HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Saturday, August 03, 2013, 05:43 (1543 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

Salaam,

I am going to respond to HELLO NAME, WAQAS and AMIR ASLAM in this one post instead of making three separate posts.

Dear Hello Name,

Perhaps my biggest contention here is this: there is a millenia of historical tradition involving fasting and Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions.

First of all, I am going by The Quran, NOT historical tradition that is irrelevant and have nothing to do with The Quran. I am calling you to a re-examination of The Quran and you bring up TRADITION just like the rejectors of Quranic ayaat in 2:170, 5:104 and 31:21. Secondly, Al-Islam is NOT a "religion", Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic in flavor; it is simply not a religion.

Even if this is a huge misunderstanding of the original Arabic, it is quite an oversight for you to not explain the very similar traditions or at least commands to that effect that have gone on for thousands of years.

That is because man made traditions are irrelevant for something that is a DEEN as opposed to religion. Also, many, many, many people have been following Traditions such as baptizing in water, putting ashes on their foreheads and going to a religious house of worship on Sundays. They wish not to break away from tradition. Does the fact that Their Traditions have gone on for thousands of years make them correct?

One does not simply overturn a millenia of historicity on grounds of a single instance of a grammatical/linguistic nuance without some tremendous evidence explaining why this prevailing understanding of God's message has been misunderstood for the last many thousand years in all these religions.

I highly beg to differ. First of all, for thousands of years we have been taught that Nisaa' and Niswa' mean women and wives. However a close look at "Qaala" (meaning HE said) in 12:30 is just one such example that brings the N2I house of cards crumbling down. As far as your prevailing understanding for the last many thousand years, that is a very simple matter to tackle. Just pick ANY N2I country; Malaysia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, U.A.E. or Iran and go there and TRY TEACHING what I am advocating here as well as anti-hadith, Nisaa'a not meaning women, salaat is not namaz ad women are not lesser than men and LET'S SEE if you'll live!! N2I Islam survives ONLY because of their ridiculous Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws!!

Dear Waqas

You can also see here for more info:
http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/page/1/md/read/id/314123119192494

Quote:
Please see “ A Grammar of the Arabic Language,” by W. Wright, 3rd Ed., Vol II, pp. 198-234. The section “The Status Constructus and the Genitives,” is relevant to the topic and I am quoting below almost verbatim from Article 95(c), page 232:

“(c) To the names of towns, rivers, mountains, etc., when preceded by the words for town, river, etc.; as Madinatu Baghdad “the city of Baghdad; Nahru Alfarat “the river Euphrates’; …; Toure Sineen “mount Sinai” ; Shahru Ramadan “the month of Ramadan.”

Waqas, you and I have been down this road before concerning William Wright and his regurgitation of Sibawayh's so-called Classical Grammar. In the thread on 4:3 and Nisaa' at the free-minds forum, you had posted the page from Wright's book trying to convince of the so-called anomaly of words having different roots for singular and plural and you recall how I proved that information to be incorrect. If you'd like I can post the link to the exact post I am talking about.

Whether his information on that topic was deliberate or not is neither here nor there for me. What's important is that his grammar CAN (and has) be refuted. But I will say this; someone at another forum made the suggestion to me to drop my exploration of "Shahru Ramadan" from my argument against fasting because he felt it was a weak argument. Now I think I understand where he was coming from. Whether W. Wright's information is correct or incorrect isn't that important for me to try and tackle at this moment (because I WILL address once my article is complete); his grammar book says what it says. But there are a few things that I feel that I MUST say.

To this day, the Arabs have TWO CALENDARS that they acknowledge and schedule their lives around. The Western Gregorian Calendar and the so-called Islamic Calendar which we get INITIALLY from Ibn Ishaq's Seerah of The Prophet which I personally outright reject!! There is absolutely NOTHING prior to Ibn Ishaq's biography that suggests or proves that their was a month called Ramadan prior to the appearance of The Quran. EVERYTHING WE KNOW (or THINK we know) about The Prophet, The Islamic Calendar and so-called companions and contemporaries of The Prophet come from Ibn Ishaq's book. A book which was based on ahadith (something else I categorically reject for the same reasons I reject Ibn Ishaq's Seerah). Neither the author of the world's first ever Seerah nor the fabricators of ahadith were contemporaries of the very man they are spreading rumors and lies about.

As far as I'm concerned, the actual existence of Ibn Ishaq's and Bukhari and Co.'s idea of the prophet is as sketchy as The Boogie Man. Ibn Ishaq was the first biographer and ALL FOLLOWING BIOGRAPHIES are copied from that. Similarly, the non-Arab Sibawayh was the first Arabic Grammarian (which is why he is ofetn referred to as The Father of Arabic Grammar) and ALL FOLLOWING GRAMMARS of CLASSICAL ARABIC copy his format and information. If you are willing to be honest with yourself and NOT be afraid of what you may discover, you can do a search online about Ibn Ishaq and his biography and see that his book is very, very problematic as it would be seeing that he is writing a biography of a person based on legends that he has heard. Maybe I should compile some legends and fables and write a biography of Bloody Mary.

