and I informed the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that I had seen it. So he fasted and commanded the people to fast for it. Reported by Abu Dawud. It is also because it is information regarding the time of an obligatory act where the method is through observation, so it is accepted from one person, like the information regarding the entry of the time of prayer. Furthermore, it is a religious report in which the informant and the informed are equal participants, so it is accepted from one just person, like a narration. Their report only points to the matter by its implication, whereas our report is more famous than it and points to it by its explicit articulation, so it is mandatory to give it precedence. It differs from the report regarding the crescent of Shawwal, for that is an exit from worship, whereas this is an entry into it. Their hadith regarding the crescent of Shawwal contradicts our current issue. What Abu Bakr and Abu Hanifa mentioned is not sound; because it is possible for one individual to be alone in seeing it due to the subtlety and distance of the object seen. It is also possible that their knowledge of the horizon, the places they are observing from, and the sharpness of their vision may differ. This is why if a judge passes a verdict based on the sighting of one person, it is permissible. If two witnesses testify, it is mandatory to accept their testimony. If it were impossible, as they claimed, the judgment of a judge would not be valid in it, nor would it be established by the testimony of two. Whoever denies its establishment by the testimony of two, the first report refutes him, as does its analogy to other rights and other months. Even if a group is in a gathering, and two of them testify that he divorced his wife or emancipated his slave, their testimony would be accepted, to the exclusion of those who deny it. Similarly, if two people from the congregation of Friday prayer testify against the orator that he said something on the pulpit during the sermon, to which no one else testified, their testimony would be accepted. Likewise, if they testify against him regarding an action, even if others