hajj / feast / debate

drfazl

Peace,

Hajj means the Wish of Allah sent down upon your heart as your dearest need for the present and for the future i.e. for the wholesome life. For example, "You shall lead a hearty life, free from fear and worry. There will be testing times ahead for sure, as a test for your iman. At least once in your life time, stand by me steadfast without adding or associating your efforts to My All Encompassing way and be satisfied of My help to you that delivers you from your fix. Belief in Me and Patience freeing yourself from your efforts is all important in completing your Hajj in this way."

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

Yes. AQ does not use its words haphazardly, it is precision par excellence, so when AQ uses its words to form a context, I pay attention and know it has relevance. You, on the other hand, disregard it in this case and say there is no implication of negativity or warning or sternly reminding of believers. Each to their own interpretation.
I agree with you about "qawl" and I did not say differently. What I am saying is the phrasing "alati hiya ahsan" is always used in AQ in contrast to something negative in the context. It is telling that 1753 is the best example you have of disproving this point.

But if "qawl" is neutral then "alati hiya ahsan" can be used in relation to something neutral. For example, if I tell you "Advise children to speak nicely to people". This doesn't mean that the children were speaking badly. We hear many such advices in the great reading such as Luqman advising his sons. He is telling them do not raise your voice and sound like a donkey. This doesn't mean that this is what they do. It is just good advice and a reminder in case they forget.

Just like you haven't proven it means "feast"? ;D
It is simply a matter of weighing up evidence to see which option fits best.

You haven't presented any evidence. You need to tell us

How can you invite ALL people with a debate?
What is the purpose of the debate?
What is to be debated?
Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
Etc.

On the other hand, I clearly explained all of the above for feast based on the great reading.

Your whole point was "my phrasing sounds better than your phrasing". That is weak evidence at best.

No, this entire debate is about meaning of "haj" and how it is phrased in the language of the great reading. So the phrasing of the great reading is all that we have to go on. Each phrase that I used mirrors a phrase in the great reading but I applied the same exact structure to mundane everyday things so that when you read it and share it with others you are not inhibited by your preconceptions. Your misunderstanding of "haj" as "debate" results in strange illogical phrasing while "haj" as "argument" makes the phrasing correct.

I prefer to stick to more solid arguments like the clear contradictions of your view in 2158 and 2196, the conjured up meaning of "attend to", 2946 etc.

As I said, we will come to 2158 later. If the meaning of "attend to" is wrong then we will find a more correct meaning. I am the first to admit that I was wrong before about "haj" and I conjured up the false meaning of "debate" and now I found the more correct meaning of "feast". So I have no problem with correcting whatever needs to be corrected.

Also, I do not understand your last reference. Are you now implying the Classical Arabic meaning of "debate" for "hajj" is a misunderstanding? If so, please translate the relevant evidence in English for me.

Brother Wakas, you are one of the most knowledgeable researchers of the great reading that I know. You have produced one of the most helpful research tools in PRLonline. In fact, you helped me a great deal in achieving my present understanding. Here is what you said on the translation of ?haj? on PRL

= Haa-Jiim-Jiim = to intend to a certain target, aim at, repair, undertake, repaired/betook himself to or towards a person / place / object of veneration/respect/honour, went/visit frequently/repeatedly, pilgrimage.
Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute.
Refrain/abstain.

Hmm? no ?debate? here. But maybe we missed it because Lane Lexicon has 3 pages on ?haj? and thus in the tens of meanings it would have been easy to miss it. So let?s look at Lane?s

Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 149, 150, 151

Hmm? in the 3 pages full of meanings there is NOT EVEN ONE mention of ?debate? just like the Classical Arabic dictionaries I gave you the link to in my previous post. If you are not convinced then I will understand because I was in your position once and for a few years I held rigidly to the view that ?haj? means debate. However, I hope that this will convince you to at least not take the meaning of ?debate? for granted 100% like I did not long ago but be open to other simpler possibilities.

Another strawman argument. Allow me to quote myself
If you are going to host a conference/symposium, best to do it at an optimum time in a favourable environment.

What strawman? Did I invent the above circular argument and then falsely attributed to you twice? I am asking "why is it the best/optimum/favourable time?"Answering with a statement that has the identical premise of what we are trying to prove "it is the optimum time in a favourable environment" is a circular argument. It begs the question of why is it "an optimum/best time" and why is it "a favourable/best environment"? Brother, with arguments like these, I don't need a strawman.

Thanks for the advice, I recommend we research it together as soon as you explain 2158 / 2196 / "attend to" etc.

Agreed and I hope we get to it soon, unless the god wills otherwise.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

Wakas

peace brother Ayman,

But if "qawl" is neutral then "alati hiya ahsan" can be used in relation to something neutral.

I have already explained this point. I never said it is always used in contrast to a negative word, I said it is always used in contrast to something negative in the context (which could include a negative word but not necessarily). You felt sternly reminding believers that "Lord is fully aware of you, can punish you, you are not a guardian over them" etc didn't imply anything negative was done/said, I felt it did, or what they said was negative hence the contrast. Each to their own.

You haven't presented any evidence. You need to tell us

How can you invite ALL people with a debate?

I already explained this point. Interestingly you (and truthseeker) ruled out calling out with the debate yet never cited any reason whatsoever. This is not what I call evidence. In fact, the evidence is weighted against your view as it says "call/invite with al hajj" NOT "call/invite to al hajj". A point you never even commented on I might add.

What is the purpose of the debate?

Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran. But you are right that I never brought evidence for this, simply because I haven't even discussed this yet.

What is to be debated?

See above. I briefly mentioned the topics in which hajj/debate is used could give us an indication of topic, but I never discussed this in detail.

Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
Etc.

Actually, I did not use a circular argument. Nowhere did I say "debate is best done in the summer" or imply the summer timing gives weight to the hajj=debate meaning. This is your own strawman argument. Your own wording gives it away, not once did I say "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment" (note words in bold). You are making stuff up I never even said, this is the very definition of a strawman argument.

Let me quote myself for all to see

Who said anything about the timing had to do with debate? If you are going to host a conference/symposium, best to do it at an optimum time in a favourable environment.

Perhaps you mistook the above to mean I was saying summer is the optimum time (for some reason). If I meant that I would have said that. By "optimum time in a favourable environment" I meant hosting such a significant event will require food/drink/resources to be available/regulated, and if they are most plentiful at this time, then makes sense to host it at this "optimum time in a favourable environment". Perhaps I could have clarified better.

On the other hand, I clearly explained all of the above for feast based on the great reading.

I am well aware of what you explained and what you kept silent on.

No, this entire debate is about meaning of "haj" and how it is phrased in the language of the great reading. So the phrasing of the great reading is all that we have to go on.

Actually, I originally did not intend to debate the meaning of "hajj". I just wanted to know how your view fitted in with 2158, but then, well, we can all see what happened.

Each phrase that I used mirrors a phrase in the great reading but I applied the same exact structure to mundane everyday things so that when you read it and share it with others you are not inhibited by your preconceptions.

You used the same exact structure did you? Tell us then, where in the entire Quran does this same exact structure of yours occur for the HJJ phrases

The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."

Mine is the best debate.

My debate was defeated.

Or will you have to clarify and correct your own words before you can cite the verse(s)?

Your misunderstanding of "haj" as "debate" results in strange illogical phrasing while "haj" as "argument" makes the phrasing correct.

For sake of argument, let's say you are right, your phrasing sounds better than mine, how does that make mine illogical or incorrect? If your argument is that it is impossible or contradictory for it to mean debate in these occurrences, then just say so. I have already explained how debate fits. As I said, your whole point is "mine sounds better than yours" which as I said is weak evidence at best (not that I even agree with you). I prefer to stick to more solid arguments like the clear contradictions of your view in 2158 and 2196, the conjured up meaning of "attend to", 2946 etc.

It is simply a matter of weighing evidence to see which option fits best.

You have produced one of the most helpful research tools in PRLonline. In fact, you helped me a great deal in achieving my present understanding. Here is what you said on the translation of ?haj? on PRL

PRL is a group effort, I am simply the project manager and one of its contributers. It is built upon the hard work of those who went before us, just like PRL will be improved upon by those who come after us.

