Interesting reading Mark?s thread here with the interchange of thoughts from 37CENNED, Juan, and Mark. I think all of you are raising interesting points about this possible horoscope. For many years I have recognized the ancients deemed the ?first light? of anything from the heavens as an important astrological/astronomical moment. Yet I see very little work being applied to these ?first light? moments by today?s astrologers, probably because of the complications of calculating these moments; whereas, the ancient astrologers/astronomers were observing these moments of timed ?first lights.? Also, these ?first light? moments were definitely implemented into the ancients calendars. The ancient Egyptians? began their calendar year with the heliacal rising of Sirius as well as beginning their months with the ?first light? of the crescent moon. It has been documented by other writers the origins of these ?first lights? moons comes from ancient Egypt and this tradition was still in use in 622 AD. Could we astrologers today be missing something important, mundanely, by not striking charts for these ?first light? moments? As Juan pointed out, the horoscope(s) discussed here seems to be some type of an ?elected? scope for an entire religion. This makes me think these ?first light? crescent scopes could hold a key for individual elections scopes. Have modern/past astronomers made a mistake in reckoning the true ?New Moon? which has led astrologers astray for striking ?New Moon? charts? I have not done a-lot work with the conventional ?New Moon? charts with mundane astrology but have always felt they were somewhat un-reliable. I know the ancients looked upon the dark Moon (?New Moon?) as an evil omen to begin anything. Juan, you are an excellent astronomer?can the ?first light? crescent moons be easily calculated and computerized? 37CENNED?I know you are doing work with these ?first light? crescent moons. Will you post or drop me a PM if you develop or see where a reliable list for our calendar year for these ?first light? moons are ever published/online?I would appreciate.

Regards, Steve

Juan wrote:

You mentioned two types of events to be used as astrological radix: the timed or elective historical events and the astronomical "beginnings" such as a cardinal ingress, lunation, conjunction, etc. I'm saying this date is both: it is an elected moment decided upon carefully because of its cultural, historical, and astronomical significance.

True, nothing happened at that precise moment or day, but nothing happens either at the moment of a conjunction or an ingress, and in the case of the July 16 (or 15) chart, we have something peculiar that separates it from the way we use conjunctions and ingresses that to me is the key to its significance: that once this date was established as zero point, everything, absolutely everything from then on, is tied to it.

Sorry I think you are comparing apples and pears here. Lets look at say a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. That is a indicator of trends for a 20 year period. An Aries ingress chart is usually relevant to a quarter and the overall year too. The length in effect of solar and lunar eclipses is debated with some suggesting months and others years. Generally, the effect of a solar eclipse is seen as lasting longer. Then we have lunation charts. We tend to use them until the next lunation occurs.

However, its not quite that simple. For example in the absence of an elected chart for the founding of a dynasty medieval astrologer such as Abu?Mashar suggested using an ingress chart for the entire dynasty. In particular the Aries ingress which preceding the founding of the dynasty. Equally, medieval astrologers used a chart for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction prior to the birth of Muhammed as an indicator of the new faith.

However, all these charts fall within the timed orbit of the ?base? chart whether it was the birth of Muhammed or the founding of a dynasty. The Islamic Calendar chart isn?t like that. The faith wasn?t formed within the span of that lunation was it? Actually, one might seriously question why we are obsessing on the Hijra itself at all. Why was this selected and not the say the date of Muhammed?s birth, his first revelation of the Koran or his first preaching of the faith? Surely, they were more pivotal dates in the birth of the faith?

