Salaamun alaikum,
I know it's been a long while since I have been on this board. Still haven't completed the project I wanted to do about so called quotes of Muhammad in hadith books vs. his quotes in the god's book but still intend to.
Anyway, just wanted to know Ayman if you could post the list you made of shahr ramadan months for several years. I had it saved but have since lost it when we moved.
I'd appreciate it.
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
Thanks Ayman for clarifying that point. It did get confused for me but I looked again at the full moon listing you posted earlier and yes, it needs to be skipped. My mistake however doesn't take away from the clarity of the verses on the issue that the 4 ashhur hurum are consistent. Here's another verse that I overlooked to mention
596 Made lawful for you all is the game of the sea and its food as provision for you all and the travelers and made unlawful upon you all is the game of the land as long as you are 'huruman' (prohibited/ restricted). And fear the god whom to Him you are being gathered.
So, finally I see someone pointing a valid pot hole on the way to the full moon theory, we need to adress this issue.
The night of decree, in which the The great reading was desended, and the angels and spirit descend down in it, by thy lords leave, to carry out every command....
siki
To Siki,
Curiously, what are you seeing as the pothole? This was actually one of the verses to show that 'shahr' must mean 'full moon' since a full moon is also a night event. This keeps the verses consistent and precise. Or are you making another point here?
Umm Tariq
Peace Wayfinder,
welcome I am also fairly new to this forum and have been following true islam for about a year now. I was also a hard core salafi for about 11 years but sunni for 14, made hijrah and all and we're still in the middle east finding it difficult to get home for many reasons.
I'll give you my personal example at how I looked at this issue after 11 years of salafism. First of all, we were given the 'proofs' of having to follow the man-made hadith books and we were convinced. When I read the article called Authority of the Quran for the first time it completely shattered all of those arguments with the quran alone and I was shocked and repentant to my Lord for making shirk. I never intended to do this. I wanted to stay as far away as possible from shirk but was wholeheartedly in the midst of it. Since it was always overwhelmingly important for me to please my Creator and make sure that I follow His words everything else came easier. With your friend, maybe you should first establish whether His Creator is foremost important to him. As a salafi, there is really NO DIFFERNCE between Muhammad and Allah and that is the biggest crime. Actually as a salafi, Muhammad comes before Allah so if he isn't sure about the REAL difference he won't be able to see anything else. This is all due to belief in the hadith books ATTRIBUTED to Muhammad.
Once this change took place for me salat is right on the heels. My first experience was with 19ers, those who serve the count of 19 and they tried to prove the sunni salat with calculations first and foremost and then what they did was take different verses that SEEM to support how the sunni salat is done but yet ALL of them are being taking out of context and just merely being USED for that purpose but have NOTHING to do with the salat at all. At first I believed them which brought other inconsistencies but once I started to analyze for myself their arguments and had personal contact with one of them, I realized that I can't fall into the trap of just believing people again. After really scrutinizing their 'proofs' I realized that they were really no different in practice than the sunnis and they did what THEY WANTED with Allah's book and not vice versa, to let His message shine through clearly without distortions.
So for your friend, if he is convinced that Allah does come first then that's half the battle at least and if he believes that Allah's words have NO DOUBT then take the argument to Allah 4159 since here is a disagreement. I always stuck to this principle. Ask him, would the messenger contradict Allah and make up his own laws? Here are the basic verses that contradict 5x a day salat 11114, 1778, 2458 If he can get past these and realize that there is no way the messenger could contradict Allah, especially in delivering the message then here are some of the verses pertaining to the salat that I saw also refutes the sunni salat 2114, 115, 125, 144, 149, 150 - 3113 - 4101-103, 162 - 555 - 7170 - 835 - 9108, 112 - 1598 - 17107, 110, 111 - 26219
In addition to this, their whole concepts of how many raka'aat and sajdahs is NO WHERE to be found in Allah's book. The words, raka'ah and sajdah in arabic are NO WHERE in the reading but rather, the verbs of each and their fa'il (the one who performs such) and their verbal noun (sujud) which denotes a continual action not some particular count every so often. For example, they call a surah as-sajdah but that arabic word is not in the surah nor in the quran so that was another heads up for me. So if none of this is in the quran WHERE could have Muhammad gotten it since Allah doesn't speak of any other revelations called Sahih Bukhari or others? Does he believe that these other books are Allah's books as well that He talks about in the quran that came AFTER the quran? If not, then why is he even believing and trusting them?
I hope this isn't too confusing for you. You will see instantly that this topic alone will lead to many other topics and issues. If you want the verses for raka'a and sajada let me know. Not to mention there is no tasleem mentioned in the reading, no command, not even 'qul' 'say' to say al-fatihah, no tashahud. Why when 'qiyaam' is mentioned with 'sujud' in the quran 'sujud' is always mentioned first? 2564, 399 Is he willing to say that since Allah's book contradicts with the hadith books then Allah's book is inconsistent and should be abandoned?
When he gets to this point "So as the prophet was performing the salaat, his followers, followed him in the salaat... and in turn they taught their children, who in turn taught their children... and it went/goes on like this till the swalaat reach us... the same swalaat that was performed by the prophet... reached us intactly... And this type of performing swalaat is approved and explained in the hadiths... This is the first question..."
