Why no Ramadzan - replaced! by 3,10,60 Days.
-
GOd bless all,
I said the below
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would they blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
What I meant was
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would HE blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
Godbless,
Anwar -
The probabilities can be slim and the thing can still happen. That the second Imrul-qays could have descended from the first actually makes the second Imrul-qays more likely. People frequently name their children after admirable forefathers. The similarity does not say that one negates the other. and animosity between tribes can last for generations. That an Imrul-Qays named after a great king that is a forefather of his defeats a rival tribe that has been a rival for generations is not exactly an impossible thing or even far-fetched.
What you are saying is even less possible because the inscription is North Arabian and the information in it refers to North Arabian events. On the other hand, the alleged poet is South Arabian and his alleged tribe and the alleged tribe that he defeated is South Arabian. I don't know why you have a thing for Imru' Al-Qays where you defy all odds and objectivity to defend his existence at any cost.
Your problem is that you are trying to build your religion based on "literature" whose purpose is entertainment.
What difference does it make to you if he was a legend told by the Abassid era storytellers? From a purely literary point of view his poems and story are still fun to read.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless you Ayman,
What you are saying is even less possible because the inscription is North Arabian and the information in it refers to North Arabian events. On the other hand, the alleged poet is South Arabian and his alleged tribe and the alleged tribe that he defeated is South Arabian. I don't know why you have a thing for Imru' Al-Qays where you defy all odds and objectivity to defend his existence at any cost.
Well that does change it up and makes my opinion totally inappropriate. However, you shoudl understand that it is not that I'm trying to "defy all odds of objectivity or to defend his existence at any cost," as you say. I'm trying to let you understand that the existence of this second Imrul-Qays is possible. All you can really say is that 'It is most likely that 'Imrul-Qays' of the Jahiliyah poems didn't really exist.' If the evidence suggest that to you (note that i said suggest) than instead of stating it like a hard fact like you do, you need to be open to the fact that these things that you are presenting are just theories. Don't expect me to take them as hard facts when they are just theories. Despite the theories about whether the stories about this individual is real or not this does not necessarily prove that the story did not come from the Jahiliyah era, or for that matter, that the language of the poems is an invalid representative of the language of Muhammad's time.
Questions still pop up into my mind like "What if the fabrication was a pre-Islamic fabrication?" "Or, particularly a fabrication that occured during or shortly after Muhammad's time?" In that case it is still representative of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I am not really arguing a case for whether the content of the poems is true or not. What I'm arguing is whether or not they stand as valid representatives of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I think they do. And I don't think that arguing about the truth of the poems means that these poems are post-koranic or whether or not they are valid representatives of the language of Muhammad's day. Or that arguing about the truth of the hadeeths has anything to do with whether or not the language of the Hadeeth represents the same Arabic as the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I do think that the situations presented after the death of Muhammad allowed for the preservation of the language that Muhammad spoke as well as allowing for the evolution of that language in city areas amongst people that had no reason to keep speaking the way their fathers did. Some of that evolution had already taken place in the areas of the ghassanids and the lakhmis to my knowledge, during Muhammad's time. Creole languages had already devoloped between Arabic and Aramean (the Nabateans were probably the first with this) and Arabic and Persian.
Just for pondering's sake, can you tell me the likelihood of an Aramean/Aramaic Imrul-Qays? I mean unless they were writing Arabic in Nabatean script something seems fishy to me. It seems fishy to me because Nabatean is an Aramaic/Aramean language and Imrul-Qays is obviously an truly Northern/Central Arabic name. But didn't you say that a similarity between the first Imrul-Qays and the second is that they came from the tribes of Kinda? Or is this just a mistake on my part. If it is I apologize for confusing that.
I'm not arguing whether these poems are wholly factual, or fictitious for that matter as that is not the real issue. Its fictitious character could have been acquired before or during Muhammad's times just as well as after his time.
I think I demonstrated well the fact that it is just as likely for certain Islamic practices to have pre-koranic origins just as well as post-koranic origins. We need to look for clues as to when and where these practices or meanings of words are coined to say that they are post-koranic innovations. All the literature is pretty consistent on the pilgrimage to Makkah being a cultural phenomenon of the pre-Koranic Arabs. If you want classify the practice as idolatrous because of that (as Truth does) you can go ahead and do that, but I would not take it that far.
I think the important parts to understand when it comes to this particular pilgrimage, Makkah and the Koran are the following things
- The Koran tells us to make pilgrimage to His House, and to Holy Temples/Sanctuaries or Al-Masjidul-Haraam. Both of these can be collective as well as singular, that is fact. So I think that it was only natural that the Arab conquerers (who in my mind and other historians' minds didn't really represent the religion that Muhammad preached through the Koran, but who were on a roll at that time) start highlighting their temple as if it were the only House of God and the only Holy Temple/Sanctuary. That factor of divinity gave them the cultural upperhand that they needed to continue their rule.
