17
I have been emailed this interesting contribution to the thread from Koenraad Elst who is currently not a member of Skyscript. I have obtained Koenraad's permission to circulate it here on Skyscript.
What is celebrated in the Muslim world as Mulad-un-Nabi or Maulid-un-Nabi, "birthday of the prophet", is actually the anniversary (according to the Islamic calendar) of his death. Like with most people in those days, birthdays were often not remembered or recorded, whereas the dying day of a person who during his lifetime had become famous, was. Even the year of his birth, 570, may have been chosen for its great prestige as the year in which the Meccans braved an invasion by the Ethiopians, the "year of the Elephant".

16 July is not the date of Mohammed's Migration (nor is 2 July), but of the New Year's Day (1 Muharram) of the year in which Mohammed migrated. The migration took a few weeks and Muslims usually consider Mohammed's arrival in Qub?, a suburb of Medina on 8 Rabi-ul-Awwal, i.e. 20 September in the R?m? or Julian calendar, or 66 days after 1 Muharram. However, the orthodox biography by Ibn Ishaq (tra. Alfred Guillaume, p.227/333) puts the arrival on 12 Rabi-ul-Awwal (24 September) "at high noon". The men who had been expecting him had waited every morning in the shade until there was no shade left (towards noon), and then they went inside. On that day too, "we went indoors and then the apostle arrived". So, Sun in the 10 th house nearing the Midheaven. That gives (on either date) Ascendant Sagittarius, sign of a proselytizing religion.

Campion's chart for the beginning of the first year of the Islamic calendar would, in the astrological worldview, certainly have some importance. but in that case, the time chosen may need to be very slightly corrected. The year starts when the first month starts, and a month starts when the new moon becomes visible. The evening before, the moon was hardly three degrees from the sun and hence quite invisible. This sunset in therefore the right one. But then one should determine the exact moment when to people in Medina the moon became visible. When the sun has sunk a few degrees lower, say after 20 minutes (bringing the ascendant just into Aquarius), it is definitely visible. But is it visible at the moment of sunset, or before, all depending on weather conditions? Maybe a science wizard could give more detail there. A crazy discussion to outsiders, but important to people who predict the story of a world religion from a horoscope...

Cheers,
Koenraad Elst
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

Islam

18
Greetings:

Moderator Mark has asked me to move a short note I made on the Mars Cazimi stream to this place. In doing so I will expand my comment and frame it in the pattern of this present thread:

The era of the Moslem calendar begins on the evening of the Prophet's flight from Mecca to Medina. That is recorded as occurring at the time of the first visible crescent of the new Moon, on the first day of the month of Muharram. The flight in Arabic is the[i] H.ijrah[/i], in English the Hegira. This is usually assumed to have been on 16th July 622 by the Julian calendar, which is the date the year AH 1 started (AH = [i]Anno Higarae[/i]). This date was calculated in retrospect many years after the Hegira, and even though this is accepted as a fact throughout the Moslem world, and is the basis for the chart Nicholas Campion provides in [i]The Book of World Horoscopes[/i], displayed at the start of this stream, I believe it is wrong.

My reasons are as follows:

The prior Moon-Sun conjunction occurred at 23:05 Cancer on 14th July, 622 at 8:04:26 AM local time, when 27:58 Leo was rising at Mecca and the luminaries were in the 11th house. It is highly unlikely that the new crescent would have been seen following sunset that same day--the Moon was visible in the sky for 21.2 minutes after sunset but the crescent was so thin, just 0.28%, that it was virtually invisible.

The following evening, 15th July, the Moon was visible in the evening sky following sunset for over an hour, 73.5 minutes according to modern calculations, and 2.86% of its hemisphere was illuminated at this time. If the sky was clear (and there is no reason to suspect that it would not have been at Mecca in July unless there was a sandstorm and the presence of one is not suggested in Moslem writings) sightings of the new crescent are expected to occur if the Moon stays bright in the evening sky for at least 45 minutes after sunset (on 15th July it was bright for 73.5 minutes) and at least 1.6% is illuminated (here 2.86% was illuminated).

