Why no Ramadzan - replaced! by 3,10,60 Days.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you MZ,

Are you asking us to pick which one we see as the best? If so, I lean towards Aymans understanding.

[unknownuser]

Salaams idol,
love know his view on this though.

God bless.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you MZ,

I must be confused about what you are asking, can you please elaborate?

[unknownuser]

Salaams idol

i just meant i respect his reasoning (ayman)and others like hafeez so forth and their views are good pointers.

Salaam.

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you MZ,

Ohh, I understand, sorry for wasting so much space, I was just unclear at first. Yes, I look foward to thier views as well.

[ayman]

Peace brothers MZ, Kyle,

2185
(lanes and qd)
Shahr-un = He paraded(an offender)as a public example.
= new moon
=month
Shahra = devuldge

And ayman said

I looked up the word "shahr" in the dictionary (Lisan Al-3arab) and it doesn't seem to mean "month", "30 consecutive days", or "30 intermittent days". The primary meaning is "something obvious", "something public", and "something wide". It is also reported in the dictionary that the Arabs used to call the moon "shahr". In modern Arabic, someone "mashhur" is a public celebri

And the traditional translation was 2185

1. A month in early autumn, in which the Quran was sent down as a guide to the people and a clarification of the guidance and the criterion. Therefore, whoever of you can observe the season, then let him fast therein. And whoever is ill or traveling, then the same number from different days. God wants to bring you ease and not to bring you hardship; and so that you may complete the count, and glorify God for what He has guided you, that you may be thankful.

And the new one , i think will be something like

of your parading cast/throw the evilness /niggerdilness /stinginess that was revealed in it the quran a guidance for mankind and clear proofs of the guidance and the criterion ,who whosoever witnesses amongst you such parading he should fast(remove/ expunge) it and whosoever is sick or on journey (the same) number of days other wants Allah for you ease and not want for you hardship so that you complete the number and that you should magnify Allah on that he guided you so that you may give thanks.

What do you people think?

And from my other post a fast has nothing at all to do with food and drink.

I believe that the dictionary of Lisan Al-Arab gives a better picture than Lane. Lisan Al-Arab simply says that the bedouin Arabs used to call the moon "shahr". Lane specifying that it is the "new moon" is a mistake, probably influenced by traditional interpretations. Lisan Al-Arab provides a lot of information on the derivatives of "shahr" that give interesting insight into its etymology. For example, it mentions that a derivative, "shahira(t)" means a wide big (full-figured) woman. It also mentions that "ash-harat" means a pregnant woman who is close to term (her belly is big and round). It also mentions, "shahr" to mean "obvious", "public". Therefore the moon that the Arabs were talking about is likely to be "wide", "big", "full-figured", "obvious", "public". In other words, it must be the full moon that everybody can easily WITNESS.

I think that given all the evidence, "shahr ramadan" should be translated as follows

"The full-moon of extreme heat"

This marker is based on a cosmic phenomena and hence is independent of any calendar and artificial divisions that people use. "The full-moon of extreme heat" is a surprisingly simple and efficient way of marking time. We don't need ANY additional information to figure out when the abstinance period is.

What I need to ponder on some more, is whether "shahr" also means "full-moon cycle". For example, does "shahrayn mutatabi3ayn" means "two full-moons following one another" (This would be ONE full-moon cycle) or "two full-moon cycles following one another" (this would be TWO full-moon cycles).

Also, if it simply means full-moon then abstinance could be for ten days (until the "hilal"/crescent). If it is "full moon cycle" then abstinance is until the next full moon.

I am just brainstorming so as usual all input is appreciated.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[unknownuser]

Salaams ayman,
Thanks for your thoughts ,i usualy ask you quistions sometimes when i am often not clear about many things,

But this is a lost cause for me as i do not hold ramadhan anything other then what i have mentioned according to my understandings,with respects .

But my reason for repeating this post here is to point out the Fasts in the rest of the world,Allah doesn't just give advice to one set of people and forget the rest ,now does he,

Simple as fasting ,from the quran is not talking and meeting your spouses in the day time for a number of days - that is when ever we do heinous or evil things openly so looking aound the world whenever a person does somethiong like that a judge will force a person ,in a way so as to say, and confine them to jail -where they are alone not taliking to anyone and not meeting women as such.

this is all for now.

