Shahr/month in the light of the quran
-
Peace be upon you all,
The clear Arabic meaning of "ramadan" is "scorching heat". The sun is scorching when it is at its highest point and the shadow is smallest. Hence, the times of scorching heat happen after the summer solstice. The full-moon of scorching heat is the first full moon after the summer solstice.
Just to add, during summer solstice, the sun rays comes at a 90degree angle with the earths atmosphere, unlike winter solstice, when the sun rays "sideswipe" the earth, causing many rays to be reflected. The fact is, the sun is sometimes closer to the earth in winter than in summer, but the ANGLE at which the sun rays penetrate the atmosphere is what makes it hot and cold. You can think of a car accident being a sideswipe, or a head on collision.
-
salam ayman,
bro sometimes really you strike me as someone who doesn't want to understand, you just want to argue. Here's what I said in the past
I'm interested in actually taking a picture of the full and 1 day minus moons and surveying people to see if they can pick it out.
Then I would have another survey with pictures of the new moon (that is, black) and a picture of the hilaal... and see if they can pick the difference out.
When I said a picture of the new moon, OBVIOUSLY i meant (AND SAID) just a black picture.... a black background. Because you cannot SEE the new moon, any idiot knows that but apparently i have to point out even the simplicities to you. What i SAID was compare the picture of the HILAAL to a black background or just a simple sky shot with stars in the background.
I just can't believe you even have the nerve to talk about the moon still. BRO, 99% versus 100% illumination... you STILL claim to me that you can tell the difference? How much weight do you think your opinions will now carry, when you make claims like this? And instead of admitting any sort of folly, rather you clutch at straws and are whining like a baby for me to take pictures. Just admit it, you CANNOT determine the exact date of the full moon by the eye... as far as the hilaal goes, the question is only how EARLY you can see it after the new moon.
As far as your references about the calendar, i will continue my search but in the one I have available to me (Concise Encyclopedia of Islam) again it mentions that Umar only changed the year. So where did you see that Umar rearranged the months?
And in this reference actually, it mentions that all the months were lined up according to seasons but that the Arabs would occasionally add an extra month so that the lunar and solar calendars would line up (which apparently the Quran prohibited by saying there are only 12 months per year). But again, this source too claims that Ramadan was a month of the calendar prior to Islam... a calendar which was a lunar calendar, not at all aligned with the solar (or solstice) and in fact the Arabs would add a month in order to align it.
I've read this kind of thing in another place as well, but I have not researched it thoroughly... at least on the surface it WOULD appear to disprove your theory that the preIslamic Arab would think of the summer solstice month when ramadan was mentioned.... it disproves it because ramadan was already a month in a lunar calendar. Is there something you know that I dont, that would explain this?
wassalam
-
Peace Shuaib,
When I said a picture of the new moon, OBVIOUSLY i meant (AND SAID) just a black picture.... a black background. Because you cannot SEE the new moon, any idiot knows that but apparently i have to point out even the simplicities to you. What i SAID was compare the picture of the HILAAL to a black background or just a simple sky shot with stars in the background.
OK so now you are saying that it is NOT the new moon (the new "hilal") but the 2-day old "hilal" (because it generally appears to average observers 2 days after the new moon or 1 day in ideal conditions) is what we should base the "shahr" on. That is different from what you were saying before. It also means that you would normally start your fast 2 days after the so-called Islamic calendar start of the fast because they start with the new moon that is seen with great difficulty and not the 2 day old clearly visible crescent that everybody can normally see.
I just can't believe you even have the nerve to talk about the moon still. BRO, 99% versus 100% illumination... you STILL claim to me that you can tell the difference? How much weight do you think your opinions will now carry, when you make claims like this? And instead of admitting any sort of folly, rather you clutch at straws and are whining like a baby for me to take pictures. Just admit it, you CANNOT determine the exact date of the full moon by the eye... as far as the hilaal goes, the question is only how EARLY you can see it after the new moon.
Anyone can determine when the full moon after the summer solstice is because it is the most visible full moon and appears directly in the line of sight of the observer and appears much larger than a regular full moon. You ignore all those facts.
