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

[Wakas]

peace rlz,

Thanks for the reply however it requires further clarification in order for it to be possible and not contradict

2142 The foolish from the people will say "What has turned THEM...
Who are THEM?
Your replies suggest it is the Jews/Christians, but if so, the people asking such cannot be classed as foolish, as you openly admit the Jews turning away from the Temple mount is wrong, thus would make the askers of sound-mind.

Your rendering of 2145 makes little sense, and very awkward wording

2145
And even if thou come to those who have been given the quran they would not follow thy qiblah/focal-point (temple mount), and nor will thou be a follower of their qiblah/focal-point (stone idol place?), and nor some of them are followers of each others qiblah/focal-point. And surely if thou were to follow their desires from after what came to thou of the knowledge, indeed thou would then surely be among the wrongdoers.
2146
Those to whom We have given the quran recognise it (AMAH=temple mount) like they recognise their sons; and indeed a group of them surely hides the truth while they know.

2150 ...so that not will be for the people against you debate...
According to you everyone (christians, jews, those given quran) are disputing the qiblah thus would increase debate, not reduce it.

The messenger triumphed and God completed His favour, thus those given Quran did heed the qiblah.

Your view also has other issues such as awkward present tense reading of 2143.

In any case, your rendering has too many issues for me to consider it viable.

[Wakas]

peace noshirk,

Qibla, for me, has nothing to do with a focal point in a geographic meaning. It goes with tariq mostaqim, straight path, wich is also a spiritual orientation path, not a geographical direction, that is the one in direction of God.

2142 The foolish from the people will say "What has turned THEM from the straight path which they were on it?"

Who are THEM?

[Man_of_Faith]

The path is the doctrine and Qiblah what is therein, the acceptance of which it contains and what must be done spiritually. It is no prayer direction. Refer to Moses and the homes into qiblah. Do you not think it was rather that their households were to focus on the revelation of the prophet which was (laid) before them?

Be well

[runninglikezebras]

peace rlz,

Thanks for the reply however it requires further clarification in order for it to be possible and not contradict

2142 The foolish from the people will say "What has turned THEM...
Who are THEM?
Your replies suggest it is the Jews/Christians, but if so, the people asking such cannot be classed as foolish, as you openly admit the Jews turning away from the Temple mount is wrong, thus would make the askers of sound-mind.

Your rendering of 2145 makes little sense, and very awkward wording

2145
And even if thou come to those who have been given the quran they would not follow thy qiblah/focal-point (temple mount), and nor will thou be a follower of their qiblah/focal-point (stone idol place?), and nor some of them are followers of each others qiblah/focal-point. And surely if thou were to follow their desires from after what came to thou of the knowledge, indeed thou would then surely be among the wrongdoers.
2146
Those to whom We have given the quran recognise it (AMAH=temple mount) like they recognise their sons; and indeed a group of them surely hides the truth while they know.

2150 ...so that not will be for the people against you debate...
According to you everyone (christians, jews, those given quran) are disputing the qiblah thus would increase debate, not reduce it.

The messenger triumphed and God completed His favour, thus those given Quran did heed the qiblah.

Your view also has other issues such as awkward present tense reading of 2143.

In any case, your rendering has too many issues for me to consider it viable.

Peace Wakas,

I may have not been clear on that. Let me attempt to clarify.

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

Breaking it down

Consider first the question

"What has turned them from the qiblah/focal-point which they were on* it?"

Who was on the focal point but no longer is but which they were on it? The jews. Before the byzantine rule of jerusalem and the pact with the christians there was jewish presence in Jerusalem. This changed with the christian/byzantine rule of the city.

Why were they turned from the qiblah/focal-point which they were on it? Because of the christians/byzantines preventing them.

Now lets address the foolishness of the question.

