hajj / feast / debate
-
Peace Afridi220,
Ok i will not cut my hair but why restrain from sex what sex has to do with feast. confused
Whoever shall execute the Hajj in them (the specified months) shall refrain from sexual intercourse, misconduct and arguments" 2197
peaceIt is like when you go for dinner at someone's house or people come for dinner at your house. Do you sneak with your wife to one of the rooms and have sexual intercourse? Also, the feast is not a place for misbehaving or the right venue for debate/"jidal".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Hair is one of many issues when it comes to food.
But thanks for your explanation. I'm glad AQ points out things like do not cut your hair whilst cooking or serving food, cause you know how many get that wrong these days eh ;DNow people are more aware of those things. By the way, you still haven't answered what cutting the hair has to do with debate. If you think that it doesn't mean "cutting the hair" then how do you explain that those who have a disease with their heads are given permission to do it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
Peace Kaamil,
You make some good points. Thanks.
Abstinence is only during the daylight hours. This is not an issue and we actually see that during fasting every day at sunset people have big feasts at mosques and on the streets where free food is provided. Also, the command to fast in 2196 is given to those who PROSPERED as a result of the feast, so this certainly doesn't apply to the poor
.The question is why should people abstain in known days that is declared to be feast? Secondly, the verse read and I quote in part ?But when you are secured, then whoever continues the visit until the hajj, then he shall provide what is affordable of donation; but for he who
cannot find anything, then he must fast for three days during the
Pilgrimaged seven when he returns; this will make a complete
ten; this is for those whose family is not present at the Restricted
Temple. And be aware of God, and know that God is severe in
Retribution?.From this verse it is clear that the person who cannot afford a donation at the hajj/feast is to abstain, why should this be so? Where do you get even remotely from here that it those who proper as a result of the hajj/feast that are to abstain? What prosperity can you make from feast other than eating to your fill?
It can ONLY have to do with the feast. Why do cooks or food handlers cover their hair? The command to not cut hair during the feast and wait until the food has reached its destination is entirely normal.
Now Wakas's turn. What does cutting the hair have to do with a "debate"?
Looking at verse 2196 and 4825, the command to not shave the head applies only in situation where your donation is prevented from reaching its destination. The context is that of war when verse 2196 is compared with verse 4825, it is only in the context of war that we are to shave our head when the donation eventually reaches it destination to signal a return to a peaceful state and an appreciation to the god the almighty that He has finally make His system prevail against the rejected by giving victory to the faithful. Can you shave when you at war? And it is also clear from verse 2196 that we are not to shave our head in an unhindered hajj. The inflection point ?when you are secured/in safety? is there for you to see again, from that point the god didn?t mention again that we should cut our hair. So cutting of hair and not cutting of hair only relates to war context.
Why do you think countries have visas and border control?
So the rejecters are right in preventing the messenger from organizing the feast or from attending the feast?
Who said anything about people becoming monotheists?
You said and I quote, ?Do you agree that if a community doesn't setup partners with the god then it will prosper and be a model community? If yes then people who visit this community will like it and will aspire to do the same.? Now over to you again what will they aspire to be?
Some people may consider animal sacrifice as a pagan custom.
- RELIGION offering to god an offering to honor or appease a god, especially of a ritually slaughtered animal or person
- RELIGION something or somebody offered to god something or somebody offered to honor or appease a godMicrosoft? Encarta? 2009. ? 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
If you invite people to a feast the animal you slaughtered to entertain them do you consider it animal sacrifice?
Your reply is even besides the question, the god is saying there is no blame on you if you pass by them, not the animal is good for you to eat. Implicit in that statement is that we should not make food preparation or eating of food the object of our attention so we may invite with the feast but it is not the sole or primary purpose.
A very fundamental question here, is there any distinction between inviting with the feast and inviting to the feast? If any what is the distinction?The benefits are benefits "for them". So this will depend on the person.
Peace,
Ayman
Except and until you know what benefit the god wants them to witness for themselves, you will remain elusive as to what proper role to play as an invitee or host. This is basically my contention. This is the more reason why I believe that translating hajj solely as feast and making everything about it to revolve around feast is somewhat problematic.
