hajj / feast / debate
-
peace brother Ayman,
Not long ago, I used to think that "hajj" means "debate" too. However, in reality when we read the purpose of the "hajj" in 2228 we see that it is to witness benefits and to remember the name of the god on what he gave us from the livestock. We are told to eat from it and feed the poor. In fact, if we carefully read the whole passage from 2227-37, we can realize that 90% of it is about the livestock. So this is about eating and feeding others the livestock's meat. What do we call that? This is a feast.
I agree that "hajj" includes what you mentioned above. However, AQ seems to give a clear pointer as to the central purpose of "hajj", the feast is secondary/after
My translation
Truly, the animals of milking and the stone of slaughtering/cooking are from the markers/ordinances/regulations of God, so whoever undertook debate (at) the House/Establishment or visited, there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them. And whoever does good voluntarily, then The God is Appreciative/Recognising, Aware/Knowledgeable.
See the following post for the detailed reasoning behind the above translation
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8795.msg40400#msg40400Background reading
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm -
Peace Ayman,
= 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.
hajja vb. (1)
perf. act. 2158
n.vb. 2189, 2196, 2196, 2196, 2197, 2197, 2197, 397, 93, 2227
pcple. act. 919
hijaj n.f. (pl. of hijjah) 2827
hujjah n.f. 2150, 4165, 683, 6149, 4215, 4216, 4525
hajja vb. (3)
perf. act. 2258, 320, 361, 366, 680
impf. act. 276, 2139, 365, 366, 373, 680, 4216
tahajja vb. (6) impf. act. 4047
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 149, 150, 151 (From PRL-online)When you check all the occurrences of the word hajj and its derivatives in Quran you sea that almost all of them are related to meanings such as debate, argue, plea, proof, evidence, testimony. On the other hand the meaning of feast in classical dictionaries and in verse 5.114 is clearly mentioned to be ?3eed? not ?hajj?. God repeats many times in Quran that Quran is in plain Arabic that was used by the ?ummiyeen? ordinary people. As you explained in details in one of your excellent articles (Language Barrier) it was not in the language of Ahlul kitab who were living in fortified castles and using another language ?a3jami? in their affairs of religion. But unfortunately now you are trying to prove your argument by using words from ?a3jami? while in the Quran the word Hajj is clearly and plainly used to mean debate. So allow me to tell you that your ?hujja? is week here.
Peace.
-
Peace everyone,
I think "hajj" as used in the qur'aan means "undertaking/venture/enterprise" for the purpose of trading, exchanging ideas, and feasting according to the context of "witnessing benefits for mankind" and "feeding from animal livestock". Witnessing benefits implies an annual market/symposium/fair in which mankind comes from all over to trade with each other and exchange ideas about technology etc. and there is associated feast with free food for people who travel from all over. That is the only way mankind can be invited with the hajj. There is no way that entire mankind can be invited with a debate.
From 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.Keeping the purpose of hajj in mind of witnessing benefits and feasting, I think that the proper translation of the word "hajj" as used in the qur'aan would be "undertaking/venture/enterprise". It can neither be "debate" as explained above, nor "feast" alone. Undertaking means "venture/enterprise" according to English dictionaries. From thefreedictionary.com
un?der?tak?ing (ndr-tkng)
n.- A task or assignment undertaken; a venture.
- A guaranty, engagement, or promise.
- The profession or duties of a funeral director.
The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ?2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
undertaking
Noun- a task or enterprise
- an agreement to do something
- Informal the practice of overtaking on an inner lane a vehicle which is travelling in an outer lane
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 ? HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006
I would translate "hajj" as "undertaking/venture/enterprise".
2227 And call out to the people with the undertaking/venture/enterprise, they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure.
-
Peace Supernaut,
So people owe it to the god (397) to come from the farthest locations (2227) just to get together to eat meat and thank the god for the meat? Kind of extravagant and pointless if you can ask me because you can eat meat at home and still thank the god for the meat. I think understanding hajj as a symposium makes more sense.
A feast is a kind of symposium with the added benefit of free food. This is the only way to invite all people. Remember that Ibrahim invited people WITH the "hajj"/feast. It is a tool to bring people together to a location where there is community that doesn't set up partners with the god (2226). Can you invite ALL people to a religious symposium? Defintely not. If it is a so-called "Quran Alone" symposium then only Quran Alone people will bother. If it is a Sunni symposium then only Sunnis will bother.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Wakas,
I agree that "hajj" includes what you mentioned above. However, AQ seems to give a clear pointer as to the central purpose of "hajj", the feast is secondary/after
My translation
Truly, the animals of milking and the stone of slaughtering/cooking are from the markers/ordinances/regulations of God, so whoever undertook debate (at) the House/Establishment or visited, there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them. And whoever does good voluntarily, then The God is Appreciative/Recognising, Aware/Knowledgeable.
See the following post for the detailed reasoning behind the above translation
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8795.msg40400#msg40400
Background reading
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htmIf you read the beginning of this thread back in 2004, you will see that I used to think that "hajj" meant "debate" too. I now clearly see that I was wrong.
