hajj / feast / debate
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Exactly, but IF the primary purpose of the "hajj" is "feast" as you say then why does the verse say "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them"? To say this for something that is the very purpose of them being there for the "hajj/feast" would be illogical.
Because "them" refers to the animals lined up for slaughter and the stone that they are slaughtered on. If you come to a place and see a large number of animals lined up for slaughter, you might not feel comfortable or PETA might object, especially since this might make people associate this with the slaughtering of animals on altars of paganism. So the god is telling us that this is fine.
The word you refer to is "jidal" not "hajj". In fact, the verse you refer to proves there is a difference between "jidal" and "hajj". We can easily see that the Classical Arabic meanings of "jidal" refer to a more vehement form or arguing, thus the guidance fits perfectly for "hajj" being a conference/symposium.
How many times have you seen a debate that didn't erupt into a vehement argument? How many such vehement arguments have you personally participated in? The issue is not about argument. One can present good arguments and then the opposite side can present better arguments. This is called debate. In 16125, we are ordered to argue ("jidal" with what is better/best. On the other hand, we are told that people who denied the god's signs argue with falsehood (405). So there is bad argument and good argument. The god is telling us that there shouldn't be any arguments (good or bad) in the "hajj", else how do you interpret passages such as 16125 and 405 if "jidal" was always the bad "vehement form of arguing".
Also, it is a fact that upon closer examination of the idea that "haj" is good while "jidal" is bad, this also doesn't hold water from the "haj" side. There are numerous passages that talk about "haj" being bad and Tlepsh referred to those passages by number for the various conjugations. For example, 361 talks about "haj" and the issue here is not that it is "perf. act." conjugation but it is that clearly "haj", like "jidal" can be negative. We are instructed to say a specific thing when people debate with us after knowledge was made apparent. Those people's debate is a bad debate. Are you going to invite people from the corners of the world for a "debate" so that you can tell some of them
"Let's call our children and your children and our women and your women and our selves and your selves then we earnestly pray so we invoke the god's curse upon the liars".
How many people will show up next year?
No this is not about debating, it is about witnessing!
So, "convincing" is not possible by debate as well as witnessing good examples? Is this your position?
I didn't say it was not possible. There is a right time and a right place for both kinds. In this case, "convincing" is NOT part of the purpose of "hajj". The great reading clearly tells us the purpose of "hajj" and none of it has to do with "convincing". It has to do with "witnessing" benefits and "remembering" the god for what he bestowed on us from the livestock. It can't be any clearer. So "witnessing" is definitely in line with what the great reading is saying while "debating" is not.
Out of curiousity, do you translate "hajj" as "feast" in AQ? If so, can you provide us with a translation of 2158? Thanks.
Yes, and gladly
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasts (at) the house or prospers, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
This is about the preparation for the feast and people who are feasting at the house or prosper as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to the preparation of the feast in terms of organizing livestock and slaughtering and cooking them.
If you disagree then tell us what (according to your own translation) do animals and slaughtering and cooking them have to do ?debating?? Of course, unless you are planning to feed your opponent a heavy meal so that he can?t think quickly, then probably your answer should be NOTHING.
I know that a conference to communicate your ideas is a noble cause and it does have its right place but we shouldn?t let our good intentions force a certain idea that is not supported at all by the great reading. Especially, in this case the simplest mundane interpretation of ?feast? fits very well with the purpose, timing and the activities going on in the ?hajj?.
Firstly, the word here is "al hajj", i.e. the conference/symposium
I fail to see the point being made here. Can either of you clarify/expand why mankind cannot be invited or called to with the conference/symposium? In fact, it implies "al hajj" can be utilised as a communication vehicle/medium to call out with, and this fits more with conference/symposium than feast.No. It says that ?haj? is a tool to invite all people. There is nothing about is being a communication medium to communicate something. Otherwise, what is that something? Nothing is mentioned. It is an invitation to WITNESS and REMEMBER and EAT and FEED. A debate is not the first thing that comes into mind.
Does ?hajj? mean ?debate? or ?conference?? Conference/symposium is a vague term that doesn?t say anything.
Let me ask you this. Which is the best way to invite ALL people
- A conference to debate things such as the interpretation of 2158 about the animals and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked.
- A feast where they can actually eat food prepared by people who tended to this process with care and volunteered their best?
There are thousands of conferences every year and in fact we had a so-called Quran Alone oriented conference last year (the Heretic Muslims conference). All those conferences have one thing in common. They are attended by people who are interested in the subject of the conference. There is nothing wrong with that. However, everything has a purpose and the purpose of the ?hajj? is not about only attracting like minded people.
On the other hand, tens of thousands of people of different religious affiliations come from all over the world to attend the South Beach food festival despite the fact that the average basic ticket price is over $300 and the full ticket costs $1,000. Imagine if this was a free feast with the backing of all the community and taking place at the safest place in the world, which also has open borders. I think that hundreds of thousands would easily attend. OK enough typing, your debate with me about the feast made me hungry.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
After restudying all the occurrences of the word hajj and its derivative in Quran I agree with you that ?feast? fits much better than ?debate?
3.20 If they debate with you, then Say ?I have surrendered myself to God, as well as those who follow me.? And say to those who have received the Scripture and the Gentiles ?Have you surrendered?? If they have surrendered then they are guided, and if they turn away, then you are only to deliver, and God is watcher over the servants.
In verse mentioned above and in verses 5.92, 5.39, 13.40, 16.35, 16.82, 24.54, 29.18, 36.17, 42.48, and 64.12 God tells to prophet that he is only to deliver the message. God doesn?t ask the prophet to debate. God tells him how to answer when others debate/argue with him.
-
Peace Ayman and Tlepsh,
Well, after some reading, Hajj doesn't mean debate nor feast. It simply mean to visit. So it is an obligation on mankind to visit the House of God which is the Kaaba. In the visit, you will give an offering to be sacrificed in the Kaaba and it will be used to eat from and feed the hungry and the poor nearby. When you give an offering to the Kaaba, you are giving a gift to God to get closer to him. Because God is not in need of being fed, He lets you eat from it and feeds the poor. God won your reverence and you won His approval. Great.
Peace,
Rami
-
peace brother Ayman,
Because "them" refers to the animals lined up for slaughter and the stone that they are slaughtered on. If you come to a place and see a large number of animals lined up for slaughter, you might not feel comfortable or PETA might object, especially since this might make people associate this with the slaughtering of animals on altars of paganism. So the god is telling us that this is fine.
I consider that a possibility, a weak one, but a possibility nonetheless. On the one hand "hajj" is all about the feasting, yet on the other AQ feels the need to clarify "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them", no hint of altars of paganism or animal cruelty mentioned, just simply being amongst them is mentioned. I consider this unusual for AQ.
How many times have you seen a debate that didn't erupt into a vehement argument?
Many. This one between you and I being one example, unless you think it would be different in person.
How many such vehement arguments have you personally participated in?
Me personally? Almost zero, as "vehement arguing" is not my style.
The god is telling us that there shouldn't be any arguments (good or bad) in the "hajj"
No, that is your own extrapolation. It says there is to be no "jidal" in the "hajj".
else how do you interpret passages such as 16125 and 405 if "jidal" was always the bad "vehement form of arguing".
Firstly, I'm not sure if I'd state every occurrence of "jidal" to mean "vehement form of arguing", but in the examples you gave it paints "jidal" in a negative light. It suggests it is a bad form of arguing in both examples. Is there an occurrence which paints "jidal" in a positive light?
Also, it is a fact that upon closer examination of the idea that "haj" is good while "jidal" is bad, this also doesn't hold water from the "haj" side. There are numerous passages that talk about "haj" being bad and Tlepsh referred to those passages by number for the various conjugations. For example, 361 talks about "haj" and the issue here is not that it is "perf. act." conjugation but it is that clearly "haj", like "jidal" can be negative. We are instructed to say a specific thing when people debate with us after knowledge was made apparent. Those people's debate is a bad debate.
Is it their points/views that are bad or is it their form/style of debate that is bad? The answer is obvious from the verse... it is the former.