Hmm? in the 3 pages full of meanings there is NOT EVEN ONE mention of ?debate? just like the Classical Arabic dictionaries I gave you the link to in my previous post.

Thanks for pointing out the specific word "debate" is not cited by the Classical Arabic dictionaries you refer to. I'm not sure which ones the link covers, but it is noteworthy nonetheless. I would say however that what it does describe by " Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute." is akin to "debate", and just by not citing the specific word "debate" it is not enough for me to think "debate" cannot be a possible meaning.

What strawman? Did I invent the above circular argument and then falsely attributed to you twice? I am asking "why is it the best/optimum/favourable time?"Answering with a statement that has the identical premise of what we are trying to prove "it is the optimum time in a favourable environment" is a circular argument. It begs the question of why is it "an optimum/best time" and why is it "a favourable/best environment"? Brother, with arguments like these, I don't need a strawman.

See above, where it is hopefully clear for you now. I will ignore your misquoting of me yet again. In fact, if I may request you not to quote me from now on unless you are using the quote function in the forum software, I would appreciate it, thanks.

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

I already explained this point. Interestingly you (and truthseeker) ruled out calling out with the debate yet never cited any reason whatsoever. This is not what I call evidence. In fact, the evidence is weighted against your view as it says "call/invite with al hajj" NOT "call/invite to al hajj". A point you never even commented on I might add.

It was explained numerous times that you can't call out with a vague term such as debate. The first questions people are going to ask is what is the debate about? Who are the debaters? Why can't we just see it on TV? etc. Please be a realist and give concrete evidence that you can invite all people with a debate. I don't have to prove that you can't (a negative) and despite this I gave you the reason. On the other hand, the burden of proof is on you and you haven't given any real practical reason for ALL people to come to this "debate" of yours.

In addition, it is certainly more appropriate to invite ALL people with a feast than with a debate. People will always show up for plenty of free food no matter what their religious affiliation or views are.

Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran. But you are right that I never brought evidence for this, simply because I haven't even discussed this yet.

This is not the purpose. This is the supposed subject. Is this what you are going to tell people? This vague debate of yours "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (copied and pasted from above) ) I am sorry but this is not something that attracts all people. Also, what you are saying has ZERO support in the great reading. If you disagree then please show us the passage that says that the debate "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (again copy and paste).

Please tell us the purpose of your supposed debate based on the CLEAR statement in the great reading about the purpose of ?haj?.

See above. I briefly mentioned the topics in which hajj/debate is used could give us an indication of topic, but I never discussed this in detail.

I saw above nothing but a vague statement pulled out of thin air and that has zero support in the great reading. I would suggest that you don't rush to a conclusion that "haj" means "debate" until you can study and discuss what would be "debated" in more details and get some concrete real answers.

Actually, I did not use a circular argument. Nowhere did I say "debate is best done in the summer" or imply the summer timing gives weight to the hajj=debate meaning. This is your own strawman argument. Your own wording gives it away, not once did I say "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment" (note words in bold). You are making stuff up I never even said, this is the very definition of a strawman argument.
Let me quote myself for all to see
Perhaps you mistook the above to mean I was saying summer is the optimum time (for some reason). If I meant that I would have said that. By "optimum time in a favourable environment" I meant hosting such a significant event will require food/drink/resources to be available/regulated, and if they are most plentiful at this time, then makes sense to host it at this "optimum time in a favourable environment". Perhaps I could have clarified better.

This is fine. Very few people would admit to committing a logical fallacy. We will have to leave it to the intelligent readers to decide. At least by begging the question, I got you to answer the following (copy and paste)

"I meant hosting such a significant event will require food/drink/resources to be available/regulated, and if they are most plentiful at this time, then makes sense to host it at this "optimum time in a favourable environment".

So you admit that the timing has to do with the availability of food. It seems like you will be having a FEAST at your debate. I wonder how many people will show up for the food and not for the debate, which they can see on TV.

It is also not surprising since one of the two purposes of ?haj? is to eat and feed the needy. Those are not the first or even the millionth thing that comes to mind when one thinks of the purpose of a ?debate?. But I guess you might vehemently argue that it is ?possible? as the billionth thing one thinks about. )

Joking aside, please don?t take what I am saying negatively. I am only trying to show that the simplest explanation is usually the most correct and if the god always mentions livestock in relation to ?haj? then it must be mainly about food.

I am well aware of what you explained and what you kept silent on.

Good.

Actually, I originally did not intend to debate the meaning of "hajj". I just wanted to know how your view fitted in with 2158, but then, well, we can all see what happened.

This is the problem. You started out with a preconception that "haj" means "debate".

You used the same exact structure did you? Tell us then, where in the entire Quran does this same exact structure of yours occur for the HJJ phrases

The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
4525

Mine is the best debate.
6149

My debate was defeated.
4216

Or will you have to clarify and correct your own words before you can cite the verse(s)?

Notice that you selected three out of the five sentences where you could find some insignificant difference (tense or whatever) that has no bearing on the fact that such phrases are illogical. I don't think that you forgot to read the remaining two or let them go to take it easy on me.

For sake of argument, let's say you are right, your phrasing sounds better than mine, how does that make mine illogical or incorrect? If your argument is that it is impossible or contradictory for it to mean debate in these occurrences, then just say so. I have already explained how debate fits. As I said, your whole point is "mine sounds better than yours" which as I said is weak evidence at best (not that I even agree with you).

At the end of the day, we are to follow what is BEST, not what is possible. If one understanding/phrasing is better (i.e., more logical) then this is what we need to follow.

I prefer to stick to more solid arguments like the clear contradictions of your view in 2158 and 2196, the conjured up meaning of "attend to", 2946 etc.

I already explained 2946. As for 2158 and 2196, I said that we will come to these and I don't see anything there contradicting the concept of "feast" and your objection is immaterial and I provided one reason why it is immaterial and I am sure that we can find more as we think more about those passages. In fact, like ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock and have NOTHING relating to some supposed debate.

It is simply a matter of weighing evidence to see which option fits best.

Exactly my point above with respect to following what is best and not what is possible. I provided the best wording above in my five sentences.

PRL is a group effort, I am simply the project manager and one of its contributers. It is built upon the hard work of those who went before us, just like PRL will be improved upon by those who come after us. Thanks for pointing out the specific word "debate" is not cited by the Classical Arabic dictionaries you refer to. I'm not sure which ones the link covers, but it is noteworthy nonetheless. I would say however that what it does describe by " Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute." is akin to "debate", and just by not citing the specific word "debate" it is not enough for me to think "debate" cannot be a possible meaning.

"Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute" doesn?t mean ?debate?. Here is what ?debate? means

Main Entry de?bate
Pronunciation \di-bt, d-
Function noun
Date 13th century
a contention by words or arguments as a the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

Nothing here about ?overcoming?. On the other hand, the emphasis in most of Lane?s meaning for ?haj? is on ?overcome? and ?argue?. In fact, ague/argument is mentioned 13 times as the correct meaning of ?haj? while ?debate is mentioned ZERO times. So, as I was saying, the correct meaning of ?haj? is ?argument? and not ?debate?. As I said, one can always cling to an increasingly fading possibility, but this is not about proving that ?it cannot be a possible meaning? (a negative), it is about finding the best/most likely meaning.

There are two ?haj? mentioned in the great reading. One is an originally Arabic word (argue) and the other is an Arabic word borrowed from Hebrew (feast). This is why they seem similar on the surface but carry completely different meanings. It is probable that the contexts for usage of those words were divergent enough that people could use two words that sounded the same and yet easily understand that we are talking about two different concepts (as we routinely do now). It could also be due to the deficiencies in the Nabataean script and developing writing convention that those are not differentiated enough in writing but sounded differently.

See above, where it is hopefully clear for you now. I will ignore your misquoting of me yet again. In fact, if I may request you not to quote me from now on unless you are using the quote function in the forum software, I would appreciate it, thanks.

How about copy and paste? It would be interesting to see how you would apply your rule in your supposed debate with hundreds of thousands of people debating, orally I might add.

