HOT RAMADHAN

by drsam ⌂ @, Vadodara, Gujarat, India, Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 16:57 (1559 days ago)

this article is very thought provoking.... its about ramadhan and a must read...


http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9188.msg34302#msg34302

--
DRSAM

HOT RAMADHAN

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Wednesday, July 17, 2013, 02:40 (1558 days ago) @ drsam

If you have not already done so you may also wish to read the extensive thread on saum here:
http://salaatforum.com/index.php?id=481

--
Salaam and thank you.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Jon Charles, Stourbridge, UK, Sunday, July 21, 2013, 10:44 (1554 days ago) @ Laurie Hamdani

Insightful and thought-provoking thread. One of the best debates on this forum IMHO including another on salaat. Over 4,600 views! Noted Joseph Islam asked some very probing questions. Real pity on many fronts that one doesn't see scholars like him on here any more.

This thread is worth keeping for posterity. I've certainly got it saved. Thanks for linking it again. Shalom.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Dr Kamilaa Noor, MD, India, Thursday, July 18, 2013, 04:47 (1557 days ago) @ drsam

Dear Dr Sohil Ahmad Momin (SAM),
Pls read Brother JawaidAhmad's following post :-
http://salaatforum.com/index.php?id=575

HOT RAMADHAN

by Fadil @, Yaounde-Cameroon (Africa), Sunday, July 21, 2013, 00:18 (1555 days ago) @ Dr Kamilaa Noor, MD

Dear Dr Kamilaa Noor
Thank you very much for bringing back brother Jawaid Ahmed post on Saum. Unfortunately, the brother is a life miracle to me. I really don’t understand why he keeps flipping between Tradition and Quran. Sometimes, he is vehemently against TRADITION (e.g., Salaat) and in other instances, he is a full-range TRADITION lover (e.g., Saum). This inconsistency makes me feel as if some people are here to defend what suit their desires.
The following is a quote from his post: Why do we throw out one aspect of what is traditionally understood as saum, the not eating and drinking part, and not see it as one part of a character building exercise?
I will really appreciate if brother Jawaid elaborates more on this. His point is not fully supported and convincing.
I am really learning from the forum and I am very grateful to all of you
Salamun alaykum
Fadil

HOT RAMADHAN

by jawaid ahmed @, Monday, July 22, 2013, 12:34 (1553 days ago) @ Fadil

Thank you for your comments. I sometimes write without reflecting on what I have said or how it may be understood by others.

The Quran says eat and drink until you can distinguish the twin threads, then do Saum. This has traditionally been understood as not eating and drinking or having relations with spouses until sunset. Saum means abstinence from all vices etc, and as a means of training our minds to the instructions of the Quran. I also believe the physical aspect of the Quran to abstain from eating and drinking strengthens us as well.

What I was trying to say is that in order to do the all encompassing training programme of saum/abstinence, there is no need to drop the ‘traditional’ no eating or drinking part, which is being advocated by some, we can do both.

Salat is a no brainer for me. It is clearly not the traditional rituals performed in the namaaz but systems you set up that closely follow the Quran. Birds etc do it naturally by flying using their wings and the air, we do it by understanding and putting the Quran into practice; establishing salat.

I am still looking at the idiomatic meaning to ‘eat and drink’ etc and reflecting upon the verses.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Fadil, @, Yaounde-Cameroon (Africa), Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 04:45 (1552 days ago) @ jawaid ahmed

Dear brother Jawaid,
May the All-Mighty give you long life to keep enlightening us
Thank for a very cool reply

Salamun alaikum

Fadil

HOT RAMADHAN

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Tuesday, July 23, 2013, 17:48 (1552 days ago) @ jawaid ahmed

Salaamun Aleikum Dear Jawaid Saheb,

BROTHER JAWAID: " I also believe the physical aspect of the Quran to abstain from eating and drinking strengthens us as well.

What I was trying to say is that in order to do the all encompassing training programme of saum/abstinence, there is no need to drop the ‘traditional’ no eating or drinking part, which is being advocated by some, we can do both."

Dear Brother, is there a verse in The Quran which categorically tells us to abstain from eating and drinking from sunrise to sunset? To command us not to eat and drink would simply be the imperative made negative and the imperative is made negative by simply placing the Arabic word لا at the beginning of the imperative. So in Arabic, the command/imperative to abstain from eating and drinking would be لا كلوا واشربوا - DO NOT eat and drink from sunrise until sunset.

Notice that such a command is not given in The Quran and yet such a command is clear and straightforward and leaves no room for misunderstandings. If the Momineen were meant to abstain from eating and drinking as per Quran, I can see no reason why The Quran would not just clearly say so.

Also, Surah 19, ayat 26 puts the N2I understanding of Saum into quite a pickle. In that ayat, Maryam is COMMANDED to eat and drink with the words كلي واشربي and in this ayat she is ALSO OBSERVING SIYAAM.

So, here's the problem. If eating and drinking are meant to be understood literally then obviously Saum in this ayat is not abstaining from eating and drinking. Saum in this ayat cannot be a vow of silence either because she is VERBALLY SPEAKING to other human beings and letting them know that she is observing siyaam. If eating and drinking are to be understood idiomatically then I would have to ask how and why it is idiomatically in 19/26 but it is supposedly literal in 2/187 even though the Arabic word Ta'am is NOT mentioned anywhere in this ayat. However, the two verses preceding 19/26 (verses 24 and 25) imply the provision of water and dates preceding the command to eat and drink. And I think it's important to point out that eating and drinking in 19/26 are given in the imperative voice. She is TOLD/COMMANDED/INSTRUCTED to eat and drink while she is observing Saum.

If we agree that Al-Islam is not a religion, but a DEEN, a SYSTEM of Human Rights and Social Justice, then we must cease interpreting The Quran with religious, mythological ways of thinking. Just like namaz is not unique to N2I, traditional religion, neither is fasting is unique to traditional Islam "Religion".

STATEMENT: 2/183 says As-Siyaam is observed and performed so that the Momineen attain "Taqwa"...that is, they become Muttaqee.

QUESTION 1: HOW does abstaining from eating and drinking make a person attain Taqwa?

QUESTION 2: What is your understanding of what Taqwa is?

QUESTION 3: If fasting makes a person become Muttaqee then WHY does it not work with the traditional Muslim world? Just look at the entirety of the traditional Muslim world who have been engaging in this ritual every year for the past 10-12 centuries and tell me why this ritual routinely fails to make these people Muttaqeen.

HOT RAMADHAN

by amirabbas, Iran, Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 17:03 (1551 days ago) @ Damon

Dear Damon,

upon reading verse 2:187,

2:187 (Abstinence is only for the daytime.) It has been made lawful for you to go to your wives on the night of the Abstinence. They are your garments and you are their garments - close to each other, source of mutual comfort, complementing each other, trustworthy and keepers of privacy, reason for décor, and redressers of faults. God knows that you would have deprived yourselves, feeling guilty, and so He turns to you and pardons you. So, now you may have intimate relations with them and, besides, seek all good that God has ordained for you. You may eat and drink until you can discern the white streak of light against the black streak of night at daybreak. Then complete the Abstinence until sunset. Do not have intimate relations with them while on special assignments in the Centers of the Divine System. These are the bounds set by God - so come not near violating them. Thus God explains His commands to mankind clearly, so that they understand and remain observant.

one can realize that there's a prohibition on "Eat and Drink" because the verse clearly states that we may eat and drink until a certain period and after that, we must complete the abstinence!

Although I am very open towards what you are suggesting and there are doubts on my mind as well, but, we cannot easily reject the traditional aspects because it's been already stated that, "O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Abstinence (from food, drink and sex during the daytime) is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so that you get empowered against evil."

According to Merriam-Webster, tradition can mean "the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

Certainly, you do not really think that everything traditional is absurd, religious, offensive and destructive!

I think we need evidence, from those that were before us, on how to complete "SAUM"! And if Mary did indeed eat, drink and speak while observing "SAUM", then what else can this abstinence program be apart from desisting from eating, drinking, excessive speaking, and behaviors?!

I am aware that Zoroastrians, have instruction on not to eat meat (or maybe other stuff) for certain numbers of days in a month (ROOZAH!)... and throughout the history (those before us!) there have always been instructions on similar abstinence programs whether we see them strictly religious or not!

HOT RAMADHAN

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Wednesday, July 24, 2013, 23:00 (1551 days ago) @ amirabbas

Dear Amir Abbas,

Thank You for your post. I'll respond point by point.

"one can realize that there's a prohibition on "Eat and Drink" because the verse clearly states that we may eat and drink until a certain period and after that, we must complete the abstinence!"

This is not a prohibition and I base that on two different concepts.

The first concept is the fact that Kul/Eat and Ashrab/Drink are used in The Quran idiomatically to mean enjoy something and take pleasure in it. We only need to go to the very next ayat (2/188) to see that the Arabic word Kul is used idiomatically and not literally and we can go to 2/93 to see how wishrabu is used idiomatically as well.

The concept is another fact and that is there many commands given in the Quran. Both imperative and Negative imperative. And I point you towards just one verse that so happens to have BOTH types of commands (do something and do not do something). Just have a look at 2/104.

Putting those two concepts together and looking at 2/187 I simply do not see the idea of abstaining from eating and drinking especially since The Quran could have CLEARLY given the imperative/command to NOT eat and drink OR given the command to ABSTAIN from eating and drinking.

The word Saum itself DOES NOT mean abstinence from eating and drinking. It simply abstinence/Cessation.

The idiom Al -Sayyam is derivative of the word صا م, it means he abstained or refrained from doing some thing. It can be from eating, drinking, walking or talking or from anything.

The term صا م عَنِِ ا لسير means he abstained from going on journey.

The expression صا مت ا لر يح signifies wind becoming calm or motionless.

The phrase صا م الماconnotes, water becoming still or motionless.

The dialect ا ر ض صَوَ ا م stands for dry land in which there is no water.

The word مصا م denotes the station or standing place.

So the meaning of the term Al-Sayyam or صو م is to abstain or to refrain from doing some thing which people WERE ALREADY DOING and order them to start the new training program.

Brother Amir Abbas, "Laa Kuloo Washraboo/DO NOT eat and drink" is a very, very simple command and it is also clear-cut. It leaves absolutely no room at all for misunderstanding what The Quran is instructing us to do. 36/69 and 15/1 tell us that The Quran is CLEAR. So does 27/1. To tell the Momineen to NOT eat and drink OR to ABSTAIN from eating and drinking would be VERY CLEAR.

Another thing I think you should keep in about 2/187 is that according to the traditional understanding this verse is discussing nightly relations between a man and a woman; between man and wife. In fact, according to the traditional understanding this verse starts off with discussing the nightly relations between man and woman, SHIFTS GEARS in the middle of the verse to tell the believing men and women to abstain from eating and drinking during a certain period of time and then SWITCHES GEARS AGAIN and GO BACK to the ORIGINAL subject of the verse which is nightly relations between man and woman. So we are talking about two completely different and totally unrelated topics being addressed IN ONE VERSE!! Brother, can you point out to me just ONE OTHER VERSE in The Quran that is like this? Meaning, any other verse in The Quran that starts with one topic, switches to another topic in the middle of the verse and then go back to the original topic towards the end of the verse.

Although I am very open towards what you are suggesting and there are doubts on my mind as well, but, we cannot easily reject the traditional aspects because it's been already stated that, "O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Abstinence (from food, drink and sex during the daytime) is prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so that you get empowered against evil."

Brother, notice how I had highlighted in blue color the words in parenthesis. Those words ARE NOT in the original Arabic text of The Quran. They are the words of an English Translation.

Also, I think we CAN and SHOULD reject any tradition once we've ascertained that it is not Quranic. Indeed, we are OBLIGATED to do so.

According to Merriam-Webster, tradition can mean "the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition

Certainly, you do not really think that everything traditional is absurd, religious, offensive and destructive!