Thanks,God bless.

[drfazl]

Peace

According to Quran Ramadhan is a period of one month in each year promised for those who believe in wisdom wherein Allah says He would bestow upon the believers in Truth His way, clear and righteous; expanding their horizons of wisdom, His signs. Ramadhan is not calendar month coming on fixed periods each year, calculated by man.

drfazl

[progod]

In the case of those who say that month only equals the full moon, what about the passage in chpt. 2 that says that 1 day of missed fast can be compensated for feeding 1 person.

Later on in the Koran in chpt. 58 it is stated that the compensation for missing 2 months worth of fasting is to feed 60 people.

I think this means that the Koran obviously equates 2 months with 60 days, and 1 month with 30 days.

Also what did the Arabs who followed Roman and Persian months call them. I'm sure they called them shahr/ash-hur also.

But it seems that the Koran thinks that a month is 30 days, and two months is 60 days.

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace brother Anwar,

It is good to see you back on the forum.

In the case of those who say that month only equals the full moon, what about the passage in chpt. 2 that says that 1 day of missed fast can be compensated for feeding 1 person.

2184 doesn't say that 1 day missed is compensated by feeding 1 person. It seems more likely to say that it is feeding just 1 person for the whole fasting period. If you take it as 10 days then it is 10 days of abstinence = feeding of 1 person. If you take it as 30 days then it is 30 days of abstinence = feeding of 1 person.

Later on in the Koran in chpt. 58 it is stated that the compensation for missing 2 months worth of fasting is to feed 60 people.

In chapter 58, according to my understanding abstaining for the period of two consecutive full moons means abstaining for one full-moon cycle which is 28-30 days.

I think this means that the Koran obviously equates 2 months with 60 days, and 1 month with 30 days.

What 2 months equal 60 days? February is 28 or 29 days. July is 31 days. Lunar months are 30, 29, or even 28 days. The fact is that unlike cosmic phenomena such as the full-moon, "month" means different things to different people (and even to the same people).

Secondly, please see 589 where feeding 10 people is equivalent to abstaining for 3 days.

So here we have 1 day of abstinence = 3.33 people!

Hence, feeding people and days of abstinence are not 11 or even in the same proportion and their ratio depends on what it is we are compensating for.

Also what did the Arabs who followed Roman and Persian months call them. I'm sure they called them shahr/ash-hur also.

There is evidence in the form of "pre-quranic" inscriptions that Southern Arabs called "month" "warkh". This meaning is even given in classical Arabic dictionaries (Al-Mo7it and Lisan Al-3arab) under the root WRKh.

But it seems that the Koran thinks that a month is 30 days, and two months is 60 days.

The great reading never uses the arbitrary concept of "month".

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[progod]

God's blessing on you, Good to see you too.

2184 doesn't say that 1 day missed is compensated by feeding 1 person. It seems more likely to say that it is feeding just 1 person for the whole fasting period
.

But the whole fasting period is only a day, as we do not fast for the whole month. We only fast for each day during the month of Ramadan. We do not fast for the whole month of Ramadan because that would include the night time as well. We are only to fast for the daylight period and then we stop at night. So our fast is a daily fast, not a monthly fast.

Therefore when the Koran refers to fasting it refers to a daily fast.

fasting (in the Koran's context as it specifies how to fast) = a daily fast

The compensation for fasting is feeding one person. Threfore the compensation for a daily fast is the feeding one person.

So when the Koran says that the compensation for 2 months worth of fasting is the feeding of 60 people it is saying that the compensation for

60 daily fasts = 60 people

and

60 daily fasts= two months' worth of fasting.

Therefore

60 days = 2 months

and

30 days = 1 month.

Thank you for the use of warkh. The Arabic shah-r seems to have been used in a variety of ways. One of those ways is as synonym of warkh.

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace brother Anwar,

But the whole fasting period is only a day, as we do not fast for the whole month.

We do not fast for the whole supposed "two months" either in 584 and yet the number of poor people to feed is specified as 60 while it is specified as 1 in 2184.

