Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- From: "Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:54:11 CST
Ayman wrote:
> > but "hila:l" (cresent is mentioned).
>
> Yes, "hila:l" (crescent) is mentioned, NOT "waxing crescent" as you
> conjecture. There are actually 24-25 crescents in a year.
>
> Out of the Lexicons that I had researched, only Al-Wasit says that
> "shahr" means "hilal"/"crescent". All the Lexicons say that
because it is now an antiquated meaning.
> "hilal"/"crescent" means BOTH the waning and the waxing crescents. Since
> there are actually 24-25 crescents in a solar year (or 24 in a lunar
> year), this can't be what 9:36 is talking about when it says "shahr".
>
> Lisan Al-3arab says that it means "al-qamar"/"the moon" when it is
> nearly full ("qarab al-kamal") and "hilal"/"crescent" in general (both
it adds 'i*dha: Zahara "when it appears" as well as qa:raba~l-kama:l
which could mean "approaching fullness" which could mean any waxing
phase. taken all together a waxing crescent is consistent.
few lexicographers deduced the meaning "full moon".
> waning and the waxing). Out of the two meanings only "full moon" is
> possible in 9:36 because in a year we can count exactly 12 full moons
> (see article). It also fits with the etymology.
it doesn't fit "etymology", which is a science more precise than
your musings.
>
> > which doesn't tell much.
>
> Studying the etymology is what Lexicons are best for. Lexicons are not
> meant for recounting history and analyzing archeological evidences.
> Remember that the lexicons were written long after the revelation of the
> great reading. For example, Lisan Al-3arab was written by Ibn Manzoor
> some 600 years after the great reading was revealed and is supposed to
> be based on earlier work that was 200-300 years after the great reading.
as I said, 200 years is not that long a time. "I met this old man who
said
his grandfather said his grandfather thus". this argument was actually
used
by a famous turkish philologist - historian, passed away recently, when
we
were discussing turkish a spoken in the late 19th -early 20th centruy.
he responded " well, I know how turkish was spoken 200 years ago. I
knew
my grandfather, who knew his grandafther". so similarly the traditions
about early Islam cannot be too far off.
> So studying the etymology is essential to try to figure out how the
> different meanings came about and if there is a common thread that runs
> through the different meanings. This common thread is likely to give an
> indication of the original meaning from a few hundred years prior. The
> etymology of the various meanings of "shahr" and its derivatives:
> "Moon", "obvious", "wide", "big", "full-figured", and "white and bright"
> points to "full-moon" as the original meaning of a few hundred years
> prior.
Sabaic is also etymolgy. Sabaic in its late stages was used by Arabs.
in Sabaic it meant "new (waxing) crescent, the first days of the month
or a deity represented by the new crescent.
> > not relevant. from Sabaic and medieval arabic dictionaries *sh*ahr
> > meant "new crescent (see Enc. of Islam II "Ta'rikh")
>
> I am not sure how the Encyclopedia of Islam II got this meaning from
> Sabaic. In Enc. of Islam II "Ta'rikh", it is NEVER mentioned that
> "medieval arabic dictionaries say that *sh*ahr meant new crescent". This
fine. memory plays tricks. that was from Lane's lexicon.
> is your own conjecture and you are either misquoting or assuming because
> of your preconception. Undoubtedly, the editors of Enc. of Islam II know
> that medieval Arabic dictionaries mention "crescent" in general and not
> "new crescent".
it's in Lane's translation. "the new moon when it appears".
waxing crescents may be called "new moons" and "when it appers"
the appearance of a waxing crescent is dramatic, not that
of a waning crescent. al-hila:l 'i*dh*a: 'ahalla
i.e "a crescent when it appears", so it is not just "crescent".
from Taj al-`Arus, Lisan and others.
and the meaning "month" is given by all dictionaries.
>
> As a side note, there is a contradiction in the same paragraph of Enc.
> of Islam II where they start by saying "the root (W R Kh) is strikingly
> absent in Arabic" but then they contradict themselves in the same
in the meaning "moon" it is absent, and it is not productive in
the meaning of "date" which is mormally given by the
derivative /'rx/. if one is talking about "roots" it has to be
productive in terms of derivations.
> sentence and acknowledge that the root (W R Kh) is not "strikingly
> absent" and in fact does exist in Classical Arabic and has a meaning of
> "date". They correctly state that "warkh" must have been borrowed from
> the South. In the South, the word "warkh" meant "month" and this is
> confirmed by archeological evidence. So this answers the question of
> what the pre-quranic Arabs used to denote "month". They used "warkh" and
how do you know they used it for "month". in arabic it means "date"
you have to produce evidence for your assertion.
