Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - niaz

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
salaam miracle114,

I do not see anything in these verses about the message being given to dead souls. God is making a distinction between those who are guided and have attained faith with those who are not, and explaining with metaphors that the difference between them is "night and day" (as we would say in English). And I understand the latter part of verse 22 as a criticism of those trying to communicate with dead people (prophets, saints etc.), pretending they can hear us.

Someone who is spiritually blind is not the same as one who sees the truth clarity (see 40:58).

Just like darkness (ignorance) is not the same as light (guidance).

And the shade (like in paradise - 56:30) is not the same as the scorching heat (like in hell - 9:81).

And living are not the same as the dead.

And God gives whomever He wills power to hear. But we should not think that we can make the dead hear us, and try to communicate with those who are dead. I used to call on Muhammad in my Salat (as salaamu 'alaika ayyuhannabiyyu ...). But he is in his grave, and could not hear me. Nor can Muhammad hear the calls of the millions of others who call upon him. People call upon Jesus. And Ali, Hasan and Hussain. And Abdul Qadir Jeelani. And dozens of other saints in their graves. People do "ziyarat" of their tombs, and also Muhammad's tomb in Medina, and talk to them and make special prayers to them. God is describing the futility of this practice.

Incidentally, Quran is a message for those who are alive, and not those who are dead.

... It is only a reminder and a profound Quran. This is to warn those who are alive and to fulfill the truthful promise for the unfaithful. [36:69-70]

(ironically, this is in Sura Ya Seen, which is traditionally recited to the dead.)


General Discussions / Re: An Arabic Quran
« on: June 07, 2018, 08:40:41 PM »
Salaamun 'alaikum,

أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

[41:44] Had We made it a Non-Arabic Quran, they would have surely said, its verses are not elucidated. Non-Arabic or Arabic, say, for those who are faithful, it is a guide and a healing. As for those who have no faith, there is deafness in their ears and they are blind. It is as though they are being called from a far away place.


This verse teaches us that language is irrelevant, and is not a barrier for understanding the Quran. God is the Teacher of the Quran. What you observed in #2 is convincing evidence that fluency in Arabic is not a criterion for "superior" understanding of the Quran.

There is irony in that most translations give this very verse a racial undertone, and make the word عَرَبِيٌّ (Arabic) about the racial identity of Muhammad. Arberry (the supposed "non-Muslim" in the list) being an exception among the popular translations (see But by and large the message is accessible in every translation of the Quran [even "non-Muslim" ones], and God is the One who guides us. It depends on our faithfulness and sincerity, not Arabic scholarship. Of course, there is no harm in learning Arabic or trying to appreciate the Quran in its original Arabic, but what I am saying is that it is not a requirement to understand the Quran. If we are saying it is so, then we are making God a racist who is biased towards a certain group of people over others based on language and ethnic background, rather than piety (taqwa) [see 49:13].

Secondly, God emphasizes that the Quran is clear, and simple to understand. We have to simply continue to read it sequentially, cover to cover, and follow its simple message. As such, I don't think there are these "nuances" that God expects us to chase when reading the Quran. They could get us into the weeds, and divert us from the message of God. Again, there is no harm in seeking to resolve an apparent conflicting meaning if we encounter it. But the beauty of the Quran is in its simplicity, not in its "nuance".

God describes the Quran as a Reminder. As we read the Quran, sequentially, the themes keep repeating over and over, constantly reminding us of what is important. The attributes of God to know Him through them. The consequences of associating partners with God. The narrations of the messengers, and the reactions of people through the ages to God's message. The good news / warning of paradise and hell. The transience of this world, and everlasting abode in the Hereafter. The purpose of our lives. The commandments of God to follow and live. The significance of gratefulness and patience. The signs of God to reflect upon. I don't believe these are lost in translation. We should read and seek to get close to God and grow our souls to be ready for the life to come in the Hereafter.