Thanks a lot for bringing up this new meaning of hajj as feast, your effort is commendable it is truly amazing how you always look keenly into things like this, yes it may fit in all the passages of the great reading where it occurred but it may not accomplish its purpose of witnessing benefit for themselves. -
peace brother Ayman,
It is like when you go for dinner at someone's house or people come for dinner at your house. Do you sneak with your wife to one of the rooms and have sexual intercourse?
So all these 'free food people' who will come from distant lands should not have sex even in their hotel rooms etc? Is this your position? Or do you take it literally as in no sex during the actual feast? Let us know.
Now people are more aware of those things.
Yes, I'm sure many people in the past used to cut their hair whilst involved in other activities such as cooking/serving food. ;D
By the way, you still haven't answered what cutting the hair has to do with debate. If you think that it doesn't mean "cutting the hair" then how do you explain that those who have a disease with their heads are given permission to do it.
I don't actually think it means cutting hair based on the evidence so far, but even if it did, I dont understand your point. Permission to do what? If you mean cutting of hair, can you clarify exactly how you deduce this from 2196. Thanks.
To help you out, please see
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9022.msg48647#msg48647 -
Peace brother Wakas,
So all these 'free food people' who will come from distant lands should not have sex even in their hotel rooms etc? Is this your position? Or do you take it literally as in no sex during the actual feast? Let us know.
It is only during the actual feast in the same way as it is during the actual fast.
Yes, I'm sure many people in the past used to cut their hair whilst involved in other activities such as cooking/serving food. ;D
Well, we don't know what customs or hair styles were kept at that time. Perhaps it was a custom to cut the hair during such gatherings where people are in close proximity to prevent the spread of lice.
I don't actually think it means cutting hair based on the evidence so far, but even if it did, I dont understand your point. Permission to do what? If you mean cutting of hair, can you clarify exactly how you deduce this from 2196. Thanks.
To help you out, please see
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9022.msg48647#msg48647Here is your understanding
And complete the conference/symposium and the visit for God but if you are prevented (from completing it) then give what is easy of the offering and do not relieve your head (of this duty) until the offering reaches its permitted/lawful place and whoever is among you sick or with ailment of the head then redeem by abstinence or charity or observance but if safe/able then whoever enjoys in the visit to the conference/symposium then give what is easy of the offering and whoever couldn't find (a suitable offering) then an abstinence three days during the conference/symposium and seven when you return, that is ten complete, and that is for those whose people are not present/near the institute of acknowledging the restriction, and be conscious of The God and know that The God is severe in punishment.
What does ailment with the head have to do with anything except that now one would need to cut their hair?
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
It is only during the actual feast in the same way as it is during the actual fast.
Ahh, so according to you, AQ is telling us not to have sex whilst feasting, and it also says do not cut hair whilst serving/cooking food. Hmm, AQ sure likes to state the obvious when it comes to multi-tasking eh. Can you also tell us why AQ feels the need to clarify no sex whilst feasting when there is already a stipulation on no public lewdness/sex? Do you propose individual feasting booths are provided in this feast you speak of, hence the clarification?
So, can we assume this view of yours also means the other things mentioned along with no sex in 2197, e.g. no wickedness and no debating is also during feasting? I wonder what people will talk about at the table eh. I hope the mish mash of 'free food people' are forewarned of this.
Well, we don't know what customs or hair styles were kept at that time. Perhaps it was a custom to cut the hair during such gatherings where people are in close proximity to prevent the spread of lice.
You could be right. Perhaps they also had hair cutting requirements for partaking in the hustle bustle of street markets, or for gatherings of more than X people when people crowded to hear speeches, or even when in a queue etc. I like the idea of this hygienic-concious utopian society you speak of though.
You asked ...how do you explain that those who have a disease with their heads are given permission to do it.
I replied Permission to do what? If you mean cutting of hair, can you clarify exactly how you deduce this from 2196. Thanks.You then said
Here is your understanding
And complete the conference/symposium and the visit for God but if you are prevented (from completing it) then give what is easy of the offering and do not relieve your head (of this duty) until the offering reaches its permitted/lawful place and whoever is among you sick or with ailment of the head then redeem by abstinence or charity or observance but if safe/able then whoever enjoys in the visit to the conference/symposium then give what is easy of the offering and whoever couldn't find (a suitable offering) then an abstinence three days during the conference/symposium and seven when you return, that is ten complete, and that is for those whose people are not present/near the institute of acknowledging the restriction, and be conscious of The God and know that The God is severe in punishment.
What does ailment with the head have to do with anything except that now one would need to cut their hair?
Can you explain where exactly you actually clarified what I asked? No matter, I will clarify my question so you can understand it it seems you are implying those with ailment of the head are permitted to cut their hair. If this is correct, please clarify exactly how you deduced this from 2196, to see if your question has any validity in the first place. It seems you have underlined part of the verse and ignored the following "then/so", if so, can you explain to us the purpose of the Arabic conjunctive "fa" in the above verse, which I have highlighted in red for you to make it easier.
If you need me to clarify my request another time, let me know.
-
Do you propose individual feasting booths are provided in this feast you speak of, hence the clarification?
We had those in Kuwait, in certain restaurants...they had curtains provided as well, extra privacy they said. The intent I think was for the "modest family" women but presumably some felt embarrassed if anyone saw them gorging...realistically it was probably utilised by those out on dates the most, would they be getting it on in a restaurant though?So, can we assume this view of yours also means the other things mentioned along with no sex in 2197, e.g. no wickedness and no debating is also during feasting? I wonder what people will talk about at the table eh. I hope the mish mash of 'free food people' are forewarned of this.
Maybe it's a food review type thing? We could talk about the flavours and textures, recipe exchange, cook-offs, Iron Chef and 30 minute meals?I think not and I doubt this is what AQ has in mind with the verses )
-
peace Kaamil, all,
Thank you for your contribution. Personally, I have not studied the topic of HJJ in detail, as stated in this thread. This entire thread sprang from my questions regarding Ayman's understanding and interpretation of 2158 which to this day still remain unanswered (see post #20 in this thread). Thus, I felt no need to run the understanding of "feast" through the rest of AQ to see what other flaws it had, if any.
Good point. I strongly recommend you and readers to insert the understanding of "feast" and "prosper" in 2196 to see if it makes sense. And once you have done this, then re-read Ayman's reply to your question to see if his answers make sense. Let us know the outcome.
See here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9022.msg48647#msg48647Again, please repeat the same procedure as I outlined above and let us know the outcome.
As a side note, I have discussed the hair cutting/shaving interpretation quite a lot in this forum, if you wish to read them, e.g
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8807.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg49208#msg49208
Although, having said that, I am not averse to the interpretation of shaving/cutting hair IF the evidence suggests it. As it makes no difference to my view, however in Ayman's reply he confuses the sequence of events yet again. As I said, please follow the procedure above and let us know the outcome.Your point 3, is a decent observation. Similarly, same with your point 4. There are many HJJ verses discussing "do HJJ/3MR for God, observe XYZ regulation for God, be aware of God, remember God" etc. It clearly has a significant God/believer/faith component.
Your point 5 is pretty much the same question I asked Ayman regarding 2158 (see post #20, which I'm sure you have already read).
Peace brother Wakas,
Thank you very much for taking time to look into my post and more importantly for sharing your thought. I am a pupil to you both. I benefit immensely from your works. I read the thread and entertained some confusion so I decided to ask brother Ayman some question for elaboration. I have acted as you suggested and to my own finding I found out that it is somewhat problematic to insert feast directly in those two verses. However, brother Ayman is the author of the idea so he is in the best position to translate those problem verses using feast for us to see how it fit. But logically speaking, and giving our experiences in life the best vehicle/tool to invite mankind with is the feast/free food. That is why I wholeheartedly accepted that translation. And it actually fit in 22.27, ?and call to the mankind with the feast?? I have no problem with brother Ayman in respect of the definition because it fits in some context, but I have problem with him if he insisted that that is the only definition which I am sure he is not. So I am out for a more comprehensive and multidimensional meaning that will lead to the realization of everything that revolves around hajj. Inviting with the feast is different from inviting to the feast, while the former is a means to an end the latter is an end to the means i.e. its purpose. There is an underlying purpose to which we are inviting with the feast, i.e. to witness benefit for themselves, the feast is not the purpose it is the tool for invitation. There has to be a synthesis between hajj/feast as a means of invitation and a meaning of hajj as a purpose of invitation. Everything regarding do hajj or umrah for the god, cut the hair, have no sex and fierce argument centered around the purpose of hajj. All those one in my defective understanding cannot be solely be feast.Excuse me for a while to read the link you supplied regarding the issue of hair cutting, before I can adequately attend to brother Ayman?s reply regarding the issue. If I could understand hair cutting very well in verse 2196 it has nothing to do with the feast if it has anything with the feast the proper thing for the god to say is do not shave or cut your hair during the feast, simple, but since the cutting of hair is mandatory after the feast it show that its relevance is not due to the feast. As I pointed out earlier I believe it is applicable to a particular context because of the inflection point in 2196 ?if you are secure/in safety? so cutting of hair only relates to situation of insecurity.
-
Peace Kaamil,
The question is why should people abstain in known days that is declared to be feast? Secondly, the verse read and I quote in part ?But when you are secured, then whoever continues the visit until the hajj, then he shall provide what is affordable of donation; but for he who
cannot find anything, then he must fast for three days during the
Pilgrimaged seven when he returns; this will make a complete
ten; this is for those whose family is not present at the Restricted
Temple. And be aware of God, and know that God is severe in
Retribution?.
From this verse it is clear that the person who cannot afford a donation at the hajj/feast is to abstain, why should this be so? Where do you get even remotely from here that it those who proper as a result of the hajj/feast that are to abstain? What prosperity can you make from feast other than eating to your fill?Where is the word "afford" in 2196? The exact word is "yagid"/"find". The word "i3tamar"/prospered is clearly mentioned in the conditional statement.
Looking at verse 2196 and 4825, the command to not shave the head applies only in situation where your donation is prevented from reaching its destination.
The command is to not cut the hair until the food donation reaches its destination. Afterwards, one can cut the hair if they so desire (they don't have to but they may).
The context is that of war when verse 2196 is compared with verse 4825, it is only in the context of war that we are to shave our head when the donation eventually reaches it destination to signal a return to a peaceful state and an appreciation to the god the almighty that He has finally make His system prevail against the rejected by giving victory to the faithful. Can you shave when you at war? And it is also clear from verse 2196 that we are not to shave our head in an unhindered hajj. The inflection point ?when you are secured/in safety? is there for you to see again, from that point the god didn?t mention again that we should cut our hair. So cutting of hair and not cutting of hair only relates to war context.
You could be right about the context of war in light of the preceding passages. However, we would need to see exactly how cutting the hair and war are related.
So the rejecters are right in preventing the messenger from organizing the feast or from attending the feast?
No they are not right in the past or today to prevent any person. Border controls to restrict free movement are wrong.
You said and I quote, ?Do you agree that if a community doesn't setup partners with the god then it will prosper and be a model community? If yes then people who visit this community will like it and will aspire to do the same.? Now over to you again what will they aspire to be?
It is like any good role model. Some people will aspire to immitate but not necessarily follow through. We can only be a role model. We can't control what people do.
- RELIGION offering to god an offering to honor or appease a god, especially of a ritually slaughtered animal or person
- RELIGION something or somebody offered to god something or somebody offered to honor or appease a god
If you invite people to a feast the animal you slaughtered to entertain them do you consider it animal sacrifice?
Your reply is even besides the question, the god is saying there is no blame on you if you pass by them, not the animal is good for you to eat. Implicit in that statement is that we should not make food preparation or eating of food the object of our attention so we may invite with the feast but it is not the sole or primary purpose.
I never said it is the sole purpose. The feast is like a harvest feast. The feast will be going on for 10 days. If someone already feasted and prospered as a result of the feast, there is no blame on them for helping out by attending to the on going slaughtering and cooking. In 593 and 2461 we hear the same word "no blame on you" similarly used in the context of food.
A very fundamental question here, is there any distinction between inviting with the feast and inviting to the feast? If any what is the distinction?
The feast is a tool to invite people so that they witness benefits, remember the god on the food he gave them and eat and feed the needy. The specific benefits will depend on the person. Generally, I think it would be beneficial to experience a commnity where no partners are setup with the god. There are also commercial benefits that are naturally associated with such a diverse gathering for the feast.
Except and until you know what benefit the god wants them to witness for themselves, you will remain elusive as to what proper role to play as an invitee or host. This is basically my contention. This is the more reason why I believe that translating hajj solely as feast and making everything about it to revolve around feast is somewhat problematic.
Thanks a lot for bringing up this new meaning of hajj as feast, your effort is commendable it is truly amazing how you always look keenly into things like this, yes it may fit in all the passages of the great reading where it occurred but it may not accomplish its purpose of witnessing benefit for themselves.But regardless of what roles are played, we can only invite with "the feast". What roles are played doesn't change this basic premise.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Wakas,
Ahh, so according to you, AQ is telling us not to have sex whilst feasting, and it also says do not cut hair whilst serving/cooking food. Hmm, AQ sure likes to state the obvious when it comes to multi-tasking eh. Can you also tell us why AQ feels the need to clarify no sex whilst feasting when there is already a stipulation on no public lewdness/sex? Do you propose individual feasting booths are provided in this feast you speak of, hence the clarification?
So, can we assume this view of yours also means the other things mentioned along with no sex in 2197, e.g. no wickedness and no debating is also during feasting? I wonder what people will talk about at the table eh. I hope the mish mash of 'free food people' are forewarned of this.Your objection would equally apply to any meaning for "hajj" such as "feast", "debate", (x)<--- insert any meaning here.
There is already stipulation on no public lewdness/sex no matter what "hajj" is. The command would only make sense if the environment for the "hajj" might be misused for such things and therefore the need for the extra reminder is warranted. I can tell you that I have attended many conferences and debates and I never saw the debaters suddenly engage in passionate kissing. On the other hand, this would be more likely to happen during a feast. The idea of the feast is that it shouldn't be a Mardis Gras type celebration. This is why the passage gives the extra reminder. This extra reminder would not be necessary had "debate" been the meaning.
As for booths, you might have accidently stumbled upon something. The people of the book indeed had the Feast of Booths (hagg Sukkot), which perfectly coincides with the last (4th) restricted full-moon after the summer solstice
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot
You could be right. Perhaps they also had hair cutting requirements for partaking in the hustle bustle of street markets, or for gatherings of more than X people when people crowded to hear speeches, or even when in a queue etc. I like the idea of this hygienic-concious utopian society you speak of though.
At this stage we have no definite answer. There could also be the context of war to consider.
You asked ...how do you explain that those who have a disease with their heads are given permission to do it.
I replied Permission to do what? If you mean cutting of hair, can you clarify exactly how you deduce this from 2196. Thanks.
You then said
Can you explain where exactly you actually clarified what I asked? No matter, I will clarify my question so you can understand it it seems you are implying those with ailment of the head are permitted to cut their hair. If this is correct, please clarify exactly how you deduced this from 2196, to see if your question has any validity in the first place. It seems you have underlined part of the verse and ignored the following "then/so", if so, can you explain to us the purpose of the Arabic conjunctive "fa" in the above verse, which I have highlighted in red for you to make it easier.
If you need me to clarify my request another time, let me know.I thought that the permission to cut the hair if one has an ailment of the head was clear from the context. One can easily deduce this by looking at what was not allowed in the first part (cutting the hair)
do not shave your head until the offering reaches its permitted/lawful place and whoever is among you sick or with ailment of the head (and therefore couldn't keep the command in red) then...
There are instances in the great reading where the rest of the clause can be deduced by looking at what was allowed or not allowed. For example, in the case of abstinance, we are never told what the absitance is about but we can deduce it from what is allowed and the point until which it is allowed in 2187.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace brother Ayman,
If you feel my objection would equally apply, you are of course entitled to your own opinion.
Re booths and Sukkot.
So no sex/wickedness/debate whilst feasting in the booth, but sex/wickedness/debate when not feasting in the booth is ok? If in a booth which would be private anyway why is AQ even mentioning this no sex thing? Please clarify your position exactly.If you provide an article detailing events during HJJ, sequence etc. please also remember to include the points we have discussed in this thread, as it will allow readers to weigh and consider the merits of your view better.
I thought that the permission to cut the hair if one has an ailment of the head was clear from the context. One can easily deduce this by looking at what was not allowed in the first part (cutting the hair)
It may be "clear" and "easily deduced" to you, but not to me. According to you, 2196 suggests that if one is sick or has an ailment of the head they would not be able to complete the command in red, BUT what is the whole point of this command? It is to do with what came before. Thus, the obvious question that comes to mind is, does an ailment of the head (e.g. baldness, injury on head, surgery on head etc) prevent one from giving what is easy of the offering and ensuring it reaches its proper place? The answer is of course, it doesn't. So, let's imagine the following scenario
A bald man or person with injury on head cannot complete the HJJ/3MR, but they are able to give what is easy of the offering and ensure it reaches its proper place. So they do this. Sounds ok so far, BUT not if the person actually continues to read the rest of 2196, because according to it, if he cant shave the head once the offering reaches its proper place he is meant to redeem by abstinence or charity or observance, so is he meant to do these things as well as giving the offering? Is AQ discriminating against bald people, those with injury on their head, sensitive scalp, head surgery, those wearing a toupe etc. and getting them to do more than a person with hair on their head? Of course not. Such notions are illogical and have no basis in AQ. The only other option is to say if he cant shave the head for whatever reason, then he skips giving what is easy of the offering and goes straight to abstinence or charity or observance, but of course, this has the same problem in that it treats such a person differently for no obvious practical reason.
You now seem to imply head shaving is optional, but that is not what AQ says. Of course, you can ignore this and still say it is optional, but if you do, then it is upon you to explain why AQ demands it in the first place and seems to differentiate people with it with no obvious practical reason.The other alternative that I can see is
...and whoever is among you sick or with ailment of the head (and therefore cannot complete the HJJ/3MR) then redeem by abstinence or charity or observance...
However, there are still unresearched/unanswered questions about 2196 so its possible we haven't fully grasped and integrated it properly into AQ yet. If you wish to specifically analyse 2196, might be best doing it in a dedicated thread here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9022.0 -
Peace brother wakas,
Thank you very much for the link you supplied, it has help change my view completely from my previous understanding of the verse. And curiously I realized that hair was not even mentioned and it is practically impossible to cut the head so the statement is not literal. It also sounds awkward for everyone to be running to the barbers all at the same period to shave their hair. Before I used to think that hair cutting is mandatory after the hajj, and that it is those who cannot shave as a result of affliction in the head that are to ransom by abstinence and the likes, but now I know, all that understanding are wrong.
This discussion has truly helped, please keep up the good feat.And Allah did fulfill to His messenger the vision in truth verily you shall enter into the institution of obeying the Restrictions, if Allah wills SECURE, your HEADS relived {from the burden of war} and restrained (in self controlled) and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not and He granted besides this a near victory.4827
And complete the hajj and the ummrah for God. But, if you
are prevented, then make what is easy from gift, and do
not relieve your heads{of the burden of hajj} until the gift reaches its destination; but whoever of you is ill or because of it{the prevention} has a burden to his head,[relieve himself from the burden of hajj} then he may redeem by fasting or a charity or a rite. But if you are
Secure/in safety?But as I have always posited the question of relieving your head and do not relieve your heads only relates to situation of insecurity.
I have left hajj and ummrah un-translated because I have not found an acceptable translation for it. -
Peace everyone,
The great reading is for all times and not only for certain periods when people are more civilized. It is a well known fact that Romans, Greeks, and pagans usually had orgies during their feasts. The feasts and orgies used to be associated with each other commonly. I think that is why the god gives an extra reminder not to engage in sex during the feast starting with the inviolable nearly full moons. Please see the following table of pagan feasts and the associated orgies
http//www.heart7.net/date/srac3.html
To my knowledge I don't have any historical evidence of orgies occuring during public debates. This lends more credence to the idea that hajj is more likely to mean feast as used in the great reading.
If hajj means more than just a feast and includes benefits to mankind in its meaning then it won't make sense to invite mankind with feast + benefits because mankind in general will not be interested in the benefits of a monotheistic community. The benefits part is a desired "side effect" of the hajj. The feast part is the "bait" to attract the "fish" allegorically speaking. Once mankind flocks over for the feast then it is of very high likelihood that the people will also witness the benefits of a monotheistic community and be impressed by those benefits. That is why in my opinion hajj means feast only but this feast is not of a pagan orgy type or an Iron Chef type but regulated by certain rules/guidelines that the god lays down.
-
Peace brother Wakas,
If you feel my objection would equally apply, you are of course entitled to your own opinion.
Unless you can explain why inapropriate contact is more likey during a debate and this is why the extra reminder is needed then this is not an opinion.
If you provide an article detailing events during HJJ, sequence etc. please also remember to include the points we have discussed in this thread, as it will allow readers to weigh and consider the merits of your view better.
It may be "clear" and "easily deduced" to you, but not to me. According to you, 2196 suggests that if one is sick or has an ailment of the head hey would not be able to complete the command in red, BUT what is the whole point of this command? It is to do with what came before. Thus, the obvious question that comes to mind is, does an ailment of the head (e.g. baldness, injury on head, surgery on head etc) prevent one from giving what is easy of the offering and ensuring it reaches its proper place? The answer is of course, it doesn't. So, let's imagine the following scenario
A bald man or person with injury on head cannot complete the HJJ/3MR, but they are able to give what is easy of the offering and ensure it reaches its proper place. So they do this. Sounds ok so far, BUT not if the person actually continues to read the rest of 2196, because according to it, if he cant shave the head once the offering reaches its proper place he is meant to redeem by abstinence or charity or observance, so is he meant to do these things as well as giving the offering? Is AQ discriminating against bald people, those with injury on their head, sensitive scalp, head surgery, those wearing a toupe etc. and getting them to do more than a person with hair on their head? Of course not. Such notions are illogical and have no basis in AQ. The only other option is to say if he cant shave the head for whatever reason, then he skips giving what is easy of the offering and goes straight to abstinence or charity or observance, but of course, this has the same problem in that it treats such a person differently for no obvious practical reason.
You now seem to imply head shaving is optional, but that is not what AQ says. Of course, you can ignore this and still say it is optional, but if you do, then it is upon you to explain why AQ demands it in the first place and seems to differentiate people with it with no obvious practical reason.
The other alternative that I can see is
...and whoever is among you sick or with ailment of the head (and therefore cannot complete the HJJ/3MR) then redeem by abstinence or charity or observance...
However, there are still unresearched/unanswered questions about 2196 so its possible we haven't fully grasped and integrated it properly into AQ yet. If you wish to specifically analyse 2196, might be best doing it in a dedicated thread here
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9022.0I am inclined to agree with the general meaning that you are proposing of "relieving one's head from a duty". However, I need to ponder on it further after establishing the sequence of events. I still think at this stage that it can go either way and only a more complete understanding of the sequence of events will help. I also don't think that that this particular meaning favors a "debate" over a "feast", especially in light of the duty again being related to offerings/gifts (food).
Now another point that strongly favors the understanding of "feast" is the fact that the "hajj" timing is according to known full-moons/"ash-hur ma3loomat". While there is no known timing (months, full-moons or whatever) for any kind of debate, the time for the annual feast is indeed well known (people from different cultures literally observe the full-moons of the harvest).
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace All
I have recently started looking at the concept of hajj in preparation for our quranic discussion group. I am in the process of studying it & have looked at 2158. This is how I have interpreted it. As I said, my study of this subject is a work in progress, so your comments will be welcome.
-
I have found to mean "the clarification" based on its primary root verb meaning of "he clarified/brought clarity, etc."
-
When looking at , I found it difficult to pinpoint a root verb for what most consider to be the root, i.e "miim-raa-waw". I then considered the possibility of the root being "miim-raa-alif". This pointed to a root verb indcating a process by which one extracts that which is wholesome/good, etc.
-
seems to indicate intimate knowledge from its root verb.