Can he say for certain that he knows the followers of Muhammad outside of what some people wrote in some books? This whole point is based on conjecture and he only believes this since he believes in the hadith books this is the source of the problem. Ask him, why isn't this type of salat approved and explained in the quran? If the quran contradicts it what will he believe then?
When he said "He said that we are now praying 5 times a day, the people at Mecca, where the prophet lived, got revelation, preached and died... they also are performing 5 times a day... All over the world they are performing 5 times a day... While the Quran teach only 3 times per day... So how come so many people have been diverted from the true Islam which says 3 times swalat per day according to the Quran... "
The first problem is with the place called Mecca but that's another discussion. Did he actually express doubts in his words and tone towards the quran when he said this as if automatically the quran must be wrong? If so, then what is he really believing in, he needs to deal with this. Allah says why people are diverted clearly
6116 And if you obey most of who is in the earth they are leading you astray from the path of Allah. They follow not except conjecture/ guessing/ assumptions and they are not except falsifying.
Then He tells us about those who believe
12106 And most of them believe not in Allah except while they are mushrikeen (those who make partners).
Sunnis have made their scholars, Bukhari and Muslim and many others partners with Allah, that's the crux of it, in the name of Muhammad by ATTRIBUTING all of this to him.
When he said It means the sahabah did the same number of swalat and same for the people who came later... So when in time did the shift occur from 3 times to 5 times... In case it occurred... That is people distorted hadith and added 2 more swalaat.. then there should have always been a group still performing the 3 times swalaat... those who would have stick to the Quran... they would have opposed firmly..... Where were they all these times? We dont find them anywhere... Its not an overnight thing to change swalat from 3 to 5 times a day... Never heard of them until the recent 15-20 years from now... Had the real swalaat number been 3... they would have remained groups of people in all these times who would have kept performing 3 swalaat... So where were they all these times...
Subhanallah! Again does he know for certain WHO these 'sahabah' are, who are also made partners with Allah, outside of the hadith books and hand me down stories? Why didn't Allah refer to them as sahabah but He only refers to a group as 'those who believe with him'? Again, he stated above that the quran MAY mention 3 but he is obviously doubting that and wants to refute the quran! There are believers in the quran alone everywhere but would have their story survived in the hadith books that already contradict MOST Of the quran? Their story with no doubt is in the quran itself. What do you think will happen to the many people, over time and recorded in history, who don't believe in the hype of 911 since IT IS false? Most historical accounts only reflect the main political influences with power, including hadith books and that's how they began if he looks at their history to begin with. Show him Allah's words in 6116 and see if he still wants to doubt his Creator and believes that he should be able to follow the majority and he will arrive at the truth. Where did Allah tell us to follow the majority?
Maybe you see that the real issue, as hard as it is to tackle, is is islam really quran and sunnah or is it just quran? If he believes in hadith books like he does the quran, really you can't, or actually believes in them MORE then this is your fight.
Sorry to be a little long but you will have a real struggle on your hands and will have to discuss many issues. May Allah give you the strength and steadfastness to remain on the truth until death.
Sincerely,
Umm Tariq
Peace Nun,
Peace,
Topic is on full moon theory ? why change subject ask questions on other interpretations and skip answering questions pertaining to inconsistencies on full moon?
I wasn't trying to change the subject but merely responding to a recent post where someone questioned whether the 4 hurum had anything to do with hunting. This IMPORTANT part of this topic of 'shahr' must have gotten swept under the carpet a bit but it can't. I actually addressed it before as well so it was always a part of this discussion.
4 ashhur hurum ? how much time exactly is that between 4 full moons?
Is that 3 lunar months, according to your earlier calculations, right?
Alhamdulillah you finally understand that when we say '4 full moons' we are using it as a MARKER and looking to the time period 'in between', alhamdulillah. You yourself posted my earlier conclusions so that answers your second question and NOTE that I put 'in the minimum' case, we covered various cases earlier as well.
Lastly, ignoring the 13th lunar month every 3 years is no different than intercalation or adding a month only they acknowledged and gave it a name while you simply skip it.
This is also part of why I had to post about the hunting part of the restriction (hurum). I explained we are not necessarily 'skipping' or 'ignoring' this 13th FULL MOON but we simply RESTART the count after we have counted 12 full moons just like the god said is a 'straight/ valuable obligation/system'. It makes perfect sense to me that there is a difference between a 'count of something' and a 'number of something' and that the god is being PRECISE when He uses the terminology that He does. I notice that in English sometimes we get confused and these differences go to the wayside but not so in the great reading. If we do that with the great reading, WE are making a big mistake.
So for all intents and purposes, this 13th full moon is COUNTED but not as 13 instead as a new number 1 for the next 12 full moons count. This is important since it has to do with keeping the 4 ashhur hurum CONSISTENT from year to year which the verses clearly show it is IMPERMISSIBLE any other way. Please reread the post and if you like you can answer the question I asked near the end of it.
Also Nun, we have been through this discussion for a long while now yet if you still feel that there are inconsistencies with the 'full moon' theory then please just restate them. Remember I began my discussion with you specifically so I can see your point of view and up until now, it has only convinced me that the view you expound is the weak one so I found no grounds to change my view about 'full moon'. Please don't take this as a personal attack on you, it's not, it's the opinion that I find no real support for from the great reading. Maybe on another topic we would agree wholeheartedly that's not what's important, it's trying to reach the truth which inherently doesn't fear investigation, doesn't bring inconsistencies and contradictions and is usually simple. I am sure that most of us here are tired of the lies being propagated in the name of the god so we just want to be certain from now on and take actions based on SURE knowledge not conjecture.