Also, it is interesting you skip over the fact that it is in the 'perfect active' conjugation (i.e. an action done/completed) which almost all translations skip over too. Bearing the conjugation in mind, clearly then, we are instructed to say this at the end of the debate (I would assume if there is no agreement/consensus), thus ending it in a peaceful way. Also, you fail to mention the context of this verse, e.g. it seems to be with people of the book (i.e. those who also believe in God) so if one were "debating" with a group of people, some of whom were atheists for example, there would be no need to make the statement in 361. Furthermore, the immediate context of 364 is significantly amicable. If a debate was ended in such a manner, I would consider it more positive than negative.Are you going to invite people from the corners of the world for a "debate" so that you can tell some of them
"Let's call our children and your children and our women and your women and our selves and your selves then we earnestly pray so we invoke the god's curse upon the liars".
See above.
No this is not about debating, it is about witnessing!
And can one witness with their minds, eyes and ears as well as their stomachs? ;D
There is a right time and a right place for both kinds. In this case, "convincing" is NOT part of the purpose of "hajj". The great reading clearly tells us the purpose of "hajj" and none of it has to do with "convincing".
Who said anything about "convincing"? You are the one who brought up "convincing" initially, and now seem to be creating a strawman argument.
In any case, see your own cited example of 361 which proves in "hajj" there is not necessarily "convincing".
It has to do with "witnessing" benefits and "remembering" the god for what he bestowed on us from the livestock. It can't be any clearer. So "witnessing" is definitely in line with what the great reading is saying while "debating" is not.
I am not saying it is one or the other, both have roles to play, as stated in my initial post to you (4th March).
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasts (at) the house or prospers, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
This is about the preparation for the feast and people who are feasting at the house or prosper as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to the preparation of the feast in terms of organizing livestock and slaughtering and cooking them.
Before I comment, I need clarification. The words you have translated as "feasts" and "prospers" are in the perfect conjugation in the Arabic, thus refer to an action done/completed. So, your translation should be
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
Do you agree/disagee?
Also, can you provide your reasoning/evidence for "The livestock lined up for slaughter"?
Why would one go about/amongst "the livestock lined up for slaughter"?
What are your thoughts on when it says "in them are benefits to an appointed time, then their place is to..."?
See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8795.msg40400#msg40400If you disagree then tell us what (according to your own translation) do animals and slaughtering and cooking them have to do ?debating?? Of course, unless you are planning to feed your opponent a heavy meal so that he can?t think quickly, then probably your answer should be NOTHING.
It is normal for the host of a symposium/conference to provide food/drink. Do you disagree?
No. It says that ?haj? is a tool to invite all people. There is nothing about is being a communication medium to communicate something. Otherwise, what is that something? Nothing is mentioned.
My point was if it says one can call out with XYZ, then this implies XYZ is a vehicle/medium one can call out with. It implies an element of communication with whatever is being utilised to call out with. It doesn't say call out to the "hajj" (which would fit better with "feast", it says call out with the "hajj" (which would fit better with "conference/symposium". In any case, this was not a big point for me, I was simply mentioning it as a response to the claim of one cannot call out with a debate or conference/symposium, yet one can magically do this with a "feast". It could be done with either.
Does ?hajj? mean ?debate? or ?conference?? Conference/symposium is a vague term that doesn?t say anything.
"al hajj" means "the conference/symposium" in my understanding thus far. "hajj" has the meaning of "debate".
Let me ask you this. Which is the best way to invite ALL people
- A conference to debate things such as the interpretation of 2158 about the animals and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked.
- A feast where they can actually eat food prepared by people who tended to this process with care and volunteered their best?
As I said to you in my original post to you (4th March), it is not one or the other.
There are thousands of conferences every year and in fact we had a so-called Quran Alone oriented conference last year (the Heretic Muslims conference). All those conferences have one thing in common. They are attended by people who are interested in the subject of the conference. There is nothing wrong with that. However, everything has a purpose and the purpose of the ?hajj? is not about only attracting like minded people.
On the other hand, tens of thousands of people of different religious affiliations come from all over the world to attend the South Beach food festival despite the fact that the average basic ticket price is over $300 and the full ticket costs $1,000. Imagine if this was a free feast with the backing of all the community and taking place at the safest place in the world, which also has open borders. I think that hundreds of thousands would easily attend.
I did some research on your example of the "South Beach food festival" and to my surprise it also said there are talks and demonstrations that go on. In other words, it is not all about food. ;D However, it is obvious that such an event would attract primarily food enthusiasts, i.e. like-minded people.
The "hajj" is open to all mankind, no doubt about that. If the majority of those who attend are like-minded, then so be it, it is still open to all.
-
Peace all,
I will not go into what is the correct meaning of "hajj", but I want to ask for the validity of it to be held in one specific location on earth for all the people.
Nowadays, with all the transport facilities, it seems easy to travel for thousands of miles in a short period; but in the old days, and even now for many regions, it is difficult even to travels for hundreds of miles.
My question about "hajj"
Why should it be held in ONE specific location for all the people? Why is it for ONE specific period in a year?
--
-
Peace Rami,
Well, after some reading, Hajj doesn't mean debate nor feast. It simply mean to visit. So it is an obligation on mankind to visit the House of God which is the Kaaba. In the visit, you will give an offering to be sacrificed in the Kaaba and it will be used to eat from and feed the hungry and the poor nearby. When you give an offering to the Kaaba, you are giving a gift to God to get closer to him. Because God is not in need of being fed, He lets you eat from it and feeds the poor. God won your reverence and you won His approval. Great.
You can't invite all people with "the visit" to some shrine. Especially, if this visit is to some religious shrine that is viewed as pagan by everyone except members of one's own group. Would you go if Hindus invite you to visit one of their temples and make offerings to it!? Why expect different from others?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Wakas,
I consider that a possibility, a weak one, but a possibility nonetheless. On the one hand "hajj" is all about the feasting, yet on the other AQ feels the need to clarify "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them", no hint of altars of paganism or animal cruelty mentioned, just simply being amongst them is mentioned. I consider this unusual for AQ.
It would have been a weak possibilty if this was the only place where livestock is mentioned in relation to "hajj". It is not a weak argument since livestock is mentioned in or around almost EVERY passage where "hajj" is mentioned, so clearly it is one of the most important aspects of "hajj".
Many. This one between you and I being one example, unless you think it would be different in person.
Me personally? Almost zero, as "vehement arguing" is not my style.Do you really expect to invite ALL people with a "debate" and if you get your wish and all of them show up and debate that amongst the hundreds of thousands of debates there will not be any "vehement arguing" or "heated debates"!? Wakas, you are too idealistic.
No, that is your own extrapolation. It says there is to be no "jidal" in the "hajj".
But you are the one who said that "jidal" means "arguing" while "haj" means debating. I already showed you how if you look at all occurences of "jidal" in the great reading, it becomes clear that there is good "jidal" and there is bad "jidal", just like there is good "haj" and bad "haj".
Firstly, I'm not sure if I'd state every occurrence of "jidal" to mean "vehement form of arguing", but in the examples you gave it paints "jidal" in a negative light. It suggests it is a bad form of arguing in both examples. Is there an occurrence which paints "jidal" in a positive light?
16125 clearly states that there is good "jidal".
Is it their points/views that are bad or is it their form/style of debate that is bad? The answer is obvious from the verse... it is the former.
No, it is both. If one is using false/fallacious arguments in debating then both their point of view is bad and their debate style is bad. Someone who uses false fallacious arguments even if they are presented in a nice decorated way are still bad debaters. You are suggesting that STYLE is more important than SUBSTANCE.
Many of the occurences of the word "haj" when it means debate actually refer to bad debate (361, 365-66, 680, 320, 2139, 4216, 4525). In numerous passages people who debate in the god are cast in a bad light. So how can we invite people to have somekind of a religious debate that is sure to involve at one point or another debate in the god! Moreover, the word "haj" is sometimes used not to mean debate but to mean "argument" or "excuse" as in 2150.