Why is this question asked? What is the motivation of someone asking that question? The question is asked by a foolish muslim who asks God why he/she should accept a qiblah that has been deserted by even the Jews and Christians. Why should a muslim accept such a place as their qiblah when the people of the book before them left it behind. This relates back to the previous verses that asks you whether Yaqub, Ibrahim and others were Christians or Jews. Was Ibrahim a christian that refused others access to temple mount? Was Ibrahim a Jew who lost access to temple mount because of breaking his convenant with God? Quran uses a very wonderful structure to point out when it comes down to accepting the Qiblah we should not look at the jews or christians because they have been unguided. Neither should we just follow those claiming to be muslim about where they say the qiblah is. One should accept the message in Quran. And the message is quite clear about it.

Only the foolish would ask God to answer to such a question. God guides whoever God wishes. The reason the christians did not recognize temple mount is because they were unguided. The reason the jews lost access to temple mount is because of being unguided by God. Violating their convenant.

The rendering does not look awkward to me. It fits the historical record of Jerusalem like a glove. You misunderstand there was increased debate about where the qiblah was. Let me clarify

1. Christians reject temple mount to be reinstituted by the Jews but acknowledge it's sanctuary, though in their view only a christian one.
2. Jews acknowledge the Qiblah. Lost access to it logistically.
3. Muslims acknowledge the Qiblah. Though God is aware some of them will want to return to their many different qiblahs of idol worship. Muslims are appointed by God to protect the free access to Temple Mount for all. This is still true today (see Waqf).

As you can see the debate was not so much about where the Qiblah is but who is allowed access to it.

2150 ...so that not will be for the people against you debate...

You abrogate, read further

... except among you do the wrongdoers."

The disallowed access to any group whether they are christian, jew or muslim is an act of wrongdoing. The dispute only exists among the unguided. The dispute had many expressions from expelling jews entirely from Jerusalem to allowing them only in a certain period as decided by the christians. One can imagine how such disputes must have offended God concerning the qiblah and the sanctuary.

These verses that have been traditionally explained as a change in Qiblah are in reality the first appointment of the Qiblah to the muslims and breaking the stalemate of denied access caused by the Jewish Christian disputes*.

Jerusalem was conquered by Arab forces in May 638, an accomplishment ascribed by Muslim sources to the Caliph Umar. In return for assistance in the taking of the city, the Jews received the right to reside in Jerusalem and to pray on the Temple Mount without interference.

( Jacob Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphate (Ithaca Cornell University Library, 1920), vol. 2, pp. 188-9; Ben-Zion Dinor (Dinaburg), "Bet Tefila u'midrash l'yehudim al har habayit bi'mey ha'aravim," Zion, 3 (1929), pp. 54-87.)

Peace

[noshirk]

peace noshirk,

2142 The foolish from the people will say "What has turned THEM from the straight path which they were on it?"

Who are THEM?

Salaam Wakas

2142 The foolish from among the people will say ?What has turned them away from the QIBLA that they were on?? Say ?To God are the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.?

Clearly foolish are people on a wrong/another path/direction. Foolish is not a geographical direction.

2145 And if you come to those who have been given the Book with every sign they will not follow your QIBLA, nor will you follow their QIBLA, nor will some of them even follow each others QIBLA. And if you were to follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you would be one of the wicked.

What is QIBLA of christians ?
QIBLA is just a spiritual direction. Like Tariq mustaqim. You cannot find tariq mustaqim on google maps.

the funny remark is that if there was "focal geographical point", all around this point, people are faceing each other in opposite direction.
and like other noticed, on a spherical earth, target of "geographical focal point" goes directly in the sky.
Other funny remark, on opposite point in the sphere, whateever direction is direction of focal point.
and the funniest remark, wherever on a spherical earth, exactly opposite of direction to focal point is direction of focal point. Quran never said that shortest path is the good path".

2148 And to each is a direction (WIJHA) that he will take, so you shall race towards good deeds. Wherever you may be, God will bring you all together. God is capable of all things.
2149 And from wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the "Masjid Haram"; it is the truth from your Lord; and God is not unaware of what you do.

