New article: What is the meaning of "al masjid al haram"?

Mazhar

Salaam,

You really see words which are not there, and I am not talking about the words in brackets

Salamun alaika,

You may have noticed that does not effect the translation. It is not even in English that one could consider it as part of translation or insertion of opinion within brackets.

with this Grand Qur'aan

Did you not see the prepositional phrase "bihi"? Pronoun referring back to AlKitabu--is it other than Qur'aan?

Bender

Salamun alaika,

You may have noticed that does not effect the translation. It is not even in English that one could consider it as part of translation or insertion of opinion within brackets.

Salaam,

As I said I was not talking about what is in the brackets.

Mazhar

Salaam,

As I said I was not talking about what is in the brackets.

Sorry I did not notice red part. I have replied it by modifying the post but your post went up earlier.

Ayisha

Salaam,

You really see words which are not there, and I am not talking about the words in brackets

It's not just me then brickwall

Ayisha

Salamun alaiki,

You start striking your head even when you do not know the phrase referred to.
No, I strike my head when you add words that aren't there and MISlead a reader.

You see a big word with the name of Muhammad sas and your brain cells get immediately heated up. I don't know why.

Don't patronize me Maz, I know what 'the big word means' and I know there is no NAME attached to it.

"Sahibukum" is a Possessive Phrase. The first noun is definite having a person in it. And you do not know that this noun is Active Participle one who does a job. And Pronoun "Kum" includes you and me.

Companion

However, it is your choice not to accept him your "Sahibu".
How can he be my companion, he's dead.

Look what Allah the Exalted says,

We guide with this Grand Qur'aan anyone from Our created ones whom We intend;
and beyond an iota of doubt, you the Messenger are certainly guiding them towards the Straight Path;

Red is not there. Purple is not there.

It seems to me you are trying your best to choose 20 words which make no sense to describe the few words that other translators have used to make sense, and it also appears you are making the messenger Muhammed into something on par with Allah. The Quran guides, God guides, the messenger is only a messenger.

Mazhar

We guide with this Grand Qur'aan anyone from Our created ones whom We intend;
and beyond an iota of doubt, you the Messenger are certainly guiding them towards the Straight Path;

Red is not there. Purple is not there.

It seems to me you are trying your best to choose 20 words which make no sense to describe the few words that other translators have used to make sense, and it also appears you are making the messenger Muhammed into something on par with Allah. The Quran guides, God guides, the messenger is only a messenger.

Not your fault that you do not see coloured words in the Arabic text, since you read English translations and think that is Qur'aan while it is not.

Second person pronoun masculine indicates a specific identified person. "you" does not mean Ayisha or Mazhar.

You also do not know why Inna is brought in the beginning of a sentence. It is to emphasise that the predicate is true beyond an iota of doubt. You see in other translation "verily" and being English lady what difference you find in it and "beyond an iota of doubt"?
There is yet another particle "la" to place emphasis upon the absolute trutfullness of the predicate.

Mazhar

The Quran guides, God guides, the messenger is only a messenger.

So you do not accept what Allah the Exalted says, but your own thoughts. Allah says He guides with the Qur'aan, and further says with all emphasis one can think of that His Messenger guides people on the path that leads straight to destination. The Role of Messenger seems irksome to many.

Mazhar

Quote
However, it is your choice not to accept him your "Sahibu". How can he be my companion, he's dead.

You have answered yourself that "sahibu" does not mean companion since he is dead. Do you think Allah the Exalted did not know he is dead?

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

After a long delay, I have finally completed the 3rd part in my study of sujud series
What is the meaning of al masjid al haram according to The Quran?
Click www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
It is quite long and technical at times, but IF my findings are correct, then this would be a huge breakthrough in understanding of Quran. Take your time reading it.
As always, feedback welcome, especially corrections.

Thank you for your excellent efforts in presenting a fresh prespective. Hopefully, this will help in further scrutinizing all the alternative interpretations of AMAH.

I can see that you have listed "the inviolable institution of obedience/SJD" as one of the alternatives. You have also given some of your objections to this particular meaning. For example, you have given 2225. However, 2225 actually supports that AMAH is "the inviolable institution of obedience/SJD" by associating it with the path of the god.

2225 Surely, those who have rejected/concealed and hinder from the path of God and al masjid al haram which We made for mankind, equal are the devotee/attached/resident in it and the bedouin/visitor/traveller, and whoever intends/wishes in it deviation (or) wrongdoing, We will make him taste from painful retribution.