In fact there are several passages where "argument" would fit better than "debate" for "haj". For example, the god is said to have the most conclusive or best ?argument? in 6149 and certainly not the best debate (which would involve an opponent).
I am inclined to think of ?jadal? more as debate while ?haj? more as argument. Hence, certainly 4216 talks about an ?argument? as defeated and not a ?debate? as defeated. Similarly, 683 certainly talks about giving Abrahams a strong argument and not a debate.
Also, it is interesting you skip over the fact that it is in the 'perfect active' conjugation (i.e. an action done/completed) which almost all translations skip over too. Bearing the conjugation in mind, clearly then, we are instructed to say this at the end of the debate (I would assume if there is no agreement/consensus), thus ending it in a peaceful way.
The end of debate happens as soon as they debate after what came to us from the knowledge. There is no evidence that we debated back! This is confirmed by other passages such as 4215. It would be interesting to see how you can apply 4215 during this alleged "debate". Do you really expect people to come to you from all over the world just so that you can tell them "there is no debate between you and us"!!
Also, you fail to mention the context of this verse, e.g. it seems to be with people of the book (i.e. those who also believe in God) so if one were "debating" with a group of people, some of whom were atheists for example, there would be no need to make the statement in 361. Furthermore, the immediate context of 364 is significantly amicable. If a debate was ended in such a manner, I would consider it more positive than negative.
If we read the whole passage to 365, 66, etc. then we are telling the people of the book not to debate/argue with us. This is a very strange ?debate?. You invite people WITH the ?debate? just so you can tell them not to ?debate? with you (361, 366, 4215, etc.). Do you really expect people to show up for such alleged ?debate?!?
I think that you need to balance idealism with some realism.
See above.
I saw above and I didn?t see anything that deals with the reality of what saying the following at the debate will do to the level of attendance at this alleged ?debate?
"Let's call our children and your children and our women and your women and our selves and your selves then we earnestly pray so we invoke the god's curse upon the liars".
How likely do you think that your guests will return after hearing this?
And can one witness with their minds, eyes and ears as well as their stomachs? ;D
Yes but on the other hand debating is not the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of witnessing.
Who said anything about "convincing"? You are the one who brought up "convincing" initially, and now seem to be creating a strawman argument.
I sense a little bit of ?vehement argument? . What is the purpose of debating? Is it pointless then?
In any case, see your own cited example of 361 which proves in "hajj" there is not necessarily "convincing".
There is no convincing necessary but it is the main purpose of debate. You are confusing purpose and outcome. Just because the purpose of the debate is to convince, it doesn?t mean that one side will always be convinced.
I am not saying it is one or the other, both have roles to play, as stated in my initial post to you (4th March).
I am saying that it is one (feast) and not the other (debate). This is what this discussion is about.
Before I comment, I need clarification. The words you have translated as "feasts" and "prospers" are in the perfect conjugation in the Arabic, thus refer to an action done/completed. So, your translation should be
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
Do you agree/disagee?
I agree.
Also, can you provide your reasoning/evidence for "The livestock lined up for slaughter"?
See 2236. I am of course open to different interpretations.
Why would one go about/amongst "the livestock lined up for slaughter"?
It is not ?go about/amongst?. It is ?attend to?. It is like a cook attending to the food. It is like, for example, the allegory in 3745 of waiters attending to them with drinks and not just taking the drinks and going about/amongst them.
What are your thoughts on when it says "in them are benefits to an appointed time, then their place is to..."?
See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8795.msg40400#msg40400?The freed/liberated house?
It is normal for the host of a symposium/conference to provide food/drink. Do you disagree?
You are changing the meaning to ?symposium/conference?. So do you agree that ?debate? is not the correct meaning?
My point was if it says one can call out with XYZ, then this implies XYZ is a vehicle/medium one can call out with. It implies an element of communication with whatever is being utilised to call out with. It doesn't say call out to the "hajj" (which would fit better with "feast", it says call out with the "hajj" (which would fit better with "conference/symposium". In any case, this was not a big point for me, I was simply mentioning it as a response to the claim of one cannot call out with a debate or conference/symposium, yet one can magically do this with a "feast". It could be done with either.
No, it can?t. A conference/symposium is a vague and pointless to invite with. The first question that people will ask is ?what is the topic or purpose of this conference/symposium?? Your answer would be ?to witness benefits and to remember the god for what he gave you from the livestock by eating from it and feeding the poor?. They will say ?So it is a feast. Why didn?t you just say so from the beginning??
"al hajj" means "the conference/symposium" in my understanding thus far. "hajj" has the meaning of "debate".
Which is it, the ?conference/symposium" or the ?debate?? I hope that you are not suggesting that the definite article changes the definition.
As I said to you in my original post to you (4th March), it is not one or the other.
So if it is not this or that then what do you think it is?
I did some research on your example of the "South Beach food festival" and to my surprise it also said there are talks and demonstrations that go on. In other words, it is not all about food. ;D However, it is obvious that such an event would attract primarily food enthusiasts, i.e. like-minded people.
The "hajj" is open to all mankind, no doubt about that. If the majority of those who attend are like-minded, then so be it, it is still open to all.The ?hajj? is not all about food either. It is also about witnessing benefits. It is about witnessing the demonstration of a community that doesn?t setup partners with the god and there are other benefits such as commerce, getting to know other cultures, etc. that would naturally come with the feast.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace Ayman,
It would have been a weak possibilty if this was the only place where livestock is mentioned in relation to "hajj". It is not a weak argument since livestock is mentioned in or around almost EVERY passage where "hajj" is mentioned, so clearly it is one of the most important aspects of "hajj".
You are proving my point. You yourself admit "hajj" is moslty about livestock, yet AQ feels the need to clarify there is no error to go about/amongst or attend to them. Seems unusual/redundant to me, but your explanation gave a possible answer, one that I consider weak, but a possibility nonetheless.
Do you really expect to invite ALL people with a "debate" and if you get your wish and all of them show up and debate that amongst the hundreds of thousands of debates there will not be any "vehement arguing" or "heated debates"!? Wakas, you are too idealistic.
On the contrary, I consider myself a realist. And the reasoning you give is precisely why we are told there should be no "jidal" in "hajj", because there is a real risk of there being vehement arguing. Again, you are proving my point.
But you are the one who said that "jidal" means "arguing" while "haj" means debating. I already showed you how if you look at all occurences of "jidal" in the great reading, it becomes clear that there is good "jidal" and there is bad "jidal", just like there is good "haj" and bad "haj".
16125 clearly states that there is good "jidal".
Can I assume that out of all these so-called occurrences that show there is good "jidal" and bad "jidal", 16125 is the best example you have of good "jidal"?
No, it is both. If one is using false/fallacious arguments in debating then both their point of view is bad and their debate style is bad. Someone who uses false fallacious arguments even if they are presented in a nice decorated way are still bad debaters.
Let's say their points/views AND debating style is bad, does that mean the debate is bad or the debate had "jidal" in it? No, not necessarily. You cited 361 as an example of bad "hajj" when it is nothing of the sort. Even your own wording gives it away (see bold), you are citing them as bad (their views and style) more so than the "hajj/debate". In fact, to onlookers for example, seeing such false/fallacious points against true/logical points could and would be beneficial, thus for them it would be a good debate, as they may have learned something, so it is not the debate that is bad, but one side's points/views and even style that is bad.
Many of the occurences of the word "haj" when it means debate actually refer to bad debate (361, 365-66, 680, 320, 2139, 4216, 4525). In numerous passages people who debate in the god are cast in a bad light.
See above. You class the debate as bad when in reality it is one side's points/views and even style if you wish, that are bad, not the debate.
So how can we invite people to have somekind of a religious debate that is sure to involve at one point or another debate in the god!
So we shouldn't do what the messnger did in AQ? Is this your position?
Interestingly, these examples you are citing of hajj/debate give us an indication of what topics were being addressed in hajj/debate, which might be an interesting avenue to explore for those arranging al hajj.Moreover, the word "haj" is sometimes used not to mean debate but to mean "argument" or "excuse" as in 2150.
