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

[Emre_1974tr]

The temples of the Jews are also cubic or rectangular prism-shaped. Additionally, the massive flying structure called the New Jerusalem, which is often confused with paradise in the Bible, is also cube-shaped. (I think this structure/New Jerusalem could be a massive spaceship coming from the Hereafter Universe/Paradise.)





and;

https://www.judaism-islam.com/similarities-between-masjid-al-haram-and-the-jewish-temple/

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/new-jerusalem

[good logic]

Peace All.
I am not trying to enter the debate about "Hajj" in the sense of history or meanings- And there could be few of these-
 I am here to make this very important observation about the current "Hajj" event that happens yearly. I will list two issues as reflective questions:

1- What is its benefits to the believers if the way of hajj nowadays  is contradictory to Qoran s way?
2- Does it not go against the basic etiquette of Qoran?

Well lets look at what is happening in Saudi Arabia and its ways:

1- Hajj is gathering the "Muslims" and making money to fill the coffers to act out ways and politics of the leaders of Saudi Arabia. It is a business taking advantage of its customers.

2- The leaders are wasting a lot of money on expensive footballers and bringing in other celebrities of sports and art to compete with the west and put on shows and entertainment for the people/world . No benefit or help for its people and Muslims across the globe.

3- What is happening there is against the message of Qoran and its social structure for welfare, protection and security of the people.

Qoran tells us that those who gather wealth and spend it against GOD s instructions, wasting it and corrupting the system will regret such action .It will work towards their demise in this world and in the hereafter.

Can one really justify going to hajj spending between 5000 and 10000 pounds (from England as an- example-) to contribute to that wasteful economy?
Regardless of interpretations of Qoran about Hajj, this is a gross wrong way of gathering the people to supposedly serve GOD and help the community.
GOD bless you all.
Peace.

[uq]

Good Logic,

You raise valid points, but these are ultimately socio-political questions that can only be tackled through real-world activism. As it relates to the Dīn, the message of the Quran has begun to reach Saudi Arabia, I believe there are members of this forum from Saudi Arabia.

Wakas,

You are correct that it has been theorised that many shrines existed and were dispersed throughout Arabia in pre-Quranic times. Indeed, some have suggested that the Ka'bah was one such shrine. To this end, AlKalbī (died 204) in his Kitāb alAṣnām, states that the Ka'bah used to be a shrine overrun by the idols of polytheistic Arabs. However, following recent surveys around the Ḥijāz, it now appears that the people of western Arabia had started to transition to monotheism in pre-Quranic times, specifically, the period between AD 300–600. All or most inscriptions of this period show that people were dedicating inscriptions to one God, whether they be from a Christian, Jewish, or unidentified monotheistic background.

I only mention this to say that the Islamic tradition is very problematic in its imposition of beliefs and practices on the Quran, with Hajj being the example at hand. Your point about Hajj having been defined by the Quran in its own terms and only later becoming mixed up in folk religious practice is well taken. We even see this with Ṣalāh. A paper published by Uri Rubin, Morning and Evening Prayers in Early Islam (1987), proposes that Ṣalāh was known to the pagans at the time and that it was a ritual practice that was performed after sunrise but was forbidden just before sunset. To this end, he argues that the five daily prayers were influenced by this pre-Quranic pagan practice, in fact, to this day, traditional Islam holds that praying while the sun is setting is Makrūh 'disliked.'

I am not well versed on Jewish and Christian practices, so I can't speak to the idea if they currently have or have ever had any Hajj-like rituals.

As it relates to the Bakkah/Makkah dichotomy, my current position is to understand them to be references to two different things: I don't believe them to be synonymous. I still think that they are toponyms or place names for several grammatical reasons, but Bakkah is given greater significance in the Quran than Makkah, since the prior is said to be the place at which the Bayt was 'placed,' whereas the latter is only mentioned in passing in relation to God protecting the believers from a raid. This ties in very loosely with the northern origin theory, which, by the way, is not seriously entertained in Western academia, however, it has occupied my mind of late since the location of Bakkah remains vexingly unexplained.

What is the grammatical problem posed by 2:217? Is it the interjection 'wa-kufrun bihi'?

[Wakas]

I am not well versed on Jewish and Christian practices, so I can't speak to the idea if they currently have or have ever had any Hajj-like rituals.