Peace be upon all,
I have also noticed that many of the questions of inconsistency with 'month' have not been answered clearly and precisely. Maybe some confuse the issue of posting a reply with actually giving a clear answer, they do not equate automatically.
One of those questions was is it allowed for the 4 ashhur hurum to change from year to year? Someone even suggested that they CAN be arbitrary. Well here's what our Lord says and that's all that matters
936-37 Verily the count of the shuhur with the god is twelve in the book/ decree of the god the time He created the skies and the earth from them four are hurum. That is the straight/valuable obligation/ system so DO NOT OPPRESS/ WRONG yourselves within them. And fight the mushrikeen completely as they are fighting you all completely and know that the god is with the prudent/ careful/ fearing. The NASEE is only an increase in DISBELIEF, those who have disbelieved go astray with it making it lawful an aam and making it unlawful an aam in order to correspond with/ agree with the count of what the god prohibited so they make lawful what the god prohibited. Adorned for them is the EVIL of their works. And the god does not guide the disbelieving people.
Clearly from these verses, the 4 shahur are CONSISTENT EVERY YEAR and should NOT be violated. NEVER could they be arbitrary much less arbitrary from person to person. Maybe this is part of why the god mentions from the beginning that this is HIS COUNT and WE MUST follow it. If this wasn't the case, that we don't have to follow it in someway, then He wouldn't continue this topic with the issue of the nasee and calling it an INCREASE in DISBELIEF, how much stronger can this be expressed. If any weren't clear on the meaning of nasee the god is also actually explaining what it is in the verse. HE also describes this as EVIL work.
So no one has to worry about MAN's fancy words and arguments, the god has been very clear about what HE wants our obligation to be. The next natural question is WHAT makes them hurum, meaning how do we NOT oppress ourselves within them? No need for human interpretation and guessing.
594-95 O you who have believed, the god will surely TEST YOU by something of the game that your hands and your spears obtain/reach that the god knows/ make evident those who fear Him unseen. And whoever transgresses after that for him is a painful punishment. O you who have believed, DO NOT kill the game while you are prohibited/ restricted (hurum). And whoever kills it intentionally from you then a penalty equivalent of what he killed from the na'am judging by two just ones from you a gift reaching the base or an expiation the feeding of the poor or justice of that fasting, in order that he taste the consequence of his matter. The god has pardoned what is past but whoever returns then the god will exact retribution from him and the god is mighty owner of retribution.
He has also said clearly
52 O you who have believed DO NOT violate/ make lawful the sha'aair of the god nor the shahr haraam nor the hadya nor the qa'laaid nor those secure of the bayt haraam seeking fadl from their Lord and pleasure and when you are ALLOWED then HUNT...
So when we are hurum and we are hurum when the 4 ashhur hurum have come, then we are not to kill the game but we will be tested during this time. Part of this test is not only to acknowledge the hurum yet transgress therein but an increase in disbelief is to CHANGE it altogether. There is a painful punishment awaiting those who do this so again, another strong statement and not something to be taken lightly by ANY means.
Of course the god knows about a 13th full moon occurring during a solar year which is the only year to follow so that the seasons remain consistent and thus the 4 hurum but HE is telling us to only KEEP COUNTING 12. It's not actually IGNORED, it's there and it's COUNTED but counted again as a new number 1 instead of a 13 which would inevitably CHANGE the 4 hurum from year to year which is NOT ALLOWED. I didn't say so the god did. This 13th full moon is a TEST. How? When we try to use it to do nasee (or any other way to make this postponement like following a lunar calendar) and change what the god made unlawful.
AGAIN, the god knows the 13th full moon is there and so do we but HE made it clear that we only KEEP COUNTING 12, as He's been counting, so that WE DON'T violate what He prohibited! This extra full moon is a test for people just like the test of the game that their hands and spears reach but yet they must fear the god unseen.
This whole issue, definitely at the time of the reading and still today, seems to be a big TEST for people. They don't want to be restricted in this way and will try to find ways to violate this command yet this is EVIL with the god and earns His punishment. This is just like many of the other tests out there for us, like life and death itself, whether we will believe or we don't.
Who here is really willing to say that the 4 ashhur hurum have NOTHING to do with hunting and that it can be inconsistent from year to year?
Another angle to this is this verse;
4153 We will show them our signs in the horizons/ remote parts and within themselves until it is made clear for them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is over all things a witness?
If we make the observation that these 4 ashhur hurum also coincide with certain circumstances related to game animals which is NOT a coincidence, and it helps us understand more about these 4 hurum then we can use that. Whether we start with the god's laws as written in the book or we sincerely look at His signs in the creation and reflect we should also find consistency between the two since HE is the author of both. We all can observe that the animals' behavior is not CHANGING from year to year.
When we look at this verse
2278-279 O you who have believed, fear the god and give up what remains of ribaa if you were believers. And if you do no, then be informed of a war from the god and His messenger. But if you repent, you may have your principals, do not oppress nor are you being oppressed.
Then we look to what is happening to interest and gambling based economies we can observe that the god spoke the truth, that His laws don't change, He means what He says and He doesn't break His promises.
