
The questioner : He is a resident here, he did not leave.
The Shaykh : O Shaykh, may Allah guide you. I am repeating to you. If he broke his fast there, he owes nothing. But the one who broke his fast here contradicted the correct ruling that we are establishing now by ijtihad, not by explicit text. So we say he must make it up.
The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : When you say, look, this issue is extremely precise and not easy. If, for example, you, or someone below you, or someone more knowledgeable than you, saw that he does not have to make it up, does that mean he must break his fast, correct?
The questioner : Correct.
The Shaykh : Okay, you say he must break his fast in this case? For example, here in Jordan, you heard the Saudi radio. Do you think he must break his fast?
The questioner : I do not see in...
The Shaykh : Okay, so there is no middle ground, my brother. Either you break your fast and you are correct, or you break your fast and you are wrong. There is no middle ground. This is my opinion
but over every possessor of knowledge is one [more] knowing.
و فوق كل ذي علم عليمThe questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.