Thank you for your patience and I look forward to your next round of less vehement argumentation. )

Peace,

Ayman

Wakas

peace brother Ayman,

Firstly, thanks for copy and pasting my comments this time. It has helped and I appreciate it.

It was explained numerous times that you can't call out with a vague term such as debate. The first questions people are going to ask is what is the debate about? Who are the debaters? Why can't we just see it on TV? etc. Please be a realist and give concrete evidence that you can invite all people with a debate. I don't have to prove that you can't (a negative) and despite this I gave you the reason. On the other hand, the burden of proof is on you and you haven't given any real practical reason for ALL people to come to this "debate" of yours.

In addition, it is certainly more appropriate to invite ALL people with a feast than with a debate. People will always show up for plenty of free food no matter what their religious affiliation or views are.

I didn't realise when you proposed "questions people are going to ask" you were giving a reason for why it was impossible for it to be "call/invite with the debate". Your wording was too strong for what reasons/evidence you brought, hence not realising that was your evidence/reason.

I find it strange you think just because these questions could be asked, this somehow proves one cant "call/invite with the debate". Let me attempt to more accurately phrase what I think your point is these questions will be asked so it doesn't make sense it would be calling/inviting with a debate, i.e. it is not as appealing as calling/inviting to a feast.

First of all it is not a "hajj", it is "al hajj", thus is better termed "the conference/symposium" as "the debate" does not give the emphasis of "the debate" as an event, i.e. it is not a debate and that's it. I have mentioned this before. You could term it "the debate" as long it is understood by whoever you are addressing it is also an event.

So, let's address the questions
what is the conference/symposium/debate about?
An invitation to witness the benefits and guidance under God's system.

Who are the debaters (or hosts of the conference/symposium)?
muslimeen, mumineen, monotheists will definitely be there. In the mix would be all others, people of the book, atheists/agnostics, other religions etc.

Why can't we just see it on TV? etc.
If it is televised, feel free to watch it on TV, The debate is only one aspect of the event.

As a side note, I find it strange you would even bring up TV. AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology, as you well know.

How your questions seemingly show one cannot call out with the debate/conference/symposium is anyone's guess. In any case, let's do the same thing for feast
The first questions people are going to ask is what food will be at this feast? Who are the chefs? Why can't we just stay at home and eat/drink? Do they cater for vegans/vegetarians/food intolerances? Can we see a menu? etc.

The difference with my questions, and thus point, is that I'm not saying the above questions prove it can't be feast, as this would be absurd, or at least I cant see how feast is disproven by the questions. Likewise, I cant see how debate is disproven by your questions, but if you feel it does, each to their own.

Again, you kept silent on why is it "bi/with" and not "ila/to". The former construction, favouring my view.

This is not the purpose. This is the supposed subject. Is this what you are going to tell people? This vague debate of yours "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (copied and pasted from above) ) I am sorry but this is not something that attracts all people. Also, what you are saying has ZERO support in the great reading. If you disagree then please show us the passage that says that the debate "Could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (again copy and paste).

Please tell us the purpose of your supposed debate based on the CLEAR statement in the great reading about the purpose of ?haj?.

I saw above nothing but a vague statement pulled out of thin air and that has zero support in the great reading. I would suggest that you don't rush to a conclusion that "haj" means "debate" until you can study and discuss what would be "debated" in more details and get some concrete real answers.

As I openly said, I have not even discussed this aspect yet. I find it interesting you want me to discuss more and more about my view, yet you haven't even answered my first point on 2158.

This is fine. Very few people would admit to committing a logical fallacy. We will have to leave it to the intelligent readers to decide.

Could you help the intelligent readers out by clearly pointing out the circular argument I allegedly made with copy and pasting what I said this time instead of misquoting me then claiming I made a circular argument. I may well have made a circular argument but it's difficult to tell in amongst your misquoting of me and what you are referring to (your misquotes or what I actually said).

If you cannot, will you correct your claim and apologise?

You are right though, in my experience also, most people do not admit to committing logical fallacies, e.g. strawman arguments.

So you admit that the timing has to do with the availability of food.

As far as I can see, yes. I have no problem in "admitting" this. I actually said this from the start, but in hindsight I could have been clearer.

I wonder how many people will show up for the food and not for the debate

Exactly. Pehaps using your own above admission, you can now ponder upon "there is no blame on him to go about/amongst them" in 2158 taking the relevant conjugations into account. ;D

Joking aside, please don?t take what I am saying negatively.

I love constructive discussion, and have even been known to enjoy a joke. The only things I take negatively are repeated misquoting/miswording/misinformation/misrepresenation/irrationality/etc.

This is the problem. You started out with a preconception that "haj" means "debate".

My apparent preconception has no bearing upon as to how your view fits with 2158, which still remains unanswered.

The debate of atheists is that they say "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
4525

Mine is the best debate.
6149

My debate was defeated.
4216

Notice that you selected three out of the five sentences where you could find some insignificant difference (tense or whatever) that has no bearing on the fact that such phrases are illogical. I don't think that you forgot to read the remaining two or let them go to take it easy on me.

Well then, let's examine this "same exact structure" claim of yours

Re 4525
Can you translate "ma kana hujjatahum illaan qaloo" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "The debate of atheists is that they say..."

Re 6149
Can you translate "falillahi alhujjatu albalighatufalaw" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "Mine is the best debate."

Re 4216
Can you translate "lahu hujjatuhumdahidatun AAinda rabbihim" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "My debate was defeated.".

Simple request.

I never mentioned the rest as I never noticed misrepresentation in what was said, and I had already explained how debate fits.

At the end of the day, we are to follow what is BEST, not what is possible. If one understanding/phrasing is better (i.e., more logical) then this is what we need to follow.

Thanks for being more accurate in your wording. What we need to follow is what option fits best once all the evidence is weighed up.

In fact, like ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock and have NOTHING relating to some supposed debate.

Since you keep mentioning this point even though I openly said I haven't even discussed this yet, I will ask a simple question where in 397 does it talk about livestock?

As I said, I haven't even discussed this aspect yet, as I am still waiting on a reply to my very first point about 2158.

"Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies, plead, contend/argue/dispute" doesn?t mean ?debate?. Here is what ?debate? means

Main Entry de?bate
Pronunciation \di-bt, d-
Function noun
Date 13th century
a contention by words or arguments as a the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

Nothing here about ?overcoming?. On the other hand, the emphasis in most of Lane?s meaning for ?haj? is on ?overcome? and ?argue?. In fact, ague/argument is mentioned 13 times as the correct meaning of ?haj? while ?debate is mentioned ZERO times. So, as I was saying, the correct meaning of ?haj? is ?argument? and not ?debate?. As I said, one can always cling to an increasingly fading possibility, but this is not about proving that ?it cannot be a possible meaning? (a negative), it is about finding the best/most likely meaning.

The very fact that Lane (and I assume others) mention "argue" as well as "overcome" clearly suggest the act of overcoming or the word you used earlier in this discussion, "convincing", is not necessary in the meaning, although convincing/overcoming could occur. Not only is this obvious, it makes perfect sense, and is exactly what happens in debate.
Interestingly, it seems you have made a u-turn on your point about convincing earlier in our discussion, at first you were adamant convincing was the main point of debate and now you're trying to make a point by saying "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of debate. Which is it? It seems like you are proving my point, not yours.

Let me see if I can clarify. I think the point you are trying to make is since "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of the English dictionary definition of debate (as I said to you originally!) this only leaves "argue" for me to choose, so I must/should choose "argue". But choosing "argue" will force me to cancel out the perfectly valid Classical Arabic meanings of "Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies" . Thus, why not choose a word that encompasses both? AND when we take into account "plead/contend/dispute", one possible meaning that stands out is "debate".

Dictionary definitions of "contend" for example
contest to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; "They contested the outcome of the race"
compete compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against others

There are two ?haj? mentioned in the great reading. One is an originally Arabic word (argue) and the other is an Arabic word borrowed from Hebrew (feast). This is why they seem similar on the surface but carry completely different meanings. It is probable that the contexts for usage of those words were divergent enough that people could use two words that sounded the same and yet easily understand that we are talking about two different concepts (as we routinely do now). It could also be due to the deficiencies in the Nabataean script and developing writing convention that those are not differentiated enough in writing but sounded differently.