From 2158, it shows that the animals and the stone that they are slaughtered/cooked on is an integral part of the "hajj". There is no mention at all of any kind of thing related to debate. In fact, we are clearly told not to argue/debate during the feast (2197). Clearly, any "convincing" that will happen during the feast will only happen by virtue of it being in a place where no partners are setup with the god and thus by people WITNESSING the good example of such community and not by debating.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Tlepsh,
= 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.
hajja vb. (1)
perf. act. 2158
n.vb. 2189, 2196, 2196, 2196, 2197, 2197, 2197, 397, 93, 2227
pcple. act. 919
hijaj n.f. (pl. of hijjah) 2827
hujjah n.f. 2150, 4165, 683, 6149, 4215, 4216, 4525
hajja vb. (3)
perf. act. 2258, 320, 361, 366, 680
impf. act. 276, 2139, 365, 366, 373, 680, 4216
tahajja vb. (6) impf. act. 4047
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 2, page 149, 150, 151 (From PRL-online)
When you check all the occurrences of the word hajj and its derivatives in Quran you sea that almost all of them are related to meanings such as debate, argue, plea, proof, evidence, testimony.I disagree. The ones that talk about "HaG" clearly do not. This is what we are trying to prove or disprove.
Arabic is full of inconsistencies. I already showed you the example of "NiFAQ" (hypocrisy) and "INFAQ" (spending) which carry two completely different meanings despite being from the same root NFQ.
On the other hand the meaning of feast in classical dictionaries and in verse 5.114 is clearly mentioned to be ?3eed? not ?hajj?.
"3eed" means celebration and not "feast". A "celebration" can involve a "feast" but not necessarily.
God repeats many times in Quran that Quran is in plain Arabic that was used by the ?ummiyeen? ordinary people. As you explained in details in one of your excellent articles (Language Barrier) it was not in the language of Ahlul kitab who were living in fortified castles and using another language ?a3jami? in their affairs of religion. But unfortunately now you are trying to prove your argument by using words from ?a3jami? while in the Quran the word Hajj is clearly and plainly used to mean debate. So allow me to tell you that your ?hujja? is week here.
Your point would be valid if it were a religious word. The fact is that there are many words in Arabic are borrowed from other languages. The word "HaG" is not a religious word. It is a mundane word that is used to describe a thing that is essentially a harvest feast were people from ALL religions and creeds came. The correct argument that you presented actually negates that it means "arguing/debating for a certain religion" or "making a specific religious pilgrimage" since the Arabic language wouldn't have been the vehicle for expressing religion-specific concepts.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
If you read the beginning of this thread back in 2004, you will see that I used to think that "hajj" meant "debate" too. I now clearly see that I was wrong.
From 2158, it shows that the animals and the stone that they are slaughtered/cooked on is an integral part of the "hajj". There is no mention at all of any kind of thing related to debate. In fact, we are clearly told not to argue/debate during the feast (2197). Clearly, any "convincing" that will happen during the feast will only happen by virtue of it being in a place where no partners are setup with the god and thus by people WITNESSING the good example of such community and not by debating.
Albanian religious communities foster co-operation
http//www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2009/01/21/feature-03This is hajj hey, (who wudda thunk it) in Albania... ;D
http//www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/images/2009/01/21/MANJOLAphoto.jpg
-
Peace Truthseeker,
I think "hajj" as used in the qur'aan means "undertaking/venture/enterprise" for the purpose of trading, exchanging ideas, and feasting according to the context of "witnessing benefits for mankind" and "feeding from animal livestock". Witnessing benefits implies an annual market/symposium/fair in which mankind comes from all over to trade with each other and exchange ideas about technology etc. and there is associated feast with free food for people who travel from all over. That is the only way mankind can be invited with the hajj. There is no way that entire mankind can be invited with a debate.
I agree with you. However, I believe that by virtue of being a community where no partners are set up with the god "trading and exchanging ideas and venture" will happen ALL the time. The key here is "witness". So even if people who come and don't participate in "trading and exchanging ideas and venture", they will still witness these benefits by virtue of seeing and experiencing a community that doesn't setup partners with the god. So when people come for the feast, the other things will happen naturally and they will always happen anyway in a community that truly doesn't setup partners with the god. On the other hand, "hajj" is clearly a SEASONAL event and not surprisingly it takes place at a time where LIVESTOCK and CROPS are MOST plentiful. So the "feast" is what distinguishes it from any other regular time. This is all empirically verifiable and as you say "there is no way that entire mankind can be invited with a debate" but we can with a feast. I have faith that all the other benefits will automatically come as a result of people witnessing the community where no partners are setup with the god.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Pseudo,
Albanian religious communities foster co-operation
http//www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2009/01/21/feature-03
This is hajj hey, (who wudda thunk it) in Albania... ;DBut seriously, if Albania ever becomes a place where no partners are setup with the god then it would be the location of the inviolable house.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
You never addressed the main point I was trying to highlight, but I will clarify this time in case I was not clear.
From 2158, it shows that the animals and the stone that they are slaughtered/cooked on is an integral part of the "hajj".
Exactly, but IF the primary purpose of the "hajj" is "feast" as you say then why does the verse say "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them"? To say this for something that is the very purpose of them being there for the "hajj/feast" would be illogical.
In fact, we are clearly told not to argue/debate during the feast (2197).
The word you refer to is "jidal" not "hajj". In fact, the verse you refer to proves there is a difference between "jidal" and "hajj". We can easily see that the Classical Arabic meanings of "jidal" refer to a more vehement form or arguing, thus the guidance fits perfectly for "hajj" being a conference/symposium.
