Hot/"ramadan" Answer
-
Peace Afridi,
I don't think that non trust worthy Christian archeologists built the present pagan theme park in Mecca and told sectarians to idolize a stone cube, the Black Stone, "holy" Zamzam water, etc... .
Peace,
Ayman
Archaeology News
peace
So how about this i know you will say it is written by Muslims so not trust worthy.
http//archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/212
you said that Arabic was derived from Aramaic now let us find out how a reach and superior language can be derived from inferior language.http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm
In what may be described as one of the earliest comparative linguistic attempts, al-Jahiz concludes that whereas the languages and ideas of non-Arabs had followed a process of immense meditation and long exercise of the mind, and rested heavily on studying books, Arabic language and thought, he says ? while attempting to historize for the pre-Qur'anic period ? were uniquely spontaneous and were almost inspired. Words were at the Arabs' disposal once they wanted them, and were uttered in abundance without exerting any extraordinary effort. The Arabs were not like those who needed to memorize the knowledge of others deliberately, nor had they to artificially model their speech in the form of those who preceded them. They could not but transmit what hey naturally found palatable and close to their hearts and minds.
Furthermore, Arabic has a charming simplicity and smoothness to learners, provided, that there exists a genuine need to know it. Those who question al-Jahiz's opinion are advised by him to visit Arabia and meet its most eloquent poets and orators in order to have a direct taste of Arabic.
2 Richness
Arabic expression, " ", al-Jahiz adds, "has no equal, and Arabic language has no parallel in its richness and wealth." This richness is attributed by al-Jahiz to an incomparable synonymic and derivative nature of Arabic. Al-Jahiz says,"The Arabs have been 'more' eloquent in their expression and they enjoyed a language which was 'richer' in vocabulary, 'terser' and (uniquely) precise in word, the composition of its speech was 'more varied' and the application of proverbs which were in use therein were outstanding and more current".
3 A Divine gift or a human product?
One may ask how was it that the literary excellence of the Arabs preceded their cultural excellence? i.e., how did it happen that Arabic reached a certain level of maturity (before Islam) prior to the actual appearance of their civilization? Was there an Arabic civilization before the Arabic language matured to its pre-Qur'anic stage? Was it an outcome of a gradual agreement among Arabs? Or was it installed in form and content all of a sudden?
These questions bring us closer to al-Jahiz's view of the relation between Arabic and the Qur'an.
Not only the Qur'an was divinely revealed, Arabic itself (amongst other languages) was also inspired. Adam (PBUH) is said to have been the first speaker of Arabic, the language that was exclusively endowed with a unique capacity to grow and increase in perfection and was enriched with unique incomparable features in order to allow it to demonstrate the miraculous difference between human and divine eloquences. According to a Hashimite report, al-Jahiz says that an outstanding Arabic was later initiated in the person of the Prophet Ismacil (PBUH) who is said to have become an outstanding speaker of Arabic, not after proper instruction but because of a divine miracle that shifted his tongue and character to Arabic. That shift was a proof to the truth of his prophethood. So Ismacil (PBUH) stood in relation to his people in the same relation Muhammad (PBUH) was to stand before Quraysh. In both instances the miracle was in the sudden way each excelled the native speakers of Arabic before him.
What happened between Prophet Ismacil's time (PBUH) and the pre-Qur'anic stage of Arabic maturity? al-Jahiz's answer is interesting, as it reflects a developmental outlook within the overall inspirational outlook to Arabic. In other words, al-Jahiz gives room for a human role in the journey undertaken by Arabic. According to al-Jahiz, Arabic was a bounty-lent by God to the Arabs. It was God who provided the Arabs with the chance of exercising and experimenting with that bounty, thanks to the superior synonymic and derivative capacities endowed in it, before the time came to reveal the difference between human and Divine eloquences of Arabic.Until Arabic reached its pre-Qur'anic stage, al-Jahiz's account of the journey made by Arabic may hypothetically be sketched as follows
1- Prophet Adam (PBUH) first Divine inspiration of Arabic with potentialities of excellence which were not given to other languages inspired to Adam (PBUH).
2- The Arabs were offered God's bounty to experiment and enrich it in Arabia.
3- Prophet Ismacil's (PBUH) outstanding Arabic in relation to the Arabic of the people around him.
4- Pre-Islamic Arabs continued exercising with God's lent bounty until they produced an unprecedented literary output. al-Jahiz's rough estimation of the oldest poetry before Islam does not precede it by more than two hundred years. His other estimate of an (indefinite) but longer period does not go as far as the period that witnessed Greek wisdom. In both cases it is implied in al-Jahiz's attitude that Arabic had been undergoing a growing line of excellence which was proportional to its proximity to Islam. This observation applied to all Arabs, initially the Northerners then followed by the Southerners who could not avoid joining the circle of Arabic due to the common geographic setting, and frequent inter-marriages with the Northerners.
5- Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) outstanding Arabic in relation to the Arabic of his people; Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) sudden excellence in Arabic, ranks after the Qur'an in the hierarchy of excellence.
6- The unsurpassable Qur'anic Arabic.
7- Post-Islamic Arabic.
So what al-Jahiz believes to have occurred to Arabic in the meantime, is eventually evident in the superior literary status of its most notable clan, Quraysh. Quraysh is said to have been subjected to the strictest divine supervision that "eliminated genetic impurities (and raised it in its literary and socio-moral excellences over all other Arabian tribes) in preparation for all that is magnificent and most significant", al-Jahiz says
" ".
al-Jahiz's own description of the literary status of Quraysh and the Pre-Islamic Arabs sums up his view of Arabic mentioned above; i.e., of an inspired supervised Arabic. According to al-Jahiz, Arabic had been miraculously enriched, initiated and divinely nurtured until it reached its pre-Qur'anic destined stage of maturity whereby Arabic and the Arabs were both to experience and witness an unusual charming Arabic, the Qur'an, that had an unprecedented arrangement (Nazm ), a new literary configuration that assembled their very own alphabets and words yet which lies beyond their literary level of superiority, and stays unsurpassable!
4 Divine ' Qisma'
Al-Jahiz substantiates his original thesis of the divine origin of Arabic by making another comparative study, this time among the Arabian tribes themselves; he says
"While some Arabian tribes had shared the same fertile geographical setting, they however exhibited different poetical output. Thus, there was no relation between the geographical setting and poetical output. Poetry and power of expression, are due to " ", i.e., what Allah has allocated (Qasama)"According to al-Jahiz the invisible caring hand of God was not confined to the Arabs alone, but was also responsible for the virtues of all other nations. For example, the Greeks were also gifted with wisdom, the Persians with political management, the Turks with military strength, etc.
The Arabs were endowed with the Arabic language and its corresponding socio-moral code, which al-Jahiz calls " ", "the fortune of Arabic" (Hazz al-cArabiyya).
