Have we given this script too much credit-made an idol of it
-
Peace be upon you Zlatan,
YES! Some of us HAVE made this reading(quran) an IDOL. We are told to have faith in THAT which is sent to us and that which is sent before us. Without going into a lengthy explanation, we are being told to have faith in TRUTH, not a physical book.
For so long I am sayingthat "quran" is not the title of this book, it only means READING. We have to search for TRUTH.
However, I am not convinced that this reading(quran) has been corrupted, we must remain patience, we have come a VERY LONG WAY and discovered things that many do not see. If it was corrupted, we would have not discovered what we have so far.
-
Peace
when I read Aidid Safar's 2nd draft of his article, salat being translated into 'commitment' just seemed really simple and effective, but I think half of you criticised his intepretation, so I still need to research possible meanings of this word in particular. (i do like it though, because it provides a duality to 'dua' which is prayer, with 'salat' being a direct action of living the right way)
Beatnik thanks for the comments(and Kyle also)!
btw for me the commitement(s) fits nicely and if not the only or most correct meaning i think its very close to the original...
whatever, i am not so worried about term salat cause there is a plenty of good theories and whicheever of interpretetion is correct we already have a pretty satisfying explanation which seemingly does not make contradiction with the rest of the book but thats not the case with ashurul hurumu...
i simply do not find any explanation which wouldnt make some contradiction to the rest of the book
another thing why it is so hard is that this reading is in arabic and this itself is imo one of potential contradictions...
it is wery wierd if we are obliged to uphold it cause its in the language we do not understand(remember also the verse about sending messengers strictly in their`s people mother tongue to explain/make clear) and trying to apply it with the half-knowledge myself and others as well have commited most serious crimes which borders with making partners to The Almighty if are not the very making partners ....and we even we see that even the modern arabic speakers can easily ascribe lies to The God causee the book is in classical arabic not modern....
all this is very very wierd .....
of course we can, theoretically all learn the language but theres no order to it and it seem like something very unlike what The God should require of his servants....but maybe i am wrong .... this task maybe isnt so unnatural and hard as it might appear, for example, to learn a new language is, I believe, much easier from fighting in the cause of The God...
maybe different generations have different ways and task to fullfil in order to satisfy The general God`s orders...
for example we are maybe obliged to learn arabic in order to fullfil the requirements of 17/36 and many similar verses which order us to avoid conjectures, half truths, opinions which is exactly or at least mainly what a follower of the translations might be doing
maybe we should really all learn this language in order to be able to properly appreciate and understand the divinity of its message
however the question remains what one is expected to do in the meantime....what are we to uphold until its completely translated..you say we have only 10% to discover...but i am afraid its not that simple....all the things are very intertwined and the ayats` meanings are depending each of other for the proper interpretation/translation ....
the real picture which all the verses together form is a 3d and 90% verses are imo always forming 2d picture to 100% of the issues and not only to 90% issues... and 2d picture is simply not true....
remember the verses do not hurry up with the reading until its revelation to you is completed(if the trans. is correct-of course)....."and "its upon Us to explain it" and "thus we explain our signs/messages" and many more.....
heres an interesting example...one of the fm participants have said i will eat pig meat until i am 100% sure that this is something The God really ask of us to restrain from... do you think he is right?
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace be upon you Kyle
However, I am not convinced that this reading(quran) has been corrupted,
but you are niether convinced that its not?
we must remain patience, we have come a VERY LONG WAY and discovered things that many do not see. If it was corrupted, we would have not discovered what we have so far.
it sounds reasonable....but what one is to do/practice in the meantime?
anyway, thanks for the advice!
best wishes, Zlatan
-
Peace be upon you,
it sounds reasonable....but what one is to do/practice in the meantime?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Brother Zlatan, lets forget about "quran" for a second, what aspect of your life are you not at peace with? We can start from there. I think we can reason out a workable soultion until we get the knowledge from the God abot he rest. But I cannot say this enough, keeping control of your thoughts so that you maintain a PEACEFUL STATE of BEING is what is most important. ALL of the spiritual teachings of the different cultures teach this.
-
Peace be upon you,
it sounds reasonable....but what one is to do/practice in the meantime?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
that sounds nice ...however did you realy mean that we should do just that?
imo the reading deals and treats more than just what we are doing to others.....
Brother Zlatan, lets forget about "quran" for a second, what aspect of your life are you not at peace with? We can start from there.
being mainly motivated and driven by it ,if i forget about it, i really do not know if i am not satisfied with anything....anyway ill try that excercise...
btw how do we know that the aspect i am not satisfied with is actually ok?
maintain a PEACEFUL STATE of BEING is what is most important.
How can you be sure that keeping the peacefull state of being is good for us?
from what i know from the reading and from the own experience sometimes is quite useful to be disturbed and little bit or even more annoyed...
ALL of the spiritual teachings of the different cultures teach this.
all of them being suggested the same thing, of course doesnt necessarily makes this thing right...
thanks for the help....
best wishes, Zlatan
-
We are told not to uphold that which we have no knowledge of... and that we should follow what is best... so I guess we should just stay simple.