MAsjid Haram cannot be a geographical point. the good Wijha is not a geographical.
if so, all muslims should go in the same geographical direction, from wherever they go out,

Peace

[Wakas]

peace rlz,

As I said, your view has too many issues for me to consider it viable. Of course, others may think its reasonable.

peace no shirk,

You didn't answer my question. In your view you seem to be stuck in a conundrum, because if you take qiblah as spiritual path such as "straight path" it is impossible for there to be a qiblah change by believers, i.e. from straight path to something else.

Also, I'm not sure why your post was peppered with reasons why qiblah is not a physical direction when that is not my view, as stated in the article. I assume you have read and digested what the article is saying.

qiblah is simply something that receives attention/focus, i.e. focal-point. This could be applied to many things.

[noshirk]

Salaam Wakas

I assume you have read and digested what the article is saying.

Oups! sorry.

however, i answered your question

2142 The foolish from among the people will say ?What has turned them away from the QIBLA that they were on?? Say ?To God are the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.?

Clearly foolish are people on a wrong/another path/direction. Foolish is not a geographical direction.

please note, in the traduction, i am not agree to traduce wallahom by has turned them away.
i would have traduced

2142 The foolish from among the people will say ?From where did they get authority to leave QIBLA that they were on?? Say ?To ALLAH are the Machariq and the Maghrib He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.?

now it is clear that
there is no allusion of a new qibla here. Only to an old Qibla. And old qibla seems to be opposed to tariq mustaqim is this verse.
there is also a second level of understanding in east and west. machriq and maghrib points to light. To Allah is "the authority" to give light or to drop it.
So good Qibla is direction of light where Allah guides in straight path.
Foolish are then who cannot see that light of Allah is the target of a straight path.

so you can apply the maf3aal argument to machriq and maghrib to the light of god.

Peace

[runninglikezebras]

2140 does not make any sense unless you accept this refers to the denied access to the jews by christians to temple mount/jerusalem.

I agree there is no mentioning of a new qiblah, only if your mind was brainwashed with sunna you will interprete it like a change. But I don't understand your position noshirk. You admit it refers to an existing qiblah, but you seem to deny it involves the qiblah that was already known to the jews.)

"The qiblah they were on" ... it's incredible how people are capable of misunderstanding that this is the Qiblah known to the jews. How can it possibly refer to something else? Who was on the qiblah for centuries if not the jews? Can someone who rejects the qiblah/temple mount explain to me who was on the qiblah if not the jews?

Who turned away from the qiblah? Please tell me who was expelled from temple mount if not the jews by christians/byzantines/romans?

How one can be blind to the fact that this is referring to jews and christians (see 2140) is completely beyond my understanding...

In jewish faith the mizrah is as old as Solomon. Their direction of prayer is based on the prayer of Solomon and repeated in the story of David. If these are corruptions why does Quran not tell us explicitly the jews are praying in the wrong direction? Moreover, how would you explain Jerusalem was so important even in Muhammads life (attested by the battle with the byzantines). Why on earth would early muslims build a sacred place next to the jewish ones on top of a qiblah that is false? Why on earth would muslim conquerors of jerusalem grant access to temple mount to the jews for a worship that is false? This my friends, makes no sense at all.

Reject the qiblah and you will get smacked in the face by the historical record of jerusalem. This historical record only allows the interpretation of masjid al haram being temple mount. Some of you would turn temple mount into a garbage dump it looks like, robbed of all its meaning.

Check the inscriptions on the dome of the rock. Do they state the jews are having a wrong qiblah like it states the christians are wrong to think jesus is a god? It doesn't. Don't you think if that qiblah would be wrong, it would have been there? Wouldnt Quran explicitly state that the jewish qiblah is wrong? It does not say this, in contrary it reaffirms the existing qiblah.

