Why no Ramadzan - replaced! by 3,10,60 Days.
-
Dear progod,
- So Arabic wasn't the official religion of Judaism or Christianity.....
With the way some traditionalists think you might well think that "Arabic" was a religion.
I for one do not understand why you raise this point at all. Arabic was not the official language of any of those religions; it was not a religious language at all up to the point of the Koran.
If you believe it was the official language of any religion before Islam then it is up to you to provide the proof.
2..... Instread, you should look for evidence that the name Makka was coined in Islamic times for the city, then you would have a case.
Is the name Makkah used at all for any city in the Hijaz prior to Islam?
I don't think there is evidence of any such city existing beforehand.
What is illuminating is the fact that the name of "Yathrib" was changed over to "Madina" only because the reading talks about "madina" which simply means 'city' - any city; but the traditionalists usurped the title by changing the name of Yathrib to this alleged Koranic name when it is not in fact a name. What was the motivation? Could there be an ulterior motive? Of course there can.
Why was the name "Yathrib" not used in the reading then?
The skepticism of your archeologists about the pre-Islamic poems is just that, skepticism, not proof. Just because pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa is mentioned does not mean that the poem is post-Koranic, unless you can prove the origin of the pilgrimage that Muslims do now can be dated to post-Koranic times. If you can prove that you have to follow the consistent aspect of the rumor that says that the pilgrimage was actually a pre-Islamic practice that Islam adopted (something probably promoted by the Arab conquistadors.)
If there are poems mentioning a pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa that indeed predate Islam then one has to ask, who was performing these rites? Was it monotheists or idolators? The present rituals performed in Makkah are veiled idolatrous practices. This point does not help your case at all.
- .... So please don't bring probabiliity into the picture. It doesn't make your case any better. It actually just gives me the impression that you are grasping for straws.
Anwar I think you're looking in the mirror here. Ayman has shown clearly that the "ImrulQays" character is a person who lived much earlier and was adapted fictionally to have lived later. If that is not clear to you as being a reasonable conclusion then I would seriously question whether it is sane debating with you at all.
To dismiss the probabilistic argument by throwing in a red herring, shows the weakness of your defence.
So again do you have proof that the language of the Hadeeth and the Pre-Islamic poetries is different than the language of the Koran?
If you don't have proof of this, then what proof do you have the language evolved as you said? Pointing out the fact that most languages changed over a period of 200 years and stating that evolution is a natural process of languages is not proof of othe evolution of Classical Arabic. It is a hunch, a speculation. It give you reason to find proof but it is not proof in and of itself that Classical Arabic evolved.
Just ask yourself whether Arabic as a language has evolved? There are multitudes of varieties in the modern world with some variations being almost mutually unintelligible. So evolution of languages happens.
When you say Classical Arabic you are creating a somewhat artificial demarcation. As long as people continue to speak and use a language it will evolve. That's a truth that no linguist will even question.
If you are saying that there is a version of Arabic - a classical arabic that has ceased to be spoken at some stage and was frozen then you might argue that version hasn't changed. At what point was Classical Arabic frozen?
But the problem with that is that, while it was used - and that seems to have occurred for many hundreds of years - it would most certainly have evolved.
The next problem is that unless one had full documentation of the language at that point of freezing then the time that passes between its common use and its subsequent future study becomes a reason why original meanings are obscured or lost.
Peace.
-
Salaams ,
i was going to do what sabo just did , but then i checked up the meaning of Tharaba in qd,To blame ,find fault with.
Try puting this in the ayat and according to the context , Yathrib wasn't , i believe a name of a town as such but the pagans used this first as it SOUNDS " O people of yathrib BETTER". and then/now are using Madina instead .
WITH THE QD's MEANING -" O people of blame (there is) no stand for you therefore go back and ask for permision e.t.c"
Sounds okay with the meaning!?
I wonder if there was ever a yathrib before the quran!?
Salaams.
-
Peace truth,
You asked
Why was the name "Yathrib" not used in the reading then?
Who said that? check 3313
Best regards,
saboPeace sabo,
Thank you for pointing it out. I realised that it was likely a case sensitive search was the reason for my failure to find it.