> not "shahr". If you look in Classical Arabic dictionaries, you will
> indeed see that the root (W R Kh) is not "strikingly absent" and in fact
> one of the meanings given to the word "warkh" is "specification of a
> date". It is a fact that we use months for "specification of date" so
> one can see how the meaning could have evolved.
specification of date involves the day, each of which one may associate
with a particular phase of the moon. so a general word for "moon",
with all its phases, could be used for "date".
>
> > yes, and Wadd was associated with Shahr.
>
> As far as I know, there is no evidence of association with specifically
> the crescent stage.
well, it is mentioned by T. Fahd.
>
> > roughly. the calendar varied a little, and not "full moon".
>
> So at least we agree that a pre-quranic Arab hearing 2:185 would have
> understood it as talking about a time shortly after the summer solstice.
it depends on how "pre-Qur'anic". it seesm that due to bad
intercalation Ramadan had shifted away from mid-summer.
>
> > I didn't say "loophole"
>
> Here is what you said on August 6, 2004:
>
> "You seem to be arguing for certain changes in accepted cultic practices
> by utilizing possible loopholes in the language of the Qur'an and gaps
> in the archeological record."
>
> Perhaps I misunderstood you or perhaps not. I apologize if I did.
I said *possible* loopholes
if you change the vocaliztion of the Qur'an, select minor meanings or
simply ignore classical arabic dictionaries and violate arabic grammar
or use bad arabic, the Qur'an does indeed become full of loopholes, in
fact, you turn it into "swiss cheese".
I'm not saying it is so, but any text becomes so if you give
yourself enough leaway in reading or interpreting it, and
that is what you are doing.
>
> > it could be:
> > a) this verse was abrogated later.
>
> This is conjecture.
well, so are your deductions.
alternatively, one verse shows how things are, the other
how it should be.
>
> > b) solar calendars are permissible,
> > but not luni-solar ones.
>
> As you quote below, 10:5 says that the number of years is determined by
> BOTH the sun and the moon so luni-solar calendars are certainly
> permissible.
read it carefully. the determination is by the Moon in 10:5
luni-solar calendars were abrogated later.
>
> > c) years are expressed in terms of days,
> > which is determined by the Sun
>
> But the verse talks about the number of years, not the number of days.
> Either way, if you count in terms of the days and nights as 17:12
> describes then counting the days from the longest day/shortest night
> (summer solstice) to the next longest day/shortest night (summer
> solstice) is a solar year.
>
> > Q 10:5 favors a lunar calendar and acc. to Enc. of the Qur'an was cited
> > as authority for a lunar calendar by commentators.
>
> No matter what commentators say, the fact is that 10:5 clearly talks
> about BOTH the sun and the moon as a device for knowing the number of
> years and the calculation. So a luni-solar calendar is clearly favored.
you didn't address a very specific issue.
>
> > 010.005
> > YUSUF ALI: It is He Who made the Sun to be a shining glory and the Moon
> > to be a light (of beauty), and measured out stages for her; that ye
> > {actually in the arabic it is "him" (the moon is masculine and the sun
> > feminine).}
> > might know the number of years and the count (of time). Nowise did
> > Allah create this but in truth and righteousness. (Thus) doth He
> > explain His Signs in detail, for those who understand.
> >
> > the arabic is:
> >
> > huwa~-lla*dh*i: ja3ala~*sh*-*sh*amsa Diya:'an wa~l-qamara nu:ran
> > wa-qaddarahu mana:zila li-ta3lamu: 3adada~s-sini:na wa~l-Hisa:ba ...
> >
> > what the commentators point out to is << qaddarahu >> "he measured
> > out (or ordained) stages (or (Lunar) Mansions) for it (masc. sing.)" it's
> > qaddarahu "measured out stages for it (masc sing.)", refering to the
> > moon, not qaddaraha: "measured out the stages for it (fem. sing.)",
> > refering to the sun and not qaddarahuma: "measured out stages for
> > the two of them" refering to both.
> >
> > so using ALL the relevant verses: the calendar was luni-solar
> > but became purely lunar by Qur'anic decree, as is traditionally
> > assumed.
>
> There is nothing in the verse that makes "li-ta3lamu: 3adada~s-sini:na
> wa~l-Hisa:ba" only a function of the moon. The verse clearly states that
not that clause, but the clause before it.
> "li-ta3lamu: 3adada~s-sini:na wa~l-Hisa:ba" is a function of both the
> sun and the moon. Trying to put an imaginary "full stop" to make
well, the Moon does the bulk of the job in this verse. the Sun does
determine the days at least.