Wa alaikum salaam Hamzeh,

In 6:141, yes I agree it is referring to Zakah. I do not agree that Zakah means "taxes paid to the government or the `Islamic State`". Zakah is what is paid from one's income specifically to the categories of people mentioned in 17:26, 30:38 as the article correctly references (or 24:22, 2:215, 2:177 etc.) - namely relatives, poor, refugees, immigrants, fatherless, beggars etc. I called it "charity", but it is an obligatory religious act which "cleanses" our earnings (92:18). "Obligatory charity" or "cleansing charity" would be a more suitable translation than simply "charity". From the verse we learn that it has to taken out from income and not from savings, and also should be done on the pay day, and not once in a year.

About 2:183-184, the traditional interpretation has been that "those who are able to do it" means those who are able to fast. I understand the "it" simply means "feed the poor people", i.e. those who are able to feed the poor, as suggested in the translation I included. It didn't look like the article you referenced considers this perspective. There are two problems that I see with the traditional interpretation:
  • first it makes no sense to say that "that those who are able to fast should feed poor people". This necessitates making additional "implied" exceptions that are not mentioned in the verse to try to get around this problem (e.g., adding "but have difficulty" or "but chose not to" etc.).
  • Second, is a moral problem: it suggests that affluent people who can afford to feed the poor can "buy out" of their obligation to fast by flashing their wallets, while those who cannot afford to do so do not have such an option.
I believe that "feeding poor people" is an additional obligation upon "those who are able to do it", and not a scheme to "pay out" of one's obligation to fast. By 'fidya' (ransom / repayment / sacrifice) it may be understood that this additional obligation is only for those who are substituting the fasts later, or it is a general sacrifice anybody who can afford it in this month should make.

In any case, the verse continues Therefore, whoever does any good beyond the call of duty is good for him. I see it as a clear exhortation to do good deeds and be charitable. Beyond fasting ourselves, also feed those in need.


Salaam miracle114,

I believe that in general, every time is a good time to do good deeds, including charity. An act does not become 'superior' because of when we did it, and God knows which acts of our are better than others. But there are certain times that charity is emphasized as an obligation. One is the giving the rightful share on the day of the harvest (i.e., on the payday). Another is feeding the poor during Ramadhan.

And He is the one who initiated for you gardens either built or growing wild, and palm trees and the crops, with different tastes and olives and pomegranates similar but yet dissimilar. You shall eat from its fruits when it ripens, and give its rightful share on the day of the harvest, and do not waste. Indeed He does not love those who are wasteful. [6:141]

O you who have attained faith; fasting is decreed for you, as it was decreed for those before you that you may become righteous.    Specific days. However, if one of you is ill or on a trip, a number of days shall be substituted later on. And it is incumbent upon those who can afford it that they should repay by feeding the poor. Therefore, whoever does any good beyond the call of duty is good for him.  And fasting is best for you if you only knew. [2:183-184]


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 29, 2018, 04:47:08 AM »
Salaam Duster,

Thanks. Lane also lists "a civil day; the period of revolution of the greatest firmament", which is nothing but the 24 hour day.

From: "Ibn ‘Arabi - Time and Cosmology"

However, as already noted, Ibn ‘Arabi did observe that there was a difference between the Arabs and some non- Arab ( ‘ ajam ) groups in their conventional definitions of the ‘day’, in that the Arabs considered the day to extend from sunset to sunset, while others considered it to extend from sunrise to sunrise. So for the Arabs, the night precedes daytime, while for non-Arabs it is the reverse. This matter has no effect on the length of the whole day itself, but its implications do have an effect on the actual unit of day and especially on its spiritual and symbolic meanings, because For the Arabs and the Arabic timing, it has been traditionally agreed that the night precedes daytime, ...."

What I described, I illustrated with specific examples, and I have specifically responded to every single point listed in the article. You have not specifically replied about 2:187 explicitly specifying a sequence, or 91:4 explicitly describing night as covering the sun, so I don't see the point of continuing that discussion.


