9:7 A clue why Masjidi Haram may be not a building

hlatif

Salam mz357,

the word is Masjidun see page 248 of QD.

And you said

Put MA at the beginning and U between the second and the third letter of the root, and it will mean that the verb has occurred on the person or the thing that was mentioned. MASTUR someone who was hidden and etc.

The root is S-J-D, there is a MA at the beginning and an I between the second and the third letters. I will demonstrate by keeping the root letters capitalised. maSJiD. The un at the end of masjidun are not part of the word. They are what is called HARAKA that changes according to the position of masjid in the sentence. ie, depending on where you are in the sentence, the word will sound like this

masjidun
masjidan
masjidin
masjida
masjidu
masjidi
those letters after the D are after the THIRD letter of the root and they do not interefere with the meaning.

Thanks for the question and have a good day

Hussein

ayman

Peace brother Hussein, all,

The word in 1103 is MASHUD/MASHOOD and not MAHAD as you stated.
11103 Inna fee thalika laayatanliman khafa AAathaba al-akhirati thalikayawmun majmooAAun lahu alnnasu wathalikayawmun mashhoodun

I agree that MShHUD in 11103 is not a good example because of the extra U. On the other hand, a good example of what brother Idris is trying to convey, that an M before the words of weight MF3L, doesn't always denote a place is the word MShHD in 1937

But parties from among them disagreed with each other, so woe to those who rejected from the sight/witnessing/MShHD/ of a great day/time.

Here we see the term MShHD, which has the exact same form as MSKN, used to mean something other than a place but a sight/the action of witnessing.

Another example is the word MNAM/sleep in 37102, 3942, etc. The word has the same weight as MSKN but because of the Waw in the middle it is transformed to an Alif. Surely, in those instances the word MNAM is not talking about a place of sleeping but is talking about the action of sleeping.

Those are just two quick examples and I am sure that others can find more. I think brother Idris already mentioned the word MQAM as another example, which hasn't been addressed by you.

put a MA before the first letter of the first letter of the root and A or I between the second and third letters of the root, then you will end up with place of occurrence of the verb of the root, tool related to the verb, something related to the verb but not the verb itself. depending on what the root means.

Put MA at the beginning and U between the second and the third letter of the root, and it will mean that the verb has occurred on the person or the thing that was mentioned. MASTUR someone who was hidden and etc.

There is no A or I. Those are vocalization marks and not letters. The Arabic word simply has four letters MSJD/ .

Those rules definitely apply to the word MASJID. You can change it, but that is not what it meant at the time the Qur'an was revealed. MAJID can never mean submissions according to this rule.

Mosque is definitely not what was meant at the time the great reading was revealed. Mosque is the name given to "post-quranic" buildings. If you want to talk about religious buildings prior to the great reading then you can talk of churches, pagan Temples, or Synagogues. There was no such a thing as a mosque back then.

The root is S-J-D, there is a MA at the beginning and an I between the second and the third letters. I will demonstrate by keeping the root letters capitalised. maSJiD. The un at the end of masjidun are not part of the word. They are what is called HARAKA that changes according to the position of masjid in the sentence.

There is no "I". The "I" is a vocalization mark just like the "un" and as you correctly said, BOTH are not part of the word.

I hope this clarified the issues.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

Idris

peace be upon you hlatif,

The word in 1103 is MASHUD/MASHOOD and not MAHAD as you stated.
11103 Inna fee thalika laayatanliman khafa AAathaba al-akhirati thalikayawmun majmooAAun lahu alnnasu wathalikayawmun mashhoodun

If you look at what I wrote you will find that I said most and not all. This is the rule of the language

put a MA before the first letter of the first letter of the root and A or I between the second and third letters of the root, then you will end up with place of occurrence of the verb of the root, tool related to the verb, something related to the verb but not the verb itself. depending on what the root means.

Put MA at the beginning and U between the second and the third letter of the root, and it will mean that the verb has occurred on the person or the thing that was mentioned. MASTUR someone who was hidden and etc.