Again he says
"God's Justice ordained that His bounties be evenly divided among His creations, by giving each generation and every nation its right share, that is conducive to the correct understanding of religion and leading to the perfection of the world's welfare".And his notion of Divine "qisma" does not mean that such virtues bestowed by God on nations should be apparent in every member of these nations. They have been available on a general basis, and are likely to be almost uniquely present in one but not in the other nation, says al-Jahiz
"It was not that every Arab was a poet and expert in tracking foot-steps or in the science of physiognomy, but these virtues and the like were more abundant, widespread, exclusively perfected and more apparent amongst them" .5 Superiority of Arabic " " ("Fortune of Arabic"
Owing to the superior feature of Arabic, the Arabs were elevated to a distinguished literary and socio-moral status among nations
"Because of the eloquence of Arabic and the beauty of its expression, God sent His best Prophet amongst the Arabs, made his language Arabic and even revealed to him an Arabic Qur'an".
In other words, Arabic was God's chosen language for His chosen message i.e., Arabic could not have carried God's message to humanity had He chosen English or Latin for that purpose. Since Arabic was destined to play a specific function in the future, i.e., to witness the revelation of the Qur'an, we can now understand why al-Jahiz was inclined to expect a distinguished birth of the Arabic language, first in the person of Prophet Adam (PBUH), then in Prophet Ismacil (PBUH) accompanied in the latter case by God's supervision of his Qurayshite descendents, lest they, the Qurayshites, ? as an expected Islamic nation ? will not certainly benefit from the beautiful Arabic, its charming logic and its binding moral code that it had been intended to convey.What is significant in al-Jahiz's view of Arabic is not just the linguistic aspects of Arabic but also the inseparable socio-moral dimensions
" . ".If the Arabs were to excel the nations of the world, Arabic has been the mark and the cause of their excellence.
The fortune of Arabic, " ", that was exclusively for the Arabs had given them a three-fold superiority and a distinction over the nations
The Arabs have proved to be perfect candidates for the first Islamic society proposed in the Qur'an owing to the binding moral code that remained amongst their notables as was evident in the mastery of Arabs in cheering of virtues and condemning of vices, says al-Jahiz
" ... ."The Arabs have been credited with the honour of transmitting to the human race God's first Universal Speech that was conveyed through their language. It was through the Arabs that God addressed humanity, and it is therefore incumbent on the Arabs to translate the meaning of the Qur'an to all the world.
As the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, the Arabs were raised to be God's direct addressee, thanks to the (socio)-literary excellences He has provided.
The Arabic language is superior to the languages of the world in the same way that the Qur'an is superior to the language of the Arabs. The Arabs who failed to display something similar to the Qur'an, while they being God's direct addressees has been meant to be God's permanent sign and proof of His miracle to humanity at large, " ( ه ", as they, themselves, have failed to match its excellences.
6 The notion of Nazm (Qur'anic literary configuration)
al-Jahiz found the Qur'an to be magnificent in its amazing literary configuration, he says
"The Qur'an differs from all the known rhymes of poetry and prose. It is a prose whose rhythm is not modelled on that of poetry or rhymed prose (sajc, "" and whose configuration stands as a magnificent evidence and as a great Divine proof".
The underlying secret of the Qur'an, says al-Jahiz, lies in the very special and unprecedented composition of the very Arabic letters and words used by the Arabs. As in any masterpiece of art, the attention follows the way things are composed and assembled from the same raw material known to all .It is remarkable that this notion of Nazm was later developed by cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (d. 471 AH) who adopted al-Jahiz's position regarding the miraculousness or the inimitability of the Qur'an.
7 The notion of Sarfa and the literary capacity of the Arabs
In spite of al-Jahiz's Muctazilite position regarding man's great capacity of free will, it is only in this place that we find his view of human ability in relation to (i) literary output and (ii) the inability to surpass the Qur'an to reflect his belief in the "Jabrite" doctrine of Predestination (i.e., human free will is restricted in this respect).
Could he not have served the notion of Icjaz better without resorting to "sarfa", i.e., while still recognizing man's ability as continuously perfect and not turned away? The point was that while some maintained the notion of Icjaz, in their full recognition of man's undisrupted free will yet of his inability to surpass the Qur'an, men like al-Jahiz however, thought that it would show more respect for man's free will if we assume his established weakness vis-?-vis the Qur'an, was not a malfunction of our perfect faculties, something not coming from within when left to their normal functioning, but due to a Superior Will that turned them away from so doing. If al-Jahiz's resort to sarfa may appear to be an early compromise between caql (reason) and naql (revelation), it is in facta diplomatic call to continuously marvel man's caql that could have produced something like the Qur'an, had he been able to do so; i.e., if he could have escaped being eventually turned away by God from doing so. Al-Jahiz's view of sarfa is therefore twofolded in its implication. It is first implying a sarfa of capacity (Divine intervention, man's ability being divinely incapacitated), hence leading to sarfa of attention, will and desire. In this respect he was following the position of his teacher, al-Nazzam.But does al-Jahiz see the Qur'an as an obstacle to the future post-Qur'anic literary capacities of the Arabs?
No. If Arabic was destined to grow before the Qur'an, its post-Qur'anic development cannot be denied. Arabic was not meant to be frozen in the literary forms of pre-Islamic Arabs. Post-Qur'anic eloquence of Arabic was still possible, and al-Jahiz himself notes that some Arabic tribes reacted differently to the coming of Islam a tribe like Banu Badr remained poetless while Banu al-Harith b. Kacb produced famous Islamic poets, when they were not famous poetically before the advent of Islam. So while post-Qur'anic eloquence was recognized by al-Jahiz (even if it was emitted by non-Arabs) ? that eloquence was recognized by al-Jahiz, displayed by their predecessors and consequently below the perfect Arabic that had been cristallized in the Qur'an, thanks now not to the factor of mixing with nations that was gradually diluting their pure literary talents but also due to the Divine intervention or mechanism of "sarfa" through which al-Jahiz implies ? God was maintaining, generation after generation, His version of the "Perfect Qur'anic Arabic".
I think that the Qur'anic challenge loses its defying intensity and cannot be held as really open and charismatically eternal if man's literary abilities are unnecessarily and continuously checked, incapacitated and diverted from meeting that challenge. al-Jahiz's attempt to serve the concept of eternal challenge ? eternal cajz (failure) therefore need not be based on Divine "sarfa " but rather on an undisrupted capacity and undeflected attention; al-Qur'an's superiority is not because man's attention is eventually being turned away, but it is because man's capacity is kept at its best. In short, endowed with a promising potential for a growing exellence, Arabic's journey rested - in perfecto - in the Qur'an, leaving Arabs with the unsurpassable walls of the excellences of the Qur'anic Suras, as if these written suras (literally, walls or fences) were erected before all Arabs, speakers of Arabic and the nations of the world, as an empirical sign pointing to the undeniable difference between the literary peak of human (i.e. Arabic) eloquence and that of the Divine Qur'anic eloquence.
