hajj / feast / debate
-
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."
-
Peace brother Wakas,
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.
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.But if "qawl" is neutral then "alati hiya ahsan" can be used in relation to something neutral. For example, if I tell you "Advise children to speak nicely to people". This doesn't mean that the children were speaking badly. We hear many such advices in the great reading such as Luqman advising his sons. He is telling them do not raise your voice and sound like a donkey. This doesn't mean that this is what they do. It is just good advice and a reminder in case they forget.
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.You haven't presented any evidence. You need to tell us
- How can you invite ALL people with a debate?
- What is the purpose of the debate?
- What is to be debated?
- Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
Etc.
On the other hand, I clearly explained all of the above for feast based on the great reading.
Your whole point was "my phrasing sounds better than your phrasing". That is weak evidence at best.
No, this entire debate is about meaning of "haj" and how it is phrased in the language of the great reading. So the phrasing of the great reading is all that we have to go on. Each phrase that I used mirrors a phrase in the great reading but I applied the same exact structure to mundane everyday things so that when you read it and share it with others you are not inhibited by your preconceptions. Your misunderstanding of "haj" as "debate" results in strange illogical phrasing while "haj" as "argument" makes the phrasing correct.
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.
As I said, we will come to 2158 later. If the meaning of "attend to" is wrong then we will find a more correct meaning. I am the first to admit that I was wrong before about "haj" and I conjured up the false meaning of "debate" and now I found the more correct meaning of "feast". So I have no problem with correcting whatever needs to be corrected.
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.
Brother Wakas, you are one of the most knowledgeable researchers of the great reading that I know. You have produced one of the most helpful research tools in PRLonline. In fact, you helped me a great deal in achieving my present understanding. Here is what you said on the translation of ?haj? on PRL
= Haa-Jiim-Jiim = to intend to a certain target, aim at, repair, undertake, repaired/betook himself to or towards a person / place / object of veneration/respect/honour, went/visit frequently/repeatedly, pilgrimage.
Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute.
Refrain/abstain.Hmm? no ?debate? here. But maybe we missed it because Lane Lexicon has 3 pages on ?haj? and thus in the tens of meanings it would have been easy to miss it. So let?s look at Lane?s
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 149, 150, 151
Hmm? in the 3 pages full of meanings there is NOT EVEN ONE mention of ?debate? just like the Classical Arabic dictionaries I gave you the link to in my previous post. If you are not convinced then I will understand because I was in your position once and for a few years I held rigidly to the view that ?haj? means debate. However, I hope that this will convince you to at least not take the meaning of ?debate? for granted 100% like I did not long ago but be open to other simpler possibilities.
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.What strawman? Did I invent the above circular argument and then falsely attributed to you twice? I am asking "why is it the best/optimum/favourable time?"Answering with a statement that has the identical premise of what we are trying to prove "it is the optimum time in a favourable environment" is a circular argument. It begs the question of why is it "an optimum/best time" and why is it "a favourable/best environment"? Brother, with arguments like these, I don't need a strawman.
Thanks for the advice, I recommend we research it together as soon as you explain 2158 / 2196 / "attend to" etc.
Agreed and I hope we get to it soon, unless the god wills otherwise.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
But if "qawl" is neutral then "alati hiya ahsan" can be used in relation to something neutral.
I have already explained this point. I never said it is always used in contrast to a negative word, I said it is always used in contrast to something negative in the context (which could include a negative word but not necessarily). You felt sternly reminding believers that "Lord is fully aware of you, can punish you, you are not a guardian over them" etc didn't imply anything negative was done/said, I felt it did, or what they said was negative hence the contrast. Each to their own.
You haven't presented any evidence. You need to tell us
- How can you invite ALL people with a debate?
I already explained this point. Interestingly you (and truthseeker) ruled out calling out with the debate yet never cited any reason whatsoever. This is not what I call evidence. In fact, the evidence is weighted against your view as it says "call/invite with al hajj" NOT "call/invite to al hajj". A point you never even commented on I might add.
- What is the purpose of the debate?
Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran. But you are right that I never brought evidence for this, simply because I haven't even discussed this yet.
- What is to be debated?
See above. I briefly mentioned the topics in which hajj/debate is used could give us an indication of topic, but I never discussed this in detail.
- Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
Etc.
Actually, I did not use a circular argument. Nowhere did I say "debate is best done in the summer" or imply the summer timing gives weight to the hajj=debate meaning. This is your own strawman argument. Your own wording gives it away, not once did I say "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment" (note words in bold). You are making stuff up I never even said, this is the very definition of a strawman argument.
Let me quote myself for all to see
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.
Perhaps you mistook the above to mean I was saying summer is the optimum time (for some reason). If I meant that I would have said that. By "optimum time in a favourable environment" I meant hosting such a significant event will require food/drink/resources to be available/regulated, and if they are most plentiful at this time, then makes sense to host it at this "optimum time in a favourable environment". Perhaps I could have clarified better.
On the other hand, I clearly explained all of the above for feast based on the great reading.
I am well aware of what you explained and what you kept silent on.
No, this entire debate is about meaning of "haj" and how it is phrased in the language of the great reading. So the phrasing of the great reading is all that we have to go on.
Actually, I originally did not intend to debate the meaning of "hajj". I just wanted to know how your view fitted in with 2158, but then, well, we can all see what happened.
Each phrase that I used mirrors a phrase in the great reading but I applied the same exact structure to mundane everyday things so that when you read it and share it with others you are not inhibited by your preconceptions.
You used the same exact structure did you? Tell us then, where in the entire Quran does this same exact structure of yours occur for the HJJ phrases
The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
Mine is the best debate.
My debate was defeated.
Or will you have to clarify and correct your own words before you can cite the verse(s)?
Your misunderstanding of "haj" as "debate" results in strange illogical phrasing while "haj" as "argument" makes the phrasing correct.
For sake of argument, let's say you are right, your phrasing sounds better than mine, how does that make mine illogical or incorrect? If your argument is that it is impossible or contradictory for it to mean debate in these occurrences, then just say so. I have already explained how debate fits. As I said, your whole point is "mine sounds better than yours" which as I said is weak evidence at best (not that I even agree with you). 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.
It is simply a matter of weighing evidence to see which option fits best.
You have produced one of the most helpful research tools in PRLonline. In fact, you helped me a great deal in achieving my present understanding. Here is what you said on the translation of ?haj? on PRL
PRL is a group effort, I am simply the project manager and one of its contributers. It is built upon the hard work of those who went before us, just like PRL will be improved upon by those who come after us.