Umm Tariq
Peace truthseeker,
Thanks again for all the more clarity of the issue. Excellent point about the count of restricted shuhur. May the god continue to increase us all in sincerity, knowledge and guidance.
Umm Tariq
Peace Nun,
You know what, I see that you refuse to read what I wrote. The issue is clear, I am convinced, by the strength of the argument based on the god's words, that shahr is full moon and you, it seems, can't prove otherwise so you just ignore all that I write and just repeat your stance, not very helpful nor convincing. Nevermind.
To all who are trying, false words and arguments will not detract from the truth.
Umm Tariq
Peace Nun,
You didn't understand what I meant at all. I meant, if you use full moon in these respective verses you get one count and if THEN use month in these respective verses you get another count. In the minimum case, they do not EQUAL. I showed that in my previous post if you read the whole thing. Do you understand now what I was talking about? That's all.
God prescribes different times (fixed constant) to different scenarios...
The above all use shahr (fixed constant) except for 3 menstruations (variable) each woman. One cannot apply a variable to a constant nor constant to a variable.
Again you are confusing the issues and seem to refuse to acknowledge the point about the full moon being a marker and that's why it can be used in all of these verses. The menstrual cycles themselves for different women will vary but the CONSTANT is that they are using it as a MARKER, nothing more nothing less. As all can see, in the minimum case, the two different counting mechanisms differ by 1 'month' so both cannot be right. One last time, can anyone answer the question seriously why should the non-menstruating woman automatically wait 1 month longer than a menstruating woman when you substitute shahr as month?
I have tackled your concept of month in all honesty but you seem to refuse to do that with full moon to really show it's inconsistency. The one time you tried you failed because the consistency of full moon automatically showed itself. We are going in circles here and so it seems that there is not much more to discuss.
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
I would also like to set straight a dangerous trend by some. Just because I or anyone else agrees with 'shahr' being full moon doesn't mean we become Ayman's FOLLOWERS. I don't even know Ayman I only know him by his words, I've read many of his articles and also Layth's and many others. What's important to me is the strength of someone's position based on the reading NOT personalities. I may not even like Ayman in person but that doesn't take away from the strength of many of his positions for which I agree with some and I disagree with others. For example, I disagree with as-salat meaning 'learning connection' but he nonetheless presented a strong case and I respect that. So since I don't agree with him here, can I still be considered HIS FOLLOWER?
Even if I did agree, I am only trying to follow the god's commands, some of us will agree on some things and disagree on others we DO NOT become each other's FOLLOWERS for doing so. Just bring the facts. We all agree that pork is haraam to eat are we EACH OTHER'S FOLLOWERS for that or is that following the god's words and how clear they are?
PLEASE STOP all of the personal attacks and just stick to the facts. The truth is clear from falsehood.
Sincerely,
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
I agree as well that all of the insults and talking down can and should stop. None of this is PERSONAL. If the god tells us that we should argue/ debate with the people of the book in a way that is better 'ahsan' then that's what we should definitely do with each other. If we get personal about discussing opinions about the great reading then maybe if we are on the truth and correct understanding we would turn away others from it just because of our behavior, that's not acceptable. Didn't the god say to His prophet 'So it is by a mercy from the god that you were lenient for them and if you were stern and fierce of heart they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them and forgive them and consult them in the affair..' 3159 I'm just giving this as a reminder, verily the reminder benefits the believers.
To Nun,
Please show where the word "shahr" is used in 2228?
In addition, why are you comparing a man to fast 4 months to women's menstrual cycle?
We never said that the word 'shahr' is in 2228 and we know that it isn't. What we were comparing, to aid in coming to the correct conclusion about the meaning of 'shahr', is that the menstrual cycle is also used as a MARKER to start and stop a time period JUST LIKE a 'full moon' can be used. The topic is the same, divorce. If we were talking only about divorce right now and we bring all of the verses, we will have this one and 654. One mentions counting an iddah by menstrual cycles and one mentions counting an iddah by 'shahr'. I believe in the consistency of the god's words and that He has a good reason to choose the words He does to express His laws. If someone doesn't believe that the god's words are consistent then they will never see this connection.
So when we want to check how does this counting work this is where it will start (in the minimum case)
A menstruating woman (222 is divorced and her cycle begins the next day, she waits (counting 3 cycles) 2 months minimum
A non-menstruating woman (654) is divorced and the 'full moon' is sighted the next day, she waits (counting 3 full moons) 2 months minimum
I must add this here before continuing the similarity between menstrual cycle and full moon is that CLEARLY they are markers. The menstrual cycle itself only lasts about 3-7 or 10 days and the full moon is sighted in a night, NEITHER will be present for the whole time that the woman in either case waits. I mentioned this before. If someone can understand AUTOMATICALLY that the menstrual cycle is being used as a marker then how can one not understand that the full moon is being used as a marker as well, to start and stop a time period?
This is why we are using these verses as well, pertaining to divorce, it's the god who chose to use these words to help us understand what is correctly meant by 'shahr' in the reading. Do we think that the god doesn't know that there are several meanings out there for shahr? That He wouldn't for His sincere servants then give them clues from His words which meaning He means?