> "al-shams Diaan" a separate statement makes the first part of the verse
it's a question of pronouns.
> meaningless. Just read 10:6 right after 10:5. Would it make sense to
> claim that "l-ayat li-qawm yataqun" only applies to "wa ma khalaq Allah
> fi al-samawat wa al-ard" and not to the whole sentence? Of course not!
>
> > there is no reason that an observance could be delayed
> > either through decree or by intercalation. I woudl
> > favor the meaning of intercalation, but more data
> > may prove otherwise.
>
> This depends on the purpose of the observance. From the great reading,
> the only restriction is on hunting wildlife. So clearly, wild life
> preservation is the main purpose. The cycles of wildlife, such as mating
> and birthing, are fixed with the seasons. Hence, naturally, the timing
> of hunting restrictions must be in sync with the seasons. This makes the
> present so-called Islamic calendar completely useless at specifying
> hunting restrictions.
at least a Byzantine indpependent observer (Belisarius) has remarked
that
pre-islamic arabs had some time alloted for religious observance,
where warfare is not permitted.
this is a bit more than just wildlife conservation.
and there is evidence that this was done in times other than
early autumn due to the drift of the calendar because
of poor intercalation.
Ayman wrote:
> 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
well, even in pre-islamic tiems some arabs used solar calendars, but
with no different word for "month" developing, so this is rather
relevant.
> 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".
see above.
>
> > 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.
not acc. to 10:5
>
> > 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.
the assumption is that it defines the beginning of a 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
see above.
> 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.
first of all it is not "my" understanding. I addressed 10:5.
there were soalr calendars around, and the cycle of weather
and agriculture is well, knwon, so the verse presents it as
among the wonders of God.
>
> > 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.
both meanings are attested. since this is talking about the
calendar, what is referenced is months. there is nothing in
linguistics that syas they cannot be both. in turkish for
example, "moon" and "month" are the same word.
>
> > 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.
one verse may be how things are, the other about how they ought to be.
>
> > 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
you mean "observe it, but don't count". that's rather silly.
the verse says:
Q 9:36
'inna 3iddata~$-$uhu:ri 3inda~lla:hi~*th*na: 3a$ara
009.036
YUSUFALI: The number of months in the sight of Allah is twelve (in a
year)
PICKTHAL: Lo! the number of the months with Allah is twelve months
... they allow it one year and forbid it (another) year, that
they may make up the number of the months which Allah hath hallowed,
so that they allow that which Allah hath forbidden ...
SHAKIR: Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months
it says nothing of "in a solar year" or the summer solictice or
whatever.
see: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
009.037
YUSUFALI: Verily the transposing (of a prohibited month) is an addition
to Unbelief:
...they make it lawful one year, and forbidden another year, in order
to adjust the number of months forbidden by Allah and make such
forbidden
ones lawful ...
PICKTHAL: Postponement (of a sacred month) is only an excess of
disbelief
... they allow it one year and forbid it (another) year, that
they may make up the number of the months which Allah hath hallowed,
so that they allow that which Allah hath forbidden ...
SHAKIR: Postponing (of the sacred month) is only an addition in
unbelief,
... violating it one year and keeping it sacred another, that
they may agree in the number (of months) that Allah has made sacred,
and thus violate what Allah has made sacred ...
and
Q 9:37
'innama(:)~n-nasi:'u ziaya:datun fi(:)~l-kufri ... yuHillu:na 3a:man
wa yuHrimu:nahu 3a:man liyuwa:Ti'u: 3iddata ma: Harrama~lla:hu
wa yuHillu: ma: Harrama~lla:hu ...
by 3idda(t) is understood a group of things, or the count of a
group of things, like the number of days or months in a period
of time.
so in the verse it is about the number of months in a given
period or cycle. and that is *prescribed as* twelve.
the verse *decrees* a certain type of grouping of months
should be followed. it doesn't talk about natural phenomena.
> automatic intercalation as opposed to haphazardly deciding when to
> intercalate the year or not. This way, you count EXACTLY 12 full-moons
if you count 12 according to your method, it is simply cheating.
> 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.
>
>
> We know that this calendar reform took place after the revelation of the
you only know that the *era* (i.e. the beginning of the count
of years) was adopted at that time. you don't have any evidence
that the order of the months was changed.
> 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.
>
it doesn't.
.
- References:
- Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- From: Ayman
- Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- Prev by Date: Re: Shaykh Ahmed Deedat passes away
- Next by Date: Re: Clarification
- Previous by thread: Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- Next by thread: Re: Full moon of "ramadan"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
