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.
Peace.