I certainly think that THIS particular tradition is DEFINITELY absurd, religious, offensive and totally destructive.

It is absurd because it DOES NOT make a person a Muttaqee and has failed to do so for hundreds of years.

It is religious because all religions that I know of engage in it in one form or another. N2I isn't the only RELIGION which observes this practice.

It is offensive because innocent and unsuspecting people are being lied to and told to engage in something that is pointless and worthless. They are not allowed to examine this "tradition", question it and reject it.

And it is most certainly destructive because EVERY YEAR when these people engage in this ritual, they become irritable and short tempered. The Non Muslim foreign workers from South Asia in the oil rich countries of Saudi Arabia, The U.A.E. and Bahrain are lodging their complaints YET AGAIN just like they do every year about the Muslims SLACKING OFF in their work duties and how the South Asian's workloads double and triple because they have to pick up the slack. Just three years ago, an Arab Muslim by the name of Muhammad was working on my car while he was fasting and it was in the summer time so it was very hot and humid. He was very, very, VERY irritable, moody and short tempered. AND on top of that, he did a bad job at fixing my brakes and FORGOT to put brake grease on them. Maybe his mind was occupied with other thoughts. ;-)

I think we need evidence, from those that were before us, on how to complete "SAUM"! And if Mary did indeed eat, drink and speak while observing "SAUM", then what else can this abstinence program be apart from desisting from eating, drinking, excessive speaking, and behaviors?!

I personally do not feel that we need evidence from anyone, whether before us or after us. I am quite content to go directly to the source (The Quran) to gain an understanding of Saum and what it entrails. At the very least, you are able to acknowledge and admit that Saum in 19/26 cannot be abstaining from eating and drinking or a vow of silence. So by that admission now we know what Saum IS NOT. ;-)

I am aware that Zoroastrians, have instruction on not to eat meat (or maybe other stuff) for certain numbers of days in a month (ROOZAH!)... and throughout the history (those before us!) there have always been instructions on similar abstinence programs whether we see them strictly religious or not!

That is the mechanics of RELIGION. Islam is not a religion and The Quran is not a book of Religion.

HOT RAMADHAN

by jawaid ahmed,uk @, Thursday, July 25, 2013, 08:52 (1550 days ago) @ Damon

2:187 ...... and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast [saum] Till the night appears;........

Dear brother Damon,

I am going to sleep until 6 am. I do not have to say that I am not sleeping in order for you to know that I will be awake after 6am.

It does not have to say ‘do not eat during daylight hours’ because it has already said ‘eat and drink UNTIL...’ which means not to eat after the twin threads appear to you.

Now we have the metaphorical meaning of eating and drinking, reading and studying the Quran [manna from heaven, rivers for Moses, table spread for Jesus etc]. When this is done we should address the problems we are facing. When we understand what the Quran asks us to do we then get off our proverbial behinds and do something about it until the problems are solved [the sunset, the end of the problem].

HOT RAMADHAN

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Thursday, July 25, 2013, 14:18 (1550 days ago) @ jawaid ahmed,uk

Dear Brother Jawaid, Thank You For Your Reply.

It does not have to say ‘do not eat during daylight hours’ because it has already said ‘eat and drink UNTIL...’ which means not to eat after the twin threads appear to you.

Brother, I'm afraid that it DOES have to say "DO NOT eat and drink during the day" OR "REFRAIN/ABSTAIN/CEASE from eating and drinking during the day".

If you really insist that 2/187 is to be understood in the manner that you do understand it, then I must insist that you or someone else here produce just one verse from The Quran that starts with one topic, goes into a totally different and unrelated topic in the middle of the verse and then goes back to the original topic towards the end of the verse because that is what you are saying 2/187 does. Your belief is that 2/187 begins with the topic of intimacy between a man and a woman, then it tells the believers to fast in the middle of the verse and then goes back to talking about intimacy between a man and a woman at the end of the verse. This is very strange for me.

As far as I can tell, EVERY AYAT in The Quran address one thing from beginning to end. I have yet to see any verse which addresses two or more unrelated topics. Are you saying that out of more than 6,000 verses of The Quran only 2/187 fits this pattern? Why only one verse out of well over 6,000? And how unclear would it be for ANY VERSE of The Quran to address two or more totally unrelated topics? How does eating and drinking or not eating and drinking fit in the context of nightly relations between a man and a woman? And just so I am clear, I do not believe 2/187 is addressing intimate relations between a man and a woman either, I am merely pointing out the wholes in the N2I understanding.

Now we have the metaphorical meaning of eating and drinking, reading and studying the Quran [manna from heaven, rivers for Moses, table spread for Jesus etc]. When this is done we should address the problems we are facing. When we understand what the Quran asks us to do we then get off our proverbial behinds and do something about it until the problems are solved [the sunset, the end of the problem].

The metaphorical meaning of eating and drinking in 2/187 can ONLY be metaphorical. It cannot be literal. The Arabic word for food, which is Ta'am, is not even mentioned in this verse although it is mentioned elsewhere in The Quran.

Again, I feel I should reiterate that the COMMAND to not eat and drink or refrain from eating and drinking could have very, very easily been given in The Quran. Very easily. And such a command would be 100% clear and leave no room whatsoever for misunderstandings or misinterpretations. If Such a clear and straightforward command was given in the Quran, you and I would not be able to have this conversation as to whether or not this is what The Quran is ordering us to do.

I partly agree with you that we are to get off our rear ends and do something about the darkness we are living in (Al-Layl) and implement The Quranic program to end that "Darkness" and bring about the "Dawn" of change (Al-Fajr).

I am going to sleep until 6 am. I do not have to say that I am not sleeping in order for you to know that I will be awake after 6am.

If you really believe The Quran is telling you to literally eat food and drink liquids for a certain period of time, then please explain 19/26 to me. I am asking for an explanation of 19/26 as well as any other verses of The Quran which have the same pattern of your perceived understanding of 2/187; i.e. a verse which talks about two totally different and unrelated subjects.

HOT RAMADHAN

by amirabbas, Iran, Thursday, July 25, 2013, 16:03 (1550 days ago) @ Damon

Dear brother,

First of all, the majority of the so-called Muslims (with a minority of them that actually abstain from drinking and eating), are not aware of the Qur'an! So we cannot expect them to adopt themselves to a Qur'anic frame by practicing abstinence in this period of time! For them, not eating and drinking is a mere worship that, according to hadiths, will bring them rewards and erase their sins!

Please consider that, a Qur'anic order is for those who already study the Qur'an and try to understand it and respect every other order in it! Not for those who blindly follow Mullahs, their desires, their Imams, forefathers, and etc. etc.!

Secondly, i believe the direct command for NOT eating and drinking would be out of place since it will actually turn the program into a mere ritual of not drinking and eating ONLY!

The purpose of this program is to become righteous and powerful[لعلكم تتقون], and to develop a stronger character when one has already attained a good knowledge of the Qur'an. For instance, i am aware of a certain weakness in my character, so, this abstinence program is a good opportunity for me to focus on that weakness and try to absolve it. But, in order for me to become serious about it, i first have to abstain from drinking and eating. We may conclude that not eating and drinking, abstinence from sex or other worldly desires, is a pre-requisite for embarking on a higher purpose/mission which is building a stronger character according to the Qur'an.

In ancient times, too, some people rejected their comforts in order to attain higher goals. My point is that, we always need the physical training for character building. A man good in theory, cannot be a good performer unless one begins to really challenge himself in order to see their true merit!

In my opinion, it's not fair to reject the physical training here only because some N2I folks are ignorant and not aware of the Qur'an. They will always be that way unless they change themselves and study the Qur'an!

I wish you can offer a better practice for this period! I gave up reading Namaz because i found a better argument and could accept it with heart. But regarding what you are suggesting, i am in doubt; and perhaps i need to study more and wait more!

HOT RAMADHAN

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Thursday, July 25, 2013, 19:16 (1550 days ago) @ amirabbas

Dear Brother Amir Abbas, Thank You for your thought provoking post. I would like to address your points one by one.

First of all, the majority of the so-called Muslims (with a minority of them that actually abstain from drinking and eating), are not aware of the Qur'an! So we cannot expect them to adopt themselves to a Qur'anic frame by practicing abstinence in this period of time! For them, not eating and drinking is a mere worship that, according to hadiths, will bring them rewards and erase their sins!

I think this point is misguided because the majority of so-called Muslims "CLAIM" that they get their fasting ritual from The Quran. Specifically ayaat 2/183 through 2/187. They claim that they get their understanding of Siyaam from The Quran which does, in fact, mention something called As-Siyaam. BUT, according to The Quran Surah 2, ayat 183 the observation of Saum makes a person become a MUTTAQEE! But we look at the so-called Muslim world who have been engaging in this ritual for hundred of years and see that they are far, far , far from being Muttaqeen. It has not made them Muttaqeen even though they've had hundreds of years to prove that their ritual makes them Muttaqee. If it hasn't been working for the past 2,000 years then I must acknowledge that it NEVER will. So either The Quran was wrong and lied when it said that As-Siyaam will make one a Muttaqee or the so-called Muslims are misinterpreting and misunderstanding those ayaat which talk about Saum. So which one is it Brother? Is The Quran false or is the N2I understanding and interpretation false? Please tell me.

Please consider that, a Qur'anic order is for those who already study the Qur'an and try to understand it and respect every other order in it! Not for those who blindly follow Mullahs, their desires, their Imams, forefathers, and etc. etc.!=

The response I had given above applies to this statement as well. Regardless if they actually follow and obey The Quran or not, the fact remains that they get THEIR IDEA OF SAUM from ayaat 2/183-2/187 of THE QURAN. If they at least made the claim or admitted that they are getting their idea of Saum from somewhere else, then I would not have an argument to make and we probably would not be having this discussion.

Secondly, i believe the direct command for NOT eating and drinking would be out of place since it will actually turn the program into a mere ritual of not drinking and eating ONLY!

First of all, not eating and drinking IS a mere RITUAL. Specifically a RELIGIOUS ritual. Secondly, I have to say it again. There many, many, MANY ayaat in The Quran in which a direct command is given to either do something or not do something. This is how The Quran expresses it's laws and ordinances; by commanding us to do certain things and commanding us to not do certain things. If The Quran wanted to command The Momineen to not eat and drink then the command would have been given for that just like the countless other commands we have in The Quran.

The purpose of this program is to become righteous and powerful[لعلكم تتقون], and to develop a stronger character when one has already attained a good knowledge of the Qur'an.

I agree. The purpose of SAUM is to guide a person towards becoming a Muttaqee; i.e. more mindful of The Laws and Ordinances of The Quran. So far we agree.

For instance, i am aware of a certain weakness in my character, so, this abstinence program is a good opportunity for me to focus on that weakness and try to absolve it.

This is where I have to disagree for two very important reasons;

1). If you are aware of a character flaw that you have, HOW can not eating and drinking correct that character flaw? This is not a rhetorical question. I am asking that you please answer it and explain how so. So if your character flaw is that you habitually throw rocks at pigeons and geese and killing them. HOW would not eating and drinking correct that unrighteous practice/habit of yours? How? You do not need to stop eating and drinking to correct that behavior, you need to STOP throwing rocks at those harmless and beautiful animals that are doing you no wrong. Plain and Simple.

What you can do to help you break that habit is you can perform Saum and 'itekaf by secluding yourself for a little while so you can EDUCATE YOURSELF on the damage you are doing to the eco-system by killing pigeons and geese. You can also learn the many values these creatures have such as pigeons eating the food that we dispose of as litter. They also eat seeds, one of their favorites is weed seeds and weeds are something all of us who have gardens detest. Even to this day pigeons can still be used as messenger birds to deliver letters and medicines in those places that lack travel technologies such as trains, trucks or boats.