Those rules definitely apply to the word MASJID. You can change it, but that is not what it meant at the time the Qur'an was revealed. MAJID can never mean submissions according to this rule.

brother ayman just gave a few good examples and this is only ONE ROOT, there are many more examples throughout the reading that prove that this "grammar rule" is inadequate when interpreting the reading

If someone bows to GOD and means it, what is wrong with that? Aren't you being judgemental here?

first off, explain to me how somebody can physically bow to The God as if He is a seperate being? The God is not some object far away from us, He is not the rock cube in mecca nor is He in the sky, He encompasses all and is closer to us then our jugular vein, we bow down to The God by following His commands and humbling ourselves, sorry for making the jokes but i sometimes I just try to be funny, but i'm not being judgemental of those who choose to physically bow or prostrate, i am just saying that it is not a sign of submission to The God to do either

I need you to elaborate here. Are you saying that you will make a new meaning to the word, regardless of what the word meant to the ancient arabs? I may have misunderstood you though.

no, i meant that I will look at a classical/modern arabic dictionary understanding of a word and translate it based on their understanding in the reading as long as it fits into the context, makes sense, and doesn't contradict anything, but if their understanding/interpretation of the word doesn't fit into the context, make sense, and contradicts some things then I will interpret the word based on the best meaning that fits into the context and is close as possible to the dictionary understanding, none of these dictionaries are perfect, we shouldn't just blindly translate like robots putting whatever word in that the dictionaries say, we must use reason, this "U rule" is a classic example

unknownuser

Salaam All,

I checked the use of MANZIL as our brother suggested. Unless we see the position of the moon being physical, other than referring to its position, then I understand this does not need to be physical as in MASAKIN.

105 Huwa allathee jaAAala alshshamsa diyaan waalqamara nooran waqaddarahu manazila litaAAlamoo AAadada alssineena waalhisaba ma khalaqa Allahu thalika illa bialhaqqi yufassilu alayati liqawmin yaAAlamoona

105 It is He Who made the sun to be a shining glory and the moon to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.

Wasalaam

hlatif

Salam brothers,

I am going to address your points. One reminder is the fact that I said that the MAFL is much of the times a place. I agree that it is not always

1- just because you can show examples that this form is not a place, does not make MASJID not a place. I also remind you that a MASJID does not have to be a building.

2- MAQAM means a place where you stand.

3-
1937. But parties from among them disagreed with each other, so woe to those who rejected from the sight/witnessing/MShHD/ of a great day/time.

Here we see the term MShHD, which has the exact same form as MSKN, used to mean something other than a place but a sight/the action of witnessing.

MASHAD here means what is witnessed, or a place of witnessing. Both meanings work for the AYAH. It does not mean witnessing. Witnessing means that they will say I SAW THIS. That is not what the AYAH says

4-
Another example is the word MNAM/sleep in 37102, 3942, etc. The word has the same weight as MSKN but because of the Waw in the middle it is transformed to an Alif. Surely, in those instances the word MNAM is not talking about a place of sleeping but is talking about the action of sleeping.

MNAM does not mean sleep it means What is in the sleep or place of sleep. in 37102 it is the DREAM which is in the sleep and not sleep itself, it can also mean bed,as in I saw in bed. In 3942 MANAM can mean the bed easily and will be consistent with the word and with the AYAH.

5-
first off, explain to me how somebody can physically bow to The God as if He is a seperate being? The God is not some object far away from us, He is not the rock cube in mecca nor is He in the sky, He encompasses all and is closer to us then our jugular vein, we bow down to The God by following His commands and humbling ourselves, sorry for making the jokes but i sometimes I just try to be funny, but i'm not being judgemental of those who choose to physically bow or prostrate, i am just saying that it is not a sign of submission to The God to do either

Exactly as you said. GOD is nearer to you and me than we think. If I bow to GOD and I mean it with my actions, and with my feelings, then He will see it.

I think that this discussion may Go back and forth in a never ending manner. Therefore this will be my last post. May GOD's peace be with all of us and may he show us his straightened path.

Salam brothers

Hussein

unknownuser

Salaams Br.latif,

If you don't mind,answer this before you retire.

Ayman mentioned "Another example is the word MNAM/sleep in 37102, 3942"

And you said"MNAM does not mean sleep it means What is in the sleep or place of sleep. in 37102 it is the DREAM which is in the sleep and not sleep itself, it can also mean bed,as in I saw in bed. In 3942 MANAM can mean the bed easily and will be consistent with the word and with the AYAH. "

I can't see how the place thingy will make sense.

Could you please give us the translations of these two ayat's from your chosen quran translations , as i can't find one according to your definitions.Much obliged , Thanks.

Or if there arn't any - you may try doing it yourself -i do not mind that either,then i could see the visualisation of that.