Concluding Comments
al-Jahiz's above views on Arabic should be fitted into their historical context as they initially reflect an intellectually curious search for the wisdom underlying the conditions that brought about the Qur'an in an Arabic dress. Hence, al-Jahiz may be credited for initiating such an analytical search into the distinctive features of pre-Islamic Arabic language and culture, and how they stand in comparison to the Qur'an and to all other languages and cultures, in the belief that there was no conflict between the "Universality" of the Qur'an and its "particular" Arabic setting.
In his rational attempt to understand the harmonious relation that existed between the Qur'an and the pre-Islamic language and culture, al-Jahiz at one point did say that Arabic enjoys a higher literary status than that of the other languages, simply because of the undeniable charismatic fact that the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic. This position needs not be necessarily implying a national prejudice by al-Jahiz towards the Arabs. In my opinion, the notion of the superiority of Arabic to the other languages, outlined above, does not reflect the real and complete picture, because before Arabic happened to enjoy that status, it had to demonstrate its inferiority to the Qur'an. Similarly, had the Qur'an been revealed in Latin, all non-Latin languages would have been inferior to it, as Latin would be less superior to the revealed Latin. So before raising Arabic to an internationally comparative linguistic analysis, we have to remember the historical failure of the most eloquent Arabs to imitate the Qur'an, that was intended to stress the permanent difference between human and Divine eloquences, between pre-Islamic Arabic and Qur'anic Arabic, and left as a sign to attract the world via the Arabs to its contents .
If the superiority of Arabic was not proposed by al-Jahiz out of a "Shucubi" national prejudice, it was nevertheless forwarded against those Shucubi's (anti-Arabs), who undermined the language and culture of the Arabs after realizing their role in the appearance of the Qur'an and the proposed Muslim Umma. al-Jahiz's opinion on the special birth or distinctive initiation and Divine supervision of Arabic could be seen from the same angle. In order to face "Shucubi" attacks, al-Jahiz had to raise the superiority of Arabic from the pre-Qur'anic era to the time of Prophet Ismacil (PBUH) or Adam (PBUH), thus enhancing its historical prestige (and future one too) that could fit with his Muctazilite notion of Khalq al-Qur'an (createdness of the Qur'an), but without taking it any further in time as his contemporary Hanbalites were assumed by him to have raised it above the limits of time (and therefore accused by him of polytheism by assuming it had co-existed with God) by opposing to hold the Muctazili notion.
As far as al-Jahiz's inspirational attitude to the origin of languages is concerned, one may raise the objection that if Prophet Adam (PBUH) was equally the first speaker of languages, what was the special thing about Arabic? Because Arabic had been special since its inception in Prophet Adam (PBUH), then this raises its status vis-?-vis other languages since its initiation. We may infer that out of all languages that had been revealed to Prophet Adam (PBUH), Arabic was the only language exclusively chosen by God to enjoy those innately incomparable superior features in order to fulfill its destined Qur'anic role i.e., in order to demonstrate miraculously the obvious difference between human and Divine eloquences. Of course, languages other than Arabic were used by God or His prophets before Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but by raising the charismatically inspired features of Arabic to Prophet Adam's time (PBUH), we may also say that not even one of the languages revealed to those Prophets was intended to demonstrate the dimension Arabic had had to convey. Previous prophetic messages were instead concerned with the content that could have been expressed in any language. The content of previous languages of revelation was stressed by external miracles which were outside the realm of human speech, but the content of the final revealed message was mainly stressed by its Divine and inimitable expression .In short, Arabic had a special start in preparation for a special future function. That is why we have seen al-Jahiz's explanation of the literary excellence of Arabs as being "almost inspirational", i.e., drawing from the Divine pool, implying that it could not have been learnt or acquired. Similarly was the case with Prophets Adam (PBUH), Ismacil (PBUH) and Muhammad,(PBUH), because perfection in Arabic eloquence can only be sought from the reservoirs of God whereby no one can rival Him in this respect. This outlook reflects another Muctazilitic way for expressing their concern to apply monotheism or Tawhid (here, uniqueness of power of speech of God) in all aspects; a concern that sometimes had grown out of its (Muctazilitic) proportions, and unintentionally bridged the gap with the Hanbalite's or "Jabrite's" concept of God, especially when one prominent member like al-Jahiz held that although it appears that man had had a share in the linguistic development undertaken by Arabic, it was in fact ? al-Jahiz says ? God who was the Hidden and Real Architect of events, Sole Supervisor and Unique Perfector of Arabic.
voodoo
-
And the hyporcrites are neither for or from you, they are swaying inbetween neither belonging to either side... is what i thought...too.............................................. peace
Peace Anthony and all
I Think I and others posted all the Quranic and Biblic Signs that support our points; on the other hand, Ayman and His Sect did provide theirs (dictionary and 712).
I think I'm done with this debate because I do not have any more new Proofs to provide, except one more, which is about Should the Blind fast or not;
as you Know Ayman and his Sect say that Blind should not Fast, but God says otherwise. Here are the ones who should not Fast according to God
(Fasting) for a fixed number of days; but if any of you is ill or on a journey, the prescribed number from days later. For those who can do it is a ransom, the feeding of one that is indigent. But he that will give more of his own free-willit is better for him, and it is better for you that ye fast, if ye only knew. (2-184)
Now, the Blind is excused From two thing, according to God
it is no fault in the blind nor in one born lame, nor in one afflicted with illness, nor in yourselves, that ye should eat in your own houses, or those of your fathers, or your mothers, or your brothers, or your sisters, or your father's brothers, or your father's sisters, or your mother's brothers, or your mother's sisters, or in houses of which the keys are in your possession or in the house of a sincere friend of yours there is no blame on you, whether ye eat in company or separately. But if ye enter houses, salute each other a greeting or blessing and purity as from Allah. Thus does Allah make clear the Signs to you that ye may understand. (24-61)
No blame is there on the blind, nor is there blame on the lame nor on one ill (if he joins not the war) but he that obeys Allah and His Messenger (Allah) will admit him to Gardens beneath which rivers flow; and he who turns back, (Allah) will punish him with a grievous Penalty. (48-17)
NOW, To Ayman Sect, Would you still TRUST HIM after knowing that he approved what God Did Not Approve? If you follow Him, You are Making him Equal To God.
May God Lead the True Believers to The Truth.
sun
-
Peace Afridi,
So how about this i know you will say it is written by Muslims so not trust worthy.
http//archaeologynews.multiply.com/journal/item/212This is a news blog not an academic article. It doesn?t say anything useful.
you said that Arabic was derived from Aramaic now let us find out how a reach and superior language can be derived from inferior language.
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htmYou didn?t understand what I said. It is not uncommon that people who never studied linguistics confuse language and script as you did. The Arabic language is from an entirely different branch of Semitic languages than Aramaic. Aramaic is from the Western Semitic branch while Arabic is from the Southern Semitic branch. So Arabic is certainly not derived from Aramaic.
