HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Monday, July 29, 2013, 18:13 (1545 days ago) @ Hasan | hasansurti1952@yahoo .com

Dear Hasan,

I am sorry Dear, but it appears to me that you are not able to explain how or why 2:187 is telling us to abstain from eating and drinking for a certain period of time.

I will go to 2:185 and go into Arabic Grammar and linguistics to make my point.

2:185 is where it all begins. It is the foundation of the present day, N2I belief of fasting in a month called Ramadaan. Please pay very close attention to what I am writing here.

The N2I people believe that 2:185 is telling us that there is a month that is called or named as Ramadaan. This is how they understand the expression شهر رمضان / Shahru Ramadaan. This term appears to be an Idaafa construct in which case they say this phrase means "The Month OF Ramadaan".

We can accept "Shahru Ramadaan" as an Idafa only if it is agreed upon that the relationship of the two nouns is not that of possessor and possessed, meaning it is NOT an idafa of possession/ownership. Rather it is an Idafa of material. Thus, I can accept that the first noun (Shahr) is the subject and the second noun (Ramadan) is the predicate and that the term Shahru Ramadaan is a DESCRIPTION of Shahru and a quality of it and what it does such as صواريخ بعيدة المدى which LITERALLY means missles long of the range", i.e Long Range Missiles. Or سرطان الجلد which literally means Cancer of The Skin, i.e. Skin Cancer. And hence my personal understanding of Shahru Ramadaan as being A Notorious and Well Known CONDITION or STATE of INTENSE and EXTREME Anguish, suffering and grieving.

What I am trying to say here is that if Shahru Ramadaan IS an idafa then it CANNOT at the same time be a construct where the second noun is the NAME of the first noun. That is not how the idafa functions. PERIOD!!

And conversely, if the word Ramadaan IS THE NAME of Shahr, then this construct CANNOT be an idafa at all. Again, this is according to Arabic Grammar and HOW the idafa FUNCTIONS!! If Ramadaan IS the name of Shahr, then The word Shahr would be the subject of this phrase and IT MUST HAVE the definite article to show that it is the subject of this phrase AND there should be an indication WITHIN THE PHRASE to make it very clear that Ramadaan is Shahr's name. According to the rules of Arabic Grammar IT CANNOT BE BOTH!! To say the month named Ramadaan in Arabic would be الشهر اسمه رمضان. Translation: The Month Whose Name Is Ramadaan.

If you believe that I am wrong in my understanding of the ayat in question as well as the rules of Arabic Grammar, then I have a request. If I am wrong and Shahru Ramadaan is an Idafa AS WELL AS Ramadaan being the NAME of Shahr at the same time, then I ask that someone here presents to me either from The Quran, an Arabic Grammar Book or an actual Arabic text (spoken or written) an example of an Idafa in which the second noun is not only the possessor or owner of the first noun (which is what an idafa is) but in which the second noun IS ALSO THE NAME of the first noun which it possesses. Arabic Grammar says it cannot be both. So Shahru Ramadan is either ONE or THE OTHER. It IS NOT and most certainly CANNOT be both. I can absolutely promise that. Please pick your poison.

As far as 2:187 goes, I have another request to make of you. Please closely examine 19:25 & 26. Notice how in 19:26 Maryam is TOLD to EAT and DRINK!! Notice how in that same verse she is also TOLD to verbally relate to other human beings that she is observing Siyaam. Now notice how the verse before this one (19:25) mentions a source of WATER AND a tree full of DATE PALMS. So, in 19:25 she is provided with the nourishment of water and dates. In the following verse she is observing Siyaam WHILE EATING AND DRINKING.

PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS DEAR HASAN.

How is Maryam observing Siyaam while eating and drinking at the same time according to 19:25 & 26? Are the words eat and drink (kuli washrabi) in 19:26 literal or idiomatic? I can most certainly promise you that it is IDIOMATIC!! NOW, here's the situation that you are obligated to explain if you believe 2:187 is telling us to refrain from eating and drinking; HOW IS IT that 2:187 is telling us to refrain from eating and drinking when there is no mention at all of physical nourishment? There IS the mentioning of physical nourishment in 19:25-26 and it is OBVIOUSLY not an abstinence from eating and drinking in 19:26. PLEASE EXPLAIN!!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

salaatforum.com | design and hosted by Beach Life Marketing Inc