Therefore the following interpretation creates inconsistencies between the two instances

We only fast for each day during the month of Ramadan. We do not fast for the whole month of Ramadan because that would include the night time as well. We are only to fast for the daylight period and then we stop at night. So our fast is a daily fast, not a monthly fast.

Therefore when the Koran refers to fasting it refers to a daily fast.

fasting (in the Koran's context as it specifies how to fast) = a daily fast

The compensation for fasting is feeding one person. Threfore the compensation for a daily fast is the feeding one person.

So is the abstinence in 584 not a "daily fast" like that in 2184? If no then why the inconsistent interpretation?

Moreover, the above interpretation totally ignores 589.

Also, there is zero evidence of a "pre-quranic" month named Ramadhan. Why don't you translate "ramadhan"?

So when the Koran says that the compensation for 2 months worth of fasting is the feeding of 60 people it is saying that the compensation for

60 daily fasts = 60 people

and

60 daily fasts= two months' worth of fasting.

Therefore

60 days = 2 months

and

30 days = 1 month.

This is completely negated by 589 where

3 days = 10 people

So one cannot make such a 11 assumption.

Thank you for the use of warkh. The Arabic shah-r seems to have been used in a variety of ways. One of those ways is as synonym of warkh.

From the Lexicons, the Arabic "shahr" seems to have one of its secondary derived meanings as a synonym of "warkh". However, it is not a primary meaning. The primary meanings are "something wide", "something public", "something bright", "full-moon". Now where months are determined based on the full-moon, the meaning of month/"warkh" would be a secondary derived meaning but not a primary one.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[progod]

God's blessing on you,

So is the abstinence in 584 not a "daily fast" like that in 2184? If no then why the inconsistent interpretation?

584 proves my point. Two months worth of daily fasting is equivalent to feeding sixty people and the equivalent for fasting a day is the feeding of 1 person.

Now 589 is very good evidence to contradict what i'm saying. The topic of 589 is about making oaths good. In that verse it does say that to make an oath good you can either feed ten pitiful/miserable individuals or cloth them. If these cannot be done than you can fast for 3 days.

1. First I want to say thank you for point out this verse I was mistaken about what I should do in the case.

2. There are some major differences between these passages I need to ponder on more. If you are correct I will admit that I have been wrong. But give me some time to look at these two.

You may have stopped me dead with this one, and I might be changing my tune.

Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

God bless Ayman,

The verses that will help clear up this issue of what the Koran considers to be a month, if it considers this issue at all, are 2 184, 589 and 585. All of these verses except for 589 deal with compensation (kaffaarat or fidyat) for daily fasting. As long as the topic is compensation for daily fasting then 2185 holds true in its statement that the compensation for every missed daily fast is the feeding of one, needy person. That is, a 11 ratio that allows 585 to imply that the Koran considers 2 months to be equal to 60 days in that 60 needy people must be fed for two months? worth of missed fasts.

Although it may seem that 589 contradicts that 11 ratio 589 does not state that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for feeding 10 people or that feeding 10 people is the compensation for not fasting for 3 days (3 fasts). What it clearly and specifically states is that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for a broken promise. Therefore, the 11 ratio still holds true in that 589 is not talking about compensating fasts, or fasting in order to compensate the number of needy persons that should have been fed.

589 specifically says fa siyaamu thalaathati ayyamin dhaalika dafaaratu aymaanikum
Which means Then fasting three daily fasts will be compensation for those broken promises of yours.

Such a statement makes it clear that the compensation here is to be made fore the broken promises. This statement disconnects the direct relationship between the amount of missed daily fasts and the amount of needy people who must be fed to compensate for each missed fast. Had ?dhaalika kaffaaratu Aymaanikum? not been there the connection between 3 missed fasts and feeding 10 needy people would indeed have been valid.

No clarifying statement like the one in 589 exists in 2184 and 585. The connection between missed, daily fasts and the amount of people that must be fed to compensate for these fasts is naturally 11, thanks to the established precedent given to us through 2184, and seeing that there is not counteracting clause in 585 like the one in 589 that would show us our error in concluding a 11 ratio. With that said I think it is safe to say that the Koran does consider 2 months to be equal to 60 days and 1 month to be equal to 30 days. I would also like to cite the relevant parts of the passages in question and clarify their relevancy.