What I stated is that the Arabic SCRIPT is actually the Nabataean Aramaic script. This is not what I say, this is an indisputable fact based on physical evidence. Script and language are two different issues. When I write ?bism allah alrahman alrahim?, it is still Arabic language but using the English script. So the Arabic language that you are reading in the great reading is actually written in a foreign script. This is why dotting had to be used since Nabataean Aramaic only has 22 letters to Arabic?s 28. On the other hand, Arabian scripts have the full 28 letters of Arabic. Here is an example of the real Arabian script
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/image007.jpg
In what may be described as one of the earliest comparative linguistic attempts, al-Jahiz concludes that whereas the languages and ideas of non-Arabs had followed a process of immense meditation and long exercise of the mind, and rested heavily on studying books, Arabic language and thought, he says ? while attempting to historize for the pre-Qur'anic period ? were uniquely spontaneous and were almost inspired. Words were at the Arabs' disposal once they wanted them, and were uttered in abundance without exerting any extraordinary effort. The Arabs were not like those who needed to memorize the knowledge of others deliberately, nor had they to artificially model their speech in the form of those who preceded them. They could not but transmit what hey naturally found palatable and close to their hearts and minds.
The above is simply a decorated way of saying that while Aramaic and Greeks were prestige languages of literary and religious books, Arabic was a vernacular street language.
Furthermore, Arabic has a charming simplicity and smoothness to learners, provided, that there exists a genuine need to know it.
People do not go to school to learn an oral vernacular. They learn it intrinsically. Hence, even illiterate people can speak very well the vernacular that they speak at home and on the streets.
Those who question al-Jahiz's opinion are advised by him to visit Arabia and meet its most eloquent poets and orators in order to have a direct taste of Arabic.
I have visited Arabia many times and spoken with nomads and heard poets and orators and none of them speaks Classical Arabic.
2 Richness
Arabic expression, " ", al-Jahiz adds, "has no equal, and Arabic language has no parallel in its richness and wealth." This richness is attributed by al-Jahiz to an incomparable synonymic and derivative nature of Arabic. Al-Jahiz says,
"The Arabs have been 'more' eloquent in their expression and they enjoyed a language which was 'richer' in vocabulary, 'terser' and (uniquely) precise in word, the composition of its speech was 'more varied' and the application of proverbs which were in use therein were outstanding and more current".This is false. Arabic is just like any other human language. It is full of inconsistencies and it borrows heavily from other languages. In fact, the majority of words in Arabic are not even ?Arabic? and they come from other languages.
Even the word ?allah? is borrowed from older languages such as Lihyanite and Thamudic where it is ?hn-ilah? (with the hn- Thamudic definite article) and in the contracted form as ?hnlh? all of which mean ?the god? or ?the deity (previously mentioned)?. In the contracted form, Arabic replaces the Thamudic definite article with the Arabic ?al? definite article to make is ?allh?.
3 A Divine gift or a human product?
One may ask how was it that the literary excellence of the Arabs preceded their cultural excellence? i.e., how did it happen that Arabic reached a certain level of maturity (before Islam) prior to the actual appearance of their civilization? Was there an Arabic civilization before the Arabic language matured to its pre-Qur'anic stage? Was it an outcome of a gradual agreement among Arabs? Or was it installed in form and content all of a sudden?There was no Arabic ?literary excellence? prior to the great reading. Like all oral languages, Arabic was not a language of literacy and literary or religious compositions. Such role is preserved for the written languages of prestige.
These questions bring us closer to al-Jahiz's view of the relation between Arabic and the Qur'an.
Not only the Qur'an was divinely revealed, Arabic itself (amongst other languages) was also inspired. Adam (PBUH) is said to have been the first speaker of Arabic,This is idiotic nonsense. Compared to other Semitic languages, Arabic is relatively modern. The earliest Arabic inscription is dated to the 2nd century CE. If you read the article?s references your will see that reference refers to nothing but al-Jahiz?s own Al-Bayan wa-al-Tabyin. Also, the language of the great reading and pre-Quranic Arabic inscriptions is vastly different to the Abbasid era literary language that later became known as Classical Arabic and that Al-Jahiz refers to.
the language that was exclusively endowed with a unique capacity to grow and increase in perfection and was enriched with unique incomparable features in order to allow it to demonstrate the miraculous difference between human and divine eloquences.
Arabic isn?t some miraculous language that descended from the sky. It is unbelievable that people in this day and age believe in such unscientific nonsense.
According to a Hashimite report, al-Jahiz says that an outstanding Arabic was later initiated in the person of the Prophet Ismacil (PBUH) who is said to have become an outstanding speaker of Arabic, not after proper instruction but because of a divine miracle that shifted his tongue and character to Arabic. That shift was a proof to the truth of his prophethood. So Ismacil (PBUH) stood in relation to his people in the same relation Muhammad (PBUH) was to stand before Quraysh. In both instances the miracle was in the sudden way each excelled the native speakers of Arabic before him.
This is so funny that it is sad that in this day and age people still believe it.
What happened between Prophet Ismacil's time (PBUH) and the pre-Qur'anic stage of Arabic maturity? al-Jahiz's answer is interesting, as it reflects a developmental outlook within the overall inspirational outlook to Arabic. In other words, al-Jahiz gives room for a human role in the journey undertaken by Arabic. According to al-Jahiz, Arabic was a bounty-lent by God to the Arabs. It was God who provided the Arabs with the chance of exercising and experimenting with that bounty, thanks to the superior synonymic and derivative capacities endowed in it, before the time came to reveal the difference between human and Divine eloquences of Arabic.
Until Arabic reached its pre-Qur'anic stage, al-Jahiz's account of the journey made by Arabic may hypothetically be sketched as follows
1- Prophet Adam (PBUH) first Divine inspiration of Arabic with potentialities of excellence which were not given to other languages inspired to Adam (PBUH).
2- The Arabs were offered God's bounty to experiment and enrich it in Arabia.
3- Prophet Ismacil's (PBUH) outstanding Arabic in relation to the Arabic of the people around him.
4- Pre-Islamic Arabs continued exercising with God's lent bounty until they produced an unprecedented literary output. al-Jahiz's rough estimation of the oldest poetry before Islam does not precede it by more than two hundred years. His other estimate of an (indefinite) but longer period does not go as far as the period that witnessed Greek wisdom. In both cases it is implied in al-Jahiz's attitude that Arabic had been undergoing a growing line of excellence which was proportional to its proximity to Islam. This observation applied to all Arabs, initially the Northerners then followed by the Southerners who could not avoid joining the circle of Arabic due to the common geographic setting, and frequent inter-marriages with the Northerners.
5- Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) outstanding Arabic in relation to the Arabic of his people; Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) sudden excellence in Arabic, ranks after the Qur'an in the hierarchy of excellence.
6- The unsurpassable Qur'anic Arabic.
7- Post-Islamic Arabic.The above is nothing but imaginary Abbasid era tales. Again, what is amazing are not the tales but that people forget their god-given common sense and believe in such ridiculous fairy tales. You might as well believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth-fairy.