That sounds like a possibility, but that is not evidence based on AQ. Just pointing this out because you keep saying to me prove hjj means debate from the great reading etc. I have an inkling as to why you say the above, because there is no direct evidence al hajj means the feast in AQ, and there is only indirect evidence, i.e. context. But we shall see.

It would be interesting to see how you would apply your rule in your supposed debate with hundreds of thousands of people debating, orally I might add.

Can you copy and paste where I said anything about hundreds of thousands of people debating? If not, can you clarify to readers, this is your own made up version of what would be going on (i.e. strawman argument)? Thanks.

Thank you for your patience and I look forward to your next round of less vehement argumentation.

Everything has a cause. My suggestion for you to copy and paste what I say from now on has already led to less problems, so future debate is already looking brighter. )

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

I didn't realise when you proposed "questions people are going to ask" you were giving a reason for why it was impossible for it to be "call/invite with the debate". Your wording was too strong for what reasons/evidence you brought, hence not realising that was your evidence/reason.
I find it strange you think just because these questions could be asked, this somehow proves one cant "call/invite with the debate". Let me attempt to more accurately phrase what I think your point is these questions will be asked so it doesn't make sense it would be calling/inviting with a debate, i.e. it is not as appealing as calling/inviting to a feast.
First of all it is not a "hajj", it is "al hajj", thus is better termed "the conference/symposium" as "the debate" does not give the emphasis of "the debate" as an event, i.e. it is not a debate and that's it. I have mentioned this before. You could term it "the debate" as long it is understood by whoever you are addressing it is also an event.

You really have to decide if you are proposing that "al-hajj" is "the debate" or "the conference/symposium" and stick with one definition. The debate is ?the back and forth arguments or discussion of propositions between two opposing sides?. The conference is ?the formal meeting to discuss and exchange ideas on matters of common concern?. The definition of the symposium is ?the formal meeting at which specialists deliver lectures on related topics?. As you can see they are clearly different so choose one.

So, let's address the questions
what is the conference/symposium/debate about?
An invitation to witness the benefits and guidance under God's system.

Please provide a reference from the great reading because although ?witnessing benefits? is mentioned as a purpose of the ?haj?, ?witness guidance? is not mentioned anywhere as a purpose.

Who are the debaters (or hosts of the conference/symposium)?
muslimeen, mumineen, monotheists will definitely be there. In the mix would be all others, people of the book, atheists/agnostics, other religions etc.

You didn?t answer the question. ?Be there? is not the same thing as ?being the debaters?. For example, will everyone debate everyone or are people there to watch a debate between a limited number of people and they are really not participating in the debate? If so, who are those limited number of people?

Why can't we just see it on TV? etc.
If it is televised, feel free to watch it on TV, The debate is only one aspect of the event.

If everyone is debating then how can they debate on TV? Also, what are the other aspects of this supposed ?debate? based on the great reading?

As a side note, I find it strange you would even bring up TV. AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology, as you well know.

I know, but you are missing the point because unlike the feast where no matter how technology progresses, people will always have to be there to participate, ?the debate? doesn?t need physical presence at a common place but can be virtual (as we are doing right now).

How your questions seemingly show one cannot call out with the debate/conference/symposium is anyone's guess.

As per the definition of ?the debate? or ?the conference? or ?the symposium? (whichever one you want to haphazardly choose), those attending or debating or presenting or whatever have to be interested in the subject. Now the great reading or any specific religious subject may be of interest to you but it is undoubtedly of little interest to non-like minded people, even Muslims. Certainly, it won?t attract people from all over to come to this ?debate?, ?conference? or ?symposium?. In fact, such ?debates?, ?conferences? and ?symposiums? occur all the time and NONE ever attracts people with completely different interests or affiliations. Why is yours any different?

In any case, let's do the same thing for feast
The first questions people are going to ask is what food will be at this feast? Who are the chefs? Why can't we just stay at home and eat/drink? Do they cater for vegans/vegetarians/food intolerances? Can we see a menu? etc.

It is free food. It is not polite to ask those questions to any hosts. Is this what you ask when invited to a feast at someone?s house? Also, as with any harvest feast, there is no need to ask since clearly, a harvest feast will have fruits and vegetables common to the region where the feast happens. Also, people coming from all over can bring food donations and contribute to the feast. So you can try foods from other parts of the world if the particular foods common to this area don?t suit your taste.

The difference with my questions, and thus point, is that I'm not saying the above questions prove it can't be feast, as this would be absurd, or at least I cant see how feast is disproven by the questions. Likewise, I cant see how debate is disproven by your questions, but if you feel it does, each to their own.

It is disproven because no one will go to the debate that has a vague or uninteresting subject between unknown debaters or the conference on a subject that has no interest to them or go the symposium to be lectured on things that are completely disinteresting to them.

Just try to put yourself in their shoes. Would you go to a Jewish conference where you are invited to see Rabbis debate the Talmud and witness the benefits and guidance under the Talmud (which they say is the god?s system)? Would you go to a Sunni conference to see Mullahs debate Hadiths and witness the benefits and guidance under the Hadiths (which they also say is the god?s system)? Why expect differently from others? On the other hand, all those people will go or seriously consider going to an international feast in a place with open borders.

Again, you kept silent on why is it "bi/with" and not "ila/to". The former construction, favouring my view.

What silence? I already explained numerous times why ?the debate? cannot be used as a tool to invite everyone. On the other hand, the feast can.

As I openly said, I have not even discussed this aspect yet. I find it interesting you want me to discuss more and more about my view, yet you haven't even answered my first point on 2158.

You are making the extraordinary claim that you can invite ALL people with the debate whose vague subject "could be anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran" (again copy and paste). You are using this as your basic premise together with some other assumptions to ?prove? that ?haj? means ?debate?. All I am saying is don?t rush to the conclusion that ?haj? means ?debate? since you haven?t even thought out your basic premise.

Could you help the intelligent readers out by clearly pointing out the circular argument I allegedly made with copy and pasting what I said this time instead of misquoting me then claiming I made a circular argument. I may well have made a circular argument but it's difficult to tell in amongst your misquoting of me and what you are referring to (your misquotes or what I actually said).
If you cannot, will you correct your claim and apologise?
You are right though, in my experience also, most people do not admit to committing logical fallacies, e.g. strawman arguments.

Why are you so worried? As I said, I would leave it to the intelligent reader to decide. If they are too dumb to go back and read for themselves your arguments and instead blindly accept my ?misquoting? then we can?t help them anyway.

As far as I can see, yes. I have no problem in "admitting" this. I actually said this from the start, but in hindsight I could have been clearer.

So let?s focus on what we all agree on so that we can find common ground. We all agree that one of the major aspects of ?haj? has to do with the availability of food. So the one thing that everyone agrees on points to the feast and not to the debate. So until you clearly figure out the other aspects of this debate of yours and not just the conveniently vague ?anything and everything related to the system discussed in Al Quran?, feast is right now the best understanding that brings our understandings together.

Exactly. Pehaps using your own above admission, you can now ponder upon "there is no blame on him to go about/amongst them" in 2158 taking the relevant conjugations into account. ;D

I would say that it is the same like any feast. If someone invites you to a 10 day feast at his house and you enjoy the feast and meet people there and conduct business and prosper, there would be no blame on you if you help out with the regular feast activities such as the slaughtering, cooking and cleaning up. In fact, I would add that if you VOLUNTEERED better than this then certainly the hosts would be grateful. So clearly 2158 has to do with volunteering to perform a service and not with eating after some kind of mysterious debate.

I love constructive discussion, and have even been known to enjoy a joke. The only things I take negatively are repeated misquoting/miswording/misinformation/misrepresenation/irrationality/etc.
My apparent preconception has no bearing upon as to how your view fits with 2158, which still remains unanswered.

I explained above how my view fits with 2158 and doesn?t fit with the meaning of ?debate?. On the other hand, you seem to disregard that the passage says ?whoever volunteers better?, so clearly what came before (?yatawaf bihima?) is ?volunteer work to pay back? and is not ?taking advantage of them? (which already happened during the feast).