-
When I looked at , I found that the it incorporated the idea of a debate/argument in the sense of overcoming someone through the use of evidence, which seems to be a common understanding on this forum. I also noticed that "to aim at something or having a goal in mind", also it has a meaning of "curing or repairing" something. This last meaning may be mostly in relation to the curing of a head wound, which could be extended to " curing the wrong thinking about something (or maybe this extension is stretching it too far?). Either way, I have come to a meaning of "aiming at the curing of wrong thinking through the use of evidence" or "correcting an erroneous concept through the presentation of strong evidence/arguments".
-
I was surprised to see that the word is derived from a root that carries a meaning of spending the night awake considering any number of things (good or bad).
-
The word , being form 8 of the verb would indicate the act that results if the form 1 verb was initiated. Therefore I think that in this case it would indicate that the living/acting out of the conclusions reached through the deliberation of , which at its culmination will provide the most convincing evidence that of the decisions taken since the benefits will be plain for all to see.
-
indicates acknowledgment of efforts by providing abundantly.
Using these conclusions, this is how I would interpret the verse
Truly the clarification and extraction of what is good from the intimate knowledge possessed by God is for those who aim at correcting/curing/repairing erroneous concepts through the presentation of strong evidence/arguments, staying awake at night to ponder these concepts or living the conclusions reached through such deliberation and in so doing provide the ultimate proof of these concepts through their concrete results. There is no blame on him if he moves about and attaches himself to them (clarification and extraction). And they who effect the obedience of what is good, then truly God is acknowledging of the efforts of such people by providing abundant nourishment as proof of their success, Knowledgable.
Imraan
-
-
Peace All
I have recently started looking at the concept of hajj in preparation for our quranic discussion group. I am in the process of studying it & have looked at 2158. This is how I have interpreted it. As I said, my study of this subject is a work in progress, so your comments will be welcome.
... this is how I would interpret the verse
Truly the clarification and extraction of what is good from the intimate knowledge possessed by God is for those who aim at correcting/curing/repairing erroneous concepts through the presentation of strong evidence/arguments, staying awake at night to ponder these concepts or living the conclusions reached through such deliberation and in so doing provide the ultimate proof of these concepts through their concrete results. There is no blame on him if he moves about and attaches himself to them (clarification and extraction). And they who effect the obedience of what is good, then truly God is acknowledging of the efforts of such people by providing abundant nourishment as proof of their success, Knowledgable.
Imraan
The highlights and UNDERLIED above are from me.
Salaam Dear Imraan,
Reading your interpretation of the verse. I completely got comfused. Could not make any sense out of it, and got lost completely.
I wonder if GOD wants to guide his servants or meant to confuse them?
Peace,
Khalil -
Peace Khalil
I realise that it may seem confusing. That is why I have not posted on this subject for quite a while. My research is ongoing, and I hope to document it soon.
Reading your interpretation of the verse. I completely got comfused. Could not make any sense out of it, and got lost completely.
I wonder if GOD wants to guide his servants or meant to confuse them?
I don't think that we should view it as GOD confusing us when we are presented with a differentv viewpoint. If we don't understand it, it is either that we are not open to that particular interpretation or it needs more clarification. I hope to provide the latter soon. The subject matter is vast both in its study and its implications, so keep an eye open for my post and keep an open mind based on reason when I post it.
Imraan
-
Peace all,
In addition to the fact that the majority of the passages in the great reading that talk about "hagg" refer to food and that eating and feeding the poor is its main purpose and that the people of the book clearly understood "hagg" as "feast, here is an ancient inscription from the 8th century BCE clearly showing the meaning of "hagg" as "feast"
http//ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/neo-hittite-funerary-rite/
I think that, objectively speaking, the debate is over.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
While I see much of what you are saying in the Quran and agree with much of it, I find the insistence that hajj being a feast rather than a feast being part of the hajj to be an inadequate understanding. The link you posted seems to say that a hajj was established in the chamber. It then seems to say that there was food involved. I am not an familiar with the details regarding this, so I can't say for sure. However, I think that even in this inscription it may be possible to consider the feeding as part of a broader concept.
At any rate, my investigation into the hajj concept is getting closer to conclusion and I thank you for the thought provoking issues that you have raised in relation to this subject. I hope to post my findings soon.
Imraan