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 29, 2018, 03:24:46 AM »
However, still not seen clear proof from the Quran that yaum begins with sunset either.  That too IMHO is unwarranted inference and speculation to force a preconceived conclusion / confirmation bias ....I can't see how a new day begins after sunset either.

This is proof - take it or leave it ....

  • If the meaning of the word yaum in the Arabic language, is sunset to sunset, consisting of layl followed by nahar, we should take that meaning. Quran is not a dictionary to redefine every word.
  • Nevertheless, 2:187 clearly describes the "night of the fast" as preceding the actual fast during daylight. Color coded for your convenience. How much clearer should it get?
    Permitted for you during the night of the fast is intercourse with your wives. They are your confidants and you are their confidants. God knew that you used to betray your souls; hence He has accepted your repentance and has forgiven you.  From now on you can have intercourse with them and enjoy what God has decreed for you. And eat and drink until the white line can be distinguished from the black line at dawn.  Then complete your fast till night. ...
  • Observe that even siyam is not defined per se, nor is what is forbidden during it is explicitly listed. God describes what you already know, and its meaning can be "confirmed". People were already fasting even before this verse was revealed, and already knew what siyam meant. And sexual intercourse was previously prohibited on the "night of the fast" (i.e., the night preceding the daylight when they fasted). Through this verse, God removed this prohibition, and sex was permitted on the night preceding the daylight fast. And we can "confirm", although it is not explicitly stated, that sex, food and water are prohibited during the daylight fast that follows. Likewise, the meaning of yaum is also confirmed as layl (eat, drink, sex permitted till fajr) followed by nahar (fast from fajr till nightfall again).
  • And finally. 91:1-4 makes it clear that night starts with when the sun is concealed. Which is clearly when the disk slips beneath the horizon.
    By the sun and her brightness. And by the moon as it follows her. And by the daylight as it reveals her brightness. And by the night as it conceals her.
  • An alternate interpretation proposed is that the "her" in 91:4 refers to the "brightness" in 91:3, and not to the "sun". If this were true, and night starts when the sun's "brightness" is concealed, then night should start only with total darkness. We all agree that this contradicts the Quran. So the "her" in 91:4 cannot be the brightness, but refers to the sun itself, just like in 91_1-3.


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 28, 2018, 10:21:58 PM »
Salaam Hamzeh,

These are my comments on the method of understanding the Quran itself ... and why I strongly disagree with the method I see followed for this issue (and some others). I apologize for having to do this ... I didn't see another way communicate what I was saying, other than doing a full-blown critique.

I would approach the Quran as a simple reading, and take the evident, obvious, explicit instructions and meanings, and avoid implications and speculations not stated explicitly. And realize that God guides us to its understanding - it is a spiritual endeavor and not an academic one. God says Quran is clear and easy to understand, and that is how we should expect it to be. There should be no need for complex analyses or elaborate articles. Also use the default, common, known meanings of words, unless there is compelling, explicit evidence to change it. Ideally, we shouldn't be needing to do anything more than point to the verses to share an evidence, and maybe elaborate with a sentence or two if we still could not get across what we wanted to communicate from a verse. If we are needing to do more than that, it means we are reading into it things that are not there. I am sure this resonates with you too - I have found this forum to be relatively sober, and thats the whole reason I visit here - maybe we only disagree on where this principle is applied.

