Peace brother Wakas,
Quote from: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 07:16:30 AMThanks 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:
Quote from: Wakas on October 10, 2012, 07:16:30 AM2) 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