In addition, at moonset on 15th July the azimuth difference between the Sun and Moon was 12 degrees 7 minutes, and according to Carl Schocht the crescent will be visible if the altitude difference (the [i]arcus visionis[/i]) between the two lights is 8.8 degrees or more. Here it is almost double that, 15 degrees 10 minutes.

By both of these generally accepted criteria, the new lunar crescent would have been visible at Mecca on the evening of 15th July 622, one day earlier than the official date Campion quotes.

For chart I propose, go to:

http://www.astronor.com/skyscript4u9ets.gif

There is one further reason that I believe is sufficient by itself to say that the Hegira truly began on Thursday evening, 15th July, and not the following evening, the 16th, as officially stated. At the time I estimate the crescent was first seen there is a triple conjunction visible in the evening sky of the Moon and Venus with the royal star [i]Regulus[/i]. To competent astrologers of this or any other time such a combination in the evening sky is of major significance. As we know, many Moslem countries have the Moon and Venus on their flags, and this is obviously so because at this important event--the Hegira is considered to be the birth moment of Islam--the Moon and Venus were visible together in the evening sky, and they were not only present with each other, but their conjunction took place in the presence of [i]Regulus[/i]--a triple conjunction of the most awesome type.

Venus was very bright, magnitude -4.0, and [i]Regulus[/i] at 10:43 Leo, just below the Moon in the evening sky, would also have been clearly visible (the Moon was not large enough to outshine this important star) with a magnitude of 1.35.

Just above Venus in the evening sky Mercury, the messenger, is also very bright (magnitude -1.5) and clearly visible in the evening sky over Mecca.

By comparison, the following evening at sunset, which is the date and timing of Campion's chart, the Moon is 12 degrees of longitude beyond Venus, some ten degrees higher in altitude. Both are still visible, but now the increased distance between them is so great that such a wide conjunction is unlikely to have been commemorated ever since on Islamic flags. And the Moon is now far removed from [i]Regulus[/i].

Charts for the Hegira are often incorrectly set for Medina, not Mecca. This occurs with the Campion chart. Muhammed and his followers did not arrive in Medina until 2nd July.

One can comment further on this Hegira chart and its relationship to my proposed chart for The Prophet. Those interested can read this in my article "The Prophet Mohammed & Islam" in [i]Considerations XVII: 3[/i], available for free download at www.freeconsiderations.com.

The crossing of the position of Hegira's triple conjunction by the cazimi Mars at the beginning of February 2011 (see Andrew Bevan's insightful comments on the Mars Cazimi stream) appears to be an appropriate stimulus for the current uprisings in the Middle East.

Regards.

19
37CENNED wrote:
The era of the Moslem calendar begins on the evening of the Prophet's flight from Mecca to Medina
Hello 37CENNED,

Actually it doesn't. Like Nicholas Campion I think you are confusing two quite separate things. Campion's chart makes the mistake of assuming the Hijrah ended on or around July 16th. You have made the error of assuming it started around that time. Sorry but you are both wrong! I can see you have put quite a bit of time into this. Still, it looks to me like another beautiful astrological theory that doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny. I therefore dont think your chosen date is necessarily any more reliable as an event date for the Hijrah than Campion's.

I refer you to the previous post of Koenraad Elst below which I think is substantially correct (although there is no historical consensus on the exact length of the Hijrah or its dates). Note however that the Hijrah didn't take 66 days! Its just that Muhammed's arrival in Medina is often dated that long after the first date in the Muslim calendar 1 Muharram. Some sources claim the Hijra began on 26 Safar AH 1 (9 September 622-Julian) and completed on 22 Rabi' I AH 1 (4 October 622-Julian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(Islam)

All these dates rely on Muslim recording which may be out by up to 3 months due to intercalary months inserted during the first few years until intercalary months were prohibited during the year of Muhammad's last Hajj (AH 10).