The best thing is to act so that no-one gets hurt. We should act so that positivity increases and negativity is avoided and prevented. To do this, we need no scriptures, just the common sense that God has put into all of us. We just have to act it out. Act the goodness out. Anything that clouds the mind isn't good for us. This goes for substances as well as thoughts and ideas. If you are confused... then relax. Confusion never gives in to force. Everything takes time. Everything has a certain time when it is ripe.
Go with God
-
Peace be upon you Zulf,
Very well said!
-
Good post Zulf. We're all living in different situations, its how we deal with them that counts rather than following a rigid set of vague rules, hopefully God willing, we'll deal with life in a correct way, in the ways God has outlined, instead of straying off the path and causing 'mischief'.
-
Peace brother Zlatan,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this important issue.
Here is what I see the problems that most people (including me) sometimes have
- We sometimes ask the wrong question and expect a right answer.
- Our expectations from the book are different than what the book tells us to expect.
The question was never about "calendar". All calendars are man-made. Therefore, you are looking for the right answer to the wrong question. The issue is about cosmic phenomena that everybody can use to time the restriction irrespective of what man-made calendar system they use. Hence, people from different cultures and having different level of technological sophistication can know the timing of the restriction.
As for the authority of the book, maybe you are expecting too much of the book. We are told from the beginning of the book what to expect
This is the book no doubt in it, a guidance for the forethoughtful/mindful.
Therefore, this book is simply a guide to the right answer but the forethoughtful/mindful still have to work to find the answer and it doesn't have the authority to easily feed anyone the answer no more than to move mountains or to speak to the dead.
There is a difference between contradictions and inconsistencies. The great reading doesn't contain inconsistencies. Contradictions can be consistent too. Contradictions are created by our faulty understanding. Hence, when one has the wrong understanding of a certain issue, the scripture is consistently contradicting on this issue.
The great reading is not a book of answers nor does it ever claim to be. It is a book of guidance. We have to find the answers ourselves. If we ask the book anything, it will not answer back, exactly like the biggest idol of the people of Ibrahim didn't answer back. Again, the book is only guidance and we have to find the way and the answers ourselves. The God guides whom He WILLS, always in the present tense. Thus, it is not predestined who will be guided. It is up to each individual and what choices he/she makes.
As for the scripture being complete, it depends on what you mean by "complete". Complete for what? For example, if our purpose is to know the future, then this scripture is far from complete because we can't even know from it what will happen tomorrow, let alone in a few years.
Our purpose is to serve The God. This scripture contains the complete guidance on how to serve The God. Guidance is like a map that will point us in the right direction but we have to travel the road and learn from the signs on the road and on the map along the way.
Being fascinated with the great reading is natural. It is the same reaction that looking at a tree, at the sky, and at any of The God's signs evokes. The great reading contains signs exactly like the universe around us and in us contains signs. However, no one looks at a tree and asks himself "if the tree is intact or complete". A tree is a sign just like the signs in the great reading. We are fascinated by it, however it doesn't spoon feed us its fruits. It is up to us to study it and use it. We should not expect to perfectly understand the book no more than we expect to perfectly understand a tree.
The God has clearly told us that He preserved the reminder and not the reading or even what is written (the book). We remember by learning. Hence, it is not surprising that we find differences in some letters in the book that are not material to our learning of the meaning. We also see that the reading is not preserved as we see people with different accents reading it differently and we see corrupted vocalization marks that, unlike the dots, were added hundred of years after the revelation of the great reading (we know this for sure based on physical archeological evidence). But all those things are immaterial because the reminder that we can only get by learning is preserved. Thus when someone studies and learns the book properly they will get the preserved reminder. Knowing Arabic is immaterial. There is nothing in the book that says "knowing Arabic" is a requirement to be guided.
I think that you put it very well when you said that patience is part of the answer. You see we arrive at the answer with patience and "salat"/learning and we should not expect to ask the book and it to reply to us with an answer.
In 548 and 2148 we are told that the differences between us should be managed by racing to the best. Thus, we should follow the best understanding and then The God will bring us together.
If there is a better understanding of "shahr 7aram" tomorrow then I am all for it and I have no special attachment to anything I write. However, for now, the understanding provided in the article is the best understanding currently available.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman!
another interesing phenomenon on the topic that i have noticed is that there is a plenty of the repeatings in the book....for example, the story of Moses is narrated and repeated so many times and i doubt that anybody would noticed if one of the repetitions is omited and instead of it revealed a verse like" o you who believe the times of restrictions are 1....2......3....4.... ?"
now why thats not the case?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on this important issue.
thanks to you for trying to answer some of them....
Here is what I see the problems that most people (including me) sometimes have
- We sometimes ask the wrong question and expect a right answer.
agreed, however i doubt that asking when are times of restrictions is wrong question of course except in the case that ashurul hurum doesnt mean/denote times of restriction....could that be the case? i remember i have tried another solutions from the dic as well as from my imaginations and nothing worked well as "times of restriction"(except of course that i was nt able to find when are those times)
- Our expectations from the book are different than what the book tells us to expect.
I agree...that mislead me a lot of times before
The question was never about "calendar". All calendars are man-made. Therefore, you are looking for the right answer to the wrong question. The issue is about cosmic phenomena that everybody can use to time the restriction irrespective of what man-made calendar system they use. Hence, people from different cultures and having different level of technological sophistication can know the timing of the restriction.