So what al-Jahiz believes to have occurred to Arabic in the meantime, is eventually evident in the superior literary status of its most notable clan, Quraysh. Quraysh is said to have been subjected to the strictest divine supervision that "eliminated genetic impurities (and raised it in its literary and socio-moral excellences over all other Arabian tribes) in preparation for all that is magnificent and most significant", al-Jahiz says
" ".Sounds like Abbasid era Nazi propaganda for the fascist Abbasid to justify their divine right to rule.
al-Jahiz's own description of the literary status of Quraysh and the Pre-Islamic Arabs sums up his view of Arabic mentioned above; i.e., of an inspired supervised Arabic. According to al-Jahiz, Arabic had been miraculously enriched, initiated and divinely nurtured until it reached its pre-Qur'anic destined stage of maturity whereby Arabic and the Arabs were both to experience and witness an unusual charming Arabic, the Qur'an, that had an unprecedented arrangement (Nazm ), a new literary configuration that assembled their very own alphabets and words yet which lies beyond their literary level of superiority, and stays unsurpassable!
As the article says, this is nothing but ?Al-Jahiz's own description of the literary status of Quraysh? which has nothing to do with reality since Al-Jahiz wrote this in the 9th century CE, centuries after the fact.
4 Divine ' Qisma'
Al-Jahiz substantiates his original thesis of the divine origin of Arabic by making another comparative study, this time among the Arabian tribes themselves; he says
"While some Arabian tribes had shared the same fertile geographical setting, they however exhibited different poetical output. Thus, there was no relation between the geographical setting and poetical output. Poetry and power of expression, are due to " ", i.e., what Allah has allocated (Qasama)"And reference refers to another of Al-Jahiz?s inspired jewels of nonsense, Kitab Al-Hayawan. Do you really think that the god told Al-Jahiz how he allocated anything?
According to al-Jahiz the invisible caring hand of God was not confined to the Arabs alone, but was also responsible for the virtues of all other nations. For example, the Greeks were also gifted with wisdom, the Persians with political management, the Turks with military strength, etc.
Before the great reading, the Arabs had nothing. Their last glory days were during the times of the Nabataeans in the 4th century and they ended at the hands of the Romans.
The Arabs were endowed with the Arabic language and its corresponding socio-moral code, which al-Jahiz calls " ", "the fortune of Arabic" (Hazz al-cArabiyya).
Again he says
"God's Justice ordained that His bounties be evenly divided among His creations, by giving each generation and every nation its right share, that is conducive to the correct understanding of religion and leading to the perfection of the world's welfare".I am certain that reference doesn?t refer to anything that the god actually said so it is nothing but Al-Jahiz?s fantasy and not anything that the god ordained.
The rest of the article is more of the same nonsense and shameless Abbasid era fascist Arab nationalistic propaganda. It is amazing how they managed to fit so much nonsense in one article and it is more amazing that educated people in this day and age believe it. I think I have said enough and I will let other knowledgeable people here comment on such nonsense.
Thanks for posting Dr. Attar?s article on Al-Jahiz. It further proves that my article and the work that I am presently doing in this area are badly needed.
Peace,
Ayman
-
youll be haven some long posts!
-
Salaaman Hammad,
My stand is the same as yours. handshake
But not on brother Ayman and others nope
But about blind. I also think that Allah is the ONE who clarifies aayaats VERY clearly. And He would have added the blind also in the list of Ill and Journey. Allah never run out of words nor He forget nor anything will miss from His knowledge. He is the ONLY all Knower.
May Allah guide us all towards the path that He has chosen for us pr
Regards,
mmKhan -
Peace Anthony,
Now who here on this thread hasn't changed their inherited timing of the fast based on the god's signs?
Who has been using the great reading not to find out the timing but to work backwards to justify a preconceived timing? Answer this and you will see who is exactly like the dog example described in 7175-176, you give them the god's signs or not, they keep doing the same thing. This is why it is better to ignore them as I have been doing.
Anyone can mindlessly copy and paste passages from the great reading. So notice that they throw at you 2189 and 2197 but they don't tell you how their pilgrimage on the 8th of Dhu Al-Hijja is based on those passages. This is because of the fact is that their timing for the pilgrimage and for fast is entirely based on Hadiths and not on anything in the great reading.
The believers are ALWAYS divided from the hypocrites and the sectarians. If letting go of all preconceptions and following the god's clear signs causes division away from the hypocrites and the sectarians then we must be doing something right.
The hypocrites know who they are. They are claiming to follow the great reading while all they are really doing is defending their inherited preconceptions. Hence they mindlessly copy and paste passages from the great reading without following those passages. I think that it is clear on this thread who they are.
Peace,
Ayman
peace
So should we follow your calender for the fast and pilgramage, ect...? And when are the restricted months anyways ( me want to kill some of those who set up partners ;D )
And how do you know that what he copy and paste is not what he wants to say?
And also I think the hyporcrites and all practise the same rites or whatever you want to call it. What I ment by all fast at the same time weather hyporcrite or believer or sect, ect... God knows what is in the hearts.
Example " some of the people say they believe. But they do not believe. " So, the believers say they believe and also the hyporcrites say they believe and also the sects say they believe , and so on....
i hope im maken sence, if not then dont worry about it.
peace all
The dividers are the ones who have taken the Quran as obsolete.
-
Peace everyone,
1712 does not cancel any other verse. 105 and 1712 talk about how to know the number of years AND the calculation and there is no contradiction. These verses talk about a calendar (which includes both year and other time periods within the year) and not just year. If they had mentioned only year then there would have been a major contradiction.
Knowing the number of years AND the calculation = Calendar
By combining 105 and 1712, it follows that the calendar is luni-solar. Day, night, sun, and moon can all be used to calculate time periods, but the year can only be solar because of the following reasons
-
The year cannot be both lunar and solar because the lunar year will not be consistent with the solar year and therefore lunar months will not remain consistent with the actual seasons. The hunting restriction can only be in the same season consistently every year because the breeding of animals occurs in the same seasonal time period every year.
-
The year cannot be lunar because then the same lunar months will not occur in the same seasons all the time and because the hunting restriction is determined by "the restricted shuhoor", the time of hunting restriction will not coincide with the seasons year after year which will eventually result in killing of animals in their breeding season.
-
The only way to synchronize the time period of hunting restriction with the seasons without violating both 1712 and 105 and making sure that the same four restricted "shuhoor" occur in the same season every year is by using a solar year. Therefore, the year can only be solar.
Keeping this in mind and using such a luni-solar calendar, there will be 11 lunar months in a solar year for 2 consecutive years and 12 lunar months in the 3rd year. Therefore, the "shuhoor" in 936 cannot mean "lunar cycles/months" because it is impossible to count 12 lunar cycles/months in every solar year.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COUNT 12 LUNAR MONTHS IN EVERY SOLAR YEAR.
