Shahr/month in the light of the quran
-
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.
-
Salam br Ayman,
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.
By the way, thanks for yet another interesting link. I can see you have very interesting resources that you are using. I hope i dont give the idea I am not interested in learning. I truly am, but I might not just blindly jump onto any bandwagons either.
I have checked lisaan al arab thoroughly. I have it right here. Volume 1, page 113, hamza-ra-kha. Here are all the words listed (my version is nice because each word is red so you can't miss them), taareekh, arrakha, aarakha, muaarikh, arkhu, irkhu, urkhee, aaraakh, iraakh, arkha, irkha, urkhee, ... irakh, arkh.. ends halfway down page 114. There is no warkh to be found whatsoever. And I am sure anyway that you know that in grammar alif/waw/ya are vowels which sometimes transform in the same root but hamza does not. Taareekh is from hamza, not waw.
But of course then that leaves us with the question of what that archeological piece was saying. One problem I have is that I cannot read it myself. But I trust the transliteration in this case. Honestly, I think it must be a term that was used in a certain region that was never used widely.. what other explanation can there be? The lexicons DO mention a word warkh, and it has nothing to do with time or month. And as you also know, in Arabic one word cannot have 2 roots.
Everything the lexicons say seem to say that shahr is used to refer to the month. I know that the lexicons refer to the moon as shahr too. As you also know, whenever you examine a root you find out all the nuances of a word... shahr does refer to the moon... you are extrapolating though to say it means FULL moon. I don't see that anywhere.
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
Well that's an ignorant thing to say about me. But anyway, the entymology explains that the moon is called shahr because by it, the beginning of the month becomes clear or obvious or proclaimed. Obviously, to you this means full moon since to you the full moon should be the beginning/proclamation of the month. To me it's not since I view the beginning as the hilaal.
And as for me being unable to read... let me ask you... what does the section in the lexicons tell you about the word hilaal oh great reader of lexicons? WHY is the hilaal called the hilaal? See how obvious the ARABS thought the hilaal was, before drawing your conclusions based on what YOU think of the hilaal.
Surely, a 15% difference is easy to spot to anyone who carefully looks at the moon.
As far as the math here, I see your point, it was just a difference in our terminology. But my point is that you are dealing with a 7% sliver of the full moon, either its there or not there. Honestly, there are times when I see the full moon and think that is definitely full. And other times I see it and honestly I am not sure.
I'm interested in actually taking a picture of the full and 1 day minus moons and surveying people to see if they can pick it out.
Then I would have another survey with pictures of the new moon (that is, black) and a picture of the hilaal... and see if they can pick the difference out.
Which do you think will be more accurate?
"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."
Unless as I surmise, the full moon ISNT easier to pick out. And we know in the deserts, where even the stars were followed closely... something as bright as a hilaal, coming right AFTER a day when there was nothing, should be visible and indeed is. Again, see lexicon for meaning of hilaal.
And what makes you think Mullahs tell us when to fast? Usually there is a team of people delegated to be on the lookout... and here in the US often it is just people from the community. Of course since it is an important event people might feel power-hungry and want to do it themselves including power-hungry mullahs. But even in places like Egypt and Syria, this is obviously something mullahs go out and do but a number of community people do as well. But since there is a head of the religious community, regardless of who sees it, he announces it.
But in this day and age, we could merely use calculations and we would know way in advance even when the full moon would be and when the hilaal would be, without even having to physically see it.
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.
I do indeed have access but time is the problem. I am getting sidetracked into these discussion and I want to deal with ONE first before the other. Starting a discussion on the Quran is an ENTIRELY separate issue bro.
I will respond to the Quran issue and your verses hopefully before or during the weekend, when I have to respond to another brother as well.
wassalam
-
Salam brother Shuaib,
I have checked lisaan al arab thoroughly. I have it right here. Volume 1, page 113, hamza-ra-kha. Here are all the words listed (my version is nice because each word is red so you can't miss them), taareekh, arrakha, aarakha, muaarikh, arkhu, irkhu, urkhee, aaraakh, iraakh, arkha, irkha, urkhee, ... irakh, arkh.. ends halfway down page 114. There is no warkh to be found whatsoever. And I am sure anyway that you know that in grammar alif/waw/ya are vowels which sometimes transform in the same root but hamza does not. Taareekh is from hamza, not waw.
You are looking under the wrong root. Please look carefully under W-R-Kh NOT A-R-Kh. You will see that the last meaning given is specifying a date and the example of the dating of a document is given. You can see that in the link that was provided
This was the last meaning given under W-R-Kh in Lisan Al3arab. Moreover, you can check Al-Mo7it for the root W-R-Kh and you will see that "specifying of date" ("7adad tarikh") is given as a meaning.