Geese are truly beautiful and amazing creatures. Next fall when you see geese heading south for the winter... flying along in V formation...you might consider what science has discovered as to why they fly that way: As each bird flaps its wings, it creates an uplift for the bird immediately following. By flying in V formation the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range, than if each bird flew on its own. BEAUTIFUL!!!!

when a goose gets sick or is wounded by gunshots, and falls out of formation, two other geese fall out with that goose and follow it down to lend help and protection. They stay with the fallen goose until it is able to fly or until it dies, and only then do they launch out on their own, or with another formation to catch up with their group.
If we have the sense of a goose, we will stand by each other like that.

Once you have properly educated yourself through the training program of Saum, not only should you cease in harming these creatures, but you must educate others about these creatures and implore them to not harm them ass well. By doing this, what you are doing now is establishing JUSTICE. You are now acting in a just manner yourself and you are standing up for justice in defense of the defenseless just as The Quran tells us to do. This is what Saum is. Going through an INTENSIVE study session of The Quran with the goal of UNDERSTANDING it's Laws and then attempting to IMPLEMENT those very laws in your society. When we have hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of people engaging in this program which is the true and correct Quranic program of Saum, it is THEN that we can start to see Millati Ibraheem develop. A "SYSTEM" of Justice will emerge to replace the present system of injustice.

2) Okay, the second reason I disagree with your point above is because if you know you have a character flaw, you should seek to correct yourself as soon as you realize and acknowledge the character flaw. Why wait until a certain time of year to work on your character and correct your behavior? How does that even make sense? The present N2I Ramadaan is scheduled to end in two weeks. So, by your understanding, if you discover this coming September that you have a character flaw in which you like to cheat and steal from others, are you going to wait until next year for the N2I ritual to roll back around before you correct yourself? So if that's the case, human beings will continue to be victimized by you until August of 2014. Is this how you understand The Quran Brother? Is this what The Quran tells us to do?

But, in order for me to become serious about it, i first have to abstain from drinking and eating.

Brother if you are REALLY SERIOUS about it, you CORRECT it. Plain and Simple. If I mistreat my wife and have relations with other women behind her back and I wish to amend that behavior, what does not eating and drinking have to do with that? How does not eating and drinking even fit within this scenario? NO!!! If I am REALLY serious about not mistreating my wife, then I STOP MISTREATING MY WIFE! I, you or anyone else do not need to refrain from eating and drinking in order to cease mistreatment of our spouses. Stop mistreating your spouse and that is all there is to it.

We may conclude that not eating and drinking, abstinence from sex or other worldly desires, is a pre-requisite for embarking on a higher purpose/mission which is building a stronger character according to the Qur'an.

Brother, I have not reached THAT conclusion at all. In fact, I am still asking you HOW this builds up character but at the same time the N2I world has the WORST character of all people on this planet? If you want to embark on a higher purpose (whatever it may be), then go ahead and embark on that higher purpose.

In ancient times, too, some people rejected their comforts in order to attain higher goals. My point is that, we always need the physical training for character building. A man good in theory, cannot be a good performer unless one begins to really challenge himself in order to see their true merit!

Brother what you are doing now is clutching at straws. So far, you have not been able to go into The Quran to defend and justify the N2I ritual of fasting. But you still wish to justify your reason for practicing this ritual by going to ideas and religions that have nothing to do with The Quran. What people have done in ancient times is NOT the criteria we should go by. If we are upholders of The Quran then The Quran must be our criteria. As far as your physical training aspect, what do you think of Aaron Hernandez? Just google his name and you'll see what I am talking about. A TRULY FIT, well conditioned physical specimen. As an athlete, his regimen also dictates that he makes "EDIBLE SACRIFICES" and his physical stature shows the results of those sacrifices and limitations of his eating habits. But look up his history from when he was still playing for The Florida Gators and look at the situation he is in now. Look up what his ex-team mates are saying about him and you tell me what positive impacts his physical training has had on his character.

In my opinion, it's not fair to reject the physical training here only because some N2I folks are ignorant and not aware of the Qur'an. They will always be that way unless they change themselves and study the Qur'an!

Brother, I am not rejecting the N2I ritual of fasting because of ignorant N2I people. I reject it because it is not in The Quran. If the entire worlds population engaged in this ritual I would still reject it as long as I ascertain that it is not in The Quran.

I wish you can offer a better practice for this period! I gave up reading Namaz because i found a better argument and could accept it with heart. But regarding what you are suggesting, i am in doubt; and perhaps i need to study more and wait more!

My duty is not to make you accept the information I am offering you. My only duty is to share the results of my own research and studying. What you do with the information I am sharing is out of my control. You are free to accept or reject. My best advice is to NOT rely on the arguments of me, Dr. Shabbir or anyone else. Do some serious research into this issue and ask yourself some very serious and difficult questions and most importantly....BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF!!

I sincerely hope you can get around to answering all of the questions I have asked you. Please answer and address them one by one if you would be so kind.

Salaam,
Damon.

HOT RAMADHAN

by amirabbas, Iran, Friday, July 26, 2013, 07:20 (1549 days ago) @ Damon

I am aware that mere religious rituals and acts only gratify our egos and will eventually lead to self-righteousness and false pride.

I keep questioning myself if i am doing the right thing or not!

What i have in front of my eyes is the interpretation of the Qur'an which has laid emphasis on not eating and drinking and unfortunately, i am not aware of the Arabic grammar!

I asked you on the other forum too- please write a full and detailed article and share all your findings in this regard.

Also, I have read the critique of Qamar Zaman's article on 'SAUM' in the following link and it's really a good critique: http://salaatforum.com/index.php?id=2551

HOT RAMADHAN

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Friday, July 26, 2013, 16:24 (1549 days ago) @ amirabbas

Dear AmirAbbas, Saheb, Salaam Aleikum.

Thank You for your post.

If you do not know Arabic and are placing all of your trust in the translations and interpretations, you are limiting yourself and your own Quranic studies. If you have the opportunity to learn Quranic Arabic, I would highly recommend that you do so.

I guess I can always take the time to put my thoughts and research into article format. I'm sure you know as well as I do that writing a detailed oriented article can be time consuming so it will not be delivered overnight, but I'll certainly do as you request.

As far as reading a "CRITIQUE" of Dr. Qamar's book, why read a critique of a work when you have the opportunity to read the original work yourself and "critique" it yourself? I have read Dr. Qamar's book and I have read enough of the "critique" you are referring to to make me realize that the author of that critique either totally did not grasp the ideas put forth in the work in question or he has issues of honesty, or both.

It is my sincere and humble advice that you read Dr. Qamar's article yourself and make your own conclusions about it instead of going by someone else's conclusions.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Wazir @, Toronto, Friday, July 26, 2013, 23:27 (1549 days ago) @ Damon

I always wonder how a Muslim on space station will fast or perform Namaz, where there is no concept of day and night, given one has to follow local time of place where he is?

HOT RAMADHAN

by Noman Waseem, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 11:55 (1544 days ago) @ Damon

Dear Br Damon,

I have found your posts rather interesting for the opportunity they provide for introspection. I had written what was meant to be a constructive critique of your original post (or the first one I encountered anyway), but I should have posted it as a direct reply to one of your comments so you would see it. So in case you missed it, here it is:

http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/page/1/md/read/id/314123119191980

-------------------

Now, I want to follow up with a couple of points starting with the following (this is a long one for sure). I did some digging on the history of the word Ramadan, and found somethings that I found interesting (if you aren't already aware of). First, from Wikipedia:

"Origin of the word Ramadan

Ramadan, as a name for the month, is of Muslim origin. However, prior to Islam's exclusion of intercalary days from its calendar, the name of this month was Natiq and, due to the intercalary days added, always occurred in the warm season.[36]"

I should mention that the source for this comes from an Ahmadiyya website, so take it for what it's worth. I also considered this reply to a question about the Hijri calender not making sense on Yahoo Answers:

"the lunar islamic year IS NOT INTENDED to be in coincidence with solar year , it is less 11 day than the solar year and that make it move round it every 33 year , so that ramadan and haj are not always in either summer or winter according to your place in this earth , this a sort of mercy from god otherwise some muslim nations will have ramadan in the winter all the time others in summer all the time, ramadan yes mean the very hot month and this name was given to it before the islam , but i have to add to u that arabs was used to shift the months as they wish for example they was used to exchange rajab with other months in the year but islam forbidden shifting and stabilized the lunar year as it is now , what is your objection ?"

I can't speak to the reliability of the sources, but they do agree with each other about this pre-Islamic month of Natiq that happened to always fall on summer because the pre-Islamic Arabs used to add 11 days to the lunar calendar to affix it to the solar calendar apparently. If it's true, then this at least provides a partial explaination for why Ramadan would refer to something hot or scorching.

-------------------

My second point comes from verse 2:183:

2:183 (Creating an ideal society requires discipline and self-restraint among the individuals.) O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Abstinence (from sex and free indulgence in food and drink during the daytime) is prescribed for you AS IT WAS PRESCRIBED FOR THOSE BEFORE YOU so that you get empowered against evil.

And now consider this:

"The "acceptable fast" is discussed in the biblical Book of Isaiah, chapter 58:6–7. In this chapter, the nation of Israel is rebuked for their fasting, and given this exhortation:

(verse 6) “Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
(7) Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?"

This passage indicates that the acceptable fast is not merely abstinence from food or water, but a decision to fully obey God's commands to care for the poor and oppressed." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Christianity

and this:

"The third purpose in fasting is commemorative gratitude. Since food and drink are corporeal needs, abstinence from them serves to provide a unique opportunity for focus on the spiritual. Indeed, the Midrash explains that fasting can potentially elevate one to the exalted level of the Mal'achay HaShareyt (ministering angels) (Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, 46). This dedication is considered appropriate gratitude to God for providing salvation. Additionally, by refraining from such basic physical indulgence, one can more greatly appreciate the dependence of humanity on God, leading to appreciation of God's beneficence in sustaining His creations." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Judaism

You can perhaps guess what my point is. Applying Occam's Razor here, it is diffcult for me to accept your rather exotic explanations for what is meant by 2:183. Couldn't it simply mean that God had enjoined upon us to fast, as He had for our believing ancestors (when they originally received and followed God's message)?

-------------------

My third point is that yes, Ramadan is in fact the name of a lunar month, as it is a replacement for the month named Natiq mentioned above. But perhaps that is precisely the point: it replaced the word Natiq. Why do so? Why was Natiq not used directly in the Qur'an to become Shahru Natiq? I mean a perfectly good word for the name of this month already existed. Why invent a new one? Couldn't it be that, to the believers, it was meant to symbolize something far more than merely the month named Ramadan. That it was perhaps meant to be a month-long training period for believers to practice abstinence, as had been practiced by believers before?

You have repeatedly mentioned that this dictionary or that reference does not mention that Ramadan is a proper noun. While I can't comment on the validity of the sources you might have used, or your process of source selection (even if I knew what they were), please consider this: is it possible that you are referencing sources from, perhaps western, authors who, in ignorance of the above mentioned understanding, have reduced Ramadan down to the month, just as Muslims today have reduced Ramadan down to a set of rituals to be followed for a 30 day period? It's like reducing Christmas down to a 12 day shopping spree. Ramadan is more than the month. It is meant to be a well-recognized event for all believers that has a name: Ramadan. Couldn't it, then, refer to both the month and the event?

-------------------

Now, I've gone to great lengths in my life to free myself from the chains of senseless culture and tradition, so I don't question your intentions. However, following my question about whether we would eat pork even if it were deemed senseless to prohibit doing so from a purely scientific perspective, there is a caveat: the Qur'an is loaded with clear commands that even a reasonable, educated person could not completely confirm with present knowledge.
Do we then consider it senseless and grounds for assuming that there is probably some grammatical/linguistic misunderstanding of the original Arabic? Why is a human only fully mature at age 40? Why not 41? Why is a baby fully dependant on their mother for 30 months? Why not 25 or 40? Why is there four months of grace for men and women who are thinking of divorcing their spouse? Why not 5 or 6 months? At what point do we accept that God knows and we do not know? That where our knowledge ends, we should trust that God ordains on us to do what is beneficial for us?