The calendar from my question was the simplest way or one word way to define the problem.... i have used it as a methaphor and was not looking for the right calendar but for the answer when are the times when we are supposed to do hajj and are forbiden from fighting and hunting baheematul an`aam
All calendars are man-made. Therefore, you are looking for the right answer to the wrong question. The issue is about cosmic phenomena that everybody can use to time the restriction irrespective of what man-made calendar system they use. Hence, people from different cultures and having different level of technological sophistication can know the timing of the restriction.
As for the authority of the book, maybe you are expecting too much of the book. We are told from the beginning of the book what to expect
This is the book no doubt in it, a guidance for the forethoughtful/mindful.
Therefore, this book is simply a guide to the right answer but the forethoughtful/mindful still have to work to find the answer and it doesn't have the authority to easily feed anyone the answer no more than to move mountains or to speak to the dead.
i am not sure i can agree to that...this comment is very unlike your comments when you discuss with the traditionalists...for a moment it looked like i am gonna hear that i should "obey the messenger" and find the answer in the book of Bukhari or consensus of the ummah...
There is a difference between contradictions and inconsistencies. The great reading doesn't contain inconsistencies. Contradictions can be consistent too. Contradictions are created by our faulty understanding. Hence, when one has the wrong understanding of a certain issue, the scripture is consistently contradicting on this issue.
nice observation...
The great reading is not a book of answers nor does it ever claim to be.
I am afraid I can not agree....at least not completely
It is a book of guidance. We have to find the answers ourselves. If we ask the book anything, it will not answer back, exactly like the biggest idol of the people of Ibrahim didn't answer back.
Sometimes it will answer sometimes not....depending of what is asked....and this is not simply a book... we believe it a representant of The God HIS WORDS....when one is reading it he is supposed to have in mind that The God is speaking to the messenger and humanity through him answering their problems....
Again, the book is only guidance and we have to find the way and the answers ourselves. The God guides whom He WILLS, always in the present tense. Thus, it is not predestined who will be guided. It is up to each individual and what choices he/she makes.
again i cant agree that WE are to find answers, but that we are to hear and obey, and not to search for the answers, we are given answers ....remember people have asked the messeger this and that.. and The God have gave them the answers through him...now when the messenger is dead who will give us answers? isnt this book his heritage and the source of all of his answers? can it be that the messenger was sent only to a particular nation as i have stated before? nobody of them asked the question i have asked, i.e., when are the times of restriction?
Does it mean that my question is wrong and ashurul hurumu doesnt mean that or that they knew it by default(if this is the case that would open a whole can of worms in regards of salat zakat hajj and many other issues, actually this might be excactly what had hapened and caused creation and proliferation of Hadith and sunna concepts).
As for the scripture being complete, it depends on what you mean by "complete". Complete for what?
Complete for the orders it has given us....if we are ordered not to fight at certain times i expect it to define us these times or i could conclude that the book isnt complete or isnt send/intended to/for me, at least not all of its orders...thats exactly why i have been argued that maybe the book is intended only for a specific cultural milieu.
For example, if our purpose is to know the future, then this scripture is far from complete because we can't even know from it what will happen tomorrow, let alone in a few years.
thank The God i am not searching for that kind of answers, only for those that would make the book consistent or complete to me....i am also looking to a proper understanding of the concepts we think we have already understood because in the light of the truth we found out in regards this topic they might greatly change as well....
Our purpose is to serve The God. This scripture contains the complete guidance on how to serve The God. Guidance is like a map that will point us in the right direction but we have to travel the road and learn from the signs on the road and on the map along the way.
Being fascinated with the great reading is natural. It is the same reaction that looking at a tree, at the sky, and at any of The God's signs evokes. The great reading contains signs exactly like the universe around us and in us contains signs. However, no one looks at a tree and asks himself "if the tree is intact or complete". A tree is a sign just like the signs in the great reading. We are fascinated by it, however it doesn't spoon feed us its fruits. It is up to us to study it and use it. We should not expect to perfectly understand the book no more than we expect to perfectly understand a tree.
I am not sure the perfect, less than perfect etc are proper terms for judging the translation or understanding the book however toward my current knowledge(and sure i might be wrong), any traslation less then perfect might easily lead somebody to join others with the God and obey orders and hold the views of translator and not of the God....thats why i am wondering isnt this book, in/with all its details, intended only to arabs?
The God has clearly told us that He preserved the reminder and not the reading or even what is written (the book).
I am not sure that there`s such a message in the book? i mean The God never directly claimed He will preserve the script or reminder sent to this arabic messenger...( of course we maybe might conclude from the book that the essential message will be delievered to the people of all the times...but that being far from all the details we posses in this script)....
you probably think of 159...imho "inna lahu la hafizoon" is reffering to the messenger not to the the dhikr/reminder...see the context.. and if you are thinking of 4141-42 i think it is obvious that it reffers to the originaly revealed reading and what the messenger is reciting and not what might later become of it...many falsehood has entered it many times....in my opinion....
We remember by learning. Hence, it is not surprising that we find differences in some letters in the book that are not material to our learning of the meaning. We also see that the reading is not preserved as we see people with different accents reading it differently and we see corrupted vocalization marks that, unlike the dots, were added hundred of years after the revelation of the great reading (we know this for sure based on physical archeological evidence). But all those things are immaterial because the reminder that we can only get by learning is preserved. Thus when someone studies and learns the book properly they will get the preserved reminder. Knowing Arabic is immaterial. There is nothing in the book that says "knowing Arabic" is a requirement to be guided.
of course it is not requirement for being guided one can hear or read the translation but if somebody is trying to be guided by understanding the arabic script without knowing arabic he might be easily misguided....and imo the very proof of it might be this forum of ours..