Clearly, any "convincing" that will happen during the feast will only happen by virtue of it being in a place where no partners are setup with the god and thus by people WITNESSING the good example of such community and not by debating.
So, "convincing" is not possible by debate as well as witnessing good examples? Is this your position?
Out of curiousity, do you translate "hajj" as "feast" in AQ? If so, can you provide us with a translation of 2158? Thanks.
That is the only way mankind can be invited with the hajj. There is no way that entire mankind can be invited with a debate.
This is all empirically verifiable and as you say "there is no way that entire mankind can be invited with a debate" but we can with a feast.
Firstly, the word here is "al hajj", i.e. the conference/symposium
I fail to see the point being made here. Can either of you clarify/expand why mankind cannot be invited or called to with the conference/symposium? In fact, it implies "al hajj" can be utilised as a communication vehicle/medium to call out with, and this fits more with conference/symposium than feast. -
Peace brother Wakas,
Exactly, but IF the primary purpose of the "hajj" is "feast" as you say then why does the verse say "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them"? To say this for something that is the very purpose of them being there for the "hajj/feast" would be illogical.
Because "them" refers to the animals lined up for slaughter and the stone that they are slaughtered on. If you come to a place and see a large number of animals lined up for slaughter, you might not feel comfortable or PETA might object, especially since this might make people associate this with the slaughtering of animals on altars of paganism. So the god is telling us that this is fine.
The word you refer to is "jidal" not "hajj". In fact, the verse you refer to proves there is a difference between "jidal" and "hajj". We can easily see that the Classical Arabic meanings of "jidal" refer to a more vehement form or arguing, thus the guidance fits perfectly for "hajj" being a conference/symposium.
How many times have you seen a debate that didn't erupt into a vehement argument? How many such vehement arguments have you personally participated in? The issue is not about argument. One can present good arguments and then the opposite side can present better arguments. This is called debate. In 16125, we are ordered to argue ("jidal" with what is better/best. On the other hand, we are told that people who denied the god's signs argue with falsehood (405). So there is bad argument and good argument. The god is telling us that there shouldn't be any arguments (good or bad) in the "hajj", else how do you interpret passages such as 16125 and 405 if "jidal" was always the bad "vehement form of arguing".
Also, it is a fact that upon closer examination of the idea that "haj" is good while "jidal" is bad, this also doesn't hold water from the "haj" side. There are numerous passages that talk about "haj" being bad and Tlepsh referred to those passages by number for the various conjugations. For example, 361 talks about "haj" and the issue here is not that it is "perf. act." conjugation but it is that clearly "haj", like "jidal" can be negative. We are instructed to say a specific thing when people debate with us after knowledge was made apparent. Those people's debate is a bad debate. Are you going to invite people from the corners of the world for a "debate" so that you can tell some of them
"Let's call our children and your children and our women and your women and our selves and your selves then we earnestly pray so we invoke the god's curse upon the liars".
How many people will show up next year?
No this is not about debating, it is about witnessing!
So, "convincing" is not possible by debate as well as witnessing good examples? Is this your position?
I didn't say it was not possible. There is a right time and a right place for both kinds. In this case, "convincing" is NOT part of the purpose of "hajj". The great reading clearly tells us the purpose of "hajj" and none of it has to do with "convincing". It has to do with "witnessing" benefits and "remembering" the god for what he bestowed on us from the livestock. It can't be any clearer. So "witnessing" is definitely in line with what the great reading is saying while "debating" is not.
Out of curiousity, do you translate "hajj" as "feast" in AQ? If so, can you provide us with a translation of 2158? Thanks.
Yes, and gladly
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasts (at) the house or prospers, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
This is about the preparation for the feast and people who are feasting at the house or prosper as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to the preparation of the feast in terms of organizing livestock and slaughtering and cooking them.
If you disagree then tell us what (according to your own translation) do animals and slaughtering and cooking them have to do ?debating?? Of course, unless you are planning to feed your opponent a heavy meal so that he can?t think quickly, then probably your answer should be NOTHING.
I know that a conference to communicate your ideas is a noble cause and it does have its right place but we shouldn?t let our good intentions force a certain idea that is not supported at all by the great reading. Especially, in this case the simplest mundane interpretation of ?feast? fits very well with the purpose, timing and the activities going on in the ?hajj?.
Firstly, the word here is "al hajj", i.e. the conference/symposium
I fail to see the point being made here. Can either of you clarify/expand why mankind cannot be invited or called to with the conference/symposium? In fact, it implies "al hajj" can be utilised as a communication vehicle/medium to call out with, and this fits more with conference/symposium than feast.No. It says that ?haj? is a tool to invite all people. There is nothing about is being a communication medium to communicate something. Otherwise, what is that something? Nothing is mentioned. It is an invitation to WITNESS and REMEMBER and EAT and FEED. A debate is not the first thing that comes into mind.
Does ?hajj? mean ?debate? or ?conference?? Conference/symposium is a vague term that doesn?t say anything.
Let me ask you this. Which is the best way to invite ALL people
- A conference to debate things such as the interpretation of 2158 about the animals and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked.
- A feast where they can actually eat food prepared by people who tended to this process with care and volunteered their best?
There are thousands of conferences every year and in fact we had a so-called Quran Alone oriented conference last year (the Heretic Muslims conference). All those conferences have one thing in common. They are attended by people who are interested in the subject of the conference. There is nothing wrong with that. However, everything has a purpose and the purpose of the ?hajj? is not about only attracting like minded people.