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

Finally, you find fasting to be ritualistic. I have been fasting (well practicing abstinence) almost throughout so far. I mostly do computer programming in an air conditioned room so it is easy for me to do the full fast now that I'm several weeks in, though someone engaged in more physically demanding work would benefit more from the "disciplined eating and drinking" route. But that's hardly the full story of course. I have done my level best to remind myself of the Qur'anic message and actively implement them. It has helped me to not engage in time-wasting or addictive activities, and made me more disciplined at work. I missed yesterday's fast and immediately caught myself getting lazy with ease again. "How ungrateful" I thought. Fasting has been done for mellenia and reflecting on my personal experience, I can only assume that it has helped those who sincerely wanted to change themselves for the better. Perhaps the seemingly ritualistic act of fasting is meant to bind us temporally with our ancestors so we don't find ourselves getting too proud of our modernity all of a sudden. A ritual is as ritual does. So perhaps what we need to do is to humbly remind ourselves that ultimately it is about intentions, and not our physical acts, that are important.

HOT RAMADHAN

by amirabbas, Iran, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 16:03 (1544 days ago) @ Noman Waseem

Excellent!

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

HOT RAMADHAN

by Hello Name, Hello, Friday, August 02, 2013, 01:29 (1542 days ago) @ amirabbas

Excellent!

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

HOT RAMADHAN

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Friday, August 02, 2013, 16:26 (1542 days ago) @ Hello Name

Welcome to the forum. Per our policy, kindly post an actual name and location. Thank you!

--
Salaam and thank you.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Thursday, July 25, 2013, 15:27 (1550 days ago) @ drsam

This subject always generates a lot of discussion. I am also still learning and for the past two years have chosen NOT to participate in the fasting of food and drink based on my own understanding of this subject. I greatly appreciate everyone's respectful tones and substantiation of their point of view. Thank you.

--
Salaam and thank you.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Hasan | hasansurti1952@yahoo.com @, India, Friday, July 26, 2013, 16:51 (1549 days ago) @ Laurie Hamdani

Mr jawaidAhmad's understanding is 100% Quranic regarding Sawm.

HOT RAMADHAN

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Friday, July 26, 2013, 21:49 (1549 days ago) @ Hasan | hasansurti1952@yahoo.com

Salaam Aleikum Hasan,

Can you please tell us exactly HOW Jawaid Bhai's understanding is 100% Quranic? Making a statement without trying to prove and validate that statement can only derail our discussion rather than make it progressive.

I am asking if you can go into The Quran and analyze the ayaat Linguistically and Grammatically to demonstrate how Brother Jawaid's understanding is 100% Quranic and demonstrate how everyone else's understanding is UnQuranic. I'm afraid we cannot just accept your statement at face value.

Thank You and Salaam,
Damon.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Hasan | hasansurti1952@yahoo.com @, India, Saturday, July 27, 2013, 19:02 (1548 days ago) @ Damon

Pls Ponder 3 Words FAJR, SIYAAMA & LAIL in 2:187

Minal "FAJR" Summa Atimmus "SIYAAMA" Ilal "LAIL" !!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Saturday, July 27, 2013, 21:43 (1548 days ago) @ Hasan | hasansurti1952@yahoo.com

Please EXPLAIN these concepts and HOW they are telling us to abstain from eating and drinking. Are you able to do this?

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Hasan | hasansurti1952@yahoo .com @, Mumbai, India., Sunday, July 28, 2013, 16:01 (1547 days ago) @ Damon

should we be 'La-Allahum Yattquun' only from 'Minal Fajr' TILL 'Lail' ??
No dear Damon !!
Said duration is only for 'Wash Rabu' !!
Read 02:187 again dear.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Monday, July 29, 2013, 18:13 (1546 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!!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Waqas ⌂ @, uk, Monday, July 29, 2013, 23:09 (1546 days ago) @ Damon

peace Hasan, Damon, all,

Damon, even if "shahru ramadana" does not mean "month of Ramadan" you did not state how this disproves a meaning of sawm/abstinence later on in the verses.

Background info: discussion on construction http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12381.50


Secondly, you ask why Mariam is undergoing sawm yet possibly eating/drinking, and made a statement. The word "sawm" basically means abstinence, it is not necessarily a fast of food/drink. In this case it seems to be an abstinence from speaking. Is making a statement of non-speech to let others know why one is not speaking classed as speech? Perhaps. Certainly it is use of word or words, but is it intensive verb form 2 ukallima? I think this point could be debated.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 01:50 (1545 days ago) @ Waqas

Peace Waqas,

Please refer to all of my prior posts in this thread.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 03:17 (1545 days ago) @ Waqas

In this case it seems to be an abstinence from speaking. Is making a statement of non-speech to let others know why one is not speaking classed as speech? Perhaps. Certainly it is use of word or words, but is it intensive verb form 2 ukallima? I think this point could be debated.

Of course it can be debated because it is completely absurd. I mean no offense when I say this. In his commentary of The Quran, Muhammad Asad gives this explanation of this verse as pertaining to the imperative "Qulee":

Lit., "say" - but since actual speech would contradict what follows, the "saying" implies here a communication by gestures.

With all due respects to the late Allamah Muhammad Asad, I have to say this is a completely absurd explanation.

First of all, Maryam is commanded to VERBALLY "Say". There IS NO other connotation of Qul and Qulee other than a VERBAL form of communication.

Second of all....Seriously; Come on. Tomorrow Morning I would like for you to tell EVERYONE you come across that you are abstaining from speaking, but DO NOT tell them this verbally. Tell them this through gestures and a game of Charades. And it MUST be what is said in 19/26; "I have made vowed to Ar-Rahmaan an act of Sawm, so I will not speak to anyone today". THIS is what you must convey through a series of gestures. All I can say is good luck with that.

Now, I should thank you for bringing up the fact that أُكَلِّمَ is in the 2nd, INTENSIVE form of the verb. This actually proves my case further that she is VERBALLY communicating to other people but she is letting them know that she WILL NOT engage in involved or lengthy talk or conversation. The 2nd verb form signifies something being done REPEATEDLY and/or INTENSELY. Maryam is Verbally communicating just enough to let others know that she will not be able to engage in any sort of lengthy or involved conversation, debate or discussion today.

And before anyone here tries to make the claim that كلم is the only term used to signify the speech of human beings, we should know that there are other Arabic words used to signify the speech or conversation of human beings such as حاورت , فصح and النطق

I find the Arabic root نطق to be very interesting as far as our discussion is concerned because based upon my studies نطق means the opposite of كلم. Where as كلم means lengthy, repeated or heavily involved talk, نطق means "small talk" or "utterance". It also means to pronounce. The Arabic word NuTq means word, saying and utterance among other things while Kallam means talking, speaking, conversation, discussion, debate among other things. The important thing to remember is that the ideas of discussion, debate and lengthy conversation DO NOT apply to NuTq but THEY DO apply to Kallam.

So the imperative to Maryam of "Qulee" can fit into the category of a mere utterance or very small talk (NuTq), where as the conversation between she and a certain Rasool in 19:18-21 fits more into the category of Kallam.

In 19:26 she is not told to refrain from small and simple utterances. Her telling people that she is not going to engage in any lengthy conversations can be said in very few words. Also, she is still able to make small utterances such as Good Morning, Thank You, Excuse Me Please, I am on my way to someplace important so I cannot stay and chat and Have A Good Night, etc.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Waqas ⌂ @, UK, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 14:43 (1544 days ago) @ Damon

peace Damon, all,

I'm not sure what you are referring to in your first reply. No matter.

Reply 2: Thanks for clarifying that in your view, 19:26 is about a sawm/abstinence from speech. That is also my view.


As I said prior, sawm simply means abstinence. The word itself does not tell us from what, context does that.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 02:44 (1545 days ago) @ Damon

In response to Damon's post, the following is from an Arabic linguist.


This is simply a play with words and unfounded.

أَلإضَافَةُ

" [literally: annexation, addition, or attachment] Possessive/Relative Phrase-"the Construct"

It is a co-relation between two nouns. In this phrase the idea of a noun is determined or defined by another.

It is of two kinds:

(1) Relating to meaning: It is that the Mudaf is not an adjective annexed to a word it governs. The benefit of this idahfa is the definition of mudaf if it is annexed to a definite noun. The benefit is specification if it is annexed to an indefinite noun.
(2) Literal: It is that the Mudhaf is an adjective annexed to a word it governs in estimation of separation between words.

شهر رمضان: It is a Relative Phrase. The first noun is definite because of the second noun which is the Proper name of a month of lunar calendar. The first noun is the subject of sentence; "The month of Ramazan" and the following sentence is its predicate. " The month of Ramadan is the month during which the Qur'aan was compositely; flash descended."

No Arab except for someone without knowledge will say: الشهر اسمه رمضان. Translation: The Month Whose Name Is Ramadaan. Arabs hate using redundant words; شهر رمضان is the succinct expression."

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 19:18 (1545 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

Mr. Amir Aslam, your entire post is invalid for two very important reasons

First reason is that the Idafa of material (Annexer/Annexed) is covered in more than Arabic Grammar book. It is not a mere play of words as you wish to believe. It is an actual rule of Arabic Grammar which you cannot refute with a mere statement of rejection. You will need to provide an Arabic Grammar source which refutes this grammatical construct or proves that it is a bogus rule. You merely say that you got your information from An Arab Linguist. Who is this Arab Linguist? Where is he or she? What Grammar books has he or she written that I can verify? What school or university is he or she an Arabic Linguistic professor of? I have said it to Mr. Hasan and I am repeating it to you; no one here can logically accept your information at face value. Your information, just like everything else, must be researched and verified as per 17:36

شهر رمضان: It is a Relative Phrase. The first noun is definite because of the second noun which is the Proper name of a month of lunar calendar.

I most thoroughly disagree with this unproven assertion; specifically the part that is underlined and in bold. NONE OF THE ARABIC DICTIONARIES/LEXICONS state that the word Ramadan is a proper name. And if it is a proper name the dictionaries could have and would have stated so just like they state the names Musa, Maryam, Zazharia, etc. are PROPER NAMES. So what, did THEY ALL somehow MISS this one?

The first noun is the subject of sentence; "The month of Ramazan" and the following sentence is its predicate.

Well, I already said this, so your Arab Linguist friend is not saying anything I did not already cover.

No Arab except for someone without knowledge will say: الشهر اسمه رمضان. Translation: The Month Whose Name Is Ramadaan. Arabs hate using redundant words; شهر رمضان is the succinct expression

Reading these words of yours make it painfully obvious to me that you are not reading my arguments OR you lack sufficient Arabic knowledge to understand, accept or reject my arguments.

الشهر اسمه رمضان IS NOT and indeed CANNOT be a redundancy because the phrase شهر رمضان IS NOT and again CANNOT be a phrase in which the second noun (Ramadan) is THE PROPER NAME of the first noun (Shahru). It is either an idafa of description or a phrase indicating the PROPER NAME of something. It absolutely, 100% CANNOT be both. It can ONLY be one or the other, so which one is it? ALSO the damma above the last letter in the word Shahru lets us know that something is being DESCRIBED and NOT giving the proper name of something. Your entire argument is weak and invalid and only shows your lack of Arabic Grammatical knowledge.

I can make it a little easier for you. If I do not know the name of a particular month (or anything for that matter), how would you tell me the name of that month in Arabic? If I ask you "What is The name of the 4th month of the so-called Islamic Calendar?", how would you inform me about its name?

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by jawaid ahmed, uk @, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 07:29 (1544 days ago) @ Damon

Please accept my ignorance of Arabic grammar but a reputable source has this on nouns:-

http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=185

PN – genitive proper noun → Ramadan

N – nominative masculine noun- shahru

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 11:57 (1544 days ago) @ Damon

Sorry Damon but I find your tone arrogant and patronizing. Here is an example:

"Reading these words of yours make it painfully obvious to me that you are not reading my arguments OR you lack sufficient Arabic knowledge to understand, accept or reject my arguments."