With that said, if we now look at, in the minimum case, a woman from 654 and we take 'shahr' to mean 'month' we get she's divorced and the next new month begins the next day (she counts 3 months) she waits; 3 MONTHS minimum
Can everyone see the discrepancy here created by using 'month'? That's why the question was asked why would there be this discrepancy in the god's book if He intended shahr to mean 'month'? Why should the women of 654 automatically in the minimum case wait longer than those with a menstrual cycle? Can you tell me that we cannot use verse 2228 when the topic of divorce is the same? Why should I choose a meaning that creates this kind of discrepancy in the first place when full moon is an accepted meaning of the word shahr and keeps the verses consistent?
If anyone would have a bias towards 'month' it would be me, I was hard core salafi for 14 years but after the god showed me the truth then that's all that I want, that's all I ever wanted. I never knew until lately that 'shahr' can mean full moon and once I found out it automatically made verse 2185 make sense to me. With the word month, 'witnessing a month' makes no sense nor do I like that the words (new cresent of) are added in such translations. But this is me. However, as I continuing studying and the issue of fasting is being discussed and the core debate is about whether shahr should be full moon or month, I see arguments like the one above and that supports full moon to me, because I believe the god is consistent in His words.
We are not comparing a man's fasting of '4 months' to a menstrual cycle, we are saying that once we are convinced, by verses like 2185, 2228 that shahr means full moon and that works in all of the verses it's used in, we are saying that he counts '4 full moons' the full moons are markers again, and his wait in the minimum case would be 3 months as we call that time period in between. It could be any name we give it really but the actual waiting is the same and it's whatever time period falls in between those 4 full moons. If anyone has a problem with 'in between' then you have problem with 'in between' menstrual cycles and what will you do then???
Another point is that since we can all see that when we use full moon in the verses or month that we get different counts, so I don't believe that both can be used. One key verse is 2228 since the topic of divorce is the same as in 654 wherein 'shahr' is used.
Yes I do believe by logic/process of elimination that shahr does NOT mean full moon.
How can you eliminate 'full moon' when it produces this consistency with the verses that month doesn't? No problem in witnessing a full moon, no problem in using it as a marker like a menstrual cycle, their count can be exactly 12 like 936 says and not 12 point something, so what REALLY is the problem with 'full moon'?
To Anwar,
Can you please explain how do you understand verse 937 about the 'naseey'? This to me is also a strong refutation against shahr being 'month' when we take these two verses together.
Umm Tariq
Peace everyone,
For all of the bystanders just taking this debate in, I personally see the argument for 'full moon' to be clear, consistent, simple, no need for fancy calculations and you all who support it have presented the case clearly, thoroughly and fully. I don't see that there is much more that can be said as evidence after taking the one definition of 'full moon' and applying it in ALL of the verses and related topics and everything agrees with itself, CONSISTENCY. If one does check every verse that uses 'shahr' and understands 'full moon' as the meaning, it fits in ALL of the verses. Anyone just coming in without any biased leaning towards 'month' and they just want the god's words with no additions nor subtractions, the case is clear for 'full moon' without having to ignore any issue nor using fancy long arguments that don't actually answer the issues of contradiction.
The one verse I questioned how to understand it pertaining to the wind of Sulaiman (3412), no one has answered but that doesn't prove that full moon doesn't fit the context either. When one uses 'month' as the meaning, they have to insert the word 'journey' in the verse and the god knows the word for journey but HE didn't include it so those people need to fear the god.
Here are the verses using shahr and it's plural in which ones does the meaning 'full moon' not fit?
2184, 194, 217 52, 97 936 3412 4615 973 597 shahr
492 584 shahrain (dual)
2197, 226, 234 95, 36 654 92 (plural)
Overall, debates like these are beneficial and healthy for those searching for the truth.
Umm Tariq
Peace Anwar,
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Like I said I want to hear the other argument's side on various points.
I take this stance because I do not believe that the Quran defines words. It uses Arabic words in the same ways that can be used outside of the context of the Quran. So examples on how the Quran defines the verb shahida or any other verb or noun from its usage is futile and a mute methodology to me because the Quran uses its words and verbs in the same way the Classical Arabic language (represented by pre-Quranic and early Islamic Arab society) can use them, not the other way around.
Of course the reading is using a language that was already present but I definitely believe that the god will use them PRECISELY and properly. The words can be used outside in the same way but not always how they are used outside, especially in our times, is reflected in the reading and there are many examples of this. I certainly don't have access nor the time to try and find and read pre-quranic writings and such but I trust that the god's book is sufficient in trying to understand the words it uses by looking at how they are used. Also I know that many non-arabic speaking countries, like Indonesia etc. use the reading to teach themselves arabic and the 'proper' grammar.
The comment was not meant to offend you, but definitions of words based solely on interpretations of Quranic usages of those words is fraught with holes, potential problems and room for abuse. I only need remind of the Salat as connection or method theories to prove my point. The Quran is not a dictionary.
I'm not offended at all but I was really amazed that how the reading uses a certain word doesn't matter to you. I only see room for abuse for those who want to abuse but for a sincere study of the reading, where then should be the starting point if not from the guarantee that the god is precise and we can trust how He uses words? Your main basis seems to be a Judaic definition when we KNOW that the previous scriptures have been corrupted and they have added beliefs not authorized by the god. We see how many of their erroneous beliefs and practices were incorporated into islam through hadiths. How could you possibly convince anyone to use a Judaic definition and not the reading's usage? You were given a clear example that your hypothesis that the reading supports a 30 day month doesn't work in all cases so it can't be right. If that was the pattern that the god intended it would work in all of those examples so how can you ignore that? The reading is not a dictionary but it still even exposes the corruption in man-made dictionaries, alhamdulillah!