That however, I admit is my theory on the issue. Although I think it is quite likely that it happened like this. The divine character of the Arabs soon came under scrutiny by other cultures, especially the Persians, as these cultures became Muslim and expected to be treated as equals. I do not think that it is improbable or unlikely that Muhammad also made pilgrimage to this house and did it in the way that his people did it (the way that he knew how). However, I don't think that it was so full of idols like the Hadeeths potray it. Even if it were, and I am wrong, I do not think that the culture of the Arabs (as opposed to the Christians who make God equal to His messenger) would have allowed for these idols to be the central theme of their Temple. It shows in the Koran that they readily agreed to the existence of God and his power, and that they thought that the angels were God's daughters. As far as we know Al-laat, al-Uzaa and Al-Ukhraa (All feminine and attested to in the Koran) were considered angels by them, despite whether or not they were also viewed as gods or not.
All of these names also have Classical Arabic meanings and can be likened to someone considering "Lady Wisdom" as one of God's angels. A study of primitive cultures and their gods will show that these gods were gods only because they were revered for the power that they represented or possessed, but they were never made equal to God. God is often just said to be far removed from the world. These cultures many times disregarded God and regarded the other things that they revered more than God. It would be the same as asking Gabriel (God bless him) for help without taking into account that Gabriel acts on behalf of God, always.
Trinitarians try to shadow God out too by actually giving Jesus (God bless him) all of God's power, despite what their books actually say. They took the game to a whole new level in my opinion.- As it concerns Makkah. I understand that the word has meanings that refer to concepts and not a place. Those meanings are 'Destruction/Sucking/Sucking dry, Lacking water etc.' However, just because it has these meanings does not mean that the Arabs didn't use it to also refer to the city of Mecca. Look at it like the phrase 'The Big Apple.' I can distinguish it from 'the big apple' as in 'a particular apple' by using capitals when I write it, but you can't do this in Arabic script or when you say it in English for that matter. In Arabic it would be 'atuh-fatul-kabeeratu.' I look at the the passage in the Koran as having a lesser meaning and a greater, more encompassing meaning.
For instance, lets take the passage " There was a man walking through the bustling city of New York eating a pretty sizeable apple. While walking he was struck by a thought and paused in the middle of the big apple, despite the overwhelming crowds around him."
Now if I were saying these lines some of you might think I meant that the man stopped in his tracks, and would think that I mean the city by 'the big apple.' Others might think I actually mean that the man stopped eating the apple while right in the middle of it. The truth is, I can mean either one. If I were telling a story just to narrate a happening it wouldn't really matter. Later clues would probably clear it up, or prove that it is a trivial part of the story and can be disregarded. But if the author intends to make you think he can validly mean both things.
- That is the way that I look at Makkah when I see it in the Koran. The Koran tells us to read and to take the best interpretation. So it knows that the language that it is using allows for different interpretations. There is no reason to try to say that Makkah only means one thing in Classical Arabic; either Mecca the place or one of the ideas that it is defined as. It can mean both, in the Koranic passage as well. However, when we read that passage, to read Makkah as destruction carries a bigger and better meaning that envelops its meaning of Makkah.
Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran
Yeah, God may well have held back His loyalists and his disloyalists from each other in the middle of Makkah (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata ) but I think the main point is that he held back His loyalists and His disloyalists from each other while in the midst of true destruction. (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata )They were annihilating each other and God held both sides back. But even more encompassing than that meaning is that God's loyalists understand that would God hold us back from our enemies and/or vice-versa in the mist of certain destruction, afterwards
he will give us the victory. He will see everything we do. (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran)Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaams all,
A new vew
2185
(lanes and qd)
Shahr-un = He paraded(an offender)as a public example.
= new moon
=month
Shahra = devuldgeAnd ayman said
I looked up the word "shahr" in the dictionary (Lisan Al-3arab) and it doesn't seem to mean "month", "30 consecutive days", or "30 intermittent days". The primary meaning is "something obvious", "something public", and "something wide". It is also reported in the dictionary that the Arabs used to call the moon "shahr". In modern Arabic, someone "mashhur" is a public celebri
The meaning one way is by comparission of rahman and ramdzan
Rahima=To love/have tenderness/have mercy/pity/forgiveness???.
Rahman=One having the above qualities.Simerlarly
Ramidza=something becoming intensely hot, ? by the action of the sun /or by hot stones /or by a fire/ ,or something beaten between two stones to sharpen it.
Simerlarly
Ramdzan=One having the above qualities
Another meaning from lanes
Ramdzan=One of the names of God =He who obliterates sins.
Ramadzun= distress and disquietude, or grief as a consequence of some of our actions.2185
of your parading obliterate sins those revealed in it the quran a guidance for mankind and clear proofs of the guidance and the criterion ,who whosoever witnesses amongst you such parading he should fast(remove/ expunge) it and whosoever is sick or on journey (the same) number of days other wants Allah for you ease and not want for you hardship so that you complete the number and that you should magnify Allah on that he guided you so that you may give thanks.And from my other post a fast has nothing at all to do with food and drink.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3506
Salaams.
