9:7 A clue why Masjidi Haram may be not a building
-
How else can one keep rejectors out?
Peace be upon you,
The Saudi arguably seem to be doing this, hence one can argue its possible not to let anybody in.
Hence, I fail to follow how you discount that possibility. Perhaps I need to clarify the way I think, I think in terms of what we can eliminate till we end up with what we can't.
regards
-
God bless,
All of the vowelling that we have in the Koran is correct. The Koran was memorized and recited orally and with vowels (by a class of people called qurraa'). The early Arabic text and the Arabic convention of writing has faults when it comes to recording these vowels. Those faults were compensated for in the case of the Koran and the texts were written completely with vowels. Despite whether the original text had vowels or not the Koran was always recited with vowels, and the voweled texts that we have are recordings of how the Koran has been traditionally (from the beginning as far as we know) pronounced and recited (recitations are always vowelled).
Godbless,
AnwarThere is no need to screw around with vowels or the addition of letters.
A valid case can only be made on the grounds of variation in meaning of the sounds that are already recorded. Anything else is just bad science. -
God bless all,
Secondly I cannot really vouch for this distrust in lexographers or muhaddithoona. Why? Because Lexographers have only done their jobs in recording how the Arabs (not long after Muhammad's death, his children, his grandchildren and even people during his time) used their language. When we understand that the grammar and the words in the Koran belong to the language of Muhammad and his people then we can begin to understand the words of the Koran.
All the muhaddithoona did was to scrutinize narrators of the rumors about Muhammad and give their opinion on whether they thought a certain rumor was trustworthy or not. We have to understand that our only contention with the Hadeeth is that
-
They are viewed as if they are divine and came straight out of Muhammad's mouth and that is not true. They are rumors and their method of authentication is faulty. Therefore what muhadithoona consider to be sahih or 'historically accurate', we cannot because we know that the reputation of a man does not determine his honesty or his ability to accurately recite a story that has been passed down to him.
-
The hadeeth are viewed as if they are as authentic as the Koran and the histories that they give (not the grammar that they use) are even used to interpret the Koran, all while the Koran, the most authentic record, is not examined to the fullest to gain insight into the real story of Muhammad (God bless him).
Most of our contention is over the attitudes that Muslim Scholarship takes with both the Hadeeth and the Koran.
Namely
-
The Hadeeths are the accurate histories that illustrate how Muhammad lived his life, what he said and did and what he experienced.
-
Muhammad is the best one to explain the Koran.
-
The Koran is an ambiguous guideline, and more of an abstract guideline. Passages that seem ambiguous or not clear can be understood through what the histories say about what Muhammad did, said or went through.
Godbless,
Anwar -
-
Secondly I cannot really vouch for this distrust in lexographers or muhaddithoona. Why? Because Lexographers have only done their jobs in recording how the Arabs (not long after Muhammad's death, his children, his grandchildren and even people during his time) used their language. When we understand that the grammar and the words in the Koran belong to the language of Muhammad and his people then we can begin to understand the words of the Koran.
Salaam Anwar,
This assumes humans perceive correctly, are not influenced by their peers or have always honourable intentions.
I for one must question every notion that comes forth in the light of the reading. Hence, any corrupt use of a word, context due to the above factors will be exposed. Otherwise, there are many ways to corrupt the message We are wiser to extra quranic teachings, but also we must include the possibility the use of words are corrupted. This should be self evident since we have so many invented terms in islamic literature that is not in the reading e.g. Baytullah etc...
regards, -
Peace
If i recall well, according to the grammar books masjid is among the nouns of time and place(makan wa zaman), so, at least theoretically speaking, "time of compliance or obeying"or whatever s-j-d denotes, is also among the valid translations....
I think a good example may be well known words mashriq and magrib which both denote the time as well the place of sunrise and/or sunset...
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace be upon you Ash Shura,
idolfree1 wrote
How else can one keep rejectors out?Peace be upon you,
The Saudi arguably seem to be doing this, hence one can argue its possible not to let anybody in.