And if nothing it's raised it for discussion. I wonder if Ayman would agree with mz357's view of 'ahla yathriba' to be 'people of blame' or 'people of fault'; it's addressing the hypocrites.
I am leaning towards this understanding also.
Regards.
-
Dear all,
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would they blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
When you say Classical Arabic you are creating a somewhat artificial demarcation. As long as people continue to speak and use a language it will evolve. That's a truth that no linguist will even question
But it can stay the same in certain circles. Classical Arabic did evolve where it made everyday contact with Persians and Arameans, those are the colloquials. But it stayed the same in isolated areas and among those people who wanted to uphold the linguistic tradition of Arabic.
There are two theories among linguists on language evolution. Some think that a language will evolve even if it is isolated. Whereas others believe that a language will only change when it can draw from the expression of another language.
In isolated areas Classical Arabic would not have changed at all. In the past many bedouin tribes (even 300 years after the Koran) still would have spoken the same language as the Koran. As well, those who committed themselves to pride in the Arabic language of Muhammad's day and the pre-Islamic poems would have preserved their language.
I understand that certain additions in the language would have occurred. But I am of the opinion that the Arabs who sought to preserve their language or who were very isolated would have done so sufficiently even over 300 years.
I understand that you are taking into consideration what you think is a linguistic fact, but it is not as much of a fact as you think. English has evolved from the 1700's in the area where it came into contact with other langauges (Deep South (african languages & Romance languages and Native languages) etc. In the 18 hundreds there were numerous evolutions of English due to the high influence of languages in the South and the West (Native American languages. And that was only a period of 100 or so years. But among the isolated English and among the upper class who sought to preserve English, it has stayed the same in how it uses its words and the grammar that it uses. There have been additional vocabulary but they can all be dated so that they wont be mistakenly read into early works. That is the only way in which the language of the 1700's and now has changed, but it is not a real change and therefore not an evolution.
So if there are isolated peoples (in this case certain bedouins) and a class of people with linguistic pride who seek to preserve their language (the poets and qurras and those who admired them and kept in their company) then the languages evolution can easily be halted.
Where isolation was not a factor and where people didn't particularly care to preserve the Arabic of Muhammad's day the language did evolve. The product of this evolution with dialects of Aramean, Persian, Arabic and later on Turkish are the Arabic colloquials of the Levant. However the same Classical Arabic that was officially codified by around 1000 A.D. has been the same from that time up until the 1900's, as a matter of fact up until now in 2005. So where is the language evolution there.
Only when foreigners live among each other and exert no effort in preserving tjheir respective languages does language evolve. Additonial names for new events or new phenomena is not evolution.
If you are saying that there is a version of Arabic - a classical arabic that has ceased to be spoken at some stage and was frozen then you might argue that version hasn't changed. At what point was Classical Arabic frozen?
The next problem is that unless one had full documentation of the language at that point of freezing then the time that passes between its common use and its subsequent future study becomes a reason why original meanings are obscured or lost.
But you can't say that an original meaning was lost until you have sufficient evidence to say that the subsequent language is not the original language. You can speculate that certain meanings were lost but what proof do you have of that.
But you can't prove that any word of Classical Arabic changed in meaning or lost a meaning from the time of the Koran until the time of the Hadeeth.
It is only a hunch that you and Ayman have based on your belief that the language had to have naturally evolved, completely and entirely, from the time of the Koran up to the time of the Hadeeth. And it did evolve in city areas where foreigners met with the only goal in mind of communication.However, amidst the company of the qurras, the rawis and the bedouins the language that they learned from their forefathers of Muhammad's day was viewed as a preferable language and so they made sure to preserve their ability to use and understand that language. The books didn't come about until later, but their efforts and isolation alone is enough to defy evolution even over 300 years within their circles. Once the books were written and the groundworks set it slowly became a language that was only taught in schools and by tutors. When it fathers and mothers no longer spoke their kids in this language and it was only taught in school, then it was frozen in the sense of not even being able to take additional meanings for new phenomena and events.