Hmm? in the 3 pages full of meanings there is NOT EVEN ONE mention of ?debate? just like the Classical Arabic dictionaries I gave you the link to in my previous post.
Thanks for pointing out the specific word "debate" is not cited by the Classical Arabic dictionaries you refer to. I'm not sure which ones the link covers, but it is noteworthy nonetheless. I would say however that what it does describe by " Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute." is akin to "debate", and just by not citing the specific word "debate" it is not enough for me to think "debate" cannot be a possible meaning.
What strawman? Did I invent the above circular argument and then falsely attributed to you twice? I am asking "why is it the best/optimum/favourable time?"Answering with a statement that has the identical premise of what we are trying to prove "it is the optimum time in a favourable environment" is a circular argument. It begs the question of why is it "an optimum/best time" and why is it "a favourable/best environment"? Brother, with arguments like these, I don't need a strawman.
See above, where it is hopefully clear for you now. I will ignore your misquoting of me yet again. In fact, if I may request you not to quote me from now on unless you are using the quote function in the forum software, I would appreciate it, thanks.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
I already explained this point. Interestingly you (and truthseeker) ruled out calling out with the debate yet never cited any reason whatsoever. This is not what I call evidence. In fact, the evidence is weighted against your view as it says "call/invite with al hajj" NOT "call/invite to al hajj". A point you never even commented on I might add.
It was explained numerous times that you can't call out with a vague term such as debate. The first questions people are going to ask is what is the debate about? Who are the debaters? Why can't we just see it on TV? etc. Please be a realist and give concrete evidence that you can invite all people with a debate. I don't have to prove that you can't (a negative) and despite this I gave you the reason. On the other hand, the burden of proof is on you and you haven't given any real practical reason for ALL people to come to this "debate" of yours.
In addition, it is certainly more appropriate to invite ALL people with a feast than with a debate. People will always show up for plenty of free food no matter what their religious affiliation or views are.
Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran. But you are right that I never brought evidence for this, simply because I haven't even discussed this yet.
This is not the purpose. This is the supposed subject. Is this what you are going to tell people? This vague debate of yours "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (copied and pasted from above) ) I am sorry but this is not something that attracts all people. Also, what you are saying has ZERO support in the great reading. If you disagree then please show us the passage that says that the debate "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (again copy and paste).
Please tell us the purpose of your supposed debate based on the CLEAR statement in the great reading about the purpose of ?haj?.
See above. I briefly mentioned the topics in which hajj/debate is used could give us an indication of topic, but I never discussed this in detail.
I saw above nothing but a vague statement pulled out of thin air and that has zero support in the great reading. I would suggest that you don't rush to a conclusion that "haj" means "debate" until you can study and discuss what would be "debated" in more details and get some concrete real answers.
Actually, I did not use a circular argument. Nowhere did I say "debate is best done in the summer" or imply the summer timing gives weight to the hajj=debate meaning. This is your own strawman argument. Your own wording gives it away, not once did I say "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment" (note words in bold). You are making stuff up I never even said, this is the very definition of a strawman argument.
Let me quote myself for all to see
Perhaps you mistook the above to mean I was saying summer is the optimum time (for some reason). If I meant that I would have said that. By "optimum time in a favourable environment" I meant hosting such a significant event will require food/drink/resources to be available/regulated, and if they are most plentiful at this time, then makes sense to host it at this "optimum time in a favourable environment". Perhaps I could have clarified better.This is fine. Very few people would admit to committing a logical fallacy. We will have to leave it to the intelligent readers to decide. At least by begging the question, I got you to answer the following (copy and paste)
"I meant hosting such a significant event will require food/drink/resources to be available/regulated, and if they are most plentiful at this time, then makes sense to host it at this "optimum time in a favourable environment".
So you admit that the timing has to do with the availability of food. It seems like you will be having a FEAST at your debate. I wonder how many people will show up for the food and not for the debate, which they can see on TV.
It is also not surprising since one of the two purposes of ?haj? is to eat and feed the needy. Those are not the first or even the millionth thing that comes to mind when one thinks of the purpose of a ?debate?. But I guess you might vehemently argue that it is ?possible? as the billionth thing one thinks about. )
Joking aside, please don?t take what I am saying negatively. I am only trying to show that the simplest explanation is usually the most correct and if the god always mentions livestock in relation to ?haj? then it must be mainly about food.
I am well aware of what you explained and what you kept silent on.
Good.
Actually, I originally did not intend to debate the meaning of "hajj". I just wanted to know how your view fitted in with 2158, but then, well, we can all see what happened.
This is the problem. You started out with a preconception that "haj" means "debate".
You used the same exact structure did you? Tell us then, where in the entire Quran does this same exact structure of yours occur for the HJJ phrases
The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
4525Mine is the best debate.
6149My debate was defeated.
4216Or will you have to clarify and correct your own words before you can cite the verse(s)?
Notice that you selected three out of the five sentences where you could find some insignificant difference (tense or whatever) that has no bearing on the fact that such phrases are illogical. I don't think that you forgot to read the remaining two or let them go to take it easy on me.
For sake of argument, let's say you are right, your phrasing sounds better than mine, how does that make mine illogical or incorrect? If your argument is that it is impossible or contradictory for it to mean debate in these occurrences, then just say so. I have already explained how debate fits. As I said, your whole point is "mine sounds better than yours" which as I said is weak evidence at best (not that I even agree with you).
At the end of the day, we are to follow what is BEST, not what is possible. If one understanding/phrasing is better (i.e., more logical) then this is what we need to follow.
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.
I already explained 2946. As for 2158 and 2196, I said that we will come to these and I don't see anything there contradicting the concept of "feast" and your objection is immaterial and I provided one reason why it is immaterial and I am sure that we can find more as we think more about those passages. In fact, like ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock and have NOTHING relating to some supposed debate.
It is simply a matter of weighing evidence to see which option fits best.
Exactly my point above with respect to following what is best and not what is possible. I provided the best wording above in my five sentences.
PRL is a group effort, I am simply the project manager and one of its contributers. It is built upon the hard work of those who went before us, just like PRL will be improved upon by those who come after us. Thanks for pointing out the specific word "debate" is not cited by the Classical Arabic dictionaries you refer to. I'm not sure which ones the link covers, but it is noteworthy nonetheless. I would say however that what it does describe by " Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute." is akin to "debate", and just by not citing the specific word "debate" it is not enough for me to think "debate" cannot be a possible meaning.
"Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute" doesn?t mean ?debate?. Here is what ?debate? means
Main Entry de?bate
Pronunciation \di-bt, d-
Function noun
Date 13th century
a contention by words or arguments as a the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.Nothing here about ?overcoming?. On the other hand, the emphasis in most of Lane?s meaning for ?haj? is on ?overcome? and ?argue?. In fact, ague/argument is mentioned 13 times as the correct meaning of ?haj? while ?debate is mentioned ZERO times. So, as I was saying, the correct meaning of ?haj? is ?argument? and not ?debate?. As I said, one can always cling to an increasingly fading possibility, but this is not about proving that ?it cannot be a possible meaning? (a negative), it is about finding the best/most likely meaning.
There are two ?haj? mentioned in the great reading. One is an originally Arabic word (argue) and the other is an Arabic word borrowed from Hebrew (feast). This is why they seem similar on the surface but carry completely different meanings. It is probable that the contexts for usage of those words were divergent enough that people could use two words that sounded the same and yet easily understand that we are talking about two different concepts (as we routinely do now). It could also be due to the deficiencies in the Nabataean script and developing writing convention that those are not differentiated enough in writing but sounded differently.
See above, where it is hopefully clear for you now. I will ignore your misquoting of me yet again. In fact, if I may request you not to quote me from now on unless you are using the quote function in the forum software, I would appreciate it, thanks.
How about copy and paste? It would be interesting to see how you would apply your rule in your supposed debate with hundreds of thousands of people debating, orally I might add.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to your next round of less vehement argumentation. )
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
Firstly, thanks for copy and pasting my comments this time. It has helped and I appreciate it.
It was explained numerous times that you can't call out with a vague term such as debate. The first questions people are going to ask is what is the debate about? Who are the debaters? Why can't we just see it on TV? etc. Please be a realist and give concrete evidence that you can invite all people with a debate. I don't have to prove that you can't (a negative) and despite this I gave you the reason. On the other hand, the burden of proof is on you and you haven't given any real practical reason for ALL people to come to this "debate" of yours.
In addition, it is certainly more appropriate to invite ALL people with a feast than with a debate. People will always show up for plenty of free food no matter what their religious affiliation or views are.
I didn't realise when you proposed "questions people are going to ask" you were giving a reason for why it was impossible for it to be "call/invite with the debate". Your wording was too strong for what reasons/evidence you brought, hence not realising that was your evidence/reason.
I find it strange you think just because these questions could be asked, this somehow proves one cant "call/invite with the debate". Let me attempt to more accurately phrase what I think your point is these questions will be asked so it doesn't make sense it would be calling/inviting with a debate, i.e. it is not as appealing as calling/inviting to a feast.
First of all it is not a "hajj", it is "al hajj", thus is better termed "the conference/symposium" as "the debate" does not give the emphasis of "the debate" as an event, i.e. it is not a debate and that's it. I have mentioned this before. You could term it "the debate" as long it is understood by whoever you are addressing it is also an event.
So, let's address the questions
what is the conference/symposium/debate about?
An invitation to witness the benefits and guidance under God's system.Who are the debaters (or hosts of the conference/symposium)?
muslimeen, mumineen, monotheists will definitely be there. In the mix would be all others, people of the book, atheists/agnostics, other religions etc.Why can't we just see it on TV? etc.
If it is televised, feel free to watch it on TV, The debate is only one aspect of the event.As a side note, I find it strange you would even bring up TV. AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology, as you well know.
How your questions seemingly show one cannot call out with the debate/conference/symposium is anyone's guess. In any case, let's do the same thing for feast
The first questions people are going to ask is what food will be at this feast? Who are the chefs? Why can't we just stay at home and eat/drink? Do they cater for vegans/vegetarians/food intolerances? Can we see a menu? etc.The difference with my questions, and thus point, is that I'm not saying the above questions prove it can't be feast, as this would be absurd, or at least I cant see how feast is disproven by the questions. Likewise, I cant see how debate is disproven by your questions, but if you feel it does, each to their own.
Again, you kept silent on why is it "bi/with" and not "ila/to". The former construction, favouring my view.
This is not the purpose. This is the supposed subject. Is this what you are going to tell people? This vague debate of yours "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (copied and pasted from above) ) I am sorry but this is not something that attracts all people. Also, what you are saying has ZERO support in the great reading. If you disagree then please show us the passage that says that the debate "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (again copy and paste).
Please tell us the purpose of your supposed debate based on the CLEAR statement in the great reading about the purpose of ?haj?.
I saw above nothing but a vague statement pulled out of thin air and that has zero support in the great reading. I would suggest that you don't rush to a conclusion that "haj" means "debate" until you can study and discuss what would be "debated" in more details and get some concrete real answers.
As I openly said, I have not even discussed this aspect yet. I find it interesting you want me to discuss more and more about my view, yet you haven't even answered my first point on 2158.
This is fine. Very few people would admit to committing a logical fallacy. We will have to leave it to the intelligent readers to decide.
Could you help the intelligent readers out by clearly pointing out the circular argument I allegedly made with copy and pasting what I said this time instead of misquoting me then claiming I made a circular argument. I may well have made a circular argument but it's difficult to tell in amongst your misquoting of me and what you are referring to (your misquotes or what I actually said).
If you cannot, will you correct your claim and apologise?
You are right though, in my experience also, most people do not admit to committing logical fallacies, e.g. strawman arguments.
So you admit that the timing has to do with the availability of food.
As far as I can see, yes. I have no problem in "admitting" this. I actually said this from the start, but in hindsight I could have been clearer.
I wonder how many people will show up for the food and not for the debate
Exactly. Pehaps using your own above admission, you can now ponder upon "there is no blame on him to go about/amongst them" in 2158 taking the relevant conjugations into account. ;D
Joking aside, please don?t take what I am saying negatively.
I love constructive discussion, and have even been known to enjoy a joke. The only things I take negatively are repeated misquoting/miswording/misinformation/misrepresenation/irrationality/etc.
This is the problem. You started out with a preconception that "haj" means "debate".
My apparent preconception has no bearing upon as to how your view fits with 2158, which still remains unanswered.
The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
4525Mine is the best debate.
6149My debate was defeated.
4216Notice that you selected three out of the five sentences where you could find some insignificant difference (tense or whatever) that has no bearing on the fact that such phrases are illogical. I don't think that you forgot to read the remaining two or let them go to take it easy on me.
Well then, let's examine this "same exact structure" claim of yours
Re 4525
Can you translate "ma kana hujjatahum illaan qaloo" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "The debate of atheists is that they say..."Re 6149
Can you translate "falillahi alhujjatu albalighatufalaw" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "Mine is the best debate."Re 4216
Can you translate "lahu hujjatuhumdahidatun AAinda rabbihim" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "My debate was defeated.".Simple request.