Please can you refrain.

Do you not see that you are using the same sources OUTSIDE THE QURAN to make your case and in other posts you suggest that you only follow the Quran?

Where are the grammar rules in the Quran Damon?

Do you not know that these rules were formalized much later?

Do you not see that your method is inconsistent where it argues from grammar books written by human hands, the same hands that wrote hadith mind you! and then you reject dictionaries where the meaning of 'Ramazan' is known to be a calendar month?

With regarding your comment -

"I can make it a little easier for you. If I do not know the name of a particular month (or anything for that matter), how would you tell me the name of that month in Arabic? If I ask you "What is The name of the 4th month of the so-called Islamic Calendar?", how would you inform me about its name? "

This is the problem with your method Damon. The QURAN DID NOT TEACH ARABIC but assumed that the Arabs KNEW the language. So I get the meaning of Ramadan from the same sources of the language that you are getting your 'grammar rules' from and spoken language.

Now of course you may not accept this. Why would you as I can imagine what is at stake for you!? But I would rather let the readers decide the erroneous, highly problematic method that you use.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 14:17 (1545 days ago) @ Damon

I made a post here yesterday. Can I ask why my post is not appearing? Is it being rejected by the moderators? If so, what is the reason?

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 16:37 (1545 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

Patience! Moderators have many duties and obligations beyond only moderating :-)

--
Salaam and thank you.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 17:07 (1545 days ago) @ Laurie Hamdani

So so sorry Laurie, please forgive me for my impatience. I thought (Incorrectly) that I had said something wrong and that is why post was rejected.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 14:20 (1545 days ago) @ Damon

Hello Damon,

You also asked for an example:

امْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ Possessive phrase: first noun means a woman; now it means The Wife of Imran.

Thank you

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Tuesday, July 30, 2013, 19:37 (1545 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

This DOES NOT answer my request. You missed it entirely.

مْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ is an idafa construct showing a relationship of possession. This construct IS NOT one in which the second noun ('Imraan) is the PROPER NAME of the first noun (Maraa'a). You missed it entirely.

The traditional belief is that the phrase "Shahru Ramadaan" literally means "The Month of Ramadaan" (thus, an idafa) while at the same time believing that Ramadaan is the proper name of Shahr in this very same phrase (thus, a phrase of identity). I'm trying my best to get you to understand that this phrase CANNOT BE BOTH an idafa AND a phrase of identification. 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!!

You obviously believe the phrase "Shahru Ramadan" is an idafa (because of the word OF in the translation of this phrase) as well being a phrase of identification otherwise you wouldn't be here defending that belief. So I'm going to repeat my challenge which you have failed to meet:

Show me a phrase either from The Quran or An Arabic Grammar Book or A Written Arabic Text or A Spoken Arabic Text that is an Idafa AS WELL AS a phrase of identity at the same time. You will never be able to meet this challenge because I already know that no such thing exists in Arabic.

مْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ was a very poor attempt because 'Imraan is obviously not the name of 'Imraan's wife. The noun 'Imraan IS NOT THE PROPER NAME of the noun
Maraa'a. It is, however, an idafa of possession/relation. But as you can see (I hope) it is NOT both. Bring me something that is both.

I hope you understand now.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 01:29 (1544 days ago) @ Damon

No sorry Damon, but I think you are missing the point and are inventing 'challenges' and picking and choosing what you want to.

On page 1157 V3 of Edward lanes lexicon, 1st column, it says that 'shahru ramzan' is the ninth of the Arabian months.

Now my question to you is WHY do you appeal to some grammar books and reject other dictionaries? Are you not playing with dictionary / lexicon sources to suit yourself? Why can you not accept that a dictionary clearly states that instead of looking for 'other' grammar books to disprove it?

Sorry, but I find your method very inconsistent. Its simply picking and choosing. Also Arabic words had meanings before 'grammar books' were written.

I also hope that you now understand!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 03:16 (1544 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

No sorry Damon, but I think you are missing the point and are inventing 'challenges' and picking and choosing what you want to.

Oh really? How so? Please explain.

On page 1157 V3 of Edward lanes lexicon, 1st column, it says that 'shahru ramzan' is the ninth of the Arabian months.

Your point? Most of The Arabic Dictionaries (such as page 6 of Abdul Mannan Omar's Dictionary of The Holy Quran) List the Arabic word "Ibraheem" as a PROPER NAME. The traditionalists CLAIM that Ramadan is a PROPER NAME; specifically the PROPER NAME of a particular month of the year. All I am saying is that many Arabic Dictionaries I have perused list the term "Proper Name" under many headings but I haven't come across a dictionary that uses those two words (PROPER and NAME) under the heading for Ramadan. I am not saying there is no such dictionary, I am asking that someone would be kind enough to point me in the direction of one that does. Now please tell me how is that picking and choosing.

Something else you need to know before this conversation goes any further; The so-called name of Ramadan for one of the 12 months of the year has its origins in the so-called Islamic Calendar which itself comes from the so-called Seerah of Muhammad which I categorically reject on the same grounds that I reject ahadith. Just so you know.

Now my question to you is WHY do you appeal to some grammar books and reject other dictionaries?

What kind of silly question is that???? Look at what I had underlined in your quote above. A Grammar book is a grammar book and a dictionary is a dictionary. Why are YOU trying to lump the two together? Picking and choosing would be accepting one grammar book and rejecting other grammar books or accepting one dictionary while rejecting other dictionaries. I only asked about DICTIONARIES concerning Ramadan being listed as a proper name, not grammar books. And I only asked about GRAMMAR BOOKS concerning the dual function of Shahru Ramadan being an idafa as well as a phrase of identity, not dictionaries.

Are you not playing with dictionary / lexicon sources to suit yourself? Why can you not accept that a dictionary clearly states that instead of looking for 'other' grammar books to disprove it?

See my reply above.

Sorry, but I find your method very inconsistent. Its simply picking and choosing. Also Arabic words had meanings before 'grammar books' were written.

I also hope that you now understand!

SORRY, but your liking or disliking of my method does not substitute for you answering the questions I have asked in this thread. And by the way, I don't rely on dictionaries (let alone 'grammar books') to ascertain the meanings of Quranic Terms and Concepts. The Final Authority for Lexical Meanings and Grammar rests with The Quran and Quran Alone as it is the FIRST ever Arabic Document from which we ascertain Quranic Lexicon and Grammar.

I hope You now understand!!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 18:58 (1544 days ago) @ Damon

Your comment: "What kind of silly question is that????"

How dare you ridicule and patronize me like that? Who do you think you are Damon? Keep to the topic or admit you haven't got a proper response when questioned.


"The Final Authority for Lexical Meanings and Grammar rests with The Quran and Quran Alone as it is the FIRST ever Arabic Document from which we ascertain Quranic Lexicon and Grammar."

Well then find me the meanings and grammar rules from the Quran alone? How do you find 'rules' of grammar and meanings from the Quran?

This is what I've said all along. The language of the Quran came before 'grammar books' were compiled. In that language, Ramazan has meant a month of the Islamic calendar. It is not me that is being silly but you are ridiculing me because you don't have a suitable response.

If the Quran followed 'grammar rules' then you would not get literature and sites which showed that the Quran does not always follow 'grammar rules' that were compiled afterwards.

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Newton/grammar.html

I hope you NOW get it.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 21:52 (1544 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

How dare you ridicule and patronize me like that? Who do you think you are Damon?

I'm Damon, that's who I think I am. And whether you wish to acknowledge it or not you asked me a silly question in which you asked why I pick and choose between Some grammar books and other dictionaries. You asked your question as if dictionaries and grammar books are the same thing. Thus, a silly question. And I did answer your question. There is not a single question in this entire thread that I did not answer or refused to answer. However, there are quite a few number of questions which I have asked that have so far gone unanswered which is fine by me.

Keep to the topic or admit you haven't got a proper response when questioned.

Just point out any part of yours or any other posts that I have not given a response. As far as your idea of proper response; well who knows what you consider a proper response according to your mindset? I responded to everything you said, period.

Well then find me the meanings and grammar rules from the Quran alone? How do you find 'rules' of grammar and meanings from the Quran?

Read my words carefully AMIR. I said the FINAL authority rests with The Quran whereas some take the stance that the final authority rests with Simbawayh and W. Wright's grammar books or Kitabul 'Ayn, Lane's Lexicon or some other lexicons and dictionaries. It is my personal understanding that the lexicons and grammars are also flawed and corrupted due to N2I and Abbasid Dynasty influences. I use the grammar books and lexicons as tools to aid me in my study and research of The Quran. And something you may want to know is I also take into account the grammar of Spoken Arabic as Well as the grammar of FuSha, for my own reasons which I'm sure you nor anyone else here would care to read about.

As far as finding the meanings and grammar rules from The Quran alone; even though that is NOT what I said (because you obviously did not carefully read my post) what I understand grammatically concerning the ayaat mentioning Saum and 2/185 you will not accept. Not only have you already voiced your concern about my "Methods" but our present heated discussion also shows that you vehemently disagree with my "Conclusions"; so showing you how I grammatically and linguistically understand the Saum ayaat and why I grammatically and linguistically understand them the way I do will only be rejected by you no matter what because your mind is made up that Saum is abstinence from eating and drinking and Ramadan is the name of a particular month of the year. And because your mind is made up, you refused to be convinced otherwise. So your discussion and debate with me is not one for the sake of mutual sharing of learning and information; your participation in this discussion is strictly to defend your position which you obviously will not budge from no matter what I or anyone else says. No skin off my nose and I will lose no sleep over it either. As of now I am content with what my studies have unearthed for me.

This is what I've said all along. The language of the Quran came before 'grammar books' were compiled. In that language, Ramazan has meant a month of the Islamic calendar. It is not me that is being silly but you are ridiculing me because you don't have a suitable response.

Another nonsensical statement. The Quran itself DOES NOT say that Ramadan is the name of a certain month of ANY calendar. It is the fake seerah of the prophet (with its FAKE hijrah calendar) and the grammar rules initiated by Sibawayh (which is copied by others such as William Wright) which have TAUGHT the so-called Ummah that Ramadan is the name of a month. Shahru Ramadan does not inherently mean "Month of Ramadan" by default. Looking at the rules of the different ways the idafa is constructed and used as well as the phenomena of proper names in Arabic leave PLENTY of room for different interpretations and understandings of the phrase "Shahru Ramadan" and I for one am exercising my God Given right to question the N2I orthodoxy, do my own research and develop my own understandings. If you wish to continue to swallow all of the nonsense that the N2I Mullahs are spoon feeding you, again I will lose no sleep over that. Do what you feel is best just like I will do what I feel is best.

If the Quran followed 'grammar rules' then you would not get literature and sites which showed that the Quran does not always follow 'grammar rules' that were compiled afterwards

Now THIS is a statement that I 100% AGREE WITH!. Perhaps you misunderstand me and think that I place the grammar books above The Quran which is most definitely NOT the case. There are PLENTY of Sibawayh's so-called rules of Classical Arabic that I vehemently disagree with and because of that I have come to the conclusion a few years ago that the Arabic of the Quran IS NOT what they call Classical Arabic. This is a subject all in itself which we'll have to start a different thread for if this aspect is to be discussed.

I need to reiterate that if you are content with the present popular understanding of Saum and Ramadan, then I have no problem with that. Be my guest. I have no problem when others disagree with and I have no problem with being proven wrong. There was a time when I did believe Saum meant abstinence from eating and drinking. There was a time when I did think that Ramadan was the name of an actual month of the year. There was a time when I did believe in so-called wife beating and polygamy. There was a time when I did believe Salaat was Namaz. But through my own studies as well as benefiting from the research and studies of other students of The Quran I feel that I have been proven wrong about all of these things, including Saum and Ramadan. Because I feel that my understandings of these issues were wrong, I changed my views and understandings and adopted views and understandings that I think are correct. If I am ever proven wrong again, so be it, but I think where I upset alot of people is my criteria for valid research and my insistence on independent thinking and ignoring the mess that is coming from the N2I Mullahs.

