New article: What is the meaning of "al masjid al haram"?
-
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.
-
It is blatantly obvious in the article, and in my replies to you, that wajh can mean things other than face.
If you dispute wajh means face then I guess we are done talking. That's not a reasonable position but entirely irrational. Same thing with masjid. Those are defined in the entire semitic language tree. Your understanding of them contradicts and negates those completely. So why should I be discussing logic with you if your understanding of those words requires a rewrite of every hebrew, aramaic, phoenician and arabic lexicon.
But feel free to claim yourself victor in this debate already. How do you expect anyone will take your article serious when there is not one aramaic use of the cognate of masjid that allows for it to be referring to time instead of a place/sanctuary? Dito for your revisionist understanding of wajh. Academics will seriously laugh with you when you claim masjid and face means what you claim. As am I. I think you are a deluded; and by doing so even leading people astray. Turning them into not mushrikun but kfr (rejecters).
Imagine how people 1400 years ago would receive the message as it is interpreted by imam Wakas here "turn your face to the inviolable time" The whole crowd would be looking at him like he was speaking chinese. Probably point and laugh at him as well for uttering gibberish.
-
You like to talk much and evidence little.
So why should I be discussing logic with you if your understanding of those words requires a rewrite of every hebrew, aramaic, phoenician and arabic lexicon.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
= Waw-Jiim-ha = to face/encounter/confront, face, will, course/purpose/object one is pursuing, place/direction one is going/looking, way of a thing, consideration/regard.
Wajjahtu (prf. 1st. p. sing. II.) I turned or set formerly, have turned with devotion.
Yuwajjih (imp. 3rd. p. m. sing. juss. II) Sends.
Tawajjaha (prf. 3rd. p. m. sing. V.) Turned; Proceeded.
Wajiihan (adj.) Honourable; Held in high repute; Worthy of regard; Illustrious.
Wajhun (n.) Face; Continance; Qiblah; Direction; Heart, Soul; Oneself; Break or appear as part; In accordance with a fact; Sake; Way; Desired way; Object; Motive; Deed or action to which a person directs his attention; Favour; Whole being, Purpose.
Wujuuh (n. plu.) Wijhatun (n.) Direction.I think you are right in terms of ending our discussion as there seems to be irreconcilable differences in methodology. Quran's usage is my criterion.
"...I have surrendered my wajh unto God..."
-
First of all God tells us the Quran is clear and easy to understand.
?A.L.R. these are the signs of the clear book? 121
?We have made it (the Quran) easy to understand and in your own tongue (language) may you take heed.? 4458Throughout the Quran, it tells us repeatedly that it is Clear, without contradiction. That it is written in Clear arabic language.
God would not give us this wonderfull book, full of clear words, with clear meanings and then expect us to somehow devise the 'hidden meaning' and alternative definitions of words to decipher the true meaning of his verses.
In fact God says
He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verseswhich constitute the essence of the scriptureas well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in thisall of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.Note the word straightfoward. its pretty straightfoward.
In ragards to Qiblah
1087 'make your houses Qiblah'
-what does this mean? the next sentance mentions The Salat. The straightfoward meaning would make make your houses facing a direction.
2142 the foolish people say 'what turned them away from thier qiblah which they used to face?'
We learn from this verse that the Muslims used to face (from memory the verse litteraly says the Qiblah they were upon) a Qiblah and it changed. The people could see this as it was evident to them by them mocking the Muslims about it. So it must be something that can be physicaly observed. Next sentance mentions the east and the west. It seems this is associating the Qiblah with Physical directions.
2143 here we see that the Qiblah change Distinguished/marked/made known those who follow the Messenger. So this seems to make it an evident/observable thing.
2144 The subject of this verse was turning his face (face/course/direction/self/attention) towards the sky. the sky is a physical thing.. Then it says to 'turn in the direction of Al-Masjid Al-Haram'. turn your faces in 'That direction'So i can see from theese verses that the Qiblah is
-a direction/course one may face/turn towards/turn attention towards. Directly associated with Al-Masjid Al-Haram
-something that people can observe others doing.