The medieval writer Al Biruni in his ?The Chronology of Ancient Nations? explains how this was debated by the early Muslims. The Hijra was not selected because it was seen as the most important date in Islamic history. It was simply selected because of ambiguity regarding other key events in the life of Muhammed. He points out the Muslims also considered adopting other calendars such as that of the Greeks and Persians. The calendar was adopted to assist the smooth running of Islamic Arabia as there had developed confusion of trade and commercial transactions. The motivation to create the calendar was therefore not primarily religious but rather pragmatic. I accept there was a cultural distinctiveness in adopting the traditional Arabic New Year. However, the selection of the new year before the year of the hijrah was in many respects a fairly arbitrary decision. It wasn?t carefully elected by astrologers as you suggest. If it had been why do none of the Islamic astrologers refer to this as significant?

Its undeniable this date has retrospectively assumed a significance for Muslims. However, in my view that doesn't make a sound astrological case for adopting this chart.

Juan wrote:

In other words, to me, it doesn't matter that the date was established 16 years later in A.D. 638 out of convenience, what matters is that it became a universal, mathematical (chronological in this case) reference frame.

I guess that is the nub of our disagreement. I think this distinction matters a great deal.

Juan wrote:

Two things I see are implicit in our differing views: from a general perspective the concept --or rather our underlying assumptions-- of what constitutes a valid traditional, canonical, conventional, astrological zero point or "radix", and from a more particular perspective whether an after-the-fact calendrical event has or should be given enough astrological significance or weight to be used as "radix".

Agreed.

Juan wrote:

This was discussed (from another angle) recently by Ed Falis in the "Primary Directions" thread, and I am only stretching the concept a little bit: essentially, the zero point of a calendar is a mere arbitrary convention, but so is any other zero point used in Astrology, such as the zero point of the zodiac, or a cardinal ingress, or the use of the instant of birth of a person or of anything else as the reference point for the whole of a life --which is an extreme example of arbitrariness that lies at the very heart of Astrology.

Timing astrology to events, or previous astrological configurations is not arbitrary in my view. However, if you support Geoffrey Cornelius and his perspective I can see that there is case can be made for this approach.

Juan wrote:

Astronomical events or fiducials used as zero points contain a kind of necessity in astrological terms: Astrology is supposed to be about astronomical events, but these astronomical events or fiducials must always be ASSIGNED to events in our lives by means of a mental process that has nothing to do with Astronomy and is all about metaphors and symbolization. The choice of the moment of birth as the reference point from which to examine the rest of the newborn's life is an example of this symbolization. Why do we choose the beginning instead of the middle or the end as points of reference? the answer is: underlying mental and cultural assumptions.

I think we are both at risk of repeating ourselves here. However, just to recap timing a chart from a historical event or a previous configuration is not about the subjectivity of the astrologer. These are agreed conventions that all astrologers use. You are arguing the chart you have advocated is meaningful because you choose to give it meaning. I think you are on much more subjective ground than using the moment of birth or a timed event as a basis for a chart. As for your issue on past/future and relativity it seems we are into the realm of the philosophy forum.

Most mundane, natal and electional astrology works from the notion of ?seed? moments or generators. Horary is a bit different since there the seed is the question itself. However, Cornelius argues the astrologer?s consciousness shapes meaning and significance from a chart. Still, the astrologer doesn?t select any time for a horary question he likes. S/He usually have to work with the time they receive a question. Nevertheless, if you want to use the ?divinatory astrology? argument to your chart you are at liberty to do so. If you adopt that view you can argue any chart the astrologer thinks is significant can be adopted and does not need any ?seed? moments to refer to.

Juan wrote:

Lunations or ingresses, if we are to follow traditional astrological usage, refer only to events until the next lunation or equivalent ingress, and are of limited scope in time. This is not what the "chart of Islam" is about. We are talking of the chart of an event (cultural, historical, and astronomical, incarnated in the Islamic calendar) that happened only once and became the historical reference point or frame from which all Muslims look at the world.