Can you clarify why it cannot mean "debate" here? Thanks.
In fact there are several passages where "argument" would fit better than "debate" for "haj". For example, the god is said to have the most conclusive or best ?argument? in 6149 and certainly not the best debate (which would involve an opponent).
You fail to mention the context. The prior sign discusses past people disputing until they experienced God's might/power. It then says to the present people disputing "To God is the best/conclusive hajj". They are clearly debating the messenger in the signs, so it seems reasonable to say to them "To God is the conclusive hajj", i.e. debate all you want, your conclusive debate will be with God in His court, in which you will be informed of what you did etc. There are many signs discussing responses of those who will be shown what they did when they are held to account by God. Again, you are proving my point.
Hence, certainly 4216 talks about an ?argument? as defeated and not a ?debate? as defeated.
It says "their debate", i.e. whatever points they raised, as defeated.
Similarly, 683 certainly talks about giving Abrahams a strong argument and not a debate.
I wonder how many other examples there are of this unique usage of "That is Our hajj...". It obviously means God-inspired or similar, and it is a fact that Abraham engaged in "hajj" with his people . I do not think "hajj" as "debate" can be ruled out in 683, but since it is from God, it is better understood as proof/evidence/argument.
The end of debate happens as soon as they debate after what came to us from the knowledge. There is no evidence that we debated back! This is confirmed by other passages such as 4215. It would be interesting to see how you can apply 4215 during this alleged "debate". Do you really expect people to come to you from all over the world just so that you can tell them "there is no debate between you and us"!!
Firstly, I'm not really sure where you are getting your first sentence from.
You extrapolate/embellish "there is no debate between you and us" to mean we cannot debate full stop. Is this your position?More correctly, it is implying "there is no debate between you and us (in this matter)" not there can never be debate between us. Interestingly the very verse you cite proves my point
Because of this (O Messenger!) call them (to the truth), stand firm as you are commanded and do not follow their wishes. But/and announce, "I believe in the Book that God has revealed, and I am commanded to be just among you. God is our Lord and your Lord. We are responsible for our deeds and you are responsible for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you! God will bring us together, and to Him is our destination."
What does call them refer to? It is calling them to give them a message. It is emphasising unity over divisionism, our Lord is your Lord, there is no debate between us and you in this matter.
It is like your citing of 361 in which you attempted to generalise.If we read the whole passage to 365, 66, etc. then we are telling the people of the book not to debate/argue with us.
Really? Where does it say "do not debate with us" or similar? Where does it attempt to end the debate and give no evidence of our view?
It is saying WHY debate with us on XYZ, giving evidence of our view in the process, then says you debated/argued with what you knew then why do the same with what you do not know? It never says not to debate.
What kind of book would bring the truth (a different truth to the audience around) then say do not debate with us at all regarding it. Debating / questioning / presenting of evidences/logic would be totally natural and expected. Of course, there is a limit to such debate, and if it is getting nowhere / vehement etc, part amicably/peacefully, or on what we have in common etc. This is the repeated emphasis.This is a very strange ?debate?. You invite people WITH the ?debate? just so you can tell them not to ?debate? with you (361, 366, 4215, etc.). Do you really expect people to show up for such alleged ?debate?!?
See above for your claim of "not to debate".
I think that you need to balance idealism with some realism.
Thanks for the advice.
What is the purpose of debating? Is it pointless then?
There is no convincing necessary but it is the main purpose of debate. You are confusing purpose and outcome. Just because the purpose of the debate is to convince, it doesn?t mean that one side will always be convinced.
Perhaps in your definition of debate, the purpose is to convince. I see debate as presentation of evidences, from both (or more) sides, in order to gain a better understanding, not necessarily to convince. All definitions of debate I looked up on google never cited anything about convincing.
See 2236. I am of course open to different interpretations.
The reason I asked is that my sources state these are different roots. I did read here that they are related but it was unevidenced
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Safa_and_Al-MarwahIt is not ?go about/amongst?. It is ?attend to?. It is like a cook attending to the food. It is like, for example, the allegory in 3745 of waiters attending to them with drinks and not just taking the drinks and going about/amongst them.
Can you prove your translation of "attend to" with waiters in your cited example of 3745? I assume then you also translate it as "attend to" in 2229? i.e. "attend to al bayt al 3teeq"?
Out of curiousity, have you or do you know of any article that has studied the sequence of events in 'al hajj' by cross referencing? I think this would be very interesting.
?The freed/liberated house?
That was not what I was trying to highlight. Did you read the link I referenced? I was referring to where it says "in them are benefeits to an appointed time, then there place is to...", i.e. what benefits do you think it is referring to?
No, it can?t. A conference/symposium is a vague and pointless to invite with. The first question that people will ask is ?what is the topic or purpose of this conference/symposium?? Your answer would be ?to witness benefits and to remember the god for what he gave you from the livestock by eating from it and feeding the poor?. They will say ?So it is a feast. Why didn?t you just say so from the beginning??
If you say so.
Which is it, the ?conference/symposium" or the ?debate?? I hope that you are not suggesting that the definite article changes the definition.
As far as I'm aware the definite article implies something more well known to the addressed audience, hence I felt "the debate" doesn't give the full impression of the debate as an event, hence "the conference/symposium".
Also, when I asked you earlier about how you translate hajj as feast, can you clarify to what extent you do this, for example, if I list the occurrences of the root, which ones do you translate as feast etc
hajja vb. (1)
perf. act. 2158
n.vb. 2189, 2196, 2196, 2196, 2197, 2197, 2197, 397, 93, 2227
pcple. act. 919hijaj n.f. (pl. of hijjah) 2827
hujjah n.f. 2150, 4165, 683, 6149, 4215, 4216, 4525
hajja vb. (3)
perf. act. 2258, 320, 361, 366, 680
impf. act. 276, 2139, 365, 366, 373, 680, 4216tahajja vb. (6) impf. act. 4047
The ?hajj? is not all about food either.
As I said to you originally, and we both agreen on. Our only point of contention is you say there is no debate / presentation of evidences element at all, whilst I think there is, which subsequently has a bearing on what we term "al hajj" as.
Although I'm sure you'd admit that even if this was not official, debate would obviously take place at "the feast" in such a community.Please note, we have not addressed all verses discussing "hajj", nor the suggested sequence of events, nor the associated stipulations/regulations/organisation. My main point was 2158, which we haven't even discussed properly yet. I will quote it below
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
I will have to ponder on your translation some more, as it is the first time I have seen such a translation. It is very different from your previous attempt
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7503.msg34881#msg34881
-
peace Ayman,
I have reviewed 2158 and there seems to be problems with your understanding
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
You first said about "there is no blame on him to attend to them"
If you come to a place and see a large number of animals lined up for slaughter, you might not feel comfortable or PETA might object, especially since this might make people associate this with the slaughtering of animals on altars of paganism. So the god is telling us that this is fine.
But the above reasoning is faulty because "feasted" is in the perfect conjugation, i.e. an action done, whilst "attend to" is imperfect, so according to the verse "attend to" comes AFTER one is "feasted/prospered", so why then is AQ mentioning there is no blame on him to 'attend to' them when feasting/prospering is already done so the alleged objections stated by you would have already came into play? This would mean AQ mentions it after the fact for some bizarre reason or gives more weight to 'attend to' over feasting/prospering.
You then said
This is about the preparation for the feast and people who are feasting at the house or prosper as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to the preparation of the feast in terms of organizing livestock and slaughtering and cooking them.
After which we clarified the translation, so your above explanation should read
This is about the preparation for the feast and people who have feasted at the house or prospered as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to the preparation of the feast in terms of organizing livestock and slaughtering and cooking them.
The feasting has already been done by the participant. Because the sequence is feast and prosper first, THEN 'attend to', your alleged preparation has already been done as they have already feasted/prospered. Also, if a person has already feasted, why is it saying "attend to" the "livestock lined up for slaughter" when they have already been slaughtered for feasting? Clearly, your interpretation has problems.