Anwar I think you're looking in the mirror here. Ayman has shown clearly that the "ImrulQays" character is a person who lived much earlier and was adapted fictionally to have lived later. If that is not clear to you as being a reasonable conclusion then I would seriously question whether it is sane debating with you at all.
No, he presented a theory, which you like. I see the reasonability behind it if you think probability accurately relflects the events of life. But it doesn't. It reminds me of those people who say, with conviction, that the lunar cycles is 28.5 days. That is an average of all of the lunar cycles that are sometimes 28, sometimes 29 and sometimes 30. The probabilities can be slim and the thing can still happen. That the second Imrul-qays could have descended from the first actually makes the second Imrul-qays more likely. People frequently name their children after admirable forefathers. The similarity does not say that one negates the other. and animosity between tribes can last for generations. That an Imrul-Qays named after a great king that is a forefather of his defeats a rival tribe that has been a rival for generations is not exactly an impossible thing or even far-fetched. I'm sure there has been embellishment in the poem as that happens even for real kings and their deeds but that does not say that the poems is an invention. Those embellishments could have been embellishments from before. But that doesn' t even matter because the embellisher would have been so familiar with the language that he inherited from his father's father's father that he is still a credible source for even his great-great grandfather's language.
To dismiss the probabilistic argument by throwing in a red herring, shows the weakness of your defence.
It doesn't suprise me that you say that after my comments in the past posts. Red herrings are frequent in life, if a red herring troubles your theory then you have to admit that your theory may not be correct, and is not exactly concrete proof. I think the red herring is likely, so I reject the theory. You think that it is not likely. So that evidence is proof of the post-Koranic origin of the Jahiliyah poems, because of the red herring (as you say) it is not proof to me of the fictitious nature of these poems (which to me is not even the issue) or the post-koranic origin of these poems.
If there are poems mentioning a pilgrimage to Makkah and Safa that indeed predate Islam then one has to ask, who was performing these rites? Was it monotheists or idolators? The present rituals performed in Makkah are veiled idolatrous practices. This point does not help your case at all
So if the idolaters made the pilgrimage and the poets are reciting idolotrous poems of Muhammad's day how does that undermine the linguistic worth of those poems? What case of mine does this not help?
I also believe that the pilgrimage peformed in Makkah are remnants of the culture of the pre-Islamic Arabs, whether they were idolators or not. It was more a cultural union where Arabs came to unite with each other and pay homage to what they valued, be that God or idols that represented different things. A familiar thing among traditional relgiions is idols they are worshipped publicly but they reprsent things. Just as a plaque that says ALLAH represents God. But when the plaque becomes the revered thing instead of what it says then idolatry is in effect. The plaque becomes an idol. The more the Koran becomes less and less understood by people the more it has a chance of becoming an idol as well. People put it on altars already. They kiss it already and there are already people who have lost touch with what it really is and is for. It would not suprise me for instance if a giant plaque,made of marble, were constructed and embellished with the entire Koran on it. With Muslims current blind belief that the Koran is the word of God (without even studying it to verify that) and what they believe about the blessings that come when it is recited or is in their presence the Koran could easily become an idol.I said all that to say that the idolatry that was going on in Makkah and the famous temple there, even with statues and the black rock in it (a beautiful work of God) would have been of the same nature. None of them worshippers there would have denied God or him being the Supreme Being and the Creator, but all of these representations became more important. Just as the adoration for Muhammad at his tomb (God bless im) in Medina can overshadow the purpose of the mosque and the purpose of what a reminder of Muhammad (God's messenger) should provoke.
I personally think that the mandates in the Koran about pilgrimage apply to all Sanctuaries/Holy temples throughout the world that are built for the worship of God. Sanctuaries are holy temples, and they are God's houses only when God is the main focus despite what its parishioners may say. If Muhammad and his people worked to purify the famous holy temple in Makkah through the ideas that the Koran promoted that was a good thing. That famous temple, like the Mosque in Medina, despite the idolatry there, was a place where people could still come to worship God.