2189

Kutiba alaikum as-siyaamu . . . ayaaman ma?doodaatin . . .
Alladheena yuteeqoonahu fidyatun ta?aamu miskeenin

Fasting has been prescribed for you . . .During allotted days . .
Those who have severe difficulty with a fast can compensate
the fast by feeding a needy person.

The releveant idea here is kaffaratu/fidyatu siyaami COMPENSATION FOR FASTING

589

yu-aakhidhukum bimaa &aqqad-tumul-aymaana . . fakaffaaratuhu it'aamu 'asharati masaakeena . . . fa man lam yajid . . .fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin dhaalika kaffaaratu aymaanikum

God will hold you to your sincere promises . . .To compensate for not keeping to these promises feed 10 needy individuals . . . For he who cannot afford this . . . then fasting 3 daily fasts will compensate for these broken promises of yours.

The relevant idea here is kaffaaratu/fidyatul-aymaani COMPENSATION FOR PROMISES

584-5

walladheena yudhaaw-hiroona min nisaa-ihim thumma ya'oodoona limaa qaaloo . . .fatah-reeru raqabatin . . . faman lam yajid . . .fa it'aamu sitteena miskeenan

As for those who declare Zihaar/declare open adversion to their women and then go back on that declaration . . .compensate by emancipating someone in bondage . . .whoever cannot afford then fasting for two consecutive months will compensate. . .whoever cannot . . .then feeding sixty needy individuals will compensate.

The relevant ideas here are kaffaaratu/fidyatu tahreeri raqabatin COMPENSATION FOR EMANCIPATING INDIVIDUALS IN BONDAGE

and

kaffaaratu/fidyatu siyaami COMPENSATION FOR FASTS

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace brother Anwar,

The verses that will help clear up this issue of what the Koran considers to be a month, if it considers this issue at all, are 2 184, 589 and 585. All of these verses except for 589 deal with compensation (kaffaarat or fidyat) for daily fasting. As long as the topic is compensation for daily fasting then 2185 holds true in its statement that the compensation for every missed daily fast is the feeding of one, needy person.

2184 specifies feeding only one poor person in the same way that 589 and 583 specifies freeing of one prisoner. It doesn't say 30 poor people nor does it say "one per day". These are merely assumptions that are not in the actual wording of 2184. It is based on this assumption that you then conclude the following

That is, a 11 ratio that allows 585 to imply that the Koran considers 2 months to be equal to 60 days in that 60 needy people must be fed for two months? worth of missed fasts.

Although it may seem that 589 contradicts that 11 ratio 589 does not state that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for feeding 10 people or that feeding 10 people is the compensation for not fasting for 3 days (3 fasts). What it clearly and specifically states is that fasting for 3 days is the compensation for a broken promise. Therefore, the 11 ratio still holds true in that 589 is not talking about compensating fasts, or fasting in order to compensate the number of needy persons that should have been fed.

In 589 the compensation is for a broken oath exactly like 584 where the compensation is for repeating the false saying as given in 583. In BOTH those cases abstaining is an alternative for freeing ONE prisoner. In 583, feeding 60 poor people is an alternative to abstaining two consecutive "shahr" and in 589 abstaining 3 days is an alternative for feeding 10 poor people.

583-4
Alternative 1 Freeing 1 prisoner
If one can't find a prisoner to free then
Alternative 2 abstaining 2 consecutive "shahr"
If one can't abstain then
Alternative 3 feeding 60 poor

589
Alternative 1 Freeing 1 prisoner
or
Alternative 2 feeding 10 poor
If one can't find a prisoner or poor to feed then
Alternative 3 abstaining 3 days

So in BOTH cases abstaining or feeding the poor is an alternative to FREEING 1 prisoner. So it is clear that there is no common ratio between PRISONERS and abstaining or feeding the poor. Similarly, there is no one ratio between abstaining and feeding the poor. The ratio depends on what it is we are compensating for.

589 specifically says fa siyaamu thalaathati ayyamin dhaalika dafaaratu aymaanikum
Which means Then fasting three daily fasts will be compensation for those broken promises of yours.