I think that you put it very well when you said that patience is part of the answer. You see we arrive at the answer with patience and "salat"/learning and we should not expect to ask the book and it to reply to us with an answer.
how did you come to conclusion that salat mean learning? from the dictionaries or from the contexts of the book or by combining them?
In 548 and 2148 we are told that the differences between us should be managed by racing to the best. Thus, we should follow the best understanding and then The God will bring us together.
If there is a better understanding of "shahr 7aram" tomorrow then I am all for it and I have no special attachment to anything I write. However, for now, the understanding provided in the article is the best understanding currently available.
As i have already clearly demonstrated the understanding in the article is incorrect and pottentially misleading(if someone take this solution as the correct or The God given/prescribed timing for the times of restriction )though some of its findings and conclusions might be correct
Peace and all best wishes,
Zlatan
-
God bless all,
Listen this is my take on all of this. All this confusion comes from wrong ideas and pre-conceptions. These wrong ideas and pre-conceptions cause people to argue in a certain way and really cause the confusion some of them that I've seen are the following
- Islamic scholars understandings are always corrupt.
- Anything that was written down or organized after the Koran, that has bearing on our understanding of the Koran, is a corruption and a fabrication. And anybody who authored these things are liars.
3.The Koran only speaks to the spirit of things, not literal things.
-
All of the hadeeth is a lie.
-
Because the hadeeth is a lie, it can have no bearing on our understanding of the Koran, not even in the language that it uses.
-
The Cl. Arabic of Muhammad's day had evolved significantly by the time the Hadeeths were written and the foundations for the dictionaries undergone. So the dictionaries cannot contain the meanings that the Koran meant.
-
The Classical Arabic language was corrupted by scholars.
-
There is only one Arabic
-
Modern Arabic is the same as Classical Arabic.
-
How many times the Koran mentions a word has significance on ideas about that word. For instance, 'The word month is mentioned twelve times in the Koran . . . so a year must have twelve months.' That is called jumping to conclusions without evidence.
-
Any word that the Koran uses can only have one meaning everywhere that it is used in the Koran.
-
If the Koran uses a word in a certain way any other meaning of that word in Classical Arabic sources is a lie.
-
The Koran can only use a Classical Arabic word in one way, all the time that it uses it.
-
There are no such things as synonyms.
-
Anything word that the Koran uses repeatedly, giving it importance in our lives must conform to the things that we find important or grand. For example, if prayer is not grand or important to a person who thinks like this, then the Koran can't mean Prayer when it uses the word Salat, because the concept is just not grand, important or ground-breaking enough.
-
One doesn't have to know Classical Arabic to understand the Koran.
These are some of the erroneous ideas that people on this forum have. It is these ideas that have guided their arguments, and that leads to all the confusion that has ensued on this website. Sometimes they don't know they think in that way, sometimes they do not see the fallacies in their thinking and logical process.
As for the issues that have caused so much confusion these are my conclusions in short
Pre-Islamic Arabic Calendar There were Jewish, Roman, Zodiacal and persian versions. What all of them did was to map solar time accurately. Periods around 30 days have always been considered months. So the Pre-Islamic calendar and its months mapped solar time.
The Islamic Calendar The Islamic calendar was a miscalculation. The Jewish calendar seems to have been the most prevalent, or respected, in pre-Islamic Arabia. The Muhammad's religious community at some time probably adopted the Jewish method of calculating the year over other calendars. The Jewish calendar happens to use the moon cylces to determine the beginning of a month (a natural marker) but allow for an unnatural 13th month into the equation every couple of years so that they could continue to use the moon as a natural marker for time. The Jewish calendar never implied that the completion of 12 lunar cycles made a year. That was an Islamic invention that can be dated whenever the muslims made the mistake of calling it a year. The Jewish calendar approximated and had as its goal what all of the other calendars did, the calculation of an accurate solar year. The injunction in the Koran that says that there are only to be 12 months in a year most likely prompted the Muslims to drop the practice of adding in an extra year. Thereby making the Islamic calendar out of wack with the real year, as they continued to use the moon as a natural marker as the Jews in that area did.
The Proper Calendar There are only 12 months in a year. The Koran implies that 2 months is 60 days and by deduction that 1 month is 30 days. A month is period of 30 days. The Koran also implies that the month of Ramadan is a 30 day period that is when the Sirius star has both faded and risen, which is the Heliacal rising of Sirius, where it fades from the night sky and rises with the Sun. So the Heliacal rising of the Sirius serves as a marker for when the year begins and for the time that Ramadan was in pre-islamic times(Its name also alludes to this as this is the period called The Dog days in the mediterranean area.) There is no evidence that says that the order of the months has ever been changed and so we have the proper calendar by starting Ramadan at the Heliacal Rising of Sirius and counting twelve 30 day periods. That leaves us with 360 days or 12 months even though it takes 365 days for the Sirius Star to rise again, and generally any accurate solar calendar will have 365 days. But that does not violate the Koran statement. There are 12 months in a year. Even if th 12 months only add up to 360 days with 5 days left there are still only 12 months in/within the year. Just as we generally learn in our gregorian calendar that there are 4 weeks in a month, this statement holds true. We consider a week to be 7 days and 4 weeks is 28 days. Some months are 28, some 29, some 30 and some 31 in our gregorian calendar, but there is still always 4 weeks in a month. That statement is never broken no despite where if the month ends on the 28th or the 31st. Equally, when counting each month as 30 days, there will always be 12 months in a year. The truth of that statement is never broken, despite the fact that 5 more days are needed to complete the year. It is incorrect for us to assume that the Koran means that 12 months completes a year when all it says is that there are to be 12 months in a year.