I have covered this above but I just wanted to say you are incorrect in assuming ingress charts are always limited in scope. Medieval astrology often proposes ?foundational ingress charts? for dynasties and kingdoms. These can still be used today. In a sense your argument is rather similar. The problem is that the lunation you have selected didn?t coincide with the birth of Islam. Anyway, we could probably debate this until the cows come home. In essence I remain unconvinced and sceptical about your chart and nothing you have said has so far has he convinced me otherwise. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Whatever chart we choose to work on we need to test it with historical events in Islamic history. Perhaps a more productive way forward might be to agree on some key dates to test our charts against? I think you said you had tested out your favoured chart in this way. What events did you use?

regards

Mark

37 Cenned wrote:

In your Feb 13 note to Juan, after dismissing the validity of the initial sighting of the new lunar crescent?methodology that both he and I use?as a significant moment for the start of a new month or year, you say that you are ?currently looking at lunation and ingress charts for early Islam too.?

I didn't dismiss your methodology as such. What I challenged was the selection of this particular new Moon to sum up the Islamic faith. As I have already discussed with Juan there are no specific historical events tied to this chart ( ie a lunation period). You were previously strongly arguing here that this was the lunation chart preceding the event of the Hijrah. Now that that position is no longer credible I wonder whether you still have faith in this chart?

37 Cenned wrote:

As a result of this common mistranslation astrologers have over the centuries erroneously believed lunation charts should be calculated for the moment of the conjunction of the luminaries. Except at the solar eclipse, the Moon is invisible at the moment of the conjunction.

I think you are making a very interesting and thought provoking point here. I was aware the Babylonians timed the New Moon based on the appearance of the crescent. Maybe you could consider opening a specific thread on this issue? It clearly has a significance that extends well beyond the remit of this topic. I suggest the traditional forum would be a suitable place.

Mark

Steve wrote:Juan... can the ?first light? crescent moons be easily calculated and computerized?

I had just finished re-calculating 37CENNED data when I read this (see below). His explanation has helped me see with more clarity and detail the astronomical issues involved in the concept of "first visibility of the lunar crescent".

As you can see from "CNN" 's explanation, the calculation is based on observational parameters --which in the real world can vary from one location to another. The actual "limit of visibility" can only be approximated mathematically, one has to be there "in situ" to confirm if the lunar rim was visible or not, and maybe this is one (or the) reason why in conventional astrological terms (i.e., horoscopics) this is not used, and instead we use a purely abstract, arbitrary, non-observational mathematical reference point (a geocentric sun/moon longitudinal conjunction).

If we were to calculate the time of the New Moon from a "real" observational standpoint, then it would happen that (because of lunar parallax) the exact time of the conjunction would be different depending on where you are. From the purely geocentric, abstract, and commonly agreed astrological conventional standpoint, this variance would not exist and the time will be the same for everybody. (Personally, btw, I --like most astrologers-- favour working with conventions rather than "real world" data).

37CENNED wrote: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.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but these are geocentric calculations. I re-calculated using topocentric (parallax) coordinates, and found that in the real world, the New Moon occurred at 6h21m local time (6h18m apparent time), in 23,02 Cancer in the 12th house, when the Asc. at Mecca was 4,50 Leo. This changes your results a little bit, but not significantly (it doesn't change your final conclusion):

you get: 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. I get: the Moon was visible for 15m after sunset, and the disk was 0.2%

you get: 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. I get: the Moon was visible (theoretically) for 68.1 minutes, 2.6% of its rim was illuminated

you get: 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 arcus visionis) between the two lights is 8.8 degrees or more. Here it is almost double that, 15 degrees 10 minutes. I get: acimut difference at moonset is 11,49' and altitude difference 14,15'.

for the 15th July sunset chart you give 6:52:40 PM LT - 16:13:24 UT. I get 6:38:40 PM LT (6:35:30 apparent time) - 15:59:28 UT. (NOTE: the exact UT equivalents are tricky because they are dependent on the algorithm for delta-t that your software is using)

Juan

It is fully eleven years since I calculated the time of sighting of the first lunar crescent (NOT sunset!) at Mecca on 15th July 622. Since then I have changed my computer from PC to Apple together with most of the associated software. I therefore now have difficulty replicating the original values I quoted. Instead I will briefly describe something of the process I followed and its history.

