New article: What is the meaning of "al masjid al haram"?
-
peace all,
Ayman said
"At this stage, I would venture to say that NONE of the examples that you gave here inherently imply time by themselves"
and
"So in conclusion, the word ?masjid? doesn?t imply time at all but like other words of this form imply a whole system/institution."I happened to come across another of the same form today
http//corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wqt#(21896)
From
http//www.free-minds.org/Old/articles/science/timing.htm- They ask you regarding the crescent moons, Say "They are timings for the people as well as for the debate." And piety is not that you would enter a home from its back, but piety is whomever is righteous and come to the homes from their main doors. And be aware of the God that you may succeed.
According to the corrected translation, crescent moons in general (both the thinning crescent and the widening crescent) can serve as timing devices.
Another verse that talks about timing/"myqat" is 7142 where Moussa is described as completing the "myqat"/timing. So "myqat"/"mawaqit" can signify timing/timings for completion of something.
As I said, the form maf3il (i.e. "masjid" can and does indicate time, and is nothing new in Arabic. Whether "masjid" means this in Quran is another question.
-
As I said, the form maf3il (i.e. "masjid" can and does indicate time, and is nothing new in Arabic.
Dear Wakas,
Can you find in the entire Arablic literature just one example where it is used as time adverb?
Please just read the difference between adverbs of time and place in English grammar which might help you get out of confusion about Masjid.
-
Perfect example of hypocrisy by Mazhar
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg288191#msg288191In the above link Mazhar openly admits it is the context which determines whether it is noun of time or noun of place, and he happens to think "masjid" is noun of place. But in the above post he seems to imply "masjid" as noun of time is impossible. He has actually implied this several times, but never explicitly stated it I don't think, probably because he knows it would be a lie.
The article discusses this issue in detail
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.htmlOf course, it would be nice to research into the word "masjid" and see if it has been used as a noun of time, but this would take a significant amount of time/cost. I know for example it is use in some Traditional translations as "time of prayer", and they likely got this from earlier works, I don't know. But at the end of the day it does not matter to me if it has never been used as such, as The Quran is the criterion.
-
Perfect example of hypocrisy by Mazhar
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601641.msg288191#msg288191In the above link Mazhar openly admits it is the context which determines whether it is noun of time or noun of place, and he happens to think "masjid" is noun of place. But in the above post he seems to imply "masjid" as noun of time is impossible. He has actually implied this several times, but never explicitly stated it I don't think, probably because he knows it would be a lie.
The article discusses this issue in detail
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.htmlOf course, it would be nice to research into the word "masjid" and see if it has been used as a noun of time, but this would take a significant amount of time/cost. I know for example it is use in some Traditional translations as "time of prayer", and they likely got this from earlier works, I don't know. But at the end of the day it does not matter to me if it has never been used as such, as The Quran is the criterion.
Dear Wakas,
Can you find in the entire Arablic literature just one example where it is used as time adverb?
Please just read the difference between adverbs of time and place in English grammar which might help you get out of confusion about Masjid.
Except reading mindlessly; both statements are trying to tell you, brother Waqas, the same thing. Verbs and other words that collocate with Time Adverb and Locative Adverb are always different.
In the text a word can only be either Time Adverb or Locative Adverb. Just to facilitate you to resolve your confusions, I recommend you to atleast read English grammar.
-
Peace Wakas
Thank you for the article.
I might be wrong but I think there needs to be a correction in your article here
However, that does mean the form "masjid" cannot be a 'noun of place', it theoretically can, as the grammarians also list other exceptions to their rule which are used in AQ and they do seem to indicate time/place (and perhaps concept).I think you intended to say However, that does not mean the form "masjid" cannot be a 'noun of place', it theoretically can...
Peace
-
Peace Wakas
Thank you for the article.
I might be wrong but I think there needs to be a correction in your article here
I think you intended to say However, that does not mean the form "masjid" cannot be a 'noun of place', it theoretically can...Peace
It is only Locative Noun.
Acts have these elements (1) Why, (2) When, (3) Where, (4) How, and (5) What for.
A word can have only one sense in a text.
-
Salaam Wakas,
In my view, 'the inviolable time of SJD/acknowledgement' (i.e. the term referring to the time-period/event of the inviolable months) did not perform poorly in any occurrence
I have to admit your interpretation of "al-masjid al-haram" as "the inviolable time of SJD/acknowledgment" seems better than "the inviolable institution of obedience" due to reasons explained in your article. However, it seems to fare poorly in 2144 and 2150 in 2 different ways as far as "wherever that you are" is concerned.