Well then, let's examine this "same exact structure" claim of yours
Re 4525
Can you translate "ma kana hujjatahum illaan qaloo" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "The debate of atheists is that they say..."
Re 6149
Can you translate "falillahi alhujjatu albalighatufalaw" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "Mine is the best debate."
Re 4216
Can you translate "lahu hujjatuhumdahidatun AAinda rabbihim" for us, then we can see if the structure matches your "My debate was defeated.".
Simple request.
I never mentioned the rest as I never noticed misrepresentation in what was said, and I had already explained how debate fits.

I can translate it but you might claim that my translation is biased. So I will provide a variety of translations since you are unlikely to claim that all those translators conspired with me to produce a ?strawman? argument against you. Also, since you prefer M. ASAD, I will use his translation and substitute your claim that ?haj? means debate and call it the WAKAS translation

4525
YUSUFALI And when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them their argument is nothing but this They say, "Bring (back) our forefathers, if what ye say is true!"
PICKTHAL And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them their only argument is that they say Bring (back) our fathers. then, if ye are truthful.
SHAKIR And when Our clear communications are recited to them, their argument is no other than that they say Bring our fathers (back) if you are truthful.
KHALIFA When our revelations are recited to them, clearly, their only argument is to say, "Bring back our forefathers, if you are truthful."
M. ASAD And whenever Our messages are conveyed to them in all their clarity, their only argument is this Bring forth our forefathers , if what you claim is true!

WAKAS And whenever Our messages are conveyed to them in all their clarity, their only debate is this Bring forth our forefathers , if what you claim is true!

6149
YUSUFALI Say "With Allah is the argument that reaches home if it had been His will, He could indeed have guided you all."
PICKTHAL Say - For Allah's is the final argument - Had He willed He could indeed have guided all of you.
SHAKIR Say Then Allah's is the conclusive argument; so if He please, He would certainly guide you all.
KHALIFA Say, "GOD possesses the most powerful argument; if He wills He can guide all of you."
M. ASAD Say " then, that the final evidence rests with God alone; and had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright.'"'

WAKAS Say " then, that the final debate rests with God alone; and had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright.'"'

4216
YUSUFALI But those who dispute concerning Allah after He has been accepted,- futile is their dispute in the Sight of their Lord on them will be a Penalty terrible.
PICKTHAL And those who argue concerning Allah after He hath been acknowledged, their argument hath no weight with their Lord, and wrath is upon them and theirs will be an awful doom.
SHAKIR And (as for) those who dispute about Allah after that obedience has been rendered to Him, their plea is null with their Lord, and upon them is wrath, and for them is severe punishment.
KHALIFA Those who argue about GOD, after receiving His message, their argument is nullified at their Lord. They have incurred condemnation, and have deserved a severe retribution.
M. ASAD And as for those who would argue about God * after He has been acknowledged all their arguments are null and void in their Sustainer?s sight, and upon them will fall condemnation, and for them is suffering severe in store.

WAKAS And as for those who would debate about God * after He has been acknowledged all their debates are null and void in their Sustainer?s sight, and upon them will fall condemnation, and for them is suffering severe in store.

683
YUSUFALI That was the reasoning about Us, which We gave to Abraham (to use) against his people We raise whom We will, degree after degree for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.
PICKTHAL That is Our argument. We gave it unto Abraham against his folk. We raise unto degrees of wisdom whom We will. Lo! thy Lord is Wise, Aware.
SHAKIR And this was Our argument which we gave to Ibrahim against his people; We exalt in dignity whom We please; surely your Lord is Wise, Knowing.
KHALIFA Such was our argument, with which we supported Abraham against his people. We exalt whomever we will to higher ranks. Your Lord is Most Wise, Omniscient.
M. ASAD And this was Our argument which We vouchsafed unto Abraham against his people We do raise by degrees whom We will. Verily, thy Sustainer is wise, all-knowing.

WAKAS And this was Our debate which We vouchsafed unto Abraham against his people We do raise by degrees whom We will. Verily, thy Sustainer is wise, all-knowing.

2150
YUSUFALI So from whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque; and wheresoever ye are, Turn your face thither that there be no ground of dispute against you among the people, except those of them that are bent on wickedness; so fear them not, but fear Me; and that I may complete My favours on you, and ye May (consent to) be guided;
PICKTHAL Whencesoever thou comest forth turn thy face toward the Inviolable Place of Worship; and wheresoever ye may be (O Muslims) turn your faces toward it (when ye pray) so that men may have no argument against you, save such of them as do injustice - Fear them not, but fear Me! - and so that I may complete My grace upon you, and that ye may be guided.
SHAKIR And from whatsoever place you come forth, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are turn your faces towards it, so that people shall have no accusation against you, except such of them as are unjust; so do not fear them, and fear Me, that I may complete My favor on you and that you may walk on the right course.
KHALIFA Wherever you go, you shall turn your face (during Salat) towards the Sacred Masjid; wherever you might be, you shall turn your faces (during Salat) towards it. Thus, the people will have no argument against you, except the transgressors among them. Do not fear them, and fear Me instead. I will then perfect My blessings upon you, that you may be guided.
M. ASAD Hence, from wherever thou mayest come forth, turn thy face towards the Inviolable House of Worship; and wherever you all may be, turn your faces towards it, so that people should have no argument against you unless they are bent upon wrongdoing. And hold not them in awe, but stand in awe of Me, and so that I might bestow upon you the full measure of My blessings., and that you might follow the right path.

WAKAS Hence, from wherever thou mayest come forth, turn thy face towards the Inviolable House of Worship; and wherever you all may be, turn your faces towards it, so that people should have no debate against you unless they are bent upon wrongdoing. And hold not them in awe, but stand in awe of Me, and so that I might bestow upon you the full measure of My blessings., and that you might follow the right path.

While ?argument? fits perfectly everywhere, debate produces complete nonsense or, at best, awkward mistranslation. Again, if you insist that ?debate? can somehow possibly fit in a remote way, I will leave it to the intelligent reader to read the above and decide which one ?debate? or ?argument? fits better.

Thanks for being more accurate in your wording. What we need to follow is what option fits best once all the evidence is weighed up.

Exactly. So let?s do as you say and now weigh all the evidence for your claim that ?haj? means ?debate?

The great reading As per the above, clearly ?argument? fits much better than ?debate?.
Classical Arabic dictionaries They clearly say (13 times) that the meaning of ?haj? is ?argument?.

So unless you have any further evidence other than your preconceived opinion (which was also mine at one point, and I apologize if you took it from me) then when we weigh all the evidence then definitely ?argument is a better fitting meaning for ?haj? than ?debate?.

Since you keep mentioning this point even though I openly said I haven't even discussed this yet, I will ask a simple question where in 397 does it talk about livestock?

Read three lines up and you will see that 393-94 talk about food and Ibrahim.

As I said, I haven't even discussed this aspect yet, as I am still waiting on a reply to my very first point about 2158.

So don?t make any conclusions about ?haj? meaning ?debate? until you consider all aspects. I have also replied above to your point about 2158.

The very fact that Lane (and I assume others) mention "argue" as well as "overcome" clearly suggest the act of overcoming or the word you used earlier in this discussion, "convincing", is not necessary in the meaning, although convincing/overcoming could occur. Not only is this obvious, it makes perfect sense, and is exactly what happens in debate.
Interestingly, it seems you have made a u-turn on your point about convincing earlier in our discussion, at first you were adamant convincing was the main point of debate and now you're trying to make a point by saying "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of debate. Which is it? It seems like you are proving my point, not yours.

I hope I don?t have to waste time explaining to you the difference between ?overcoming? and ?convincing?. Also, you are missing what Lane is saying. Lane clearly states that ?haj? means ?argument?. It is not just ?mentioned? in the passing. On the other hand, ?debate? is NEVER mentioned, not even in the passing.