If you disagree with my understandings and my personal criteria for valid research and study then there is nothing neither one of us can do something about. It is better to respectfully agree to disagree instead of allowing this debate between you and me become more and more heated to the point it turns a flame fest. At one point in this thread, Sister Laurie congratulated and thanked us for keeping this discussion civil. That trend is on the verge of dangerously ending because I think it is starting ti become personal between me and you (and I am admitting my guilt and part I play in this).

If you wish to continue this discussion in a civilized manner I will happily oblige you. If you feel that your disgust for my stance, my research habits and my style of discussion puts too much of a bitter taste in your mouth for you to be cordial with me in this discussion, then perhaps it would be best left alone with absolutely no hard feelings on my part. I am going to continue to practice independent thinking no matter how much other people may disagree and hate it.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Thursday, August 01, 2013, 15:48 (1543 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

Salaam Everyone,

Although I don't have access to any Arabic Dictionaries which list Ramadan as a proper noun I did read two QURAN CONCORDANCES which DO list Ramadan as a proper noun. Perhaps it's just one of those things where some books will list Ramadan as a proper noun whereas others will not for whatever reason. I think it's something worth looking into a little deeper. Either way, I am relinquishing that request and argument as a Concordance is close enough to an actual dictionary to accept the entries in them.

Also, on a different note, Sister Laurie Hamdani, I am asking a favor from you. Can you forward my e-mail address to Brother Jawaid Ahmed Please? Can you let him know to get in touch with me ASAP; there is an urgent matter I would like to discuss with him.

Salaam Everyone,
Damon.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Friday, August 02, 2013, 16:33 (1542 days ago) @ Damon

Salaam Damon.

Please send your email to the forum administrator by using the 'contact' link at the lower right of the forum home screen. I will see to it that Brother Jawaid gets your information.

--
Salaam and thank you.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Saturday, August 03, 2013, 02:00 (1541 days ago) @ Damon

"I did read two QURAN CONCORDANCES which DO list Ramadan as a proper noun" - Damon

"Either way, I am relinquishing that request and argument as a Concordance is close enough to an actual dictionary to accept the entries in them." - Damon


This is all I was trying to say about dictionaries. That there are dictionaries which say that Ramzan is a recognized month of the Islamic calendar so why should anyone reject them for any reason

Thank you!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Waqas ⌂ @, uk, Thursday, August 01, 2013, 22:13 (1543 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

peace Amir, all,

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.”

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Dr. Qureshi, Pennsylvania, US, Friday, August 02, 2013, 14:23 (1542 days ago) @ Amir Aslam

Yes Amir. I understand what you are saying. Even concordances such as Hanna E. Kassis lists Ramadan as a proper noun on page 1019.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Amir Aslam, UAE, Thursday, August 01, 2013, 13:32 (1543 days ago) @ Damon

شهر رمضان: and امْرَأَةُ عِمْرَانَ are exactly identical phrases.

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.

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.

[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.

Your observation unfortunately exposes you and you accuse me!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Saturday, August 03, 2013, 05:43 (1541 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? :-)

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Waqas ⌂ @, uk, Saturday, August 03, 2013, 17:03 (1541 days ago) @ Damon

peace Damon,

Damon said:
...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.

Part in italic: I do not recall you proving that.

Post here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315671#msg315671

#####

As a side note, I do not take any external source to Quran as perfect. I posted the link to the Wright excerpt to put further info on the table. Personally, I do not mind if "ramadan" is a proper noun or not, all I am concerned with is what is theoretically possible according to Quranic grammar.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 00:22 (1541 days ago) @ Waqas

peace Waqas,

Part in italic: I do not recall you proving that.

Post here:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315671#msg315671

I do recall me doing that.

First post:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315527#msg315527 (scroll to bottom of post)

Second post:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604721.msg315881#msg315881 (scroll to bottom of post again)

I had looked at those words in Lane's Lexicon, Hans Wehr and Wortabet and Porter's Dictionary and there are plural words for each singular item Wright has in his book and they all come from the same root as their singular counterparts.

As a side note, I do not take any external source to Quran as perfect. I posted the link to the Wright excerpt to put further info on the table. Personally, I do not mind if "ramadan" is a proper noun or not, all I am concerned with is what is theoretically possible according to Quranic grammar.

Agreed.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Waqas ⌂ @, uk, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 13:38 (1540 days ago) @ Damon

peace Damon,

You said:
"I do recall me doing that."
then provided links which did NOT contain the following information you said below:
"I had looked at those words in Lane's Lexicon, Hans Wehr and Wortabet and Porter's Dictionary and there are plural words for each singular item Wright has in his book and they all come from the same root as their singular counterparts."

Interestingly you claim an honest person should provide such and such page reference, source etc but you provided no reference whatsoever for the claim you were making that the plural form of the singular does exist. It may well be true, but only now have I read this information from you, albeit without the page numbers.

For example, Lane's Lexicon is all online, as you well know, so providing links to the pages you are referring to is easy.
Hans Wehr is not a classical Arabic dictionary, as you well know, I'm not sure about Wortabet/Porter. However, a link/pic of these may have been helpful.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 21:28 (1540 days ago) @ Waqas

First of all Waqas unlike your friend UQ who had something to lose by providing the page number of Wright's book when he interjected in our discussion, everyone is free to look up those particular words in ANY DICTIONARY they choose to verify what I have said. It doesn't have to be Hans Wehr or Lane's Lexicon. I merely stated that to let it be known that contrary to what W. Wright says in his grammar book there ARE plural forms of those words he listed and they DO come from the same root as their singular counterpart. I wouldn't be foolish enough to make that statement without seeing those words with my own eyes and I let you all know WHERE I have seen what I stated.

Second of all, UQ had something to lose and something to hide by posting THAT LIST OF WORDS from Wright's grammar book without listing the page number and volume because he knew that if he did and others investigated that reference, they would have seen what I have seen and that is Mr. Wright was not making a claim that those words do not have plural forms with the same roots as their singular counter forms; he was merely pointing out a practice in which Some Arabs will use a plural form of words of that have different roots of the singular form they are used to saying. Like the plural word Bilaad being used to mean "towns" or "cities" opposite the singular word Madinah for one city even though Mudun is Madina's plural form. Also Balad is used to mean a country as well.

Third of all, I have to say it to you AGAIN. I do not believe in dictionaries or lexicons of so-called Classical Arabic! I've said this to you before at free-minds. Arabic is Arabic. It is a living language which has always been alive. It did not die and came back to life like Hebrew. It did not die permanently like Latin or Sanskrit. Also, I wish to remind you Yet Again that I do not believe in the the grammatical rules of so-called Classical Arabic. If these are ideas you wish to continue subscribing to then be my guest. I don't buy it. Must I also post another link from that free-minds thread where your friend UQ made a claim of the Arabic word ما "Maa" according to Classical grammar and my refutation of that ridiculous claim?

There was never such thing as a "Quraish" tribe. There are people who make claims to an ancestral connection to a tribe which never existed. I think it is quite comical that there are so called "Branches" of this Quraish tribe (Banu Abd Manaf, Banu Muttalib and Banu Asad just to name a few) while the original, highly reputed, oft envied and magnificent tribe COMPLETELY disappeared off the face of the earth. So there was no and is no such thing as a Quraish dialect, so The Arabic Quran is not based on the dialect of a non existent tribe. If you learn enough MSA and Spoken Arabic and then reinvestigate The Quran you will come to see that there are "holes" in the idea of "Classical" grammar or Classical Dictionaries.

One unique thing about Arabic is that it is based on a system of roots. The strength of The Arabic Language lies in its system of roots. THIS HAS NEVER CHANGED NOR WAS IT INTERRUPTED THROUGH OUT ITS LIFE AND EXISTENCE!. Add to this the FACT that Arabic was ALWAYS a SPOKEN language and it was spoken BEFORE The Quran was written. The written word is just an expression of that which is spoken, so the written would have to reflect how it is spoken as well. And add another fact that through out the history and existence of The Arab Peoples all the way up to the present day No One has ever spoken nor do they speak now so-called "Fushaa" or MSA. So-called Classical Arabic as well as Modern Standard Arabic are arbitrary constructions of a language which are both false and inaccurate; not to mention just plain unnatural. If the Arabs EVER spoke according to the mandates of Classical Arabic then I have to say the same thing I just said about the Quraish tribe. Where Are These Arabs and Whatever Happened To Them That They No Longer Exist On Earth?

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Waqas ⌂ @, uk, Monday, August 05, 2013, 11:39 (1539 days ago) @ Damon

You made a post with over 700 words but, once again, no links/page references for what you said previously.

On the one hand you imply someone is dishonest if they do not provide such references then you do the same thing.


In any case I am only interested in evidence-based discussion. I like to read evidence, for and against, weigh it up, then make a decision. I can't do that without evidence to weigh up.

Peace.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Noman Waseem, Saturday, August 03, 2013, 17:53 (1541 days ago) @ Damon

Dear Br Damon,

I think we are both misunderstanding something here as I can assure you my name is not Hello Name and I didn't post that :-). Having said that, I'm a little confused as to why you didn't simply respond to my original post. I'm wondering because this:

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

wasn't a standalone argument but rather it built on the spirit and reasoning in my previous two posts. Maybe I'm missing something, but you critiqued the above seemingly out of context to its supporting arguments. So allow me to respond point by point, for example:

"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."

Brother, let's not give millennia old traditions an inherent quality of being wrong. If we are to criticize them, let's do so as per merit, not as a rule. Consider please that in an ideal Kingdom of God, agreeing with tradition would imply leading a life of the highest standards and emancipation from man-made influences. Specifically, your claim:

"First of all, I am going by The Quran, NOT historical tradition that is irrelevant and have nothing to do with The Quran."

is not only wrong in many ways, but is made with apparent ignorance to what I actually wrote in my post. So let me relate a part of it to you here, a part that has very much to do with the Qur'an:

"My second point comes from verse 2:183:

2:183 (Creating an ideal society requires discipline and self-restraint among the individuals.) O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Abstinence (from sex and free indulgence in food and drink during the daytime) is prescribed for you AS IT WAS PRESCRIBED FOR THOSE BEFORE YOU so that you get empowered against evil.

And now consider this:

"The "acceptable fast" is discussed in the biblical Book of Isaiah, chapter 58:6–7. In this chapter, the nation of Israel is rebuked for their fasting, and given this exhortation:

(verse 6) “Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
(7) Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?"

This passage indicates that the acceptable fast is not merely abstinence from food or water, but a decision to fully obey God's commands to care for the poor and oppressed." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Christianity"

We are not talking here about man-made tradition Br Damon, we're talking about tradition based directly on God's message. Do you not see the similarities between the above understandings of fasting in Christianity and Judaism and how Dr. Shabbir explains Saum as abstinence? Now, I am well aware of the status of Islam as a Deen. What I'm asking you to consider is whether you are ignoring verses like this:

"2:41 And grace yourselves with belief in what I have revealed now confirming (the truth) in what you already have. Be not the first among those who will conceal the truth therein, and trade not My revelations for petty gains. Rather, be mindful of Me.