I will quote your translation of these 2 verses for other's benefit first
2144 Indeed, We see thy face/consideration/purpose shifting/moving fee/in the sky/heaven; so We will surely turn thee (onto/to) a qiblah/focal-point that will please thee so turn thy face/purpose/consideration in the direction (of) al maSJD al haram and wherever that you are so turn your faces/purposes/considerations in its direction and indeed those who have been given the writ/decree know that it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what they do.
2150 And from wherever thou start/come forth so turn thy face/purpose/consideration in the direction (of) al masjid al haram and wherever that you are so turn your faces/purposes/considerations in its direction so that not will be for the people against you debate, except those who wronged among them. So do not fear them, but fear Me and that I may complete My favour upon you and so that you may be guided.
Following are 2 different ways your interpretation of "al-masjid al-haram" does not fit in those 2 verses
-
One should be able to turn one's face/purpose in the direction of "al-masjid al-haram" wherever one may be. This includes future possible colonization of the Moon or Venus or some other planet in a different planetary system where there is no "full-moon" to be able to determine the inviolable time of acknowledgment as per al-quran. How will someone, who has traveled from Earth to those places, turn his/her face/purpose in the direction of "the inviolable time of acknowledgment" from those places?
-
"Wherever that you are" also has an indirect implication of "almost all the time". The reason I am saying "almost" is because if you are completely stationary in one place for a period of time, then that period of time will not count. However, as soon you change your place from one spot to another, the instruction will immediately be applicable again. For example when you are sitting in your bedroom, you are somewhere, and the instruction is applicable to you to turn your face/purpose in the direction of "al-masjid al-haram" and as long as you stay still in one position in the bedroom, time is irrelevant; but as soon as you move to your living room for example, the instruction will be applicable once again. So it indirectly implies "almost at all times".
The problem is that "the inviolable time of acknowledgment" is limited only to a period of 4 inviolable full-moons and not "almost all the time". So how will you turn your face/purpose in the direction of the inviolable time of acknowledgement at times other than the time period of those 4 inviolable full-moons, wherever that you are?
You mentioned in your discussions that al-quran does talk about other actions that are limited to certain times such as "hajj" etc. but those occurrences are not preceded by "wherever that you are".
Kindly explain how your interpretation fits these 2 implications of "wherever that you are".
Salaam
-
-
peace t11,
Thanks for the questions. I think it is a good sign that those are the only two objections you raised after reading the article ;D
The following answer of mine assumes that the instruction to turn one's face/purpose/attention to AMAH etc is applicable for all believers, including those today. In the article I mention this debatable issue
A question may arise, that once the results of such a change in "qiblah" are fulfilled (e.g. believers are brought together, completion of God's favour, and subsequently believers becoming victorious, completion of the messenger's mission and Quran revelation etc), are the believers still to turn their wajh/consideration/purpose in the direction of AMAH wherever they are? In other words, is this a command for all people at all times and all places? I think so, but this could, theoretically, be debated. Interestingly, in Traditional Islamic history itself, there is variance regarding the obligation of hajj and the importance it had/has at the time, and shortly after prophet Muhammad's death.
Re 1)
In your suggested example, if we negate the timing mechanism mentioned in Quran, e.g. "shahr", and are unwilling to use any other, then I do not see how any understanding would work. Not only for this but would impact any subject with a timing component.
However, if we are willing to accept a comparable timing system, then one can institute "al hajj" in one's locality, and everything that goes along with it, AMAH etc.Re 2)
The problem is that "the inviolable time of acknowledgment" is limited only to a period of 4 inviolable full-moons and not "almost all the time". So how will you turn your face/purpose in the direction of the inviolable time of acknowledgement at times other than the time period of those 4 inviolable full-moons, wherever that you are?
Turning one's wajh/purpose/consideration towards 'the inviolable time of acknowledgement' (AMAH) does not necessarily have to occur within that time-period. For example, one can make preparations for such an event out with that time, e.g. rear their animals, work and save money for the trip, gather their trading goods etc etc.
In fact, I think that's how it likely would have been during the time of this particular revelation, i.e. these verses were revealed and then spread far and wide throughout the region so believers knew to prepare themselves, plan etc and converge upon this event-period when the time came. -
What about the aramaic m-s-g-d that is attested for since the 5th century BC? Eg https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantine_papyri
In aramaic it always clearly refers to a place of worship (statue, stele, shrine).
In Nabataean records from the first century BC msgd is also used. Usually taking the form of "this is the msgd made by N for (the designated) God."
Are we not ignoring the etymology of words?
Taking the etymology of the word into account when can only understand masjid as a place of worship.
-
Are we not ignoring the etymology of words?
Taking the etymology of the word into account when can only understand masjid as a place of worship.
There is no ignoring.