The "shuhoor" in 936 can only mean "full-moons" because we will be able to count 12 full-moons in every solar year. Whenever the 13th full-moon occurs we just ignore/skip it and count only the first 12 full-moons. This way the same "shuhoor" will always coincide with the same actual seasons. This does not cancel/contradict any quranic verse and proves beyond a shadow of doubt that "shahr" can only mean "full-moon" in al-quran.
936 mentions "counting shuhoor" and not the "number of shuhoor". Everyone, do yourselves a favor and open a calendar with moon phases marked in it and then count the "lunar months" in every solar year and that will be empirical verification of my above statements. You can use the following website if you wish
http//www.timeanddate.com/calendar/moonphases.html
-
-
Peace all --
Sorry on the late reply, my appendix burst and spent the week in hospital.
I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COUNT 12 LUNAR MONTHS IN EVERY SOLAR YEAR.
The "shuhoor" in 936 can only mean "full-moons" because we will be able to count 12 full-moons in every solar year. Whenever the 13th full-moon occurs we just ignore/skip it and count only the first 12 full-moons.
Not saying it's correct; as you drop/skip every 13th full moon one can also skip the 13th new moon and that 12 months has to equal exactly one solar year are your words not Quran.
Although, we cannot continue further until MONTH or FULL MOON is resolved first.
Full Moon Dates 2008
September 15
October 14
November 13The same person depending on date of offense
IF before FULL MOON on Sept. 14 will fast until Oct. 14th or 29 days
IF after a FULL MOON on Sept. 16 will fast until Nov. 13 or 58 days
492? so who does not find, so fasting TWO MONTHS following each other, a repentance from at God, and God is knowledgeable, wise/judicious.
To tell the same person and offense fast ONLY 29 days if on this date and 58 days on another date is a HUGE contradiction and direct disobedience to God.
-
Peace all --
Sorry on the late reply, my appendix burst and spent the week in hospital.
To tell the same person and offense fast ONLY 29 days if on this date and 58 days on another date is a HUGE contradiction and direct disobedience to God.
Brother Nun , How are you now, let our prayers be with you in help to recover you faster.
Fasyaam ul shareen.
could it be the period between two consective full moons? that is to say 29 or 30 days only?
He starts his count when he sees a full moon and finishes when he sees the full moon again.
peace
siki
-
He starts his count when he sees a full moon and finishes when he sees the full moon again.
peace
siki
-
Peace Nun,
Sorry on the late reply, my appendix burst and spent the week in hospital.
Hope you are feeling better and have a speedy recovery. I would suggest you to start taking wheatgrass powder and powdered greens (mixture of many powdered vegetables and fruits) in a glass of water every day.
Not saying it's correct; as you drop/skip every 13th full moon one can also skip the 13th new moon and that 12 months has to equal exactly one solar year are your words not Quran.
Although, we cannot continue further until MONTH or FULL MOON is resolved first.
I really wish you pay more attention to what other people say because it looks like you just skim the posts and then reply to something that the other person never said. This has been a recurrent theme in your replies.
I never said that 12 months have to exactly equal one solar year. 936 tells us that the COUNT of "shuhoor" is 12. I stated that it is impossible to COUNT 12 lunar cycles/months in every solar year. Try it yourself. You will be able to count 11 consecutive lunar cycles/months within a solar year for 2 consecutive years and then 12 lunar cycles/months in the 3rd year. THEREFORE, "SHUHOOR" IN 936 CANNOT MEAN LUNAR MONTHS.
On the other hand, you will be able to count 12 full-moons in every solar year. This resolves that "shuhoor" can only mean "full-moons" and not "lunar cycles/months".
You can also count 12 new moons in every solar year but "shahr" cannot be translated as "new moon" but can be translated as "full-moon".
Siki has already replied to second part of your post and I fully agree with what he said.
could it be the period between two consective full moons? that is to say 29 or 30 days only?
He starts his count when he sees a full moon and finishes when he sees the full moon again.
-
Peace Nun,
Sorry on the late reply, my appendix burst and spent the week in hospital.
I am sorry to hear about your ordeal and I thank the god that you are now well enough to post and I pray that you are on your way to a speedy recovery.
Not saying it's correct; as you drop/skip every 13th full moon one can also skip the 13th new moon and that 12 months has to equal exactly one solar year are your words not Quran.
The great reading mentions "crescents" in general in 2189 and not "new-moon". So unless you are changing your position that "shahr" means "month" and you are now proposing that it means "new moon" then the term "new moon" never occurs in the great reading and therefore your alternate scenario is not a valid example.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone and thank you each for the well wishes.
I?m feeling well and was in constant pain for 17 hours waiting for diagnosis and two days straight non stop vomiting every hour after surgery. They tell me it was the opiate anesthesia drug and now I know a bit why it?s difficult for heroin addicts to quit their addiction.
God taught me that no burden is too great on any individual and reaffirmed priorities on faith, health, and family before the material things.
Anyway, back to the topic...
Brother Nun , How are you now, let our prayers be with you in help to recover you faster. Fasyaam ul shareen. could it be the period between two consective full moons? that is to say 29 or 30 days only? He starts his count when he sees a full moon and finishes when he sees the full moon again. peace siki
Peace brother Siki,
Therefore to be consistent,
IF divorced woman (non menstruating, any age puberty to menses)
They wait 3 Full Moons = 58 days regardlessIn addition, those who see the FULL MOON, must fast it.
1 Full Moon = 1 day fastDo you see the above contradictions?
Peace truthseeker,
Hope you are feeling better and have a speedy recovery. I would suggest you to start taking wheatgrass powder and powdered greens (mixture of many powdered vegetables and fruits) in a glass of water every day.
Thank you, will do.
I really wish you pay more attention to what other people say because it looks like you just skim the posts and then reply to something that the other person never said. This has been a recurrent theme in your replies.
Please lay off starting every post with an assumption and especially clich? dictionary buzz words (i.e. fallacious arguments) stuff.
I never said that 12 months have to exactly equal one solar year. 936 tells us that the COUNT of "shuhoor" is 12. I stated that it is impossible to COUNT 12 lunar cycles/months in every solar year. Try it yourself. You will be able to count 11 consecutive lunar cycles/months within a solar year for 2 consecutive years and then 12 lunar cycles/months in the 3rd year. THEREFORE, "SHUHOOR" IN 936 CANNOT MEAN LUNAR MONTHS.
No, you auto-assume 12 lunar months have to equal one solar year.
Quran says...
936 That the months' number/count at God (are) twelve in God's scripture
There are 12 months ? that?s all.
IF to sync with each solar year or every 19 solar years is still a matter of study.
Although as stated earlier this month or full moon issue needs to be put to rest. When diagnosing any solution it's best to divide into it's smallest components and once solved move on else one will get entangled caught in a web of confusion. This is the same trap the 19 followers got into when their solution involved removing two verses to fit their theory ? big contradiction with the rest of the book cannot stand.
Siki has already replied to second part of your post and I fully agree with what he said.
See above...