They are TRYING to, yes, but I am sure that you know that is impossible. Does the Saudi Officials have some speacial "Believer" machine? Do you think terorists have trouble getting into that place? You are not thinking this through.
Hence, I fail to follow how you discount that possibility. Perhaps I need to clarify the way I think, I think in terms of what we can eliminate till we end up with what we can't.
I hope I have clarified it above, if not, I DEFINATELY want to discuss this more with you.
-
Peace Kyle,
I think your explanation is rational. However, I am examining whether we have sufficient grounds to reject the other view. I'll need to think a little more on this.
Like I said, I am using a process of elimination.
Let me answer your questions
Does the Saudi Officials have some speacial "Believer" machine? Do you think terorists have trouble getting into that place?
In a manner of speaking, at least consistent with their own values. As long as they don't contradict themselves in their own terms we can't discount it. Alternatively, we would have to debate and discount the greater premise of their false interpretations.
Hence, in their own terms they can get someone to testify as they wish, they would make them follow their corrupt ways and rituals. Hence, they seem to be able to fit people in to their mould of believer. Terrorists are no terrorists by them since I am sure they'll find a hadith that will support their view.
I am looking forward to how you evaluate this... wink
Peace
-
Peace be upon you Ash Shura,
I lets take this from the top, The God says that the rejectors cannot have access to the "restricted masjid". My position is that the "place of hearing and obeying the restrictions" is a MENTAL place, a LEVEL(maqam) that ones true self reaches where they remain focused on that direction(QIBLA).
The other thought is that the "restricted masjid" is a physical place onthis physical earth. My question is, do you think that I could not take a casucasion priest, teach him a few terms "assalamalakum ackee" and all of that, teach him a few essentials, and he could not get into that physical place? Even though he really rejects the message?
IF you don't think that is possible, tell me how its not possible.
The only way that this instruction can be fulfilled is if there is a SOLID LAW that prevents this, that would be the God's law. And since man can go anywehre in this physical world, this LAW must be mental.
WHat are your views on this?
-
Peace be upon you Kyle,
WHat are your views on this?
9107-111 never made sense to me when I thought it as a physical masjid. I questioned the significance, since it belonged to many moons ago and it had no practical purpose. I mean for a person living in Japan for example what is the significance? Do we have to worry about this one particular in the heart of arabia wherever this mosque suppose to be? I suppose the Japanese believer is out of danger since he will never come into contact with this building and the people in there must have been long gone wink
No, for me the meaning works when it talks about submission based on the restrictions of the system. These verses now make a lot of sense to me.
Lets face it how would you divide the believers GOD forbid!? Would you build a new mosque or set them each of their own restrictions....? ala Shia and Sunni contradictions.
When you have people base their understanding on fantastic stories such as someone made up their own Quran and declared war on the messenger and fleshes out detail, then their understanding becomes hostage to these stories.
Hence, I am not bemused when I see sunni scholars declaring the reading to be non sensical without the man made narrations whilst being flabbergasted at the incredible hypocrisy.
regards
-
Peace be upon you Ash Shura,
So you agree that "masjid" is not a physical place, correct?
-
So you agree that "masjid" is not a physical place, correct?
Peace Kyle,
This is my current understanding yes. If you go back to the begining of the thread you will see what I said.
However, I am GOD willing open to contrary evidence and prepared to examine within reason.
regards
-
Peace be upon you Ash Shura,
My apologies for the misunderstanding, I am glad we agree.
-
Peace Kyle,
No need to apologise, probably its me and my examining all possibilities.
-
according to the grammar books masjid is among the nouns of time and place(makan wa zaman),
another related word that is among the nouns of time and place is musallan
it is mentioned, i think, only in 2125
wa ttakhidhu(or wattakhadhu) min maqami ibraheema musallaa
...and take(or they took) from/of the place/position of Abraham place(or position? e.i. methaphorical meaning) of adherence/following...
