Rebuttal to article by Wakas: Disproved once and for all salat=prayer
-
As Salaamu Alaikum Wakas,
I am trying to post it all here now, it is difficult trying to get all of the formating in because it doesn't transfer when copying into this system. Forgive me if I missed some of the original formatting from your original article. It looks like I am going to have to post it in two parts since it exceeds the 30,000 character limit. I will try to post half here, and then half in a post immediately following.
As Salaamu Alaikum
Can you upload the text of the article online (or even post it here)? Thanks.
I do not routinely download zip files.
REBUTTAL TO Disproved once and for all salat = prayer
The Most Powerful Argument Against the Traditional Understanding
Amongst traditional Muslims, a commonly held belief is that the Arabic word "salat" means "prayer", and must be done with specific words in a set routine. This view is widely held simply because the majority of traditional Muslims have not read the book they claim to follow al quran*.
It is not just a commonly held belief, but it is actually a part of all dictionary, lexicon and Arabic speakers? understanding. The most important evidence of this understanding comes from the Quran itself.
*the Arabic words 'al quran' are most closely translated to 'the reading'.
This article is not for those who do not wish to read al quran, this article is for those who appreciate the purpose of al quran, and actually bother to read & study it.
Now, onto the discussion... for those who take guidance from 'the reading' alone, different views have emerged about the word "salat". Some still hold onto the view that it means "prayer" and that Muslims should uphold (aqamoo*) it.
*aqamoo is the Arabic word for uphold/maintain, a word often used in front of the word "salat" in 'the reading'.
This discussion will focus on chapter 9, verses 1-12, of 'the reading'. Thus, the reader is urged to read these verses carefully, from several translations at least (choose any ones you wish). The following translation is a self-modified version of the ProgressiveMuslims.org translation
I don?t believe that one section of the use of the word in Al Quran could negate its overwhelming meaning, but for the sake of debating your point, I will agree to limit the discussion to these ayats for now.
Chapter 9
- An acquittal/release from The God and His messenger to those with whom you made a treaty from among the idolaters.
- Therefore, roam the earth for four months and know that you will not escape The God, and that The God will disgrace the concealers/rejecters.
- And an announcement from The God and His messenger to the people on the greatest/peak day of the conference/symposium "The God is quit/free from the idolaters and so is His messenger". If you repent, then it is better for you, and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape The God. And give news to those who conceal/reject of a painful retribution.
- Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among the idolaters if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
- So when the restricted months are passed, then you may fight the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then clear/vacate their way/path. Truly, The God is Turning/Forgiving, Embracing/Merciful.
- And if anyone from the idolaters seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the word of The God, then deliver him to his safety/security. This is because they are a people who do not know.
- How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger, except for those with whom you made a pledge/agreement at the institute of acknowledging the restriction? As long as they are straight with you, then you are straight with them. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
- How is it when they gain the upper-hand they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts are hostile, and most of them are wicked.
- They purchased with The God's signs/revelations a small gain, so they could turn others from His path. Truly, evil is what they were doing.
- They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. These are the transgressors/wrongdoers.
- But if they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then they are your brothers/allies in the obligation/system. We detail/explain our signs/revelations for a people who know.
- And if they break their oaths after making them, and they slander your obligation/system; then you may fight the chiefs of concealment/rejection. Truly, their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then stop.
At first I added the rest of the verses to ayat 29 here to make additional points, but after finishing the rebuttal, I don?t think they are necessary at this time. If another rebuttal becomes necessary, then I will include the ayat to verse 29 to continue to drive the point home, Allah willing.
The reason why these verses are important is because the wording used here for idolaters is the same as that used for believers in many other places in 'the reading', with respect to "salat". The wording I am referring to is as follows
"wa aqamoo al salat" = "and uphold/maintain the salat"
This phrase is used many times (about 40) for believers in 'the reading', some of which are 2177, 2277, 7170, 1322, 2241, 3518, 3529, 4238. And in these occurrences it is taken, by some, to mean "prayer" thus clearly, it is very interesting then, when 'the reading' uses this same phrase for idolaters!
idolater one who worships idols. (taken from www.dictionary.com)
I would like to make two quick points here. First, ?wa aqaamoo? can also mean to establish, not a big point, but just thought I would add it. Also, ?mushrikeen? not only means one who worships ?idols? in the traditional sense, but it also means one who associates any partner with Allah, thus one can believe in Allah, but still attached or connect associates, partners and even His messengers along with Allah in His Dominion. This is a key point in part of the understanding I believe.