Now you finally admit that the new moon cannot be seen by you. Normally, YOU will personally see the "hilal" two days after the actual new moon, which means that you will start your fast two days later than the traditionalists.
As far as your references about the calendar, i will continue my search but in the one I have available to me (Concise Encyclopedia of Islam) again it mentions that Umar only changed the year. So where did you see that Umar rearranged the months?
And in this reference actually, it mentions that all the months were lined up according to seasons but that the Arabs would occasionally add an extra month so that the lunar and solar calendars would line up (which apparently the Quran prohibited by saying there are only 12 months per year). But again, this source too claims that Ramadan was a month of the calendar prior to Islam... a calendar which was a lunar calendar, not at all aligned with the solar (or solstice) and in fact the Arabs would add a month in order to align it.
I've read this kind of thing in another place as well, but I have not researched it thoroughly... at least on the surface it WOULD appear to disprove your theory that the preIslamic Arab would think of the summer solstice month when ramadan was mentioned.... it disproves it because ramadan was already a month in a lunar calendar. Is there something you know that I dont, that would explain this?
I encourage you to continue your research and I hope that the discussions here were beneficial although they get heated sometimes.
The extra month was added every three years to keep the seasons constant. Hence, "ramadan" always occured after the summer solstice in pre-quranic Arabia and this is how a pre-quranic Arab would have understood "ramadhan".
The fact is that the year is solar
017.012
YUSUFALI WE HAVE MADE THE NIGHT AND THE DAY as two (of Our) Signs the Sign of the Night have We obscured, while the Sign of the Day We have made to enlighten you; that ye may seek bounty from your Lord, and THAT YE MAY KNOW THE NUMBER AND COUNT OF THE YEARS all things have We explained in detail.Given that night and day is determined by the sun and not the moon, the sign in 1712 leaves absolutely no doubt that the year is solar.
Peace on who follwoed the guidance,
Ayman
-
salam ayman,
OK so now you are saying that it is NOT the new moon (the new "hilal") but the 2-day old "hilal" (because it generally appears to average observers 2 days after the new moon or 1 day in ideal conditions) is what we should base the "shahr" on.
Bro, maybe we have some confusion here. My understanding was that the beginning of the shahr (that is commonly understood) is the HILAAL... which is defined as the earliest visible (to the naked eye) illumination of the moon. My definition of new moon is the moon that is completely shaded by the earth, i.e. black, 0% illumination.
Now the EARLIEST according to that astronomical lab, is about 12-16 hours AFTER the new moon...
Generally, the lunar crescent will become visible to suitably-located, experienced observers with good sky conditions about one day after New Moon.
You see, there are only 2 points to start the month... either the hilaal, or the full moon. SO, the point is that you would be able to consistently begin the month on the lunar cycle using hilaal as it definitely becomes visible one day after the new moon but at MOST 2 days after (hence the 28-29 day month)... whereas the full moon there are 3 days at minimum where the moon may appear full AT EACH END, leading to GREAT variability in the month length, even 6 days. At the very least, you cannot argue that the using the full-moon point is better... and I for one argue that the hilaal is better because of less variability.
The extra month was added every three years to keep the seasons constant. Hence, "ramadan" always occured after the summer solstice in pre-quranic Arabia and this is how a pre-quranic Arab would have understood "ramadhan".
Well I understand that Ramadan then could have coincided with "summer" in Arabia... but my point was, that it was a CALENDRICAL month.... and when the Quran stated to only keep 12 months in the year, and the same 12 month calendar was kept in place, then wouldn't ramadan be understood as the calendrical month? And the fact that the Quran abolished this practice (by stating only 12 months in 1 year) ALSO points to the fact that Allah did not want this "floating Ramadan" practice.
Also, I still haven't heard about Umar rearranging the months. Did you actually see that written somewhere, or are you extrapolating?
Given that night and day is determined by the sun and not the moon, the sign in 1712 leaves absolutely no doubt that the year is solar.