Secondly, it is not about 'people who have feasted at the house or prospered as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to", as the Arabic sequence/logic/context is "and whoever volunteered better" (i.e. better than what was mentioned before) i.e. volunteered better than "twf". This is pointed out by Muhammad Asad in his note on this verse. Your way of linking these statements is faulty. Thus, not only will you have to explain your incorrect sequence of events, but also explain possibilities for what is volunteering better than "attending to" in your opinion. I would assume donating an animal or something, albeit that would be subjectively "better".
Furthermore
Choosing "attend to" is critical for your view to hold. Do you have any Quranic or Classical Arabic dictionary evidence for this meaning?Even if you explain the above, you will also have to give a new explanation of your translation of "there is no blame on him to attend to them" to the person who has already feasted/prospered. When in reality, if someone did this, this is obviously praiseworthy (i.e. they are not having their meal or prospering then going away without helping), not something that would result in blame.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
You are proving my point. You yourself admit "hajj" is moslty about livestock, yet AQ feels the need to clarify there is no error to go about/amongst or attend to them. Seems unusual/redundant to me, but your explanation gave a possible answer, one that I consider weak, but a possibility nonetheless.
On the contrary, I consider myself a realist. And the reasoning you give is precisely why we are told there should be no "jidal" in "hajj", because there is a real risk of there being vehement arguing. Again, you are proving my point.If you are a realist then why in all the passages that talk about "haj" they refer to livestock and never, not even once, to how we should conduct a debate or what is the purpose of debating. The only time debate or arguing is mentioned is when we are told not to do it, period.
Can I assume that out of all these so-called occurrences that show there is good "jidal" and bad "jidal", 16125 is the best example you have of good "jidal"?
All that was needed is one clear example. Your entire theory is built on "jidal" meaning vehement argument but 16125 proves that it cannot mean that. Else, you need to explain how we should "vehemently argue with the best". Clearly, the god is not telling us to "vehemently" argue with the best (which would be contradictory) but simply to "argue/debate with the best" manner.
Let's say their points/views AND debating style is bad, does that mean the debate is bad or the debate had "jidal" in it? No, not necessarily. You cited 361 as an example of bad "hajj" when it is nothing of the sort. Even your own wording gives it away (see bold), you are citing them as bad (their views and style) more so than the "hajj/debate". In fact, to onlookers for example, seeing such false/fallacious points against true/logical points could and would be beneficial, thus for them it would be a good debate, as they may have learned something, so it is not the debate that is bad, but one side's points/views and even style that is bad.
See above. You class the debate as bad when in reality it is one side's points/views and even style if you wish, that are bad, not the debate.
So we shouldn't do what the messnger did in AQ? Is this your position?
Interestingly, these examples you are citing of hajj/debate give us an indication of what topics were being addressed in hajj/debate, which might be an interesting avenue to explore for those arranging al hajj.
Can you clarify why it cannot mean "debate" here? Thanks.Can you please explain how in 2150 and 4525 it can mean debate? Clearly, it means having "an argument against you" or having "an argument/excuse". In Arabic one can say "7ijjati" (to mean my argument or my excuse). Saying "my debate" doesn't make much sense since it involves two sides.
Specifically, in 4525 you can't say "their debate" (unless you mean that they were debating each other which wouldn't make any sense). On the other hand, one can say "their argument" (against those who recite the god's signs).
You fail to mention the context. The prior sign discusses past people disputing until they experienced God's might/power. It then says to the present people disputing "To God is the best/conclusive hajj". They are clearly debating the messenger in the signs, so it seems reasonable to say to them "To God is the conclusive hajj", i.e. debate all you want, your conclusive debate will be with God in His court, in which you will be informed of what you did etc. There are many signs discussing responses of those who will be shown what they did when they are held to account by God. Again, you are proving my point.
"To God is the best/conclusive debate" doesn't make much sense since a debate by definition requires two sides and not only ONE side (the god). On the other hand, each side makes an argument and one can say that one side's argument is the best/conclusive.
It says "their debate", i.e. whatever points they raised, as defeated.
Thank you. These are called "arguments" NOT "debates".
I wonder how many other examples there are of this unique usage of "That is Our hajj...". It obviously means God-inspired or similar, and it is a fact that Abraham engaged in "hajj" with his people . I do not think "hajj" as "debate" can be ruled out in 683, but since it is from God, it is better understood as proof/evidence/argument.
Exactly.
Firstly, I'm not really sure where you are getting your first sentence from.
You extrapolate/embellish "there is no debate between you and us" to mean we cannot debate full stop. Is this your position?
More correctly, it is implying "there is no debate between you and us (in this matter)" not there can never be debate between us. Interestingly the very verse you cite proves my point
Because of this (O Messenger!) call them (to the truth), stand firm as you are commanded and do not follow their wishes. But/and announce, "I believe in the Book that God has revealed, and I am commanded to be just among you. God is our Lord and your Lord. We are responsible for our deeds and you are responsible for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you! God will bring us together, and to Him is our destination."
What does call them refer to? It is calling them to give them a message. It is emphasising unity over divisionism, our Lord is your Lord, there is no debate between us and you in this matter.
It is like your citing of 361 in which you attempted to generalise.
Really? Where does it say "do not debate with us" or similar? Where does it attempt to end the debate and give no evidence of our view?
It is saying WHY debate with us on XYZ, giving evidence of our view in the process, then says you debated/argued with what you knew then why do the same with what you do not know? It never says not to debate.
What kind of book would bring the truth (a different truth to the audience around) then say do not debate with us at all regarding it. Debating / questioning / presenting of evidences/logic would be totally natural and expected. Of course, there is a limit to such debate, and if it is getting nowhere / vehement etc, part amicably/peacefully, or on what we have in common etc. This is the repeated emphasis.
See above for your claim of "not to debate".Since there is no "debate on this matter", then please tell us according to the passages in the great reading that talk about "hajj" what matters are you going to debate during this alleged "debate"?
Perhaps in your definition of debate, the purpose is to convince. I see debate as presentation of evidences, from both (or more) sides, in order to gain a better understanding, not necessarily to convince. All definitions of debate I looked up on google never cited anything about convincing.
Gaining a better understanding is a result of good (convincing) arguments.
I think that we need to first resolve the issue that "haj" clearly can't mean "debate" before we can move on.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
All that was needed is one clear example. Your entire theory is built on "jidal" meaning vehement argument but 16125 proves that it cannot mean that. Else, you need to explain how we should "vehemently argue with the best". Clearly, the god is not telling us to "vehemently" argue with the best (which would be contradictory) but simply to "argue/debate with the best" manner.
First, let's quote what I actually said
Firstly, I'm not sure if I'd state every occurrence of "jidal" to mean "vehement form of arguing", but in the examples you gave it paints "jidal" in a negative light.
Now, onto disproving your above claim.
And do not argue/jidal with the people of the book except in the best manner (biallatee hiya ahsanu*); except for those who are wicked amongst them...
*exact same wording as used in 16125.
If "jidal" can mean good AND bad argument as you claim, there would be no need for The Quran to state an exception in the above verse. It is clearly implying that "jidal NOT in the best/ahsan manner" is by default negative or not recommended in general, i.e. the wicked may deserve a more vehement form of arguing, and this style of argument is excused if we opt for it or it happens to occur, but only for the wicked. Once again, Muhammad Asad gets it perfectly right in his note on this verse, shown below
Muhammad Asad - End Note 42 (2946)
Sc., "and are therefore not accessible to friendly argument" the implication being that in such cases all disputes should a priori be avoided. As regards religious discussions in general, see note 149 on 16125.Thus, thanks to you bringing up this point, we have been able to prove "jidal" has a negative connotation in The Quran 100% beyond doubt. This is further reinforced by there is no occurence of "jidal/argue" in a positive light, and there is no occurrence of "hajj/debate" in a negative light. Further, every occurrence in The Quran of "do not XYZ except in best/ahsan manner" implies what was mentioned in the context is negative or has a negative aspect. Not only is this obvious, it makes sense.
Thus, in my opinion, "jidal" is best translated as "argue" in English because even in English "argue" has a negative connotation. Of course, if I was translating, I would cite the above verse in notes to prove it has a negative connotation so the reader understood.)