I mentioned some info in my article, quote:
The people of the book may have recognised it as the truth because they have a practice which resembles this period in which the HaJJ/commemoration/feast is held, called "hagg sukot" (feast of tabernacles) which involves tents and travelling to a certain location for a festival/feast/gathering, remembering/thanking God, celebrating the Torah, spreading the message, with similar timing and is open to all. There is also talk of representatives (see 2:196 analysis) etc. We know from AQ that the HaJJ was a regular occurrence in Moses' time, see 28:27. This is perhaps an area for further research.

You can read about hagg sukot here:
http://www.wildolive.co.uk/sukot.htm

I still think that they are toponyms or place names for several grammatical reasons...

Bro Ayman discussed the grammatical issues in the past on this forum. If I find it I will post the link.

What is the grammatical problem posed by 2:217? Is it the interjection 'wa-kufrun bihi'?

Yes, I mentioned it in my article:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html

Quote:

2:217 They ask you about the inviolable month (al shahr al haram) "Is there fighting in it?" Say: "Fighting in it is a great wrong but hindering from the way/path of God and to reject/conceal in/with/by Him/it and al masjid al haram, and expelling its people* from it is a greater wrong AAinda/(in the presence of) God, and the persecution/oppression is worse than killing/warfare." And they will not cease to fight you until they turn you away from your system/obligation if they are able. And whoever of you turns away from his system/obligation, then dies while he is rejecting/concealing, then these have nullified their deeds in this world and the hereafter; and these are the companions of the Fire, in it they are dwelling.
*"its people" likely refers to the people within it and also pursuing it, see 22:25, 8:34, 9:17-18. This may also relate to some instances of the muhajirin/emigrants mentioned in AQ.

    All translators that I checked translate "kifr bihi" in 2:217 as "disbelief/deny/reject in Him" however this creates an issue with what follows as it would require rendering "wa (kifr bi) AMAH" as "and disbelief/deny/reject in AMAH". This is problematic according to Traditional Islamic history because the polytheists were devoted to AMAH, thus did not disbelieve/deny/reject in it. This may explain the variance for this part in translations. Interestingly, I could not find a "kfr bihi" in AQ referring to God. Furthermore, it says the persecution/oppression (al fit'na) is worse than the killing/warfare, implying what was said before in 2:217 is about fit'na, not about rejecting/disbelieving in God. Thus, in terms of probability, "kifr bihi" likely means "deny/reject/conceal in it (the path of God)", i.e. the closest preceding masculine singular.
    An important article dealing with an alleged grammatical problem in 2:217 can be found HERE - it is technical, but essentially the case ending of AMAH shows that it is joined to a preceding phrase in this verse - but what phrase? If we accept the wording of AQ as is, then interpreting AMAH as "the inviolable time of SJD/acknowledgement" (i.e. the term referring to the time-period/event of the inviolable months) the alleged grammar problem disappears. In the article note how Farra and Razi say similar. Abu Hayyan's explanation is simple and could also work since in spoken vernacular Arabic it is common to add on a genitive pronoun without the preposition "bi" being repeated, e.g. 5:69 "... amana biAllahi wa alyawmi al-akhiri...". It would still leave the potential problem of explaining "deny/reject/conceal in AMAH" however (as stated in that article), but this is perhaps less of an issue for the alternative understandings of 'the inviolable act/institution/time of SJD'.
    Please note that the author of that article resorts to the rhetoric style ("balagha") in order to explain away the alleged "inconsistency" in traditional interpretation and grammar. This suggests that the solutions discussed in the article were unsatisfactory, and there is little idea about how to explain the alleged "inconsistency", hence being placed under the conveniently fuzzy/undefined catch-all category of "balagha". For those relying upon AQ, it is much preferable to have a solution that corresponds to its internal structure and logic, if there is such a solution. In this case there is.

I also linked to: https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/q_studies/mirbalaga


####

Also if you haven't already I recommend reading this article. It definitely is an interesting verse:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/Quran-2196-critical-thinking.html

[uq]

The proposition that the pronoun in /wa-kufrun bihi/ refers to /sabīli -llāhi/ is valid.

Equally as valid is taking the view that it refers to /allāhi/.