-something that changed, and it was noticable.
-mentioned alongside the East and the West, PrayerNow what is Al-Masjid Al-Haram?
we learn from 97 people made a treaty near it.
we learn from 834, 2225, 2217 that certain people obstruct others from it.
we leran from 2225, 919, 834 that Certain people dwell/abide in it. that certain people maintain it, and give drink to pilgrims. That certain people Gaurd it, but they are not supposed to be its gaurdians because they are wicked.
we learn from 2191 that it is a place that people can fight atAll this seems to point to the fact that Al-Masjid Al-Haram is a physical place. It seems to me clear that The Qiblah is a Direction that one faces towards Al-Masjid Al-Haram.
Look at the previous scriptures, we find examples of people praying towards a certain direction during prayer, look at the previous religions, christianity and judaism, they both face a prayer direction towards what they consider their Sacred Temple.
Now if i am wrong about something i would like to be corrected, I am by no means an expert on Arabic language, but the Quran seems very clear to me. -
peace all,
I have updated the article http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html
change of qiblah - an understanding based on Quran
The information we can extract about the meaning of "qiblah", and the change, from these verses is as follows
this new change is in some way related to guiding to a straight/establishing path, and making the believers a balanced/moderate community
the qiblah which they were on was a great test (i.e. difficult), except those God guided, and their belief in such was not going to be for nothing, hence this new qiblah pleased the messenger (i.e. less hardship/difficulty)
in this case the qiblah happens to be AMAH, but there are potentially many other qiblah, as individuals could have their own qiblah
in 2148 the usage of "wherever" is the ONLY time it appears without a close link to "turn+wajh+AMAH" therefore likens "wijhatun (direction/course/goal/motive)" with "qiblah" and consequently likens AMAH to "race to the good" or at least we can say AMAH involves this. Furthermore, AQ implies each person may have their own "qiblah" in 2145 then later in 2148 says "for each is a wijhatun he turns towards it", strongly suggesting "qiblah" and "wijhatun" are being related as similar terms/concepts. Please re-read these verses as this is a key finding.
those who have been given the kitab/book/decree who that it is the truth, and recognise it like they recognise their sons but hide the truth. Their qiblah is likely based on desires
the effects of this change will be less debate from the people (implying the former qiblah produced more debate), lead to God completing His favour, aid guiding, and bringing you all together wherever you are.
wherever one is they should turn their wajh/purpose/consideration in the direction of AMAH, and from wherever they depart, from the contexts that likley involves being oriented towards the truth of your Lord, the good, and uniting of believersand
2150 "wherever thou start/come forth" implies the messenger would have to depart from somewhere, whilst others may not necessarily have to do so. Bringing you all together could be a reference to an ushering towards one place/event at one time. Interestingly, the root of the term "shatra (in the direction of)" has some links to things distant/remote and journeying to a distant/remote country/land. This may be a coincidence but it may explain a connotation this term has and the reason for its unique usage in these verses, especially so considering the use of "wherever you depart" and "God will bring you all together"
-
peace all,
Almost 6 years after writing the article I am not aware of anyone who attempted to answer the 20 problems raised for the so-called "change of qiblah" verses, and in addition, I'm not aware of anyone who addressed the summarised list of problems I cite for the various understandings at the end of the article. Whatever your understanding is, run it through the checklist and see what happens.
It's a long and detailed article so perhaps I will cite just one problem that I have never heard anyone respond to (specifically from those who believe in the physical change in prayer direction view)
2145 clearly implies that if the messenger were to follow their qiblah after these revelations then he would be a wrongdoer and following their desires, yet he was apparently following it previously. Is there a precedent for this in Quran, i.e. doing X is allowed then a future revelation clearly changes doing X to desires/wrongdoing?
The question is simple.