Let me see if I can clarify. I think the point you are trying to make is since "overcome" aka "convincing" is not part of the English dictionary definition of debate (as I said to you originally!) this only leaves "argue" for me to choose, so I must/should choose "argue". But choosing "argue" will force me to cancel out the perfectly valid Classical Arabic meanings of "Overcome another by/in argument/evidences/proofs/testimonies" . Thus, why not choose a word that encompasses both? AND when we take into account "plead/contend/dispute", one possible meaning that stands out is "debate".
Dictionary definitions of "contend" for example
contest to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation; "They contested the outcome of the race"
compete compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against others

The word ?debate? encompasses both only in your imagination. Why go through all those acrobatics to force ?debate? to fit when ?argument? is explicitly mentioned as the clear meaning of ?haj? and it fits perfectly in the appropriate contexts in the great reading. Again, this is a case where the simplest explanation is the one most likely to be correct.

That sounds like a possibility, but that is not evidence based on AQ. Just pointing this out because you keep saying to me prove hjj means debate from the great reading etc. I have an inkling as to why you say the above, because there is no direct evidence al hajj means the feast in AQ, and there is only indirect evidence, i.e. context. But we shall see.

It is not just a possibility. If we take Lane?s meaning and the clear context in the great reading together then there are clearly two different meanings of ?haj? even though they come from the same root, much like ?nifaq? (hypocrisy) and ?infaq? (spending) and ?ibil? (camels) and ?ababil? (flocks), etc. etc.

One can see how Classical Arabic dictionaries provide very confidently the meaning for the ?haj? that consistently means ?argument? but struggle with the other one and don?t really provide a consistent or logical meaning. For the other ?haj?, they range in their meaning from ?intend? to ?make a religious pilgrimage? to ?repair? to ?shaving of the head? and all sorts of guesswork. For example, here is how they attempt to explain their guesswork

?Some say that the former is employed to signify the religious rite and ceremonies of the pilgrimage because they follow the repairing to Mekkeh, or because they are completed by shaving , or because people continue long going to and from to perform them.?

On the other hand, the Hebrew borrowed meaning of ?feast? fits all the occurrences of the other ?haj? and is in line with it being a well-known event for the people of the book while they never heard of any special annual ?argument? (or debate).

Can you copy and paste where I said anything about hundreds of thousands of people debating? If not, can you clarify to readers, this is your own made up version of what would be going on (i.e. strawman argument)? Thanks.

Unless you disagree that we invite ALL people with the ?haj? then it is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. If ALL people go to the ?debate? then we can easily get hundreds of thousands debating. This is of course unless you think that they are going but not actually participating in ?the debate?.

Peace,

Ayman

Wakas

peace brother Ayman,

You really have to decide if you are proposing that "al-hajj" is "the debate" or "the conference/symposium" and stick with one definition. The debate is ?the back and forth arguments or discussion of propositions between two opposing sides?. The conference is ?the formal meeting to discuss and exchange ideas on matters of common concern?. The definition of the symposium is ?the formal meeting at which specialists deliver lectures on related topics?. As you can see they are clearly different so choose one.

First of all it is not a "hajj", it is "al hajj", thus is better termed "the conference/symposium" as "the debate" does not give the emphasis of "the debate" as an event, i.e. it is not a debate and that's it. I have mentioned this before. You could term it "the debate" as long it is understood by whoever you are addressing it is also an event.

I find it interesting you want me to confine my definition, yet there are clearly other things going on at 'al hajj', e.g. remembering/mentioning God, rites/observances, 'arafaat/familiarizations/approbations/recognitions, seeking God's bounty, so it is obviously more than a debate, it is an event. Similarly, your meaning of feast will not encompass what else is going on UNLESS your argument is there is only feasting going on, nothing else. Is this your position?

Please provide a reference from the great reading because although ?witnessing benefits? is mentioned as a purpose of the ?haj?, ?witness guidance? is not mentioned anywhere as a purpose.

Do you confine "witness benefits" to "witness benefits of food/livestock only"? In any case...
Guidance, remembering God, witnessing benefits, rites/observances, giving good news, inviting to good are all mentioned in close proximity to hajj verses 2158-160, 2189, 2197-209, 2225-37, the whole context before and after of 397 is about guidance, following what is right, unity, inviting to good, getting the mesage across to people of the book etc.

The above is clear for all to see.

You didn?t answer the question. ?Be there? is not the same thing as ?being the debaters?. For example, will everyone debate everyone or are people there to watch a debate between a limited number of people and they are really not participating in the debate? If so, who are those limited number of people?

The way I see it is the hosts of 'al hajj' are clearly in an authorotative position wherever it is being hosted to be able to have such an event, and thus they will be the people who are doing the inviting, hosting, organising security/regulations/infrastructure, providing food/drink etc. So if they are doing all this, then it stands to reason they are also the principal ones undertaking debate, running the communication/learning/message part etc. Of course, since it is open to all, it is possible others would also be involved. Also, audience participation may well occur, Q&A etc.

That is why AQ differentiates between the terms HJJ and 3MR, former term related to debate aspects, latter for visit aspects, i.e. audience.

As a side note, I find it strange you would even bring up TV. AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology, as you well know.

I know, but you are missing the point because unlike the feast where no matter how technology progresses, people will always have to be there to participate, ?the debate? doesn?t need physical presence at a common place but can be virtual (as we are doing right now).

See how you say "I know" yet in the very same sentence you suggest a high tech alternative! I repeat, AQ is written to be applicable for all people at all levels of technology... and yes, that includes people without internet access.

Also, as I mentioned previously, in your understanding, are you implying it is only feasting that is going on, nothing else?

As per the definition of ?the debate? or ?the conference? or ?the symposium? (whichever one you want to haphazardly choose), those attending or debating or presenting or whatever have to be interested in the subject. Now the great reading or any specific religious subject may be of interest to you but it is undoubtedly of little interest to non-like minded people, even Muslims. Certainly, it won?t attract people from all over to come to this ?debate?, ?conference? or ?symposium?. In fact, such ?debates?, ?conferences? and ?symposiums? occur all the time and NONE ever attracts people with completely different interests or affiliations. Why is yours any different?

Thanks for your unevidenced subjective opinion. Again, your argument is basically this "the feast" is more appealing than "the conference/symposium". And somehow in your imagination, this unevidenced subjective opinion of "more appeal" translates to "the conference/symposium/debate" is disproven. That is laughable. At most, I would say its possible "the feast" would be more appealing than "the conference/symposium/debate", but even if it would be, this proves/disproves nothing.

Tell us, will the "free food people" still turn up in their droves when you also tell them there is no sexual relations allowed during this event ? Who will object to this less the "free food people" or those who wish to attend "the conference/symposium" as I see it? ;D

It is free food. It is not polite to ask those questions to any hosts.

Oh, so my questions are impolite, so should not be asked, but yours are ok? ;D

Is this what you ask when invited to a feast at someone?s house?

Actually sometimes I do, as I do not eat pig meat. Of course, no need to ask those who know me. Is my question impolite? Should I remain silent? ;D

Also, as with any harvest feast, there is no need to ask since clearly, a harvest feast will have fruits and vegetables common to the region where the feast happens.

Oh, so it's "harvest feast" now is it? Which is it "the feast" or "the harvest feast"?

Also, people coming from all over can bring food donations and contribute to the feast. So you can try foods from other parts of the world if the particular foods common to this area don?t suit your taste.

Oh, so it's not free food anymore, it's also bring your own, and not just enough for yourself it's bring enough to share with others now is it? Not that I particularly mind that, but it's interesting because your whole angle is it's "free food".
Background see 2197

It is disproven because no one will go to the debate that has a vague or uninteresting subject between unknown debaters or the conference on a subject that has no interest to them or go the symposium to be lectured on things that are completely disinteresting to them.

I have highlighted in bold, your baseless/exaggerated/absurd/illogical word usage.

Just try to put yourself in their shoes. Would you go to a Jewish conference where you are invited to see Rabbis debate the Talmud and witness the benefits and guidance under the Talmud (which they say is the god?s system)? Would you go to a Sunni conference to see Mullahs debate Hadiths and witness the benefits and guidance under the Hadiths (which they also say is the god?s system)? Why expect differently from others? On the other hand, all those people will go or seriously consider going to an international feast in a place with open borders.