-
In Muheetul-muheet it defintes month as 1 part out of twelve parts in a year. I'll have my results in a little bit.
Also not to attack buy Ayman I always found your idea bout the difference between 'iddat and adad very weak. But I'll get back to you on all that.
Godbless,
ProGod -
Peace Anwar,
Thank you for your comments and for the thoughtful private message.
In Muheetul-muheet it defintes month as 1 part out of twelve parts in a year. I'll have my results in a little bit.
Also not to attack buy Ayman I always found your idea bout the difference between 'iddat and adad very weak. But I'll get back to you on all that.
Muheet Al-Muheet is usually not my first choice as far as Lexicons. I found that it tends to include more modern meanings than other Lexicons. This is not surprising. It was authored in 1870 by Professor Botros Al-Bustani and is considered by Arabic Linguists to be one of the most important lexicons of Modern Arabic and NOT Classical Arabic. Hence, it includes modern terms. What Professor Al-Bustani gave you is a modern meaning and that is why you can't find it in ANY of the older Classical Arabic lexicons.
In addition to the above facts, we can confirm that the meaning is invalid because applying it creates a contradiction in the great reading. According to this modern meaning of "shahr" in 2185 we are told to fast a month but we were told in the previous sentence in 2183-184 that abstinence is for a few days. This is a clear contradiction.
Please see more on this and why we can't exchange 'iddat and adad in my response to your private message.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Anwar,
I want to continue our private sessions. The only thing I have to say here though is that 'ayyaamin ma'loomaat' is 'known/recognized days' not 'a few days.'
I agree that "ma'loomaat" means "known/recognized". However, the word "ma'loomaat" doesn't occur in 2184-185. The word describing the days in 2184-185 is "ma'doodat".
The meaning given for "ma'doodat" in Classical Arabic dictionaries is "something that can be counted on the fingers". This is consistent and few ("ma'doodat") is always used to mean less than or equal to ten in the great reading. So unless someone happens to have thirty fingers, there is no need to invent a new meaning.
Moreover, notice that the complete count is said to be a "complete 10" in 2196 and in 2827. Hence, when we hear in 2183-184 that abstinence is for a few days and then we hear in 2185 that we should complete the count this means that the count of the days of abstinence is 10 days and not a whole month. Since for most people completing the count on the hand means counting the 10 fingers, this is again consistent with the dictionary meaning.
This is also confirmed by archeological evidence showing that pre-quranic Arabs used a base-10 tally system for counting.
I hope this helps and I look forward to our continued discussion.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Sorry about the ma'loomaat. But I disagree with you on the ma'doodaat. It just means 'counted.' You can count 20 oro 30 with your fingers. I'll check to see if the dictionaries say 10. However, just because the Koran says that 10 of something is counted or ma'doodaat, that does not limit the definition of the word to 10 only.
Godlbess,
ProGod -
Sorry about the ma'loomaat. But I disagree with you on the ma'doodaat. It just means 'counted.' You can count 20 oro 30 with your fingers. I'll check to see if the dictionaries say 10. However, just because the Koran says that 10 of something is counted or ma'doodaat, that does not limit the definition of the word to 10 only.
Ma'doodaat according to Al-Wasit
" ".
"what can be counted on the fingers".
Although one can count 1000 on his fingers, this is not the image that first comes into mind when one hears "what can be counted on the fingers". Had Al-Wasit said "fingers and toes" then 20 would have been what first comes into mind. Had it said, "fingers of 3 people" then 30 would have been the first thing that comes in mind. Unless someone already has another preconceived meaning in mind, the meaning of ten or less is what first come into mind when hearing "what can be counted on the fingers". It is a clear meaning that is consistent within the great reading and with archeological evidence.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace wakas,
peace brothers Ayman, Anwar, all,
I have uploaded the full Lane's Lexicon entry for the root Shiin-ha-Ra in PRL if anyone wishes to read it.
Wakas
what do you think is the primary meaning for the SHR root, to me it seems that it has something to do with being obvious through eyesight or manifest
one
-
Ayman,
I think what you said yourself has to be taken into account. You can count 1000 on your fingers if you wanted to. Furthermore I would look at more than just that dictionary. It's great when you have more than one. For instance I discovered the meaning khamr as 'intoxication/enebriation' by looking at a dictionary by Salmone Habib. I have no way of gettting to it now. But it offered good meanings that other dictionaries didn't bother with. If someone in Philadelphi could visit the Universtiy of Penn library and go up to their Middle East department and look for this book(it's green) you would be greatly appreciative for this dictionaries more extensive approach. It lacks some meaning of other dictionaries but has meanings that aren't usually put in alot of dictionaries. Hava dictionary of Classical Arabic also has meanings not usually found LIsaan al-Arab and Lane's lexicon. It's like looking in an English dictionary. Sometimes Webster has meanings that Oxford doesn't have (for reasons of space, limited resources etc.)
Godbless,
ProGod