Such a statement makes it clear that the compensation here is to be made fore the broken promises. This statement disconnects the direct relationship between the amount of missed daily fasts and the amount of needy people who must be fed to compensate for each missed fast. Had ?dhaalika kaffaaratu Aymaanikum? not been there the connection between 3 missed fasts and feeding 10 needy people would indeed have been valid.

"dhaalika kafaaratu aymaanikum" doesn't mean "will be compensation for those broken promises of yours"
"dhaalika kafaaratu aymaanikum" means "this is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours"

The word "dhaalika"/this refers to the above alternatives and not just the abstinence, since any of the above alternatives can be compensation.

No clarifying statement like the one in 589 exists in 2184 and 585.

No, there is a similar clarifying statement in 584 and it starts with the same EXACT word "dhaalika". It is

"dhaalika litu'minoo bi Allah wa rasoolih"

Of course, no one can ever claim that "dhaalika" only refers to the immediate "feeding of 60 poor" that came before and not to the other compensations. This would make the sentence illogical, because it would imply that only the feeding of the poor would contribute to our faith but not the abstaining or the freeing of the prisoner.

I hope this made the issues a little clearer.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[progod]

Peace Ayman,

Ayman don't think that because I have not answered you that I agree with you or that I have acceded to your argument. Honestly, I don't think we will ever agree upon much of anything. There seems to be some unrighteous competition between me and you, which I don't like at all.

To respond to your post somewhat. I truly believe that the 'dhaalika kaffaaratu aymaanikum' is the clarifying statement for the fast mentioned in that passage, and that it separates it from the other occurrences where fasting and its compensation in the feeding of needy individuals is mentioned. The 'dhaalika litu'minoo bi Allah wa rasoolih' in the other passage is of a totally different nature and does not allow for what the first 'dhaalika . . .' does. I think you know that well.

I do not appreciate your knit-picking in how I translated the passage as

"Then fasting for 3 days will be compensation for those broken promises of yours"

AND

"Then fast for three days. This is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours"

Convey the same thing in different styles, and you know that my translation is just as valid as yours. But that is your prerogative. God has given you the ability to knit-pick as you see fit.

Overall, although I disagree with your conclusion that 'shah-r' just mainly means 'full-moon' I do agree that it can means those phases of the moon that are not the crescent phases per lisaanul-arabi. But I also know from having read lisaanul-arabi that it was also used to mean from one hilaal to the other, as well as for 29 days.

I have never agreed with your method of 'meaning mixing.' That is taking one meaning such as 'full or obvious' and another meaning such as 'moon' and saying that the word then can mean 'full or obvious moon.' That is in my opinon a perversion.

I admitedly used to be guilty of practicing this method of mixing meanings but I realized my error. If a word means both 'slow' and 'cow' for instance I cannot say that the word can mean 'slow cow'. that is just plain old wrong. The person who uses the word can mean both 'slow and cow' but he cannot mean 'slow cow' unless the word has three meanings. Namely, 'slow', 'cow' AND 'slow cow'.

Despite that, I know you have something to prove here. So whether we come to an agreement or not is no concern of mine. I do not agree with you most times, as I think your logic is often faulty. But if I don't respond, do not think it is because you have proven yourself to be the victor in your logic or argument. It is just because I do not want to argue in vain when I know that you will not accept it. Respond how you will after this post, and get the last word as I know you will. It really does not matter to me.

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace brother Anwar,

Ayman don't think that because I have not answered you that I agree with you or that I have acceded to your argument. Honestly, I don't think we will ever agree upon much of anything. There seems to be some unrighteous competition between me and you, which I don't like at all.

It is better to have patience and give a well thought out response than to rush an answer. So I don't assume that anyone agreed with me because they haven't answered. The only way I know that someone agrees with me, is when they simply said so.

If we didn't agree on anything, then I wouldn't have changed my view and agreed with you that the religion whose proper name Islam is completely man-made and is not the common concept of "islam" talked about in the great reading.

Since then, my understanding has improved, while I am sorry to say that it seems that yours has pretty much stayed the same. Hence, you don't see that the month whose proper name is Ramadan is completely man-made like the religion whose proper name is Islam.

