Peace,
OK but how did Muhammad and his followers know how to fast when there were no Classical Arabic Dictionaries explaining what a month is?
They didn't need Classical Arabic dictionaries because they spoke Classical Arabic. We need the dictionaries because we don't speak it anymore unless we learn it (inclduing the Arabs of today). They knew that a month was 29 (Jewish based, now called Islamic) days. When reading the Quran and figuring out that the Jewish-based way there were counting days was incorrect then they could have made the connection. The book was for our last prophet to preach it and for the whole community to study it and enact it. I honestly dont' think they realized this. In the Islamic histories (admittedly hadeeth based) the months were taken off of the pagan system (of adding months in certain years) after our last prophet passed. So I think this challenge fell on the shoulders of the generations after our last prophet and they made the wrong decision. The other conclusion would be that our last prophet with the believing community did make the correct changes but later generations opted for the pre-islamic nomenclature of months and the lunar system, keeping off addition of an extra month (making it a fully lunar calendar), but using foreign calendars for the solar system. Which is not entirely far-fetched seeing that the nominal Musilms (the Ummayads and others) tried to bring things back to the Jahillyah system as soon as the last prophet passed away.
Does it say 60 persons for 2 months?
Yes. 58:4 However, he who does not have the where?withal shall fast for t
wo consecutive months before the couple may touch one another again; and he who is unable to fast shall feed
sixty needy onesHere it is. If you can't fast for 2 months to atone for the sin in the previous verses, then you can expiate the daily fasting for 2 months by feeding 60 people
5:89 is the vers that has been use against me in the argument. It reads:
Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.
But I have continued to argrue here that in this verse we are not expiating any fast. The breaking of our oaths is worth feeding 10 people in need or JUST clothing them, or freeing someone in bondage. But if we can't do that we can fast for 3 days. So here we are not making up for any fasting. Whereas before if we can't fast then we expiate for the fast. That is the difference.
Here are the two verses that lay down the rule: 2:183-2:184
[Where did the definition of a Qur'anic month = 29 days come from?] is my main query, or is it something that everyone should know automatically whilst reading the Qur'an?
Lisaanul-Arab. I saw it in another dictionary as well. i don't have acceess to it any more. I think it was mu'jamat al-lughaat.
This is a meaning that was once automatically known. In MSA (modern standard Arabic which is the closest thing to Classical Arabic still spoken) a month is known either as an Islamic month, a western one or any number of days around 30 days in general. But we are talking about in the past here. And the Classical dictionaries tell us what people considered a month in the past amongst Classical Arabic speakers. We are speaking of a time period of over 1400 years. For that reason we are referring to dictionaries that tell us how people automatically understood these word 1400 years ago. Hence the Classical Arabic dictionary.
If it comes from a dictionary that comes after it then that is subject to great sceptism.
I understand your point here. The fact here however is that it was being documented how Arabic was blending and changing and how in certain places it wasn't. We are at the point now (and have been for centuries now) where Arabic has totally blended and evolved everywhere, except in the academic and scholarly field, where they maintained what was once the natural language of all Arabs but is now an archaic Arabic like Elizabethan English is archaic to us. Hence MSA was derived after many official councils on the Arabic language in the 20th century to install an official langauge in the education curriculum and media use based in most part on the now archaic (Classical) Arabic found in the Quran, pre-islamic poems, the hadeeth and other discourse of people after that. This was done to respect the history of Arabic literature and to mitigate some of the many subtle differences and the somtimes stark differences between the blended evolved Arabics (often called dialects, 3aamiyah or darijah) of different regions (these are known as Khaliji (gulf), Maghribi (incluses hassaniyyah and shuba), Misri (includes Sudan and Egypt), Yamani (includes Soqotri and Mehri which are technically different languages than Arabic, Soqotri has more Arabic in it I believe), And Saudi (also a product of mixing because of the inflow of non-Arabic or dialect speaking Muslims from all of the conquered Arabic territories))
That is the history. All Classical Arabic dictionaries were dedicated to reaching the people who still spoke Classical Arabic after the Quran and checking, analyzing and recording their use of the language. Reading the prefaces of Lisan-Al-Arab or lane's lexicon will give you a better picture of how early the works are and the situation of Arabic at the time. These dictionaries are all after the Quran, but Classical Arabic was still being fluently spoken after the Quran. Seeing that there were few educational institutions early on besides Quranic schools, the widely spread rumorous hadeeths prove this point as well. The Hadeeths are pure rumor and all of them are in Classical Arabic, which confirms the language's existence as a commonly spoken language among Arabs and especially bedouin Arabs.