I never mentioned the rest as I never noticed misrepresentation in what was said, and I had already explained how debate fits.
At the end of the day, we are to follow what is BEST, not what is possible. If one understanding/phrasing is better (i.e., more logical) then this is what we need to follow.
Thanks for being more accurate in your wording. What we need to follow is what option fits best once all the evidence is weighed up.
In fact, like ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock and have NOTHING relating to some supposed debate.
Since you keep mentioning this point even though I openly said I haven't even discussed this yet, I will ask a simple question where in 397 does it talk about livestock?
As I said, I haven't even discussed this aspect yet, as I am still waiting on a reply to my very first point about 2158.
"Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute" doesn?t mean ?debate?. Here is what ?debate? means
Main Entry de?bate
Pronunciation \di-bt, d-
Function noun
Date 13th century
a contention by words or arguments as a the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.Nothing here about ?overcoming?. On the other hand, the emphasis in most of Lane?s meaning for ?haj? is on ?overcome? and ?argue?. In fact, ague/argument is mentioned 13 times as the correct meaning of ?haj? while ?debate is mentioned ZERO times. So, as I was saying, the correct meaning of ?haj? is ?argument? and not ?debate?. As I said, one can always cling to an increasingly fading possibility, but this is not about proving that ?it cannot be a possible meaning? (a negative), it is about finding the best/most likely meaning.
The very fact that Lane (and I assume others) mention "argue" as well as "overcome" clearly suggest the act of overcoming or the word you used earlier in this discussion, "convincing", is not necessary in the meaning, although convincing/overcoming could occur. Not only is this obvious, it makes perfect sense, and is exactly what happens in debate.
Interestingly, it seems you have made a u-turn on your point about convincing earlier in our discussion, at first you were adamant convincing was the main point of debate and now you're trying to make a point by saying "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of debate. Which is it? It seems like you are proving my point, not yours.Let me see if I can clarify. I think the point you are trying to make is since "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of the English dictionary definition of debate (as I said to you originally!) this only leaves "argue" for me to choose, so I must/should choose "argue". But choosing "argue" will force me to cancel out the perfectly valid Classical Arabic meanings of "Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies" . Thus, why not choose a word that encompasses both? AND when we take into account "plead/contend/dispute", one possible meaning that stands out is "debate".
Dictionary definitions of "contend" for example
contest to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; "They contested the outcome of the race"
compete compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against othersThere are two ?haj? mentioned in the great reading. One is an originally Arabic word (argue) and the other is an Arabic word borrowed from Hebrew (feast). This is why they seem similar on the surface but carry completely different meanings. It is probable that the contexts for usage of those words were divergent enough that people could use two words that sounded the same and yet easily understand that we are talking about two different concepts (as we routinely do now). It could also be due to the deficiencies in the Nabataean script and developing writing convention that those are not differentiated enough in writing but sounded differently.
That sounds like a possibility, but that is not evidence based on AQ. Just pointing this out because you keep saying to me prove hjj means debate from the great reading etc. I have an inkling as to why you say the above, because there is no direct evidence al hajj means the feast in AQ, and there is only indirect evidence, i.e. context. But we shall see.
It would be interesting to see how you would apply your rule in your supposed debate with hundreds of thousands of people debating, orally I might add.
Can you copy and paste where I said anything about hundreds of thousands of people debating? If not, can you clarify to readers, this is your own made up version of what would be going on (i.e. strawman argument)? Thanks.
Thank you for your patience and I look forward to your next round of less vehement argumentation.
Everything has a cause. My suggestion for you to copy and paste what I say from now on has already led to less problems, so future debate is already looking brighter. )
-
Peace brother Wakas,
I didn't realise when you proposed "questions people are going to ask" you were giving a reason for why it was impossible for it to be "call/invite with the debate". Your wording was too strong for what reasons/evidence you brought, hence not realising that was your evidence/reason.
I find it strange you think just because these questions could be asked, this somehow proves one cant "call/invite with the debate". Let me attempt to more accurately phrase what I think your point is these questions will be asked so it doesn't make sense it would be calling/inviting with a debate, i.e. it is not as appealing as calling/inviting to a feast.
First of all it is not a "hajj", it is "al hajj", thus is better termed "the conference/symposium" as "the debate" does not give the emphasis of "the debate" as an event, i.e. it is not a debate and that's it. I have mentioned this before. You could term it "the debate" as long it is understood by whoever you are addressing it is also an event.You really have to decide if you are proposing that "al-hajj" is "the debate" or "the conference/symposium" and stick with one definition. The debate is ?the back and forth arguments or discussion of propositions between two opposing sides?. The conference is ?the formal meeting to discuss and exchange ideas on matters of common concern?. The definition of the symposium is ?the formal meeting at which specialists deliver lectures on related topics?. As you can see they are clearly different so choose one.
So, let's address the questions
what is the conference/symposium/debate about?
An invitation to witness the benefits and guidance under God's system.Please provide a reference from the great reading because although ?witnessing benefits? is mentioned as a purpose of the ?haj?, ?witness guidance? is not mentioned anywhere as a purpose.
Who are the debaters (or hosts of the conference/symposium)?
muslimeen, mumineen, monotheists will definitely be there. In the mix would be all others, people of the book, atheists/agnostics, other religions etc.You didn?t answer the question. ?Be there? is not the same thing as ?being the debaters?. For example, will everyone debate everyone or are people there to watch a debate between a limited number of people and they are really not participating in the debate? If so, who are those limited number of people?
Why can't we just see it on TV? etc.
If it is televised, feel free to watch it on TV, The debate is only one aspect of the event.If everyone is debating then how can they debate on TV? Also, what are the other aspects of this supposed ?debate? based on the great reading?
As a side note, I find it strange you would even bring up TV. AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology, as you well know.
I know, but you are missing the point because unlike the feast where no matter how technology progresses, people will always have to be there to participate, ?the debate? doesn?t need physical presence at a common place but can be virtual (as we are doing right now).
How your questions seemingly show one cannot call out with the debate/conference/symposium is anyone's guess.
As per the definition of ?the debate? or ?the conference? or ?the symposium? (whichever one you want to haphazardly choose), those attending or debating or presenting or whatever have to be interested in the subject. Now the great reading or any specific religious subject may be of interest to you but it is undoubtedly of little interest to non-like minded people, even Muslims. Certainly, it won?t attract people from all over to come to this ?debate?, ?conference? or ?symposium?. In fact, such ?debates?, ?conferences? and ?symposiums? occur all the time and NONE ever attracts people with completely different interests or affiliations. Why is yours any different?