In short we are hopelessly lost in trying to find a timed chart for either the start or completion of the Hijrah. Traditional astrologers avoided this kind of confusing mess by using charts for great cycles such as the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction prior to the rise of Islam. I certainly think the Aries ingress chart for 622 is very worthwhile studying. The first Islamic 'state' came about in 622 with the establishment of Islam as the religion of Medina following the Hijrah or migration of Muhammed and his followers from Mecca.

Koenraad Elst wrote:
16 July is not the date of Mohammed's Migration (nor is 2 July), but of the New Year's Day (1 Muharram) of the year in which Mohammed migrated. The migration took a few weeks and Muslims usually consider Mohammed's arrival in Qub?, a suburb of Medina on 8 Rabi-ul-Awwal, i.e. 20 September in the R?m? or Julian calendar, or 66 days after 1 Muharram. However, the orthodox biography by Ibn Ishaq (tra. Alfred Guillaume, p.227/333) puts the arrival on 12 Rabi-ul-Awwal (24 September) "at high noon". The men who had been expecting him had waited every morning in the shade until there was no shade left (towards noon), and then they went inside. On that day too, "we went indoors and then the apostle arrived". So, Sun in the 10 th house nearing the Midheaven. That gives (on either date) Ascendant Sagittarius, sign of a proselytizing religion.
You are also mistaken, in my opinion, in assuming Muslims link the symbol of the Crescent Moon and star to a specific event in Islamic history. There is substantial historical evidence that this symbolism predates Islam and was adopted at a later point by the Ottoman Turks. The prevalence of the Crescent Moon and Star in modern Islamic countries flags can be explained quite logically and very convincingly without any need for a retrospective astrological theory.

Check out these links for more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_and_crescent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fl ... a_crescent

Since the Muslim calendar is lunar and the crescent Moon determines the start of every month within it it is not hard to understand the attraction of this symbolism to Muslims. This and the influence of Ottoman Turkey is why modern Islamic states ( e.g. Algeria, Malaysia, Pakistan) have readily adopted this symbolism on their flags.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

20
I am unaware of the qualifications of Konrad Elst or for the Wikipedia quotes you give, but Encyclopedia Britannica 15th edition 22 volume (which most trust as an authentic authority) clearly states in the final sentence of the initial paragraph of page 3 : "The Islamic Era (AH or Anno Hegirae) begins on the first day of the Arabic year in which the hijirah took place--July 16, 622, in the Western calendar." I challenge the appropriateness of this date, and suggest that it should be the 15th and not the 16th. Elst's statements make no sense at all to me.

21
Hi 37 Cenned

There is no conflict in what I stated and your quote from Encyclopedia Britannica. Many years after the death of Muhammed there was a confusing array of calendars used to define years. The Muslims therefore retrospectively adopted a calendar starting from the year of the Hijrah not the date of it as you suggest. It is confusing I accept as they call it the Hijira calendar! I suppose one could argue it has a symbolic significance as a date adopted to start Muslim history. However, the date does not coincide with the Hijrah itself. So if you are looking for an event chart timed to the start of the Hijrah ,as you seem to be, you have hit a dead end I am afraid. Just think Christmas and the actual birth of Christ and you are on the right track.

The Muslim historian and polymath Al-Biruni discusses in his book The Chronology of Ancient Nations that a calendar had to be adopted for quite practical reasons to assist the administration of Muslim territories.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

22
hi Mark

Again let's turn to the worthy publication that I believe was originally birthed in the Athens of the North: this time page 921 of Volume 5 under the heading of [b]hijrah:[/b]

start at 8th line of that entry:

"...It was 'Umar I, the second caliph, who in the year AD 639 (AH 17) introduced the [i]hijrah[/i] era (now distinguished by the initials AH, for Latin Anno Hegirae, "in the year of the [i]hijrah[/i]"). 'Umar started the first year AH with the first day of the lunar month of Muharram, which corresponded to July 16, 622 ..."