And not nitpick over trivial things, to the point of them losing their significance all together. Usool-ul-fiqh is full of it ... the fact that their sources are other than the Quran is only part of the problem. Dozens of trivial things that nullify prayer or ablution or fasting etc. They justified speculation and conjecture in the name of methods like "qiyas" and have elaborate arguments for their rulings. Also in Quranist circles, I have seen a lot of arguments on what things are "not", without any clarity on what they are. They indulge in so much speculation and "research" as they see it, they end up not knowing what something is, but are very clear on what it is not. For example, after elaborate and intricate analysis of "sujood", they know that it is "not physical prostration". It is very hard to extract from them what they think it is, they themselves do not seem to know what it is, yet the are certain it is "not physical prostration".  Similarly Salaat is "not ritual prayer". Ramadan is "not the 9th Arabic calendar month". Kaaba is "not the cube shaped masjid in Mecca". Qiblah is "not the direction of prayer". The list goes on. I see some parallel between these and the emphasis here on "not sunset". It can be anything and arbitrary, anywhere between when "even a little" darkness starts to appear to "before total darkness". But the darkness that sets in at sunset won't count for "even a little", and if you agree with that, then you are seen as picking sectarian sides!

In the process, I see a lot of clutching at the straws, speculation and inconsistencies to force this conclusion, which I try to summarize below.

  • Meaning of yaum regardless of sectarian position, is sunset to sunset, and layl followed by nahar. Which means that sunset separates the end of nahar and the beginning of layl. That is enough reason to use this as the default position. But it was abandoned with the claim that there is "no explicit support from the Quran", to open the doors to speculation.
  • There is no verse that explicitly redefines the word yaum differently from the meaning above. Yet, numerous inconclusive "examples" are listed that each individually have no bearing on or connection with the definition of the start of yaum or layl (we discussed them - 1,2,3,4,6).
  • Unwarranted inferences, using elaborate diagrams, based on 69:7. But considering only two of the four possible combinations of when the wind started vs. when layl starts were considered. For example the wind starting at dawn and yaum starting at sunset (a leading partial day), which is also 7 nights and 8 days was not considered. (You partially understood my explanation here - you just need to recheck the math again).
  • 2:187 strongly supports the definition of yaum in #1.
    Permitted for you during the nights of fasting is intercourse with your wives. They are your confidants and you are their confidants. God knew that you used to betray your souls; hence He has accepted your repentance and has forgiven you.  From now on you can have intercourse with them and enjoy what God has decreed for you. And eat and drink until the white line can be distinguished from the black line at dawn.  Then complete your fast till night. ...
    As seen in the verse, the description of the night of the fast (in blue) followed by the fast (in red). Still you say
    "there needs to be a fast followed by a night and not a night followed a fast. I cannot wrap my head around it any other way."
    Which is OK, but it is just a convention. Night first in a calendar day is just as valid as daylight first. Similar to reading left to right or right to left. Your inability to wrap your head around it is not reason enough to make it wrong.
  • 91:4 and 92:1 are consistent with this meaning of layl, when understood that layl is covering the sun, with the pronoun ha a continuation for its usage for the sun in 91:1-3. But you said that it should not be taken as the sun, but the "brightness", but offer no reason why it should be so. OK, fine, lets try that then. Then layl by your understanding should start after the brightness in the sky disappears - i.e., with the onset of total darkness. When you realize this contradicts the Quran, instead of correcting your understanding of 91:4 back to "covers it" meaning the sun, you say the brightness does not have to be covered. Instead you decided that "even a little bit of darkness" is sufficient for night to start. Which is an inconsistency and contradicts the meaning you proposed for 91:4. And the "even a little bit of darkness" is an arbitrary decision - personal speculation - which cannot be attributed to God or to the Quran.
  • The article posted defined the start of night (its words) as "when stars / planets begin to appear" (from 6:76). But you have the problem that planets are visible just after sunset. Now you decided that kawkaban cannot refer to a planet, since it is not the definite form. This is not evident from the Quran, since al-kawkab is not used anywhere in the Quran. Nor from Lanes Lexicon. Lanes lexicon states the definite form al-kawkab refers to Venus, but note that it does not make this distinction between planet and star, when it uses the word 'stars' loosely for celestial objects, including the planets and Jupiter (maybe the artifact of being a 19th century publication). This does not mean that indefinite form cannot mean planet at all. Even if Venus has been designated for reference in the definite form, the indefinite form may refer to any planet or star. Exclusion of planets from the meaning is arbitrary. From the account of 6:76, it seems more logical that Abraham would refer to the brightest object he saw in the night sky, rather than a star thats far fainter.