It's use in The Quran is the "acid test" so to speak. If anyone thinks place fits best, then this has been considered in the article and a challenge set for those who think this
'The Sacred Mosque' fares most poorly in 171, 2142-150, 2217, 928, and relatively poorly in 2196, 2225, 919. Also, please note that traditional commentators (e.g. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas) frequently switch their understanding of AMAH depending on verse, e.g. it can mean 'the sacred site/area of prostration' in 171, 'kaaba (cuboid)' in 2144/2149/2150, 'the sanctuary / Mecca' in 2196, 2217, 2225, 928. Usually, when one forces an incorrect understanding into AQ it will result in inconsistency/variance/contradiction, see the important test of 482. If the problems discussed in this work can be answered then it recommended for those advocating such a view to put forth their answers.
Feel free to have a go at answering the issues raised in the article for your particular understanding. This is all about putting evidence on the table for each option, then weighing up the options. It just so happens that after I did this, the meaning that had the least issues was 'the inviolable time of acknowledgement'.
-
I still consider the ancient 'Ten Commandments' (the Decree) to be valid and it nullifies any kind of physical representation of God which would mean that the "Qiblah" Kabah is against the constitution of God. It is like one giant statue and idol. Jerusalem and Temple Mount is not any more correct and a place is not more holy than its inhabitants at any given time.
You may yet continue with what you are doing. It is up to each and everyone of us to choose. I just voiced what I find it truer.
Be well
Emanuel -
There is no ignoring.
It's use in The Quran is the "acid test" so to speak. If anyone thinks place fits best, then this has been considered in the article and a challenge set for those who think this
Feel free to have a go at answering the issues raised in the article for your particular understanding. This is all about putting evidence on the table for each option, then weighing up the options. It just so happens that after I did this, the meaning that had the least issues was 'the inviolable time of acknowledgement'.
Wakas,
Your understanding is not even proper English. How does one face "the inviolable time of acknowledgement". One can not turn face to time. If I have the time I will address the "issues". But what is already clear is that TIME is an ABSTRACT. You can't physically turn to something ABSTRACT. This should tell you enough already.
-
171 you deem to fit poorly with an understanding of a placename. How you have come to this conclusion is a mystery. Taking someone from place A to B rather confirms it to be a place!
2142-150 you deem to fit poorly. But turning a PHYSICAL body part into the DIRECTION OF, demands it to be a PLACE and not some abstract concept.
2217 again ONLY ALLOWS it to be place hindering access to requires AMA to be a place. You can't hinder access to an ABSTRACT such as TIME.
928 "don't let them get near to" AGAIN demands it to be PLACE! You can't forbid polytheists to GO NEAR an ABSTRACT such as TIME.
So we can see the evidence you deem to be proving AMA can't be physical place, is in contrary EVIDENCE it can't be an ABSTRACT such as TIME.
It seems to me you have been trying to FORCE your argument, Wakas. Back to the drawing board I guess.
-
Despite your assumption it refers to turning one's physical face in a particular direction...
Your understanding is not even proper English. How does one face "the inviolable time of acknowledgement". One can not turn face to time. If I have the time I will address the "issues". But what is already clear is that TIME is an ABSTRACT. You can't physically turn to something ABSTRACT.
679 "I shall turn my wajh to the One who created the heavens and the earth..."
2148 "...he turns towards it (wijhatun/course/goal)"
Clearly, proving Quran uses the same terminology with something abstract.
It is unfortunate that you seem to rush into analysis without pondering the article carefully. Both of the above examples were cited in the article.
-
Despite your assumption it refers to turning one's physical face in a particular direction...
679 "I shall turn my wajh to the One who created the heavens and the earth..."
2148 "...he turns towards it (wijhatun/course/goal)"
Well you can only turn your face towards God using a qibla. Without a physical qibla, it becomes impossible and self-contradictory in ANY language given an ALL-ENCOMPASSING God.
Are you disputing wajh means face? Can you turn your face towards time? You can turn your face towards a clock (a pyhsical object), but not towards TIME. Are you disputing this basic logic?
This reveals another issue with your article. In your article you assume facing requires you to be able to SEE it. But this is not true. Facing only expresses direction, it only requires knowledge of the direction. It's feasible without actual perception.
I'm not rushing I think your proof is flawed as I'm demonstrating.
-
Note my edit above (last two sentences added).
Well you can only turn your face towards God using a qibla. Without a physical qibla, it becomes impossible and self-contradictory in ANY language given an ALL-ENCOMPASSING God.
No, to state a specific direction for an all encompassing God does not make sense. Hence the Quranic position
- In addition to 2142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2115, 2142-150, 2177.
You cant run from the clear verses.