Why does the god Himself give us the advice to 'arrange similar verses' if it doesn't mean anything? If it's "So examples on how the Quran defines the verb shahida or any other verb or noun from its usage is futile and a mute methodology to me..." and "but definitions of words based solely on interpretations of Quranic usages of those words is fraught with holes, potential problems and room for abuse."
You didn't 'answer' my point about ma'duudaat you just gave more info. My point was that it was a clue for 'shahr' being 'full moon'. I see that you are willing and acknowledge there are going to be possibilities of meanings for many words but I believe the final criterion is how they are used in the reading, that either supports a choice or it doesn't. That's where the 'arranging' comes in.
We see this in everyday usage of the word 'numbered' and we need to expect that when we read the Quran's words.
This assumption to me is very dangerous, what do you base it on? 'Everyday usage' is subjective. I expect the great reading to be the truth, precise and consistent. If I find that the reading does not support an 'everyday usage' I will discard the 'everyday usage' and go with how the reading uses whatever word.
Making a competitive comparison between arabic grammarians and the quran is completely illogical. The fact is that the Quran never dedicated itself to explaining Classical Arabic words and grammar, it just used them to get its point accross.
I would never do that! The arabic grammarians will always LOSE! ;D It's not dedicated to that but since it's 'precise' I can expect that the reading's usage is certainly the truth and true grammar and not the other way around.
Grammarians made it a point to record how Classical Arabic words were used and how its grammar was used. So it is never a Quran vs. Grammarian scenario, that sort of scenario is completely nonsensical.
Yes, it has that 'man-made' element and that's why it's not the final authority. It's not a vs. scenario per se but we will inevitably have to compare the two and the reading will have to win out.
The question here is what does the Quran mean when it refers to shahr.
This is the crux of this debate/ discussion so what should be the final criterion? I've pointed out how your theory of 30 day month partially based on a certain hypothesis surrounding certain verses pertaining to fasting doesn't work in all cases so you have went 'outside' the reading as well to try and make your hypothesis have more weight. confusedconfused I can't agree with that methodology the conclusion I want isn't supported by the reading except if I make up some theory from certain verses, I will ignore the contradictions/ inconsistencies it makes in the reading and I will look elsewhere to make may conclusion strong and make it 'look like' the reading supports my conclusion. o Wow, I can't do that.
I think it is clear from all I have presented in my previous posts that the Quran prefers the meaning of 30 sunrise to sunrise days in its context. And I think it is confirmed in the fact that using this conclusion we will always only have and be able to count only 12 shahr in the year, not a shahr more or less. And so I don't have to explain later, the naturally occurring extra 5 or 6 days after the 12th shahr are never to be ignored but the fact is that they will never constitute a shahr or an extension of any shahr because the Quranically preferred shahr is 30 (sunrise to sunrise) days. No more, no less.
Like I said, it's good to look at all of the possibilities and keep it open, the reading will inevitably narrow it down. ) I must agree however that those extra 5 or 6 days, if intended by verse 936, it would have been included. It seems, in my opinion, by all of what you have posted, that you don't believe in the preciseness of the god's book. This then is why we disagree. If shahr is taken, out of the possibilities, to be 'full moon' and it leaves nothing left uncovered and keeps consistency in the reading, then why would it be rejected for something else? If the god says 12 shahr, 12 full moons are EXACTLY that, nothing more, nothing less. Why would you bring an opinion that leaves some extra, that brings inconsistency in other verses? ???
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
The more I dig this subject, the more proofs pop out in fovour of your thinking line . But remember , i am not with you , I am with the truth, and looking for a chance to hop over to otherside the moment I get an undisputable proof OTHERWISE.
These are also my exact sentiments and why I am still following this thread as long as there are comments. I continue to see more and more evidence that 'shahr' is 'full moon'.
To anwar,
Quote
If shahr means "30 day month", then how can we witness such an 30-day month as per 2185?
The discussion on the meaning of shahida was fruitless to me. The word can be used to mean to vouch for, to experience, to witness, to see etc. etc. We are all witnessing September right now and we are going to witness October tomorrow. What does that mean in the context of 2185? If you are going to be alive and able for 30 days during your summer to fast, then fast those 30 days. There is no need to try to make shahida witness in a way that we only witness a day when we complete it. That is just not good sense. You witness the day as it begins. You can vouch for it as well if you know of it beforehand, and you can witness to its passing and your having lived through it afterwards. But to make shahida a witnessing that is something magical, special or something that can only be done after the minute, hour or day has passed is an incorrect limitation of the word."
I'm only replying because I was part of that discussion and I would like to ask, how do you ignore that the reading CLEARLY uses the verb 'shaheda' in different ways? I gave those examples. How can that be fruitless? I know that arranging similar verses is KEY to trying to properly understand how the god is using certain terminology and not that I just put what I want to be there, that would not be a just investigation of the truth would it? To me, this is one of the big supports for 'full moon' and if this is considered a non-issue by those who say month and they don't care how the reading uses this verb, I simply cannot accept that it doesn't matter and it shows me the weakness of this stance.