Based on observational data, and apparently widely used for centuries, the following two-part rule of thumb was initially used by Babylonian astrologers to find the lunar crescent?s first visibility:

1. At local sunset, the Moon?s age must be more than 24 hours?that is, from the time of the conjunction to the time of sunset on the evening of observation a full period of 24 hours should have elapsed.

2. The arc of separation (the equatorial difference in right ascension) between the Moon and the Sun must be greater than 12 degrees?that is, the Moon should set at least 48 minutes after sunset. This criteria subsequently became known as ?the lag?.

In the Indian Surya-Siddharta written circa 500 AD the 48-minutes time lag continued to be used and there was also a discussion of how to predict the tilting of the Moon?s horns. In the Pancha Siddhantika of Varaha Mihira both the longitude and declination distances between the Sun and Moon were used to identify when the new crescent would appear in the sky.

In the 8th century AD, Ya?quib ibn Tarig proposed using a time lag of 40 minutes and an arc of light (the angle between the centers of the Sun and Moon) of 15 degrees.

In the 9th century, in his Handbook of Astronomy, Muhammed ibn al-Battani gave detailed instructions for computing the Moon?s azimuth when it would be first seen, together with the inclination of the Moon?s horns with respect to the ecliptic.

Muhammed ibn al-Biruni in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms recommended al-Battani?s method. Even so, al-Biruni himself derived a simpler method that relates the difference between the azimuths of the Sun and Moon to the Arcus Visionis, the Sun?s altitude when the Moon is exactly on the horizon.

Both al-Battani?s complete but complex solution and al-Biruni?s simplified version then appear to have been forgotten. Compilers of Muslim calendars, the months of which commence on the day the new lunar crescent is first sighted, reverted to the ancient Babylonian two-part rule of thumb listed above.

It was only as recently as 1910 that al-Biruni?s approach was independently rediscovered by the British astronomer J. K. Fotheringham. It was then improved by Karl Schoch.

Table 1:
AD - AV
0 - 10.7
1 - 10.7
2 - 10.6
3 - 10.5
4 - 10.4
5 - 10.3
6 - 10.1
7 - 10.0
8 - 9.8
9 - 9.6
10 - 9.4
11 - 9.1
12 - 8.8
13 - 8.4
14 - 8.0
15 - 7.6
16 - 7.3
17 - 7.0
18 - 6.7
19 - 6.3

The above table lists the minimum AV (Arcus Visionis) for the Moon to become visible for different ADs (Azimuth differences) between the Sun & Moon at moonset, according to Schoch. All values are in degrees.

The Azimuth Difference is the difference between the azimuths of the Sun and Moon at the time of moonset at the particular location.

As earlier stated, the arcus visionis is the altitude of the Sun (in absolute values) when the Moon is exactly on the horizon at moonset. As the Sun must be below the horizon for the new crescent to be seen, all of these AV values are obviously negatives.

This means that if the two luminaries share the same azimuth at moonset, the Sun must have an altitude of 10.7 degrees in absolute values for the crescent to be seen that evening. If the AV is 9.8 degrees the AZ Diff needs to be 8 degrees or more.

In 1979 an official report by the Royal Greenwich Observatory stated ?it is unlikely that the new crescent will be visible unless the elongation exceeds 10 degrees and the altitude of the Moon exceeds 5 degrees when the depression of the Sun is 3 degrees.?

In 1994 Muhammed Ilyas, the current acknowledged authority on lunar visibility, wrote: ?the Moon must have an altitude of at least +6 degrees at the time of sunset.?

