New article: What is the meaning of "al masjid al haram"?

[Mazhar]

Mazhar,
Your question is irrelevant as I did not say "time adverb". As I said, if you do not wish to engage in evidence based discussion, on what I actually said, please refrain from posting on this thread.

Salamun alaika,

I just asked you what you expressed. You referred "adverb of time" is something different from "noun of time" and you brought in the link as evidence where I earlier used the word "noun of time". Is this the state of basic knowledge of Arabic at your command?

If it is not time adverb, what you think it is?  You might another time say "I did not say it is time adverb". Okay, however, you say it is "noun of time". The question remains, what is the difference between both?
And what is what in this "novel" senence "the inviolable time of SJD"

Even English grammar would help to know how a noun of time, or time adverb is used in texts; may be it helps to get rid of this erroneous premises on which you built theses.

[ayman]

Peace brother Wakas,

Thanks for the feedback. And also thanks for your help when it was called upon during the writing of this article. As always, I appreciate it.
It's nice to actually discuss the contents of the article in the thread I created for it, so let's begin...
Firstly, you only cover some of the points I raise, but having said that the points I raise about understandings other than "time" (e.g. institution") are scattered throughout the article, so its not ideal but I will try and list them here so its easier for yourself to review:

It is not ideal for now but will hopefully gradually reach a more ideal understanding when we agree or, in this particular case, when you agree with me

Let?s start with what we agree on:

1. ?Haram? means ?inviolable?.
2. The masculine suffix pronoun "hu/it" in the passages talking about the direction refers to AMAH.
3. The change in ?qibla?/direction is related to guiding to a straight path, and making the believers a balanced/moderate community.
4. SJD means acknowledge/obey.

I am sure that we agree on many other things. For example, I agree with all your criticism of the traditional interpretation. However, I think that you devote too much of your thesis to such criticism and it is distracting and actually, at least as far as I am concerned, weakens your arguments. The traditional interpretation is so weak and full of holes that frankly any argument would sound strong by comparison.

Next, let me quote the most important part that we disagree on:

2) You said:
"So as you can see, 2:142-150, 22:25 and 6:151-153 can best be understood and can only be tied together by the inviolable insitution of obedience."
You try to link AMAH with the straight path and cite 6:151-153, and imply AMAH is equivalent to that or built upon those principles. Firstly this equating-link is ok at best and tenuous at worst. Secondly, your use of strong terms such as "...can only be tied together..." is unwarranted. Such tying together is not even necessary in the first place. AMAH and the straight path are mentioned separately in 22:25 and 2:217. Sure they may be related but certainly not equivalent.

You made a correct observation in your article. So please do not contradict it (I quote):

?this new change is in some way related to guiding to a straight/establishing path, and making the believers a balanced/moderate community?

As you observed, 2:142 clearly contrasts the previous physical ?qibla? with the straight path. Therefore, 2:142-150 makes it clear that turning one?s direction towards the inviolable institution of obedience makes one on the straight path.

In 22:25 and 2:217 the path of the god and the inviolable institution of obedience are grouped together. This is natural since diverting from the path of the god (which is the path we are on when we are oriented towards the inviolable institution of obedience) implies diverting from the inviolable institution of obedience. One of the ways that 2:217 can be read is the one that is in line with 22:25:

2:217 "...diverting from the path of the god and rejecting him and (diverting from) the inviolable institution of obedience..."

More importantly, the term inviolable and the straight path are clearly tied in 6:151-153 where we are told in no uncertain terms that obeying the inviolable commands means being on the straight path.

So we have the inviolable commands that you know should be acknowledged/obeyed and you know that acknowledging/obeying those commands puts you on the straight path. You also agree that SJD means acknowledge/obey. You also agree the change in direction to the inviolable XXXX of acknowledging/obeying is related to guiding to a straight path. It seems to me that no matter what XXXX may be, those concepts are STRONGLY tied together. 

Do you acknowledge/obey those inviolable commands only at a certain time or is it something that you should institute all the time in every aspect of life and wherever you are? Please answer.

To me the biggest issue with the traditional interpretations that we both criticize is that for them tying together such concepts is not necessary. So it is "troublesome" for me to hear you making a similar argument.

I don?t want to get off topic but I believe that all concepts in the great reading are tied together. I never clearly saw this until I let go of making my arguments around attacking the traditional interpretation. But now I see it and it is amazing. I even understand the traditional interpretation as a necessary contrast for me to see the connections and the fact that this great reading cannot be from anyone other than the god.

With respect to your other objections, to make my explanation easier to visualize, please think of government, which is an easy example of an institution of obedience that everyone can relate to. Government implements a system of governance. We have systems of government that are fascist or communist or capitalist, etc. The inviolable institution of obedience is concerned with implementing what is inviolable. When you say you are devoted to a form of government, you are being akifu/devotee/resident in that system. On the other hand, when you don't live under this system of government then you are a "baadi/bedouin/visitor".

Ultimately, it is up to people to implement the inviolable. The god has put in us the natural instinct by which we all know, for example, that killing another person is wrong. When your orientation is an institution of authority that allows those who are strong to kill those who are weak (fascist government where the ends justify the means) then you will not be on the straight path.