Is The God commanding the idolaters to uphold/maintain the prayer, even though they are idolaters? Do they pray to their idols? Is The God giving them an ultimatum somehow convert to Muslims and uphold/maintain the prayer or if they don't they will get punished?
My answer to all three questions would be no, because this doesn't make sense. However, for those who believe salat=prayer, they are forced into a corner do they accept their interpretation doesn't make sense and reconsider their view of salat OR do they continue to follow salat=prayer and make the verses fit their view?
Where did you get the idea that Allah was ?commanding? the ?mushrikeen? to establish the prayer? It seems more like an option of something if they decided to do on their own. Maybe I missed something in the Arabic that you have seen. Is ?aqaamoo? in the command form of the verb here?
How is this an ultimatium between only the two (prayer or punishment)? I will wait to address this with your analogy down below, but I think the legitimacy of the question is clearly raised and pointed to here.
Of course it doesn?t make sense based on the conclusions that you have already come to but have not substantiated. So as a believer that salat=prayer, I have not yet been forced into any corner by your observations!
I have no doubt in my mind, that their initial reaction will be to choose the latter option. If they do not, their entire argument for salat=prayer collapses because there is no way 'the reading' would use the exact same wording for idolaters and believers, telling both of them to uphold/maintain the prayer!
Let?s just assume that you are correct for a moment, again the key word being ?assume?. How can you say that there is no way that ?the reading? would use the exact same wording for idolaters and believers, telling both of them to uphold/maintain the prayer? Are you so sure that Allah would not order ?mushrikeen? to submit in this way or be punished? Or is this your pre-belief notion because Allah would never force anyone to accept faith and you put it in that category? Have you considered all of the options? Do you think it is not possible for Allah to tell a people who are continuously transgressing beyond bounds in fighting His Messenger that ?if you don?t ?repent? and accept this message, then I will have my servants to just do away with you for good at this point!?? I think you should make note that this particular event, unlike many other general statements and verses in Al Quran, is speaking about a specific time and incident that involved the Prophet and the people interacting with him at that time. Although lessons can be learned from it, it is not a general statement on how to deal with all ?mushrikeen? in all circumstances!
'The reading' itself will prove conclusively beyond doubt, that to hold the salat=prayer view for these verses is impossible without severe reinterpretation of the text/meanings and ignoring what the text actually says. Lets analyse the verses in detail
I would tend to completely disagree with this ?assumption? of yours just based on what I have already said, but I will go along with the rest just to debate the matter fairly.
91 begins with the Arabic word 'barratun' which means acquittal/release/absolve , signifying the subject of this verse and the following verses. This verse tees up the rest of the verses in this direction. Thus it is established right from the start it is about a treaty with the idolaters. There has been an acquittal/release, thus the treaty has effectively been terminated with the idolaters.
It might be good to point out that a complete termination of the treaty has not been given. A conditional ?denouncement, revocation, ultimatum, declaration of immunity, freedom from obligation, acquittal? is ordered to announce the plans for those that are transgressing the terms of the treaty. Several options of the conditions exist which are covered in the following verses.
92 uses a firm tone. The word "you" clearly refers to the mushrikeen/idolaters from the previous verse (i.e. those with whom the treaty was terminated). They are also called kafireen/concealers/rejecters at the end. This word implies what led to the treaty's termination.
Although I agree with your use of the names and who is being spoken to here, I think 94 is a better indication of why the treaty is to be terminated if the admonition given is not accepted. I will visit that issue under 94.
93 discusses an announcement to the people "The God is quit/free from the idolaters and so is His messenger". This is clearly a public announcement of the termination of the treaty. This is clearly demonstrated by 'the reading' using the same* word as it did in 91 to describe the same event - 'baree' which means quit/free .