But whereas the Arabs naturally would have continued to make a pilgrimage there (it being a grand focal point for the Arabs of that region), it was not the only place where they could have made pilgrimage to. If they knew of a Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue of the right mind they could have made a pilgrimage there too. However, as the Arabs became the conquistadors of that part of the world and as they spread their cultural and ethnic pride to other lands it is obvious that they would have kept up the promotion of pilgrimage to the Holy Temple in Mecca, as that would keep them in the lime-light as a culture so great that a centre that represented their origins and homeland must be visited and and respects payed there.
As for Mecca and Medina. It is documented that Medina was a later name given to the city called Yathrib. They did not call it Medina because the Koran mentions the word Medina. They called it Al-Medina to honor it. Al-Medinah can mean 'The City' in the sense of someone being praised by being called 'The Man.'
Meccah name is pre-Islamic. There is a greek source I think Homer that says that there is a city called Macaroba that is also a place of pilgrimage for the Arabs. It is easy to see how Maca + Roba could be a greek corruption of some epithet of the city where Makkat is mentioned first. It is feasibly a corruption of a much longer epithet that includes Maca (Makkah) Makkatu Arrubaa could be the original epithet or it could be some other that was corrupted. But it is defintely not far-fetched to consider that Maca comes from Makkatu and Roba comes from some other Arabic word.
Godbless,
Anwar -
GOd bless all,
I said the below
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would they blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
What I meant was
Yaa ahla yathriba can mean "O people, would HE blame/be blameworthy . . ." For it to be 'Oh people of blame' it would have to be 'Yaa ahla tharb/tharaab.'
Godbless,
Anwar -
The probabilities can be slim and the thing can still happen. That the second Imrul-qays could have descended from the first actually makes the second Imrul-qays more likely. People frequently name their children after admirable forefathers. The similarity does not say that one negates the other. and animosity between tribes can last for generations. That an Imrul-Qays named after a great king that is a forefather of his defeats a rival tribe that has been a rival for generations is not exactly an impossible thing or even far-fetched.
What you are saying is even less possible because the inscription is North Arabian and the information in it refers to North Arabian events. On the other hand, the alleged poet is South Arabian and his alleged tribe and the alleged tribe that he defeated is South Arabian. I don't know why you have a thing for Imru' Al-Qays where you defy all odds and objectivity to defend his existence at any cost.
Your problem is that you are trying to build your religion based on "literature" whose purpose is entertainment.
What difference does it make to you if he was a legend told by the Abassid era storytellers? From a purely literary point of view his poems and story are still fun to read.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless you Ayman,
What you are saying is even less possible because the inscription is North Arabian and the information in it refers to North Arabian events. On the other hand, the alleged poet is South Arabian and his alleged tribe and the alleged tribe that he defeated is South Arabian. I don't know why you have a thing for Imru' Al-Qays where you defy all odds and objectivity to defend his existence at any cost.
Well that does change it up and makes my opinion totally inappropriate. However, you shoudl understand that it is not that I'm trying to "defy all odds of objectivity or to defend his existence at any cost," as you say. I'm trying to let you understand that the existence of this second Imrul-Qays is possible. All you can really say is that 'It is most likely that 'Imrul-Qays' of the Jahiliyah poems didn't really exist.' If the evidence suggest that to you (note that i said suggest) than instead of stating it like a hard fact like you do, you need to be open to the fact that these things that you are presenting are just theories. Don't expect me to take them as hard facts when they are just theories. Despite the theories about whether the stories about this individual is real or not this does not necessarily prove that the story did not come from the Jahiliyah era, or for that matter, that the language of the poems is an invalid representative of the language of Muhammad's time.
Questions still pop up into my mind like "What if the fabrication was a pre-Islamic fabrication?" "Or, particularly a fabrication that occured during or shortly after Muhammad's time?" In that case it is still representative of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I am not really arguing a case for whether the content of the poems is true or not. What I'm arguing is whether or not they stand as valid representatives of the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I think they do. And I don't think that arguing about the truth of the poems means that these poems are post-koranic or whether or not they are valid representatives of the language of Muhammad's day. Or that arguing about the truth of the hadeeths has anything to do with whether or not the language of the Hadeeth represents the same Arabic as the Arabic of Muhammad's day. I do think that the situations presented after the death of Muhammad allowed for the preservation of the language that Muhammad spoke as well as allowing for the evolution of that language in city areas amongst people that had no reason to keep speaking the way their fathers did. Some of that evolution had already taken place in the areas of the ghassanids and the lakhmis to my knowledge, during Muhammad's time. Creole languages had already devoloped between Arabic and Aramean (the Nabateans were probably the first with this) and Arabic and Persian.
