A Reply to ’Should We Still Have a Lunar Calendar?’

This is a response to Wasiq Bokhari's extremely informative article,
"Should We Still Have a Lunar Calendar&quot, which appeared recently at the Chowk.

You have presented a very compelling argument for why the moon is
not a precise clock, especially over long periods of time. Where I
don't agree with you is that this is sufficient grounds for scrapping
the moon as a timekeeper, period. Surely, a community's choice of
timekeeper is more of a philosophical and sociological issue than a
scientific one. We ought to use science to inform our decisions, but
not to dictate them.

You make a very big assumption in arguing your point: "What is
important in a clock is how accurately it can keep time over long periods".

First of all, the moon is not a clock, in the sense that we use clocks
in everyday life. Not even devout Muslims today (or a thousand years ago
for that matter), use the moon to set an appointment ’at 9 sharp', or ’in
the evening'. It is merely a timekeeper used for dileneating months, and
for observing matters of religious significance. As you rightly point out,
the moon is not even a contender at keeping time at this level of precision.
It never has been and nobody is claiming that it is.

Second, I don't believe that the most important attribute of a clock
is how accurately it can keep time. Certainly, this makes sense if you
consider a clock as a purely imaginary entity, whose defining attribute
is that it can keep time accurately. Such an idealization is useful when
you want to repeatably measure things such as the decay times of the products
of a matter antimatter collision. But in the ’real' world, where second
order effects such as human beings abound, I claim that the most important
attribute of a timekeeper is that people agree to comply with it. As long
as a timekeeper maintains a certain (subjectively defined) level of precision,
and doesn't do anything really weird (inconsistent with normal perception),
like claiming to move backwards in time, it does not matter whether it
is somewhat imprecise. What matters is that people agree to follow it.

You speak in your article of a ’perfect' timekeeper. No such thing exists.
All we have is a set of devices which are consistent with each other at
a (subjectively defined) very fine level of granularity. But human perception
of time is very subjective, as we all know. As far as normal human beings
going about their everyday lives are concerned, such precision is not required,
and is irrelevant. I am aware that such precision is required for everyday
things like data communications and the workings of computers. But I really
can't care less if the time for Suhoor ended one femtosecond before I took
my last, desparate gulp of Rooh Afza, or whether my great to the power
seventeeth grandchildren celebrated Eid fourteen days and a microsecond
off, when measured against the atomic clock, because of resonances introduced
in the moon's orbit by a passing star.

The moon has some distinct advantages over other, man made timekeepers:

You pointed out some of the ways in which the lunar orbit's periodicity
can, in a sense, be sabotaged by natural events. The heavens would have
to conspire to create such a subterfuge (and many religious folks would
argue that this is just the way God wants us to go). It's much easier to
sabotage the clock at the National Beaurau of Standards. All it takes is
a frustrated engineer with a hammer.

With the exception of the Sun (except in Polar regions), the moon is
the most inherently democratic timekeeper around. Anybody can look up at
the sky (provided it is clear), squint at it for a while, and figure out
whether the Ruet-e-Hilal committee has earned its Halwa (or the scientists
making the lunar calendar have earned their trust). He can do this in downtown
Timbuktu, or in the jungles of Borneo. In fact, if you're out of touch
with society, you don't need a Ruet-e-Hilal committee, a calendar, or an
atomic clock.

The fundamentals of keeping time by the moon are easy to understand,
and easy to explain (look at the sky, search for a crescent, and a little
more). No scientific priesthood has a monopoly over this knowledge. Try
talking "Classical and General Relativistic gravitational effects"
with a Noble Savage in Borneo. Going back to our frustrated engineer at
the National Beaurau of Standards, lets say he's feeling a bit mischievous
this morning and decides to twiddle the system a bit, or he decides to
tell a lie, or he simply makes an honest mistake. With a proper system
of technical as well as systematic checks and balances, the harmful effects
of such eventualities can be virtually eliminated, but how are you going
to convince a skeptical ’Brother' that he's not the victim of some Zionist
Conspiracy?

Finally, but certainly not least, let's go back to the point that in
my opinion, the best timekeeper is one which does a reasonably good job,
and which everyone agrees upon. For Muslims, there are clear instructions
in the Quran giving the moon this role. All Muslims agree that the moon
is to be used to determine the days of religous import, and some other
(though by no means all) timing matters. As far as practising Muslims are
concerned, there is certainly room for discussion, but none for deviation.
End of story.


What we disagree on is when the crescent is sighted, and how it should
be sighted and who should follow who's crescent. There are quite enormous
educational and communication deficiecies here. That is why it is extremely
important to probe the science of lunar sighting, to educate people about
the Islamic laws regarding it, and most importantly, to reach consensus
amongst different communities about the rules governing it.