UNITY

Bismillah. I visited Buckingham Palace (open to the public until October 1st this year) last week and enquired about the magnificent astronomical clock in the Lower Corridor, after the Ambassadors’ entrance and at the beginning of the public tour. Here is the curator’s reply:
—
I hope you enjoyed your recent visit to Buckingham Palace. My colleagues in the Visitor Office in the Palace have informed me that you wanted to know a little more about the astronomical clock in the Lower Corridor of the Palace.

The clock is dated to around 1820, but it is unsigned, so it is not immediately clear who made it. We know from a label affixed to its back that it was purchased by Queen Mary, so it did not come into the Royal Collection until the 20th Century. It has occupied the position it has today since it was purchased, as it is mentioned in H. Clifford-Smith’s 1931 seminal publication Buckingham Palace as being in the Lower Corridor of the palace. He describes the clock as:

“A very uncommon and interesting astronomical clock dating from about 1820 – a remarkable feature of which is the central dial showing sidereal time , with the procession of the stars around the north pole driven by the clock above it. The case, of beautifully figured mahogany, is inlaid with bands of rosewood.”

Although similar clocks have appeared on the London market since, they too are unsigned. However I am told by my colleagues from our clock conservation workshop that many of its internal workings are very much in the style of a maker called Henry Jenkins. One of his confirmed productions is now in the British Museum and the internal workings are similar to the Royal Collection clock. Jenkins published a book entitled “A Description of Several Astronomical and Geographical Clocks with an Account of their Motions and Uses” in 1778, which reflects many of the techniques used in the movement of the clock in the Lower Corridor.

I’m told the bar across the face showing sidereal time is intended to represent the horizon, so it is possible to see the movement of the stars both above and below it.

I hope this information is of interest to you, please do not hesitate in contacting me if I can help further.

Kind regards,

David Oakey
Assitant to the Deputy Surveyor of The Queen’s Works of Art
The Royal Collection
St James’s Palace

Bismillah. I blogged about this last year. A number of people have asked me about these again, so here goes:

There are variations in UK mosque timetables for dawn and end of Suhur (Sehri) timings. The variation can be over one hour.

This is due to different methods of calculating the time of the first appearance of dawn, usually based on the sun’s angle below the horizon. Some jurists recommend 15 degrees, others use 18 or 17.5 degrees.

I use the visual observation of dawn, as per the original Prophetic practice. I don’t follow clocks rigidly to the minute – that is not the spirit of Islam. I don’t wear a watch any more, to reduce our over-obsession with telling time via clocks as opposed to our bodily rhythms and other cycles of nature. (I recommend “Pip Pip” by Jay Griffiths for a wonderful exploration of time, clocks, nature & humanity. The world’s biggest four-faced clock tower, currently being built opposite the outwardly light-polluted, but inwardly light-bathed, House of God and Symbol of the Heart in Mecca, really is a sign of the times!) But of course, in modern, clocks-dominated societies, calculated timetables are inevitable.

Visual observation of the dawn usually tallies with a 15 degree angle in urban or light-polluted areas and 18 degrees in very rural, dark-sky locations.

In high latitudes in the summer, the “dawn” is there all night, and the jurists use various rules such as: nearest valid time; most recent valid time; last fifth, sixth or seventh of the night, etc.

As with the Ramadan start date, these are all valid interpretations / ijtihads. Individuals and communities should follow what is most sensible for them.

Allah knows best!

Bismillah. Saudi Arabia has announced the start of Ramadan tonight, but it is not clear what the basis is for this, since the new crescent moon (hilal) was simply not visible there today.

Whether you begin Ramadan on Wed 10 Aug or Thurs 11 Aug, have a blessed month!
—
A message is appended below from a leading astronomer in Pakistan:

My respected teachers and friends are this time in Madinah (Saudi Arabia). They tried to sight the moon by naked eyes but not sighted as it was expected astronomically. Sky was clear.

Visibility report for Tuesday 10 August 2010 (28 Shaban 1431 in Pakistan): Not seen at 60 places

Today (Tuesday, 10 August 2010) was 28th Shaban 1431 in Pakistan and the moon was so defective in whole Asia that there was no solid proof in the history of astronomy to sight such a moon even by a telescope, hence there was no need to try to sight the moon in Pakistan but in spite of this fact, just to increase the trust of common people in the Science of Moon-sighting and because the people were confused due to the 29th Shaban in Saudi Arab, I requested the people to sight the moon today. Resultantly, On my request, nearly 300 persons (members of the moon-sighting committees of our institute “JAMIA-TUR-RASHEED” + my friends + their companions) tried to sight the moon at nearly 60 places all over Pakistan but the moon could not be sighted, as it was astronomically expected tonight. It was almost cloudy today countrywide, due to monsoon season. There is worst flood of history in Pakistan. Nearly 14 million persons are directly affected. Pray and help your Pakistani brothers.