Just for pondering's sake, can you tell me the likelihood of an Aramean/Aramaic Imrul-Qays? I mean unless they were writing Arabic in Nabatean script something seems fishy to me. It seems fishy to me because Nabatean is an Aramaic/Aramean language and Imrul-Qays is obviously an truly Northern/Central Arabic name. But didn't you say that a similarity between the first Imrul-Qays and the second is that they came from the tribes of Kinda? Or is this just a mistake on my part. If it is I apologize for confusing that.
I'm not arguing whether these poems are wholly factual, or fictitious for that matter as that is not the real issue. Its fictitious character could have been acquired before or during Muhammad's times just as well as after his time.
I think I demonstrated well the fact that it is just as likely for certain Islamic practices to have pre-koranic origins just as well as post-koranic origins. We need to look for clues as to when and where these practices or meanings of words are coined to say that they are post-koranic innovations. All the literature is pretty consistent on the pilgrimage to Makkah being a cultural phenomenon of the pre-Koranic Arabs. If you want classify the practice as idolatrous because of that (as Truth does) you can go ahead and do that, but I would not take it that far.
I think the important parts to understand when it comes to this particular pilgrimage, Makkah and the Koran are the following things
- The Koran tells us to make pilgrimage to His House, and to Holy Temples/Sanctuaries or Al-Masjidul-Haraam. Both of these can be collective as well as singular, that is fact. So I think that it was only natural that the Arab conquerers (who in my mind and other historians' minds didn't really represent the religion that Muhammad preached through the Koran, but who were on a roll at that time) start highlighting their temple as if it were the only House of God and the only Holy Temple/Sanctuary. That factor of divinity gave them the cultural upperhand that they needed to continue their rule.
That however, I admit is my theory on the issue. Although I think it is quite likely that it happened like this. The divine character of the Arabs soon came under scrutiny by other cultures, especially the Persians, as these cultures became Muslim and expected to be treated as equals. I do not think that it is improbable or unlikely that Muhammad also made pilgrimage to this house and did it in the way that his people did it (the way that he knew how). However, I don't think that it was so full of idols like the Hadeeths potray it. Even if it were, and I am wrong, I do not think that the culture of the Arabs (as opposed to the Christians who make God equal to His messenger) would have allowed for these idols to be the central theme of their Temple. It shows in the Koran that they readily agreed to the existence of God and his power, and that they thought that the angels were God's daughters. As far as we know Al-laat, al-Uzaa and Al-Ukhraa (All feminine and attested to in the Koran) were considered angels by them, despite whether or not they were also viewed as gods or not.
All of these names also have Classical Arabic meanings and can be likened to someone considering "Lady Wisdom" as one of God's angels. A study of primitive cultures and their gods will show that these gods were gods only because they were revered for the power that they represented or possessed, but they were never made equal to God. God is often just said to be far removed from the world. These cultures many times disregarded God and regarded the other things that they revered more than God. It would be the same as asking Gabriel (God bless him) for help without taking into account that Gabriel acts on behalf of God, always.
Trinitarians try to shadow God out too by actually giving Jesus (God bless him) all of God's power, despite what their books actually say. They took the game to a whole new level in my opinion.- As it concerns Makkah. I understand that the word has meanings that refer to concepts and not a place. Those meanings are 'Destruction/Sucking/Sucking dry, Lacking water etc.' However, just because it has these meanings does not mean that the Arabs didn't use it to also refer to the city of Mecca. Look at it like the phrase 'The Big Apple.' I can distinguish it from 'the big apple' as in 'a particular apple' by using capitals when I write it, but you can't do this in Arabic script or when you say it in English for that matter. In Arabic it would be 'atuh-fatul-kabeeratu.' I look at the the passage in the Koran as having a lesser meaning and a greater, more encompassing meaning.