Notice the same association in 2142 with the straigh path of the god

2142 The foolish from the people will say "What has turned them from the qiblah/focal-point which they were on it?" Say "To God is the east and the west, He guides whomever He wishes to a straight/establishing path."

From 2142-150, it can be seen that those who are guided to the straight path are turning their direction to the "the inviolable institution of obedience/SJD".

The straight path is tied to certain inviolable principles and naturally an inviolable insitution of obedience is built upon those principles

006.151
YUSUFALI Say "Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from" Join not anything as equal with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to shameful deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.
PICKTHAL Say Come, I will recite unto you that which your Lord hath made a sacred duty for you That ye ascribe no thing as partner unto Him and that ye do good to parents, and that ye slay not your children because of penury - We provide for you and for them - and that ye draw not nigh to lewd things whether open or concealed. And that ye slay not the life which Allah hath made sacred, save in the course of justice. This He hath command you, in order that ye may discern.
SHAKIR Say Come I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you-- (remember) that you do not associate anything with Him and show kindness to your parents, and do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty-- We provide for you and for them-- and do not draw nigh to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.

006.152
YUSUFALI And come not nigh to the orphan's property, except to improve it, until he attain the age of full strength; give measure and weight with (full) justice;- no burden do We place on any soul, but that which it can bear;- whenever ye speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfil the covenant of Allah thus doth He command you, that ye may remember.
PICKTHAL And approach not the wealth of the orphan save with that which is better, till he reach maturity. Give full measure and full weight, in justice. We task not any soul beyond its scope. And if ye give your word, do justice thereunto, even though it be (against) a kinsman; and fulfil the covenant of Allah. This He commandeth you that haply ye may remember.
SHAKIR And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he attains his maturity, and give full measure and weight with justice-- We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability; and when you speak, then be just though it be (against) a relative, and fulfill Allah's covenant; this He has enjoined you with that you may be mindful;

006.153
YUSUFALI Verily, this is My way, leading straight follow it follow not (other) paths they will scatter you about from His (great) path thus doth He command you. that ye may be righteous.
PICKTHAL And (He commandeth you, saying) This is My straight path, so follow it. Follow not other ways, lest ye be parted from His way. This hath He ordained for you, that ye may ward off (evil).
SHAKIR And (know) that this is My path, the right one therefore follow it, and follow not (other) ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard (against evil).

So as you can see, 2142-150, 2225 and 6151-153 can best be understood and can only be tied together by the inviolable insitution of obedience. The straight path and the principles in 6151-153 are inviolable all the time and not only during certain time as 'the inviolable time of SJD/acknowledgement' interpretation would imply. The people of the book knew about the inviolable commandments from their books as they know their own children.

The inviolable insitution of obedience is thus understood as an institution of authority like government is an institution of authority. This helps explain passages such as 919 and 928 where those who violated the first commandment shouldn't be the ones in authority telling people what is inviolable.

As for 2196, it talks about those whose family are already present in the inviolable insitution of obedience, i.e. are already implementing it.

As for 171, it actually creates a major problem for "the time' understanding since a few years later can hardly be called "the farthest/remotest time" no more than a Mosque a few hunderd Kilometers away can hardly be called "the farthest/remotest". In this case, I agree with Mazhar that 171 can only be understood properly in light of Chapter 53 (regardless of whether it is a physical or non-physical journey). Clearly, the beginnings of Chapter 17 and Chapter 53 are talking about the same event. I also agree with you that 177 refers back to AMAH, which is also entered in 4827. The entry in the inviolable insitution of obedience is like the entry in the obligation/DYN in Chapter 110. Note the same wording "FTH"/opening/breakthrough used in 4827 and Chapter 110.

Peace and best regards,

Ayman

Ayisha

You have answered yourself that "sahibu" does not mean companion since he is dead. Do you think Allah the Exalted did not know he is dead?

He wasn't dead at the time of the message. ???

Mazhar

Quote from Mazhar on Yesterday at 031507 PM
You have answered yourself that "sahibu" does not mean companion since he is dead. Do you think Allah the Exalted did not know he is dead?

He wasn't dead at the time of the message. ???

Does this invalidate the information incorporated in Qur'aan? Your grand father is dead. Is he no more your grandfather?

Mazhar

I can see that you have listed "the inviolable institution of obedience/SJD" as one of the alternatives.