2:89 Whenever revelation from God is delivered to them, confirming (the truth in) what they have, they flatly deny it! Yet, before that, they had been praying for winning the hearts of those who denied all Divine revelation. And now that a message has come to them that they very well recognize, they deny it and conceal (what they know). God‟s condemnation is the due of all those who turn ungrateful. [Kufr = Rejecting, denying, opposing, or concealing the truth = Ingratitude. 2:101, 2:41, 7:157]

2:91 When it is said to them, “Believe in what God has revealed”, they say, “We only accept what has been sent to us.” And they reject all besides that, even though it is the truth confirming what they possess. Say, “(If you claim to believe in the scripture that you have), then why did you oppose and even slay the Prophets of God before, if you were believers?” [2:101. For Qatl, see 2:54]

2:97 (They are displeased with Gabriel for bringing revelation to a gentile Prophet. 2:90.) Say (O Prophet), “Who could possibly bear a grudge against Gabriel when he has revealed (the Qur‟an) upon your heart by God‟s leave, confirming what was revealed before it. And it (the Qur‟an) is a beacon of light and glad tiding for all those who accept it. [2:101]"

I could go on and on, but even I am surprised as to the extent with which the Qur'an is peppered with verses noting that it confirms the truth in what was sent before. So I must ask you, on what basis are you ignoring the fact that Christianity and Judaism and likely many other religions (which might have been originally founded by Messengers of God) have/had historical traditions very similar in likeness to how Saum is translated as Abstinence? Does not the Qur'an in this instance confirm the truth contained in the traditions involving the practicing of Abstinence which happens to include fasting? And the fact that these are traditions we are talking about is not a valid argument; again it must be on merit that tradition is criticized, not as a rule.

So to be clear, when you ask "Does the fact that Their Traditions have gone on for thousands of years make them correct?", no it does not make them correct. But the fact that they have gone on for thousands of years does not make them incorrect either; it does however lend it the weight of historical evidence, in this case thousands of years of historicity. Proper research is humble research, and the burden of proof is on the one making the exceptional claim. I am not suggesting that you are right or wrong, but presenting your criticism against thousands of years of historicity can only be done in the humblest manner. None of us have direct access to divine knowledge as the Messengers did.

On the flip side, when you say:

"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!!"

controversial arguments are not either correct or incorrect as a rule either; their correctness is also solely based on merit. Though there is something to be respected about taking a stand for something you feel is right, and I can respect that, it must be done so humbly.

As to why I keep mentioning being humble, perhaps it is a reaction to your writing style (particularly your use of CAPS and BOLD as though you are yelling at me ;-)), but I don't question your intentions. I have however questioned the merits of your argument.

Salaam!

Noman

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 04:11 (1540 days ago) @ Noman Waseem

Dear Noman Waseem,

I am going to respond to your post you directed towards me and when I am finished responding to you I have something important that I would like for you and everyone else to kindly take note of.

Brother, let's not give millennia old traditions an inherent quality of being wrong. If we are to criticize them, let's do so as per merit, not as a rule. Consider please that in an ideal Kingdom of God, agreeing with tradition would imply leading a life of the highest standards and emancipation from man-made influences.

Brother, I think your request to not give millennia old traditions an inherent quality of being wrong is the same as asking me to give millennia old traditions an inherent quality of being right. As per my understanding of 17:36 and 39:18 I feel it is my duty to question, research and reject if need be. Also, you are expressing your own personal opinion when you say in an ideal Kingdom of God, agreeing with tradition would imply leading a life of the highest standards and emancipation from man-made influences. This is an opinion and not a fact, and it is an opinion that I personally disagree with. I had pointed the traditions of other religions than your own. Do you agree with those other religious traditions? Are they good and/or correct?

Specifically, your claim:

"First of all, I am going by The Quran, NOT historical tradition that is irrelevant and have nothing to do with The Quran."

is not only wrong in many ways, but is made with apparent ignorance to what I actually wrote in my post. So let me relate a part of it to you here, a part that has very much to do with the Qur'an:

Again, an opinion you have that my stance is wrong. I know what you posted and I know the angle you are coming from and I'm trying to get you to understand that I disagree with your stance. I posted those ayaat talking about people who place their cherished traditions above The Quran.

"My second point comes from verse 2:183:

2:183 (Creating an ideal society requires discipline and self-restraint among the individuals.) O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! Abstinence (from sex and free indulgence in food and drink during the daytime[/u]) is prescribed for you AS IT WAS PRESCRIBED FOR THOSE BEFORE YOU so that you get empowered against evil.

First of all, that is not The Arabic Quran. What you posted is an English translation of an original Arabic Document and what is included in the brackets (which I have bolded and underlined) of your translation is not in the original Arabic text at all.

Second of all, just because you capitalized "AS IT WAS PRESCRIBED FOR THOSE BEFORE YOU" doesn't prove anything. All that you have done is reminded me of something I already know which is As-Siyaam is written/prescribed for us readers and upholders of this book just as it was for those who preceded us. You still have to go to The Quran to prove As-Siyaam is refraining from eating, drinking and sex (as you have it in brackets).

And now consider this:

"The "acceptable fast" is discussed in the biblical Book of Isaiah, chapter 58:6–7. In this chapter, the nation of Israel is rebuked for their fasting, and given this exhortation:

(verse 6) “Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
(7) Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?"

This is why you and I disagree on this topic. The Bible is not the document that I am going by, The Quran is the document that I am going by. Brother are you are a Muslim or a Christian? Is The Quran your book or is The Bible your book? The cat has been out of the bag for years now that The Bible is a completely bogus book. I'm surprised you can quote one of Shabbir's books to me (QXP) but ignore that he also wrote a book criticizing The Bible. And I know you are aware of how the late Ahmed Deedat have shown the bible to be a completely bogus book. Here's just one of his works demonstrating that:

Is The Bible The Word of God?
http://archive.org/stream/Shk_Ahmed_Deedats_Books/Is_The_Bible_Gods_Word_djvu.txt

This passage indicates that the acceptable fast is not merely abstinence from food or water, but a decision to fully obey God's commands to care for the poor and oppressed." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting#Christianity"

I cannot respond to anything else dealing with the bible. It is not my book and I do not believe in it, let alone read it. If you wish to discuss The Quranic ayaat then I will most certainly respond to you.

We are not talking here about man-made tradition Br Damon, we're talking about tradition based directly on God's message.

Brother, all traditions are man made. There is no such thing as a tradition directly from God.

Do you not see the similarities between the above understandings of fasting in Christianity and Judaism and how Dr. Shabbir explains Saum as abstinence?

Yes, I do see the similarities and I disagree with and reject all of it. I reject religion, therefore I reject religious rituals that are not in The Quran.

Now, I am well aware of the status of Islam as a Deen. What I'm asking you to consider is whether you are ignoring verses like this:

"2:41 And grace yourselves with belief in what I have revealed now confirming (the truth) in what you already have. Be not the first among those who will conceal the truth therein, and trade not My revelations for petty gains. Rather, be mindful of Me.

2:89 Whenever revelation from God is delivered to them, confirming (the truth in) what they have, they flatly deny it! Yet, before that, they had been praying for winning the hearts of those who denied all Divine revelation. And now that a message has come to them that they very well recognize, they deny it and conceal (what they know). God‟s condemnation is the due of all those who turn ungrateful. [Kufr = Rejecting, denying, opposing, or concealing the truth = Ingratitude. 2:101, 2:41, 7:157]

2:91 When it is said to them, “Believe in what God has revealed”, they say, “We only accept what has been sent to us.” And they reject all besides that, even though it is the truth confirming what they possess. Say, “(If you claim to believe in the scripture that you have), then why did you oppose and even slay the Prophets of God before, if you were believers?” [2:101. For Qatl, see 2:54]

2:97 (They are displeased with Gabriel for bringing revelation to a gentile Prophet. 2:90.) Say (O Prophet), “Who could possibly bear a grudge against Gabriel when he has revealed (the Qur‟an) upon your heart by God‟s leave, confirming what was revealed before it. And it (the Qur‟an) is a beacon of light and glad tiding for all those who accept it. [2:101]"

Again, I wish to remind you that the words in brackets are Shabbir's own words and understanding. They are not in the original Arabic Quran. Secondly, since you seem to insist on basing your views on the bible, then please track down an original Aramaic Bible and translate it for me.

I could go on and on, but even I am surprised as to the extent with which the Qur'an is peppered with verses noting that it confirms the truth in what was sent before.

Brother, please thoroughly explain to me exactly how you deduce those ayaat in The Quran to be referring to the bible. Where is there a verse that says The Quran Confirms The Bible or it Confirms any religious book of any religion? And before you answer that I need to let you know ahead of time that I am asking you to show me this in The Arabic Quran, not a translation.

So I must ask you, on what basis are you ignoring the fact that Christianity and Judaism and likely many other religions (which might have been originally founded by Messengers of God) have/had historical traditions very similar in likeness to how Saum is translated as Abstinence?

On the basis that Christianity and Judaism and all the other "Religions" are man-made and fake, on the basis that The Quran is not peddling yet another religion and on the basis that Saum does not mean abstinence from eating and drinking. It simply means abstinence; that is all.

Does not the Qur'an in this instance confirm the truth contained in the traditions involving the practicing of Abstinence which happens to include fasting?

In my personal estimation (based on my personal pondering and study of The Quran) the answer is no, it does not. What you and those who think like you are doing is imposing your understandings of fasting and prior religious books into those ayaat. That is why your understanding and translation of those ayaat require extra words in brackets of your translation, ahadith to say in very clear terms what The Quran does not say and explanations and tasafeer from Mullahs to preach these imposed understandings to the masses. The Quran Alone, on its own merits and in its own words do not say these things at all.

And the fact that these are traditions we are talking about is not a valid argument; again it must be on merit that tradition is criticized, not as a rule.

Brother, seriously, I outright reject all traditions that I deem to be based on unintelligent premises. Do you accept the tradition of female mutilation in Africa? Do you accept the tradition of children terrorizing elderly people and their homes on "Devil's Night" in The U.S.? Do you accept the tradition of mass killing of dolphins in Denmark as a rite of passage to manhood? Do you accept the tradition of self mutilation to commemorate Hasan and Husain? To be honest with you I am actually shocked that you can present tradition and chrisitianity as a basis for your argument.

So to be clear, when you ask "Does the fact that Their Traditions have gone on for thousands of years make them correct?", no it does not make them correct.

That is all I needed to know. Thank You for your honesty.

But the fact that they have gone on for thousands of years does not make them incorrect either; it does however lend it the weight of historical evidence, in this case thousands of years of historicity.

I 100%, totally disagree. I said it before and I will say it again. The Only reason N2I and all of its non Quranic traditions survived for thousands of years is because in the N2I majority countries these traditions are not allowed to be questioned, let alone shunned and rejected. If the entire N2I world were to abolish their Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws (both of which are totally un Quranic by the way) I think the N2I religion would disappear in a matter of decades. People in the N2I world are forced against their will (through fear of punishment and death) to uphold and honor these thousand year old traditions.

Proper research is humble research, and the burden of proof is on the one making the exceptional claim. I am not suggesting that you are right or wrong, but presenting your criticism against thousands of years of historicity can only be done in the humblest manner. None of us have direct access to divine knowledge as the Messengers did.

Well, what I am offering as proof you reject. There's nothing I can do about that.

As to why I keep mentioning being humble, perhaps it is a reaction to your writing style (particularly your use of CAPS and BOLD as though you are yelling at me ;-)), but I don't question your intentions. I have however questioned the merits of your argument

Sorry about that Brother. I am not yelling at you on screen. :-) I like to use caps and bold for emphasis.

Okay, now I wish to say something and this is directed at everyone participating in this discussion.....

I have been responding to everyone's post to the best of my ability. However, what I have said about 19:26 has gone untouched. What I have said about kul washrab being idiomatic has also gone untouched. What I have said about Saum not meaning abstenance from eating and drinking has also not been responded to. What I have said about the lack of a direct command not to eat has not been responded to. And then there are the questions that I have asked, none of which have been answered. Such as:

WHY is not the N2I world a nation of Muttaqeen? If Saum is fasting and 2:183 says Saum makes one a Muttaqee, then why are they not Muttaqeen after thousands of years?

How is it that 19:24 mentions a سريا which is a small body of water, that 19:25 mentions رطبا جنيا (dates from a tree ready for consumption) and 19:26 gives the imperative to Maryam to كلي واشربي (eat and drink) while at the same time Maryam is informing other human beings that she is observing Siyaam??