This is not about you or any competition. It is about improving our understanding. This requires patience and learning. It is not my problem that you are running short on patience. So it doesn't matter how much time you take, I hope that you will respond.

To respond to your post somewhat. I truly believe that the 'dhaalika kaffaaratu aymaanikum' is the clarifying statement for the fast mentioned in that passage, and that it separates it from the other occurrences where fasting and its compensation in the feeding of needy individuals is mentioned. The 'dhaalika litu'minoo bi Allah wa rasoolih' in the other passage is of a totally different nature and does not allow for what the first 'dhaalika . . .' does. I think you know that well.

Brother, it doesn't matter what you or me "truly believe". Many people "truly believe" many false things. Many of the things that I "truly believed" turned out to be false. So stop appealing to the emotions of the reader and instead give real evidence in the form of an example. I already gave you the example of 584 where "thalika" refers to ALL OF THE ABOVE and not just the last item of "feeding 60 poor". Another example is 1882 where "thalika" refers to all explanations given above and not just the last one. But instead of trying to give even one example, you resort to the fuzzy "I think you know that well". Well, I don't know it well.

I do not appreciate your knit-picking in how I translated the passage as

"Then fasting for 3 days will be compensation for those broken promises of yours"

AND

"Then fast for three days. This is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours"

Convey the same thing in different styles, and you know that my translation is just as valid as yours. But that is your prerogative. God has given you the ability to knit-pick as you see fit.

No they don't convey the same meaning. A new sentence saying "This is the compensation for those (broken) promises of yours." can refer to all of the above alternatives. On the other hand, the sentence "Then fasting for 3 days will be compensation for those broken promises of yours" makes it appear as if compensation only referring to the 3 days abstinence is the sole way to understand the sentence. As you saw from the examples, this is not the case.

Overall, although I disagree with your conclusion that 'shah-r' just mainly means 'full-moon' I do agree that it can means those phases of the moon that are not the crescent phases per lisaanul-arabi. But I also know from having read lisaanul-arabi that it was also used to mean from one hilaal to the other, as well as for 29 days.

Lisan Al-3arab is not a book of astronomy to give the meaning of 29 days. Also, that meaning is wrong because the lunar cycle is not 29 days and that is a fact.

The meaning of "from one "hilal" to the next" is also wrong and in fact CONTRADICTS the meaning of 29 days. According to the SAME DICTIONARY of Lisan Al-3arab, "hilal" means the crescent moon at BOTH the end and the start of the lunar cycle. Hence, the time between one "hilal" to the next is NEVER 29 days. It can be either 2-3 days (between thinning and widening crescents) or about 20 days (between widening and thinning crescents).

Again, Lisan Al-3arab is not a book of astronomy no more than it is a book of religion and history. One should use dictionaries intelligently while knowing their limitations. Dictionaries are best at giving the etymology of words and that is how I use them. The etymology of the word "shahr" points to the full-moon.

I have never agreed with your method of 'meaning mixing.' That is taking one meaning such as 'full or obvious' and another meaning such as 'moon' and saying that the word then can mean 'full or obvious moon.' That is in my opinon a perversion.

I admitedly used to be guilty of practicing this method of mixing meanings but I realized my error. If a word means both 'slow' and 'cow' for instance I cannot say that the word can mean 'slow cow'. that is just plain old wrong. The person who uses the word can mean both 'slow and cow' but he cannot mean 'slow cow' unless the word has three meanings. Namely, 'slow', 'cow' AND 'slow cow'.

There are thousands upon thousands of words in English and Arabic and yet you are unable to give one real example and instead resort to a hypothetical one that is only in your imagination. The words "cow" and "slow" are not etymologically related at all. Etymology is about relationship between MORE THAN ONE meaning, otherwise there is no etymology.

Despite that, I know you have something to prove here. So whether we come to an agreement or not is no concern of mine. I do not agree with you most times, as I think your logic is often faulty. But if I don't respond, do not think it is because you have proven yourself to be the victor in your logic or argument. It is just because I do not want to argue in vain when I know that you will not accept it. Respond how you will after this post, and get the last word as I know you will. It really does not matter to me.