For instance, lets take the passage " There was a man walking through the bustling city of New York eating a pretty sizeable apple. While walking he was struck by a thought and paused in the middle of the big apple, despite the overwhelming crowds around him."
Now if I were saying these lines some of you might think I meant that the man stopped in his tracks, and would think that I mean the city by 'the big apple.' Others might think I actually mean that the man stopped eating the apple while right in the middle of it. The truth is, I can mean either one. If I were telling a story just to narrate a happening it wouldn't really matter. Later clues would probably clear it up, or prove that it is a trivial part of the story and can be disregarded. But if the author intends to make you think he can validly mean both things.
- That is the way that I look at Makkah when I see it in the Koran. The Koran tells us to read and to take the best interpretation. So it knows that the language that it is using allows for different interpretations. There is no reason to try to say that Makkah only means one thing in Classical Arabic; either Mecca the place or one of the ideas that it is defined as. It can mean both, in the Koranic passage as well. However, when we read that passage, to read Makkah as destruction carries a bigger and better meaning that envelops its meaning of Makkah.
Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran
Yeah, God may well have held back His loyalists and his disloyalists from each other in the middle of Makkah (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata ) but I think the main point is that he held back His loyalists and His disloyalists from each other while in the midst of true destruction. (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata )They were annihilating each other and God held both sides back. But even more encompassing than that meaning is that God's loyalists understand that would God hold us back from our enemies and/or vice-versa in the mist of certain destruction, afterwards
he will give us the victory. He will see everything we do. (kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran)Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaams all,
A new vew
2185
(lanes and qd)
Shahr-un = He paraded(an offender)as a public example.
= new moon
=month
Shahra = devuldgeAnd ayman said
I looked up the word "shahr" in the dictionary (Lisan Al-3arab) and it doesn't seem to mean "month", "30 consecutive days", or "30 intermittent days". The primary meaning is "something obvious", "something public", and "something wide". It is also reported in the dictionary that the Arabs used to call the moon "shahr". In modern Arabic, someone "mashhur" is a public celebri
The meaning one way is by comparission of rahman and ramdzan
Rahima=To love/have tenderness/have mercy/pity/forgiveness???.
Rahman=One having the above qualities.Simerlarly
Ramidza=something becoming intensely hot, ? by the action of the sun /or by hot stones /or by a fire/ ,or something beaten between two stones to sharpen it.
Simerlarly
Ramdzan=One having the above qualities
Another meaning from lanes
Ramdzan=One of the names of God =He who obliterates sins.
Ramadzun= distress and disquietude, or grief as a consequence of some of our actions.2185
of your parading obliterate sins those revealed in it the quran a guidance for mankind and clear proofs of the guidance and the criterion ,who whosoever witnesses amongst you such parading he should fast(remove/ expunge) it and whosoever is sick or on journey (the same) number of days other wants Allah for you ease and not want for you hardship so that you complete the number and that you should magnify Allah on that he guided you so that you may give thanks.And from my other post a fast has nothing at all to do with food and drink.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3506
Salaams.
-
In Muheetul-muheet it defintes month as 1 part out of twelve parts in a year. I'll have my results in a little bit.
Also not to attack buy Ayman I always found your idea bout the difference between 'iddat and adad very weak. But I'll get back to you on all that.
Godbless,
ProGod -
Peace Anwar,
Thank you for your comments and for the thoughtful private message.
In Muheetul-muheet it defintes month as 1 part out of twelve parts in a year. I'll have my results in a little bit.
Also not to attack buy Ayman I always found your idea bout the difference between 'iddat and adad very weak. But I'll get back to you on all that.
Muheet Al-Muheet is usually not my first choice as far as Lexicons. I found that it tends to include more modern meanings than other Lexicons. This is not surprising. It was authored in 1870 by Professor Botros Al-Bustani and is considered by Arabic Linguists to be one of the most important lexicons of Modern Arabic and NOT Classical Arabic. Hence, it includes modern terms. What Professor Al-Bustani gave you is a modern meaning and that is why you can't find it in ANY of the older Classical Arabic lexicons.