On the other hand, tens of thousands of people of different religious affiliations come from all over the world to attend the South Beach food festival despite the fact that the average basic ticket price is over $300 and the full ticket costs $1,000. Imagine if this was a free feast with the backing of all the community and taking place at the safest place in the world, which also has open borders. I think that hundreds of thousands would easily attend. OK enough typing, your debate with me about the feast made me hungry.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
After restudying all the occurrences of the word hajj and its derivative in Quran I agree with you that ?feast? fits much better than ?debate?
3.20 If they debate with you, then Say ?I have surrendered myself to God, as well as those who follow me.? And say to those who have received the Scripture and the Gentiles ?Have you surrendered?? If they have surrendered then they are guided, and if they turn away, then you are only to deliver, and God is watcher over the servants.
In verse mentioned above and in verses 5.92, 5.39, 13.40, 16.35, 16.82, 24.54, 29.18, 36.17, 42.48, and 64.12 God tells to prophet that he is only to deliver the message. God doesn?t ask the prophet to debate. God tells him how to answer when others debate/argue with him.
-
Peace Ayman and Tlepsh,
Well, after some reading, Hajj doesn't mean debate nor feast. It simply mean to visit. So it is an obligation on mankind to visit the House of God which is the Kaaba. In the visit, you will give an offering to be sacrificed in the Kaaba and it will be used to eat from and feed the hungry and the poor nearby. When you give an offering to the Kaaba, you are giving a gift to God to get closer to him. Because God is not in need of being fed, He lets you eat from it and feeds the poor. God won your reverence and you won His approval. Great.
Peace,
Rami
-
peace brother Ayman,
Because "them" refers to the animals lined up for slaughter and the stone that they are slaughtered on. If you come to a place and see a large number of animals lined up for slaughter, you might not feel comfortable or PETA might object, especially since this might make people associate this with the slaughtering of animals on altars of paganism. So the god is telling us that this is fine.
I consider that a possibility, a weak one, but a possibility nonetheless. On the one hand "hajj" is all about the feasting, yet on the other AQ feels the need to clarify "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them", no hint of altars of paganism or animal cruelty mentioned, just simply being amongst them is mentioned. I consider this unusual for AQ.
How many times have you seen a debate that didn't erupt into a vehement argument?
Many. This one between you and I being one example, unless you think it would be different in person.
How many such vehement arguments have you personally participated in?
Me personally? Almost zero, as "vehement arguing" is not my style.
The god is telling us that there shouldn't be any arguments (good or bad) in the "hajj"
No, that is your own extrapolation. It says there is to be no "jidal" in the "hajj".
else how do you interpret passages such as 16125 and 405 if "jidal" was always the bad "vehement form of arguing".
Firstly, I'm not sure if I'd state every occurrence of "jidal" to mean "vehement form of arguing", but in the examples you gave it paints "jidal" in a negative light. It suggests it is a bad form of arguing in both examples. Is there an occurrence which paints "jidal" in a positive light?
Also, it is a fact that upon closer examination of the idea that "haj" is good while "jidal" is bad, this also doesn't hold water from the "haj" side. There are numerous passages that talk about "haj" being bad and Tlepsh referred to those passages by number for the various conjugations. For example, 361 talks about "haj" and the issue here is not that it is "perf. act." conjugation but it is that clearly "haj", like "jidal" can be negative. We are instructed to say a specific thing when people debate with us after knowledge was made apparent. Those people's debate is a bad debate.
Is it their points/views that are bad or is it their form/style of debate that is bad? The answer is obvious from the verse... it is the former.
Also, it is interesting you skip over the fact that it is in the 'perfect active' conjugation (i.e. an action done/completed) which almost all translations skip over too. Bearing the conjugation in mind, clearly then, we are instructed to say this at the end of the debate (I would assume if there is no agreement/consensus), thus ending it in a peaceful way. Also, you fail to mention the context of this verse, e.g. it seems to be with people of the book (i.e. those who also believe in God) so if one were "debating" with a group of people, some of whom were atheists for example, there would be no need to make the statement in 361. Furthermore, the immediate context of 364 is significantly amicable. If a debate was ended in such a manner, I would consider it more positive than negative.Are you going to invite people from the corners of the world for a "debate" so that you can tell some of them
"Let's call our children and your children and our women and your women and our selves and your selves then we earnestly pray so we invoke the god's curse upon the liars".
See above.
No this is not about debating, it is about witnessing!
And can one witness with their minds, eyes and ears as well as their stomachs? ;D
There is a right time and a right place for both kinds. In this case, "convincing" is NOT part of the purpose of "hajj". The great reading clearly tells us the purpose of "hajj" and none of it has to do with "convincing".
Who said anything about "convincing"? You are the one who brought up "convincing" initially, and now seem to be creating a strawman argument.
In any case, see your own cited example of 361 which proves in "hajj" there is not necessarily "convincing".
It has to do with "witnessing" benefits and "remembering" the god for what he bestowed on us from the livestock. It can't be any clearer. So "witnessing" is definitely in line with what the great reading is saying while "debating" is not.
I am not saying it is one or the other, both have roles to play, as stated in my initial post to you (4th March).