I would be interested in going to a conference/symposium hosted by monotheists, in which everyone is invited, food/drink provided, security is guaranteed, witness good conduct / information / brotherhood / trade, even put my view across in a peaceful surrounding if I wish to. Sounds good to me.

Again, you kept silent on why is it "bi/with" and not "ila/to". The former construction, favouring my view.

What silence? I already explained numerous times why ?the debate? cannot be used as a tool to invite everyone. On the other hand, the feast can.

Once again, silence on the "ila/bi" point. It's no big deal though, it was only a small point, but the fact you never mentioned it was surprising, hence bringing it up again.

All I am saying is don?t rush to the conclusion that ?haj? means ?debate? since you haven?t even thought out your basic premise.

I haven't concluded anything. Let me clarify my position for you and all to see at this moment in time, I am of the opinion, that the evidence is weighted in favour of "al hajj" meaning "the conference/symposium/debate", as opposed to other understandings I have seen, including your one of "the feast".

Why are you so worried? As I said, I would leave it to the intelligent reader to decide. If they are too dumb to go back and read for themselves your arguments and instead blindly accept my ?misquoting? then we can?t help them anyway.

I am not worried. Brother Ayman, I asked of you a simple request; you made a claim that I made a circular argument, so I simply asked can you provide evidence for such a claim. Here you evade answering, and did not provide any evidence. Also, you put quotation marks around the word "misquoting" implying that this did not take place, when it clearly did. I will even provide one example below

############## evidence

Why is the debate best done in the summer? (and please be specific and don't give us fluffy circular answers like "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment", which beg the question why is it "an optimum time" and why is it "a favourable environment"??)
Etc.

Actually, I did not use a circular argument. Nowhere did I say "debate is best done in the summer" or imply the summer timing gives weight to the hajj=debate meaning. This is your own strawman argument. Your own wording gives it away, not once did I say "because it is and optimum time in a favourable environment" (note words in bold). You are making stuff up I never even said, this is the very definition of a strawman argument.

############# end evidence

Again, I request you provide evidence for your claim I made a circular argument. If you cannot, I expect you to correct your statement and apologise. This is the behaviour I would hope for from a fellow akhi.

I would say that it is the same like any feast. If someone invites you to a 10 day feast at his house and you enjoy the feast and meet people there and conduct business and prosper, there would be no blame on you if you help out with the regular feast activities such as the slaughtering, cooking and cleaning up. In fact, I would add that if you VOLUNTEERED better than this then certainly the hosts would be grateful. So clearly 2158 has to do with volunteering to perform a service and not with eating after some kind of mysterious debate.

I explained above how my view fits with 2158 and doesn?t fit with the meaning of ?debate?. On the other hand, you seem to disregard that the passage says ?whoever volunteers better?, so clearly what came before (?yatawaf bihima?) is ?volunteer work to pay back? and is not ?taking advantage of them? (which already happened during the feast).

Before I comment, is what you said above the exact same understanding as you gave me originally? (as I cant seem to find any difference)
Also, if this is the answer we were all patiently waiting for, why did you not respond to any of the points I brought up, which you said you would?

I can translate it but you might claim that my translation is biased. So I will provide a variety of translations since you are unlikely to claim that all those translators conspired with me to produce a ?strawman? argument against you. Also, since you prefer M. ASAD, I will use his translation and substitute your claim that ?haj? means debate and call it the WAKAS translation

.
.
.

You did not produce what I requested. I thought I was clear, but I guess not. Let me attempt to clarify again. YOU said your original phrasing examples which you numbered used the "same exact structure" (direct quote) as used in AQ. I felt they did not, so I made a simple request, and first asked where in AQ were those claimed "same exact structure" phrases from in AQ, to which you responded and provided verses. However, I felt those verses did not contain the "same exact structure" as the phrases you originally brought so I clarified/simplified again and made a simple request by laying the Arabic of the verse side by side with your claimed "same exact structure" phrase and asked once you translate the Arabic of the verse for us, we can then see if the Arabic of the verse is the "same exact structure" as your claimed "same exact structure" phrases. You did not do this. Of course, I have an idea as to why you did not do this, but let's leave it to the "intelligent reader" to decide as you say.

In future, if you do not understand a request I make, simply ask me to clarify, I dont mind clarifying.

In fact, like ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock and have NOTHING relating to some supposed debate.

Since you keep mentioning this point even though I openly said I haven't even discussed this yet, I will ask a simple question where in 397 does it talk about livestock?

Read three lines up and you will see that 393-94 talk about food and Ibrahim.

So, you admit your earlier seemingly confident claim of "ALL the passages about the "haj", those passages talk about animal livestock" is false? ;D

Firstly, it talks about the laws regarding food, not livestock. Secondly, I recommend everyone to read the context of 397 and see for themselves what the context is. Is it more "livestock" or is it more "debate"? ;D

I hope I don?t have to waste time explaining to you the difference between ?overcoming? and ?convincing?. Also, you are missing what Lane is saying. Lane clearly states that ?haj? means ?argument?. It is not just ?mentioned? in the passing. On the other hand, ?debate? is NEVER mentioned, not even in the passing.

Yes, please do explain the difference to us between "overcoming" and "convincing".

It is not just a possibility. If we take Lane?s meaning and the clear context in the great reading together then there are clearly two different meanings of ?haj? even though they come from the same root, much like ?nifaq? (hypocrisy) and ?infaq? (spending) and ?ibil? (camels) and ?ababil? (flocks), etc. etc.

One can see how Classical Arabic dictionaries provide very confidently the meaning for the ?haj? that consistently means ?argument? but struggle with the other one and don?t really provide a consistent or logical meaning. For the other ?haj?, they range in their meaning from ?intend? to ?make a religious pilgrimage? to ?repair? to ?shaving of the head? and all sorts of guesswork. For example, here is how they attempt to explain their guesswork

?Some say that the former is employed to signify the religious rite and ceremonies of the pilgrimage because they follow the repairing to Mekkeh, or because they are completed by shaving , or because people continue long going to and from to perform them.?

So let me use the same argument you brought against me against you In Classical Arabic dictionaries, nowhere is "feast" found, so it cannot mean "feast".

What else you got? ;D

Unless you disagree that we invite ALL people with the ?haj? then it is a simple matter of deductive reasoning. If ALL people go to the ?debate? then we can easily get hundreds of thousands debating. This is of course unless you think that they are going but not actually participating in ?the debate?.

See above, where I mention the differentiation between HJJ and 3MR.

At this point of our discussion I would like to declare a timeout, so we can both reflect, collect our thoughts, read over what has been written, correct ourselves where necessary, reply to any unanswered questions, research more and thus create a more fruitful learning process.

As always, peace.

Supernaut

Peace all,

I think Ayman's understanding of hajj is more tenable because one rarely invites people over for a debate, but one often invites people over for dinner, lunch etc.

truthseeker11

Peace everyone,

I agree that Ayman's understanding fits better. Mankind can be easily invited with a FEAST/HAJJ where they are fed from LIVESTOCK and while there they can WITNESS THE BENEFITS of a system based on PEACEFULNESS/ISLAM rather than based on debate/argument.

MINI

Asalaaaaaaaama to the haj debate, i dont realy think it is anything to argue about , 1. when you invite a lot of humanity together they need food, so Allah swt says feed them , and it is also a possible venue to exchange ideas and new tecnologies.

end of debate D

ayman

Peace Mini,

Asalaaaaaaaama to the haj debate, i dont realy think it is anything to argue about , 1. when you invite a lot of humanity together they need food, so Allah swt says feed them , and it is also a possible venue to exchange ideas and new tecnologies.
end of debate

According to 2227, the question is not what to invite people "to", it is what to invite people "with". People who have different beliefs will not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas". Usually, such venues only attract like-minded people. On the other hand, everyone is attracted to free food, regardless of their beliefs.

Peace,

Ayman

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

Peace Mini,

According to 2227, the question is not what to invite people "to", it is what to invite people "with". People who have different beliefs will not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas". Usually, such venues only attract like-minded people. On the other hand, everyone is attracted to free food, regardless of their beliefs.

Peace,

Ayman

You might be right. The "feast" idea doesnt seem farfetched.