However, none of these authorities seem to have concerned themselves with attempting to predict the time when the new crescent is visible at a particular location. They have confined themselves only to whether or not it will be visible on a particular evening. In ancient Babylon and in present-day Muslim communities the intent was to know the evening when the new crescent would become visible and then go out and see it. That may be very well for future observations but it doesn?t help the astrological researcher who is attempting to learn how varying planetary positions in past new crescent charts can be associated with subsequent happenings at that location. We need to have an idea of the rising degree at the time the new crescent would, should or most likely was sighted.

The only recent criterion I know of comes from astronomer Bernard Yallop, who says that the time of best visibility of the new lunar crescent is given by the following simple empirical relations:

Time (Moon best visible) = A + 4/9 of (B ? A)

where A = time of sunset, B = time of moonset

Unfortunately, at the time Dr. Yallop suggests the Moon has invariably been visible for some time in the evening sky. It may be the best time to go look for it, but it is not usually when the new crescent could have first been seen.

My own research, carried out in the late 1990s, aimed at identifying the rising degree at the time the new crescent may actually become visible, uses the Schoch values given in Table 1 to identify the day and then the difference in altitude at both sunset and moonset to identify the Sun?s altitude at the time of the likely initial sighting. The equation I derived is as follows:

Sun altitude when Crescent first visible = 0.2381 X ? 0.5256 Y ? 0.2435

where X = altitude difference of Sun and Moon at moonset
and Y = altitude difference of Sun and Moon at visible sunset

For both altitude differences X & Y and for the time of moonset, the Moon is taken with parallax.

Having obtained the solar altitude, the SolarFire rectification module within the Horary mode is used to identify the moment when the Sun has this altitude.

Cheers

Hello 37 Cenned,

I really do hope you follow up my suggestion of opening up your own thread on the subject of the first lunar crescent. Either on the mundane or traditional forum. The traditional forum especially has a very erudite readership so I think you might find some of the responses there very well informed and useful. Your ideas in this area deserve a wider readership.

regards

Mark

Mark wrote:... in the absence of an elected chart for the founding of a dynasty medieval astrologer such as Abu?Mashar suggested using an ingress chart for the entire dynasty. In particular the Aries ingress which preceding the founding of the dynasty. Equally, medieval astrologers used a chart for the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction prior to the birth of Muhammed as an indicator of the new faith.

The usage you are describing here by Abu-Mashar of the Aries ingress is the same as using the First Lunar Visibility at the beginning of the year the Hegira took place, as "CNN" has been telling you. I am only adding and extending the significance of it based on the cognitive, anthropological role of calendars in our lives.

However, all these charts fall within the timed orbit of the ?base? chart whether it was the birth of Muhammed or the founding of a dynasty. The Islamic Calendar chart isn?t like that. The faith wasn?t formed within the span of that lunation was it? Actually, one might seriously question why we are obsessing on the Hijra itself at all. Why was this selected and not the say the date of Muhammed?s birth, his first revelation of the Koran or his first preaching of the faith? Surely, they were more pivotal dates in the birth of the faith?

We go back here to the underlying assumptions about what constitutes a valid radix, which I characterized as cultural in nature, the result of a mental choice or symbolization process. We have agreed (I think) that we are using different criteria to make the choice, we don't see meaning in the same things or in the same quantities in one specific thing, we even have very different views of what is Astrology, what is a horoscope, etc. Like you said, there is no need to repeat ourselves.

The medieval writer Al Biruni in his ?The Chronology of Ancient Nations? explains how this was debated by the early Muslims. The Hijra was not selected because it was seen as the most important date in Islamic history. It was simply selected because of ambiguity regarding other key events in the life of Muhammed. He points out the Muslims also considered adopting other calendars...

All this --I think-- is irrelevant, as it deals with the reasons why the arbitrary convention was established.

However, the selection of the new year before the hijrah was in many respects a fairly arbitrary decision. It wasn?t carefully elected by astrologers as you suggest. If it had been why do none of the Islamic astrologers refer to this as significant? Its undeniable this date has retrospectively assumed a significance for Muslims. However, in my view that doesn't make a sound astrological case for adopting this chart.