Cheers

23
"...It was 'Umar I, the second caliph, who in the year AD 639 (AH 17) introduced the hijrah era (now distinguished by the initials AH, for Latin Anno Hegirae, "in the year of the hijrah"). 'Umar started the first year AH with the first day of the lunar month of Muharram, which corresponded to July 16, 622 ..."
No problem with that quote either. :'

However, you seem to be assuming that the start of the the lunar month of Muharram is effectively an event chart for the start of the Hijrah. It isn't. The later Muslims approach is much more rough and ready than we astrologers would like it to be. Otherwise why do Muslim authorities discuss the events of the Hijrah coming later in that first year? In particular around September? The later Muslims adopted Muharram as their effective new year marking the start of the year in which the Hijrah era occured. However, thats not the same as the actual time of when the Hijrah occured.

The adoption of Muharram as the first month of the Hijrah era was simply upholding a pre-Islamic tradition of the Arabs which continued to be used. The adoption of it as the first month in the Hijra era was therefore a logical standardization of the Muslim calendar which appealed to ancient tradition. It also meant that Islam adopted a specifically Arabic calendar as opposed to the competing models offered by the Greeks or Persians.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

24
I fear that you are missing the importance of the moment of initial sighting of the lunar crescent at the start of a month or year. This time, when stated by Ptolemy, has been mis-understood as 'new Moon' (ie the actual conjunction, even though this is invisible) and generated much poor astrology over the centuries.

Rather than quote a student of Hindu matters as you do with Koenraad Elst, let me quote from Dr Mohammad Ilyas, the acknowledged authority on the Islamic calendar. In his 1994 paper "Lunar Crescent Visibility Criterion & Islamic Calendar" in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Vol. 35, No. 4--I have a complete copy of the paper and believe the BJAA is where I got if from but nowhere is the journal name stated as the source even though Vol/No are.

Page 426: "The practice of using the newly visible lunar crescent for starting every new month is old and was common with most lunar calendar users as much as those in Arabia. The Islamic calendar also requires the beginning of a month to be based on the first sighting. This was re-emphasized through a Qura'nic verse:

Concerning the New Moons
Say: They are but signs
To mark fixed periods of time
In (the affairs of) men
And for Pilgrimage
...(Qua'n; 2; 189)

This is particularly important for religious events like the beginning and end of the fasting month and the date of Pilgrimage to Kaaba in Mecca. This was further emphasized by the Prophet Muhammad in one of his sayings:

'Begin fast with the sighting of the new Moon and break fast with the sighting of new Moon. If it is clouded, complete the month as of 30.'

"

Ilyas then continues for another 30+ pages on the various methods used over the centuries to forecast the time of the new crescent's appearance. I have myself improved on the methodology but that is outside the present discussion.

Cheers.

25
Noone denies the role of the visible crescent moon in Islam. It was also very important in pre-Islamic Arabia for calendrical purposes. That is where the Muslims got the idea of adopting Muharram as their first lunar month from.

However, you have failed to demonstrate any any tangible connection between the event of the hijrah and this astronomical event. As I have pointed out the exact timing of the Hijrah is hopelessly confused. If it was timed to a cresecent Moon it it could have been one over several months.

I think its more likely though that the Hijrah was not an elected event at all. Lets look at the historical context. While Muslims now like to present this as a planned event Muhammed was effectively fleeing for his life from Mecca. Have you have read the story of Muhammed starting off the hijrah by hiding in a cave from swarms of Meccan polytheists seeking to kill him? It seems highly unlikely this was an elected event!

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

27
If that is your opinion, what was the point of your May 26, 2010 post? In which direction will the wind blow tomorrow?
I put up the initial chart by Campion for discussion and debate and I have been influenced by other peoples opinions and knowledge since that time. Hence I am looking at the subject differently now. That is surely the point of a forum?

If you dont want your ideas challenged or to have a debate the only option is to create your own website and control the commentary. Otherwise you will have to tolerate dissenting opinions here.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly