Shahr/month in the light of the quran
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
if shahr does not mean month then what does?
Who cares D Clear your mind or pre concieved ideas FIRST, then you won't go into this reading LOOKING for something, but instead, open to recieve what is there.
The word "jumah" means "ASSEMBLY", but later was given to the day Friday to make thier "sabbath" look legitamate. So do we have to go around now looking for the real word for "friday"?
-
Salam Idolfree,
I disagree with you saying that to witness must be to see with your own eyes.
Then what about ashhadu an lah ilaha ilalah.
I witness that there is no god except GOD. Here witness is used, but none sees GOD, except may be with their hearts.
What do you think ?
Elke
-
Peace be upon you Elke,
I disagree with you saying that to witness must be to see with your own eyes.
Then what about ashhadu an lah ilaha ilalah.
I witness that there is no god except GOD. Here witness is used, but none sees GOD, except may be with their hearts.
What do you think ?
That depends on what you consider a "God" to be.
To me, the God is ALL THINGS, which includes the seen and unseen worlds. SO since we can see part of the WHOLE, we can witness that there is no God but the God. That is why there is no mate and therefore can be no son, because the God is ALL THINGS, and the physical side manifests from the UNSEEN side.
We can never compare the God to anything because we can never understand fully the UNSEEN side, but we can witness the physical side.
we can never look at an aboject and say "That is god" because we cannot see the UNSEEN side of things.
The physical creation is like thoughts in the Mind of the god, just as we have thougts in our Minds. One of Shakespeares "thoughts" becomes a character in a book, but the character cannnot say "I am shakespeare", yet the charater is a thought in Skakespeares Mind.
Is there ANY other instance of "Shahada (witnessing)" that seems to contradict my position? Please provide it.
-
Peace be upon you MQ,
Good to see you, bro
Good to see you as well bro D
Basically, Im saying, the word used in 2/189 for 'new moons' (ahillat) is the SAME word used in 5/3 when talking about food 'sacrificed' or 'offered' (uHILLA) for the sake of other than Allah.
So which verse do you think uses the wrong translation?
Ironically, this word 'sacrificed' (uhilla) DOES NOT use the same 'h' as the word 'halal' which uses a different 'h'. This makes the word different entirely.
hope that helps, Kyle.
I get lost when you start talking about "halal", is this a derivative of "uhilla"?
-
Salaam Shuaib,
That was a really fascinating weblink that you posted! I actually get very interested in ancient aspects of civilization. Anyway, I'm sure you didn't really mean Arabic. The transliteration certainly sounds like Arabic or a semetic language but the inscription itself is in some other ancient script, not Phonecian and I dont think it's Aramaic. ??? Any ideas??
The inscription is definitely in a Southern Arabic dialect but it is in a kind of Arabic script called Arabic Musnad script (as opposed to the newer connected Arabic Kufic script we use today). Kufic Arabic script only became more popular than Musnad Arabic script in the late 6-7th century AD.
Script is not "language". It is merely symbols/fonts. It is vocabulary and grammar that define language. Hence, you were able to make out most of the transliteration where the Kufic script is used in place of the Musnad script.
Just to give you an example, the expression "shahr ramadan alathi unzila fihi alkitab" can be considered Arabic despite that it uses characters from the completely unrelated language of English that is even non-semitic. Hence, an English speaker would not be able to understand it at all, but an Arabic speaker who only knows about the equivalent characters would.
Anyway, if you check an Arab lexicon under wa-ra-kha, it's quite obvious that it was not used in Arabic to mean month. So we're back to square one, if shahr does not mean month then what does?
If you check Al-Mo7it Arabic Lexicon, you will find that it does give the meaning of wa-ra-kha as "specifying of date" ("7adad tarikh"). In fact, given that the Arabic word for date, "tarikh", is clearly related to "warkh" but bears no relation whatsoever to "shahr" and if one has no preconceived opinions, then based on etymology, "warkh" is more likely to mean "month" than "shahr". Moreover, the inscription doesn't leave room for you or I to guess what "warkh" means. It is clearly used to mean "month" in the inscription and hence the name of a month is given right after it. So I already answered your question but you are just being argumentative.
What we are after here is not how you or a modern Arab understands a certain word. What we are after is how a "pre-quranic" Arab would have understood it. The best evidence available is the internal evidence from the great reading. The archeological evidence simply confirms what I had already found out based on the great reading.
I'm sure you really didn't mean that and were just playing devil's advocate. But my point was that Arabic obviously came from ARABIA, which happened to be a desert. So when we examine the language, it's best to keep that context in mind, though the conclusions are WIDELY applicable once you determine a meaning of the Arabic words.
You are merely speculating. There is nothing in the verse that says or alludes to anything about being in the desert in order to witness "al-shahr".
If what you are saying is true then how come people differ EVERY year about when Ramadan starts?
They even differ in countries that are mostly deserts.
Well I didn't say that no one would differ. Nowadays Muslims can differ about the smallest things. But usually these days, they don't differ in a single region in the Arab countries, they differ from country to country. And obviously atmospheric conditions play a big role, and the visibility curves of the hilaal play a big role too (see moonsighting.com).
Now you are refuting your own earlier argument that the new-moon is easy to spot.
Believe me though, even if we called the full moon the beginning, Muslims would find a way to fight about it. But in this day and age it reallyis irrelevant since we can actually CALCULATE which day the hilaal AND the full moon will be with remarkable accuracy (whether we can see it or not).
But I don't believe you and please don't take it personally and instead bring evidence instead of speculation. If the full-moon was the marker then EVERYBODY would see it and no one would have to rely on the Mullahs to tell us when the fasting period begins.
How many times this year have you personally seen the new-moon?
Please answer honestly.
It is easy to spot whether a circle is symmetric or not and everybody is able to see the full moon and not just people living in the desert.
Well it's great if you can tell if something is 100% symmetric of 95% symmetric, but that tends to be beyond most people's capabilities. And if someone doubts you, you're going to take a picture of the moon bisect it perfectly in half, overlap it etc to prove it to them. With hilaal, either it's there... or it's not there. Simple.
Firstly, unless someone is severely myopic, humans can naturally and easily see symmetry. They naturally appreciate symmetry and even tend to associate symmetry with beauty.
Secondly, your argument for a 95% or even 90% hypothetical symmetry is false because it will never happen. From half-moon to full moon is only 7 days so the MOST you will ever get is 85% symmetry the night before or the night after the full-moon. Again, unless someone has severe vision problems or is just not paying attention, they would be able to make out the full-moon.
What historical evidence? The God is telling ALL people REGARDLESS of what calendar system they use EXACTLY when to start the fast based on cosmic phenomena NOT based on some monthly calendar.
Historical evidence means history, i.e. what has been recorded by people since the Prophet's time.
History is the subjective point of view of the historian. Hence, even today in the information age people differ about the history of the last fifty years in the Middle East. Just go read Western and Arab history books of the last fifty years of the Arab-Israeli conflict and see how much they differ. Now, you tell us that you know for sure the history of the Middle East many centuries ago!
There are many FALSEHOODS that have been recorded by people before, during, and after all prophets' times. Take Hadiths for example. The first recorded Hadith manuscript, the Sa7ifa of Hammam predates the first manuscript of the great reading. According to your criteria, we should all have faith in Hadiths more than in the great reading.
You can just blatantly dismiss history without providing SOME reason for why history gives a different story than you give.
I did provide evidence from the great reading and physical archeological evidence. What evidence other than hearsay can you provide?
According to history "shahr" means "month" and Abraha's objective was this alleged important place called Maka(t) where he was defeated. Just look at the archeological evidence in the inscription that you were interested in and see how the archeological evidence gives a totally different view than history.
If the Quran TRULY wanted the months to start by the full-moon, then obviously the Prophet would have done that. Now what motivation would Muslims have to change that to the hilaal?? How why and when did this happen?
According to evidence from the great reading, archeological evidence, and even Arabic dictionaries such as "Lisan Al-3arab", the word "shahr" would have been most likely understood by a "pre-quranic" Arab to mean "full-moon". Hence, the prophet would have understood it as "full-moon" and would have applied it accordingly.
Moreover, even according to the history books that you appeal to, the present so-called Islamic calendar system was only established during the time of Khalifa Umar Ibn-ElKhattab. Hence, even the staunchest Hadiths and historians followers are forced to admit that all his life, the prophet fasted in the time of heat/"ramadhan".
It also refers to OTHER readings/"quran" in 1331 and 1788 so the word "quran" is not a name of only this honorable reading/"quran". Moreover, the word "quran" has a meaning and is not meaningless, hence it must be translated. Perhaps if people know the meaning they would READ it and understand it for themselves instead of hanging it on their walls and getting their clergy to read it and understand it for them.
I won't respond to this since the verses you mentioned clearly are not supporting your view. One only needs to look it up to see that.
In other words, you don't have any valid argument.
But I will say the word "Quran" HAS meaning, and the meaning is best preserved by using the Arabic. I will post more on this in the future in a new topic.
If you really know the meaning, then please translate it instead of giving excuses.
Anyway, I'm also not sure what your bottom line is. Where is all this leading? Why the new interpretations and claims that shahr does not mean month? What's the catch?
The bottom line is finding the truth. The catch is that we will not find it if we start from preconceptions. Please try to stop being "caught" in your preconceptions and just look at the evidence without any preconceived conclusions.
With all best wishes and salaam,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum Kyle, all,
Kyle So which verse do you think uses the wrong translation?
I'm not sure if any (2/189 and 5/3) of them are 'wrong' as such, Kyle. Perhaps the root as an underlying meaning I'm over looking ?
KyleI get lost when you start talking about "halal", is this a derivative of "uhilla"?
No. You see, in Arabic alphabet, there are 2 'h''s ! 2/187 which permits us to be with our wives uses the OTHER 'h'. It means 'made halal for you'.
hope that helps.
-
PEACE IDOL
To me, the God is ALL THINGS, which includes the seen and unseen worlds. SO since we can see part of the WHOLE, we can witness that there is no God but the God. That is why there is no mate and therefore can be no son, because the God is ALL THINGS, and the physical side manifests from the UNSEEN side.
I am puzzled by thi statement, because how can Allah be ALL things, when nothing is like unto Him?
-
Salam priestbokmei,
There is no need to be puzzled really. I have a feeling that br idolfree is just messing with us really... it's almost hard for me to believe that someone could be SERIOUS yet say things like that.
We're having an intelligent discussion about the meaning of shahr, and out of the blue after I gave what I thought was a cogent argument, he says "who cares." What other conclusion can I draw other than he is really not that serious... at least not what I consider to be serious. No offense intended )
wassalam
-
Wassalam br?sis? Ayman,
That's very interesting about the musnad script. I have to admit I do not know a lot about the preislamic Arabic scripts.
If you check Al-Mo7it Arabic Lexicon, you will find that it does give the meaning of wa-ra-kha as "specifying of date" ("7adad tarikh").
Sorry I don't have access to al-muheet, but I do have lisaan ul arab and taj ul aroos. I believe you may have looked under the wrong root. Tareekh, for example, is from the root hamza-ra-kha... but there IS a root waw-ra-kha in the lexicons. And as you will see if you look that root up, it relates to softness sometimes related to there being an excess of water. It sounds like you are well-versed in Arabic so I probably dont need to explain to you that alif and hamza are different. Also if you search the section hamza-ra-kha (taareekh) you will not find the word warkh.
Any ideas? I'm not trying to be a know-it-all here. Rather, my knowledge is deficient in this sector. But I do know what I know. And if you're going to give me an alternate word for shahr then it should be consistent when checked by other means.
The best evidence available is the internal evidence from the great reading.
Well yes, tasreef ul ayaat is the best way. But obviously, just as both you and I are doing, the language also has to be examined. How can we do that without resorting to things like lexicons? And what did the lexicons do but resort to poems and hadith and other literature to compile the meanings of the roots?
You are merely speculating. There is nothing in the verse that says or alludes to anything about being in the desert in order to witness "al-shahr".
I never said that it did! All I said, if you check back, was that the Arabic language was developed in the desert and many words and nuances of the language derive from that. Obviously, a language evolves around and is molded by the people speaking it. I didn't even mention the Quran at this point. So no, I am not speculating about anything.
Now you are refuting your own earlier argument that the new-moon is easy to spot.
I said that it was EASIER (in my opinion). Believe me, I am well aware of moonfighting. You are right that it is technically harder to SEE the hilaal because it is not luminous, and weather conditions can greatly affect the visibility. So it truly CAN happen that in one city someone sees it and in another they can't. But in the desert these conditions are REDUCED... AND we are dealing with a time when people were not in communication in great distances. REMEMBER, we are talking about 1400 years ago in Arabia, not today across the globe.
Also, the question is not what you or I think is easier to see and what makes more practical sense. The discussion is what was being done 1400 years ago.
But I don't believe you and please don't take it personally and instead bring evidence instead of speculation. If the full-moon was the marker then EVERYBODY would see it and no one would have to rely on the Mullahs to tell us when the fasting period begins.
How many times this year have you personally seen the new-moon?
I've seen the hilaal several times, honestly, but I am not a moonwatcher. Probably I notice the full moon more, because it is so much more intense. I'm not disagreeing with any of this.
But as far as speculation goes, it's very easy bro/sis, to dismiss someone's arguments and evidences (both of which I have given) and label it speculation. To me, so far you have not provided any reasoning other than you think the full moon is easier to see. That's it. And you claim that I am the one speculating?
Secondly, your argument for a 95% or even 90% hypothetical symmetry is false because it will never happen. From half-moon to full moon is only 7 days so the MOST you will ever get is 85% symmetry the night before or the night after the full-moon. Again, unless someone has severe vision problems or is just not paying attention, they would be able to make out the full-moon.
Now I'm no math genius... but the cycle from new to full is 14 days. 1/14 is about 7%. So the day before and after it should be 93%, right?? lol Come on now, you didn't think you'd pull that one over on me did you?
History is the subjective point of view of the historian, etc etc.
Bro, I did not say history is infallible or unquestionable. I too question history. I question the history recorded in hadith that the khulifa-rashidoon argued and fought with each other over who would succeed.
But I dont just blatantly say "Nope.. I reject that." I first say why it can't be true, and WHY someone would create that false history. To malign our sahaba AND to validate later on the struggles that the rulers of Islam committed amongst themselves etc etc etc. (That's just an example). So, by all means, question the history. But please explain WHY would someone change the beginning of the month from full moon to hilaal? What possible gain could they have had from this?? You've eluded this question several times now.
According to your criteria, we should all have faith in Hadiths more than in the great reading.
You really like to stretch someones words to fit your purpose dont you?
I won't respond to this since the verses you mentioned clearly are not supporting your view. One only needs to look it up to see that.
In other words, you don't have any valid argument.Oooh, them's fighting words No actually, let's just post the verses you quoted then shall we
-
If there were a Qur'an with which mountains were moved, or the earth were cloven asunder, or the dead were made to speak, (this would be the one!) But, truly, the command is with God in all things! Do not the Believers know, that, had God (so) willed, He could have guided all mankind (to the right)? But the Unbelievers,- never will disaster cease to seize them for their (ill) deeds, or to settle close to their homes, until the promise of God come to pass, for, verily, God will not fail in His promise.
-
Say "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
The meanings of these verses (even by this crude translation) is pretty clear. Yet somehow, you derive the conclusion that these verses prove that Quran also refers to other books. In the first verse, Allah is merely saying that even if the Quran could perform miracles they would not believe. In the second verse, it is just stating the fact that humans and jinn together cannot write something like the Quran.
And SOMEHOW, you interpret this to mean that it's referring to some OTHER Quran??? Is it any wonder I chose not to respond the first time??
If you really know the meaning, then please translate it instead of giving excuses.
Ooh, getting a bit impatient. Inshallah, when I get time. I am already behind on another brothers request. I will get to it when I can. I'm already spending too much time on this forum!
Please try to stop being "caught" in your preconceptions and just look at the evidence without any preconceived conclusions.
Well I haven't been "caught" if you read the above post here. You seem to want to misunderstand what I say (such as my statement about the desert, my statement about history, my statement about fighting about hilaalsighting, suggesting when i dont respond its because i cant) perhaps so that you can claim to have CAUGHT me. But perhaps instead of concentrating on catching me you should just present a more cogent argument.
My argument was a simple one. That in my opinion, the hilaal is easy to mark the beginning of the month because it is a big contrast compared to the new moon 1/0=infinity contrast, either its there or its not. AND, that's what it seems people have been doing for 1400 years. AND, the Quranic meanings and interpretations based on this understanding seem plausible. Also that if shahr doesn't mean month then what does? I'm not saying that I am infallible... I have no particular feelings towards the existing calendrical system. But if someone proposes something different, it should be convincing.
wassalam
-
-
Salam Idolfree,
your interpretation of "witness" is acceptable with your view of God.
But I don't adhere to this view. I think that you merge the creator and his creation, which to me are not the same, even though I do accept the idea that in each creation there is a part of the creator, or rather a reminder of the creator.
This is a philosophical discussion and I won't be able to convince you - just as the other way round...
Elke
-
Peace be upon you PB,
Quote
To me, the God is ALL THINGS, which includes the seen and unseen worlds. SO since we can see part of the WHOLE, we can witness that there is no God but the God. That is why there is no mate and therefore can be no son, because the God is ALL THINGS, and the physical side manifests from the UNSEEN side.I am puzzled by thi statement, because how can Allah be ALL things, when nothing is like unto Him?
Thats correct, no thing is like "THE ALL". Its like trying to compare an atom of mist to the Ocean, even moreso becasuse there is an UNSEEN side to things that we cannot even percieve.
Look at the example of the authoer and the charatcer, the author creates the character mentally, so the character and and the characters house, clotes, car, ect are all in the MIND of the author, therefore part of the author, but the character surely cannot say "I am the AUTHOR", the author is high above that association. D
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
We're having an intelligent discussion about the meaning of shahr, and out of the blue after I gave what I thought was a cogent argument, he says "who cares." What other conclusion can I draw other than he is really not that serious... at least not what I consider to be serious. No offense intended
Soften up brother, your too hard. I told you "who cares" because I want you to realize that in regards to this message, the word for MONTH is not necessary. If you go into the reading looking to find month, you will have difficulty seeing that "shahr" is not month.
-
Peace be upon you Elke,
your interpretation of "witness" is acceptable with your view of God.
But I don't adhere to this view. I think that you merge the creator and his creation, which to me are not the same, even though I do accept the idea that in each creation there is a part of the creator, or rather a reminder of the creator.
This is a philosophical discussion and I won't be able to convince you - just as the other way round...
I certainly understand and respect your understanding, and I also understand why you do not want to enter into a debate about this topic because it would indeed be a long one, but if you ever want to discuss it feel free to.
I just ask you to make sure you have thoroughly exhasuted the idea. Remember that the God is everywhere, and everywhere means everywhere. The God blew from HIMSELF into "us". So it is the CREATOR who has "merged" us ALL. But a single object cannot say "I am god" because it is not ALL THINGS (both perceived and not perceived).
-
salam idolfree,
Soften up brother, your too hard. I told you "who cares" because I want you to realize that in regards to this message, the word for MONTH is not necessary. If you go into the reading looking to find month, you will have difficulty seeing that "shahr" is not month.
No one realizes anything by you saying who cares. The only realization is that YOU dont care. Shahr has meant month for over 1000 years, and this meaning has been recorded in every lexicon and MAKES sense in the Quran. At the very least it is some duration of time since that is the shahr that the Quran was revealed in and the shahr that we are commanded to fast in. If someone wants to provide and alternate meaning, they better darn be sure they consistent evidence and good reasons.
wassalam
-
Peace be upon you Shuiab,
No one realizes anything by you saying who cares. The only realization is that YOU dont care.
If I did not care, I would not be here discusing this message since the e-mail group that first exsisted then expanded into this forum.
Shahr has meant month for over 1000 years, and this meaning has been recorded in every lexicon and MAKES sense in the Quran.
They say the same thing about "jumah" and "friday", but jumah means assembly (as it does in EVERY other occurence in the reading), not Friday. They only changed it so they could uphold thier "sabbath".
At the very least it is some duration of time since that is the shahr that the Quran was revealed in and the shahr that we are commanded to fast in. If someone wants to provide and alternate meaning, they better darn be sure they consistent evidence and good reasons.
It is up to you to locate the evidence, no one else is responsible for you but you.
-
salam idolfree,
now that was a record time response! i am actually sitting at work with free time for a change.
If I did not care, I would not be....
Not be saying things like "who cares," right? )
They say the same thing about "jumah" and "friday", but jumah means assembly (as it does in EVERY other occurence in the reading), not Friday. They only changed it so they could uphold thier "sabbath".
Bro, the discussion is not about the names of days. Even Friday is not just called jum'ah, it's youm ul jum'a. The DAY of assembly, i.e. friday. There's nothing to benefit by providing red herrings like this.
Shuaib wrote
If someone wants to provide an alternate meaning, they better darn be sure they provide consistent evidence and good reasons.
Idolfree wrote
It is up to you to locate the evidence, no one else is responsible for you but you.
This is getting pretty typical of your logic now. So I am responsible for proving OTHER people's arguments? come on now!
wassalam
-
Peace Shuiab.
-
Peace brother Shuaib,
Sorry I don't have access to al-muheet, but I do have lisaan ul arab and taj ul aroos. I believe you may have looked under the wrong root. Tareekh, for example, is from the root hamza-ra-kha... but there IS a root waw-ra-kha in the lexicons. And as you will see if you look that root up, it relates to softness sometimes related to there being an excess of water. It sounds like you are well-versed in Arabic so I probably dont need to explain to you that alif and hamza are different. Also if you search the section hamza-ra-kha (taareekh) you will not find the word warkh.
Al-Mo7it gives the meaning of wa-ra-kha as "specifying of date" ("7adad tarikh"). You can check it yourself online
http//lexicons.ajeeb.com/
Even Lisan Al-3arab that you have gives one of the meanings of waw-ra-kha as specifying of date and gives the example of dating a written document. I don't see how you missed it. Try to read again carefully with patience and perhaps you will see it.
Any ideas? I'm not trying to be a know-it-all here. Rather, my knowledge is deficient in this sector. But I do know what I know. And if you're going to give me an alternate word for shahr then it should be consistent when checked by other means.
I didn't give you an alternate word for "shahr". The inscription that I provided already gave you the "pre-quranic" term for "month". The meaning of "warkh" as "month" in "pre-quranic" Arabia is proven by physical archeological evidence. Why didn't you read line 3 in the transliteration of the inscription as I suggested? Unless you read carefully and with patience then there is no chance for you to overcome your deficient knowledge in this sector.
Well yes, tasreef ul ayaat is the best way. But obviously, just as both you and I are doing, the language also has to be examined. How can we do that without resorting to things like lexicons?
The lexicons, including Lisan Al-3arab that you have, do say that one of the meanings of "warkh" is to specify the date. It is not my fault that you were unable to read it.
Moreover, the Lexicons, including Lisan Al-3arab that you have, do say that the nomadic Arab tribes called the moon "shahr", therefore I am not bringing up an invented meaning. Moreover, Lisan Al-3arab deals extensively with the etymology of the word "shahr". For instance in the discussion of "shahr", it gives "ash-harat", a derivative of "shahr", as meaning a pregnant woman whose is about to deliver (has a big round belly). It also gives the meaning of "shahira(t)" as a big wide woman. It also gives the meaning of "ash-har" as the bright white color of flowers. Therefore, anyone who is able to read Lisan Al-3arab can see that the etymology supports that "shahr" means "full-moon".
And what did the lexicons do but resort to poems and hadith and other literature to compile the meanings of the roots?
The great reading is our BEST source for contextual analysis of words. Next comes archeological evidence. Although the vast majority of alleged Jahiliya poems have been proven to be a forgery of the Ummayad and Abbasid dynasty, most of the meanings in the dictionaries are correct but should be studied intelligently. I use linguistic analysis of all the available evidence and give the right weight to each type of evidence to figure out the correct meaning. I already demonstrated how the word "shahr" means "moon" and then based on further study of the derivatives, it is most likely to mean "wide/full moon". I also confirmed this with internal evidence from the great reading and from archeological evidence. Hence, I validated and revalidated at least three different ways.
For an excellent primer on alleged "pre-quranic' literature, I advise any serious researcher to study Taha Hussein's book "fi al-adab al-jahili".
I've seen the hilaal several times, honestly, but I am not a moonwatcher. Probably I notice the full moon more, because it is so much more intense. I'm not disagreeing with any of this.
I know that you are not disagreeing because the fact that it is easier to spot the full moon than to spot the new moon is indisputable. You are obviously just arguing for the sake of arguing.
But as far as speculation goes, it's very easy bro/sis, to dismiss someone's arguments and evidences (both of which I have given) and label it speculation. To me, so far you have not provided any reasoning other than you think the full moon is easier to see. That's it. And you claim that I am the one speculating?
Again, it is not my fault that you are unable to read the Lisan Al-3arab that you have and see that it gives the meaning of "shahr" as "moon" and the etymology strongly suggests that it is the wide/full moon.
Now I'm no math genius... but the cycle from new to full is 14 days. 1/14 is about 7%. So the day before and after it should be 93%, right?? lol Come on now, you didn't think you'd pull that one over on me did you?
This does not take a math genius. All it takes is a little bit of patience and carefully looking at things before jumping to a conclusion. It is getting tiresome to have to spoon-feed you even basic information, when with a little patience on your part you would have figured it out on your own. When we are looking for symmetry, we are comparing the two HALFS of the moon side by side. We are not comparing a full-moon to an imaginary full-moon side by side. Hence, in symmetry we are only concerned with half of the moon and we are comparing it to the other half. Hence, the most that half of a moon would be to symmetric with the other half is 85% on the night before or after a full moon. Surely, a 15% difference is easy to spot to anyone who carefully looks at the moon.
Bro, I did not say history is infallible or unquestionable. I too question history. I question the history recorded in hadith that the khulifa-rashidoon argued and fought with each other over who would succeed.
But I dont just blatantly say "Nope.. I reject that." I first say why it can't be true, and WHY someone would create that false history. To malign our sahaba AND to validate later on the struggles that the rulers of Islam committed amongst themselves etc etc etc. (That's just an example). So, by all means, question the history. But please explain WHY would someone change the beginning of the month from full moon to hilaal? What possible gain could they have had from this?? You've eluded this question several times now.
I answered but you were not able to read it because you only see what you want to see. Here is what I said
"If the full-moon was the marker then EVERYBODY would see it and no one would have to rely on the Mullahs to tell us when the fasting period begins."
Absent of a clear marker that everybody can see and WITNESS "al-shahr", the only people who gained are the religious clergy who are the ones who do the witnessing for people and people blindly follow them. Hence, in Egypt, for example, it is the clergy of Al-Azhar who declare when so-called Ramadan is.
-
If there were a Qur'an with which mountains were moved, or the earth were cloven asunder, or the dead were made to speak, (this would be the one!) But, truly, the command is with God in all things! Do not the Believers know, that, had God (so) willed, He could have guided all mankind (to the right)? But the Unbelievers,- never will disaster cease to seize them for their (ill) deeds, or to settle close to their homes, until the promise of God come to pass, for, verily, God will not fail in His promise.
-
Say "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
The meanings of these verses (even by this crude translation) is pretty clear. Yet somehow, you derive the conclusion that these verses prove that Quran also refers to other books. In the first verse, Allah is merely saying that even if the Quran could perform miracles they would not believe. In the second verse, it is just stating the fact that humans and jinn together cannot write something like the Quran.
And SOMEHOW, you interpret this to mean that it's referring to some OTHER Quran??? Is it any wonder I chose not to respond the first time??