In any case, let's do the same thing for feast
The first questions people are going to ask is what food will be at this feast? Who are the chefs? Why can't we just stay at home and eat/drink? Do they cater for vegans/vegetarians/food intolerances? Can we see a menu? etc.It is free food. It is not polite to ask those questions to any hosts. Is this what you ask when invited to a feast at someone?s house? Also, as with any harvest feast, there is no need to ask since clearly, a harvest feast will have fruits and vegetables common to the region where the feast happens. Also, people coming from all over can bring food donations and contribute to the feast. So you can try foods from other parts of the world if the particular foods common to this area don?t suit your taste.
The difference with my questions, and thus point, is that I'm not saying the above questions prove it can't be feast, as this would be absurd, or at least I cant see how feast is disproven by the questions. Likewise, I cant see how debate is disproven by your questions, but if you feel it does, each to their own.
It is disproven because no one will go to the debate that has a vague or uninteresting subject between unknown debaters or the conference on a subject that has no interest to them or go the symposium to be lectured on things that are completely disinteresting to them.
Just try to put yourself in their shoes. Would you go to a Jewish conference where you are invited to see Rabbis debate the Talmud and witness the benefits and guidance under the Talmud (which they say is the god?s system)? Would you go to a Sunni conference to see Mullahs debate Hadiths and witness the benefits and guidance under the Hadiths (which they also say is the god?s system)? Why expect differently from others? On the other hand, all those people will go or seriously consider going to an international feast in a place with open borders.
Again, you kept silent on why is it "bi/with" and not "ila/to". The former construction, favouring my view.
What silence? I already explained numerous times why ?the debate? cannot be used as a tool to invite everyone. On the other hand, the feast can.
As I openly said, I have not even discussed this aspect yet. I find it interesting you want me to discuss more and more about my view, yet you haven't even answered my first point on 2158.
You are making the extraordinary claim that you can invite ALL people with the debate whose vague subject "could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (again copy and paste). You are using this as your basic premise together with some other assumptions to ?prove? that ?haj? means ?debate?. All I am saying is don?t rush to the conclusion that ?haj? means ?debate? since you haven?t even thought out your basic premise.
Could you help the intelligent readers out by clearly pointing out the circular argument I allegedly made with copy and pasting what I said this time instead of misquoting me then claiming I made a circular argument. I may well have made a circular argument but it's difficult to tell in amongst your misquoting of me and what you are referring to (your misquotes or what I actually said).
If you cannot, will you correct your claim and apologise?
You are right though, in my experience also, most people do not admit to committing logical fallacies, e.g. strawman arguments.Why are you so worried? As I said, I would leave it to the intelligent reader to decide. If they are too dumb to go back and read for themselves your arguments and instead blindly accept my ?misquoting? then we can?t help them anyway.
As far as I can see, yes. I have no problem in "admitting" this. I actually said this from the start, but in hindsight I could have been clearer.
So let?s focus on what we all agree on so that we can find common ground. We all agree that one of the major aspects of ?haj? has to do with the availability of food. So the one thing that everyone agrees on points to the feast and not to the debate. So until you clearly figure out the other aspects of this debate of yours and not just the conveniently vague ?anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran?, feast is right now the best understanding that brings our understandings together.
Exactly. Pehaps using your own above admission, you can now ponder upon "there is no blame on him to go about/amongst them" in 2158 taking the relevant conjugations into account. ;D
I would say that it is the same like any feast. If someone invites you to a 10 day feast at his house and you enjoy the feast and meet people there and conduct business and prosper, there would be no blame on you if you help out with the regular feast activities such as the slaughtering, cooking and cleaning up. In fact, I would add that if you VOLUNTEERED better than this then certainly the hosts would be grateful. So clearly 2158 has to do with volunteering to perform a service and not with eating after some kind of mysterious debate.
I love constructive discussion, and have even been known to enjoy a joke. The only things I take negatively are repeated misquoting/miswording/misinformation/misrepresenation/irrationality/etc.
My apparent preconception has no bearing upon as to how your view fits with 2158, which still remains unanswered.I explained above how my view fits with 2158 and doesn?t fit with the meaning of ?debate?. On the other hand, you seem to disregard that the passage says ?whoever volunteers better?, so clearly what came before (?yatawaf bihima?) is ?volunteer work to pay back? and is not ?taking advantage of them? (which already happened during the feast).
Well then, let's examine this "same exact structure" claim of yours
Re 4525
Can you translate "ma kana hujjatahum illaan qaloo" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "The debate of atheists is that they say..."
Re 6149
Can you translate "falillahi alhujjatu albalighatufalaw" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "Mine is the best debate."
Re 4216
Can you translate "lahu hujjatuhumdahidatun AAinda rabbihim" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "My debate was defeated.".
Simple request.
I never mentioned the rest as I never noticed misrepresentation in what was said, and I had already explained how debate fits.I can translate it but you might claim that my translation is biased. So I will provide a variety of translations since you are unlikely to claim that all those translators conspired with me to produce a ?strawman? argument against you. Also, since you prefer M. ASAD, I will use his translation and substitute your claim that ?haj? means debate and call it the WAKAS translation
4525
YUSUFALI And when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them their argument is nothing but this They say, "Bring (back) our forefathers, if what ye say is true!"
PICKTHAL And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them their only argument is that they say Bring (back) our fathers. then, if ye are truthful.
SHAKIR And when Our clear communications are recited to them, their argument is no other than that they say Bring our fathers (back) if you are truthful.
KHALIFA When our revelations are recited to them, clearly, their only argument is to say, "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
M. ASAD And whenever Our messages are conveyed to them in all their clarity, their only argument is this Bring forth our forefathers , if what you claim is true!WAKAS And whenever Our messages are conveyed to them in all their clarity, their only debate is this Bring forth our forefathers , if what you claim is true!
6149
YUSUFALI Say "With Allah is the argument that reaches home if it had been His will, He could indeed have guided you all."
PICKTHAL Say - For Allah's is the final argument - Had He willed He could indeed have guided all of you.
SHAKIR Say Then Allah's is the conclusive argument; so if He please, He would certainly guide you all.
KHALIFA Say, "GOD possesses the most powerful argument; if He wills He can guide all of you."
M. ASAD Say " then, that the final evidence rests with God alone; and had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright.'"'WAKAS Say " then, that the final debate rests with God alone; and had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright.'"'
4216
YUSUFALI But those who dispute concerning Allah after He has been accepted,- futile is their dispute in the Sight of their Lord on them will be a Penalty terrible.
PICKTHAL And those who argue concerning Allah after He hath been acknowledged, their argument hath no weight with their Lord, and wrath is upon them and theirs will be an awful doom.