Can you please explain how in 2150 and 4525 it can mean debate? Clearly, it means having "an argument against you" or having "an argument/excuse". In Arabic one can say "7ijjati" (to mean my argument or my excuse). Saying "my debate" doesn't make much sense since it involves two sides.
Specifically, in 4525 you can't say "their debate" (unless you mean that they were debating each other which wouldn't make any sense). On the other hand, one can say "their argument" (against those who recite the god's signs).And wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the Sacred Temple. And wherever you may be you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no debate against you, except those of them who are wicked...
Sounds good to me. The other side is clearly there with the use of "against you".
When our revelations are recited to them, clearly, their hajj/debate is nothing but that they say, "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
See how it qualifies "hajj" with "is nothing but that they say". This perfectly implies that usually "hajj/debate" might warrant a bit more than one statement! Again, giving weight to the "hajj/debate" meaning, i.e. they have no debate so all they have is "bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful".
With every verse reference you are proving my point.
"To God is the best/conclusive debate" doesn't make much sense since a debate by definition requires two sides and not only ONE side (the god). On the other hand, each side makes an argument and one can say that one side's argument is the best/conclusive.
I already said to you there are many examples of replies from those in the court of God on J-day, thus they are replying and puting up a defence (albeit poor) so there are two sides, so I have no problem with "debate" being used here. To God is the conclusive debate. Excellent fit in my opinion.
Thank you. These are called "arguments" NOT "debates".
Who said anything about "debates" (plural)? It says "their debate" (singular). What do you get when you add arguments/points together? Something definitely resembling a debate, if not a debate.
Re 683
I said "better understood" not that I have a problem with "hajj" meaning "debate" in 683. If I use the arguments (plural) in The Quran for the existence of God to an atheist for example, can I be said to be using God's debate? Interestingly, Abraham is cited as having more than one "argument" (as you might put it) in The Quran, thus it is safe to say he had arguments (plural), and as I said to you before What do you get when you add arguments/points together? Something definitely resembling a debate, if not a debate. I am happy with this usage of "hajj/debate" in 683 because I take into account context. If you disagree, that's cool.Since there is no "debate on this matter", then please tell us according to the passages in the great reading that talk about "hajj" what matters are you going to debate during this alleged "debate"?
There is no debate in this matter, i.e. that your god and my god are different. If this issue comes up, we are told what to respond with. Anything else is open for debate, see the other examples of hajj/debate in The Quran where other topics are discussed.
I think that we need to first resolve the issue that "haj" clearly can't mean "debate" before we can move on.
No. The first point I brought up with you was 2158. We (or rather, you) have not dealt with this properly yet. Do you need more time?
To be honest, I dont mind if we take our time, as I'm sure both of us are busy. We are both here to learn, that's the main thing.
peace.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Now, onto disproving your above claim.
And do not argue/jidal with the people of the book except in the best manner (biallatee hiya ahsanu*); except for those who are wicked amongst them...
*exact same wording as used in 16125.
If "jidal" can mean good AND bad argument as you claim, there would be no need for The Quran to state an exception in the above verse. It is clearly implying that "jidal NOT in the best/ahsan manner" is by default negative or not recommended in general, i.e. the wicked may deserve a more vehement form of arguing, and this style of argument is excused if we opt for it or it happens to occur, but only for the wicked. Once again, Muhammad Asad gets it perfectly right in his note on this verse, shown below
Thus, thanks to you bringing up this point, we have been able to prove "jidal" has a negative connotation in The Quran 100% beyond doubt. This is further reinforced by there is no occurence of "jidal/argue" in a positive light, and there is no occurrence of "hajj/debate" in a negative light. Further, every occurrence in The Quran of "do not XYZ except in best/ahsan manner" implies what was mentioned in the context is negative or has a negative aspect. Not only is this obvious, it makes sense.
Thus, in my opinion, "jidal" is best translated as "argue" in English because even in English "argue" has a negative connotation. Of course, if I was translating, I would cite the above verse in notes to prove it has a negative connotation so the reader understood.
)I don't mind being disproved. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. I think that Mohamed Asad missed the fact that the same wording "alati hiya ahsan" is used, for example, in 1753 in reference to "qawl"/saying, which is clearly a neutral concept. A "saying" is no more inherently negative than "jdal"/debate is.
And wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the Sacred Temple. And wherever you may be you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no debate against you, except those of them who are wicked...
Sounds good to me. The other side is clearly there with the use of "against you".What "debate against you"!? Is this how you would normally word it? Can't you see that you are straining to make debate fit, while argument is the much better and simpler meaning? I think that it clearly makes much more sense as "so that the people will have no argument against you, except those of them who are wicked."
When our revelations are recited to them, clearly, their hajj/debate is nothing but that they say, "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
See how it qualifies "hajj" with "is nothing but that they say". This perfectly implies that usually "hajj/debate" might warrant a bit more than one statement! Again, giving weight to the "hajj/debate" meaning, i.e. they have no debate so all they have is "bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful".
With every verse reference you are proving my point.If it where their debate then this means that they are debating amongst themselves. Again, argument fits much better without making the sentence sound strange "their argument is nothing but that they say, "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful.""
In fact, in Arabic we have the reflexive first person form "THJJ" to mean "making up an excuse/argument for oneself" while there is no such thing as "TJDL".
I already said to you there are many examples of replies from those in the court of God on J-day, thus they are replying and puting up a defence (albeit poor) so there are two sides, so I have no problem with "debate" being used here. To God is the conclusive debate. Excellent fit in my opinion.
Call me crazy but maybe someone else can provide their opinion. It seems clear to me that "To God is the conclusive/best debate" doesn't sound right while "To God is the conclusive/best argument" sounds more correct.
Who said anything about "debates" (plural)? It says "their debate" (singular). What do you get when you add arguments/points together? Something definitely resembling a debate, if not a debate.
It is impossible in 4216 for "their haj" to mean debate. Again, please explain how can a "debate" be defeated. Explain to me, for example, how can this debate that we are having be defeated. Again, you are straining to make it fit when the simplest explanation easily fits. Clearly, 4226 is talking about their argument being defeated. Same as say, my or your argument would be defeated (not our debate).
Re 683
I said "better understood" not that I have a problem with "hajj" meaning "debate" in 683. If I use the arguments (plural) in The Quran for the existence of God to an atheist for example, can I be said to be using God's debate? Interestingly, Abraham is cited as having more than one "argument" (as you might put it) in The Quran, thus it is safe to say he had arguments (plural), and as I said to you before What do you get when you add arguments/points together? Something definitely resembling a debate, if not a debate. I am happy with this usage of "hajj/debate" in 683 because I take into account context. If you disagree, that's cool.In 683 again you have to build a long explanation of why "debate" may be made to fit when the simple meaning of argument fits perfectly without any long exaplanations. Again, if I tell you
- This is my argument that I gave to you. yes
- This is my debate that I gave to you. -
Which one makes more sense?
There is no debate in this matter, i.e. that your god and my god are different. If this issue comes up, we are told what to respond with. Anything else is open for debate, see the other examples of hajj/debate in The Quran where other topics are discussed.
This is exactly my point. Everywhere where the topic of "hajj" is discussed there is absolutely no mention of any topics or examples of debate. On the other hand, there is always mention of livestock. Even when the other meaning of "haj" (you say debate/I say argument) is mentioned, there is no indication whatsoever that it has anything to do with the other "haj" or that "debate or argument" happens only during known "full-moons" and only for a "few days", etc. According to your interpretation, it is presently not the time for the debate. So I guess you should wait until the summer to reply to me. )
No. The first point I brought up with you was 2158. We (or rather, you) have not dealt with this properly yet. Do you need more time?