But of course then that leaves us with the question of what that archeological piece was saying. One problem I have is that I cannot read it myself. But I trust the transliteration in this case. Honestly, I think it must be a term that was used in a certain region that was never used widely.. what other explanation can there be?
Please read the context of the inscription carefully before making baseless assumptions. This inscription was intended as public NEWS much as today's newspapers are intended. It is unlikely that they would use terms that only a few people would understand, it is certain that those who wrote it tried to use language that can be understood by most people.
Moreover, the inscription is dated to around the time the prophet could have been born.
The lexicons DO mention a word warkh, and it has nothing to do with time or month. And as you also know, in Arabic one word cannot have 2 roots.
That is because you are not reading them carefully and are missing the meaning given by BOTH Lisan Al3arab and AlMo7it under the root W-R-Kh.
I know that the lexicons refer to the moon as shahr too.
That is all you need to acknowledge. Now, which is more likely to fit the other nuances of "shahr", full or new moon?
As you also know, whenever you examine a root you find out all the nuances of a word...
Please follow your own advice and look at the other nuances of "shahr" and its derivatives in Lisan Al3arab. Aren't wide, full-figured, big, public some of those nuances?
Moreover, here is what Lisan Al3arab says
Which is likely to be more "famous (seen by everybody) and obvious" as Lisan Al3arab says, the full moon or the new moon?
shahr does refer to the moon... you are extrapolating though to say it means FULL moon. I don't see that anywhere.
Based on the nuances as you suggested then wide, full-figured, big point to the full moon and NOT the new moon. You gave me really good advice so please follow it yourself.
I'm interested in actually taking a picture of the full and 1 day minus moons and surveying people to see if they can pick it out.
Then I would have another survey with pictures of the new moon (that is, black) and a picture of the hilaal... and see if they can pick the difference out.
Please do and in fact I encourage everybody here to do so on the next full moon (which should be next week) and see how easily they can make it out. By the way, good luck getting a picture of the new moon, you will need it.
Salam,
Ayman
-
Salam Wakas, Ayman, Shuaib, all,
The moon does not grow linearly between new moon and full moon.
To find the percent visibility, check outhttp//aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonFraction.html
Also of interest to this discussion, from the following webpage, it can be seen that discerning a full moon up to two days from the actual full moon can be very difficult
http//aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/moon_phases.html
"Although Full Moon occurs each month at a specific date and time, the Moon's disk may appear to be full for several nights in a row if it is clear. This is because the percentage of the Moon's disk that appears illuminated changes very slowly around the time of Full Moon (also around New Moon, but the Moon is not visible at all then). The Moon may appear 100% illuminated only on the night closest to the time of exact Full Moon, but on the night before and night after will appear 97-99% illuminated; most people would not notice the difference. Even two days from Full Moon the Moon's disk is 93-97% illuminated."
Also regarding spotting the hilal
http//aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/islamic.html
"The visibility of the lunar crescent as a function of the Moon's "age" - the time counted from New Moon - is obviously of great importance to Muslims. The date and time of each New Moon can be computed exactly (see, for example, Phases of the Moon in Data Services) but the time that the Moon first becomes visible after the New Moon depends on many factors and cannot be predicted with certainty. In the first two days after New Moon, the young crescent Moon appears very low in the western sky after sunset, and must be viewed through bright twilight. It sets shortly after sunset. The sighting of the lunar crescent within one day of New Moon is usually difficult. The crescent at this time is quite thin, has a low surface brightness, and can easily be lost in the twilight. Generally, the lunar crescent will become visible to suitably-located, experienced observers with good sky conditions about one day after New Moon. However, the time that the crescent actually becomes visible varies quite a bit from one month to another. The record for an early sighting of a lunar crescent, with a telescope, is 12.1 hours after New Moon; for naked-eye sightings, the record is 15.5 hours from New Moon. These are exceptional observations and crescent sightings this early in the lunar month should not be expected as the norm. For Islamic calendar purposes, the sighting must be made with the unaided eye."
Here is another website which shows the phases of the moon
http//www.stardate.org/nightsky/moon/
Seems easier to determine if something is or is not visible, as opposed to determining perfect symmetry.
peace
-
peace David,
Thanks for the pics. Judging by the statements, neither option seems to be significantly easier than the other.
On that last link, there seemed to be 3 days without anything (12, 13, 14) and potential full moons on 2 days (27, 28 ), although the days either side of these two days were very similar.