Before the great reading, the people of the previous books were in charge of prospering the inviolable institution of obedience. However, they violated the first command and setup Jesus and their clergy as partners. This is why 9:28 commands that they are not to be part of this institution after this calendar year of theirs. Of course, kicking the elite class of the people of the book (those who are literate in the language of religion and politics) out of the government would involve potential financial hardship.

As for 2:196, there is no exclusion. Those who are in the institution should fast the entire 10 days during the feast and not divide it into 3 during the feast and 7 after they return to where they came from. So everyone fasts 10 days. Again, think of the institution of obedience as government. Everyone knows what being in the government is about. In this case, it is a government that implements the inviolable commands.

Maybe my explanation is not clear. I have been writing more in Arabic the past couple of years. I have just completed a book in Arabic that I will be publishing soon, unless the god wills otherwise. One of the chapters deals with the inviolable institution of obedience.

Peace,

Ayman

[Wakas]

peace brother Ayman,

Thanks for the reply.

I concur on the 4 points you listed, that we agree upon. However, to clarify one point, technically I never said "sujud" means "obey".

However, I think that you devote too much of your thesis to such criticism and it is distracting and actually

To some extent, I agree. I was actually thinking of simply extracting info from the relevant verses and discussing the likely options, but the problem with this is that I am certain many readers would read it and think why has the author seemingly rejected the common/traditional understanding when they might think it is sound, so I think its reasonable and fair that I should point out the problems in that view, as well as present an alternative. Perhaps I could have written a separate article for each.

You made a correct observation in your article. So please do not contradict it (I quote):

I did not contradict what I wrote. I said they (i.e. AMAH and straight path) were related in BOTH quotes you quoted.

As you observed, 2:142 clearly contrasts the previous physical ?qibla? with the straight path

When I discuss the traditional understanding, I do refer to their "physical qiblah" understanding, but I do not state that is what AQ actually suggests the previous "qiblah" was, but what you are saying is a theoretical possibility.

Do you acknowledge/obey those inviolable commands only at a certain time or is it something that you should institute all the time in every aspect of life and wherever you are? Please answer.

IF you are referring to 6:151-153, then they are for all times. That does not actually prove nor answer anything to do with AMAH however.

When you say you are devoted to a form of government, you are being akifu/devotee/resident in that system. On the other hand, when you don't live under this system of government then you are a "baadi/bedouin/visitor".

Evidence, as per Quran? Further, what of those who live under such a system but are not devoted to it, what are they called?

Re: 9:28

Of course, kicking the elite class of the people of the book (those who are literate in the language of religion and politics) out of the government would involve potential financial hardship.

Elite class? People of the book? Potential financial hardship? Are you implying not being part of "government" precludes one from trading with believers?
Evidence, as per Quran?

As for 2:196, there is no exclusion. Those who are in the institution should fast the entire 10 days during the feast and not divide it into 3 during the feast and 7 after they return to where they came from. So everyone fasts 10 days.

So, in this big feast, those in government fast 10 days, and every visitor fasts 3 days..... erm, during the feast, as per 2:196? Seems odd. Further, 2:196 does not allow such an interpretation, as it literally says "...That is for one whose people are not at-hand/present (at) al masjid al haram...", i.e. "that" refers to what came before in the verse, not "that" applies to others/everyone. This seems a basic circumstantial qualifier for the verse.


And last, but by no means least, you did not answer all that I highlighted. Bro Ayman, if we are to progress in our understandings, we must be willing to be open and explore possibilities, and that includes putting the evidence on the table for each option, then weighing them. Please answer my Qs when you have time.

[Wilson]

Peace Ayman,

I have been writing more in Arabic the past couple of years. I have just completed a book in Arabic that I will be publishing soon, unless the god wills otherwise. One of the chapters deals with the inviolable institution of obedience.

I assume you were talking about this same book here:

I am actually in the process of a significant rewriting the "What's in the name?" article as part of a book that I am trying to write and publish.

I always thought this was going to be in English . Congratulations on completing the book though. I will be ordering several copies for Arabic speaking acquaintances and one for myself, unless the god wills otherwise.


Abdelilah

[ayman]

Peace brother Wakas,

I did not contradict what I wrote. I said they (i.e. AMAH and straight path) were related in BOTH quotes you quoted.

IF you are referring to 6:151-153, then they are for all times. That does not actually prove nor answer anything to do with AMAH however.

So you are on one hand saying that they are RELATED and on the other hand you are saying that the straight pat doesn't prove or answer ANYTHING to do with AMAH. So how are they related then? I hope that you see the contradiction. I think that once you resolve this contradiction, you will more clearly see what the great reading is saying.

Evidence, as per Quran? Further, what of those who live under such a system but are not devoted to it, what are they called?
Re: 9:28

Brother, you are still thinking in the same way that sectarian think. You want to divide people into neatly segregated religious buckets. The great reading is not talking about religious divisions. It is talking about the universal human concept of an institution of authority. What do you call people who live under the rule of the UK government but don't abide by the laws of the UK? Can they be given positions in the very government system that they violate?

