share with them in the soundness of hearing and correctness of sight, and so it is here.
Section: If a reporter informs one of the sighting of the crescent and one trusts his statement, fasting becomes obligatory for him, even if that is not established before the judge; because it is a report regarding the time of an act of worship in which the informant and the informed are equal participants, resembling the report regarding the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the report regarding the entry of prayer time. Ibn Aqil mentioned this, and the implication of this is that it is obligatory for him to accept the report, even if the judge rejects it; because the judge's rejection may be due to his lack of knowledge regarding the informant's status, and it is not exclusively because of a lack of probity (ʿadalah), as a judge may be ignorant of the probity of one whose probity is known to others.
Section: If the informant is a woman, the analogy of the school (Madhhab) is to accept her statement. This is the view of Abu Hanifa and one of the two opinions held by the companions of al-Shafi'i; because it is a religious report, thus it resembles narration, the report regarding the Qibla, and the entry of prayer time. It is possible that it is not accepted, because it is testimony regarding the sighting of the crescent, so the statement of a woman is not accepted in it, like the crescent of Shawwal.
515 - Issue: He said: (And he does not break his fast except by the testimony of two.)
The sum of this is that nothing is accepted regarding the crescent of Shawwal except the testimony of two just witnesses, according to the view of all jurists, except Abu Thawr, who said: The statement of one is accepted; because it is one of the two ends of the month of Ramadan, thus resembling the first, and because it is a report in which the informant and the informed are equal, thus resembling narration and reports of religious matters. Our evidence is the report of Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn al-Khattab and from Ibn Umar from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he permitted the testimony of one man regarding the sighting of the crescent, while he did not permit anything but the testimony of two men regarding breaking the fast. Also, this is testimony regarding a crescent, which does not involve entry into an act of worship, so nothing is accepted in it but the testimony of two, like all other witnesses. This differs from the report; because
(1) Which was mentioned previously on page 417. (2) Recorded by al-Daraqutni in: The beginning of the Book of Fasting. Sunan al-Daraqutni 2/156. And al-Bayhaqi in: Chapter on testimony regarding the sighting of the crescent of Ramadan, from the Book of Fasting. Al-Sunan al-Kubra 4/212.
يُشَارِكُهُما في سَلامَةِ السَّمْعِ وصِحَّةِ البَصَرِ، كذا هاهُنا.
فصل: وإن أخْبَرَهُ مُخْبِرٌ بِرُؤْيَةِ الهِلَالِ يَثِقُ بِقَوْلِه، لَزِمَهُ الصومُ. وإن لم يَثْبُتْ ذلك عندَ الحَاكِم؛ لأنَّه خَبَرٌ بِوَقْتِ العِبادَةِ، يَشْتَرِكُ فيه المُخْبِرُ والمُخْبَرُ، أشْبَه الخَبَرَ عن رسولِ اللهِ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-، والخَبَرَ عن دُخُولِ وَقْتِ الصلاةِ. ذَكَرَ ذلك ابنُ عَقِيلٍ. ومُقْتَضَى هذا أنَّه يَلْزَمُه قَبُولُ الخَبَرِ، وإن رَدَّهُ الحَاكِمُ؛ لأنَّ رَدَّ الحَاكِمِ يجوزُ أن يكونَ لِعَدَمِ عِلْمِه بِحالِ المُخْبِرِ، ولا يَتَعَيَّنُ ذلك في عَدَمِ العَدَالَةِ، وقد يَجْهَلُ الحاكِمُ عَدَالَةَ مَن يَعْلَمُ غَيْرُه عَدَالَتَهُ.
فصل: فإن كان المُخْبِرُ امْرَأَةً فقِيَاسُ المذهبِ قَبُولُ قَوْلِها. وهو قولُ أبي حنيفةَ، وأحَدُ الوَجْهَيْنِ لأصْحابِ الشَّافِعِيِّ؛ لأنَّه خَبَرٌ دِينِيٌّ. فأشْبَهَ الرِّوَايَةَ، والخَبَرَ عن القِبْلَةِ، ودُخُولَ وَقْتِ الصلاةِ، ويَحْتَمِلُ أن لا تُقْبَلَ؛ لأنَّه شَهادَةٌ بِرُؤْيَةِ الهِلالِ، فلم يُقْبَلْ فيه قَوْلُ امْرَأةٍ، كهِلالِ شَوَّال.
٥١٥ - مسألة؛ قال: (ولا يُفْطِرُ إلَّا بِشَهَادَةِ اثْنَيْنِ)
وجُمْلَةُ ذلك أَنَّه لا يُقْبَلُ في هِلالِ شَوَّال إلَّا شَهَادَةُ اثْنَيْنِ عَدْلَيْنِ. في قولِ الفُقَهَاءِ جَمِيعِهم، إلَّا أبا ثَوْرٍ، فإنَّه قال: يُقْبَلُ قَوْلُ وَاحِدٍ؛ لأنَّه أحَدُ طَرَفَىْ شهرِ رمضانَ، أشْبَهَ الأوَّلَ، ولأنَّه خَبَرٌ يَسْتَوِي فيه المُخْبِرُ والمُخْبَرُ، أشْبَهَ الرِّوَايَةَ وأخْبارَ الدِّياناتِ. ولَنا، خَبَرُ عبدِ الرحمنِ بن زيدِ بن الخَطَّابِ (١)، وعن ابنِ عمرَ عن النَّبِيِّ -صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ-، أَنَّه أجازَ شَهادةَ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ على رُؤْيَةِ الهِلالِ، وكان لا يُجِيزُ على شَهَادَةِ الإفْطارِ إلَّا شَهَادَةَ رَجُلَيْنِ (٢). ولأنَّها شَهَادَةٌ على هِلالٍ لا يُدْخَلُ بها في العِبادَةِ، فلم تُقْبَلْ فيه إلَّا شهادَةُ اثْنَيْنِ كسائرِ الشُّهُود، وهذا يُفَارِقُ الخَبَرَ؛ لأنَّ
(١) الذي تقدم في صفحة ٤١٧.(٢) أخرجه الدارقطني. في: أول كتاب الصيام. سنن الدارقطني ٢/ ١٥٦. والبيهقى، في: باب الشهادة على رؤية هلال رمضان، من كتاب الصيام. السنن الكبرى ٤/ ٢١٢.