To be honest, I dont mind if we take our time, as I'm sure both of us are busy. We are both here to learn, that's the main thing.I need more time to ponder on 2158 but I think that we can both agree that like ALL the passages talking about "haj", it talks about the livestock. Now what exactly are we doing with the livestock, this is what we need to think more about. This has no bearing on the fact that "haj" cannot mean debate as per the above.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
I don't mind being disproved. Unfortunately, this is not the case here. I think that Mohamed Asad missed the fact that the same wording "alati hiya ahsan" is used, for example, in 1753 in reference to "qawl"/saying, which is clearly a neutral concept. A "saying" is no more inherently negative than "jdal"/debate is.
Not only am I surprised by this reaction from you, but also how you fail to comment on the rest of what I said, which incidentally was my main point, instead you prefer to focus on a peripheral point.
In any case, I already checked the example you are referring to in my research and as you well know, the context is indeed negative, i.e. it implies something negative was going on or that believers were going too far in their verbal exchange. The animosity between them, implies their side had animosity, so it is reasonable to think exchanges may have been heated.
Say to My servants to speak what is best. The devil plants animosity between them. The devil was to man a clear enemy. Your Lord is fully aware of you, if He wishes He will have mercy on you, or if He wishes He will punish you. We have not sent you as a guardian over them.
And as an aside, M.Asad was aware of it, as he provides a note on 1753, saying to look up 16125, 2946.
In case I was not clear, let me make my position clear on your claim of jidal can be good as well as bad. This claim of yours has been disproven 100% beyond doubt by 2946. If you choose not to accept this, each to their own.
What "debate against you"!? Is this how you would normally word it? Can't you see that you are straining to make debate fit, while argument is the much better and simpler meaning? I think that it clearly makes much more sense as "so that the people will have no argument against you, except those of them who are wicked."
I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
If it where their debate then this means that they are debating amongst themselves. Again, argument fits much better without making the sentence sound strange "their argument is nothing but that they say, "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful.""
I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
Call me crazy but maybe someone else can provide their opinion. It seems clear to me that "To God is the conclusive/best debate" doesn't sound right while "To God is the conclusive/best argument" sounds more correct.
I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own. Good idea with asking others for opinion though, perhaps we can also ask them what 2946 and 2158 does to your views. )
It is impossible in 4216 for "their haj" to mean debate. Again, please explain how can a "debate" be defeated. Explain to me, for example, how can this debate that we are having be defeated. Again, you are straining to make it fit when the simplest explanation easily fits. Clearly, 4226 is talking about their argument being defeated. Same as say, my or your argument would be defeated (not our debate).
Who said anything about "a debate" or "this debate" being defeated? Notice how your own incorrect wording gives it away. It says "their debate", i.e. whatever arguments they put forth. One's debate is simply adding together of singular arguments, so I don't see a problem with saying "their arguments (plural)" or "their debate (singular)". I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
In 683 again you have to build a long explanation of why "debate" may be made to fit when the simple meaning of argument fits perfectly without any long exaplanations.
Sometimes a long explanation is necessary for those who dont understand a short one. I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
This is exactly my point. Everywhere where the topic of "hajj" is discussed there is absolutely no mention of any topics or examples of debate. On the other hand, there is always mention of livestock. Even when the other meaning of "haj" (you say debate/I say argument) is mentioned, there is no indication whatsoever that it has anything to do with the other "haj" or that "debate or argument" happens only during known "full-moons" and only for a "few days", etc.
I never realised I had discussed all verses related to "hajj" with you? Oh that's right, I haven't. I guess at this stage we will just have to take your word for it.
According to your interpretation, it is presently not the time for the debate. So I guess you should wait until the summer to reply to me. )
I guess according to you then one cannot feast at other times of the year ) Please note the "al" in front of "al hajj".
I need more time to ponder on 2158 but I think that we can both agree that like ALL the passages talking about "haj", it talks about the livestock. Now what exactly are we doing with the livestock, this is what we need to think more about. This has no bearing on the fact that "haj" cannot mean debate as per the above.
Take your time. When you do respond however, I/we would appreciate it if you could address ALL my points.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Not only am I surprised by this reaction from you, but also how you fail to comment on the rest of what I said, which incidentally was my main point, instead you prefer to focus on a peripheral point.
In any case, I already checked the example you are referring to in my research and as you well know, the context is indeed negative, i.e. it implies something negative was going on or that believers were going too far in their verbal exchange. The animosity between them, implies their side had animosity, so it is reasonable to think exchanges may have been heated.
Say to My servants to speak what is best. The devil plants animosity between them. The devil was to man a clear enemy. Your Lord is fully aware of you, if He wishes He will have mercy on you, or if He wishes He will punish you. We have not sent you as a guardian over them.
And as an aside, M.Asad was aware of it, as he provides a note on 1753, saying to look up 16125, 2946.
In case I was not clear, let me make my position clear on your claim of jidal can be good as well as bad. This claim of yours has been disproven 100% beyond doubt by 2946. If you choose not to accept this, each to their own.Thank you for your patience. I am a little slow these days (I must be getting older).
M. Asad is wrong. Like "jadal", there is nothing in the word "yaqulu" that implies it being inherently bad. It is exactly like the English "say/speak" is not inherently bad. M. Asad even translates the word as "speak" and not as "speak badly". Those who have faith don't speak in a bad way except when the devil succeeds in kindling animosity between them. In this case, it is not merely "speech" but it is "bad speech".
As for 2946, it is the same as 1753. The word "tujadilu" is neutral. We are told to debate with what is best, except against those who are unjust. So does this mean that we should debate by yelling and screaming at them and throwing fallacious arguments at them!? No, it means that we shouldn't debate with them, that is all.
I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own. Good idea with asking others for opinion though, perhaps we can also ask them what 2946 and 2158 does to your views. )I explained why it is problematic. What I would suggest is try to speak to someone who is completely neutral and ask them which of the following English sentences are more correct
-
You shall obey the law so that the prosecutor will have no debate against you.
-
You shall obey the law so that the prosecutor will have no argument against you.
-
The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
-
The argument of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
-
Mine is the best debate.
-
Mine is the best argument.
-
This is my debate that I gave to you.
-
This is my argument that I gave to you.
-
My debate was defeated.
-
My argument was defeated.
Who said anything about "a debate" or "this debate" being defeated? Notice how your own incorrect wording gives it away. It says "their debate", i.e. whatever arguments they put forth. One's debate is simply adding together of singular arguments, so I don't see a problem with saying "their arguments (plural)" or "their debate (singular)". I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
No, debate is back and forth arguments and not just "their arguments". Your definition of debate as one sided is wrong. If it is two sided then "their debate" doesn't make sense, unless they are debating each other! You need to explain how "their debate" can be defeated when "debate" is two sided. On the other hand, "their argument is defeated" is simple and doesn't require illogical justifications that ignore the meaning of debate as two-sided.
Sometimes a long explanation is necessary for those who dont understand a short one. I have no problem with "debate" being used here. If you do, each to their own.
As I suggested, please take the above sentences to a neutral person and then see what they will say.
I never realised I had discussed all verses related to "hajj" with you? Oh that's right, I haven't. I guess at this stage we will just have to take your word for it.
Yes, take my word for it. )
I guess according to you then one cannot feast at other times of the year ) Please note the "al" in front of "al hajj".
What we are given are the BEST times for the feast. It is the harvest time when crops and livestock are plentiful. On the other hand, the timing has nothing at all to do with "debate". This is not "to each to their own". This is an indisputable fact.
Take your time. When you do respond however, I/we would appreciate it if you could address ALL my points.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
peace brother Ayman,
M. Asad is wrong. Like "jadal", there is nothing in the word "yaqulu" that implies it being inherently bad. It is exactly like the English "say/speak" is not inherently bad. M. Asad even translates the word as "speak" and not as "speak badly". Those who have faith don't speak in a bad way except when the devil succeeds in kindling animosity between them. In this case, it is not merely "speech" but it is "bad speech".