Al-Ashurul-Hurum In the pre-Islamic calendar there were a number of months considered to be Haraam. Haraam means that some sort of restriction is to go on, and holiness is implied by the restriction. It's funny that we don't consider pig's meat to be holy even though they are haraam
as a food. Basically Haraam implies restriction and when it comes to things that are restricted it is best we take our advise on that from God. Therefore, there are 4 months in the Koran that are considered months in which we are to practice some sort of restriction. There are the 3 months of pre-islamic months of pilgrimage that are known was dul-qi'dah, dhul-hijja and shawwal. They are the three consecutive months after Ramadan. There is no counter-evidence that shows that these months are not the months that the pre-Islamic Arabs made pilgrimage in. (There however is plenty of evidence to be found in the Koran and elsewhere about other statements that the Hadeeths make). In the above three months we are to practice the restrictions made on us during pilrimage. The last month in which we have restrictions is Ramadan when we are suppose to fast. So the three sacred montsh are dhul-qi'dah, dhul-hijja, shawwal and Ramadan.Fasting Fasting is abstention of anykind. The Koran however, advises us on how we are to fast in Chpt. 2. Unless specificied otherwise the Koran makes it clear on how we are to undergo fasting.
Salat This word can mean the practice/act of praying, petitioning, blessing (in whatever way), commending, adherence(which I see as meaning discpline in its non-physical way), oratory (which is speaking in a dignified/upstanding manner). There is no one meaning for this word. Its meanings should not be mixed and all meanings that the reader finds relevant and contextually sound (for ONE particular context) should be taken into consideration.
Zakat This word means betterment, doing what is best, vindication, making this right, putting thing back in order. There is no one meaning for this word. Its meanings should not be mixed and all meanings that the reader finds relevant and contextually sound (for ONE particular context) should be taken into consideration.
Deen This word does not only mean system. It means 'system/order, dues, judgement, obligation, sort/kind, customs, culture, rule and religion.
There is no one meaning for this word. Its meanings should not be mixed and all meanings that the reader finds relevant and contextually sound (for ONE particular context) should be taken into consideration.Last but not leastly on the issue of shah-r and ahillat (2189). Shah-r can mean, 'full, fame, famous, outstanding/salient, moon and month (in all of its forms).' The pre-Islamic arabs naturally would have considered the months of the persians, romans, zodiac and jewish calendars months also. There is no one meaning for this word, shah-r. Its meanings should not be mixed and all meanings that the reader finds relevant and contextually sound (for ONE particular context) should be taken into consideration. Shah-r in the form of time could be 'moon' or 'month.' As in 'He walked for 3 moons (moon cylces starting with any phase of the moon as a beginning and end marker) or he walked for 3 months (28, 29, 30 or 31 days.)
Ahillat interestingly enough according to my recent studies can be the plural of hilaal, halaal, hulaal, hill, hull, hall,, hulal, halal, hilaalat or haleel.
In particular 'hilaal' can come from haalla(the III form of the verb H-L-L) in addition it meaning moon phase (full or crescent). Halaal can also come from the hallala (the II form of the verb H-L-L).
Just a few verses earlier than 2189 the Koran talks about forbidden foods. One of the forbidden foods is maa uhilla bihi ghayirallaahi. Or what has been consecrated in a name other than God's. Uhilla means 'has been consecrated.' It is the passive tense of ahalla (to consecrate, which is only one meanings if I remember correctly). Ahalla is the IV form of the verb H-L-L, and the IV form can be synonymous with the II form.
This gives me the hunch that 'ahillat' can mean 'consecrations.' ANd that 2189 can mean 'And they ask you about (the) consecrations. Say, 'There are to be timed* for the people on pilgrimage. Moreover, it is not righteous to visit the houses because of their fame (dhuhoor can mean fame). Rather visit them because of the kinds of houses they are (min abwaabihaa).'
- mawaaqeetu can be the plural of maqoot (timed) as well as means of time (meeqaatu).
'Baab' from what I know can mean 'kind/sort' its plural is abwaab.
'linaasi wal-hajji' can mean 'For the people and for pilgrimage.' However it can also mean 'For the people with pilgimage' which can be stylistically improved to mean 'People on pilgrimage.' The basis being that pilgrimage is a duty and therefore is something that a person can be 'with.' 'Wa' being able to be synonymous with 'bi' or 'ma&a' in Classical Arabic, among its many other uses other than 'and' 'or' or 'but.'
If anyone can do simultaneously research in Lane's lexicon and can the IV, III and II forms of H-L-L I'd greatly appreciate it.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace be upon you all
Anwar - I applaud you. An excellent post.