Well I think the meaning of that verse is not necessarily regarding how to keep the calendar (but that's another discussion). But now you are saying the calendar is solar, but what happened to all your research on the word SHAHR, which is LUNAR?
wassalam
-
Peace Shuaib,
Bro, maybe we have some confusion here. My understanding was that the beginning of the shahr (that is commonly understood) is the HILAAL... which is defined as the earliest visible (to the naked eye) illumination of the moon. My definition of new moon is the moon that is completely shaded by the earth, i.e. black, 0% illumination.
Your definition of the new moon demonstrates that you are confusing no-moon with new-moon. Thursday the 11th is the no-moon night. Friday November 12th is the new moon night. Hence, if the moon is seen on Friday, Saturday will be the start of the new month. The clearly visible crescent moon you are talking about doesn't occur until the 13th and for most people the 14th. Hence, according to you the new month should start on Monday November 15th and not on Saturday, a two day difference. This is due to your ignorance of the difference between new-moon and no-moon. Here is the link that the kind brother provided earlier
http//www.stardate.org/nightsky/moon/
Get an eye exam brother because although it is hard to make out, the picture of the new-moon on the 12th does show a fine sliver of the new moon on the right side, however only expert observers in optimal viewing conditions may be able to see it (definitely not you).
Now the EARLIEST according to that astronomical lab, is about 12-16 hours AFTER the new moon...
That is the new-moon on the 12th, but the totally blackened moon on the 11th is not a new-moon. It is the last day of the previous month according to the so-called Islamic calendar. So stop making up your own definitions when I point out the inconsistencies in your arguments.
Well I understand that Ramadan then could have coincided with "summer" in Arabia... but my point was, that it was a CALENDRICAL month.... and when the Quran stated to only keep 12 months in the year, and the same 12 month calendar was kept in place, then wouldn't ramadan be understood as the calendrical month? And the fact that the Quran abolished this practice (by stating only 12 months in 1 year) ALSO points to the fact that Allah did not want this "floating Ramadan" practice.
I already stated clearly in my previous post what "ramadhan" meant for a pre-quranic Arab.
By making up terms like "calendrical month" the only thing you are doing is once again parading your odd nonsense on this thread because there is no such thing as a "non-calendrical month". A month by definition is part of a calendar.
The Georgian/Julian calendar also has 12 months in a year and this is a fact. The issue is not 12 months because "shahr" doesn't mean month so stop confusing "shahr" with month.
Given that night and day is determined by the sun and not the moon, the sign in 1712 leaves absolutely no doubt that the year is solar.
Well I think the meaning of that verse is not necessarily regarding how to keep the calendar (but that's another discussion). But now you are saying the calendar is solar, but what happened to all your research on the word SHAHR, which is LUNAR?
The verse is not about any man-made calendars. It is about how to determine the number (3adad) of the years. It is telling us that the sun (that defines day and night) is what we should use to determine the number of years NOT the moon.
As for "shahr", it is not their "3adad" that is 12 but the "3ida(t)" that is 12. For now, all I will say is that I think that we have finally resolved the puzzle and I will be posting the complete article soon. As usual, the correct solution is surprisingly clear and simple.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace be upon you Ayman,
As for "shahr", it is not their "3adad" that is 12 but the "3ida(t)" that is 12. For now, all I will say is that I think that we have finally resolved the puzzle and I will be posting the complete article soon. As usual, the correct solution is surprisingly clear and simple.
Yes, please stop debating with Shuaib and bring forth the article and let him debate that. I am holding on with both hands trying to keep up, but I need it put together for me in article form because I just cannot gather the whole picture. I look foward to your insight.
-
Peace brother Kyle, all,
Yes, please stop debating with Shuaib and bring forth the article and let him debate that. I am holding on with both hands trying to keep up, but I need it put together for me in article form because I just cannot gather the whole picture. I look foward to your insight.
I will try to post the article this weekend, unless The God wills otherwise.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace all, ayman
If i am not mistaken one of the articles quoted claimed (and explained why) it is not the time imediately after summer solistice that is the hotest time .....but a month or so later....your comment?
also, whats the difference between &adadun and &aiddatun?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace brother Zlatan, all,
If i am not mistaken one of the articles quoted claimed (and explained why) it is not the time imediately after summer solistice that is the hotest time .....but a month or so later....your comment?