1331 clearly talks about "a quran/reading" that is hypothetical and NOT the one we have. This is indisputable. I don't know how you can't see that a hypothetical reading that is used to move mountains is definitely OTHER than the great reading that we have.
As for 1788, like many other verses, it clearly demonstrates that the reading is a common noun otherwise it would be ungrammatical to point it out by saying "hatha al-quran"/"this reading" and saying "al-quran" would have been sufficient and more grammatical.
Ooh, getting a bit impatient. Inshallah, when I get time. I am already behind on another brothers request. I will get to it when I can. I'm already spending too much time on this forum!
I thought you said that you had access to dictionaries. If after all those years you don't know the meaning of such an important concept off-hand clearly enough to translate it to others, then just look it up in the dictionaries.
My argument was a simple one. That in my opinion, the hilaal is easy to mark the beginning of the month because it is a big contrast compared to the new moon 1/0=infinity contrast, either its there or its not.
Actually, it is not easy to spot, and that is proven by empirical evidence of the fighting that goes on every year between the Mullahs of each sect about the beginning of so-called Ramadhan. It is not a big contrast because a new-moon is very faint compared to the background night sky and it can be very low on the horizon out of line of sight. Moreover, it is actually there TWICE because there is an identical "hilal" at the end of the month, on the other hand, there is only ONE full-moon.
AND, that's what it seems people have been doing for 1400 years. AND, the Quranic meanings and interpretations based on this understanding seem plausible. Also that if shahr doesn't mean month then what does? I'm not saying that I am infallible... I have no particular feelings towards the existing calendrical system. But if someone proposes something different, it should be convincing.
I already answered your question. Please read carefully the third line of the transliteration of the inscription that I provided the link to, carefully read what Lisan Al3arab and Almo7it say about "shahr" and "warkh" and you will know the answer for yourself.
Peace on who followed the guidance,
Ayman
-
-
peace shuaib, ayman, all,
During my university degree, I studied some aspects of light detection thresholds in humans and also perception/accuracy of symmetry. Unfortunately, I never read any direct comparisons, as this is quite specific. But based on what I know, I would think that judging a full moon would be easier than detecting a new moon. Obviously, I have no concrete research.
This year, I did try to spot the new moon, but I failed on 3 attempts (15th, 16th, 17th), due to cloud, and surrounding lights on the ground do not help.Also, if either of you can clarify something, how much % does the moon grow each day between new-moon and full-moon?
Thanks.
Wakas
-
Peace brother Wakas,
During my university degree, I studied some aspects of light detection thresholds in humans and also perception/accuracy of symmetry. Unfortunately, I never read any direct comparisons, as this is quite specific. But based on what I know, I would think that judging a full moon would be easier than detecting a new moon. Obviously, I have no concrete research.
This year, I did try to spot the new moon, but I failed on 3 attempts (15th, 16th, 17th), due to cloud, and surrounding lights on the ground do not help.Your common sense intuition is correct. We ALL (even brother Shuaib) hve seen the full-moon many more times than the new moon. The new moon can only be seen under ideal conditions that are very rare. We should learn something from our own life experience and when we read 2185. When The God tells us "man shahid minkum al-shahr" does He mean "that from you who witnesses the "shahr"" or "that from you who heard from someone who heard from some Mullah that he witnessed the "shahr""?
Also, if either of you can clarify something, how much % does the moon grow each day between new-moon and full-moon?
The % from new moon to full moon doesn't come into play when it comes to looking for spherical SYMMETRY. ONLY the % from HALF moon to FULL moon needs to be figured out. This is for the simple reason that the symmetry is based on HALF the moon not the full moon. In other words, when looking for symmetry, you would be comparing the TWO halfs you are seeing not ONE moon to an imaginery full moon.
The Half moon is approximately 7 days before the full moon. Therefore, assuming linear growth, we can divide 100% by 7 and get approximately %14.3 daily growth in symmetry or half that (about 7%) for the moon to an imginery full-moon comparison. Therefore when looking for symmetry, it is easier to spot the full moon. It is not a coincidence that humans generally associate beauty with symmetry and are naturally attracted to it.
I hope this helps.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
