Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- From: "Ayman" <drayman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:14:39 CST
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> it is *also* used for the cycle begun by that phase,
> and later just for any calendar month, of any system.
"Later" meanings are irrelevant because we are trying to understand the
pre-quranic meaning of the word not "later" ones. The other meaning that
you refer to by "also" is "waxing crescent", which is a meaning that you
made up and is not in any Classical Arabic dictionary. The dictionaries
say either full-moon or crescent in general and there is nothing in
there about "waxing crescent".
> it's even more relavant if you think of shahr as just a phase
> of the moon. you'll end up with 13 if you insist that "year"
> has to be a "solar year".
But the year is definitely luni-solar according to 10:5 and 17:12.
> OK, I goofed, I had lost my train of thought.
> there will be 13, but the cycle that it starts will be
> incomplete in a solar year (the reason I had in mind for
> discounting it).
At the time you were talking about "waxing crescents" NOT lunar cycle.
There is no such thing as "complete" or "incomplete" waxing crescent. It
is either there or it is not. So unlike lunar cycle where you can have a
third of a cycle, the count of "waxing crescents" is an integer. Thus,
according to this new understanding of yours "shahr" cannot mean "waxing
crescent" as you earlier claimed. I hope that this plus the fact that
*waxing* crescent is never given as a meaning of "shahr" by any
Classical Arabic dictionary suggests that you are finally giving up the
"waxing crescent" conjecture.
> conventionally one uses an integer number of months in a year.
> but then the verse affirms that there shoudl only
> be twelve "shahr" in a year, so the year cannot be
> a solar year. the verse affirms that a year is
> twelve lunar cycles, and also twelve of whatever
> phases one cares for, counting waxing and waning
> phases seperately. so if the months are defined
> by the "shahr" i.e. some phase of the moon,
> one is left with no choice but a purely lunar calendar.
But a purely "lunar" year is not possible because 10:5 and 17:12
definitely talk about the year being solar/luni-solar. Either your
understanding is contradictory or there is a contradiction in the great
reading. Given that in the article, it was clearly demonstrated how
9:36, 10:5, and 17:12 are not contradictory, then the contradiction is
definitely in your understanding.
> OK, but any individual phase of the moon has to be counted
> in integer terms. also a year is conventionally made up of
> an integer number of months.
Yes, unlike the moon cycle, the individual phases of the moon are
integer because they are either there or not. But you were saying above
that 9:36 is not talking about an individual phase but about the cycle.
See what I mean about illogically switching between meanings even for
the same word in the same verse 9:36.
> the verse does not affirm that there are twelve and a third,
> so the only conclusion possible (with a lunar months) is
> the requirement of purely lunar calendar! same conclusion
> as before.
This is only possible if one reads 9:36 in complete isolation of the
rest of the great reading and ignores passages indisputably indicating a
solar/luni-solar year such as 10:5 and 17:12.
> but fractions are not mentioned in the verse!
> again, if one has a solar year, there will be 13
> sightings of the new crescent and 12 1/3 (approx.)
> lunar cycles. that's not twelve!
Yes. So given that the year is luni-solar per 10:5 and 17:12, your
understanding of 9:36 is illogical. Please read the article again and
see how this issue is logically resolved.
> because both meanings are attached to it.
The meaning of "waxing crescent" is made up by you and is not in
Classical Arabic dictionaries. Plus it can't mean BOTH in the same
instance in 9:36.
> then the year, the religious year, has to be purely lunar!
In 10:5 and 17:12, we are clearly told how to know the years. There is
no such distinction in the great reading as a "religious year" and
"non-religious year".
> but it doesn't say 12 1/3!
Yes, because 9:36 is talking about counting an integer entity (the
full-moon). A solar year with 13 full-moons between summer solstices
will occur every three years. However, 9:36 talks about what one counts
(3idah) not the "number" (3adad). When one counts only 12 between summer
solstices and skips the 13th full-moon, this will naturally provide
automatic intercalation as opposed to haphazardly deciding when to
intercalate the year or not. This way, you count EXACTLY 12 full-moons
every single year and the seasons are in sync. This is a robust, clear,
simple and logical mechanism that resolves the issue of haphazard
intercalation and doesn't create a contradiction in the great reading
between 9:36 and 10:5 and 17:12.
> the issue is the lack of the article, and the declention.
> the pattern fa3ala:n is triptote (it takes nunation), while
> ramaDa:n(u) is diptote (it doesn't take nuantion). such
> and instance is a "flag" that it is a proper name. there
> are common nouns that diptote and proper names
> that are triptote, but a normally tripote word appearing
> as diptote would indicate its use as a proper name.
The vocalization marks are post-quranic so we don't know the original
vocalization of "shahr ramadan" (scorching full-moon) in 2:185.