There are all these hoops to jump through, lined up as ducks in a row, to avoid the observation that layl starting after sunset is indeed consistent with the Quran. As discussed above, they all involve speculation or inconsistencies. And after all that, there is no way around admitting that the removal of the sun's glow at sunset is the onset of at least "even a little" darkness.

I understand the point that God used layl and not ghurub, and there is no problem taking a second look to check if is really means sunset or not. But finally, its God's choice - we cannot teach Him what words to use, or tell God "if You wanted us to break fast after sunset, you should have used use this word and not that". And I understand if someone still wanted to interpret layl as starting later, and followed that accordingly. But this concerted effort to declare that it can be anything under the sun but not "just after sunset", with complicated articles full of unsubstantiated conjecture just blows my mind. All for the petty result of breaking the fast 10-30 minutes earlier or later.

General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 28, 2018, 06:58:06 PM »
Salaam Duster,

I never said "we need a set point thats not a perception". I repeat one more time, I only asked for the definition or description for what you are perceiving. Please do not put arguments into my mouth. Its lengthy and complicated as it is, it is harder defending things I never said.

If you prefer nautical twilight, go for it.

Also, I already addressed 97:5 ... please read the responses, it is clear you haven't been reading them  :D. 97:5 confirms that layl ends with fajr. It does not say that yaum begins with fajr. The "seems to" part is called speculation. Its an unwarranted inference to force a preconceived conclusion.


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 28, 2018, 03:13:32 PM »
Salaam Hamzeh,

Thanks for sharing how you decide how to break the fast. That is exactly what I was asking.

I can fully understand if you feel like you are erring on the side of caution, and feel comfortable with deciding to break your fast ("shortly") later than earlier, and have a personal rule of thumb for yourself to determine that time. I was just checking if there is some objective rule that you are following that would be violated by breaking the fast just after sunset. You have acknowledged that it is not the case, and that it is also logical perspective, although you are not personally convinced about doing so yourself. Which is fair enough.

The problem I see is when this is pushed as a ruling, especially when it is all based on personal speculation (more to follow on that). If you were not proposing such a ruling, sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I am not asking to pick a side in sectarian opinions. Those opinions by their own admission, are based on the rulings of imams and fuqaha, which often overrule the Quran. So the sectarian divide is irrelevant. But I do say pick the side of default/original meanings/usage of words, especially if there is no sectarian disagreement on that (e.g., yaum).

Also I would imagine myself in the days the Quran was being revealed, how would I of understood "ila layl"? Would I have had an understanding of a word that would mean "sunset" (ghurub shams).

Thats a good question ... if you knew from knowledge of the language that yaum started at sunset, and started with layl first, how would you have understood? Note that you would not have the benefit of internet articles that told you that what you knew then was wrong. I appreciate the initial intrigue on God's choice of words, in His Infinite Wisdom. But I chose to move beyond the intrigue when I realize that layl immediately follows ghurub shams; without going through multiple hoops to try to create some distinction, "even a little".

In a follow up post, I will elaborate on my reservations with the method of understanding this issue itself, and what I see are speculations/inconsistencies, insha allah.

What is your 'turn on the light moment ' then? The fast starts with the perception of the sky ....doesn't appear to be an exact science there so why should determining night be???

Duster, the 'turn on the light moment' is the first ray ("thread") of scattered daylight ... which science defines as the start of 'astronomical twilight' (sun 18 degrees below the horizon). I did not say it is not a perception in the sky. I was asking for how the perception is defined/described.

miracle114, I am not a fan of long articles or explanations myself ... sorry it could not be more condensed.