I never suggested (or at least had in mind) that the Islamic zero point was "elected by astrologers", I simply said that it was carefully selected, using a reasoning that is not necessary to repeat or speculate about. The important point here is that you dismiss its use as astrological radix for Islam as "unsound", while I see the opposite: it offers a specially significant and powerful point of reference... we have both exposed our reasons.

...timing a chart from a historical event or a previous configuration is not about the subjectivity of the astrologer. These are agreed conventions that all astrologers use.

Following convention and dismissing what deviates from it is not subjectivity... or is it?

You are arguing the chart you have advocated is meaningful because you choose to give it meaning. I think you are on much more subjective ground than using the moment of birth or a timed event as a basis for a chart. As for your issue on past/future and relativity it seems we are into the realm of the philosophy forum

This is not a fair description, since I have already mentioned my own extensive empirical testing of this chart years ago. The title of the main article of which you quoted part of the appendix is "Testing the Chart of Islam". Whether you think my methodology is sound or valid is irrelevant at this point. The problem is not the chart but the judgment that dismisses it a priori because it is not based on what you consider a meaningful historical or astrological event. The meaninglessness or meaningfulness of an event is not because of the rules of Astrology, but because of cultural and historical conventions and assumptions. (you are right this belongs to the Philosophy forum).

Whatever chart we choose to work on we need to test it with historical events in Islamic history. Perhaps a more productive way forward might be to agree on some key dates to test our charts against? I think you said you had tested out your favoured chart in this way. What events did you use? - regards, Mark

All the work I have done with it is from almost 10 years ago and can be read in the collected posts in my site; it deals mostly with contemporary events. As I said it was done in terms of research on the meaning of a few centaurs and transneptunians --which would not be acceptable to most in this forum-- so I need to go over it and select the data that involves the principal planets only. It will be a good thing to do... I hope to find the time...

Juan

37CENNED wrote:It is fully eleven years since I calculated the time of sighting of the first lunar crescent...

Dear 37CENNED,

this the most detailed, most clear, and to me most instructive explanation I have ever seen. Many thanks.

Juan

Hello Juan,

I would happy to continue our debate but I think I better give you the last word here for a number of reasons. Firstly, it seems to me our debate is fundamentally philosophical in terms of what constitutes a valid basis for framing a mundane chart. I am coming from a basically a traditional perspective whilst your position appears more liberal and modern in approach. Ultimately, the issue probably therefore belongs on the philosophy forum. I think we probably both agree on that. Secondly, we have have both set out our differing positions very extensively. I think continuing this further is only going to get repetitive and somewhat dull for members reading this. Thirdly, as a moderator I dont want to give the impression that I am trying to stiffle or censor your views here. I was simply, expressing my personal reservations about the approach you have adopted. I dont think any further debate on this here will get us any further.

Moving from the theoretical to the practical it would be good if you could take the opportunity to demonstrate historical examples which you feel demonstrate the accuracy of your selected chart.

Alternatively, to make this more of a challenge what if I propose the events for you to test your chart with? I was thinking of really dramatic events in Islamic history. Still I suppose there are issues around what constitutes a validation of a chart. Are transit hits really enough? Surely not. I recall the varying transit hits used to justify the diverse versions of the July 4th chart for the USA. What about primary directions, secondary progressions, eclipses, solar arcs, return charts etc. From a more traditional perspective there are also techniques like ingresses, profections and firdaria.

Incidentally are you now moving over to adopting the chart proposed by 37 Cenned rather than the one previously suggested on your website? Can I therefore assume that the chart proposed by 37 Cenned is now the one you are advocating?

I will be exploring my own ideas further on the thread but you are more than welcome to put forward your case for the validity of your chart in practical astrological terms here.

Thanks

Mark

Mark wrote:Moving from the theoretical to the practical it would be good if you could take the opportunity to demonstrate historical examples which you feel demonstrate the accuracy of your selected chart.