Heat depends on many factors, including humidity, etc. Hence, humid days tend to feel hotter than days where there is no humidity for example.
The article says that the hottest time is about a month after the summer solstice. This is consistent with the Arabian desert where "scorching heat" is about a month after the sun becomes at its highest point and the shadow is smallest. The solstice happens towards the later part of June (June 22 or so). The full-moon of scorching heat would be 1-30 days after that. Thus, the START of "ramadhan" would be on average around the beginning of the second week of July and would end around the start of the second week in August (this is average but it could be sooner or as late as August 22 depending on when the full-moon occurred). This period would indeed encompass the period the article talked about and in Arabia it is a period of scorching dry heat.
also, whats the difference between &adadun and &aiddatun?
I am trying to finish the writing of this part by the weekend, unless The god wils otherwise.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Salam Ayman, all,
I just wanted to make a few quick points.
I think the verse that Sr. Marie quoted on the moon cycle is very revealing.
- And the moon We have measured it to appear in stages, until it returns to being like an old curved sheath.
Since the verse says ?it returns?, doesn?t that imply that it also began ?as an old curved sheath?? In other words, the moon-cycle begins with the hilal.
It is also intuitive to begin the moon-cycle with the new moon. As with any ?life cycle?, it makes sense for the moon to grow to maturity (full moon) and then to return to what it had started as (moon sliver). This mirrors our own life cycle, as well as that of plants and animals.
2205 O people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs till an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies, then that you may attain your maturity; and of you is he who is caused to die, and of you is he who is brought back to the worst part of life, so that after having knowledge he does not know anything; and you see the earth sterile land, but when We send down on it the water, it stirs and swells and brings forth of every kind a beautiful herbage.
- new moon ?definition
Shuaib?s definition of New Moon is correct.
?New Moon - The Moon's unilluminated side is facing the Earth. The Moon is not visible (except during a solar eclipse).?
?Technically, the phases New Moon, First Quarter, Full Moon, and Last Quarter are defined to occur when the excess of the apparent ecliptic (celestial) longitude of the Moon over that of the Sun is 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees, respectively.?
from http//aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/moon_phases.html
- moon also used to count years
The verse is not about any man-made calendars. It is about how to determine the number (3adad) of the years. It is telling us that the sun (that defines day and night) is what we should use to determine the number of years NOT the moon.
Don?t you think that the following verse points to the fact the year is also defined by the stages of the moon.
1005 He is the One who made the sun to emit light, and the moon to reflect it, and He measured its phases so that you would know the number of the years and the count. God has not created this except for truth. He details the revelations for a people who know.
- Who is an expert?
however only expert observers in optimal viewing conditions may be able to see it (definitely not you).
"Generally, the lunar crescent will become visible to suitably-located, experienced observers with good sky conditions about one day after New Moon."(from website)
I think you may be defining an experienced observer too rigidly. Part of experience refers to one who has knowledge of where and when to look for the new moon. I didn?t have this knowledge prior to reading the website I provided a link to, however now I know that ?the young crescent Moon appears very low in the western sky after sunset, and must be viewed through bright twilight. It sets shortly after sunset.? (from website)
I think becoming an experienced new moon observer is not that difficult once one knows where and when to look. We do not live by the stars and the phases of the moon the way people likely did in ancient Arabia. What we consider an expert nowadays would probably apply to the majority of the people at that time.
Lastly, you seem knowledgeable about the pre-islamic calendar and how/when it changed. If you could provide me with English sources where I can research this, I?d be grateful.
I started a topic here regarding this, though no one has yet responded (
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2621
peace
-
salams folks,
nice to see responses from other people, your input is appreciated.
Br ayman, I look forward to your article. It takes a lot of dedication to put out good work like that, and inshallah if your points are true then they will speak for themselves.I'm still busy, but let me respond briefly to your points br ayman.
Your definition of the new moon demonstrates that you are confusing no-moon with new-moon.
So stop making up your own definitions when I point out the inconsistencies in your arguments.
Actually, upon researching this a bit, I've also found conflicting definitions. But our astronomy website gives this definition
New Moon - The Moon's unilluminated side is facing the Earth. The Moon is not visible (except during a solar eclipse).