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Salam All,
I do apologise for returning to the forum here. However, Brother Zlatan posted some interesting comments that I felt a need to address. Also, I need to answer the issue of MANAZIL and the issue of MANAM
1- brother Zlatan. Regarding the Time and Place. You wrote it yourself it Time AND Place and not Time Or place, as you suggested for your interpretation of Masjid. In my reading of the meaning of the word (masjid) in QAMOOS MUHEET, it is only mentioned as a place.This (Time and Place)is only true when the verb has a time component in it, and then the form of the word that sounds like MASJID will mean Time AND Place and not one or the other. Example the word MAWAAiD which means Date (of meeting or something) and it denotes time and place of the meeting.
MashriQ and Maghrib were only mentioned as PLACES and not as times in the Qur'an. When time was mentioned the word SHUROOQ and GHUROOB were used.
Musalla as you mentioned sounds more like place to me and not time.2- MANAZIL as brother Ashura had written.
Root N-Z-L and it means to arrive (according to my reading of QAMOOS MUHEET.
MANZIL place of arrival. That is why it can mean a house because that it a place you arrive to. MANZIL of the moon is the place that the moon arrives to at each stage of it movement, and therefore you have MANAZIL, one MANZIL (place of arrival) for each stage of movement.3- MANAM is the place where you sleep, also according to QAMOOS MUHEET. The two AYAT are like this
37102 the story of Abraham and what he saw in the MANAM. The way I understand it is the ABRAHAM said
O my son I see in the "place of my sleep". Abraham is saying the While I was in the place of my sleep, I saw...
Abraham could have been sleeping in his bed and therefore saw in the dream, or he could have been awake and saw the message while awake.
3942 Talks about taking the selves in MANAM. Here it is talking about the taking the selves in "their place of sleep". Most people die in the place of their sleep.4-We all have biases and prejudices. Mine is that I feel that there is no problem with the word Masjid being a place. I am open to your proofs though, and I admire brother As Shura for declaring his bias. I detect that you have biases as well, but I will leave it to you to declare them.
The most important thing is this Do we read the Qur'an to prove that our biases are correct? or do we read the Qur'an in order for the Qur'an to teach us what is right or wrong?
The question is posed to me and to you. May GOD relieve us all of the biases that we hold
hussein
-
Peace
1- brother Zlatan. Regarding the Time and Place. You wrote it yourself it Time AND Place and not Time Or place, as you suggested for your interpretation of Masjid. In my reading of the meaning of the word (masjid) in QAMOOS MUHEET, it is only mentioned as a place.This (Time and Place)is only true when the verb has a time component in it, and then the form of the word that sounds like MASJID will mean Time AND Place and not one or the other.
From my study of numerous grammar books I am almost sure the most learned grammarians wouldnt agree with you.. but thanks for the reminder ill check it more....
best wishes
-
Salaamun Hussein,
2- MANAZIL as brother Ashura had written.
Root N-Z-L and it means to arrive (according to my reading of QAMOOS MUHEET.
MANZIL place of arrival. That is why it can mean a house because that it a place you arrive to. MANZIL of the moon is the place that the moon arrives to at each stage of it movement, and therefore you have MANAZIL, one MANZIL (place of arrival) for each stage of movement.I think you provided a good explanation and last time before you walked off which suprised me I felt you had valued input. I have not rejected your input outright, I considered it, learnt, but I arrived at different conclusions.
I'll briefly explain my logic and leave it at that
You advocated manzil can be a physical place, I agree.
Hence, you did not preclude the fact it can also be non physical.
Therefore, the meaning must be established within its usage in the reading. For example the stages of the moon.
4-We all have biases and prejudices. Mine is that I feel that there is no problem with the word Masjid being a place. I am open to your proofs though, and I admire brother As Shura for declaring his bias. I detect that you have biases as well, but I will leave it to you to declare them.
First of all, was your impression that I denied the possibility that a masjid could be a physical place? No. However, I explained my present understanding and if you notice I am prepared to consider evidence. I have no fixed views, I have changed my understanding many a time and if you are a catalyst this time round, its fine by me.