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasts (at) the house or prospers, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
This is about the preparation for the feast and people who are feasting at the house or prosper as a result of the feast volunteering to attend to the preparation of the feast in terms of organizing livestock and slaughtering and cooking them.
Before I comment, I need clarification. The words you have translated as "feasts" and "prospers" are in the perfect conjugation in the Arabic, thus refer to an action done/completed. So, your translation should be
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
Do you agree/disagee?
Also, can you provide your reasoning/evidence for "The livestock lined up for slaughter"?
Why would one go about/amongst "the livestock lined up for slaughter"?
What are your thoughts on when it says "in them are benefits to an appointed time, then their place is to..."?
See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8795.msg40400#msg40400If you disagree then tell us what (according to your own translation) do animals and slaughtering and cooking them have to do ?debating?? Of course, unless you are planning to feed your opponent a heavy meal so that he can?t think quickly, then probably your answer should be NOTHING.
It is normal for the host of a symposium/conference to provide food/drink. Do you disagree?
No. It says that ?haj? is a tool to invite all people. There is nothing about is being a communication medium to communicate something. Otherwise, what is that something? Nothing is mentioned.
My point was if it says one can call out with XYZ, then this implies XYZ is a vehicle/medium one can call out with. It implies an element of communication with whatever is being utilised to call out with. It doesn't say call out to the "hajj" (which would fit better with "feast", it says call out with the "hajj" (which would fit better with "conference/symposium". In any case, this was not a big point for me, I was simply mentioning it as a response to the claim of one cannot call out with a debate or conference/symposium, yet one can magically do this with a "feast". It could be done with either.
Does ?hajj? mean ?debate? or ?conference?? Conference/symposium is a vague term that doesn?t say anything.
"al hajj" means "the conference/symposium" in my understanding thus far. "hajj" has the meaning of "debate".
Let me ask you this. Which is the best way to invite ALL people
- A conference to debate things such as the interpretation of 2158 about the animals and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked.
- A feast where they can actually eat food prepared by people who tended to this process with care and volunteered their best?
As I said to you in my original post to you (4th March), it is not one or the other.
There are thousands of conferences every year and in fact we had a so-called Quran Alone oriented conference last year (the Heretic Muslims conference). All those conferences have one thing in common. They are attended by people who are interested in the subject of the conference. There is nothing wrong with that. However, everything has a purpose and the purpose of the ?hajj? is not about only attracting like minded people.
On the other hand, tens of thousands of people of different religious affiliations come from all over the world to attend the South Beach food festival despite the fact that the average basic ticket price is over $300 and the full ticket costs $1,000. Imagine if this was a free feast with the backing of all the community and taking place at the safest place in the world, which also has open borders. I think that hundreds of thousands would easily attend.
I did some research on your example of the "South Beach food festival" and to my surprise it also said there are talks and demonstrations that go on. In other words, it is not all about food. ;D However, it is obvious that such an event would attract primarily food enthusiasts, i.e. like-minded people.
The "hajj" is open to all mankind, no doubt about that. If the majority of those who attend are like-minded, then so be it, it is still open to all.
-
Peace all,
I will not go into what is the correct meaning of "hajj", but I want to ask for the validity of it to be held in one specific location on earth for all the people.
Nowadays, with all the transport facilities, it seems easy to travel for thousands of miles in a short period; but in the old days, and even now for many regions, it is difficult even to travels for hundreds of miles.
My question about "hajj"
Why should it be held in ONE specific location for all the people? Why is it for ONE specific period in a year?
--
-
Peace Rami,
Well, after some reading, Hajj doesn't mean debate nor feast. It simply mean to visit. So it is an obligation on mankind to visit the House of God which is the Kaaba. In the visit, you will give an offering to be sacrificed in the Kaaba and it will be used to eat from and feed the hungry and the poor nearby. When you give an offering to the Kaaba, you are giving a gift to God to get closer to him. Because God is not in need of being fed, He lets you eat from it and feeds the poor. God won your reverence and you won His approval. Great.
You can't invite all people with "the visit" to some shrine. Especially, if this visit is to some religious shrine that is viewed as pagan by everyone except members of one's own group. Would you go if Hindus invite you to visit one of their temples and make offerings to it!? Why expect different from others?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Wakas,
I consider that a possibility, a weak one, but a possibility nonetheless. On the one hand "hajj" is all about the feasting, yet on the other AQ feels the need to clarify "there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them", no hint of altars of paganism or animal cruelty mentioned, just simply being amongst them is mentioned. I consider this unusual for AQ.
It would have been a weak possibilty if this was the only place where livestock is mentioned in relation to "hajj". It is not a weak argument since livestock is mentioned in or around almost EVERY passage where "hajj" is mentioned, so clearly it is one of the most important aspects of "hajj".
Many. This one between you and I being one example, unless you think it would be different in person.
Me personally? Almost zero, as "vehement arguing" is not my style.Do you really expect to invite ALL people with a "debate" and if you get your wish and all of them show up and debate that amongst the hundreds of thousands of debates there will not be any "vehement arguing" or "heated debates"!? Wakas, you are too idealistic.
No, that is your own extrapolation. It says there is to be no "jidal" in the "hajj".
But you are the one who said that "jidal" means "arguing" while "haj" means debating. I already showed you how if you look at all occurences of "jidal" in the great reading, it becomes clear that there is good "jidal" and there is bad "jidal", just like there is good "haj" and bad "haj".