Another point that came to mind, it may have been mentioned before, is how do we reconcile in 2184 the god begins with "ayyaam ma'duudaat" and the interpretation of 'month? There was a point about just the form of the word ma'duudaat provides a clue since this form is used for representing a count from 3 - 10. Numbers over 10 until 20 and from 20 to 99 and so on use different forms when using them in expressions. The duals have their own form. I love the preciseness of arabic. Check this out for yourself in the great reading. Can we say that the arabic here doesn't matter, that the arabic grammarians know arabic better than the Creator? I'd like honest answers since I am keeping the door open.
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
I was just browsing to see other opinions on as-salat and I noticed this thread so I'd like to share what I've found about the word 'raka'. First of all, according to the sunni concept of prayer being a certain number of 'raka'aat' units and a certain number of 'sajdah' units, I noticed that the reading doesn't even use these forms of these words. One surah is named as-Sajdah but that form of the word is no where in the reading. Clearly shows the fabrication of their prayer.
ALL the verses that use the verb form of 'raka'a' use it in the command form 243, 343, 2277, 7748
These verses use it in the 'faa'il' form the person doing it 243, 343, 555, 9112, 3824
These verses use it also in the 'faa'il' form but for the plural 2125, 2226, 4829
I found it interesting that in my contemporary arabic-arabic dictionary it has the usual meanings of raka'a listed, the physical aspect. However, when I was looking up 'khashi'a', meaning humbly submissive/ fearing, I found raka'a listed, so my first clue.
The main verses that caused the biggest problems about 'raka'a' being physical for me is the one about Dawud 'falling' 'bowing' and verse 7748 And when it is said to them (the mujrimun, disbelieving criminals) 'irka'a' 'bow' they don't 'bow'. Now why on earth would we tell such people to just bow? Of course the usual additions to the verse is (in prayer) but that still makes no sense, you wouldn't tell them to do the sunni prayer before they even believe. However, asking them to be HUMBLE? Certainly and I find that 'humble' fits in all of these verses. How many times does the god describe the disbelievers as 'arrogant', that we should seek refuge from arrogance? Also, from the form of the word used you see that it's a continual state to be in not just sometimes. It makes perfect sense that when a little 'arrogance' hit Dawud and he judged without hearing both sides he automatically realized what went wrong and fell humble and repenting.
Let me know if this helps the initial question about 'raka'a'. I just noticed that no one posted all of the verses so I thought that I would do so.
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
May the god reward you for your patience Ayman in replying. I had to also come to the conclusion to just ignore certain posts. My being new to this forum seems to expose them more as well. What, did I, after 14 grueling years as a sunni salafi just decide I will come to the forum and just follow some names on posts as opposed to others!!! ??? Since I don't know anyone personally, that's really what it is. I know better now to VERIFY everything I read. My Lord in His mercy didn't let me die on that shirk of sunnism, so am I now going to act foolish and absurd to just come and follow anyone CLAIMING to be following the god's book alone for judgment when most certainly shaytaan will be on this path more so? Just because some make MORE NOISE than others and throw names around and slander?
Being the internet, it makes it even easier for hypocrites, whoever they are, since their faces are hidden but the god didn't even tell the Prophet that he would know them by their marks, He could have made it possible, but by their 'lahnil qawl', 'the tone of their speech'. I also realize that sometimes we may have to reply just to let other innocent bystanders see the other side and they can decide for themselves. The Prophet had to beware of this as well and he was the recipient of the revelation
2204 And of mankind there is he whose speech may please you in this worldly life and he calls the god to witness as to that which is in his heart, yet he is the most quarrelsome of the opponents.
They can sound very convincing if one lacks proper understanding. For me, it has become too much like dealing with sunnis with the name calling, getting personal, accusing of disbelief without evidence and throwing around the god's threat as if they alone possess it. Been there done that and I can do without it. I came here for mature discussion with respect sincerely trying to increase in knowledge and understanding and I ask the god to expose for me the liars.
Umm Tariq
Peace everyone,
I am also convinced, based on the god's verses, that prophet Muhammad was not from some place called Mecca, nor was the first bayt built there since the god says
396 Verily the first bayt put/placed for the people is verily the one at Bakka, blessed and a guidance for all the worlds.
I remember early on being sunni and I was amazed at this verse and asked about it and the only answer I got was, 'oh, that was the old name for Makkah.' No evidence for such a claim was ever presented. I remember reading the name Bakka in the Bible as well and I was amazed that it mentioned the same place but back then, didn't think too much more of it.
However, I mainly wanted to share another point about this, some food for thought for all if anyone has noticed this or not, these two verses
1173 They said are you amazed from the command of the god? The mercy of the god and His blessings upon you all family/ people/ citizens (etc.) of the bayt (ahlul bayt)...
3333 ...the god only wants to remove from you all the rijs family/ people/ citizens of the bayt (ahlul bayt) and purifying you all completely.
When I realized the arabic for the first time I was shocked, this same phrase addressing Ibrahim and his family and addressing prophet Muhammad and those with him. The beginning of verse 3333 starts out addressing just the wives of the prophet Muhammad and this was the first time I noticed the change in the pronouns used at the end of the verse, going from 'kunna' referring to you (plural) female to 'kum' you all including male and female. I then noticed how my copy of translation of the meaning of the reading from Saheeh International, sunni, translates these two verses
1173 "They said, "Are you amazed at the decree of Allah? May the mercy of Allah and His blessings be upon you, people of the house..."