I wonder how those who reject temple mount being the qiblah interprete 2140

Also consider the consequence of denying this qiblah. It means you are throwing out all the history and common grounds with the jewish faith you will have to rewrite the history of Ibrahim, the people of Israel and so much more. In fact, I would even dare to say, if you reject temple mount as the qiblah you are no longer having an Islamic perspective, because you just threw out all the abrahamic history. Islam is an abrahamic faith. The history of messengers and prophets is shared with judaism. Where it differs, Quran tells us about their corruptions. If you interprete Quran and deny it reaffirms the existing Qiblah God appointed to the jews and to the muslims, then you are adhering to a version of Islam that is no longer abrahamic. You are no longer part of the 'balanced community' that is referred to in those verses. Indeed, by rejecting the qiblah you are unlike Ibrahim, Ishmael etc more like a christian than muslim (see 2140).

To me Islam is not a new faith. There is only one God and only one system. There is only one Qiblah. There is only one Ibrahim. One Adam. One Musa. God does not abrogate. The corruption in Jewish and Christian faith, is just like the corruption in Islamic sectarianism a result of human corruption of the one message. This rejection of abrahamic roots to me is the downfall of quranism. There is a tendency on this forum to create a schism with the abrahamic common past among quranists here that in the end will prove the sectarians right when they accuse quranists of being a sect.

"We made the direction of prayer you were used to except that We make evident (he) who follows the Messenger from (he) who turns back on his heels."

Sunni's turned back on their heels, shiites turned back on their heels and apparently even among quranists we find many turning back on their heels. It's equal to me. But this reminds me, how do those rejecting Temple Mount or the qiblah being a geographical place explain this wording of 'turning back on their heels'? You can only turn back on your heels from a geographical place/direction. This wording is so self-evident that the misunderstanding is flabbergasting to me.

It's funny, even before I ever read Quran, jerusalem was always a focal point to me. Not in a religious sense as it is for me today but more in a political, human rights way. For some reason the Israeli Palestine conflict has always been one of my major concerns. It still is today but since reading Quran I understand what this place means spiritually. I never could understand how it was possible that, in a region so heavily burdened by oppression, human rights violation, war and conflict - jerusalem was still a safe place for both muslims, jews and christians. Even to someone secular this is highly extraordinary. God willing I will one day visit Temple Mount.

I will refrain from further debating this topic as I find the rejection in this thread quite depressing, preventing me from contributing much more rational arguments.

Peace

[runninglikezebras]

Etymologically not understanding qiblah as a direction has many issues. Qibla is borrowed from aramaic.

Every language that has borrowed the word from aramaic has a definition of direction

Fula alkibila - direction
Hindi kibla - direction
Indonesian kiblat - direction

All borrowed from the aramaic qeble.

Peace

[noshirk]

dear runninglikezebras

there was old qibla as there was wrong path to Allah. All is spiritual directions. tariq mustaqim and all other directions.
Nothing to do with anything you can draw on a map.

i will not discuss 2-140 since i see no way to make appear temple mount of Jerusalem there.

my rejection is however so big that i can't even understand what Salomon has to do jerusalem.

3835 He (Salomon) said ?My Lord, forgive me, and grant me a kingship that will never be attained by anyone after me. You are the Grantor.?

3412 And for Solomon the wind was given, traveling one month coming and one month going, and We caused a spring of tar to flow for him. And from among the Jinn are those that worked for him with the permission of his Lord; and any one of them who turns from Our commands, We shall cause him to taste the retribution of the Fire.
3413 They made for him what he desired of enclosures, and images and pools of deep reservoirs, and heavy pots. ?O family of David, work to give thanks.? Only a few of My servants are thankful.

As you see, Salomon was at the head of very big empire with many architectural building
there is no archeological traces of such things in jeruslam
it is not only the religious temple of salomon that was lost in Jeruslem. They lost also "kingship that will never be attained by anyone after me (Salomon)". pools, senclosure and so on. It is the greatest archeological dispartion in human kind.

Peace

[Man_of_Faith]

You should study several lexicons and not just one. And you should focus on what the root means and not stare yourself blind on forms derived from it.

The root means what you have in your vicinity and have admitted with the Qiblateh the object form of it, whether it is a physical object or not.