Moreover, there are exceptions to the pattern of fa3ala:n taking
"nunation". For example, "Moussa ghadbana" (angry Moses) in 20:86
doesn't take "nunation".
> jsut paranthetically rabi:3 (I and II, month name) is
> soemtimes still taken as triptote, but the articled
> afdjectives (first , second) following it still mark
> as a proper name.
You are making a hasty generalization. Articled adjectives have nothing
to do with marking something as a proper name or a common noun. One can
see many examples where articled adjectives do not mark proper names.
For example, read a few words ahead to 2:186 and you will see "da3wat
al-da3" (the calling of the caller) is not a proper name.
> as for the lack of article, words of class (general sate
> of being like tahri:ru~l-mar'a(t) "Women's liberation"
> litt. "liberation of the woman") have it. so treating it
> as a common noun would lead to the awkward sounding meaning
> I stated before.
The meaning is not awkward sounding. Another possible rendition of 2:185
is:
2:185. "A scorching full-moon is when the reading was descended..."
The above is not awkward at all. A scorching full-moon signals the
arrival of the hottest days of the year and it is also special because
it follows a lower path across the horizon, which gives it a more
reddish hue. Reddish is another meaning of "ramadi/ramdaa" and hence
"ramadan". So the two meanings converge for the full-moon following the
summer solstice. I personally took a picture of this years' scorching
full-moon that I posted here:
http://19.org/forum/index.php?t=tree&th=4113&start=0&rid=0
You can clearly see that this full-moon does fit its descriptions.
> one other etymolgy I find probable is that -a:n in this case
> represents the *Sabaic* definite article. but since the
> Sabaic article carries no meaning in arabic, it could only
> be in a proper name.
This is highly improbable given the abundance of such intensified common
noun forms in Arabic. Singling out "ramadan" only demonstrates your
preconception. Moreover, even though in Sabaic the definite article was
likely pronounced as "an", it was written as "n". Hence, the Arabic
"alrmd" would have been written as "rmdn" in Sabaic and not as "rmdAn"
as in 2:185.
> There are many examples in Arabic that use such intensified nouns such
> as "ghadban(a)" (intense anger) (20:86), "buhtan(u)" (intense falsehood)
> it is buhta:n(un) in the Qur'an, as it should be.
> fu3la:n is triptote, fa3la:n is usually (in old classical arabic) diptote.
This is not always the case as you can see in 20:86. You can see that it
is "ghadbana" in 20:86 and not "ghadbanan".
> we don't have attestations of the pre-Islamic central arabian months,
> so one can't be certain one way or the other. since the Qur'an mentions, it
> must have been understood as so.
You are trying to prove that the word "ramadan" in the great reading is
a proper name and you know that you have no evidence so you resort to a
circular argument.
> but a poem is cited refering to << ramaDa:n >>
There is no evidence that such poem is pre-quranic.
> the dictionary Taj al-Arus IIRC indicates dispparoval of that "hearsay
> report", which is mearly a pious fiction of a lexicographer.
I doubt that the lexicographer invented it out of the blue. He must have
heard some hearsay about this and he simply reported it. This is no
different than any other hearsay that sectarians rely on.
> more reasonabely they state that a sort of calendar reform had
> taken place, and the originally luni-solar months were given
> new names by the conditions that they usually fell under.
We know that this calendar reform took place after the revelation of the
great reading and the new calendar can be traced to after the prophet's
death. So this confirms that the proper name Ramadan is post-quranic and
is not how a pre-quranic Arab would have understood 2:185.
> just what are you trying to prove? not only that one shoudl fast
> acc. to the solar calendar, but that one has to wait for a month
> of "intense heat" (and wait for the "full moon" during it?)
What I am trying to prove has nothing to do with any calendar. The God's
message is universal and independent of any man-made calendar used by
any people. Hence, what The God gave us is a clear cosmic
phenomenon-based timing device for fasting and hunting restrictions.
What the article proved is that abstinence is signaled by the first full
moon after the summer solstice and we should then abstain for ten days.
While proving this, it resolved a contradiction in 2:185 that was
created by the traditional interpretation. According to the traditional
interpretation, in 2:185 we are told to fast a month but then we are
told to fast a few days. This is a clear contradiction. There is no such
contradiction in the understanding presented in the article and, without
me even initially realizing it, it logically pin pointed the night of
measure that sectarians were never able to find. You see, when we reach
the proper understanding, everything automatically falls into place.
Peace,
Ayman
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- From: Yusuf B Gursey
- Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- Prev by Date: Re: Question on Mohammed
- Next by Date: Re: Scientific method to reject "proof" of Allah being not almighty
- Previous by thread: Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- Next by thread: Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