What you refer to as the "no moon," is what I refer to as the "new moon," a very very faint outline of the entire moon (NOT just a crescent) that is seen because of reflected light from the earth.
There's no need to get all sassy because we have different definitions, that happens. What we need to do is simply synchronize our definitions so we can talk constructively instead of whining like babies.
So for the sake of this discussion, we'll call "new moon" when the moon is exactly 0% illumination, and hilaal is 1-5% illumination. Agreed? NOW, we can talk about it.
The point is quite simple,1-5% illumination is easy to identify, and 99% versus 100% illumination is hard to discern. You've made 2 nonsensical arguments "refuting" this, so let's take a closer look at it shall we.
As far as your "the moon is larger in the summer and this is such an amazing coincidence that I must believe it is ramadan" argument
http//science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/24jun_moonillusion.htm
http//facstaff.uww.edu/mccreadd/intro9.htm
Here's perhaps a nice excerpt for you
The Moon is same distance away in both cases, it shines with the same brightness, and it subtends the same angular diameter (1/2 degree). Logically, there should be no difference, but most observers perceive one anyway.
Ahem, and uhhh... who needs an eye exam again? Your big coincidence turns out to be an optical illusion.
HOWEVER, the moon size DOES alternate slightly, a little over 10% due to its eccentric orbit around the earth. However, this alternation occurs several times a year and is in no way connected to the solstice.
So now that we have this whole nonsense about the magnification taken care of... let's talk nonsense point #2, being able to detect perfect symmetry.
We're obviously talking about an already small object, the full moon subtends just 0.5 degrees. Now being able to tell if something is 99% or 100% symmetric involves having the capability of your eye to see 1% difference, i.e. 0.005 degrees. This is the equivalent of 0.87 mm from 1 meter away. So what you're saying is, if you have a 8.7 mm round object 1 meter away, you could tell if it was perfectly round or if it had 0.87 mm less diameter in one meridian. Perhaps this is why it is said that "Although Full Moon occurs each month at a specific date and time, the Moon's disk may appear to be full for several nights in a row if it is clear."
So can we please put an end to the bogus nonsense about the full moon? We've heard your OPINION several times now, we don't need to hear it again.
Calendar.
I didn't know it was so hard to get you to answer a simple question. WHERE did you read that Umar (ra) rearranged the months??
I'll wait for your article to talk more about the shahr/month/lunar cycle (remember that discussion? fullmoon cycle vs hilaal moon cycle vs month, ring a bell?).
wassalam
-
Peace Shuaob, all,
Actually, upon researching this a bit, I've also found conflicting definitions. But our astronomy website gives this definition
You are now switching definitions. You are advocating the traditional so-called Islamic calendar and hence their definition has been your definition. Suddenly, when you are cornered on the "bringing the picture" issue, you change your definition to the astronomical lab definition.
There's no need to get all sassy because we have different definitions, that happens. What we need to do is simply synchronize our definitions so we can talk constructively instead of whining like babies.
So instead of crying about it when I point your inconsistencies get your definition straight. Do you advocate the traditional so-called Islamic calendar definition or the astronomical lab's definition?
Just pick one and be consistent. You can't exchange them when I corner you.
So for the sake of this discussion, we'll call "new moon" when the moon is exactly 0% illumination, and hilaal is 1-5% illumination. Agreed? NOW, we can talk about it.
So now you don't advocat the so-called Islamic calendar anymore. Your abstaining/"sawm" would be one day earlier. This is when in fact there is NOTHING to be witnessed except a DARK sky.
The point is quite simple,1-5% illumination is easy to identify, and 99% versus 100% illumination is hard to discern. You've made 2 nonsensical arguments "refuting" this, so let's take a closer look at it shall we.
We are still waiting on your PERSONAL picture to prove it.
As far as your "the moon is larger in the summer and this is such an amazing coincidence that I must believe it is ramadan" argument
http//science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/24jun_moonillusion.htm
http//facstaff.uww.edu/mccreadd/intro9.htm
Here's perhaps a nice excerpt for you
The Moon is same distance away in both cases, it shines with the same brightness, and it subtends the same angular diameter (1/2 degree). Logically, there should be no difference, but most observers perceive one anyway.