Note 2: After some days, insha’Allah, a detailed report of this observation in Urdu will be available at http://www.esnips.com/web/moonnewsofja miaturrasheed‫‫‬‬

Wassalam
Muhammad Sultan Alam
Head of research committee/Astronomy department
Jamia-tur-Rasheed
Ahsanabad,Karachi, Pakistan
http://www.esnips.com/user/ moonsighting
http://www.kulyatushariah.edu.pk/jrks/jsp/

Bismillah. This is by Rashad Ali (edited by myself), in response to a discussion about whether or not Muslims can be loyal citizens of non-Muslim countries whilst remaining part of the fellowship of the people of God (which is what the Qur’anic term “ummah” means, eg in Surah al-Anbiya’ or The Prophets). It is reproduced here to stimulate discussion of this vital topic.
—

Ummah is not a simplistic Muslim political bloc in the Qur’an & Hadith. It is used at times to mean the faithful, as in the verse, “You are the best nation” (Al-Imran or the Family of Imran), although even Umar was said to have held the view that this referred primarily to the Companions. Sometimes in the political sense it does not imply folk of one religion only, but rather society as a whole, composed of different religions – as in the Sunnah description of the Jews and Muslims of Madinah as one Ummah (nation), separate from all other nations (ref: the Mithaq or Covenant of Madinah).
It was on this basis that jurists have explained the special tie that nations and people within a country have to each other. Sheikh al-Islam Syed Husain Ahmed al-Madani explains this point of the relationship with the nation in his book Islam aur Qaumiyat Mutahidda (translated into English as “Composite Nationalism & Islam”). This is why in fiqh terms it has always been the case that certain countries and empires can have treaties of peace with others whilst other countries/empires ruled over by Muslims don’t – this is a historic fact and a shar’i reality – see Sheikh Afifi al-Akiti’s fatwa refuting suicide bombing where he mentions this.

In Muslim belief, everyone from the time of the Prophet till the day of judgment is the Ummah of Muhammad (Sallallahu alaihi wasallam). Ibn Hajar explained in the Fath al-Bari that some (the ummah of istijabah) have accepted the Prophet’s invitation to Islam. Others are still being called and hence they are the Ummah of Da’wah. Sheikh Shinqiti also mentions this in his tafsir, the Adwa’ al-Bayan.

In classical fiqh terms, if you lived in a land then your relationship meant that even if that land was at war with the Muslim empires you took no part and it was forbidden to do so; in fact this was the case if you had a treaty with that country and others did not – as alluded to in the Qur’an itself. Sarkhasi elaborated further and explained that any country which gave Muslims safety to live and practice their religion and was attacked, then the Muslim living within that country should join the military ranks and fight to defend such a country, citing the example of Ja’far bin Abi Talib, who according to the Mujtahid Imam, fought alongside and gave support to the Negus of Abyssinia.

There is a further extension of this in fiqh terms related to defining the land as a homeland for Islam. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami gave the fatwa that any land or empire where Muslims could practice their faith belonged to Dar al-Islam (as the Shafi’i madhhab states) and therefore if it was attacked by rebels or foreigners the Muslim majority countries/empires were obliged to fight to defend its integrity.

So, I don’t think the simplistic approach of “We are one Ummah etc.” is quite clear in the text or in fiqh terms. It all depends upon the political and social analysis that is made and then we decide what is the most appropriate form of response. Today, scholars like Mufti Juday and Sheikh Ibn Bayyah have taken the view that we live in an unprecedented situation, where in the western world we are given citizenship rights, not subjects as all were in the past of the king or caliph, but citizens who can all participate in shaping the governance and laws and rules of our society. This is a new reality which allows the practice of faith and political rights and respecting difference and religious rights. This means we interact with it accordingly – we have a social contract in a metaphysical, political and religious sense. Our loyalty is to fulfilling such agreements and respecting these political and social agreements and our faith ensures such fealty and loyalty. As Allah says in the Qur’an, “Awfu bi l-‘Uqud” (5:1) – fulfil your undertakings and obligations.