Peace Ayman,
I meant skip a month; should be same lunar calendar ? start/skip full moon or start/skip a month starting with a new crescent. Only posting a possibility.
Please don?t take any these disagreements personally. I?m sure we are all sincere although we need to keep an open mind and I?m ready to change as long as a better understanding which does not contradict is found.
This is all healthy dialog same as the thread on inheritance which thanks to Samia I changed my understanding at least 3 times since the start of the year as it became clear and was able to address EVERY contradiction -- that is the criterion, the correct, and best meaning per Quran.
We can disagree on meaning of words although there can be no disagreement on simple things such as how many days to wait after divorce or to fast.
Peace
-
Peace,
This post is not directed to or a response to anyone in particular.
First I wanna say to each his own. I see that we are all gonna have to make our decisions personally, because there will be no consensus here. Secondly in defense of people who use the term ''new moon" they mean waxing crescent. In reality a new moon is not visible and is after the waning crescent disapears and before the waxing crescent appears again. But I think those who use new moon mean to say waxing crescent and that should be understood and corrected with comprehension when someone uses the wrong term, not manipulated, twisted and spit back as a counter argument.
Second I wanna say that a year can be counted in different ways. There is the solstice year (whch I have a hunch is connected more to the term sanah (being seasonal years) or just from one season until the repetition of that same season), there is a year where the same day comes back around or the beginning of the same season (that in my hunch is more connected to hawl as the revolution of a certain day or season), then there are years based on fixed calendars, hence we have Jewish, Buddhist, hindu, Chinese, Islamic etc. new years which are based on different fixed calendar systems (I think this concept of a year is more connected to the term 3aam, based on the Quran's usage of this word in a possesive way in relation to the Arabs of the Quran's time.) With that said I'm sure there have been years where 12 lunar cycles have fit within a solstice based year. All we have to do is follow any particlar Islamic month backwards until it occurs directly after the solstice, or project forward to such an event.
Third I wanted to say that 2183 brings up the topic of fasting, 2184 lays down exceptions to fast and that a ransom/compensation/substitute for a fast is feeding a needy person 2185 mentions how a shahr of Ramadan is a time for fasting 2186 clarifies our relationship with God 2187 tells us that a fast is a daily event done during daylight hours and lets us know that whereas eating may be fine in a place of worship at the end of the fast sex is not.
With that clear I would like to repeat that every daily fast that can be compensated/ransomed for in the Quran is compensated by feeding one needy person. 584 lets us know using the previous passages that 2 months = 60 daily fasts i.e. 60 days.
Hence the equation is 1 needy person = 1 daily fast = 1 day. And knowing that 2 shahr = 60 needy persons = 60 daily fasts = 60 days. Knowing that, I don't think it is difficult to know that 1 shahr = 30 days.
Again I will repeat the key idea here Every daily fast that can be compensated/subsituted/ransomed for in the Quran is compensated by feeding one needy person
If fasting is the last option then it cannot be compensated/ransomed/substituted for and previous options before fasting cannot be seen as compensations, ransoms or subsitutes for fasting because fasting in such contexts has NO compensation. Hence these occurence cannot be included in these equations because they are incompensatable and unsubstitutable fasts. Some such contexts for reference are 492, 2196, 589.
So with that said I think it is quite obvious that the Quran concept of shahr = 30 days. I've shown how as it concerns the dictionaries defintions 29 sunset to sunset days translates into 30 sunrise to sunrise days.
In addition to that and in closing. The concept of ramadan in the dictionaries has nothing to do with the color red, orange or yellow. It has only to do with the senation of intense heat, be that from weather, from friction or from occular irritation. So assuming that ramadan has something to do with the color red is an assumption NOT found in the dictionaries and with no evidence pointing to any possiblity that the Quran means the color red when it uses any form of the root word ramada.
Also I don't see 936 as a command in any fashion. But a statement that there have been 12 shahr in how God decreed things to be since he made the heavens in the earth. This gives me the impression that even before mankind was involved in this whole figuring out and counting a shahr deal that there were always just 12 of them in a year (the yearly context is clarified in 937 with the use of the term an-nasee' And as it concerns 3adad and 3iddah. the meaning of these terms can overlap. Literally adad is what is counted, and 3iddah is a count. But if we assume that a day has 24 hours, both the hours counted and the count of hours is 24, and hence the meaning becomes the same. So i find arguments based on the difference between these two words about the meaning of shahr or how many shahr are in a year and whether we are to leave out the 13th full moon if we take shahr as full moon becomes too semantical and word playish. It's the difference between saying the count of months and the number of months, and frankly although there is a difference, emphasizing it to prove a point is word play. In the end the count is God's (Inna 3iddata ash-shuhoori 3ANDA ALLAHI) and not ours and I think it is fair to expect that his count would be representative of what really is.
This is how I see it. There is no need for a barrage of attacks or repeats of previous counter arguments. I just wanted those interested to read my conclusions, observations and logic of the whole issue instead of thinking I have any personal interest in attacking Ayman or truthseeker's (proponents of the Red solstice moon theory for shahru ramadaana) or those who still believe that shahr should be Quranically seen as a lunar cycle begining and ending with the waxing crescent which I disagree with as well based on the obvious issue a 12 month lunar year poses for representing accurate and stable dates.
Godbless,
Anwar -
With that clear I would like to repeat that every daily fast that can be compensated/ransomed for in the Quran is compensated by feeding one needy person. 584 lets us know using the previous passages that 2 months = 60 daily fasts i.e. 60 days.
Hence the equation is 1 needy person = 1 daily fast = 1 day. And knowing that 2 shahr = 60 needy persons = 60 daily fasts = 60 days. Knowing that, I don't think it is difficult to know that 1 shahr = 30 days.
Again I will repeat the key idea here Every daily fast that can be compensated/subsituted/ransomed for in the Quran is compensated by feeding one needy person
If fasting is the last option then it cannot be compensated/ransomed/substituted for and previous options before fasting cannot be seen as compensations, ransoms or subsitutes for fasting because fasting in such contexts has NO compensation. Hence these occurence cannot be included in these equations because they are incompensatable and unsubstitutable fasts. Some such contexts for reference are 492, 2196, 589.
So with that said I think it is quite obvious that the Quran concept of shahr = 30 days. I've shown how as it concerns the dictionaries defintions 29 sunset to sunset days translates into 30 sunrise to sunrise days.
Anwar
Peace brother Anwar
Your above deductions are wrong , because when i investigated , i did not find any fix formula for the conversions of punishments with the compensation of a skipped fast. let me show you.
4-92. killing a believer,= Free a slave= Fast fasyaam ul shahreen.
2-196 . breaking state of iharam=animal sacrifice= 3 days fasting during haj+ 7 days once we come back, and then the ayah says that , ,,,, so that you complete the count of 10. (Note this one, this gives me an important clue)
5-89.breaking an oath=feeding or clothing 10 people=freeing a slave=fast 3 days.
