hajj / feast / debate

[ayman]

Peace San,

It won't be as contradictory as you think, if you can see the pattern:  "to come out of a hole; to enter into another hole where there is another outlet" (taken from PRL online, root nun-fa-qaf)
a hypocrite enters an "inlet" (e.g. of faith) only to come out from another "outlet" (along the line of that faith).
a sum of wealth enters one of your pockets/wallets/accounts/ways to be spent out from one of your other pockets/wallets/accounts/ways
(think of "tunnel/channel" in English)
::: my bad, irrelevant example now removed

I think that lexigraphers can come with some fairly far fetched explanations for divergent meanings. However, these same forms for NFQ and MuNAFQ ("F3L" and "MuFA3L") don't have such divergent meanings with other roots. For example, "DF3" (push) and "MuDAF3" (pusher/defender). I would say that it is just the nature of any human language to have oddities. Also, a proto-Semitic language may have indeed had the meaning the same but then it diverged through different languages and then one language later re-imported the foreign meaning. So we end up with two divergent meanings for the same root.

There are other examples of divergent meanings within the root. I already mentioned HJJ and SB7 where the imported foreign meaning has a different sense than the Arabic root. Another example is BRK. It can mean "fall on its chest" or bless/multiply (the imported meaning).

Peace,

Ayman

[ayman]

Peace Herbman,

First, thanks for your time and answer.
You then translate hajj = feast.  This is the noon Al hajj = The feast
How would you translate the verbe.  As in "faman hajja al baita".
I guess you will use a completly different word, but the question is why would you use different meanings for a word with the same root.  I know sometimes it occurs but still 99% of the words share the same root to describe an action (verb) and the object derived from the action (noon), e.g root Ka-ta-ba
action kataba= to write
object: al kitab = the book
(I know you know this, this is for the audience)

No need to use a different meaning since it is the same context of feeding. The expression "feasted the house" may sound strange in English. However, think of it in the same way as "blessed the house", in other words, brought his blessing to the house. Similarly, in my opinion "feasted the house" would be "brought his feast to the house", or brought food to the house.

Peace,

Ayman

[san]

Peace Ayman,

Peace San,

I think that lexigraphers can come with some fairly far fetched explanations for divergent meanings. However, these same forms for NFQ and MuNAFQ ("F3L" and "MuFA3L") don't have such divergent meanings with other roots. For example, "DF3" (push) and "MuDAF3" (pusher/defender). I would say that it is just the nature of any human language to have oddities. Also, a proto-Semitic language may have indeed had the meaning the same but then it diverged through different languages and then one language later re-imported the foreign meaning. So we end up with two divergent meanings for the same root.

If i saw it to be far-fetched, then personally i would exercise the option of removing the specific term "hypocrite" from the equation.

[Wakas]

peace Bro Ayman, all,

I only read up on "hagg sukot" (Feast of Tabernacles) today and it seems its core aspects are very similar to HJJ of AQ:
http://www.wildolive.co.uk/sukot.htm

The word "tabernacles" come from tents, which implies travel and likely to certain location for a festival/feast/gathering. The timing seems similar. They also remember God, utilise/celebrate the Torah, spread the message, and it is open for all nations apparently. It also talks about representatives.

Previously, I did not realise it had these other aspects.

[ayman]

Peace brother Wakas,

I only read up on "hagg sukot" (Feast of Tabernacles) today and it seems its core aspects are very similar to HJJ of AQ:
http://www.wildolive.co.uk/sukot.htm
The word "tabernacles" come from tents, which implies travel and likely to certain location for a festival/feast/gathering. The timing seems similar. They also remember God, utilise/celebrate the Torah, spread the message, and it is open for all nations apparently. It also talks about representatives.
Previously, I did not realise it had these other aspects.

It is good to hear from you on this subject.

Yes the timing of Hagg Sukot coincides with the fourth full-moon after the summer solstice (the last of the four inviolable full-moons). If you look at the essence of Hagg Sukot beyond the manmade rituals, it is essentially a harvest feast to eat and feed others and thank the god for the harvest. As you noted, probably the tents are remenants pointing to both the travel aspect and the need to accomodate the masses coming to the inviolable house.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

[mmkhan]

Salaam all,

1. First and foremost the Hebrew meaning of "feast" clearly fits the context of hagg/hajj in the great reading where 80% of the passages talk about food.

80% 

I don't think I can agree with you on this.

Can you please quote all the aayaats and show how 80% of the Hajj related aayaats talks about food?

Thanks in advance.

May Allah guide us all towards the truth 
Mohammed M. Khan

[ayman]

Peace mmkhan,

Salaam all,
80%  
I don't think I can agree with you on this.
Can you please quote all the aayaats and show how 80% of the Hajj related aayaats talks about food?
Thanks in advance.
May Allah guide us all towards the truth  
Mohammed M. Khan

It is probably easier for you to list the signs relating to "hagg"/feast that don't talk about food, since it would be a much shorter list.

Peace,

Ayman

[Mazhar]

My translation:

Truly, the animals of milking and the stone of slaughtering/cooking are from the markers/ordinances/regulations of God, so whoever undertook debate (at) the House/Establishment or visited, there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them. And whoever does good voluntarily, then The God is Appreciative/Recognising, Aware/Knowledgeable. [2:158]

Who are these "them"? Are animals of milking?

[Wakas]

No, it is both ssafa and marwa.

[Mazhar]

No, it is both ssafa and marwa.

But ssafa and marwa is not there in the translation; they have become this

My translation:

Truly, the animals of milking and the stone of slaughtering/cooking are from the markers/ordinances/regulations of God, so whoever undertook debate (at) the House/Establishment or visited, there is no error on him that he should go about/amongst them. And whoever does good voluntarily, then The God is Appreciative/Recognising, Aware/Knowledgeable. [2:158]

And what does "stone of slaughtering" mean? Whether a sharp stone used for slaughtering a mammal or a platform of stone where an animal is laid for slaugtering?