In this sense we are a part of this society and Ummah and we have responsibilities here and now which are our primary responsibilities. This is so, whilst not forgetting that we are a part of humanity, to whom we have responsibility also, as the Prophet said to the companions in a mass-transmitted authentic hadith as mentioned by Najm al-Din Haythami, “You do not have faith until you have mercy.” The companions responded, “We have mercy for one another.” The Prophet sallallahhu alaihi wasallam, replied, “You do not have faith till you have mercy, and you do not have mercy till you have mercy for mankind, each and every one of them (al-nas jami’an).” And yes, within it we do identify with our fellow Muslims, but not as an exclusivist brotherhood, as the Prophet included all people within the brotherhood of mankind, as indicated in the hadith, “None of you has faith till he loves for his brother (in the narration of Imam Bukhari in his Tarikh: ‘… loves for mankind’) what he loves for himself.” Imam Nawawi explained that “brother” here primarily referred to the non-Muslim brothers of the early converts to Islam, and so the hadith applies to non-Muslims (and Muslims) generally and hence to the whole of mankind.

More from Sabbir:

I just wanted to provide a little update on progress on this subject since last time I wrote.

I mentioned in earlier posts that I suspected that the discretised charge of the elementary fermions might be explained in terms of a ‘defect angle’ which is experienced by neutrinos rotating around the Kerr ring-singularity defining the particle. Because the direction of time changes sign every time the neutrinos pass through the ring singularity, they effectively become bounded standing waves ‘trapped’ in time as they wind around a toroidal surface surrounding the singularity an integral number of times.

Now, after a little research, I discovered that the existence of defect angles in classical gravity corresponding to the intrinsic spin of elementary particles is actually nothing new. Indeed there exists a generalisation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity (GTR) which allows for the existence of ‘torsion’ – in particular, the connection coefficients associated with gravitational curvature on Riemannian manifolds, which are usually taken to be symmetric, are allowed to have an asymmetric component which is associated with particle spin. This particle spin, in the current context, would be associated with the speed-of-light rotation of the Kerr singularity.

It happens that torsion results precisely in the kind of ‘spacetime defect’ (namely the defect angle) that I am looking for to explain the charge of electrons and quarks.

This generalised theory of gravity is called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama (ECKS, or simply EC) theory, as the basic ideas were first introduced by Einstein and Cartan in the 1920s and 30s (I think), and then later fleshed out in much greater detail in the 1960s by Kibble (currently still at Imperial College) and Sciama. The theory is a very pleasing one in the sense that it has been proven that is precisely the local gauge theory associated with the full Poincare invariance group of relativistic spacetime, which consists of both Lorentz transformations and spatial translations – something which cannot be said of GTR.

It has been known since its development in the 1960s that there was a very strong link between Einstein-Cartan theory and the usual theory of defects and dislocations in crystals in condensed matter theory which had been beautifully elucidated by Kondo and others in the 1940s, and that they shared an almost identical mathematical structure. More recently, Petti showed more directly the equivalence between the theory of spacetime defects and Einstein-Cartan theory.

All of this is of course very encouraging in the context of my proposed model. The defect angle required by the model becomes a necessary consequence of the rotation of the ring singularity in the presence of torsion, and furthermore, the most elementary scalar particles (which need not be black holes) can be associated with localised conical singularities, which will cause matter in the exterior to be “attracted” to them (think of straight lines trajectories around a cone that actually look circular or elliptical).

I had claimed that the neutrinos themselves were formed by the gravitational collapse of either ‘gravitational waves’ or ‘gravitons’ (or ‘dilatons’ or ‘axions’ or some other proposed massive scalar particle), without being able to specify precisely which or why. If the analogy between Einstein-Cartan theory and the theory of dislocations is actually more than that, and rather reflects the true nature of spactime, then these ‘gravitons’ may in fact be none other than (geometrical) defects in spacetime, i.e. the conical ‘pinches’ referred to above which give them the appearance of having mass. Furthermore, spacetime itself is then simply a (possibly continuous limit of) some kind of Riemannian crystal lattice, the defects in which give rise to the physical universe that we see.

This would be quite fascinating as it would suggest that there is some kind of ‘substructure’ to the fabric of spacetime – that perhaps we are living on some kind of regular crystalline structure formed within the context of an even deeper physical reality, and that GTR and – if my hypotheses are indeed correct – all of the physical laws that we observe in nature, emerge from this more basic and fundamental physical reality. Indeed it has hard to imagine otherwise, as it would be difficult to explain the existence of defects in a perfectly smooth continuum.

Wassalam,
Sabbir.
—

Bismillah. More from Dr. Sabbir Rahman:
—
Assalamu `alaikum,

Some time ago the question was asked as to whether the “Standard Model” of physics (i.e. our current model of elementary particles such as electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, gauge bosons, etc) was “renormalisable”.