Ahem, and uhhh... who needs an eye exam again? Your big coincidence turns out to be an optical illusion.
You are only proving that you are unable to read properly. All I said was that the full moon APPEARS larger to the observer. I also said earlier that we perceive the moon larger. I didn't say that it is actually larger. So the human brain is wired to perceive the full moon of the summer solstice larger and hence easier to discern. This is not a coincidence.
I didn't know it was so hard to get you to answer a simple question. WHERE did you read that Umar (ra) rearranged the months??
You are once again demonstrating your inability to read. I already gave you references that the months were arranged differently in "pre-quranic" times. There is no evidence that the prophet or anybody changed the order prior to Umar. If you have such evidence, then please bring it.
I'll wait for your article to talk more about the shahr/month/lunar cycle (remember that discussion? fullmoon cycle vs hilaal moon cycle vs month, ring a bell?).
I doubt you will understand it until you learn how to read patiently.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
Peace David,
I think the verse that Sr. Marie quoted on the moon cycle is very revealing.
- And the moon We have measured it to appear in stages, until it returns to being like an old curved sheath.
Since the verse says ?it returns?, doesn?t that imply that it also began ?as an old curved sheath?? In other words, the moon-cycle begins with the hilal.
It is also intuitive to begin the moon-cycle with the new moon. As with any ?life cycle?, it makes sense for the moon to grow to maturity (full moon) and then to return to what it had started as (moon sliver). This mirrors our own life cycle, as well as that of plants and animals.
2205 O people! if you are in doubt about the raising, then surely We created you from dust, then from a small seed, then from a clot, then from a lump of flesh, complete in make and incomplete, that We may make clear to you; and We cause what We please to stay in the wombs till an appointed time, then We bring you forth as babies, then that you may attain your maturity; and of you is he who is caused to die, and of you is he who is brought back to the worst part of life, so that after having knowledge he does not know anything; and you see the earth sterile land, but when We send down on it the water, it stirs and swells and brings forth of every kind a beautiful herbage.
If "abstaining" starts with the new-moon then The God would have said "man shahid minkum al-hilal falyasumh". The etymology of the word "shahr" points to "full moon".
- new moon ?definition
Shuaib?s definition of New Moon is correct.
?New Moon - The Moon's unilluminated side is facing the Earth. The Moon is not visible (except during a solar eclipse).?
?Technically, the phases New Moon, First Quarter, Full Moon, and Last Quarter are defined to occur when the excess of the apparent ecliptic (celestial) longitude of the Moon over that of the Sun is 0, 90, 180, and 270 degrees, respectively.?
from http//aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/moon_phases.html
Our brother keeps shifting definition. He advocates the so-called Islamic calendar and their definition is differnent.
- moon also used to count years
The verse is not about any man-made calendars. It is about how to determine the number (3adad) of the years. It is telling us that the sun (that defines day and night) is what we should use to determine the number of years NOT the moon.
Don?t you think that the following verse points to the fact the year is also defined by the stages of the moon.
1005 He is the One who made the sun to emit light, and the moon to reflect it, and He measured its phases so that you would know the number of the years and the count. God has not created this except for truth. He details the revelations for a people who know.
You are missing the first part of the verse.
- Who is an expert?
however only expert observers in optimal viewing conditions may be able to see it (definitely not you).
"Generally, the lunar crescent will become visible to suitably-located, experienced observers with good sky conditions about one day after New Moon."(from website)
I think you may be defining an experienced observer too rigidly. Part of experience refers to one who has knowledge of where and when to look for the new moon. I didn?t have this knowledge prior to reading the website I provided a link to, however now I know that ?the young crescent Moon appears very low in the western sky after sunset, and must be viewed through bright twilight. It sets shortly after sunset.? (from website)
I think becoming an experienced new moon observer is not that difficult once one knows where and when to look. We do not live by the stars and the phases of the moon the way people likely did in ancient Arabia. What we consider an expert nowadays would probably apply to the majority of the people at that time.
The key is that EVERYBODY should witness in order to abstain.