Now to put these dictionaries under skepticism would be equal to putting our dictionaries like webster and oxford's under criticism and saying that they don't apply to works like the constitution or other English works pre-1800. But a good dictionary like Oxford for instance (which is the one we would refer to for archaic Englsh works) dates meanings and quotations, espeically if they come from interpretations of religious or political scholars where the words have been embellished upon and changed from their original meanings.
So I hope you understand that
1. The effort of any dictionary is to record the use of the langauge it has dedicating itself to.
2. If there were reasons to suggest differences in language B as it is spoken as opposed to records of how it was spoken before (Quran reciters, pre-islamic poem reciters being the ones to refer to) they would have been noted, and they were noted.
3. Dictionary writers checked with people who lived during the time of the prophet or shortly after his death as to how they used their language and their words.
4. All this may resemble the hadeeth but there is a major difference between verifying rumors and what people heard about the prophet and history surrounding him and how they spoke to each other and used their everyday words with each other(and being able to recognize if it is the same langaue as the Quran or not).
5. The Bedouins of that day were recorded as still using the same language and language structure as that found in the Quran, pre-islamic poetry and the hadeeths (as an every day house and street language in addition to a literate one for those who knew how to write) up to 300 years after the death of the prophet. After that the blended Arabic of the city areas where different cultures and ethnicities met and lived together (a result of Arab imperialism, Arab importation of foreign slaves as servants, international trade and the attraction of non-Arab Muslms to Arab centers of commerce and learning) began to fully affect bedouin speech as well.
You are right, there are things in the Qur'an that require in depth study and personal opinion, but a duty that God says is very good for us (although not compulsory) should be made crystal clear besides the fact that God says the Qur'an is clear guidance.
I hate to say this but that is a bias of yours. You are requiring that God make what he says clear to the corrupt and the uncorrupt a like. The Quran says that the corrupt intentionally twist its words after understanding them, and also says that many of the corrupt fail to understand even it's clearest mandates. How can we know when the corrupt do understand but are twisting on purpose? We can't, because they won't openly admit this. To those of us who are honest that is heart-wrenching because we want to believe that all humans will be honest when it comes to these sorts of discussion, but I've learned that that just will not happen. And if someone doesn't understand because they don't want to, it is also impossible to get them to admit that. So i understand you but that is why it is up to the honest to be honest with themselves, clear themselves of bias and alternative agendas and to be on the look out for those who are also honestly searching, studynig, analyzing and concluding.
To me alternative agendas are easy to spot, but it is impossible to get people with these agendas to admit it to others, let alone themslves. I understand your sentiment, but it is not the Quran, it is the people.
The description of the fast should be clear in how and when to do it and this description should be relevant and universal at the time the Qur'an was revealed as well as after
These are all your requirments and expectations. Honestly instead of demanding this of the Quran, demand this of your understanding of the book and its issues. That when you come to a conclusion it be as clear, unbiased and as non-convaluted as possible, and agrees with every Quranic verse on the subject and that it be as universal as possible. Remember that the Quran is for those who use their 3aql, not those who refuse to or choose to abuse. Unfortunately since we cannot control how justly and fervently peeople use their 3aql we can't guarantee that they would have understood this at the time of the Quran's revelation or after. That they understand the Quran as best as they can is all I think is required. So if the people at the time of its revelation honestly thought that their Jahillliyah month of Ramadan is what was meant then they did their best. If they realized that just 30 days during their local summer is what was meant then I think they were more correct in that estimation. If they though that the Quran validated their month names but not the way they added months to keep their year solar and that was their most honest assessment then they did their best. SO for those of us that realize something is wrong with the traditional islamic system it is up for us to honestly and unbiasedly investigate and try to arrive to the truth of the matter. BUt for those who don't realize I'm sure God accepts their fasting as he accepts ours if we our honest about our conclusions.
Do you see my points here?
Godbless,
Anwar