The question is an important because it is often the case that in quantum field theory, when we naively try to calculate the probability of some physical process taking place, we end up with the answer ‘infinity’ which is non-sensical. In particular, this happens in quantum electrodynamics (QED), which was invented by Feynman & Wheeler and others around 1945 in a series of famous papers. The problem is, that if we assume that the electron has a finite mass, and that the electromagnetic force has finite strength (i.e. “coupling”), then the integrals in the calculations are divergent and give rise to infinities because of self-interactions of the electron (e.g. where it emits and then re-absorbs a photon), which for example would cause the electron to appear to have infinite mass, as opposed to the finite mass that it is known to have.

Fortunately, a mathematical ‘trick’ was developed, called “renormalisation”, which basically involves manually introducing additional infinite ‘counterterms’ into the calculations, which are designed to precisely cancel out the divergences in the integrals. This is like setting the bare mass and couplings to infinity in just the right way to make the actual measured mass come out just right. None of this is really justified mathematically, but as it happens, the answers come out just riright, and indeed QED is the most accurate physically theory we have. In fact it is so accurate as to be astonishing. Although renormalisation works fantastically well, the physical interpretation of the resulting theory becomes something of a challenge. This is a strange situation, but it is a fair reflection of the current state of our understanding of theoretical physics.

While QED is ‘renormalisable,’ not all theories are – and the rules as to whether any given theory is renormalisable or not can be very complex. If a theory is not renormalisable, then the infinities in the calculations cannot be cancelled out by adding counterterms, and the theory is therefore generally considered inconsistent.

Now the Standard Model, which describes not only the electromagnetic interactions between electrons and photons, but also the weak and strong forces, has a much more complicated form than QED, with a rather complex Langrangian containing many parameters such as masses and coupling constants. According to the Wikipedia entry on ‘renormalization’, “… the Standard Model of particle physics contains only renormalizable operators.” While this means that the Standard Model may potentially be renormalisable, as far as I am aware, no-one has actually gone to the immense trouble of actually proving it. Rather, it is generally (and rather naively) merely assumed to be renormalisable.

Now this is quite a contentious issue, as it lays open the possibility that our current theory of elementary particles is actually inconsistent. This is not merely idle speculation – some years ago, while I was at MIT, a professor in the mathematics department actually held an emergency seminar in which he claimed that the standard model was actually non-renormalisable, based upon his (extremely complicated) calculations to third order in perturbation theory. This obviously sent shock waves through the Theoretical Physics department, and a fellow graduate student of mind was tasked with checking the calculation himself. It turned out that all as well to third order, and that the Mathematics professor had made a mistake somewhere in his calculations.

But on the other hand, it did highlight the fact that renormalisability of the theory had not actually been checked. A few years ago, I brought the matter up on the sci.physics.research newsgroup, and it appears that no-one really knows, even now, whether the Standard Model is renormalisable. Furthermore, our perspective of both the Standard Model (it is only a low energy approximation to the real ‘theory of everything’) and renormalisation has changed over time, and so it is no longer clear whether the question is even relevant or meaningful (for example due to the existence of ‘dualities’ between theories with large and small parameters – a theory with infinities may actually be equivalent to another theory that is finite, and so may be well-defined after all).

The same professor mentioned above went on to ‘prove’ in two further papers that the Standard Model was indeed nonrenormalisable. It is possible that these papers also contain calculational errors (though I would imagine that the professor would have taken significantly more care the second time around), and so the matter remains, as far as I am aware, unresolved.

This is the newsgroup thread to which I refer above (see the seventh message in the thread, submitted by myself, which initiated the subsequent fairly interesting discussion):

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/b4b0c79d137f2a97/dd220abcc752633c?#dd220abcc752633c

Was-salam,
Sabbir.

Bismillah.

*** Ramadan 1431 will begin on Wednesday the 11th or Thursday the 12th of August 2010, God-willing. Refer to your local competent authority for the actual decision. ***

Please refer to the “next new moon” details at HMNAO’s UK Moonwatch website, http://www.crescentmoonwatch.org.

Astronomical new moon occurs just after conjunction on Tuesday 10th August at around 3am Universal Time or GMT, God-willing. Therefore, conjunction-based methods, as recommended by the great 14th/20th-century Hadith scholar Ahmad Shakir using a maqasid-based argument that some contemporary authorities do not appreciate, would give a Ramadan start date of 10th or 11th August.

The visibility map shows that naked-eye sighting of the hilal (new crescent moon) will be easy across South America on the evening of 10th August, and for almost the whole world on 11th August.