On face value this phrase looks strange if not something else.
Obedience is generally distinguished from compliance, which is behavior influenced by peers, and from conformity, which is behavior intended to match that of the majority. Obedience can be seen as both a sin and a virtue. For example in a situation when one orders a person to kill another innocent person and he or she does this willingly, it is generally considered to be a sin. However when one orders a person to kill an enemy who will end a lot of innocent lives and he or she does this willingly it can be deemed a virtue.]Wiki

Therefor, "Constitution for obedience" might be a better replacement.

Wakas

peace brother Ayman,

Thanks for the feedback. And also thanks for your help when it was called upon during the writing of this article. As always, I appreciate it.

It's nice to actually discuss the contents of the article in the thread I created for it, so let's begin...

Firstly, you only cover some of the points I raise, but having said that the points I raise about understandings other than "time" (e.g. institution&quot are scattered throughout the article, so its not ideal but I will try and list them here so its easier for yourself to review

The point you make about 2225 is NOT actually the problem I highlight. Quote from article
"In terms of 'act/institution of SJD' the terms "akifu/devotee/resident" and "baadi/bedouin/visitor" would require explanation."
If my memory serves me correctly, the only explanation for this was by bro Tanveer (whom I think you agreed with) and that was "baadi" means "one who left to find clarity". I was not convinced at the time by this, and nor am I today. It fits rather poorly once cross-referenced.
If you have an explanation for the quote from the article, please let us know.
You said
"So as you can see, 2142-150, 2225 and 6151-153 can best be understood and can only be tied together by the inviolable insitution of obedience."
You try to link AMAH with the straight path and cite 6151-153, and imply AMAH is equivalent to that or built upon those principles. Firstly this equating-link is ok at best and tenuous at worst. Secondly, your use of strong terms such as "...can only be tied together..." is unwarranted. Such tying together is not even necessary in the first place. AMAH and the straight path are mentioned separately in 2225 and 2217. Sure they may be related but certainly not equivalent.

There are more troublesome elements for your understanding, e.g. you do not explain the "change in qiblah", i.e. if the believers changed to this straight path you refer to, it implies they were not on this straight path prior to 2142-150. Please explain.

It does not seem to fit the explanations given in 2142-150 which are "...so that not will be for the people against you debate, except those who wronged among them. So do not fear them, but fear Me and that I may complete My favour upon you and so that you may be guided." and "Wherever that you will be, God will bring you (all) together. God is on every thing Able/Powerful."

You said
" This helps explain passages such as 919 and 928 where those who violated the first commandment shouldn't be the ones in authority telling people what is inviolable. "

Are you implying it is people who decide what is and is not inviolable, rather than God/Quran?

Further, it does not explain 919 or 928. Quote from article
" 919 also seems to imply there is a tangible difference between "watering of those undertaking HaJJ and development of AMAH" and "one who believed in God and the Last Day and strived in the cause of God". This might present some issues with any understandings that try to equate AMAH with God's system in full, as striving in the cause of God would surely involve trying to develop AMAH, thus making them overlap/similar, IF it meant something like that."

Please explain.

Quote from article
"This clearly implies the polytheists participated in AMAH previously, and "if you fear poverty" shows there is a potential monetary impact to this decision. These two issues require explanation for whatever meaning of AMAH is chosen."

Please explain.

You said
"As for 2196, it talks about those whose family are already present in the inviolable institution of obedience, i.e. are already implementing it. "

There is no "fee/in" in 2196 prior to AMAH. But even if we let that slide, the above does not make sense within the context of 2196. The context is clearly about those travelling to the designated location and what to do in various circumstances etc not whether they are in a government institution or not. How does one formally enter into such institution and thus be excluded from the requirements mentioned? Also, what is the reasoning behind such a setup?

what do you translate and understand "masjid" as?
Please explain, and ideally provide a translation of 171-7 according to your understanding. Further, please explain the vision in 1760, and 4827 with respect to your understanding.
The problems with holding the view that AMAH is all the time, not at a specific time is that all the verses with AMAH seem to have specific contexts, in 2196 are you implying they do this all the time, what makes the usage inviolable sometimes and sometimes not, why is AMAH always singular, and masjid singular as well as plural, why only the latter chapters, it would imply in 928 that the polytheists are somehow incapable and not allowed to change their belief system (i.e. believe in and accept the straight path) after this year of theirs, which makes little sense etc.