SHAKIR And (as for) those who dispute about Allah after that obedience has been rendered to Him, their plea is null with their Lord, and upon them is wrath, and for them is severe punishment.
KHALIFA Those who argue about GOD, after receiving His message, their argument is nullified at their Lord. They have incurred condemnation, and have deserved a severe retribution.
M. ASAD And as for those who would argue about God * after He has been acknowledged all their arguments are null and void in their Sustainer?s sight, and upon them will fall condemnation, and for them is suffering severe in store.WAKAS And as for those who would debate about God * after He has been acknowledged all their debates are null and void in their Sustainer?s sight, and upon them will fall condemnation, and for them is suffering severe in store.
683
YUSUFALI That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people We raise whom We will, degree after degree for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.
PICKTHAL That is Our argument. We gave it unto Abraham against his folk. We raise unto degrees of wisdom whom We will. Lo! thy Lord is Wise, Aware.
SHAKIR And this was Our argument which we gave to Ibrahim against his people; We exalt in dignity whom We please; surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing.
KHALIFA Such was our argument, with which we supported Abraham against his people. We exalt whomever we will to higher ranks. Your Lord is Most Wise, Omniscient.
M. ASAD And this was Our argument which We vouchsafed unto Abraham against his people We do raise by degrees whom We will. Verily, thy Sustainer is wise, all-knowing.WAKAS And this was Our debate which We vouchsafed unto Abraham against his people We do raise by degrees whom We will. Verily, thy Sustainer is wise, all-knowing.
2150
YUSUFALI So from whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; and wheresoever ye are, Turn your face thither that there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those of them that are bent on wickedness; so fear them not, but fear Me; and that I may complete My favours on you, and ye May (consent to) be guided;
PICKTHAL Whencesoever thou comest forth turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship; and wheresoever ye may be (O Muslims) turn your faces toward it (when ye pray) so that men may have no argument against you, save such of them as do injustice - Fear them not, but fear Me! - and so that I may complete My grace upon you, and that ye may be guided.
SHAKIR And from whatsoever place you come forth, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are turn your faces towards it, so that people shall have no accusation against you, except such of them as are unjust; so do not fear them, and fear Me, that I may complete My favor on you and that you may walk on the right course.
KHALIFA Wherever you go, you shall turn your face (during Salat) towards the Sacred Masjid; wherever you might be, you shall turn your faces (during Salat) towards it. Thus, the people will have no argument against you, except the transgressors among them. Do not fear them, and fear Me instead. I will then perfect My blessings upon you, that you may be guided.
M. ASAD Hence, from wherever thou mayest come forth, turn thy face towards the Inviolable House of Worship; and wherever you all may be, turn your faces towards it, so that people should have no argument against you unless they are bent upon wrongdoing. And hold not them in awe, but stand in awe of Me, and so that I might bestow upon you the full measure of My blessings., and that you might follow the right path.WAKAS Hence, from wherever thou mayest come forth, turn thy face towards the Inviolable House of Worship; and wherever you all may be, turn your faces towards it, so that people should have no debate against you unless they are bent upon wrongdoing. And hold not them in awe, but stand in awe of Me, and so that I might bestow upon you the full measure of My blessings., and that you might follow the right path.
While ?argument? fits perfectly everywhere, debate produces complete nonsense or, at best, awkward mistranslation. Again, if you insist that ?debate? can somehow possibly fit in a remote way, I will leave it to the intelligent reader to read the above and decide which one ?debate? or ?argument? fits better.
Thanks for being more accurate in your wording. What we need to follow is what option fits best once all the evidence is weighed up.
Exactly. So let?s do as you say and now weigh all the evidence for your claim that ?haj? means ?debate?
- The great reading As per the above, clearly ?argument? fits much better than ?debate?.
- Classical Arabic dictionaries They clearly say (13 times) that the meaning of ?haj? is ?argument?.
So unless you have any further evidence other than your preconceived opinion (which was also mine at one point, and I apologize if you took it from me) then when we weigh all the evidence then definitely ?argument is a better fitting meaning for ?haj? than ?debate?.
Since you keep mentioning this point even though I openly said I haven't even discussed this yet, I will ask a simple question where in 397 does it talk about livestock?
Read three lines up and you will see that 393-94 talk about food and Ibrahim.
As I said, I haven't even discussed this aspect yet, as I am still waiting on a reply to my very first point about 2158.
So don?t make any conclusions about ?haj? meaning ?debate? until you consider all aspects. I have also replied above to your point about 2158.
The very fact that Lane (and I assume others) mention "argue" as well as "overcome" clearly suggest the act of overcoming or the word you used earlier in this discussion, "convincing", is not necessary in the meaning, although convincing/overcoming could occur. Not only is this obvious, it makes perfect sense, and is exactly what happens in debate.
Interestingly, it seems you have made a u-turn on your point about convincing earlier in our discussion, at first you were adamant convincing was the main point of debate and now you're trying to make a point by saying "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of debate. Which is it? It seems like you are proving my point, not yours.I hope I don?t have to waste time explaining to you the difference between ?overcoming? and ?convincing?. Also, you are missing what Lane is saying. Lane clearly states that ?haj? means ?argument?. It is not just ?mentioned? in the passing. On the other hand, ?debate? is NEVER mentioned, not even in the passing.
Let me see if I can clarify. I think the point you are trying to make is since "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of the English dictionary definition of debate (as I said to you originally!) this only leaves "argue" for me to choose, so I must/should choose "argue". But choosing "argue" will force me to cancel out the perfectly valid Classical Arabic meanings of "Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies" . Thus, why not choose a word that encompasses both? AND when we take into account "plead/contend/dispute", one possible meaning that stands out is "debate".
Dictionary definitions of "contend" for example
contest to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; "They contested the outcome of the race"
compete compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against othersThe word ?debate? encompasses both only in your imagination. Why go through all those acrobatics to force ?debate? to fit when ?argument? is explicitly mentioned as the clear meaning of ?haj? and it fits perfectly in the appropriate contexts in the great reading. Again, this is a case where the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be correct.
That sounds like a possibility, but that is not evidence based on AQ. Just pointing this out because you keep saying to me prove hjj means debate from the great reading etc. I have an inkling as to why you say the above, because there is no direct evidence al hajj means the feast in AQ, and there is only indirect evidence, i.e. context. But we shall see.
It is not just a possibility. If we take Lane?s meaning and the clear context in the great reading together then there are clearly two different meanings of ?haj? even though they come from the same root, much like ?nifaq? (hypocrisy) and ?infaq? (spending) and ?ibil? (camels) and ?ababil? (flocks), etc. etc.