Lastly, you seem knowledgeable about the pre-islamic calendar and how/when it changed. If you could provide me with English sources where I can research this, I?d be grateful.
I started a topic here regarding this, though no one has yet responded
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2621
I didn't see that earlier. I will try to respond in that topic this weekend, unless The God wills otherwise.
Peace,
Ayman
-
salam ayman,
You are once again demonstrating your inability to read. I already gave you references that the months were arranged differently in "pre-quranic" times. There is no evidence that the prophet or anybody changed the order prior to Umar. If you have such evidence, then please bring it.
The word baloney comes to mind. Bro, I asked a simple question, I asked you for a reference the Umar (ra) rearranged the months... and you are asking me to bring evidence that he didn't. Does this seem the least bit silly? It may very well have been changed by the Prophet or even before the Prophet... we know that the Arab calendar changed during the Battle of the Elephant, why couldn't it have been changed then? I honestly don't know because I have limited resources at my disposal in that area... that's why i asked you. But the point is, nothing is written that the Prophet OR Abu Bakr OR Umar rearranged the months.
Yes, it MIGHT have been changed by Umar... obviously it's hard to find references for all the zillions of things that someone DIDNT do... so if he didn't do it don't expect a reference... but if he DID do it then there really ought to be a reference, ESPECIALLY since it is well-known that he set the year. if you're going to make claims you ought to have a better argument than THAT. I only have secondary sources (not primary), but they all point to the fact that the order of the months was arranged in pre-islamic times. I wish that these secondary sources quoted the primary source, but they didn't so i am stuck.
DEFINITION
You are now switching definitions. You are advocating the traditional so-called Islamic calendar and hence their definition has been your definition. Suddenly, when you are cornered on the "bringing the picture" issue, you change your definition to the astronomical lab definition.
No actually I've had the same definition all along, and you just failed to realize what I was saying. I clearly said that the month begins with the crescent moon (hilaal). I clearly said that the new moon is all black (i.e. 0% illumination). What you are calling "new moon" is what I am calling hilaal. The new moon is 0% illumination. RIGHT after, hilaal starts and apparently at least 12-16 hours must elapse before it can be seen, presumably around 1% illumination. If for whatever reason it cannot be seen (cloudy sky etc), then it should easily be seen the next day. But given the proper conditions (clear sky etc), the new hilaal CAN be seen.
Now, like a silly parrot you keep repeating "show me the picture!." It's painfully obvious that all you are doing is trying to take attention away from the points I am mentioning. What utter nonsense to say that in such short space of time, but if you are so obsessed with seeing some pictures, here you go
http//moonsighting.com/moonphoto.html
Now, call me crazy but these pictures are quite OBVIOUS... either you see it or you don't. There's no need to pretend that you have superhuman powers of symmetry measurement.
So br ayman, you need to calibrate your definitions with mine, because my definition is what the standard is. There's no point in you creating your own set of facts and then crying about why my definition is different from yours. NO ONE claims that the month begins when the moon is at 0% illumination. It ALWAYS begins with more than 0%, probably >0.5% (12-16 hours), that is a CRESCENT, that is a HILAAL. This is such a basic simple fact, that I dont know how you expect to write an article on this issue without having even this much figured out.
You are only proving that you are unable to read properly. All I said was that the full moon APPEARS larger to the observer.
Silly me... I dont know how to read.. but I do remember reading this
On the other hand, scientifically the full moon of scorching heat is the EASIEST full moon to make out because it is in the line of sight of the observer and appears much larger than a regular full-moon. I don't think that this is a coincidence.
If you truly meant that it only appears but is not larger, then what difference would it make in "making out the full moon.?" I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt, that you must have thought the moon was larger, and that's why you said it.
Little did I realize you were PURPOSELY making a totally bogus statement. Is this how far you go to prove your point?
The moon is the EXACT same size in both! So no, it's not any easier to make out than if it were high above the horizon. Yes it travels overall across a lower path, but making it out as full is EQUALLY difficult, not the EASIEST as you said. but seeing the full moon low on the horizon occurs every month (it's just longer around the solstice), even that's not something so unique.