As for 171, it actually creates a major problem for "the time' understanding since a few years later can hardly be called "the farthest/remotest time"

Not at all. The person being taken from A to B is the messenger of Quran, and since a human being's lifespan is finite, they will die at some point, thus "the farthest/remotest time of SJD" will likely be the last inviolable time-period they will experience before death. Interestingly, this is a good match with the traditions which say the prophet died shortly thereafter.

I strongly recommend re-reading the article, and insert your understanding into each verse to see if it works, bearing in mind what I have said above.

The understanding of AMAH as "the inviolable time of SJD" may be a novel one, but one that is, by far, the most coherent, logical and practical understanding in my view. Since it is novel, it will take some time to digest, which is understandable.

Mazhar

The understanding of AMAH as "the inviolable time of SJD" may be a novel one, but one that is, by far, the most coherent, logical and practical understanding in my view. Since it is novel, it will take some time to digest, which is understandable.

Salamun alaika,

It can perhaps be anything but novel. The Arabic Phrase is Adjectival. Both nouns of adjectival phrase match in all four features, definiteness, gender, number and case ending. The first Noun is and the second noun is .

First example discussed in 1701 suffices to discard the "novel idea" that Almasjid is time adverb.

Wakas

First example discussed in 1701 suffices to discard the "novel idea" that Almasjid is time adverb.

Firstly, I never said it was a time adverb. The form "masjid" is a noun of time or place.

As stated by yourself here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg288191#msg288191

Then the context becomes the most important to determine whether a noun is Noun of Location or Noun of Time.

I am noting a pattern Mazhar. When you have no counter evidence, you simply make it up or run away. We are still waiting on you to answer the questions I asked you in this thread
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.msg309813#msg309813

Further, I am still waiting for you to answer here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604343.msg309090#msg309090

If you do not wish to participate in an evidence-based discussion, then please refrain from posting on this thread.

Mazhar

Firstly, I never said it was a time adverb. The form "masjid" is a noun of time or place.

As stated by yourself here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg288191#msg288191

What is the difference between 'Noun of time" and "time adverb"?

good_logic

Peace Wakas.

I am not ready to join the debate about " AMAH" just yet. I am still studying your work.

What I want to provide for you now is other verses connecting and explaining " 17-1"

53-1-18- gives a detail explanation about 171. Please have a look and see .

Especially 5313 to 18.

Also 971 explains the " night" in 17 1

Peace.

Wakas

w/salaam gl,

I did note chapter 53 but I could not make any solid link to 171 although I do think it could be linked. Similarly 971 may be linked but I found nothing solid.

Once you are finished reading/studying the article, please share your thoughts, and if possible, evidence for the above link.

Mazhar,
Your question is irrelevant as I did not say "time adverb". As I said, if you do not wish to engage in evidence based discussion, on what I actually said, please refrain from posting on this thread.

Mazhar

Mazhar,
Your question is irrelevant as I did not say "time adverb". As I said, if you do not wish to engage in evidence based discussion, on what I actually said, please refrain from posting on this thread.

Salamun alaika,

I just asked you what you expressed. You referred "adverb of time" is something different from "noun of time" and you brought in the link as evidence where I earlier used the word "noun of time". Is this the state of basic knowledge of Arabic at your command?

If it is not time adverb, what you think it is? You might another time say "I did not say it is time adverb". Okay, however, you say it is "noun of time". The question remains, what is the difference between both?
And what is what in this "novel" senence "the inviolable time of SJD"

Even English grammar would help to know how a noun of time, or time adverb is used in texts; may be it helps to get rid of this erroneous premises on which you built theses.

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

Thanks for the feedback. And also thanks for your help when it was called upon during the writing of this article. As always, I appreciate it.
It's nice to actually discuss the contents of the article in the thread I created for it, so let's begin...
Firstly, you only cover some of the points I raise, but having said that the points I raise about understandings other than "time" (e.g. institution&quot are scattered throughout the article, so its not ideal but I will try and list them here so its easier for yourself to review

It is not ideal for now but will hopefully gradually reach a more ideal understanding when we agree or, in this particular case, when you agree with me

Let?s start with what we agree on

?Haram? means ?inviolable?.
The masculine suffix pronoun "hu/it" in the passages talking about the direction refers to AMAH.
The change in ?qibla?/direction is related to guiding to a straight path, and making the believers a balanced/moderate community.
SJD means acknowledge/obey.