One can see how Classical Arabic dictionaries provide very confidently the meaning for the ?haj? that consistently means ?argument? but struggle with the other one and don?t really provide a consistent or logical meaning. For the other ?haj?, they range in their meaning from ?intend? to ?make a religious pilgrimage? to ?repair? to ?shaving of the head? and all sorts of guesswork. For example, here is how they attempt to explain their guesswork
?Some say that the former is employed to signify the religious rite and ceremonies of the pilgrimage because they follow the repairing to Mekkeh, or because they are completed by shaving , or because people continue long going to and from to perform them.?
On the other hand, the Hebrew borrowed meaning of ?feast? fits all the occurrences of the other ?haj? and is in line with it being a well-known event for the people of the book while they never heard of any special annual ?argument? (or debate).
Can you copy and paste where I said anything about hundreds of thousands of people debating? If not, can you clarify to readers, this is your own made up version of what would be going on (i.e. strawman argument)? Thanks.
Unless you disagree that we invite ALL people with the ?haj? then it is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. If ALL people go to the ?debate? then we can easily get hundreds of thousands debating. This is of course unless you think that they are going but not actually participating in ?the debate?.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
You really have to decide if you are proposing that "al-hajj" is "the debate" or "the conference/symposium" and stick with one definition. The debate is ?the back and forth arguments or discussion of propositions between two opposing sides?. The conference is ?the formal meeting to discuss and exchange ideas on matters of common concern?. The definition of the symposium is ?the formal meeting at which specialists deliver lectures on related topics?. As you can see they are clearly different so choose one.
First of all it is not a "hajj", it is "al hajj", thus is better termed "the conference/symposium" as "the debate" does not give the emphasis of "the debate" as an event, i.e. it is not a debate and that's it. I have mentioned this before. You could term it "the debate" as long it is understood by whoever you are addressing it is also an event.
I find it interesting you want me to confine my definition, yet there are clearly other things going on at 'al hajj', e.g. remembering/mentioning God, rites/observances, 'arafaat/familiarizations/approbations/recognitions, seeking God's bounty, so it is obviously more than a debate, it is an event. Similarly, your meaning of feast will not encompass what else is going on UNLESS your argument is there is only feasting going on, nothing else. Is this your position?
Please provide a reference from the great reading because although ?witnessing benefits? is mentioned as a purpose of the ?haj?, ?witness guidance? is not mentioned anywhere as a purpose.
Do you confine "witness benefits" to "witness benefits of food/livestock only"? In any case...
Guidance, remembering God, witnessing benefits, rites/observances, giving good news, inviting to good are all mentioned in close proximity to hajj verses 2158-160, 2189, 2197-209, 2225-37, the whole context before and after of 397 is about guidance, following what is right, unity, inviting to good, getting the mesage across to people of the book etc.The above is clear for all to see.
You didn?t answer the question. ?Be there? is not the same thing as ?being the debaters?. For example, will everyone debate everyone or are people there to watch a debate between a limited number of people and they are really not participating in the debate? If so, who are those limited number of people?
The way I see it is the hosts of 'al hajj' are clearly in an authorotative position wherever it is being hosted to be able to have such an event, and thus they will be the people who are doing the inviting, hosting, organising security/regulations/infrastructure, providing food/drink etc. So if they are doing all this, then it stands to reason they are also the principal ones undertaking debate, running the communication/learning/message part etc. Of course, since it is open to all, it is possible others would also be involved. Also, audience participation may well occur, Q&A etc.
That is why AQ differentiates between the terms HJJ and 3MR, former term related to debate aspects, latter for visit aspects, i.e. audience.
As a side note, I find it strange you would even bring up TV. AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology, as you well know.
I know, but you are missing the point because unlike the feast where no matter how technology progresses, people will always have to be there to participate, ?the debate? doesn?t need physical presence at a common place but can be virtual (as we are doing right now).
See how you say "I know" yet in the very same sentence you suggest a high tech alternative! I repeat, AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology... and yes, that includes people without internet access.
Also, as I mentioned previously, in your understanding, are you implying it is only feasting that is going on, nothing else?
As per the definition of ?the debate? or ?the conference? or ?the symposium? (whichever one you want to haphazardly choose), those attending or debating or presenting or whatever have to be interested in the subject. Now the great reading or any specific religious subject may be of interest to you but it is undoubtedly of little interest to non-like minded people, even Muslims. Certainly, it won?t attract people from all over to come to this ?debate?, ?conference? or ?symposium?. In fact, such ?debates?, ?conferences? and ?symposiums? occur all the time and NONE ever attracts people with completely different interests or affiliations. Why is yours any different?
Thanks for your unevidenced subjective opinion. Again, your argument is basically this "the feast" is more appealing than "the conference/symposium". And somehow in your imagination, this unevidenced subjective opinion of "more appeal" translates to "the conference/symposium/debate" is disproven. That is laughable. At most, I would say its possible "the feast" would be more appealing than "the conference/symposium/debate", but even if it would be, this proves/disproves nothing.
Tell us, will the "free food people" still turn up in their droves when you also tell them there is no sexual relations allowed during this event ? Who will object to this less the "free food people" or those who wish to attend "the conference/symposium" as I see it? ;D
It is free food. It is not polite to ask those questions to any hosts.
Oh, so my questions are impolite, so should not be asked, but yours are ok? ;D
Is this what you ask when invited to a feast at someone?s house?
Actually sometimes I do, as I do not eat pig meat. Of course, no need to ask those who know me. Is my question impolite? Should I remain silent? ;D
Also, as with any harvest feast, there is no need to ask since clearly, a harvest feast will have fruits and vegetables common to the region where the feast happens.
Oh, so it's "harvest feast" now is it? Which is it "the feast" or "the harvest feast"?
Also, people coming from all over can bring food donations and contribute to the feast. So you can try foods from other parts of the world if the particular foods common to this area don?t suit your taste.
Oh, so it's not free food anymore, it's also bring your own, and not just enough for yourself it's bring enough to share with others now is it? Not that I particularly mind that, but it's interesting because your whole angle is it's "free food".
Background see 2197It is disproven because no one will go to the debate that has a vague or uninteresting subject between unknown debaters or the conference on a subject that has no interest to them or go the symposium to be lectured on things that are completely disinteresting to them.
I have highlighted in bold, your baseless/exaggerated/absurd/illogical word usage.
Just try to put yourself in their shoes. Would you go to a Jewish conference where you are invited to see Rabbis debate the Talmud and witness the benefits and guidance under the Talmud (which they say is the god?s system)? Would you go to a Sunni conference to see Mullahs debate Hadiths and witness the benefits and guidance under the Hadiths (which they also say is the god?s system)? Why expect differently from others? On the other hand, all those people will go or seriously consider going to an international feast in a place with open borders.