Salaams to you.

truth

Peace,

I think the study of the forms has been a very informative one and has given me something to think upon.

Brother Hussein has given a reasonable explanation of why he believes the MA'FIL, MA'FAL constructs mean place and that the 'U' indicates a state of mind MA'FUL.

Examples of the 'A' meaning mental state can be offered but there does not seem to be any 'I' examples that unambiguously refer to the state of mind.

The only way I see to explain this is that the diacritical marks on MASJID were later alterations - as the early manuscripts do not have the diacritical marks and all of these are later additions to reflect the reading at the time of addition.

Now it is not inconceivable that the word which might have been MASJUD was in the interests of corrupting the deen made into MASJID - it may even have been benign as in a dialectal difference. Also there may have been both MASJID and MASJUD - but one was converted to the other by mistaken exegesis and thus diacritical marking.

I realise that for a long 'U' a waw is required - but I have no knowledge whether the U is present as a long vowel in the text or was a part of the diacritical marking system. In the case that the long U was a part of the early non-marked text then this theory is not true.

So AL-MASJID-AL-HARAM may be AL-MASJUD-AL-HARAM.

Any comments?

Peace.

unknownuser

Salaams truth,
of course Br. latif wouldn't except this, but i for one totally tally this -and is making sense as the diacritical marking where input long time after according to history.

Salaams.

sabo

Peace Oben,

in this case unfortunately the U is spelled out in the arabic, for example in MASKUN, MASH-HUD, etc. the word consists of 5 letters, the WAW is the 4th letter in this case.

In case of MASKAN, MASH-HAD, the word is consisting of 4 letters, so you are suggesting that arabs took a letter waaw from all occurances of the word MSJD which means you are also suggesting that the Quran was corrupted.

Best regards,
sabo

truth

Peace sabo,

Yes the waw for long U is an issue as I mentioned.

If what I have written can be true then I think that only the specific AL-MASJID-AL-HARAM and -AL-AQSA refernces are probably corrupted.

I think in some cases the word MASJID as in place fits much easier.

So no, I don't think all of the instances were changed, but it may be that in the limited number of cases where it is modified by al-haram and one occasion of al-aqsa may be.

Regards.

sabo

Peace Oben,

I don't believe any letters were taken out, so in case of al-haram I still believe it is Masjid....To be originally masjud, then someone had to take a waaw out of the word ....

So not everything you doubt its meaning or you don't understand it then you take it out or add a waw etc...after few months we'd be having a different quran

Best regards,
sabo

unknownuser

Peace be upon you,

What is the discussion here? "masjid" is not physical because the rejectors are not allowed in. There is a SEAL placed on the rejectors from reaching a certain MENTAL level(maqam). How else can one keep rejectors out? The way it sounds here, even people who count 19's would have no trouble getting into a physical masjid, but thank the God that it is not physical.

unknownuser

How else can one keep rejectors out?

Peace be upon you,

The Saudi arguably seem to be doing this, hence one can argue its possible not to let anybody in.

Hence, I fail to follow how you discount that possibility. Perhaps I need to clarify the way I think, I think in terms of what we can eliminate till we end up with what we can't.

regards

progod

God bless,

All of the vowelling that we have in the Koran is correct. The Koran was memorized and recited orally and with vowels (by a class of people called qurraa'). The early Arabic text and the Arabic convention of writing has faults when it comes to recording these vowels. Those faults were compensated for in the case of the Koran and the texts were written completely with vowels. Despite whether the original text had vowels or not the Koran was always recited with vowels, and the voweled texts that we have are recordings of how the Koran has been traditionally (from the beginning as far as we know) pronounced and recited (recitations are always vowelled).

Godbless,
Anwar

There is no need to screw around with vowels or the addition of letters.
A valid case can only be made on the grounds of variation in meaning of the sounds that are already recorded. Anything else is just bad science.

progod

God bless all,

Secondly I cannot really vouch for this distrust in lexographers or muhaddithoona. Why? Because Lexographers have only done their jobs in recording how the Arabs (not long after Muhammad's death, his children, his grandchildren and even people during his time) used their language. When we understand that the grammar and the words in the Koran belong to the language of Muhammad and his people then we can begin to understand the words of the Koran.