I think you have articulated many of my own ideas very well.
Personally I think that a major component of islam is that of finding out for ourselves. It might sound like I am promoting a selfish attitude but I feel it is the right one. Comparing ideas is vital for understanding - we are not created equal afterall but accepting the ideas or summations of someone else as your own idea without analysis is dangerous. I hope that healthy posts like yours continue.
Thank you and thank God for allowing us to be.
darcus
-
Peace Darcus,
I think you have articulated many of my own ideas very well.
I am afraid that most of those ideas have been dealt with before, for example
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2560&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=6761a7df8b6dcff893dc36fb776190d0
It has been demonstrated that they are based on wishful thinking not on reality. For example
The truth of that statement is never broken, despite the fact that 5 more days are needed to complete the year. It is incorrect for us to assume that the Koran means that 12 months completes a year when all it says is that there are to be 12 months in a year.
The above underlined contradictory statement illustrates the kind of wishful thinking that I am talking about, especially in light of 936.
- Indeed, the count of "al-shuhur" at The God is twelve "shahr" in the book of The God...
The verse clearly talks about the count of the "shuhur" (which are wrongly interpreted as months). The above comment from brother Anwar assumes that The God doesn't know how to count fractions such as 5/30 = 1/6 = "one sixth" = "sudus" in Arabic. Surely, The God knows how to count fractions and so did the Arabs as evident from the many fractions (including "sudus") given in verses such as 412. The God doesn't make the clearly false statement that brother Anwar's interpretation implies. Hence, it must be his understanding that is false. So unless he can explain why The God didn't say 12 and a sixth ("sudus") in 936, his entire understanding of the word "shahr" is based on wishful thinking and not on reality. Even the dictionaries don't say that "shahr" means "30 day period". In fact, the dictionaries clearly say that the Arabs used to call the moon "shahr".
Similarly, his assessment that the Arabic language hasn't evolved in the 200-300 year period between the revelation of the great reading and the canonization of Hadiths is na?ve wishful thinking not supported by empirical observation of evolution in Arabic and all languages for that matter. The word "shahr" is an example of such evolution where the meaning of "shahr" as "moon" died out and the new meaning of "month" took over in more modern Arabic.
As for his assessment of Hadith, a Hadith is not merely "content". It is both "content"/"matan" and a "chain of transmission"/"sanad". By making the "chain of transmission"/"sanad" part of the Hadith, it has become impossible for any Hadith to be true. For example, a Hadith that says "be kind to your neighbor" is a true good advice (i.e. not a lie). However, by making the chain of transmission part of the Hadith, it is transformed to hearsay that is at best unverifiable and at worst an outright lie. So NO HADITH IS TRUTH and that is a fact.
Personally I think that a major component of islam is that of finding out for ourselves. It might sound like I am promoting a selfish attitude but I feel it is the right one. Comparing ideas is vital for understanding - we are not created equal afterall but accepting the ideas or summations of someone else as your own idea without analysis is dangerous. I hope that healthy posts like yours continue.
I agree.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
Peace all,
Ayman you said
I am afraid that most of those ideas have been dealt with before, for example
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2560&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=6761a7df8b6dcff893dc36fb776190d0
It has been demonstrated that they are based on wishful thinking not on reality. For example
progod wrote
The truth of that statement is never broken, despite the fact that 5 more days are needed to complete the year. It is incorrect for us to assume that the Koran means that 12 months completes a year when all it says is that there are to be 12 months in a year.The above underlined contradictory statement illustrates the kind of wishful thinking that I am talking about, especially in light of 936.
- Indeed, the count of "al-shuhur" at The God is twelve "shahr" in the book of The God...
The verse clearly talks about the count of the "shuhur" (which are wrongly interpreted as months). The above comment from brother Anwar assumes that The God doesn't know how to count fractions such as 5/30 = 1/6 = "one sixth" = "sudus" in Arabic.
Inna iddatushuhoori ithnaa ashara shahran . . .
The count of months undubiously is to be twelve . . .
If you tally up the months within 365 days you have twelve months and not a month more. Exaxtly it is 12 months and 1/6th of a month. However, a sixth of a month is not a month and believing that a year only has a count of twelve months when it literally is 12 1/6 months is not a contradiction because that last 1/6 of a month is not a month.
And you statement that NO HADITH IS TRUTH is just not verifiable. IF you think about hearsay, even hearsay CAN be true, but is up to you to study each aspect of the hearsay to judge whether or not that hearsay can be judged as most likely to be true or the least likely. That is how we have most of our histories so hearsay does have validity if studied right, when it is not analyzed right it has none.
No one here is familiar with the Science of History and unfortunatley neither are Muslim scholars. Modern Science of History defintely built off of Muslim efforts and methods but it has advanced way beyond where Muslim scholarship left off. Even in this case there isn't always one version of a history. But to say right out that all hadeeths are a lie, is just plain out wrong.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Inna iddatushuhoori ithnaa ashara shahran . . .
The count of months undubiously is to be twelve . . .
"Undubiously" hardly describes what you are proposing.
If you tally up the months within 365 days you have twelve months and not a month more. Exactly it is 12 months and 1/6th of a month.
Yes. If you Anwar can describe it so "exactly", then why do you think that The Almighty cannot be as exact as you?