So when it says "our Lord is fully aware of you, if He wishes He will have mercy on you, or if He wishes He will punish you. We have not sent you as a guardian over them." it is not implying anything negative may have been done/said by believers? God just emphasises He is fully aware of you and can punish you, and reminds that you are not a guardian over them, for no apparent reason (I assume according to you)? Interestingly, even if we assume nothing negative was said/done by believers (albeit that is the unlikelier option), then we can still take "Say to My servants to speak what is ahsan" as implying do not speak like them, which was negative. So the contrast against something negative in context still holds. In any case, as I said, this is a peripheral point, let's go back to the main point
As for 2946, it is the same as 1753. The word "tujadilu" is neutral. We are told to debate with what is best, except against those who are unjust. So does this mean that we should debate by yelling and screaming at them and throwing fallacious arguments at them!?
Who said anything about yelling/screaming and fallacious arguments? Your own wording is ridiculous. Why on earth would you or I or anyone think that God is sanctioning use of fallacious arguments? Is "fallacious argumentation" a Classical Arabic meaning of "jidal" or did you pluck it out of thin air like you did with "attend to"?
"jidal" can mean vehement form of arguement, this does not necessarily have to involve yelling/screaming, it can simply be more fierce/cutting remarks, not beating around the bush, sternly warning more of consequences etc. type argument. It could even include raising of one's voice, but yelling/screaming is not necessarily included.As an aside, you neglect to take into account "ahsan" can also mean "most beautiful/fair" etc.
No, it means that we shouldn't debate with them, that is all.
You would have a point if it said "jidal with the people of the book, except the unjust among them", but unfortunately for your view, it doesn't say that. I repeat your claim of jidal can be good as well as bad is disproven 100% beyond doubt by 2946. You can slice it any way you want, it says what it says.
At least, you have now admitted we are allowed to debate, unlike your previous statement
If we read the whole passage to 365, 66, etc. then we are telling the people of the book not to debate/argue with us.
I wonder what else you'll change your mind about as we continue to debate/hajj )
What we are given are the BEST times for the feast. It is the harvest time when crops and livestock are plentiful. On the other hand, the timing has nothing at all to do with "debate". This is not "to each to their own". This is an indisputable fact.
Who said anything about the timing had to do with debate? If you are going to host a conference/symposium, best to do it at an optimum time in a favourable environment. Let's stick to addressing the actual points raised.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Look forward to your response on 2158. You may wish to also take into account 2196 with your understanding.
As an aside, an interesting avenue of approach for us all may be to consider that since 'al hajj' is open to mankind, this means non-believers would be there, so when AQ gives us guidance about 'al hajj' we should be careful about who is being addressed or who the regulation refers to, i.e. the organisers or those attending, or both.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
So when it says "our Lord is fully aware of you, if He wishes He will have mercy on you, or if He wishes He will punish you. We have not sent you as a guardian over them." it is not implying anything negative may have been done/said by believers? God just emphasises He is fully aware of you and can punish you, and reminds that you are not a guardian over them, for no apparent reason (I assume according to you)? Interestingly, even if we assume nothing negative was said/done by believers (albeit that is the unlikelier option), then we can still take "Say to My servants to speak what is ahsan" as implying do not speak like them, which was negative. So the contrast against something negative in context still holds. In any case, as I said, this is a peripheral point, let's go back to the main point
Isn't the underlined part true ALL the time? Again, the word "qawl" is used throughout the great reading to simply mean "saying". So it is clearly a neutral word.
The main point is that "haj" means ARGUMENT not DEBATE. You haven't proven that it means "debate" to begin with. Your assumption that it means "debate" is just that, an assumption.
Who said anything about yelling/screaming and fallacious arguments? Your own wording is ridiculous. Why on earth would you or I or anyone think that God is sanctioning use of fallacious arguments? Is "fallacious argumentation" a Classical Arabic meaning of "jidal" or did you pluck it out of thin air like you did with "attend to"?
"jidal" can mean vehement form of arguement, this does not necessarily have to involve yelling/screaming, it can simply be more fierce/cutting remarks, not beating around the bush, sternly warning more of consequences etc. type argument. It could even include raising of one's voice, but yelling/screaming is not necessarily included.
As an aside, you neglect to take into account "ahsan" can also mean "most beautiful/fair" etc.Wakas, your inability to show how in the five sentences that I gave you "debate" works better than "argument" is proof that you have no grounds to stand on for claiming that "'haj" means "debate". Is "debate" a Classical Arabic meaning of "haj" or did you pluck it out of someone else's misunderstanding of the term?
http//www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=
You would have a point if it said "jidal with the people of the book, except the unjust among them", but unfortunately for your view, it doesn't say that. I repeat your claim of jidal can be good as well as bad is disproven 100% beyond doubt by 2946. You can slice it any way you want, it says what it says.
At least, you have now admitted we are allowed to debate, unlike your previous statement
I wonder what else you'll change your mind about as we continue to debate/hajj )If you say so. Ironically, in the debate that we are having, aren't your words above a "vehement form of arguement" that involves fierce/cutting remarks, not beating around the bush, sternly warning more of consequences etc. So you are violating your own idea of no "jidal" during the debate. I guess you will say that we are not having the debate in the summer, otherwise you would be nicer in the summer. )
Who said anything about the timing had to do with debate? If you are going to host a conference/symposium, best to do it at an optimum time in a favourable environment. Let's stick to addressing the actual points raised.
Unless you can explain why the debate is best done in the heat of summer, then you are clearly evading this point.
Look forward to your response on 2158. You may wish to also take into account 2196 with your understanding.
Will do, unless the god wills otherwise.
As an aside, an interesting avenue of approach for us all may be to consider that since 'al hajj' is open to mankind, this means non-believers would be there, so when AQ gives us guidance about 'al hajj' we should be careful about who is being addressed or who the regulation refers to, i.e. the organisers or those attending, or both.
This would indeed be an interesting avenue as soon as you prove what "haj" means. Or you can explore this now and see that all the activities (the how) have to do with the feast and nothing to do with any kind of debate.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
Isn't the underlined part true ALL the time?
Yes. AQ does not use its words haphazardly, it is precision par excellence, so when AQ uses its words to form a context, I pay attention and know it has relevance. You, on the other hand, disregard it in this case and say there is no implication of negativity or warning or sternly reminding of believers. Each to their own interpretation.
Again, the word "qawl" is used throughout the great reading to simply mean "saying". So it is clearly a neutral word.
I agree with you about "qawl" and I did not say differently. What I am saying is the phrasing "alati hiya ahsan" is always used in AQ in contrast to something negative in the context. It is telling that 1753 is the best example you have of disproving this point.
The main point is that "haj" means ARGUMENT not DEBATE. You haven't proven that it means "debate" to begin with. Your assumption that it means "debate" is just that, an assumption.
Just like you haven't proven it means "feast"? ;D
It is simply a matter of weighing up evidence to see which option fits best.Wakas, your inability to show how in the five sentences that I gave you "debate" works better than "argument" is proof that you have no grounds to stand on for claiming that "'haj" means "debate". Is "debate" a Classical Arabic meaning of "haj" or did you pluck it out of someone else's misunderstanding of the term?
http//www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=
Your whole point was "my phrasing sounds better than your phrasing". That is weak evidence at best. I prefer to stick to more solid arguments like the clear contradictions of your view in 2158 and 2196, the conjured up meaning of "attend to", 2946 etc.
Also, I do not understand your last reference. Are you now implying the Classical Arabic meaning of "debate" for "hajj" is a misunderstanding? If so, please translate the relevant evidence in English for me.
Unless you can explain why the debate is best done in the heat of summer, then you are clearly evading this point.
Another strawman argument. Allow me to quote myself
If you are going to host a conference/symposium, best to do it at an optimum time in a favourable environment.
This would indeed be an interesting avenue as soon as you prove what "haj" means.
Thanks for the advice, I recommend we research it together as soon as you explain 2158 / 2196 / "attend to" etc.
-
Peace,
Hajj means the Wish of Allah sent down upon your heart as your dearest need for the present and for the future i.e. for the wholesome life. For example, "You shall lead a hearty life, free from fear and worry. There will be testing times ahead for sure, as a test for your iman. At least once in your life time, stand by me steadfast without adding or associating your efforts to My All Encompassing way and be satisfied of My help to you that delivers you from your fix. Belief in Me and Patience freeing yourself from your efforts is all important in completing your Hajj in this way."
