new article - Quranic terms defined

[Raaajah]

Reagarding 2:187

...and do not approach them while you are devoting/staying in the maSaJiD / implemented acknowledgements/submissions. These are God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is thus that God makes His revelations clear to the people that they may be righteous.

In Itikaaf, it is not that you had to stay 24 hours sitting in one place, people used to go out for their daily needs, such as to toilet, for bath etc. as in those days Masjid was not similar to that of today's having all the facilities, in that case it is warned to avoid sex with wives, during that time.

and the obvious error as it says "...while you are devoting/staying IN the masajid" not when one leaves them

While one is in Masjid he is in postion of Itikaaf, therefore it makes no sense, to warn against sex, neither their is any evidence that mix gender Itikaaf was in practice at time of Muhammad peace be upon him.

[ayman]

Peace Raaajah,

I have read 17:1 and it provides the evidence of Masjid and its usage before Islam
and 17:7 also provides the pre-Islamic Evidence.

Actually, it is the other way. Even the most dogmatic traditionalist admits to the fact that there was no place in Jerusalem called Al-masjid Al-Aqsa prior to Umar building it after the Arab conquest. In fact, there is never any mention or the slightest evidence from the people of the book or any other people of a place called Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa anytime before that.

Al-Zarkashi says
Linguistically, it comes on the scheme of maf`il with a kasrah [i.e. the 'i' of masjid] which is ism makan [i.e., name of location] for prostration, while with a fathah [i.e., masjad] it is a masdar.
and 17:7 supports the view of prostration in Masjid(temple) before Islam.
He further says
Since prostration is the most honourable act in prayer because of the nearness of the servant to his Lord, the name of the location was derived from it. This is why we call it masjid [location of sujud / prostration] and not marka` [place of ruku` / inclination].

This is not correct. Take words like KaTaBa, YaKToB, MaKTaB, which share the same form as "SaJaDa". The name of location is MaKTaB and not MaKTiB. Similarly for SaJaDa, the name of location is MaSJaD, not MaSJiD.

Notice how Al-Zarkashi contradicts himself in the next sentence and says of the location of ruku' as marka`NOT marki`.

Coming back to 17:1 Encylopedia Judaica states
The priest who had gathered the coals entered the sanctuary first, scattered them over the incense altar, prostrated himself, and departed. Then the priest who was chosen by lot to offer the incense entered, bearing the pan of incense in his hand. He was accompanied by a priest appointed for this task who instructed him in the proper ritual, and he did not offer it until he was told: "Offer the incense!" The officiating priest waited until the space between the hall and the altar was cleared of people, offered up the incense, prostrated himself, and departed (Tam. 6; Kelim end of ch. 1). During the offering of the incense in the sanctuary, the people used to gather in the azarah for prayer, and even outside the Temple these times were set aside for prayer (cf. Luke 1:10; Judith 9:1). After the departure of the priest who had offered the incense, all the priests filed into the sanctuary, prostrated themselves, and went out again.

There is nothing in here or anywhere in the Bible about a place called Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa or a place called Al-Masjid Al-Haram. How come NO ONE from the people of the book or any people ever been to those places or even heard of them?

002.146
YUSUFALI: The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know.
PICKTHAL: Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognise (this revelation) as they recognise their sons. But lo! a party of them knowingly conceal the truth.
SHAKIR: Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it).

Prior to the 8th century CE there is never any mention or the slightest evidence from the people of the book or any other people of a place called Al-Masjid Al-Haram. Do you forget your children and their names or that you even have children? To this day do any of the people of the book or even so-called Muslims themselves know anything in Mecca as they know their own children?

Do you think that the god is exaggerating when he uses this similtude?

On the other hand, ALL the people of the book know that they should obey the god by implementing the truth from him. As such, "al-masjid al-haram" is an institution of obedience, just like "government", and is not an empty cube-shaped building.

Peace,

Ayman

[Ayisha]

Reagarding 2:187In Itikaaf, it is not that you had to stay 24 hours sitting in one place, people used to go out for their daily needs, such as to toilet, for bath etc. as in those days Masjid was not similar to that of today's having all the facilities, in that case it is warned to avoid sex with wives, during that time.
While one is in Masjid he is in postion of Itikaaf, therefore it makes no sense, to warn against sex, neither their is any evidence that mix gender Itikaaf was in practice at time of Muhammad peace be upon him.

that makes no sense. the verse is saying while your attention is on GOD do not approach your wives for SEX as I have been saying in the other thread. There is NO evidence that women were not there at this time either and as Quran is for both genders this is clearly saying when in the Mosque you are Gods, when at home after fasting you have your wife. The verse is regarding fasting so popping off to see the mrs during the day is a no no, while in the mosque your mind is on God and you can approach your wife when you both get home. Do not assocciate with your wife while in the Mosque proves she was also there too.

[ayman]

Reagarding 2:187In Itikaaf, it is not that you had to stay 24 hours sitting in one place, people used to go out for their daily needs, such as to toilet, for bath etc. as in those days Masjid was not similar to that of today's having all the facilities, in that case it is warned to avoid sex with wives, during that time.