Firstly, I'm not sure if I'd state every occurrence of "jidal" to mean "vehement form of arguing", but in the examples you gave it paints "jidal" in a negative light. It suggests it is a bad form of arguing in both examples. Is there an occurrence which paints "jidal" in a positive light?
16125 clearly states that there is good "jidal".
Is it their points/views that are bad or is it their form/style of debate that is bad? The answer is obvious from the verse... it is the former.
No, it is both. If one is using false/fallacious arguments in debating then both their point of view is bad and their debate style is bad. Someone who uses false fallacious arguments even if they are presented in a nice decorated way are still bad debaters. You are suggesting that STYLE is more important than SUBSTANCE.
Many of the occurences of the word "haj" when it means debate actually refer to bad debate (361, 365-66, 680, 320, 2139, 4216, 4525). In numerous passages people who debate in the god are cast in a bad light. So how can we invite people to have somekind of a religious debate that is sure to involve at one point or another debate in the god! Moreover, the word "haj" is sometimes used not to mean debate but to mean "argument" or "excuse" as in 2150.
In fact there are several passages where "argument" would fit better than "debate" for "haj". For example, the god is said to have the most conclusive or best ?argument? in 6149 and certainly not the best debate (which would involve an opponent).
I am inclined to think of ?jadal? more as debate while ?haj? more as argument. Hence, certainly 4216 talks about an ?argument? as defeated and not a ?debate? as defeated. Similarly, 683 certainly talks about giving Abrahams a strong argument and not a debate.
Also, it is interesting you skip over the fact that it is in the 'perfect active' conjugation (i.e. an action done/completed) which almost all translations skip over too. Bearing the conjugation in mind, clearly then, we are instructed to say this at the end of the debate (I would assume if there is no agreement/consensus), thus ending it in a peaceful way.
The end of debate happens as soon as they debate after what came to us from the knowledge. There is no evidence that we debated back! This is confirmed by other passages such as 4215. It would be interesting to see how you can apply 4215 during this alleged "debate". Do you really expect people to come to you from all over the world just so that you can tell them "there is no debate between you and us"!!
Also, you fail to mention the context of this verse, e.g. it seems to be with people of the book (i.e. those who also believe in God) so if one were "debating" with a group of people, some of whom were atheists for example, there would be no need to make the statement in 361. Furthermore, the immediate context of 364 is significantly amicable. If a debate was ended in such a manner, I would consider it more positive than negative.
If we read the whole passage to 365, 66, etc. then we are telling the people of the book not to debate/argue with us. This is a very strange ?debate?. You invite people WITH the ?debate? just so you can tell them not to ?debate? with you (361, 366, 4215, etc.). Do you really expect people to show up for such alleged ?debate?!?
I think that you need to balance idealism with some realism.
See above.
I saw above and I didn?t see anything that deals with the reality of what saying the following at the debate will do to the level of attendance at this alleged ?debate?
"Let's call our children and your children and our women and your women and our selves and your selves then we earnestly pray so we invoke the god's curse upon the liars".
How likely do you think that your guests will return after hearing this?
And can one witness with their minds, eyes and ears as well as their stomachs? ;D
Yes but on the other hand debating is not the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of witnessing.
Who said anything about "convincing"? You are the one who brought up "convincing" initially, and now seem to be creating a strawman argument.
I sense a little bit of ?vehement argument? . What is the purpose of debating? Is it pointless then?
In any case, see your own cited example of 361 which proves in "hajj" there is not necessarily "convincing".
There is no convincing necessary but it is the main purpose of debate. You are confusing purpose and outcome. Just because the purpose of the debate is to convince, it doesn?t mean that one side will always be convinced.
I am not saying it is one or the other, both have roles to play, as stated in my initial post to you (4th March).
I am saying that it is one (feast) and not the other (debate). This is what this discussion is about.
Before I comment, I need clarification. The words you have translated as "feasts" and "prospers" are in the perfect conjugation in the Arabic, thus refer to an action done/completed. So, your translation should be
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
Do you agree/disagee?
I agree.
Also, can you provide your reasoning/evidence for "The livestock lined up for slaughter"?
See 2236. I am of course open to different interpretations.
Why would one go about/amongst "the livestock lined up for slaughter"?
It is not ?go about/amongst?. It is ?attend to?. It is like a cook attending to the food. It is like, for example, the allegory in 3745 of waiters attending to them with drinks and not just taking the drinks and going about/amongst them.
What are your thoughts on when it says "in them are benefits to an appointed time, then their place is to..."?
See http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8795.msg40400#msg40400?The freed/liberated house?
It is normal for the host of a symposium/conference to provide food/drink. Do you disagree?
You are changing the meaning to ?symposium/conference?. So do you agree that ?debate? is not the correct meaning?
My point was if it says one can call out with XYZ, then this implies XYZ is a vehicle/medium one can call out with. It implies an element of communication with whatever is being utilised to call out with. It doesn't say call out to the "hajj" (which would fit better with "feast", it says call out with the "hajj" (which would fit better with "conference/symposium". In any case, this was not a big point for me, I was simply mentioning it as a response to the claim of one cannot call out with a debate or conference/symposium, yet one can magically do this with a "feast". It could be done with either.