Using a “local sighting” criterion, Ramadan would begin on 11th August in South America and on 12th August around most of the rest of the world. Note that “local sighting” for the UK might even give a start date of 13th August.

“Local sighting” is problematic, since applying it strictly to the UK would have resulted in a 31-day Ramadan last year (1430/2009), were it not for the 30-day cutoff point.

Using the “sharing the night” principle of Hanafi jurisprudence, the South American sighting would also apply to North America, Europe & Africa at least, giving the start of Ramadan as 11th August. This includes the UK.

Using the “sighting from the east” principle of Shafi’i jurisprudence combined with instant telecommunication (for, as Ibn Taymiyyah said, information transmission is crucial in this matter) gives us the Universal Hejra Calendar. This uses the Atlantic Ocean as a lunar dateline, roughly speaking, and would give the following Ramadan start dates:

North & South Americas: 11th August
Rest of the world: 12th August

The visibility map suggests that the hilal will be visible via telescopes from parts of Southern Africa on 10th August. A UHC-type approach would then extend the 11th August start date to Africa, Europe & the Middle East at least.

Note that the hilal is NOT visible from Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. until 11th August. However, judging by past experience, claims of sighting are likely from these countries on 10th August, even though such sighting is unquestionably, physically impossible.

Muslim communities in minority contexts are likely to differ about the Ramadan start date. Such diversity is inevitable in the absence of political unity that would facilitate unified decision-making. We should celebrate the fact that we agree on 27-28 days of Ramadan, i.e. over 90% of the month, and concentrate on the holistic benefits of this blessed month rather than arguing too much about its dates.

Finally, a word about the validity of astronomical calculations in such decisions. This has been endorsed by numerous contemporary jurists, especially those grounded in the maqasid al-shari’ah (higher objectives of law). Unfortunately, this is opposed by those who stick rigidly to literalist approaches to individual texts, whether from madhhabist or anti-madhhabist perspectives.

As Imam Subki said, those who know that the crescent is visible via astronomical calculations may begin their months on that basis. Such knowledge used to be limited to an elite, but is now widely-available in our information age.

Ibn Taymiyyah said that the matter hinges upon the information one has about crescent visibility. He further said that it was not humanly possible to predict crescent visibility accurately. This statement was correct in his time, seven centuries ago, but the exponential development of science since then means that it is simply not true any more.

Some argue that the jurists allowed calculations for prayer times, but not for lunar dates, based on the hadiths of seeing the moon and “we are an unlettered nation.” Numerous imams have pointed out that the Muslims are no longer unlettered. A literalist approach to “seeing the moon” is inconsistently not applied by some authorities to “seeing the dawn” specified for the beginning of fasting in the Qur’an, for “the dawn becoming clear” (tabayyun) is originally a visual condition. Furthermore, Imam Subki explicitly stated that the jurists distinguished between calculations for prayer times and lunar dates precisely because the latter were too difficult to calculate accurately. Science has now removed that obstacle.

May Allah shower all of humanity with the overwhelming, inner and outer blessings of Ramadan.

Usama Hasan (UK)

Fellow, Royal Astronomical Society & Khatib, Al-Tawhid Mosque (though writing here in his personal capacity)

20th (?) Sha’ban, 1431
1st August, 2010

(Bismillah)

PRESS RELEASE

July 29, 2010

For Immediate Release

Contact: Elmina Kulasic
Executive Director
202-347-6742

Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Read Thomas Hammarberg´s latest Human Rights Comment:

Those responsible for the death of Natalia Estemirova must be brought to justice.

One year has passed since human rights defender Natalia Estemirova was brutally murdered. On 15 July 2009 she was abducted near her house in Grozny, Chechnya. She was pushed into a car by several assailants and some hours later her body was found in a forest in Ingushetia. She had been shot in the head and chest. Those guilty of this horrible and cowardly crime are still not brought to justice. This is an unacceptable and dangerous situation.

The Comment is available in English, French and Russian on the Human Rights Comment’s web page: http://commissioner.cws.coe.int

Bismillah. I am at the God & Physics, Polkinghorne memorial conference in Oxford, praise God. My paper later today iA is entitled, “Allah & the New Physics” 🙂

If you are interested, please see http://users.ox.ac.uk/~theo0038/Conferenceinfo/Programme.htm for more information.

There is an open lecture by Prof. John Polkinghorne himself on Saturday 10 July iA 4.30-6.45pm at the Martin Wood Lecture Theatre, Physics Dept, next to the University Parks, Parks Rd. Title, “Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker.” Do come along if you’re interested.