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 27, 2018, 09:18:50 PM »
Salaam Hamzeh,

I (strongly) disagree with this method of 'research' as you refer to it. It gets into the weeds pretty quickly, before contradictions and personal speculation can start dominating over any understanding that is gleaned from the Quran. I'll go into this later.

Since you seem to have extracted a ruling out of this exercise, I want to probe that briefly, to understand the practical utility of this ruling, and how it could be acted upon in our lives.

Despite the different appearance in the sky in different zones of the earth, I wait till I notice a difference in the sky light and wait to see if any of the night or darkness starts to appear even a little indicates night approached or begun. I do not notice this till about 20 to 30 min. I also noticed that different seasons or months have differences. Some month show darkness appearing 10 minutes after the sunset if my memory serves me right.

Thanks for the definition of "shortly". To me, "wait to see if any of the night or darkness starts to appear even a little" sounds good, except that it appears highly subjective, especially considering it is sometimes 10 minutes, or 20 minutes, or even 30 minutes even by your judgement. Unfortunately, I cannot call you to where I live to decide for me whether you see "even a little darkness" in the sky. So I have these questions ....

  • How do you decide when it is time to break the fast? Do you stand outside looking at the sky, and come back into the house to eat when you are convinced there is "even a little darkness"?
  • What about when you are breaking the fast as a group? Is one person nominated to decide? Or if at least one person in the group in the is convinced "any darkness" has started? Or you wait until everybody is convinced there is "little darkness"?
  • Why do you think your definition/ruling does not contradict the conclusion in the article (quoted below) about when it is already night ... since planets are visible the minute after sunset and you don't need to wait 30 minutes or 20 minutes or even 10 minutes?
    when stars / planets begin to appear but well before total darkness...
  • For me, there is only one "turn off the light" moment - sunset itself - when there is a sudden and instantaneous onset of darkness.  After that moment, the "growth of darkness" is a very gradual process, and no one moment is unique enough to pick out. What if I decide there is enough "even a little darkness" just after the glowing disk of the sun has disappeared? Especially if I can see Venus and Jupiter in the sky with naked eyes? Will I be breaking the fast prematurely or will God not accept my fast, according to your ruling?

I am asking these questions, because right now I google sunset time, and add a minute for rounding errors, and break the fast and it is simple and straightforward. Just wondering how you reconcile these uncertainties.


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 26, 2018, 08:07:59 PM »
I'd do think there is very strong evidence that night begins or approaches shortly after sunset and not when the sun has set.

I'll focus on the two words - shortly after. Everybody agrees that night begins after sunset. So the question is how shortly is the "shortly". I agree with the article that "emergence of night as a gradual process which begins before total darkness". I believe (based on 91:4, 92:1, 2:187 and the historical pre-Quranic meaning of the arabic yaum and layl) that this "gradual process" has begun just (the minute) after the sun has set. And that daylight ends before sunset. Sunset is the event that separates the two durations of time.

The article appears to define "shortly" as "when stars / planets begin to appear but well before total darkness", specifically mentioning visibility of Venus. If this is the definition of "shortly", I agree with this definition too. Planets like Venus and Jupiter (magnification -4 and -2.5 respectively) are bright enough to be seen with the naked eye even before sunset.

So please share your definition of "shortly". Is it 1 minute? 2 minutes? 5 minutes? 30 minutes? And what do you base it on?


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 26, 2018, 02:24:33 PM »
Wa alaikum salaam Hamzeh,

Thanks for sharing. I do not agree. It is an established historical fact that in Arabic and Hebrew, the calendar day yaum / yom [יום / يوم] lasts from sunset to sunset. This is an intrinsic part of Semitic tradition that predated the Quran. To deny this, necessitates believing that Arabs and Jews and Muslims spread out across the world somehow collaborated with each other to invent such a tradition after the time of the revelation of the Quran. Which to me is too incredulous a conspiracy theory.