3333 "And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity , O people of the household, and to purify you with purification."
What happened???! This simple phrase 'ahlul bayt' is the same in both verses yet here, all of these additions, one must ask why? They don't even let you know that the 'O' is an addition nor can you tell the gender of all of the 'yous' used in English. In this verse they use 'household' (more personal). I automatically asked, what are you trying to hide by this? I realized, with these two verses, with this phrase, is this showing that Ibrahim, as well as Muhammad were in the same vicinity, near the same house, not in Mecca?
Again, food for thought, let me know how others have seen this verse translated. For me, additions like these, let's me know automatically that something is amiss and it's not the god's perfect verses.
Umm Tariq
Peace Belalhammad,
I don't want to get into a big discussion but what if I told you that there are Christians who believe that the real message in the Bible points to a luni-solar calendar as well and it's 'tradition' that said otherwise? http//www.4angelspublications.com/lunisoloar.html
They are also considered 'nuts' by 'traditionalists'. You can debate with them if you like. Anyway, the reading is 'muhaiman' over what is before it and there are known falsehoods in these books as they are now so we know to reject those falsehoods only based on the reading. We believe that initially they were sent from Allah, His books, but we know that they have been corrupted, hence, the need and mercy for our Lord to send us this book and then promise to protect this message. One of the women is a very nice lady, I consider her a believer since she says that she believes Muhammad was a prophet and that the 'quran' is from the god. She is still studying and I hope you don't offend her.
Umm Tariq
Peace all,
Ayman I forgot to ask about this
Peace sister Samia,
To know who is meant by those who make lawful what the god restricted we need to know what the god restricted during the restriction period.
So the question is what did the god restrict during the period of the restricted full-moons. He ONLY restricted hunting wild life.
So it is those who make lawful hunting wild life during the restriction period.
Notice how the passage says "The evil of their deeds is made fair-seeming to them."
For example, Sunnis make the violation of the restriction seem fair by attributing the restriction to preventing the thousands of pilgrims from eating every wild animal in the vicinity of Mecca. Therefore they claim that hunting is not restricted except for the pilgrims during the three days of pilgrimage despite pilgrimage not even being mentioned in relation to the hunting restriction. They even cover what they believe is the truth of their own interpretation of "shahr" since 936 specifically says four "shahr" (according to them "months" and not just the few days of their sectarian pilgrimage.
This is the big question I asked to those who take 'shahr' as 'month' and who may also go by a strictly lunar calendar, how do they justify the 4 hurum CHANGING from year to year? Where did the god say that this happens? Wouldn't that contradict the very idea that they are hurum if it can change from year to year? Did you ever get a clear answer from them on this, maybe I missed that post. This is the big sticker to me and I definitely don't want to even THINK that these hurum can be violated even if I don't personally hunt.
Umm Tariq
Peace Ayman,
Hmmm, I see what you are getting at. This is regarding divorce and it's important to make sure whether the divorcee is pregnant or not hence the command from the god to believing women to not hide what is in their wombs.
"There is no typo. Those who didn't/ haven't menstruated (but didn't DESPAIR of menstruation) should wait the gestation period same as those who are actually pregnant. This is the simplest and most straight forward interpretation of 654 without having to insert punctuations that don't make sense or interpret the "wa"/and between the two categories in a strange way. Since those who "didn't menstruate" didn't despair from menstruation, then this is also the only 100% sure way. Of course, everyone knows how long the human gestation period is. Even those who are not pregnant know it. Even men Smiley know it."
I see what you mean about the punctuations which don't all agree with each other in different masaahif, if we pay too much attention to them they can actually hinder clear understanding. yes However, since this part of the verse ends with 'ajalahunna an yadana hamlahunna', those who didn't/ haven't menstruated may not be pregnant so they have no 'haml', so how long would they really wait? If you are saying they wait until they know for sure that they aren't pregnant, then would they stop waiting???? ??? Sorry, it's the first time I've ever realized this verse 'could' be looked at this way so these are my initial inquiries. It still seems a little confusing because of this point, what if they aren't pregnant.
Peace Siki,
It is really positive and mature of you to share these thoughts of yours on this issue. Sometimes others' negativity and insults can put a real damper on the process of just trying to sincerely learn and seek out the truth with others, being respectful of differences that are truly based on the reading. All praise and thanks is to the god for everything good!
Umm Tariq
Peace truthseeker,
It would be nice if someone can explain this from the grammatical angle, whether this 'wa' can be used as an additional description or not but I also know that even in the study of arabic grammar, there is taint (rules that don't agree with the great reading). I agree with this conclusion of yours and it makes the most sense
But this would not include women who never had menstruation (primary amenorrhea). Because of that I would tend to favor your understanding if that is grammatically possible.
Taking this verse and 2228 which are about 'divorce', 2228 covers the case for all who have a menstrual cycle, they use it to count by. I see 654 as covering those who don't have a menstrual cycle, due to pregnancy (which is understood) or otherwise, so we have the full moon event to count by or the delivery event to use as an ending. Nice and simple to me.   Let me know what you think.
Umm Tariq