For several years now, I have witnessed, like most people, the multiple eid phenomenon. The fact that there are two, sometimes three, different eids in Pakistan (or any other country) is seen as somehow 'wrong'. 'Only one eid per country' seems to be the ideal that most people gravitate towards.
A little discussion erupted at work today about the multiple eid phenomenon, and one guy suggested an overly simplistic and taking-all-the-fun-out-of-it alternative (not that we were finding alternatives to the current eid determining system). He said, "Shouldn't everyone all over the world just follow Saudi Arabia; we would have one eid globally." At first his statement reeked of Arabization or worse, Wahhabism. But that is not what he meant.
His argument was purely philosophical; why don't we do it that way? Why would that alternative be wrong? What makes it wrong?
And then I realized that the problem (if you see multiple eids as problematic) is not with the people (the citizens, the government, the Royat-e-hilal Committee). It's the rule. Now, I'm not an expert on Islam or on moon-sightings, so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, the rule is: "look for the moon, if you see it, celebrate eid." It does not say, "look for the moon in Makkah or Medina." Neither does it say, "look for the moon when you are in the capital of the country." There are no specifics and like most things in religion this rule is open to multiple interpretations.
With countries that have large geographical areas (which is almost every country if you compare it with the little towns of Makkah and Medina almost 1500 years ago), we can not possibly expect the moon to be visible in every state/province and every city at the same time. Therefore, we have two choices. Three, in fact. Actually, four.
1. Everyone does their thing (according to the moon, of course). You call your relatives in Lahore to wish them eid, but they are not celebrating it today because they didn't see the moon. Your aunt in NY is, but the one is NJ isn't. Muslims in London are, but the ones in Glasgow aren't. There won't be the traditional fun in it, but it would be in full compliance with the basic rule. Phone bill would run higher, though. Frustration levels too.
2. States/provinces may differ among themselves, but there will be one eid throughout a state/province. This would bring more cohesion and relatively more sanity. However, in this scenario current political borders have more of an influence on determining eid than the original eid rule, i.e. the moon. So it's eid in Denison, Texas, but not in Colbert, Oklahoma, the town only 8 miles north. And the funny thing is neither of them saw the moon!
3. Same as above, except the political borders of significance (for the eid committee) are national ones, not state/province. More cohesion. More sanity. This is what most of the Muslims around the world do right now (I think, correct me if I am wrong).
4. Moving once step further, how about a single global eid. Goes well with the single caliphate idea (which is a scary thought). Muslims too eager to "unite" with their "brothers and sisters" all over the world might want to 'lobby' for this alternative. However, it would never take off. Before the first eid, Muslim countries would be at loggerheads with each other about where the international eid committe would sit, and we will end up reverting to either option 3 or option 2, or worse option 1.
So, to reiterate, it's the rule. It's messy, live with it. We aren't following it a 100% anyway. How many of us actually see the moon from our rooftops and decide not to celebrate because we haven't seen the moon yet? We just follow a committee; whatever they say. And political borders play a significant role.
I have a question. Why do we have a lunar calendar, anyway? What's so special about the moon? Why is the Islamic calendar not based on the sun?
A little discussion erupted at work today about the multiple eid phenomenon, and one guy suggested an overly simplistic and taking-all-the-fun-out-of-it alternative (not that we were finding alternatives to the current eid determining system). He said, "Shouldn't everyone all over the world just follow Saudi Arabia; we would have one eid globally." At first his statement reeked of Arabization or worse, Wahhabism. But that is not what he meant.
His argument was purely philosophical; why don't we do it that way? Why would that alternative be wrong? What makes it wrong?
And then I realized that the problem (if you see multiple eids as problematic) is not with the people (the citizens, the government, the Royat-e-hilal Committee). It's the rule. Now, I'm not an expert on Islam or on moon-sightings, so correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, the rule is: "look for the moon, if you see it, celebrate eid." It does not say, "look for the moon in Makkah or Medina." Neither does it say, "look for the moon when you are in the capital of the country." There are no specifics and like most things in religion this rule is open to multiple interpretations.
With countries that have large geographical areas (which is almost every country if you compare it with the little towns of Makkah and Medina almost 1500 years ago), we can not possibly expect the moon to be visible in every state/province and every city at the same time. Therefore, we have two choices. Three, in fact. Actually, four.
1. Everyone does their thing (according to the moon, of course). You call your relatives in Lahore to wish them eid, but they are not celebrating it today because they didn't see the moon. Your aunt in NY is, but the one is NJ isn't. Muslims in London are, but the ones in Glasgow aren't. There won't be the traditional fun in it, but it would be in full compliance with the basic rule. Phone bill would run higher, though. Frustration levels too.
2. States/provinces may differ among themselves, but there will be one eid throughout a state/province. This would bring more cohesion and relatively more sanity. However, in this scenario current political borders have more of an influence on determining eid than the original eid rule, i.e. the moon. So it's eid in Denison, Texas, but not in Colbert, Oklahoma, the town only 8 miles north. And the funny thing is neither of them saw the moon!
3. Same as above, except the political borders of significance (for the eid committee) are national ones, not state/province. More cohesion. More sanity. This is what most of the Muslims around the world do right now (I think, correct me if I am wrong).
4. Moving once step further, how about a single global eid. Goes well with the single caliphate idea (which is a scary thought). Muslims too eager to "unite" with their "brothers and sisters" all over the world might want to 'lobby' for this alternative. However, it would never take off. Before the first eid, Muslim countries would be at loggerheads with each other about where the international eid committe would sit, and we will end up reverting to either option 3 or option 2, or worse option 1.
So, to reiterate, it's the rule. It's messy, live with it. We aren't following it a 100% anyway. How many of us actually see the moon from our rooftops and decide not to celebrate because we haven't seen the moon yet? We just follow a committee; whatever they say. And political borders play a significant role.
I have a question. Why do we have a lunar calendar, anyway? What's so special about the moon? Why is the Islamic calendar not based on the sun?