Elite class? People of the book? Potential financial hardship? Are you implying not being part of "government" precludes one from trading with believers?
Evidence, as per Quran?

The great reading talks about two classes of people, the commoners "umi" who can't understand the language of religion and the people of the book who can understand the language of religion. In the ancient world, the language of religion was the language of prestige only understood by the religious and political elite but not the commoners. The great reading was in the language of the commoners and it enabled the commoners to take over government from the religious and political elite.

So, in this big feast, those in government fast 10 days, and every visitor fasts 3 days..... erm, during the feast, as per 2:196? Seems odd. Further, 2:196 does not allow such an interpretation, as it literally says "...That is for one whose people are not at-hand/present (at) al masjid al haram...", i.e. "that" refers to what came before in the verse, not "that" applies to others/everyone. This seems a basic circumstantial qualifier for the verse.

This is only for those who can't provide livestock. "That" applies to what came before it (visitors whose people are not at-hand/present (at) al masjid al haram). I agree. So the other group that fasting 3 days during the feast and 7 at home DOESN'T apply to are those who are in al masjid al haram (think of government). For those they fast the entire 10 days in the feast (i.e. the entire period of the feast).

And last, but by no means least, you did not answer all that I highlighted. Bro Ayman, if we are to progress in our understandings, we must be willing to be open and explore possibilities, and that includes putting the evidence on the table for each option, then weighing them. Please answer my Qs when you have time.

I think that once the first contradiction in your thesis about the straight path and AMAH is resolved, then it will be much easier to answer everything else.

Peace,

Ayman

[ayman]

Peace brother Abelilah,

I assume you were talking about this same book here:
I always thought this was going to be in English . Congratulations on completing the book though. I will be ordering several copies for Arabic speaking acquaintances and one for myself, unless the god wills otherwise.

After the revolutions in Egypt and the other Arab countries, I felt that the book is more needed at this point in Arabic to advance the cause of peacemaking ("islam").

I just started to gradually release chapters of the book on the following site:

www.quran4peace.org

Peace and best regards,

Ayman

[javed1]

Peace Ayman
Can you kindly translate those articles for us non arabic speakers.We too need that knowledge.Thanks.
Javed

[Wilson]

Peace javed,

01 - Far In The Horizon
02 - Know Thy Enemy
03 - Rules Of Engagement
04 - Free Choice
05 - The Natural Republic
06 - The Trust
07 - The Hidden Side
08 - Magic
09 - What's In The Name
10 - Blind Dating VS Perfect Timing
11 - Language Barrier
12 - Idiot's Guide To Code 19 + The Code 19 Debate
13 - How Did It Come To This_Part 1
14 - How Did It Come To This_Part 2
15 - Introduction To Peacefulness


Abdelilah

[Wakas]

Peace brother Ayman,


Let me repeat: there is NO contradiction.

What seems to be the issue for you is that you are asking "So how are they related then?". Not explicitly citing the relationship, in my article, does not constitute a contradiction.

AMAH is related to the straight path because it involves doing good, it is the truth from your Lord, involves making the believers a balanced/moderate community, the effects of this change will be less debate from the people, lead to God completing His favour, aid guiding, and bringing you all together, the change of qiblah command and what to is from God thus following/serving God is to do with the straight path [see 3:51].
I did mention most of the above in my article, but I did not explicitly state that's how the straight path is related to AMAH.

Please cross-reference "straight path" in Quran also.


With regard to your answers to some of my questions, you offered general information, but no specific evidence from Quran. For example: "Are you implying not being part of "government" precludes one from trading with believers?"

Please answer, and if possible, with evidence as per Quran.

This is only for those who can't provide livestock. "That" applies to what came before it (visitors whose people are not at-hand/present (at) al masjid al haram). I agree. So the other group that fasting 3 days during the feast and 7 at home DOESN'T apply to are those who are in al masjid al haram (think of government). For those they fast the entire 10 days in the feast (i.e. the entire period of the feast).

I have little clue as to what you are saying here. Can you please provide your translation of 2:196 (ideally with explanation footnotes)? Thanks.

I think that once the first contradiction in your thesis about the straight path and AMAH is resolved, then it will be much easier to answer everything else.

Again, there is no contradiction, see above. I dont see how my elaborating on what I said makes it much easier for you to answer questions about YOUR own view.

[ayman]

Can you kindly translate those articles for us non arabic speakers.We too need that knowledge.Thanks.

Peace Javed,

I am also working on an English version. The English version shouldn't take a whole lot of time since I already have most of the info in English.

I initially wanted to include a lot more info in the book but decided to limit it to the 7 chapters. The reason is that the vast majority build everything on the so-called 5 pillars. So instead of taking the typical Quranist approach of attacking Hadiths, I instead took the path of making it clear that even the majority's understanding of such basic premise as the meaning of "islam" and the so-called 5-pillars is wrong. If this point is successful then the whole traditional structure will crumble and no need to waste time arguing about Hadiths.

Peace,

Ayman