If you see above, there is no set formula, freeing a slave is equvilant to fasting for 30 days or three days at another place,
peace
siki
-
2-196 . breaking state of iharam=animal sacrifice= 3 days fasting during haj+ 7 days once we come back, and then the ayah says that , ,,,, so that you complete the count of 10. (Note this one, this gives me an important clue)
There is been sufficent evidence in favour of Aymans idea of sharr rammadan , but however there has been little support of his 10 day fasting theory.
While replying Anwar and brother Nun , i did find two more evidence from Quran in favour of his 10 days fasting.
In -2-196 If one breaks the state of ihram , the last compensation is 3 days of fasting during hajj and 7 more days when one comes back , and then the ayahh adds, so that you complete the count of 10?
why Does God want us to complete the count of 10, and says so too? wasnt 3+7 sufficient? there was no need to add this last sentence , i think he wanted to stress upon the count of 10.
If we had to fast for the whole month , why did he say "for a count of days" ? Because when ever his fasting number of days has changed from days to the bigger unit , he has always used the bigger unit, the equvilant of 30 days/month, Fasyamm ul shareen.
so if Fasyyam ul shareen turns out to be the period between two full moons,(30 days, or one month), coupled with the evidence in 2-196 " so that you complete the count of 10", definitely points towards the Number of days for fasting being 10. not 29 or 30.
Moreover he uses the word "siteen" for feeding 60 poor , but does not use "siteen ayaam" for fast. ;D probably he trusts our counting 60 poor on the spot but , wants us to start from a reference/marker (Full moon) for a lengthy count over a period of 30 days.
peace
siki
-
Peace everyone,
I agree with Siki. I would just like to add certain things.
The hajj is supposed to be for "ayyaam ma'doodaat" (2203) and the fasting is also for "ayyaam ma'doodaat" (2184). The same phrase is used in both places. If "ayyaam ma'doodaat" means 30 days and fasting is for 30 days then hajj should be for 30 days too. nope
An important clue is given by "whoever hurries to two days" in 2203, which means that the lower limit of "ayyaam ma'doodaat" is 3 days. This confirms that "ayyaam ma'doodaat" most likely refers to the numbers 3 and above. This combined with similar phrases
"complete ten" -------------> in 2196 pertaining to compensatory fasting,
"complete the count" -------> in 2185 pertaining to fasting in scorching heat,makes it most likely that "ayyaam ma'doodaat" refers to any number from 3-10, and complete the count means complete the count of 10 days.
Now let us discuss "Anwar month", which by his definition (in his imaginary wonderland) consists of exactly 30 days.
If shahr already means "month of 30 days" (Anwar month) in 2185, then saying "complete the count" would be redundant. But, I forgot that God's book is full of redundancies. brickwall
If shahr means "month of 30 days" (Anwar month), then "falyasumhu"/fast it would mean fasting for 30 days straight without any break, which would be impossible. But, I forgot that God asks us to do impossible super human feats in his book. brickwall
If shahr means "month of 30 days" (Anwar month), then the count of such Anwar months in a solar year would be 12 and 1/6. God has used words for fractions in al-quran and 1/6 in Arabic is "sudus". If shahr meant "Anwar months" then God should have said "the count of shuhoor is ithna 'ashara wa sudus". But, I forgot that God does not know how to count in fractions! brickwall
If shahr means "Anwar month" then 12 such months would be 360 days and that will leave 5 days in a solar year. If we skip those five days to start the next "Anwar month", then the last month will have 35 days, not 30, and "Anwar month's" definition will automatically be contradicted. brickwall
If shahr means "Anwar month", then al-quran was descended in an "Anwar month" according to one verse (2185), but descended in one night according to two other verses (443, 971). But, I forgot that God's book is full of contradictions. brickwall
If shahr means "Anwar month", then how can we witness such an Anwar month as per 2185? brickwall
What is so special about those 30 magical days that we can witness them? brickwall
Even if those 30 days are special and different from other days in Anwar's wonderland, witnessing the shahr would require witnessing all 30 days BEFORE we start fasting. We can start fasting only AFTER we have witnessed the 30 days, to make sure we have witnessed the Anwar month. We cannot fast during those 30 magical days, because then we have not witnessed the Anwar month yet; but then how long do we fast? brickwall
No, you auto-assume 12 lunar months have to equal one solar year.
Straw man, again and again and again and again and again brickwall
I keep asking him to show how we can count 12 lunar months in every solar year, and when he fails to do that, he keeps insisting on building straw man, and attributing something to me that I never said or assumed.
In addition, those who see the FULL MOON, must fast it.
1 Full Moon = 1 day fastYes, they fast it by fasting one day, and then they complete the count by fasting 9 more days.
Therefore to be consistent,
IF divorced woman (non menstruating, any age puberty to menses)
They wait 3 Full Moons = 58 days regardlessThen menstruating women should also wait for 3 perfectly regular menstruations which always last for the same time and occur at equal intervals in Nun's wonderland.
He cannot understand the difference between fasting for two full-moons and waiting for 3 full-moons after divorce. They are not counted the same way. brickwall
When you fast for 2 full-moons, you don't fast before the full-moons but from one full-moon to the other full-moon. However, when you wait for 3 full-moons after divorce, you have to include the time between divorce and the first full-moon also, just like you include the time between divorce and first menstruation in menstruating women.
936 That the months' number/count at God (are) twelve in God's scripture
The Arabic word is "'iddata" meaning "count", not "number".
There are 12 months ? that?s all.
Then count 12 lunar months in every solar year as challenged earlier, if you are truthful.
These points have been repeated over and over again ad nauseam. The readers can make up their own minds, because only God can guide us. I am out of this discussion.
-
Peace everyone,
On one hand God is asking menstruating women to wait for 3 events with an irregular time interval between those events, and on the other hand God is asking women whose menopause is doubtful to wait for 3 regular time periods. This is not consistent. But, I forgot that God's book is very inconsistent. brickwall
Are you OK?
It IS very consistent!
Wait 3 cycles or 3 months which ever comes first.
NOT consistent IS
IF divorce is day before a full moon wait 58 days = 3 full moons
IF divorce is day after a full moon wait 28 + 58 days
IF divorce is 10 days after a full moon wait 18 + 58 days
IF...I keep asking him to show how we can count 12 lunar months in every solar year
Why? Again Quran states 12 months NOT 12 lunar months has to = a solar year.
Then menstruating women should also wait for 3 perfectly regular menstruations which always last for the same time and occur at equal intervals in Nun's wonderland.
When did I imply such a thing?
I always stated that women are not full moon clocks and each varies.I will ignore the wonderland comment -- only this one time.
He cannot understand the difference between Fasting for two full-moons and waiting for 3 full-moons after divorce. they are not the same. brickwall
You do not understand time; date of divorce and menses can vary, etc.
When a person writes they have to make sense.
Quran is logical and you make it sound senseless with terms such as ?fast two consecutive full moons? which is something that even an American Indian would be puzzled.
OK enough of this already ? I REJECT FULL MOON!
END OF CONVERSATION.