Unfortunately, this was not possible since you decided to quit the discussion. For now I don't see any clues referring to a particular instance that we can prove masjid is a physical place. However, when we read verse such as 9107-111 a physical masjid does not make sense.
But I am kind of offended with this bias business, I find it presumptous, it could have been left with focus on behaviour and not persons. Like you I am prepared to examine, so what is the problem? I am happy to let you win the argument here so I don't think this is the issue, what is important for me is to gain the correct understanding. Hence, the intense questioning assumptions from my part is a way to examine.
The most important thing is this Do we read the Qur'an to prove that our biases are correct? or do we read the Qur'an in order for the Qur'an to teach us what is right or wrong?
Only GOD can judge that, we can make mistakes but I don't think we should base our behaviour on suspicion or conjecture on what others motives are. Hence, we should concentrate on the issues and not the persons.
Anyway, from my part your input is greatly appreciated and it has contributed to my understanding. You may not see it that way, and it was unfortunate that you walked away. Maybe you were busy....
regards
-
Salam brother As-Shura,
I am so sorry. I really meant to say something positive when I mentioned your name. I apologise profusely that I misspoke. What I was trying to say was that I really appreciated the fact that you talked about where you come from. That was all.
I am very sorry, and please accept my apologies.
Hussein
-
Peace Ashura
Salaam Anwar,
This assumes humans perceive correctly, are not influenced by their peers or have always honourable intentions.
I for one must question every notion that comes forth in the light of the reading. Hence, any corrupt use of a word, context due to the above factors will be exposed. Otherwise, there are many ways to corrupt the message We are wiser to extra quranic teachings, but also we must include the possibility the use of words are corrupted. This should be self evident since we have so many invented terms in islamic literature that is not in the reading e.g. Baytullah etc...
regards,I understand what you are saying. But Muhammad, a human, copied the Koran. Other humans memorized the Koran and handed it down. You are assuming that they are perfect in their perception and intentions also as you trust the Koran that they have handed down to you. You are assuming that the scribes were not tempted to corrupt the message because of their own human reasons. You are assuming that they did not fall pray to the temptations that would lead them to do that when you accept that the Koran that you read is the same Koran that Gabriel (God bless him) recited.
You have to understand that if what you are saying is true we cannot trust that we have the true Koran or even attempt to understand it because our faulty human perception, the fact that we are subject to influence from our peers and because we do not always have the most honorable of intentions when we try to understand the Koran.
You are saying that all dictionaries and grammar books are wrong about the corresponding languages that they clarify because of the faults of those that have done the research for them and have recorded them and given them to us.
If we were talking about the Bible and the English language this wouldn't have even been a debate. Because we all understand that understanding the language precedes understanding any book in that language.
We understand the language through the dictionaries and grammar books. Then, once we understand the language then and only then can we understand the book.
Not even a Christian would dare to say that he did not need to read and understand the dictionaries and grammar books of greek to fully understand his greek bible. Common sense dictates that he relies on these books from which he gets the proper grammar and definitions of greek before he can rely on his understanding of the book.
Yes, we must trust those mere human beings to understand the language that the Arabs of Muhammad's day spoke. Yes. Just like we must trust those mere human beings that recorded and memorized the Koran for us to be able to read it today. Whose to say they didn't make mistakes? It can actually be proven that they did make mistakes. But that is the glory of God. He makes the mistakes of mankind stick out through contradiction.
When wants something done he says 'be' and so, it is.Therefore if the grammarians made mistakes it can be seen in their own contradictions. God would not give us a book in a foreign language and not allow the rules and definitions of that foreign language to be preserved for us to learn. Only when we have seen the contradictions of the grammarians do we have the right to say 'they were wrong' and only then can we begin to propose a more correct solution to the problem.
Baytullaah is in the Koran. And the Islamic scholars of the years after Muhammad's time have been right and wrong.