I am sure that we agree on many other things. For example, I agree with all your criticism of the traditional interpretation. However, I think that you devote too much of your thesis to such criticism and it is distracting and actually, at least as far as I am concerned, weakens your arguments. The traditional interpretation is so weak and full of holes that frankly any argument would sound strong by comparison.

Next, let me quote the most important part that we disagree on

You said
"So as you can see, 2142-150, 2225 and 6151-153 can best be understood and can only be tied together by the inviolable insitution of obedience."
You try to link AMAH with the straight path and cite 6151-153, and imply AMAH is equivalent to that or built upon those principles. Firstly this equating-link is ok at best and tenuous at worst. Secondly, your use of strong terms such as "...can only be tied together..." is unwarranted. Such tying together is not even necessary in the first place. AMAH and the straight path are mentioned separately in 2225 and 2217. Sure they may be related but certainly not equivalent.

You made a correct observation in your article. So please do not contradict it (I quote)

?this new change is in some way related to guiding to a straight/establishing path, and making the believers a balanced/moderate community?

As you observed, 2142 clearly contrasts the previous physical ?qibla? with the straight path. Therefore, 2142-150 makes it clear that turning one?s direction towards the inviolable institution of obedience makes one on the straight path.

In 2225 and 2217 the path of the god and the inviolable institution of obedience are grouped together. This is natural since diverting from the path of the god (which is the path we are on when we are oriented towards the inviolable institution of obedience) implies diverting from the inviolable institution of obedience. One of the ways that 2217 can be read is the one that is in line with 2225

2217 "...diverting from the path of the god and rejecting him and (diverting from) the inviolable institution of obedience..."

More importantly, the term inviolable and the straight path are clearly tied in 6151-153 where we are told in no uncertain terms that obeying the inviolable commands means being on the straight path.

So we have the inviolable commands that you know should be acknowledged/obeyed and you know that acknowledging/obeying those commands puts you on the straight path. You also agree that SJD means acknowledge/obey. You also agree the change in direction to the inviolable XXXX of acknowledging/obeying is related to guiding to a straight path. It seems to me that no matter what XXXX may be, those concepts are STRONGLY tied together.

Do you acknowledge/obey those inviolable commands only at a certain time or is it something that you should institute all the time in every aspect of life and wherever you are? Please answer.

To me the biggest issue with the traditional interpretations that we both criticize is that for them tying together such concepts is not necessary. So it is "troublesome" for me to hear you making a similar argument.

I don?t want to get off topic but I believe that all concepts in the great reading are tied together. I never clearly saw this until I let go of making my arguments around attacking the traditional interpretation. But now I see it and it is amazing. I even understand the traditional interpretation as a necessary contrast for me to see the connections and the fact that this great reading cannot be from anyone other than the god.

With respect to your other objections, to make my explanation easier to visualize, please think of government, which is an easy example of an institution of obedience that everyone can relate to. Government implements a system of governance. We have systems of government that are fascist or communist or capitalist, etc. The inviolable institution of obedience is concerned with implementing what is inviolable. When you say you are devoted to a form of government, you are being akifu/devotee/resident in that system. On the other hand, when you don't live under this system of government then you are a "baadi/bedouin/visitor".

Ultimately, it is up to people to implement the inviolable. The god has put in us the natural instinct by which we all know, for example, that killing another person is wrong. When your orientation is an institution of authority that allows those who are strong to kill those who are weak (fascist government where the ends justify the means) then you will not be on the straight path.

Before the great reading, the people of the previous books were in charge of prospering the inviolable institution of obedience. However, they violated the first command and setup Jesus and their clergy as partners. This is why 928 commands that they are not to be part of this institution after this calendar year of theirs. Of course, kicking the elite class of the people of the book (those who are literate in the language of religion and politics) out of the government would involve potential financial hardship.

As for 2196, there is no exclusion. Those who are in the institution should fast the entire 10 days during the feast and not divide it into 3 during the feast and 7 after they return to where they came from. So everyone fasts 10 days. Again, think of the institution of obedience as government. Everyone knows what being in the government is about. In this case, it is a government that implements the inviolable commands.

Maybe my explanation is not clear. I have been writing more in Arabic the past couple of years. I have just completed a book in Arabic that I will be publishing soon, unless the god wills otherwise. One of the chapters deals with the inviolable institution of obedience.

Peace,

Ayman