Which leaves us with the point that you decided to totally ignore.. the impossibility of actually SEEING a 1% difference. It just is not possible given the constraints of the human eye, irrelevant of what YOUR opinion is.
wassalam
-
Peace all,
I can't believe this discussion is still going on ?
Why do we have to witness the moon (full or cresent) with our shock eyes. I witness the one God and many other things through reason and calculation.
So once I have seen and known the position of the moon through trial and error I know exactly where it's going to be in the future. It's not like you are predicting rain.
--
-
Salam burhan , All,
that's exactly what I thought !
Each one is eager to prove his point and unfortunately sometimes this seems the most important point to each "belligerant". To the point of sometimes not being very nice to each other.
Don't you remember, Allah tells us to speak with the people in the nicest possible manner...and here we have two believers hacking on each other - at least that's what I feel when I read always the same arguments, repeated again and again - and not in the nicest possible matter. Can't you just accept that someone can have another opinion ?
Elke
-
salam elke
it's easy to just look at a single snapshot in time and draw conclusions, and of course you probably dont want to waste your time going through the entire thread carefully, but it's not quite as you are claiming.
but as far as just calling it quits at some point, of course there's a time for that... i've had to do that before.. but it's not as if we have not talked about different things. we've covered a wide variety of arguments centered on the same point of the calendar.
but i hear this again and again, this idea of to you your opinion and to me mine... that's what muslims say to NON-believers, not to each other. we have to be on the same page. of course it should be done nicely, but i've never been one to just take a back seat when the heat turns up.. that's my own flaw. but that concerns br ayman and i, as well as the length and usefulness of the discussion.
i agree that in this day and age, calculations are the way to go... but the question is not how to do it today, the question is how was it done THEN. AND the question also if you were paying attention closely, relates to whether or not to time your fast to the summer solstice. The question is whether or not Muslims should fast as 2 separate groups. That's a major difference and that's what we are resolving here. Do you have any helpful information guys? There's a real simple solution too if you are annoyed by the discussion as you both hinted... just dont read the thread! ) Read all the other amazingly better threads in this forum.
wassalam
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
The question is whether or not Muslims should fast as 2 separate groups
If you are looking EXTERNALLY it wil appear as seperation, as all things appear externally. For example, when it was dawn in my area, "muslims" were maintaing thier "salaat", but around the world, many others were not.
But INTERNALLY, We are all following the same message. Just like EXTERNALLY, there were many seperate messengers, but INTERNALLY, the message is the SAME That is why we do not differentiate between messengers.
So to concentrate on the fact that the whole earth cannot do the same things at the same time, if the concept is BASED ON TIME, is not beneficial.
-
Salam Shuaib, All
I can reassure you that I read the whole thread and I am going to keep following your discussions. This thread, with the one on salat are those that for the time being interest me most. So, to state it clearly, it?s not the discussion that annoys me, but the tone! But well, if you two like it that way I wont interfere anymore. lol
Now, do we, as muslims have to be all on the same page ? We should be very careful with that. The first thing I believe in is freedom in religion and I do not think you we all have to practice the same way in order to be muslims. Anyway, only Allah will tell us one day if we really were muslims ?
Now, concerning the exact timing for Ramadan. I do not know of it is the summer solstice, or the autum equinoxe, or may be even the current Islamic calendar and I don?t think that this is so important. To witness the month in which coran came down and fast it?for me this is not about seeing the moon (be it full or new even though I rather tend to consider a month to begin with (invisible) hilal and calculation is enough for me because I do not believe that we absolutely have to do as those before as did. If this was so, why then did Allah give us progress?
In my opinion, abstaining is an act of faith meaning that you accept coran as your spiritual guide. And in my actual understanding abstaining is for 30 days. Now, the older I get, I am not able anymore to abstain 30 consecutive days, for medical reason. And I know for sure that during summer (around 40 ?c where I live) I will be unable to fast more than a few days. But Allah leaves us free to abstain on other days or even to feed the poor if it is too hard for us to fast. So, this means that I will not be fasting at the same time as many other muslims ? and I do not think this is a problem, because coran leaves us free to do so.
Elke