A logical answer is not what you or I think, it is what can be proven. Brother, it is OK if you don't want to respond. This is a public forum and I never write on a public forum for one person. If I wanted to, I would have sent you a private email. I write so that as many people as possible can read, logically criticize, and help improve our understanding. Therefore it is the duty of ANYONE here on this forum who is interested in the truth to respond to me and correct me.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[progod]

God bless,

As it refers to the dhaalika case I don't think we will agree at all. Dhaalika can mean all of the above and it can also mean what was just mentioned. In the case of 'dhalika li tu'minoo' in 585 it can only mean 'all of the above.' In the case of 589 it can mean both 'all of the above' as well as 'what was just mentioned' being 'fast for 3 days.' So here there is a choice of two options.

Of course I'm going to pick the choice that is conisistent with my conclusion that a month is equal to 30 days. The verse allows me to do this, and consistency when it comes to the Koran holds more weight than inconsistency. The fact that 30 days equaling a month is a consistent finding in every other occurence is more than enough to incline me to understand the dhalika kaffaratu aynaanikum as refering to the fasting for three days and not all of the above, especially when there is no need to understand it in a way that it would contradict the other consistent occurences, and when the understanding is perfectly valid.

I can't give you any more proof that than that, and I can't say whether or not that is sufficient enough for you.

As it concerns the cow and slow. I thought I would make up an example to make the phenomenon more clear to you and others (as you said you said you don't just write for me and I just don't write for you).

You said

Etymology is about relationship between MORE THAN ONE meaning, otherwise there is no etymology

Now, I wasn't speaking about etymology at all. And maybe that is the problem here. Do you feel that for a root to have more than one distinct meaning these meanings HAVE to be related in some way? Well, whether I do or don't is of no issue here. Maybe we can share our views or debate about the etymology of Cl. Arabic words privately.

We should not be dealing with the etymology of any Classical Arabic word when we approach it in the Koran or in any form of Cl. Arabic literature. For instance, I understand that the etymology of the word woman comes from 'wife of man'. But when I see 'woman' in English there is no reason for me to be thinking that woman means 'wife of man'. That's just going too far. I don't mean to be rude or anything when I say this, so please don't take it the wrong way. But you should not be concerned with the etymology of the Classical Arabic words that the Koran uses. You should be concerned with the meanings of the words. That is how the Arabs of Muhammad's day would have used them, as that is the language that the Koran uses.

As far as it concerns the meaning of shah-r. I understand that 29 days contradicts from one hilaal to another. I understand that from one hilaal to another might not take 29 days. But they do not have to be in agreement with each other to be definitions of the same word. I understand that lisaanul-arabi is not an astronomy book. All it points out is how the Arabs used the word 'The language of the Arabs' is just what 'Lisaanul-arabi' means. As you and I know. But that does not take away from the fact that shah-r can mean all of these things, whether they have relations or not (from the beginining of one crescent moon to the end of another can be 29 days just to let you know).

Anyway, you say that the etymology of the word 'shah-r' is 'full-moon.' That is your opinion, and it may be true. But we are not concerned with the etymology of Classical Arabic words because people who speak a language do not use its words in the sense of their etymologies. They use the language's words in the sense of their definitions, however distinct these definitions may be.

I'm not sure why you are concerned with the etymologies of the Cl. Arabic words that the Koran uses. I have a hunch that it comes from a belief that you may hold that the Koran would only use the original meaning of a Classical Arabic word, and in that case you attempt to get a single etymological meaning of that word. But understand that when you start dealing with the etymologies of a word you are pre-dating the language and all of the meanings of that language that you are dealing with. To state it more simply, when you get into the etymology of a word that belongs to the Arabic of Muhammad's day you're now dealing with a parent language or the language that came before the Classical Arabic language of Muhammad's day. Etymology always deals with the language(s) that came before the one your looking at.

Just as Old English is a parent Language of Modern English and the language that we look at to get the etymologies of words that we use today.

Godbless,
Anwar
I hope we've made some progress on this issue.

[ayman]

Peace brother Anwar,

Of course I'm going to pick the choice that is conisistent with my conclusion that a month is equal to 30 days. The verse allows me to do this, and consistency when it comes to the Koran holds more weight than inconsistency.