And there are other things about the so-called Classical Arabic Grammar (other than what I had pointed out to you at free-minds) that don't quite add up when you look at the Quran and that too will be covered once the article is complete. So YES, W. Wright's grammar book lumps "Shahru Ramadan" with those examples he listed, but based on what I just said and knowing that there was no month called Ramadan BEFORE Ibn Ishaq and his biography I feel confident in ignoring that information Mr. Wright has put out.

Dear Amir Aslam

شهر رمضان: and امْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ are exactly identical phrases.

I'm wondering if you are deliberately missing what I have been asking. I asked for a phrase that is an idafa in which the SECOND NOUN[/b] is THE NAME as well as OWNER/POSSESOR OF THE FIRST NOUN!!! Do you get it now or must I reword it again?

The REASON I had made this request in the first place is because of the prevalent N2I BELIEF that Ramadan is the name of a particular month but it WAS NAMED Ramadan due to it being a month of intense heat and scorching hot winds. INITIALLY it was called this because of the quality of Ramadan and how it supposedly manifests during a particular month. So If this month is called "Shahru Ramadan" due to the QUALITY of Ramadan then Shahru Ramadan is to be translated as "Month of Intense Heat" in which this phrase is a DESCRIPTION.

BUT.... if it was ALREADY the name of this month, then WHO named this month Ramadan and WHY??? WHEN did they do it?? And how is it that this is this month's proper name when it is well known that The Arabs supposedly gave it this name due to this month being excessively hot. So here are my two questions. Is it a proper name that has always been OR has it been eventually named Ramadan as a way of describing the conditions this month of the year brings?? Second question, which type of phrase is this, a descriptive phrase or a title? It Cannot be both!!! I insist on this or post something here that says otherwise. Page 232 from William Wright's book STILL does not answer this question even if you or whoever else wish to convince yourselves that it does. Notice those examples in Wright's book are all titles or names of things, but NONE OF THEM have the second noun owning/possessing OR describing a QUALITY or CONDITION or STATE of the first noun. NONE OF THEM!!!

شهر: It is indefinite noun meaning any month of any calendar; any solar month or any lunar month. Month needs a name to be identified whether it is a month of solar year or lunar year. It is done through idafa.

Well, if you want to be technical, the so-called Islamic Calendar is a Lunar Calendar and 9 times out of ten, a new moon will not be seen by the naked eye. Especially if it's a cloudy night or overcast. Secondly, NOTHING PRIOR TO ahadith and Ibn Ishaq's biography shows or proves that Ramadan was the name of any month. All we have to go on is the word of the N2I information warehouse saying that it was. It's good enough for you but it's not good enough for me.

I have asked some key questions which have ALL gone untouched. One of them is what is so sacred or special about any given month that makes it so The Quran can be sent down during that month? Another one I asked is HOW can you Witness a month? Another question (if you wish to try and answer it) is WHY IS IT that we are told NOT TO EAT (Laa Kuloo) in 6:121 which is a non Saum verse but we are not told the same thing in the Saum verses? What's so difficult about the command Laa Kuloo in The Siyaam verses when it was so easy to say in 6:121 (non Saum verse)??

Similarly امْرَأَةُ is indefinite feminine noun, meaning any women irrespective of colour, race, size, beauty etc etc. Imran is the identification of that woman امْرَأَةُ whereby she has become an identified specific woman who is the wife of Imran.

Oh, oh, oh this is 100% wrong. You just demonstrated your lack of Arabic grammar with this statement. Imraan is a male's name FIRST OF ALL. Second of all, again I am asking YOU (Amir) which one is she???? Is she the WIFE of Imraan or is she ACTUALLY Imraan??? Your explanation is actually saying that Imraan is his own wife. :-) Do you realize this? Please dissect امْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ for me and PROVE this outlandish claim you just made.

[I can absolutely assure you that in Arabic a phrase ABSOLUTELY CANNOT be an Idafa AND a phrase of identification AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. It can only be ONE or THE OTHER!!]

There is no such thing "a phrase of identification", if you think there is, name it in Arabic what it is called by grammarians.

An Idafa in which the second noun is the name of the first noun is what I mean when I say phrase of identification. I personally use that term (and will continue to do so) to differentiate between what Wright has described on Waqas' post above from an Idafa of possession/ownership. For this I simply say Idafa when I am referring to possession/ownership. And I am standing by what I said. This construct cannot be both at the same time. If I am wrong then please prove it.

Your observation unfortunately exposes you and you accuse me!

Which observation of mine exposes me? And exposes what about me? The observation where you said امْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ is Imraan being his won wife? :-)


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

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