And I do not find the 8 examples listed in the article as providing any support for this theory. On the contrary, I find it supporting yaum starting with layl.
  • examples 7,8 - referencing 2:187 - is the best support that yaum starts with layl. The verse describes what we do during layl (eating), followed by what we do during nahar (fasting), thus completing one yaum of the fasting day.
  • Examples 1,2,4 are in terms of our sleep-cycle or wakeful hours (fajr to 'isha, just like 24:58), and not related to the 24-hour yaum, or layl or nahar.
  • example 3 is not related to the definition of yaum (i.e., whether layl comes first or not). But it actually supports layl starting with sunset, as we discussed here. I do not agree that هَا in 91:4 is describing that 'brightness' is concealed. The most visual experience we have is of the sun being concealed, and this is the event described over and over in the Quran.
  • example 5 - It took me some time to wrap my head around this one. The article did not consider the case of the wind starting during daylight hours, but yaum starting with layl (i.e., picture 2, with a leading partial day instead of a trailing one). That will also be 7 nights and 8 days.
  • example 6 - 97:5 - tells us that layl ends at fajr. (Which is consistent with 91:3, 92:2). It does not say that yaum starts at fajr.

In summary, there are only 2 verses from these examples that really refer to yaum - 2:187 and 69:7. 2:187 clearly supports layl first. 69:7 is inconclusive either way.

And I do not agree that such over-analysis built on the many "implies" is necessary. Nor that a conspiracy theory is warranted in this case. Quran is a clear and simple book, whatever is true will be evident and obvious.

And a note on 6:76. Venus is the third brightest object in our sky, with a magnification of -4, which is very bright. When an "evening star", it is visible to the naked eye even before sunset, and also visible just after sunset. Especially when it is higher up in the sky as it is at this part of the year.


General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 25, 2018, 07:56:34 AM »
Also, 11:114 becomes clear based on this understanding of لَيْلَ and نهار.

   And observe the contact prayer at both ends of the daylight, and early part of the night.

Both ends of نهار are the times before sunrise and before sunset.

General Discussions / Re: Fast till sunset or darkness
« on: May 25, 2018, 07:37:02 AM »

I agree. لَيْلَ begins at sunset, when the sun becomes concealed (as confirmed by 91:4 and 92:1).

The Arabic calendar day (يَوْمَ) begins at sunset, and ends at sunset. يَوْمَ begins with لَيْلَ, followed by نهار. So  لَيْلَ begins at sunset, and نهار ends at sunset.

نهار begins when the sun's brightness is revealed (91:3, 92:2), i.e., at the crack of dawn. From 2:187, it is the time when the first streaks  of light ('white lines') become visible at dawn. And then we fast through نهار, until it ends and لَيْلَ begins, at sunset. We fast during نهار and can eat during  لَيْلَ.


General Discussions / Re: MISTRANSLATION
« on: May 23, 2018, 12:02:27 PM »
Salaamun alaikum,

I seek refuge in God from satan the rejected.

In the name of God, the All Gracious, the All Merciful.

[30:22] And amongst His signs is that He created the skies and the land and the variations of your languages and your colors. Indeed in this there are signs for the knowledgeable.

[14:4] And We did not send any messenger except in the language of his people in order to clarify for them, thereafter, God sends astray whomever He wills and guides whomever He wills. And He is The Almighty, The All Wise.

[35:24] We have surely sent you truthfully as a bearer of good news as well as a warner. And there is not a single people who did not have a warner in its midst.

God is a universal concept. The diversity of languages are a sign from God. Every people have had warners. Every language has a word for God.  Every messenger warned in the language of his people, so would have used the word for God in their own language. Whatever language we speak in, we should use the word for God in that language. Arabic just happens to be the language of the chronologically final scripture. There is no need to use the word for God in the Arabic language when conversing in other languages.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5