No, it can?t. A conference/symposium is a vague and pointless to invite with. The first question that people will ask is ?what is the topic or purpose of this conference/symposium?? Your answer would be ?to witness benefits and to remember the god for what he gave you from the livestock by eating from it and feeding the poor?. They will say ?So it is a feast. Why didn?t you just say so from the beginning??
"al hajj" means "the conference/symposium" in my understanding thus far. "hajj" has the meaning of "debate".
Which is it, the ?conference/symposium" or the ?debate?? I hope that you are not suggesting that the definite article changes the definition.
As I said to you in my original post to you (4th March), it is not one or the other.
So if it is not this or that then what do you think it is?
I did some research on your example of the "South Beach food festival" and to my surprise it also said there are talks and demonstrations that go on. In other words, it is not all about food. ;D However, it is obvious that such an event would attract primarily food enthusiasts, i.e. like-minded people.
The "hajj" is open to all mankind, no doubt about that. If the majority of those who attend are like-minded, then so be it, it is still open to all.The ?hajj? is not all about food either. It is also about witnessing benefits. It is about witnessing the demonstration of a community that doesn?t setup partners with the god and there are other benefits such as commerce, getting to know other cultures, etc. that would naturally come with the feast.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace Ayman,
It would have been a weak possibilty if this was the only place where livestock is mentioned in relation to "hajj". It is not a weak argument since livestock is mentioned in or around almost EVERY passage where "hajj" is mentioned, so clearly it is one of the most important aspects of "hajj".
You are proving my point. You yourself admit "hajj" is moslty about livestock, yet AQ feels the need to clarify there is no error to go about/amongst or attend to them. Seems unusual/redundant to me, but your explanation gave a possible answer, one that I consider weak, but a possibility nonetheless.
Do you really expect to invite ALL people with a "debate" and if you get your wish and all of them show up and debate that amongst the hundreds of thousands of debates there will not be any "vehement arguing" or "heated debates"!? Wakas, you are too idealistic.
On the contrary, I consider myself a realist. And the reasoning you give is precisely why we are told there should be no "jidal" in "hajj", because there is a real risk of there being vehement arguing. Again, you are proving my point.
But you are the one who said that "jidal" means "arguing" while "haj" means debating. I already showed you how if you look at all occurences of "jidal" in the great reading, it becomes clear that there is good "jidal" and there is bad "jidal", just like there is good "haj" and bad "haj".
16125 clearly states that there is good "jidal".
Can I assume that out of all these so-called occurrences that show there is good "jidal" and bad "jidal", 16125 is the best example you have of good "jidal"?
No, it is both. If one is using false/fallacious arguments in debating then both their point of view is bad and their debate style is bad. Someone who uses false fallacious arguments even if they are presented in a nice decorated way are still bad debaters.
Let's say their points/views AND debating style is bad, does that mean the debate is bad or the debate had "jidal" in it? No, not necessarily. You cited 361 as an example of bad "hajj" when it is nothing of the sort. Even your own wording gives it away (see bold), you are citing them as bad (their views and style) more so than the "hajj/debate". In fact, to onlookers for example, seeing such false/fallacious points against true/logical points could and would be beneficial, thus for them it would be a good debate, as they may have learned something, so it is not the debate that is bad, but one side's points/views and even style that is bad.
Many of the occurences of the word "haj" when it means debate actually refer to bad debate (361, 365-66, 680, 320, 2139, 4216, 4525). In numerous passages people who debate in the god are cast in a bad light.
See above. You class the debate as bad when in reality it is one side's points/views and even style if you wish, that are bad, not the debate.
So how can we invite people to have somekind of a religious debate that is sure to involve at one point or another debate in the god!
So we shouldn't do what the messnger did in AQ? Is this your position?
Interestingly, these examples you are citing of hajj/debate give us an indication of what topics were being addressed in hajj/debate, which might be an interesting avenue to explore for those arranging al hajj.Moreover, the word "haj" is sometimes used not to mean debate but to mean "argument" or "excuse" as in 2150.
Can you clarify why it cannot mean "debate" here? Thanks.
In fact there are several passages where "argument" would fit better than "debate" for "haj". For example, the god is said to have the most conclusive or best ?argument? in 6149 and certainly not the best debate (which would involve an opponent).
You fail to mention the context. The prior sign discusses past people disputing until they experienced God's might/power. It then says to the present people disputing "To God is the best/conclusive hajj". They are clearly debating the messenger in the signs, so it seems reasonable to say to them "To God is the conclusive hajj", i.e. debate all you want, your conclusive debate will be with God in His court, in which you will be informed of what you did etc. There are many signs discussing responses of those who will be shown what they did when they are held to account by God. Again, you are proving my point.
Hence, certainly 4216 talks about an ?argument? as defeated and not a ?debate? as defeated.
It says "their debate", i.e. whatever points they raised, as defeated.
Similarly, 683 certainly talks about giving Abrahams a strong argument and not a debate.
I wonder how many other examples there are of this unique usage of "That is Our hajj...". It obviously means God-inspired or similar, and it is a fact that Abraham engaged in "hajj" with his people . I do not think "hajj" as "debate" can be ruled out in 683, but since it is from God, it is better understood as proof/evidence/argument.
The end of debate happens as soon as they debate after what came to us from the knowledge. There is no evidence that we debated back! This is confirmed by other passages such as 4215. It would be interesting to see how you can apply 4215 during this alleged "debate". Do you really expect people to come to you from all over the world just so that you can tell them "there is no debate between you and us"!!