Brother, you are merely picking the choice that is consistent with your pre-existing bias that "shahr" means month and that month is 30 days.

The fact that 30 days equaling a month is a consistent finding in every other occurence

What fact? This is not fact and is false by any measure. Please point to even ONE occurrence where "shahr" is said to equal 30 days. Moreover, 30 days is NOT a month neither in the so-called Islamic calendar or even the Georgian calendar. In fact, there is no calendar in existence where a month is 30 days. This is for the simple reason that the number of days in the year is not divisible by 30, and now that's a fact. So 30 days equaling a month is not reality.

is more than enough to incline me to understand the dhalika kaffaratu aynaanikum as refering to the fasting for three days and not all of the above, especially when there is no need to understand it in a way that it would contradict the other consistent occurences, and when the understanding is perfectly valid.

It does contradict the other occurrences. For example, your interpretation would contradict 936. It also contradicts the other occurrences of "thalika" in the great reading and you failed again to show one example where it only refers to the last thing talked about from a list.

Moreover, you contradict what you said earlier about a month being 29 days. You also contradict reality because in the real world a month is NOT 30 days.

I can't give you any more proof that than that, and I can't say whether or not that is sufficient enough for you.

That is the thing, you didn't give any proof. On the other hand, you unsuccessfully tried to justify your pre-existing conclusion that "shahr" means month and that there are 30 days in your imaginary month.

As it concerns the cow and slow. I thought I would make up an example to make the phenomenon more clear to you and others (as you said you said you don't just write for me and I just don't write for you).

Brother, myself, as well as others (I am sure), are still waiting for a valid example.

Now moving on to etymology, you make an excellent point here

I'm not sure why you are concerned with the etymologies of the Cl. Arabic words that the Koran uses. I have a hunch that it comes from a belief that you may hold that the Koran would only use the original meaning of a Classical Arabic word, and in that case you attempt to get a single etymological meaning of that word. But understand that when you start dealing with the etymologies of a word you are pre-dating the language and all of the meanings of that language that you are dealing with. To state it more simply, when you get into the etymology of a word that belongs to the Arabic of Muhammad's day you're now dealing with a parent language or the language that came before the Classical Arabic language of Muhammad's day. Etymology always deals with the language(s) that came before the one your looking at.

When someone who knows how and when Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Lisan Al-3arab came about tries to truly understand the great reading, then etymology is exactly what they would be concerned with.

If you knew that Lisan Al-3arab was written by Imam Ibn Al-Manzoor who lived 1233-1311AD and hence wrote it over 600 years after the great reading, then you would not have been surprised by my study of etymology.

The fact is that even the earliest attempts at developing Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Tahthib Al Lughah by Abu Mansur Al-Azhari (895-980 AD) was over 300 years after the revelation of the great reading. Since you have faith in dictionaries, you should know that.

Hence, what is called today Classical Arabic is not the language of the great reading. Today's Classical Arabic should be better termed Medieval Arabic and it falls somewhere between Modern Arabic and the Arabic at the time of the great reading.

Unless you are making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't evolve one bit in over 300-600 years, then I hope that you can now clearly see why we must look at etymology, especially when the meaning given by the dictionaries doesn't fit in the context.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[unknownuser]

Peace be upon you Ayman,

When someone who knows how and when Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Lisan Al-3arab came about tries to truly understand the great reading, then etymology is exactly what they would be concerned with.

If you knew that Lisan Al-3arab was written by Imam Ibn Al-Manzoor who lived 1233-1311AD and hence wrote it over 600 years after the great reading, then you would not have been surprised by my study of etymology.

The fact is that even the earliest attempts at developing Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Tahthib Al Lughah by Abu Mansur Al-Azhari (895-980 AD) was over 300 years after the revelation of the great reading. Since you have faith in dictionaries, you should know that.

Hence, what is called today Classical Arabic is not the language of the great reading. Today's Classical Arabic should be better termed Medieval Arabic and it falls somewhere between Modern Arabic and the Arabic at the time of the great reading.

Unless you are making the extraordinary claim that a language doesn't evolve one bit in over 300-600 years, then I hope that you can now clearly see why we must look at etymology, especially when the meaning given by the dictionaries doesn't fit in the context.

Great info! Very powerful argument.