However, the proposition that it refers to /almasjidi -lḥarāmi/ is hard to justify.

It may help to represent the words in 2:217 that exert their syntactic effect without being literally present in the text and replacing all pronouns for the referents to which they may refer (in CAPITALS):

They ask thee about the inviolable month, ABOUT combat in THE INVIOLABLE MONTH, say thou "Combat in THE INVIOLABLE MONTH is grave/a grave [thing], yet, repelling away from the path of God and disbelief in/rejection of GOD/THE PATH OF GOD/THE INVIOLABLE MONTH and DISBELIEF IN/REJECTION OF/REPELLING AWAY FROM almasjid alḥarām and expelling the inhabitants of ALMASJID ALḤARĀM from ALMASJID ALḤARĀM are more grave."

Note that /ahl/ is used in the Quran in a few different ways, the two most dominant meanings are 1) inhabitants, e.g. /ahlu -nnār/ The inhabitants of the fire, and 2) people associated with something, /ahlu -lkitāb/ The people of the kitāb. Presumably, you take the latter to be the case in 2:217?

There are maybe one or two other ways that we can approach this ayah, one of which involves making /kabīr/ to be the subject of all items except the last, but we can stick with the above for now.

Thanks for the links, I will check em out IA, but this one isn't hyperlinked:

An important article dealing with an alleged grammatical problem in 2:217 can be found HERE

[Wakas]

An important article dealing with an alleged grammatical problem in 2:217 can be found HERE

It is recommended to read my articles from the original page (ideally on desktop) as the formatting and links are contained therein. In this case I also linked to it in my post e.g.
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/q_studies/mirbalaga

Did you read it?


Quote:
The problematic phrase occurs in the first part of the verse. For purposes of reference, we shall divide that part into the following units:

A  yas'alūnaka `ani 'l-shahri 'l-harāmi qitālin fīhi
B  qul qitālun fīhi kabīrun
C  wa saddun `an sabīli 'llāhi
D  wa kufrun bihī
E  wa'l-masjidi 'l-harāmi
F  wa ikhrāju ahlihī minhu
G  akbaru `inda 'llāhi

The issue is: What is the genitive case-ending of al-masjid in E due to, or which is the same thing, to which preceding phrase is E joined by conjunction? We shall begin by reviewing some of the answers given by traditional scholars...


#####

I'm not sure I understand your reply so I will ponder some more.

#####

Presumably, you take the latter to be the case in 2:217?

Yes, but I imagine it would be likely there is people living in the designated area. This may tie into the phrasing found in 2:196 (the article for which I linked to previously)

[amin]

Many instance of MAH still looks to refer to this as a place where restrictions comes into effect, but as i said, in many instances it refers to the mode of discipline/restricting one's self over the opposite of like going for a fight or acting without any order. May be with time, some wrong understanding crept in.

I am looking parallels of Haram to the Indian concept of Santana dharma/Aram, which is the root behind Indian religions and even we can say behind most religions, where principles of discipline and restrictions get priority over one's self/ego. Here as a community the act of not killing animals at will, preserving vegetation, ecosystem, wealth distribution and community welfare etc gets prioritized over anything else.

Theres a verse in Quran, that talks about killing less aged animals and destroying crops by people, 2/205, shows how community welfare gets prioritized over self ego and selfish desires.

The problem was Quran was taken by most literally and meant to be applied globally without considering the circumstances and time these advises were given.Even many verses in Quran, it says each have their own qibla, deen, direction to face etc..and its not about institutionalizing a religion, but an advice given to those Arabs to follow the advises of the leader, by establishing Salat(the primary laws to govern) and contributing to society.

It asks the Jews and Christians that whether all the leaders came in the past were only Jews or Christians? so in a way its saying leaders do come for all nations to guide and work for the welfare of the people.

Yes it asks the leader to fight, for maintaining order and removing fitnah, i am seeing a lot to learn by leaders now from Quran, instead of taking the verses to be mere ritual reciting in a Salat and part of specific religion that need to be spread through out the world.


So it all revolves around how we take the Quranic verses and i think the current Tafsirs were entirely bogus and do not reflect the true picture on the primary purpose of the Quran. The Quranic mainstream history has a lot of loopholes on how it was transmitted, compiled and later spread etc.