Firstly, I'm not really sure where you are getting your first sentence from.
You extrapolate/embellish "there is no debate between you and us" to mean we cannot debate full stop. Is this your position?More correctly, it is implying "there is no debate between you and us (in this matter)" not there can never be debate between us. Interestingly the very verse you cite proves my point
Because of this (O Messenger!) call them (to the truth), stand firm as you are commanded and do not follow their wishes. But/and announce, "I believe in the Book that God has revealed, and I am commanded to be just among you. God is our Lord and your Lord. We are responsible for our deeds and you are responsible for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you! God will bring us together, and to Him is our destination."
What does call them refer to? It is calling them to give them a message. It is emphasising unity over divisionism, our Lord is your Lord, there is no debate between us and you in this matter.
It is like your citing of 361 in which you attempted to generalise.If we read the whole passage to 365, 66, etc. then we are telling the people of the book not to debate/argue with us.
Really? Where does it say "do not debate with us" or similar? Where does it attempt to end the debate and give no evidence of our view?
It is saying WHY debate with us on XYZ, giving evidence of our view in the process, then says you debated/argued with what you knew then why do the same with what you do not know? It never says not to debate.
What kind of book would bring the truth (a different truth to the audience around) then say do not debate with us at all regarding it. Debating / questioning / presenting of evidences/logic would be totally natural and expected. Of course, there is a limit to such debate, and if it is getting nowhere / vehement etc, part amicably/peacefully, or on what we have in common etc. This is the repeated emphasis.This is a very strange ?debate?. You invite people WITH the ?debate? just so you can tell them not to ?debate? with you (361, 366, 4215, etc.). Do you really expect people to show up for such alleged ?debate?!?
See above for your claim of "not to debate".
I think that you need to balance idealism with some realism.
Thanks for the advice.
What is the purpose of debating? Is it pointless then?
There is no convincing necessary but it is the main purpose of debate. You are confusing purpose and outcome. Just because the purpose of the debate is to convince, it doesn?t mean that one side will always be convinced.
Perhaps in your definition of debate, the purpose is to convince. I see debate as presentation of evidences, from both (or more) sides, in order to gain a better understanding, not necessarily to convince. All definitions of debate I looked up on google never cited anything about convincing.
See 2236. I am of course open to different interpretations.
The reason I asked is that my sources state these are different roots. I did read here that they are related but it was unevidenced
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Safa_and_Al-MarwahIt is not ?go about/amongst?. It is ?attend to?. It is like a cook attending to the food. It is like, for example, the allegory in 3745 of waiters attending to them with drinks and not just taking the drinks and going about/amongst them.
Can you prove your translation of "attend to" with waiters in your cited example of 3745? I assume then you also translate it as "attend to" in 2229? i.e. "attend to al bayt al 3teeq"?
Out of curiousity, have you or do you know of any article that has studied the sequence of events in 'al hajj' by cross referencing? I think this would be very interesting.
?The freed/liberated house?
That was not what I was trying to highlight. Did you read the link I referenced? I was referring to where it says "in them are benefeits to an appointed time, then there place is to...", i.e. what benefits do you think it is referring to?
No, it can?t. A conference/symposium is a vague and pointless to invite with. The first question that people will ask is ?what is the topic or purpose of this conference/symposium?? Your answer would be ?to witness benefits and to remember the god for what he gave you from the livestock by eating from it and feeding the poor?. They will say ?So it is a feast. Why didn?t you just say so from the beginning??
If you say so.
Which is it, the ?conference/symposium" or the ?debate?? I hope that you are not suggesting that the definite article changes the definition.
As far as I'm aware the definite article implies something more well known to the addressed audience, hence I felt "the debate" doesn't give the full impression of the debate as an event, hence "the conference/symposium".
Also, when I asked you earlier about how you translate hajj as feast, can you clarify to what extent you do this, for example, if I list the occurrences of the root, which ones do you translate as feast etc
hajja vb. (1)
perf. act. 2158
n.vb. 2189, 2196, 2196, 2196, 2197, 2197, 2197, 397, 93, 2227
pcple. act. 919hijaj n.f. (pl. of hijjah) 2827
hujjah n.f. 2150, 4165, 683, 6149, 4215, 4216, 4525
hajja vb. (3)
perf. act. 2258, 320, 361, 366, 680
impf. act. 276, 2139, 365, 366, 373, 680, 4216tahajja vb. (6) impf. act. 4047
The ?hajj? is not all about food either.
As I said to you originally, and we both agreen on. Our only point of contention is you say there is no debate / presentation of evidences element at all, whilst I think there is, which subsequently has a bearing on what we term "al hajj" as.
Although I'm sure you'd admit that even if this was not official, debate would obviously take place at "the feast" in such a community.Please note, we have not addressed all verses discussing "hajj", nor the suggested sequence of events, nor the associated stipulations/regulations/organisation. My main point was 2158, which we haven't even discussed properly yet. I will quote it below
- The livestock lined up for slaughter and the stone on which they are slaughtered/cooked is from what the god makes us aware with. So whoever feasted (at) the house or prospered, there is no blame on him to attend to them and whoever volunteered better then the god is appreciative and knowledgeable.
I will have to ponder on your translation some more, as it is the first time I have seen such a translation. It is very different from your previous attempt
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7503.msg34881#msg34881