Be well

[runninglikezebras]

@noshirk There has never been done any proper archaeological study on temple mount so there is little to conclude about the archaealogical evidence of Solomons temple. Also bear in mind the temple has been destroyed and rebuilt many times over the centuries. Finding evidence of it will be hard. I don't think you can conclude from it it didn't exist.

@MOF the etymology I quoted is not from lexicons but are etymological facts. The aramaic source means no such thing as "what you have in your vicinity". The qeble of the wind. How would you translate that using your definition? It fails. Quran even makes the interpretation easy by referring to east and west - literally directions.

Peace

[Man_of_Faith]

Etymology is usually recorded in lexicons and in how languages are used needs to be preserved to know how a word is to be used. Where do you think the researchers who studied the etymology got their definitions? They studied lexicons, samples of text and compare it to how the word is used today, but it does often not take bias into consideration as much as it should.

The definitions I mentioned are not within the lexicons for fun but because that is what the word has in terms of connotations. Before, in front of, within reach, accepted, admitted are all definitions to define one and the same word because it is a conscious choice of adherence to. That is the morphological meaning of the word "Conscious about such ". It speaks of the mental process of admitting anything to influence a person, therefore the usage as "reception" in a lexicon that Hicham9 mentioned as it has to do with acceptance. This way you let something be "before you" as that is what you accepted/received. When forming Qiblateh (the original Classical Arabic pronunciation of it as the actual letter is called "teh" which you should know who speak of Aramaic) you render what you accepted into a singular object reference.

If you involve what Hicham9 said about reception then the homes of the "Bani Israel" were turned into acceptors of the guidance, i.e. put it in practical use, that Moses came with as the prophet (enlightened one) he was. It is to speak of approval of something. The Qiblateh is what was approved of (the object).

It does not say directions physically east or west but it says metaphorically as to being in confusion without knowing what to ACCEPT. The word used for face is seldom used to mark such but it refers to mental perception. It would mean GOD also has a face. No it is not a physical face, but purely mental. It sounds lame if your mind to east or west.

Be well

[runninglikezebras]

So in your opinion interpreting east and west literally as directions is far-fetched but a complex definition is not?

The simple truth is qeble is often used in aramaic among others to express wind directions. As such it is used in 2142. Your definition simply is incompatible with expressing any such direction, as directions are neither near nor far but always out of reach since they are relative orientations. A direction is rendered meaningless when you are on it. Eg if you take a compass to the north pole, north becomes meaningless. God does not need to have a face to be able to express relative directions like east and west. If you are aware of everything, even what people hide, then one can always express x has this direction compared to a remote y. Does God need to have a face to tell us in Quran where the sun rises?

As such qibla is used in Quran. It's function is to point to a remote point.

"Facing" is the original meaning of the root word qbl, qibbel in hebrew meaning "receive" is a derivative! There is no reason to suggest the meaning in Quran of qbl is a derivative especially when used in a phrase citing east and west.

"Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his
house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he
kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks
before his God, as he did aforetime. (Daniel 6 11)"

Peace

[hicham9]

I understand qblh as a place of acceptance/welcome/hospitality/cordial reception

Thus, to my knowledge

1. In 2142/5 qblh denotes a destination = a site appointed to receive/host/accommodate the Messenger of G-D.

2. In 1087

G-D instructs Ms? and his brother to settle their community in mr (Mesopotamia),
make their homes hospitable , and establish/maintain the lh , ...

Nb. upholding a so-called "prayer direction" is clearly a denial of G-D's Omnipresence !
I classify this preposterous, non-Qurnic, Sunni doctrine as a form of personification.

? qblh () qbylh ()] is derived from the Arabian, ?emitic root qbl () ~ to oppose, receive, or appeal to

SLM

[runninglikezebras]

Edit Misread your post Hicham9

This illustrates the use of the derivative and original meaning. But I don't see how anyone can consider the derivative meaning (place of reception) - when this word is being used in context of east and west - as still plausible.