2:187 clearly says "fi" (inside) al-masaajid.

While one is in Masjid he is in postion of Itikaaf, therefore it makes no sense, to warn against sex, neither their is any evidence that mix gender Itikaaf was in practice at time of Muhammad peace be upon him.

Exactly. It makes no sense, to warn against sex IN any public gathering place, let alone a building for congregational prayer. So "masjid" cannot be a place.

Peace,

Ayman

[Raaajah]

ayman

Actually, it is the other way. Even the most dogmatic traditionalist admits to the fact that there was no place in Jerusalem called Al-masjid Al-Aqsa prior to Umar building it after the Arab conquest. In fact, there is never any mention or the slightest evidence from the people of the book or any other people of a place called Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa anytime before that.

It may be a misunderstanding on your part, If you consider Masjid as a building, well it is not
Zarkashi points out that
From a legal point of view it refers to every place on earth since the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "The earth was made a masjid for me" which is a particularity of this ummah. This was said by the Qadi `Iyad because the previous nations used not to pray except in the places they were sure of their pureness whereas we were allowed to perform the prayers in any place not known to be impure.

This is supported by a HAdith
Therefore, whether there was a building or not when the Prophet made his heavenly trip, it is the location of the "Farthest Mosque" that is intended by the verse and not a building per se because the location where it lies was blessed by God as mentioned in verse 17:1 "the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless"The earth has been made for me [and for my followers] a "masjid" [Arabic: a place for prostration] and a means of purification.  Therefore, my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

[Raaajah]

ayman

There is nothing in here or anywhere in the Bible about a place called Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa or a place called Al-Masjid Al-Haram. How come NO ONE from the people of the book or any people ever been to those places or even heard of them?

This again seems to be a misunderstanding
Al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the surrounding area (i.e., Dome of the Rock among others) is usually identified with the place where the Temple of Solomon once stood. Bet ha-Miqdash, in jewish literature and in this Bet ha Miqdash, the prostration took place which i quoted from the encyclopedia.


This is what a Masjid may be and not usually a building

Figure 6: Mosque at Har Oded facing south-southeast.

[Raaajah]

ayman

This is not correct. Take words like KaTaBa, YaKToB, MaKTaB, which share the same form as "SaJaDa". The name of location is MaKTaB and not MaKTiB. Similarly for SaJaDa, the name of location is MaSJaD, not MaSJiD.

Notice how Al-Zarkashi contradicts himself in the next sentence and says of the location of ruku' as marka`NOT marki

But according to MSM Saifullah
Abu Zakariyya al-Farra' [a famous grammarian] said: Every verb coming on the scheme of fa`ala [in the past form] yaf`ulu [in the present form] like dakhala yadkhulu [which means "to enter"] admits the form maf`al with a fathah as a noun or masdar without distinction like in dakhala madkhalan. There are some nouns that were bound to take a kasrah on the second letter of its root like masjid, matli`, maghrib, mashriq and others, thus making the kasrah a sign of the noun, and some Arabs may say it with a fathah.

Indeed, masjid and masjad, and matli` and matla` were all narrated.

He said: Putting a fathah in all these forms is admissible even if we did not hear it before.

He said in Al-Sihah: Masjad with a fathah refers to one's forehead which is the place involved in prostration.

[ayman]

Peace Raaajah,

It may be a misunderstanding on your part, If you consider Masjid as a building, well it is not

It is not a misunderstanding on my part but you didn't read what I wrote carefully. I said "there was no place in Jerusalem called Al-masjid Al-Aqsa". In case you may not know, in the English language the word "place" can be a building, or a piece of land, etc.

So the fact stands that there was no place named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem or any where. Also, there was no place named Al-Masjid Al-Haram.

Zarkashi points out that
From a legal point of view it refers to every place on earth since the Prophet - peace be upon him - said: "The earth was made a masjid for me" which is a particularity of this ummah. This was said by the Qadi `Iyad because the previous nations used not to pray except in the places they were sure of their pureness whereas we were allowed to perform the prayers in any place not known to be impure.
This is supported by a HAdith
Therefore, whether there was a building or not when the Prophet made his heavenly trip, it is the location of the "Farthest Mosque" that is intended by the verse and not a building per se because the location where it lies was blessed by God as mentioned in verse 17:1 "the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless"The earth has been made for me [and for my followers] a "masjid" [Arabic: a place for prostration] and a means of purification.  Therefore, my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

So according to the above, you admit that "al-masjid al-aqsa" in 17:1 is not the name of some specific place or building but it is a common noun meaning "the farthest place for prostration". So we all agree that the place or building in Jerusalem named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa is not what is talked about in 17:1.

This again seems to be a misunderstanding

There is no misunderstanding and I choose my words very carefully, including the word "place". This is not a coincidence but I have in the past debated this matter with others, including MSM Saifullah, so I am familiar with all angles of the traditionalist arguments when they get cornered. This is why MSM Saifullah was never able to answer to the fact that taking "al-masjid al-aqsa" as a common noun as he was forced to do and not the proper name of some place actually destroys the legitimacy of the present Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa since it is impossible for it to be what is talked about in 17:1.