2227 Call out to people with the Hajj, they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure.

2228 So that they may witness benefits for themselves and recall God's name in the appointed days over what He has provided for them of the animal livestock. So eat from it and feed the needy and the poor.

6118 So eat from that on which God's name has been mentioned, if you indeed acknowledge His signs.

6119 Why should you not eat that on which God's name has been mentioned, when He has sufficiently detailed to you what has been made forbidden; except what you are forced to? Many misguide by their desires without knowledge; your Lord is fully aware of the transgressors.

6121 Do not eat from what God's name has not been mentioned, for it is vile. The devils inspire their supporters to argue with you; and if you obey them, then you have set up partners.

Mentioning God's name and eating go hand in hand.

Wakas

peace ayman, all,

People who have different beliefs will not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas".

Have you heard of debate club? Or how about many scientific/clinical conferences in which new information/research/ideas are conveyed even though the audience may hold alternative views? But, not to worry, your absolutist statement is clarified later...

Usually, such venues only attract like-minded people.

Exactly. Admitted by yourself like-minded people. Sounds perfect doesn't it.

Does this forum not attract people with differing beliefs who exchange ideas? If this forum was hosted in a physical venue, would no-one attend according to you or would only like-minded people attend? Can one not be like-minded with others, hold different views and still want to attend a venue to exchange ideas? Is this some sort of cosmological impossibility?

On the other hand, everyone is attracted to free food, regardless of their beliefs.

Well, perhaps not those who are already well fed, have food intolerances/allergies, particular tastes, religious restrictions, etc etc. but everyone else, yes, including people not of like mind, a mish mash of people with no common aim or goal except to partake in free food it seems, then yes you are correct, everyone of this kind.

Is that wrong? No, not necessarily. Is that right? No, not necessarily.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

We should look at the Bible. "Hag" (mentioned in the Bible) and "Hajj" seem to be the same thing.

Three times a year shall you celebrate for Me a hag (Exodus 2314).
Nearly all translation's which I checked (from http//bible.cc/exodus/23-14.htm, btw) say "feast", and one says "pilgrimage festival".

Some more verses

"Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." (Exodus 2313) Seems to be a parallel to Quran 2228.

"You shall observe the hag of Unleavened Bread; for seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. And none shall appear before Me empty-handed. (Exodus 2315)

"Celebrate the Feast of Harvest with the firstfruits of the crops you sow in your field. Celebrate the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in your crops from the field." (Exodus 2316)

"Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Lord God." (Exodus 2317)

"Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast. "The fat of my festival offerings must not be kept until morning." (Exodus 231

Cross-reference to Exodus 1210 'And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire.'

"Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God. "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk." (Exodus 2319)

Anyone have more verses about "hag"?

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

Have you heard of debate club? Or how about many scientific/clinical conferences in which new information/research/ideas are conveyed even though the audience may hold alternative views? But, not to worry, your absolutist statement is clarified later...
Exactly. Admitted by yourself like-minded people. Sounds perfect doesn't it.
Does this forum not attract people with differing beliefs who exchange ideas? If this forum was hosted in a physical venue, would no-one attend according to you or would only like-minded people attend? Can one not be like-minded with others, hold different views and still want to attend a venue to exchange ideas? Is this some sort of cosmological impossibility?
Well, perhaps not those who are already well fed, have food intolerances/allergies, particular tastes, religious restrictions, etc etc. but everyone else, yes, including people not of like mind, a mish mash of people with no common aim or goal except to partake in free food it seems, then yes you are correct, everyone of this kind.
Is that wrong? No, not necessarily. Is that right? No, not necessarily.

Here is the FM translation of 2228

2228 So that they may witness benefits for themselves, and mention the name of God in the appointed days over what He has provided for them of the animal livestock. So eat from it and feed the needy and the poor.

Does this sound more like this forum hosted in a physical venue or like a feast?

I am not making any absolutist statement but I am making a statement of what is most likely, which also happens to be the simplest explanation.

Peace,

Ayman

Wakas

peace brother Ayman,

Here is the FM translation of 2228

2228 So that they may witness benefits for themselves, and mention the name of God in the appointed days over what He has provided for them of the animal livestock. So eat from it and feed the needy and the poor.

Does this sound more like this forum hosted in a physical venue or like a feast?

Interesting response. So, not only do you dodge answering my questions (albeit most were rhetorical), you twist my observation and somehow imply I am equating hajj with this forum hosted in a physical venue. I recommend reading up on the logical fallacy commonly called "strawman argument"
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

I am not making any absolutist statement but I am making a statement of what is most likely, which also happens to be the simplest explanation.

An absolutist/absolute statement is one in which no other interpretation is possible, logically, i.e. no exceptions. You made one. It's ok, it seems you have now clarified and are now making a statement of what is most likely according to you.

In case you missed it...
Absolute statement 1) People who have different beliefs will not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas".
Absolute statement 2) On the other hand, everyone is attracted to free food, regardless of their beliefs.

Corrected to represent what is most accurate

People who have different beliefs may or may not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas".
On the other hand, many people are attracted to free food, regardless of beliefs.

As you and I know both know, making the statements more accurate, doesn't really give your view much weight.

ayman

Peace Progressive1993

We should look at the Bible. "Hag" (mentioned in the Bible) and "Hajj" seem to be the same thing.

?Three times a year shall you celebrate for Me a hag? (Exodus 2314).
Nearly all translation's which I checked (from http//bible.cc/exodus/23-14.htm, btw) say "feast", and one says "pilgrimage festival".

Indeed, Exodus 2314-17 does describe a harvest feast ("hagg&quot. What you need to realize is that everything in the great reading is interconnected. So unlike spinning around some stone cube and kissing a Black Stone which can be done anytime or according to an arbitrary lunar calendar, if you think that "hagg" means "feast" then its timing must coincide with the time of the harvest. The three "hagg" are also in line with the findings on the four inviolable full-moons, the first being a marker for the fast, while the following three are for the feast.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

Interesting response. So, not only do you dodge answering my questions (albeit most were rhetorical), you twist my observation and somehow imply I am equating hajj with this forum hosted in a physical venue. I recommend reading up on the logical fallacy commonly called "strawman argument"
http//www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

It is good then that I didn't waste your time in answering rhetorical questions.

I didn't say that you were equating this forum with "hajj". You used the example of this forum which is a venue for debate (according to you "hajj" means "debate&quot. I used the example of a feast. I simply pointed out which example is more likely to fit the clear purposes outlined in 2228. Instead of bringing a counter argument and trying to dispute that my example fits better, you abandon your example.

At any rate, if you think the example of this debate forum is weak and therefore I am using it to build a strawman, then simply bring a strong example instead of just complaining about a foul.

An absolutist/absolute statement is one in which no other interpretation is possible, logically, i.e. no exceptions. You made one. It's ok, it seems you have now clarified and are now making a statement of what is most likely according to you.
In case you missed it...
Absolute statement 1) People who have different beliefs will not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas".
Absolute statement 2) On the other hand, everyone is attracted to free food, regardless of their beliefs.
Corrected to represent what is most accurate

People who have different beliefs may or may not travel to a venue to "exchange ideas".
On the other hand, many people are attracted to free food, regardless of beliefs.
As you and I know both know, making the statements more accurate, doesn't really give your view much weight.

No, I don't know because it sounds pretty strong to me. jedi

Peace,

Ayman

Wakas

peace brother Ayman,

I did not abandon my example, nor did I fail to bring a counter argument, I pointed out you brought a strawman argument. Logical fallacies (e.g. strawman argument) require no response other than to point them out as a logical fallacy.

No, I don't know because it sounds pretty strong to me.

"pretty strong" is a significant step down from an absolutist statement. Buy hey, I'm not complaining, everyone is entitled to their own subjective opinion and to think of it as evidence. I'm just glad you eventually climbed down and admitted it.

I desire no more than to set right what I was able to; but the achievement of my aim depends on God alone. In Him have I placed my trust, and unto Him do I always turn.

Ibrahim-Khalil

One jew told me that the 'hag' word comin from 'lyahug' (spin around sacrifice altars or somethin...)