The true test to be able to tell if the meaning of a word does not belong in the Koran is to date the invention of the meaning to a post-koranic time.
The meaning of Islam as 'submission to God' can be dated to a post-koranic time in that Shafi'i alone said that 'Muslims call themselves that because they are submissive to God.' This was his interpretation, and was invented when he said it. Gratefully we know that he lived a good deal after Muhammad's time. Even more gratefully we know from how he said this that he invented this interpretation. So we know that this meaning cannot be put into the Koran, or the hadeeth for that matter, when we see the word Islam. We can do that with all of the other meanings that we have doubt about through research. Zakat in its use as 'Poor-rate' or 'poor-tax' can be dated to a time after Muhammad and his people's time also.You see, that is all that is needed to verify how a word was used by the Arabs of Muhammad's day. All you have to look for is if that meaning is time-bound, by a person or a particular group. Muhammad's people would have used the word intifaadah but not as it refers to the Palestinian people, because that meaning is time-bound (or was coined) by the Palestinian people in their struggles in the recent years.
Hajj in it's meaning as 'Pilgrimage to Medina & Mecca' is time-bound. That became it's meaning after Muslims established this pilgrimage as a specific rite of their religion. So when the Koran uses Hajj we should know that the Arabs of Muhammad's day would have used hajj with any pilgrimage, as only making pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina was not a specific rite of their religion.
If we cannot show that the meaning is time-bound, or that it was coined (not just used) during a time after the advent of the Koran then the word can validly be understood in the Koran. There is not need for inventing meanings.
As far as 'ma' is concerned. We have to take into account the literal and methaphorical aspects of it. Whenver we can use 'at' we have to understand that 'ma' can be used. When used in the sense of time it is pinpointing a particular 'place' in time. maghrib and ghuroob can be used as 'sundown' because sundown is a happening (ghuroob) as well as a particular place in time 'maghrib.'
So think 'ma' when it comes to time if you can say that the root (in this case sundown gharaba) happens at a particular place in time.
Masjid can refer to a mental state, in a metaphorical sense, because mental states are also metaphorical 'places.' If, in your mind you are always worshiping, then yes, your mind can be a masjid. Just as I can say, 'My mind is a church' or 'My mind is a place of worship'.
But masjid on its own cannot refer to a mental state. It can only refer to a 'place of worhip.'
A place of worship is any place where worshipping is going on, or any place designated for worship. That is also the meaning of 'masjid.'
A church is a masjid, a memorial hall is a masjid, a synogogue is a masjid, a temple is a masjid, etc., etc.Godbless,
AnwarI pray to God I have been of some help in this debate. A debate in which I hope a common solution will be reached.
-
Salam brother As-Shura,
I did want to leave the discussion because I am a very busy person. Also, because I fear that my liking for debate may interfere with my wanting to learn the Qur'an. I do want to thank you for referring me to the 9107-111 AYAT. I probably need to hear from you what you consider as problematic in it. I will try to address my understanding of it
107 talks about MASJID Dirar sounds ok to me
108 talks about that a MASJID that is founded on TAQWA (Which I will translate as GOD consciousness) is better.
109 Talks about people found their BUNYAN on TAQWA vs those that found their BUNYAN on a cliff that will fall to hell.
Here I have to address the word BUNYAN. It comes from the root B-N-W and it means to build. A BUNYAN is what a person builds or built. So a MASJID is a BUNYAN, and so are other things, including the building of the self. The AYAH 109- to me- expands the principle of the AYAT 107 and 108. We start with MASJID, and in 109 we expand to BUNYAN which is everything that a peson builds including MASJID as well as THEIR own beings.Basically the AYAH says everything you build, including your own self as well as your MASJID, should be built on a foundation of TAQWA.
110 talks about the BUNYAN of those people and it probably addresses all aspects of their BUNYAN (Their own self as well as their MASJID)This is my understanding of the AYAT. I would love to hear your opinion.
SALAM
Hussein