Al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the surrounding area (i.e., Dome of the Rock among others) is usually identified with the place where the Temple of Solomon once stood. Bet ha-Miqdash, in jewish literature and in this Bet ha Miqdash, the prostration took place which i quoted from the encyclopedia.
This is what a Masjid may be and not usually a building

Your reference to Bet ha-Miqdash and not Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jewish literature is the best that you could get and is therefore a surrender on your part to the fact that there is ZERO mention of a place called Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa.

But according to MSM Saifullah
Abu Zakariyya al-Farra' [a famous grammarian] said: Every verb coming on the scheme of fa`ala [in the past form] yaf`ulu [in the present form] like dakhala yadkhulu [which means "to enter"] admits the form maf`al with a fathah as a noun or masdar without distinction like in dakhala madkhalan. There are some nouns that were bound to take a kasrah on the second letter of its root like masjid, matli`, maghrib, mashriq and others, thus making the kasrah a sign of the noun, and some Arabs may say it with a fathah.
Indeed, masjid and masjad, and matli` and matla` were all narrated.
He said: Putting a fathah in all these forms is admissible even if we did not hear it before.
He said in Al-Sihah: Masjad with a fathah refers to one's forehead which is the place involved in prostration.

I already gave you the rule and the appropriate general forms. Those nouns that take the "kasrah" on the second letter are the exception and not the general rule. Why include "masjid" in those exceptions? Also, if you look more closely you will see that those exceptions matli`, maghrib, and mashriq are not strictly names of location but are also used to denote the time of an event so this would explain the exception.

In summary, you have not said anything more than repeating the traditionalists excuses that MSM Saifullah already said, and which actually inadvertently destroy the legitimacy of what is presently named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. It is not surprising that like MSM Saifullah and other traditionalists, you conveniently evade to address 2:146:

002.146
YUSUFALI: The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know.
PICKTHAL: Those unto whom We gave the Scripture recognise (this revelation) as they recognise their sons. But lo! a party of them knowingly conceal the truth.
SHAKIR: Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it).

Peace,

Ayman

[Wakas]

peace,

Raaajah, that is not pre-Islam evidence.

For mazhar/others, by pre-Islam, I am referring to the title, with a capital "I", so basically anything pre-Quran.

Ayman, you and I both know there are many problems with the traditional understanding of these terms. The one you mentioned is particularly problematic for them, and these are only some of them.

Here is another example for people to ponder on:

18:21 And like that We made known about them that they might know that God's promise is true and that the Hour there is no doubt in it. When they disputed amongst themselves about their issue, so said: "Build over/upon them a building". Their Lord knows best about them. Those who prevailed on their issue said: "Surely we will take* (to ourselves) over/upon them a maSJD."
*verb form 8, reflexive.

Interestingly, almost all translators seemingly neglect certain aspects of this verse:
Firstly, they imply a physical building was built (worse still, a Mosque) over them (i.e. their graves), as some sort of shrine in their memory, which is completely against the message of The Quran (i.e. no saint/human reverence).
Secondly, it clearly states there is a dispute and some said "build a building over/upon them" yet it later says those who prevailed said "Surely we will take (to ourselves) a maSJD over/upon them" clearly implying there must be a significant difference between each side's argument. If traditionally understood, the only difference is one argues for a building, the other argues for a Mosque.
Thirdly, the former expression uses "build a building..." and the latter uses "take (to ourselves) a maSJD...", as if they were both about building why not use the same word? Not to mention "take to ourselves (a building)" doesn't quite make sense.
Lastly, it implies the ones who prevailed had it right, so we must ask ourselves what is the message of this verse? Well, clearly for the people in question God gave them a sign in this story. After this lesson, they disputed, some said "build a building over them" and in-between the other side's argument it says 'Their Lord knows best about them' (also mentioned in subsequent verses), implying their number or who they were is not the point, thus no need for a building, and it is the outcome/lesson of the story that is important, hence it says those who prevailed said "Surely, we will take (to ourselves) an implemented acknowledgement/submission over/upon them". It should be noted that Asad makes a reasonable interpretation of the term "over/upon them" as "in their memory", thus those who prevailed got the point and took to themselves an implemented acknowledgement/submission in their memory, i.e. they took a lesson from God in their memory.
Also, in 18:22 it says "do not dispute about them except with an argument obvious/apparent", and since The Quran does not clarify their number which seems to be the main dispute, the primary obvious/apparent argument is the lesson of their story, and this is what people should be reminded of. As a minor point, it can also be said that building a Mosque upon them may only serve to revere them and the lesson less so. If so little is known, perhaps a building was not built.
As a side note it is alleged Al Masjid Al Haram in Mecca encloses the grave sites of Ishmael and Hagar.

[Hadi]

Peace Wakas,

Where did you get the article you quoted from?