How does a person "Witness" a month?

What is the significance of ANY month that The Quran would be sent down during that month?

There are other questions which I will hold off for now. I also wish to add that I am in the same boat as Waqas. I don't care either way if the Concordances and whatever dictionaries say that Ramadan is a proper noun. The validity or invalidity of that is not the strength of my argument anyway. It never was. But I do know that it is according to the traditionalists that Ramadan is a proper noun. I know that we have nothing prior to The Quran or Ibn Ishaq's Seerah that proves there was a month called Ramadan. There is much more I can say to invlidate that view but I'll hold off on that as well for now.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by amirabbas, Iran, Sunday, August 04, 2013, 16:33 (1540 days ago) @ Damon

Dear Damon,

with due respects brother, why don't you give your own interpretation/translation of the Qur'an so that we can fully review your views and understanding?

As a student, i am more inclined to accept those views of Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Allama Muhammad Assad, and G. A. Parwez, than yours. They are great scholars and have tried to explain and translate the Qur'an and have written many other books which are great evidences to the truth. They might be wrong at some places, but, remember that G. A. Parwez and Dr. Shabbir, are among the prominent scholars in rejecting the man-made N2I Islam. We are just building upon what they have already done and try to increase ourselves in knowledge and understanding.

Humbly speaking, while we are considering your views and ponder upon them, you keep complicating the situation and at times, reject Dr. Shabbir and many other authors and their understanding! You are free to accept or reject other authors but please write your understanding in a book or an article too!

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Damon, Pennsylvania, USA, Monday, August 05, 2013, 06:39 (1539 days ago) @ amirabbas

with due respects brother, why don't you give your own interpretation/translation of the Qur'an so that we can fully review your views and understanding?

First things first; I've provided my personal Interpretation of The Quranic topic under discussion in ourbeacon in the thread posted below:

http://www.ourbeacon.com/cgi-bin/bbs60x/webbbs_config.pl/page/1/md/read/id/314123119190862

If there is anything you wish for me to elaborate on or something I did not touch on that you would like my understanding of then please let me know.

Secondly, I am not a translator and do not view translations favorably. Not because of any lack in translation ability (although I don't make any claims of translation ability either), but because I think people who say they are upholders of The Quran and wish to shape their individual and collective existence upon its constitution, then they should learn Arabic. Translations are okay for someone who has never read The Quran before and is reading it for the first time. But once a person attains Iman (conviction) in the ideology of The Quran and wishes to contribute in making its constitution widespread, accepted and established, then they would be better served in learning the language of this book. It doesn't matter if we wish to deny it, but the fact remains that we miss out on a whole lot and so much gets past us undetected when we don't know Arabic and rely on translations and opinions of those we deem to be scholars. 17:36 tells us that we are obligated to ascertain the validity or invalidity of information. It does not include a clause or exemption by saying Unless we show unwavering faith in the translations of information.

At the very least, if you feel you cannot devote the required time to reach an intermediate to advanced level in Arabic, then I would like to offer a suggestion which I think is helpful, valid, works quickly and is efficient. I suggest that one would at least learn The Grammar which will not take long at all. A couple of months to maybe 4 or 5 months. Then once you have come to grips with the grammar then procure as many Arabic Dictionaries and Lexicons you can possibly get your hands on and also procure a Word-for-Word Translation of The Quran. Armed with a word for word translation along with the dictionaries and your knowledge of grammar will allow you to examine and investigate any part of The Quran you wish. Although I no longer use my word for word translation, I will say that it was quite helpful to me a few years back when I was still at a certain level in grammatical and lingusitic know how, not that I am claiming that I have achieved perfection or expertise in any way. I cannot take credit for the word-for-word translation idea. I actually got the idea from Waqas.

Third of all, I don't remember if it was you or Dawood who had already made the resquest of me that I present my views and arguments on this topic in article form. Waqas had also made that suggestion to me a couple of years ago when I told him I started questioning the traditional understanding and had shared some thoughts with him. But I have started working on the article and was actually engaging in the discussion here to make sure I hear as many counterpoints to my stance as I can. I think this discussion has been very helpful and would be taking a leave of absence from posting here for a while until I am finished writing my article and shaping it the way I want it. Again, I wish to repeat that this discussion was very fruitful and I feel that I had learned quite a bit, not just from you but from the other posters who participated in this discussion. Thank You.

As a student, i am more inclined to accept those views of Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Allama Muhammad Assad, and G. A. Parwez, than yours. They are great scholars and have tried to explain and translate the Qur'an and have written many other books which are great evidences to the truth. They might be wrong at some places, but, remember that G. A. Parwez and Dr. Shabbir, are among the prominent scholars in rejecting the man-made N2I Islam. We are just building upon what they have already done and try to increase ourselves in knowledge and understanding.

With all due respects, being the author of a whole library of books does not make a person a scholar, it makes them an Author who has written a decent amount of books. Also, we need to remind ourselves that the word "Scholar" is a relative term and depending on the tastes and sensitivities of the person you ask will determine who they tell you is a scholar and is not a scholar in their opinion. Also, while I appreciate the attempts of anyone in rejecting traditional Islam, we have to understand that all human beings are subject to mistakes and imperfections and it is my personal viewpoint that when a person still teaches, upholds and practices N2I Rituals then they have not completely rid themselves of N2I let alone truly reject it in full spirit. But I fully agree with you about building upon what good others have done and hopefully you and I can do some good that others will be able to build upon. It's a process.

Humbly speaking, while we are considering your views and ponder upon them, you keep complicating the situation and at times, reject Dr. Shabbir and many other authors and their understanding! You are free to accept or reject other authors but please write your understanding in a book or an article too!.

Brother, I am free to reject ANY AUTHOR if I do not agree with their understandings. I am not one who venerates Big Names nor do I engage in personality or hero worship. And I hope you are not suggesting that I should never reject Dr. Shabbir's understanding and accept what he says without question. I simply do not operate that way. I wish to remind you of 17:36 and 39:18 for that matter.

I hope you can all forgive me for my absence which will begin tomorrow. I have a lot of work to do.

Fi'amanillah,
Damon.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Fadil @, Yaounde-Cameroon (Africa), Monday, August 05, 2013, 20:25 (1539 days ago) @ amirabbas

Salam brother Amirabbas,
you said "As a student, i am more inclined to accept those views of Dr. Shabbir Ahmed, Allama Muhammad Assad, and G. A. Parwez, than yours. They are great scholars and have tried to explain and translate the Qur'an and have written many other books which are great evidences to the truth. They might be wrong at some places, but, remember that G. A. Parwez and Dr. Shabbir, are among the prominent scholars in rejecting the man-made N2I Islam. We are just building upon what they have already done and try to increase ourselves in knowledge and understanding."

when you say "we", what do you mean?

Brother Amirabbass
Why are you idolizing some people? Why are you taking your Deen from them while Allah has sent down to us the Qur’an fully detailed? Brother, be he Dr Shabbir, Allama Assad, Parwez or whosoever, none of them have full authority of the understanding the Quran. They just translate the Quran the way they understand It and thus cannot impose their understanding on others. It is unfortunate that in Ourbeaconforum, only Dr Shabbir Quran translation is accepted, any other translation or point of view that differs from his is not accepted and immediately downgraded. Other islam scholar are also easily looked down. Just see how Dr Qamar Zaman and his work on Aqeeqat Soum have been downgraded with a pile of lies and hatred. I personally do not know QZ but feel that such an attitude does not fit someone like Dr Shabbir.

Brother Amirabbas, everyone wants to bring his/her own contribution to the understanding of Quran, but we can only follow the best of what they say that goes along with the Qur’an
39:17 For those who shun false ‘authorities’ (Taaghoot) and refrain from idol-worship in all forms, and turn to GOD ALONE, there is good news. So, announce the good news to My servants.
39:18 Those who listen to the Word, and follow the best of its application (in a given situation), such are the ones whom God has guided, and they are the ones endowed with insight.

I like very much brother Damon following lines from his post
With all due respects, being the author of a whole library of books does not make a person a scholar, it makes an Author who has written a decent amount of books. Also, we need to remind ourselves that the word "Scholar" is a relative term and depending on the tastes and sensitivities of the person you ask will determine who they tell you is a scholar and is not a scholar in their opinion
Brother, I am free to reject ANY AUTHOR if I do not agree with their understandings. I am not one who venerates Big Names nor do I engage in personality or hero worship. And I hope you are not suggesting that I should never reject Dr. Shabbir's understanding and accept what he says without question. I simply do not operate that way.
Congratulations brother Damon, I personally fully agree with you.

Brother Amirabbas, ponder very well on the following verse
17:36 And you shall not follow blindly any information of which you have no direct knowledge. (Using your faculties of perception and conception) you must verify it for yourself. In the Court of your Lord, you will be held accountable for your hearing, sight, and the faculty of reasoning.

On the day of judgment, some people will be denied Paradise because when GOD ALONE was invoked, they denied, but when others were included besides Him, they believed
40: 10-12 …………………It will be said to them, "This is your plight because when GOD ALONE was invoked you denied the Message, but when others (such as your ‘holy’ men) were included besides Him, you believed. But the Command belongs only to God, the Sublime, the Majestic.”

Salam

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by jawaid ahmed,uk @, Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 07:35 (1538 days ago) @ Fadil

I am firmly sitting on the fence over the Saum issue. I can give a good account as to why abstinence includes not eating and drinking etc during daylight hours, but I can also understand where brother Damon is coming from at an intellectual level.

I am being told that I should get a dictionary and go through the Quran word for word in order to understand it. Do the same to an Allama Iqbal poem or any English writing poet and see what you get! The dictionary breaks the words down but the message is left to you to work out and that is why we need those individuals who have an intellectual understanding of the Quran, based on the Quran only approach.

I can read word by word that the rod of Moses turned into a snake, but I needed GA Parwez to show me that it meant the truth went forth effortlessly, overcoming the lies of the Egyptions. So I am left appreciating the man and his enormous understanding of the Quran which I will never achieve and that is why I look upon his work with due respect, knowing that what he said was backed by proper thought. Was he 100% right? No. Should I think further? Yes. But let us bear in mind that anyone can do dictionary gymnastics and come up with their own right or wrong understanding of the Quran.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 14:05 (1538 days ago) @ jawaid ahmed,uk

Thank you for this cogent reply. I find myself pondering this: when one learns a non-native tongue, do they not rely on translations extensively? I have summarily rejected the notion that one must be a native Arabic speaker to understand the Quran. It an ageless, timeless, and therefore not bound by geography and culture. One must rely on translations, exegeses of others for whom Arabic is native, and one's own intellect to arrive at understanding. To that end, this forum is of utmost benefit.

--
Salaam and thank you.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by amirabbas, Iran, Tuesday, August 06, 2013, 10:15 (1538 days ago) @ Fadil

Salam

Dear brother,

there's a difference between learning from someone and idolizing someone! I'm not idolizing anyone! I understood the Qur'an better through QXP and i am grateful for that.

HOT RAMADHAN : PONDER

by Noman Waseem, Friday, August 09, 2013, 20:10 (1535 days ago) @ Damon

"On the basis that Christianity and Judaism and all the other "Religions" are man-made and fake, on the basis that The Quran is not peddling yet another religion and on the basis that Saum does not mean abstinence from eating and drinking. It simply means abstinence; that is all."

Just a quick question Br Damon, by man-made, surely you mean man-altered, no?

HOT RAMADHAN

by Laurie Hamdani @, Chicago, Friday, August 02, 2013, 16:40 (1542 days ago) @ drsam

As stated previously, this topic generates much discussion. I'm sure all are interested in furthering their learning and understanding. Please let us ensure that as we are making our own points and sharing our own understanding that we remain respectful and address to the best of our own abilities others' questions.

--
Salaam and thank you.

RSS Feed of thread
salaatforum.com | design and hosted by Beach Life Marketing Inc