However, a sixth of a month is not a month
A sixth of a month is ... a sixth of a month. It is good that you know about fractions. Why do you think that The Almighty doesn't know about fractions like you?
and believing that a year only has a count of twelve months when it literally is 12 1/6 months is not a contradiction because that last 1/6 of a month is not a month.
No, 1/6 of a month is not a month, it is simply 1/6 of a month. It is not just a contradiction to say that the year has 12 "30 day periods" it is undubiously and utterly false. If you Anwar can undubiously/literally say that the year has 12 1/6 months (30 days periods) then why do you think that The God can't undubiously say so?
Why do you think that unlike you The God can't say "Inna iddatushuhoori ithnaa ashara shahran wa sudus..."?
And you statement that NO HADITH IS TRUTH is just not verifiable.
It is Hadiths that are at best unverifiable (like any hearsay) or false. If you disagree then give me a single Hadith that is the TRUTH and why you think it is the truth and how you verified it.
IF you think about hearsay, even hearsay CAN be true,
Hearsay by definition is unverifiable. If it is verified as true then it is not hearsay.
but is up to you to study each aspect of the hearsay to judge whether or not that hearsay can be judged as most likely to be true or the least likely. That is how we have most of our histories so hearsay does have validity if studied right, when it is not analyzed right it has none.
Hearsay is unverifiable no matter how long or how hard you study it. Hadith collectors wasted their lives working much harder than you trying to do what you are suggesting. At the end, they only proved that working hard is useless if you don't work smart.
If they were smart then they should have gathered the proverbs or rumors going on at their time without regards to the chain of transmission. This at least would have given us insight into Abbassid era popular and religious culture, instead of the useless Hadith heap we have now.
No one here is familiar with the Science of History and unfortunatley neither are Muslim scholars. Modern Science of History defintely built off of Muslim efforts and methods but it has advanced way beyond where Muslim scholarship left off. Even in this case there isn't always one version of a history. But to say right out that all hadeeths are a lie, is just plain out wrong.
I didn't say that all are lies. I said they are at best unverifiable and in many cases are verifiable as lies. They can never be verifiable as true unless you can wake the dead and ask them.
Recounting old wives tales is much sounder scientifically than a process that "builds off of Muslim efforts and methods but has advanced way beyond where Muslim scholarship left off" as you say. This is for the simple reason that old wives are old but at least they are not dead so one can at least go back to them and verify the tales. Your proposition doesn't even measure up to old wives tales.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
God bless,
Ayman you said
Why do you think that unlike you The God can't say "Inna iddatushuhoori ithnaa ashara shahran wa sudus..."?
Because the count of months is not 12 and 1/6th. In our modern concept of math we say 1 1/2 days and 6 1/2 oranges. What I mean to say by that is that 6 days is in no way month, a month is 30 days. So why would the count of months be 12 and a sixth if we are counting whole months not parts of months? The count of months (30 day periods) is to be twelve. And even when taking into account 365 days the count of 30 day periods(months) is 12.
I can't make God coform to your sense of exactness. And why He didn't have stated ' A year is to be a count of 12 months and a sixth of a month', well I can't answer that for you. I can only read and analyze what is there. The words that I see in that passage are saying how many months(30 day periods) we are to count, supposedly in a year. If there are 5 days left over I don't see anything contradictory in that statement because 5 days is not a month. Nor do I see anything lacking in clarity because what was stated was how many months (30 day periods) are supposed to be calculated (in a year); and being that 5 days does not add up to a month it cannot be included a count geared towards counting months, not days. 6 days qualifies in a count of days but not in a count of months, if we want to be exact. It is a sixth of a month, true, but it is not a month and if we are counting months (&iddatushuhoor) it doesn't make the cut, nor does it need to make the cut.
I didn't say that all are lies. I said they are at best unverifiable and in many cases are verifiable as lies. They can never be verifiable as true unless you can wake the dead and ask them.
Recounting old wives tales is much sounder scientifically than a process that "builds off of Muslim efforts and methods but has advanced way beyond where Muslim scholarship left off" as you say. This is for the simple reason that old wives are old but at least they are not dead so one can at least go back to them and verify the tales. Your proposition doesn't even measure up to old wives tales.
I don't think you understood me well. The Historical Process that I was talking about that "builds off of Muslim efforts and methods but has advanced way beyond where Muslim scholarship left off" is the Modern Science of History, not Hadeethic History, the former is a whole lot sounder scientifically than recounting old wives tales. The Modern Science of History also deals with the History of the Ancients and in that case they are also dealing with hearsay and old anonymous texts. The most logical story that comes about from these hearsays and anonymous texts we have to consider as truth as these are the only evidences we have, despite all the possible doubt that can be brought up against them.
In the case of the Hadeeth Muslim scholarship did a half-ass job. Because of the culture and time frame that they were in they considered the reputation of narrators more important than content. It is simple thinking, "Good honest, respectable men speak and act in good, honest and respectable ways." They only took it that far. Whereas the next step would have been to compare it to every possible interpretation of the Koran to eliminate contradictory stories. For instance the gospels of the Bible are anonymous hearsays. Good scholarship judges the narrators if possible and then judges the content. From that they form a more credible story. In our case we know about Jesus' life God bless him from a provable divine source. Knowing that we can easily form a more credible and more realistic interpretation of the story of Jesus, using the original scripts and what we know of him from the Koran. I would love to be apart of a project like that. I see words like 'Lord' and 'seeing that the was dead' and I know that they can with just reason be translated as 'Noble or Sir' and 'Thinking that he was dead.' and more.