Here are a few contacts taken from the collected posts in my site that I think are significant or validatory...

[NOTE: for clarity in the exposition I have removed this part of the post and reproduced the same contacts in subsequent posts, with the corresponding comments and references]

Right now, regarding the recent events in Egypt, I note that at the time of Mubarak's resignation (11 Feb 16:02 GMT):

Mars = 26,07 Capricorn
Sun = 27,41 Capricorn
Saturn of Islam = 26,27 Cancer

Alternatively, to make this more of a challenge what if I propose the events for you to test your chart with? I was thinking of really dramatic events in Islamic history. Still I suppose there are issues around what constitutes a validation of a chart.

It would be interesting (for me) to explore what possible "role" one can see this chart has in those events, although we know beforehand that we will disagree on what constitutes validation or on what is relevant.

Incidentally are you now moving over to adopting the chart proposed by 37 Cenned rather than the one previously suggested on your website? Can I therefore assume that the chart proposed by 37 Cenned is now the one you are advocating?

I am all open to consider that this may be an even better chart, but I am not "adopting it" until I have worked with it for a considerable time.

I will be exploring my own ideas further on the thread but you are more than welcome to put forward your case for the validity of your chart in practical astrological terms here.

Like you, I don't think that there is only one collective chart that is superior to all others, but I am definitely interested in finding more significant correlations to this chart, so bring in the dates and I will see what I find.

BTW, this is not "my chart", I am just following others who brought it to my attention and consider it an important or useful radix for Islam.

Juan

Juan wrote:Right now, regarding the recent events in Egypt, I note that at the time of Mubarak's resignation (11 Feb 16:02 GMT):
Mars = 26,07 Capricorn
Sun = 27,41 Capricorn
Saturn of Islam = 26,27 Cancer

pursuing this a little more (all sidereal):

Sun/Mars conjunction (Feb 4 2011,16h41m UT): 20,37 Capricorn
Sun of Islam = 19,53 Cancer

which is 0,44' from the exact opposition, a very direct hit to the "heart" of Islam. Consider also that Mubarak's Sun is in (or around) 19,57 Aries sidereal according to Mark's solar chart. When a week later Sun/Mars passed over Islam's Saturn, Mubarak fell.

Furthermore, the events happen during the days following the Jupiter return of Islam:

Jupiter Islam = 2,01 Pisces
tr. Jupiter solar eclipse Jan 4 = 2,07 Pisces
tr. Uranus solar eclipse = 2,08 Pisces

Secondary progressions show something intriguing that adds to the historical significance of the events in Egypt. The following are sidereal positions (with "bija") for March 15, 2011:

progressed Moon = 6,03 Taurus
progressed Sun = 7,13 Taurus
progressed Venus = 6,54 Taurus (retrograde)

This means that a new spiritual seed or design of destiny is being planted in the heart of Islam right now, and we are barely beginning to witness the first signs of a new 30-year period (a progressed New Moon) in Islamic history strongly marked by Venus, which I would describe as a restoration of Islam's most cherished values, an intimate sense of spiritual fulfillment. The progressed inferior conjunction of Venus was exact in early January 2011.

Juan

hello, as a contribuition i would like to share the Horoscope of Hegira according to Abu Mashar (The book of religions and dynasties,chapter eight pag 129 -Yamamoto and Burnett translation).

It's just a corroboration,since Mark posted the same chart earlier.
As usual,medieval astrologers cast an ingress solar Aries chart in order to do analyses of historic events in perspective.
Data:March 21,622 11:38 A.M. Medina-Saudi Arab(39e36/24n28)
Asc: 2 Cancer 12 M.C.21 Piscis 50
a Conjunction of Mars and Saturn,at 22 Cancer,falls in the Ascendant
Venus,planet of the Arabs,lies in the house of religion,house 9.
New Moon at house 10,mark the beginning of the religion.

All the best
Gerson