All the muhaddithoona did was to scrutinize narrators of the rumors about Muhammad and give their opinion on whether they thought a certain rumor was trustworthy or not. We have to understand that our only contention with the Hadeeth is that

They are viewed as if they are divine and came straight out of Muhammad's mouth and that is not true. They are rumors and their method of authentication is faulty. Therefore what muhadithoona consider to be sahih or 'historically accurate', we cannot because we know that the reputation of a man does not determine his honesty or his ability to accurately recite a story that has been passed down to him.
The hadeeth are viewed as if they are as authentic as the Koran and the histories that they give (not the grammar that they use) are even used to interpret the Koran, all while the Koran, the most authentic record, is not examined to the fullest to gain insight into the real story of Muhammad (God bless him).

Most of our contention is over the attitudes that Muslim Scholarship takes with both the Hadeeth and the Koran.

Namely

The Hadeeths are the accurate histories that illustrate how Muhammad lived his life, what he said and did and what he experienced.
Muhammad is the best one to explain the Koran.
The Koran is an ambiguous guideline, and more of an abstract guideline. Passages that seem ambiguous or not clear can be understood through what the histories say about what Muhammad did, said or went through.

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Secondly I cannot really vouch for this distrust in lexographers or muhaddithoona. Why? Because Lexographers have only done their jobs in recording how the Arabs (not long after Muhammad's death, his children, his grandchildren and even people during his time) used their language. When we understand that the grammar and the words in the Koran belong to the language of Muhammad and his people then we can begin to understand the words of the Koran.

Salaam Anwar,

This assumes humans perceive correctly, are not influenced by their peers or have always honourable intentions.

I for one must question every notion that comes forth in the light of the reading. Hence, any corrupt use of a word, context due to the above factors will be exposed. Otherwise, there are many ways to corrupt the message We are wiser to extra quranic teachings, but also we must include the possibility the use of words are corrupted. This should be self evident since we have so many invented terms in islamic literature that is not in the reading e.g. Baytullah etc...
regards,

Zlatan

Peace

If i recall well, according to the grammar books masjid is among the nouns of time and place(makan wa zaman), so, at least theoretically speaking, "time of compliance or obeying"or whatever s-j-d denotes, is also among the valid translations....

I think a good example may be well known words mashriq and magrib which both denote the time as well the place of sunrise and/or sunset...

best wishes, Zlatan

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Ash Shura,

idolfree1 wrote
How else can one keep rejectors out?

Peace be upon you,

The Saudi arguably seem to be doing this, hence one can argue its possible not to let anybody in.

They are TRYING to, yes, but I am sure that you know that is impossible. Does the Saudi Officials have some speacial "Believer" machine? Do you think terorists have trouble getting into that place? You are not thinking this through.

Hence, I fail to follow how you discount that possibility. Perhaps I need to clarify the way I think, I think in terms of what we can eliminate till we end up with what we can't.

I hope I have clarified it above, if not, I DEFINATELY want to discuss this more with you.

unknownuser

Peace Kyle,

I think your explanation is rational. However, I am examining whether we have sufficient grounds to reject the other view. I'll need to think a little more on this.

Like I said, I am using a process of elimination.

Let me answer your questions

Does the Saudi Officials have some speacial "Believer" machine? Do you think terorists have trouble getting into that place?

In a manner of speaking, at least consistent with their own values. As long as they don't contradict themselves in their own terms we can't discount it. Alternatively, we would have to debate and discount the greater premise of their false interpretations.

Hence, in their own terms they can get someone to testify as they wish, they would make them follow their corrupt ways and rituals. Hence, they seem to be able to fit people in to their mould of believer. Terrorists are no terrorists by them since I am sure they'll find a hadith that will support their view.

I am looking forward to how you evaluate this... wink

Peace

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Ash Shura,

I lets take this from the top, The God says that the rejectors cannot have access to the "restricted masjid". My position is that the "place of hearing and obeying the restrictions" is a MENTAL place, a LEVEL(maqam) that ones true self reaches where they remain focused on that direction(QIBLA).

The other thought is that the "restricted masjid" is a physical place onthis physical earth. My question is, do you think that I could not take a casucasion priest, teach him a few terms "assalamalakum ackee" and all of that, teach him a few essentials, and he could not get into that physical place? Even though he really rejects the message?

IF you don't think that is possible, tell me how its not possible.

The only way that this instruction can be fulfilled is if there is a SOLID LAW that prevents this, that would be the God's law. And since man can go anywehre in this physical world, this LAW must be mental.

WHat are your views on this?