Wakas
-
Peace,
I?ve been following this very interesting discussion and when I finished I was left with these observations. I was becoming confused. If we keep in mind words like ?easy?, ?clear? and a message for ?all? mankind something is wrong with all our ideas. We are letting Arabic dictionaries and grammar books dictate what is the correct manner of expression rather than the author of the Reading, in this case God. When access to Taj, Moheet, lisan al arab etc. is required for a correct understanding a huge sector of mankind is left out and we attribute infallibility to these resources. I?m not discounting the need for a reference or definition but they can only be a basis not the defining authority. We are also applying preconceived notions about what these words are saying. We are depending on history writers and arab cultural practices to interpret the message rather than the message itself. The Book is its own grammar book, its own dictionary and its own history lesson, not vice versa.
I think we are missing the only important resource, the force God has described as jibr-il. It was hard to shake out of my head what I?ve understood all my adult life but when I questioned each verse as to things like ?who is the audience? I began to get a very different understanding. Here are some of my thoughts on this topic
297 "Say, anyone who opposes Jibril, thus it is he who transmits it upon YOUR heart with God's will confirming with whatever in between its hands - and guidance - and good news for the righteous"
The audience is mankind. Jibril is still obediently carrying out its assignment of putting the understanding and the message into the hearts of those who would be guided. It is not only for the messenger.
If we can link the nature of how the Quran is transmitted in 297 with 2185 - then we are told to impose on ourselves only when we "witness" the time. It never says "in remembrance of the time" but it emphasizes "anyone who witnesses". Logically that is the time when the Quran is transmitted - and the months can happen at any time of the year. No one witnessed when the Quran was transmitted to the last prophet - because in 26192-194 it says the Quran was transmitted into his heart. When we say "witness" we must be able to see or to have the proofs. People may ask, how do we witness that the Quran was revealed to us? The answer is in the 2186. Once we receive the knowledge about the Quran - we would have knowledge about God. He tells us, "And when My servants ask you about Me - I am always near. I respond to the call of any caller who calls Me. Therefore you shall RESPOND TO ME AND BELIEVE ME - and that they may attain GUIDANCE". The only way to respond and to believe in God is through the Quran - not through fasting but through abstention. So abstention is applicable at the time when we receive the knowledge about the Quran - and it does not happen every year. There is always a good reason when we do something in life. God must have a good reason when He tells us to do certain thing. Similarly, we must ask - why do we have to abstain? Is it because of the month or is it because the Quran?
The instruction in verse 2187 is about sexual contact only - and the self abstinence is only restricted during the day not the night. When you are devoted in the submission you shall not approach them. The submission or act of compliance for this abstinence will be clearly explained as you read on. All over the Quran God asks us to eat and drink - even Mariam was told to eat and drink when the word "Saum" is used. There is nothing in the verse about looking to the sky for threads or not eating. It is about clearly understanding this injunction.
I find the word shahra is used by the Author as plural, as in English the word decade, singular, relates to a period of 10 years and decades are periods of ten years. Shahra is months, and ashuhru, months Perhaps the grammar books disagree?
Rama-dhana whichever meaning you accept is a descriptive term, not the name of a specific month.
Without moving ahead and mixing injunctions about other things with what these verses tell us, there is no yearly fast of ramadhan and no moon watching. It is the same deen and message all the prophets received. It is simple and straightforward and clear. When men ?changed? the words in the message before do we understand that they ?changed? the words of God when He says, ?none can change His words?? He never tells us that He will stop men from ?changing? the words in the Qur'aan, they have the same ability to effect corruption they always possessed but the preservation and understanding have been assigned to His faithful servant Jibril. It has always done it?s job and the words of God have never been changed. When we look at the signs in creation we become convinced of God. Have you never asked yourself that WHY with all the obvious corrupted explanations and confusion you are convinced that the reading is divinely inspired and you search for the true meanings? Ponder 297.
The message in 2187 is easy if we pause as we read
2187
It is permitted for you on the nights of abstaining - the sexual contact (see 2197) to your women. They are confidantes for you and you are their confidants.God knows indeed you - that you have wronged yourselves ? thus He pardoned on you and He forgave it from you ? accordingly - now - MAKE THEM HAPPY (see 4223) ?
and you shall seek whatever is written by God for you.
And eat and drink until it is apparent/clear for you as the white thread (see 3527) from the black thread ?
FROM DAWN ? then - abstain yourself to the night. And THEY ARE NOT HAPPY and you are DEVOTED in the submission.
That is the limit of God - thus YOU SHALL NOT APPROACH THEM.
That is how God explains His signs for mankind so that they carefully observe.
The large font is so much easier to read for folks my age. Hope some of you guys take my lead lol