And lastly, in case this is not obvious, you didn't even attempt to answer the issues raised in the article. You simply stated how a place makes sense and ignored the specific issues I raise about those verses.
-
Note my edit above (last two sentences added).
No, to state a specific direction for an all encompassing God does not make sense. Hence the Quranic position
You cant run from the clear verses.
And lastly, in case this is not obvious, you didn't even attempt to answer the issues raised in the article. You simply stated how a place makes sense and ignored the specific issues I raise about those verses.
The verses are clear when the Prophet was looking towards the sky seeking God, God appointed for him a physical qibla that would please him AMAH. You simply negate the entire understanding of AMAH as a physical place saying "there was no such building" at that time.
A place known to be a sanctuary does not require to have a shrine on it. It can be known by it's landmarks (eg Mount Moriah/Marwa).
How about addressing the point I raised can you turn your FACE towards TIME? If you are truthful, you would agree you can't. You can only turn your FACE towards something physical.
When Quran says turn your face towards God, one can only do so WITH a PHYSICAL Qibla, how does a quranist such as yourself interprete that verse without physical Qibla? Are you looking at the sky like the prophet did before the qibla was appointed? If you can look anywhere you want and always face God/the qibla; then why would Quran explicitly have to state face God/the qibla? You are always doing so by definition. It's non-sensical to interprete it outside a clear reference to a physical qibla.
-
- In addition to 2142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2115, 2142-150, 2177.
You abrogate. It say piety/righteousness is NOT x but y. Logic demands y can still include x. Facing the RIGHT qibla is not equal to piety. But not knowing where your qibla is makes piety pretty difficult. It means you don't even know where your faith started. The initial submission of Abraham.
Only knowing the qibla and not doing the rest is of course equally not piety. That verse does not say it is IRRELEVANT, but IRRELEVANT to measure Piety with without taking all the other requirements into account.
2115 does not render a command from God to face physical AMAH invalid nor irrelevant. God is all-encompassing. God appointed a Qibla. Those two don't contradict. The qibla is not Gods FACE.
Think about it Wakas. Polytheists have many qiblas. Without God appointing a physical qibla, any polytheist would be able to say I'm not doing anything wrong facing this "pagan" masjid because God is all-encompassing. Without a physical qibla, nothing distincts the believer from the mushrikun. And this is the true purpose of the Qibla. Making the mushrikun evident. It requires ONE physical qibla. All the believers will turn to it, all the mushrikun will turn back on their heels to their many masjids never appointed by God.
Before Quran used the word masjid, the aramaic cognate was used to denote places of idol worship. Pre-dating quran by almost a millenium.
-
Our conversation reminds me of our discussion on the "change of qiblah" verses. You insisted upon a certain understanding (I tried to point out some of the resultant problems), you insisted on your view, then you changed your understanding later on in another thread.
Your replies indicate you have not read the article carefully, e.g.
In your article you assume facing requires you to be able to SEE it.
Article does not say that. I even mention the specific case of facing it from a long distance on spheroid earth.
Are you disputing wajh means face?
It is blatantly obvious in the article, and in my replies to you, that wajh can mean things other than face. A little tip when trying to understand Quran do not assume a word only means X when alternative options exist. If you want to only use X then one must first prove it only means X.
Your analysis is lacking right from the start. For example
Your first objection was one cannot turn one's physical face towards an abstract thing such as time. I responded by first pointing out you are assuming it refers to a physical face turning and then I pointed out Quran uses same terminology for abstract things. Your position was refuted at worst, or seriously damaged at best.
You then replied by basically arguing that you can face an abstract thing such as God but you need a physical direction to achieve that. Not only is this a nonsense statement, explicitly contradicting Quran, but it forces you to insert your interpretation into 679, where there is no mention of qiblah.
The primary difference here is that I try to deal with what Quran actually says, not what I would like it to say.If you genuinely want to discuss this properly, then perhaps I can help us, with some advice
- read the article carefully.
- provide your answers for the issues I raise in a concise and structured manner, e.g.
Re 171
State your view AMAH to mean X, AMAA to mean Y.
171 says "God took his servant" because..., It uses "aqsa" because...., It's "blessed around it" because..., "that we may show him our signs" means...
The dual mention of masjid in 171 relates (or does not relate) to 177 "...enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time..." because of....
what is the connection to 1760 if any (if none, explain it)
what is the connection to 4827 if any (if none, explain it)Once you have done this, then we can see what option is the better fit in 171. And this is only for 171. I pointed out the other issues to you right from the start.
It seems to me you have a pre-conceived notion and are trying to make the verses fit, but have not thought it through. Much like our "change of qiblah" discussion.
Take your time, and work through the issues. If I find your replies indicate you have read the article carefully I will reply.