Peace

[hicham9]

... I don't see how anyone can consider the derivative meaning (place of reception) - when this word is being used in context of east and west - as still plausible.

Plz, reread what I said

In 2142/5 qblh denotes a destination

= a site appointed to receive/host/accommodate the Messenger of G-D.

SLM

[runninglikezebras]

I wasn't addressing you with that @hicham9

Although in my opinion destination is a poor translation. Direction/orientation is way more precise. qbl does not necessarily involve travelling. Eg a wall or any static object can have a qibla.

The front of my house has a qeble that is north. My garage has a qeble that is south etc. All these are valid in aramaic and in arab. None of those things, neither my house nor garage is travelling or going anywhere.

Neither is Daniel crawling on his knees towards Jerusalem three times a day when the aramaic qbl is used in Daniel 6 11

Here's a transliteration

611 vdnyl kdy ydj dy-rsym ktb jl lbyth vkvyn ptyxn lh bjlyth ngd yrvslm vzmnyn tlth byvm hv brk jl-brkvhy vm&l vmvd qdm lhh kl-qbl dy-hv jbd mn-qdmt dnh.

Note the occurence of the aramaic qbl even in the hebrew version. Interestingly enough this verse is explicitly used for a prayer direction, namely Jerusalem. Daniel is nowhere near the vicinity of Jerusalem as he lived his entire lifetime in Babylonian captivity. Need to say more?

Good thing traffic signs aren't in quranic arabic or you'd all be driving in the wrong direction )

I guess many of you have a problem with getting on their knees for God, regardless of the direction that is appointed by God. So be it. I think I provided conclusive evidence.

Peace

[hicham9]

Pardon my ignorance rlz but,
how is biblical the same as n.f. qblh () again!?

[runninglikezebras]

Both (hebrew and arab) have borrowed qbl from aramaic. They are linguistically called borrowed words/loanwords. The original meaning though is 'facing/orientation/direction'. You are quoting derivatives not the original aramaic meaning. Daniel is well-known by experts for it's heavy use of aramaic borrowed words and so is Quran.

This is exactly where Wakas article is failing. It fails to recognize this is a borrowed aramaic word and tries to find meaning using Quran only. He's overlooking this word is older than Quran and the arab language. It is not an arab word originally. It has plenty of occurrences outside Quran like in Daniel, you have to test any thesis using those external sources as well. You can't just alter the meaning of a word like you wish. Linguistics are not a puzzle game.

Wakas article uses a methodology that tries to fit pieces (meaning) inside Quranic verses only, like a puzzle game. He should do a better job at crosschecking the etymology of words first. Not only is this overlooked in the article what concerns qibla but also concerning masjid which is a borrowed word as well.

@Wakas I hope you can appreciate this as a constructive criticism, crosscheck the etymology of these words yourself. Don't take my word for it. Once you take etymology into consideration as well, I'm sure the quality of your article will surpass the amateuristic level it is at now. Imagine if all linguists would use this methodology, using one book only to discover the meaning of a word that is untranslated and borrowed from a donor other language. It would be a total mess. No one would agree with the meaning of anything. It's not an objective methodology, it's entirely subjective which undermines all the effort that was put into the work.

Any linguist will tell you when studying the meaning of a loanword you are making a huge mistake by ignoring the donor language. These words are borrowed untranslated. You have to look at the donor language.

Other examples of loanwords are eg kindergarten in English, the donor language is german. If you want to know what kindergarten means, you have to study the donor language. There is just no other way. What Wakas is doing, and others in this thread, is trying to understand the meaning of kindergarten using the English language only, ignoring the donor language, german, entirely. One can see how that is a lost case to being with. In case of qibla, the donor language is aramaic. Wakas and others in this thread refuse to even look at the donor language and its use in known sources using the root word or having loaned the word as well.

Anyone that doesn't understand the importance of the above, is in my opinion incapable of shedding any light on the matter, but will rather cause more confusion.

If anyone is interested in online tools to check the etymology of quranic and arab words just private message me, I will hook a brother/sister up. jedi

Peace