It is the same with the Hadeeth. If a Hadeeth says that God gave a man named Muhammad a scripture that declared him as a prophet and so he began to preach among the people what the scipture taught him, and that hadeeth has a sound chain there is no reason to reject that hadeeth as historically incorrect.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Ayman you said
Why do you think that unlike you The God can't say "Inna iddatushuhoori ithnaa ashara shahran wa sudus..."?
Because the count of months is not 12 and 1/6th. In our modern concept of math we say 1 1/2 days and 6 1/2 oranges.
So now you are blaming us for fractions and saying that they are OURS!
Instead of blaming "our modern concept" of fractions, please blame your faulty understanding of the word "shahr". Fractions is not a "modern concept of math" as you claim. In fact fractions are used in many instances of the great reading so the Arabs undubiously knew about fractions.
What I mean to say by that is that 6 days is in no way month, a month is 30 days. So why would the count of months be 12 and a sixth if we are counting whole months not parts of months?
Because 12 1/6 is the real count of your months in a year. I say your months because no calendar system in the world since the beginning of history has ever had constant 30 day periods.
The count of months (30 day periods) is to be twelve. And even when taking into account 365 days the count of 30 day periods(months) is 12.
No, if you take 365 then the count is 12 1/6 Anwar months/30 day periods. We wouldn't be having this conversation if the year had 360 days.
I can't make God coform to your sense of exactness.
You are giving me too much credit. I didn't invent fractions. In fact, I got the word "sudus" (1/6) from the great reading. This comment is based on the faulty assumption that The God doesn't know about fractions.
And why He didn't have stated ' A year is to be a count of 12 months and a sixth of a month', well I can't answer that for you.
You can't answer it because you don't have a logical answer.
I can only read and analyze what is there. The words that I see in that passage are saying how many months(30 day periods) we are to count, supposedly in a year. If there are 5 days left over I don't see anything contradictory in that statement because 5 days is not a month. Nor do I see anything lacking in clarity because what was stated was how many months (30 day periods) are supposed to be calculated (in a year); and being that 5 days does not add up to a month it cannot be included a count geared towards counting months, not days. 6 days qualifies in a count of days but not in a count of months, if we want to be exact. It is a sixth of a month, true, but it is not a month and if we are counting months (&iddatushuhoor) it doesn't make the cut, nor does it need to make the cut.
Your entire hypothesis is based on a number of extraordinary claims for which you have no proof
- A month is 30 days. There is no calendar system nor has ever been one that has constant 30 day months.
- Fractions are not to be counted.
The Modern Science of History also deals with the History of the Ancients and in that case they are also dealing with hearsay and old anonymous texts. The most logical story that comes about from these hearsays and anonymous texts we have to consider as truth as these are the only evidences we have, despite all the possible doubt that can be brought up against them.
Anonymous texts are evidence that can be carbon dated and analyzed. Hearsay is not evidence. It is unverifiable.
In the case of the Hadeeth Muslim scholarship did a half-ass job. Because of the culture and time frame that they were in they considered the reputation of narrators more important than content. It is simple thinking, "Good honest, respectable men speak and act in good, honest and respectable ways." They only took it that far. Whereas the next step would have been to compare it to every possible interpretation of the Koran to eliminate contradictory stories. For instance the gospels of the Bible are anonymous hearsays. Good scholarship judges the narrators if possible and then judges the content. From that they form a more credible story. In our case we know about Jesus' life God bless him from a provable divine source. Knowing that we can easily form a more credible and more realistic interpretation of the story of Jesus, using the original scripts and what we know of him from the Koran. I would love to be apart of a project like that. I see words like 'Lord' and 'seeing that the was dead' and I know that they can with just reason be translated as 'Noble or Sir' and 'Thinking that he was dead.' and more.
It is the same with the Hadeeth. If a Hadeeth says that God gave a man named Muhammad a scripture that declared him as a prophet and so he began to preach among the people what the scipture taught him, and that hadeeth has a sound chain there is no reason to reject that hadeeth as historically incorrect.
It is historically incorrect no matter what it says. It doesn't reflect the thinking of people at the time it was gathered nor does it reflect the thinking of people at the time it claims it was said. It is simply unverifiable hearsay. If it didn't have the chain of narration then it would have at least reflected the thinking of people at the time it was gathered.
The fact is that no single hearsay account can be accepted as historically correct or true because all hearsay by definition is unverifiable. Even if the content of the hearsay is confirmed by the great reading, it is still unverifiable. The content could have well been copied much later from the great reading and then a chain of transmission was attached to make it appear as if it is contemporaneous to it. Thus, it is useless as far as analyzing history.
Peace,
Ayman
-
i am studying this scripture 10 years now and i know arabic better than maybe 90% participants of this forum and it still doesnt help... still theres no answers to many questions...are we sure this scripture is complete....of course maybe we or me are blind....maybe my heart is zealed cause of some misbehaviour??!!
Hello Zlatan,
Just a quick question are you a native Arabic speaker? (pardon my ignorance)
Regards,