I would be interested in going to a conference/symposium hosted by monotheists, in which everyone is invited, food/drink provided, security is guaranteed, witness good conduct / information / brotherhood / trade, even put my view across in a peaceful surrounding if I wish to. Sounds good to me.
Again, you kept silent on why is it "bi/with" and not "ila/to". The former construction, favouring my view.
What silence? I already explained numerous times why ?the debate? cannot be used as a tool to invite everyone. On the other hand, the feast can.
Once again, silence on the "ila/bi" point. It's no big deal though, it was only a small point, but the fact you never mentioned it was surprising, hence bringing it up again.
All I am saying is don?t rush to the conclusion that ?haj? means ?debate? since you haven?t even thought out your basic premise.
I haven't concluded anything. Let me clarify my position for you and all to see at this moment in time, I am of the opinion, that the evidence is weighted in favour of "al hajj" meaning "the conference/symposium/debate", as opposed to other understandings I have seen, including your one of "the feast".
Why are you so worried? As I said, I would leave it to the intelligent reader to decide. If they are too dumb to go back and read for themselves your arguments and instead blindly accept my ?misquoting? then we can?t help them anyway.
I am not worried. Brother Ayman, I asked of you a simple request; you made a claim that I made a circular argument, so I simply asked can you provide evidence for such a claim. Here you evade answering, and did not provide any evidence. Also, you put quotation marks around the word "misquoting" implying that this did not take place, when it clearly did. I will even provide one example below
############## evidence
- Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
Etc.
Actually, I did not use a circular argument. Nowhere did I say "debate is best done in the summer" or imply the summer timing gives weight to the hajj=debate meaning. This is your own strawman argument. Your own wording gives it away, not once did I say "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment" (note words in bold). You are making stuff up I never even said, this is the very definition of a strawman argument.
############# end evidence
Again, I request you provide evidence for your claim I made a circular argument. If you cannot, I expect you to correct your statement and apologise. This is the behaviour I would hope for from a fellow akhi.
I would say that it is the same like any feast. If someone invites you to a 10 day feast at his house and you enjoy the feast and meet people there and conduct business and prosper, there would be no blame on you if you help out with the regular feast activities such as the slaughtering, cooking and cleaning up. In fact, I would add that if you VOLUNTEERED better than this then certainly the hosts would be grateful. So clearly 2158 has to do with volunteering to perform a service and not with eating after some kind of mysterious debate.
I explained above how my view fits with 2158 and doesn?t fit with the meaning of ?debate?. On the other hand, you seem to disregard that the passage says ?whoever volunteers better?, so clearly what came before (?yatawaf bihima?) is ?volunteer work to pay back? and is not ?taking advantage of them? (which already happened during the feast).
Before I comment, is what you said above the exact same understanding as you gave me originally? (as I cant seem to find any difference)
Also, if this is the answer we were all patiently waiting for, why did you not respond to any of the points I brought up, which you said you would?I can translate it but you might claim that my translation is biased. So I will provide a variety of translations since you are unlikely to claim that all those translators conspired with me to produce a ?strawman? argument against you. Also, since you prefer M. ASAD, I will use his translation and substitute your claim that ?haj? means debate and call it the WAKAS translation
.
.
.You did not produce what I requested. I thought I was clear, but I guess not. Let me attempt to clarify again. YOU said your original phrasing examples which you numbered used the "same exact structure" (direct quote) as used in AQ. I felt they did not, so I made a simple request, and first asked where in AQ were those claimed "same exact structure" phrases from in AQ, to which you responded and provided verses. However, I felt those verses did not contain the "same exact structure" as the phrases you originally brought so I clarified/simplified again and made a simple request by laying the Arabic of the verse side by side with your claimed "same exact structure" phrase and asked once you translate the Arabic of the verse for us, we can then see if the Arabic of the verse is the "same exact structure" as your claimed "same exact structure" phrases. You did not do this. Of course, I have an idea as to why you did not do this, but let's leave it to the "intelligent reader" to decide as you say.
In future, if you do not understand a request I make, simply ask me to clarify, I dont mind clarifying.
In fact, like ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock and have NOTHING relating to some supposed debate.
Since you keep mentioning this point even though I openly said I haven't even discussed this yet, I will ask a simple question where in 397 does it talk about livestock?
Read three lines up and you will see that 393-94 talk about food and Ibrahim.
So, you admit your earlier seemingly confident claim of "ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock" is false? ;D
Firstly, it talks about the laws regarding food, not livestock. Secondly, I recommend everyone to read the context of 397 and see for themselves what the context is. Is it more "livestock" or is it more "debate"? ;D
I hope I don?t have to waste time explaining to you the difference between ?overcoming? and ?convincing?. Also, you are missing what Lane is saying. Lane clearly states that ?haj? means ?argument?. It is not just ?mentioned? in the passing. On the other hand, ?debate? is NEVER mentioned, not even in the passing.
Yes, please do explain the difference to us between "overcoming" and "convincing".
It is not just a possibility. If we take Lane?s meaning and the clear context in the great reading together then there are clearly two different meanings of ?haj? even though they come from the same root, much like ?nifaq? (hypocrisy) and ?infaq? (spending) and ?ibil? (camels) and ?ababil? (flocks), etc. etc.
One can see how Classical Arabic dictionaries provide very confidently the meaning for the ?haj? that consistently means ?argument? but struggle with the other one and don?t really provide a consistent or logical meaning. For the other ?haj?, they range in their meaning from ?intend? to ?make a religious pilgrimage? to ?repair? to ?shaving of the head? and all sorts of guesswork. For example, here is how they attempt to explain their guesswork
?Some say that the former is employed to signify the religious rite and ceremonies of the pilgrimage because they follow the repairing to Mekkeh, or because they are completed by shaving , or because people continue long going to and from to perform them.?
So let me use the same argument you brought against me against you In Classical Arabic dictionaries, nowhere is "feast" found, so it cannot mean "feast".
What else you got? ;D
Unless you disagree that we invite ALL people with the ?haj? then it is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. If ALL people go to the ?debate? then we can easily get hundreds of thousands debating. This is of course unless you think that they are going but not actually participating in ?the debate?.
See above, where I mention the differentiation between HJJ and 3MR.
At this point of our discussion I would like to declare a timeout, so we can both reflect, collect our thoughts, read over what has been written, correct ourselves where necessary, reply to any unanswered questions, research more and thus create a more fruitful learning process.
As always, peace.
- Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