In addition to the above facts, we can confirm that the meaning is invalid because applying it creates a contradiction in the great reading. According to this modern meaning of "shahr" in 2185 we are told to fast a month but we were told in the previous sentence in 2183-184 that abstinence is for a few days. This is a clear contradiction.
Please see more on this and why we can't exchange 'iddat and adad in my response to your private message.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Anwar,
I want to continue our private sessions. The only thing I have to say here though is that 'ayyaamin ma'loomaat' is 'known/recognized days' not 'a few days.'
I agree that "ma'loomaat" means "known/recognized". However, the word "ma'loomaat" doesn't occur in 2184-185. The word describing the days in 2184-185 is "ma'doodat".
The meaning given for "ma'doodat" in Classical Arabic dictionaries is "something that can be counted on the fingers". This is consistent and few ("ma'doodat") is always used to mean less than or equal to ten in the great reading. So unless someone happens to have thirty fingers, there is no need to invent a new meaning.
Moreover, notice that the complete count is said to be a "complete 10" in 2196 and in 2827. Hence, when we hear in 2183-184 that abstinence is for a few days and then we hear in 2185 that we should complete the count this means that the count of the days of abstinence is 10 days and not a whole month. Since for most people completing the count on the hand means counting the 10 fingers, this is again consistent with the dictionary meaning.
This is also confirmed by archeological evidence showing that pre-quranic Arabs used a base-10 tally system for counting.
I hope this helps and I look forward to our continued discussion.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Sorry about the ma'loomaat. But I disagree with you on the ma'doodaat. It just means 'counted.' You can count 20 oro 30 with your fingers. I'll check to see if the dictionaries say 10. However, just because the Koran says that 10 of something is counted or ma'doodaat, that does not limit the definition of the word to 10 only.
Godlbess,
ProGod -
Sorry about the ma'loomaat. But I disagree with you on the ma'doodaat. It just means 'counted.' You can count 20 oro 30 with your fingers. I'll check to see if the dictionaries say 10. However, just because the Koran says that 10 of something is counted or ma'doodaat, that does not limit the definition of the word to 10 only.
Ma'doodaat according to Al-Wasit
" ".
"what can be counted on the fingers".
Although one can count 1000 on his fingers, this is not the image that first comes into mind when one hears "what can be counted on the fingers". Had Al-Wasit said "fingers and toes" then 20 would have been what first comes into mind. Had it said, "fingers of 3 people" then 30 would have been the first thing that comes in mind. Unless someone already has another preconceived meaning in mind, the meaning of ten or less is what first come into mind when hearing "what can be counted on the fingers". It is a clear meaning that is consistent within the great reading and with archeological evidence.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace wakas,
peace brothers Ayman, Anwar, all,
I have uploaded the full Lane's Lexicon entry for the root Shiin-ha-Ra in PRL if anyone wishes to read it.
Wakas
what do you think is the primary meaning for the SHR root, to me it seems that it has something to do with being obvious through eyesight or manifest
one
-
Ayman,
I think what you said yourself has to be taken into account. You can count 1000 on your fingers if you wanted to. Furthermore I would look at more than just that dictionary. It's great when you have more than one. For instance I discovered the meaning khamr as 'intoxication/enebriation' by looking at a dictionary by Salmone Habib. I have no way of gettting to it now. But it offered good meanings that other dictionaries didn't bother with. If someone in Philadelphi could visit the Universtiy of Penn library and go up to their Middle East department and look for this book(it's green) you would be greatly appreciative for this dictionaries more extensive approach. It lacks some meaning of other dictionaries but has meanings that aren't usually put in alot of dictionaries. Hava dictionary of Classical Arabic also has meanings not usually found LIsaan al-Arab and Lane's lexicon. It's like looking in an English dictionary. Sometimes Webster has meanings that Oxford doesn't have (for reasons of space, limited resources etc.)
Godbless,
ProGod