For the remaining verse the object of the word "you" is continued, i.e. "you" is referring to the idolaters (specifically those who violated the treaty). Hence, the phrase "If you repent...", because repenting is only done when someone has done something wrong. The only wrongdoing mentioned in the context is the violation of the treaty, thus it is solid that repent ('tubtum' in Arabic) refers to this.
*they share the same root (Ba-Ra-Alif) and verb form, but are different derivatives (similar to acquittal and quit).
First, this in no way says that the treaty is already terminated! It says that Allah and His messenger are ?innocent, renouncing, disowning, free of? the ?mushrikeen?, or idolaters as you prefer to call them. The option to ?repent? is clearly still available to avoid the dissolving of the treaty completely. This is more of a warning announcement of what is to come if certain conditions are not met as a final alternative to a process that ended with a mutual treaty, but has been violated again.
Also, the only wrong doing is NOT the violation of the treaty. Clearly as you pointed out in the verse above, they are also ?kaafireen?, or ?rejecters/concealers of faith?, if you use the word in the context given in Quran. I don?t think there is a need to point out all the relevant ayat that point out that ?kaafireen? are not just rejecters of any ole thing, but that it is specifically meaning those that reject faith in Allah and all that He has told us to have faith in. So by logical conclusion, repent can also include the option to repent or turn away from the rejection of faith as well as the violation of the treaty obligations that were being done.
94 begins with the Arabic word "illa" which means "except", thus reinforcing the point that the object of reference in the previous verse are those who violated the treaty. This verse continues with the opening subject of treaty violation, and explains what was actually done to violate the treaty.
Exactly! This is a very good point here. This verse clearly points out that those who have never (1) violated/decreased/failed in their treaty obligations, so to speak, and (2) did not plan or aide anyone with an attack on you; these are to be respected with the rest of the treaty obligations. The two descriptions (1) and (2), are the violations of the treaty, as much as we are given here that is necessary. Allah makes it clear that the righteous among His servants are obligated to fulfill the balance of the treaty with the ?mushrikeen? that had NOT violated these two descriptions; WITHOUT any other conditions such as repenting, praying, etc., being made! Thus in actuality TWO groups of ?mushrikeen? are pointed out here; those who violated the treaty and those who didn?t.
95 continues with the object of reference - mushrikeen/idolaters - and then uses the words "If they repent and uphold/maintain the salat...". Here, "they" obviously refers to the idolaters, but yet "they" are ordered to uphold/maintain the salat! This is where the salat=prayer view becomes exposed.
First, the group being pointed out is the second group of ?mushrikeen? who are violaters, repent offenders if you will. They are not only ?mushrikeen? and ?kaafireen?, but they are also described as those who have violated the treated and help in or planned attacks against the believers; the primary reason for the ultimatums that are about to be given.
Next, ?fa-in taboo waaqamoo alssalata waatawoo alzzakata?, translated as ?so if they repented, and kept up the prayers and gave/brought the charity/ purification?. This is clearly a ?conditional? statement, not an ?order? or ?command? to do so. It is an option given for repeat offenders and violaters of oaths to give them one last option before annihilation. That is being rather merciful if you ask me. At that point, if I was one of the believers, I would have just wanted to finish them off for their repeated attacks and lying. But Allah is Merciful and offers them a way for complete forgiveness ?so if they repented, and kept up the prayers and gave/brought the charity/ purification?.
So please tell me how the salat=prayer view becomes exposed? I have no problem with Allah offering these particular repent offenders who were also idolaters and rejectors of faith the option to repent and establish prayer and give the charity, or betterment if you like; in order to not be annihilated for their transgressions against the Prohpet and believers at that time.
Let?s make something clear here, this is NOT a blanket statement about all ?mushriks? or ?kafirs? for all time on how to deal with them. These particular people were fighting DIRECTLY against the person of the Messenger of God, and they had violated treaties after all of their other transgressions. This incident is a point in history that doesn?t exist today since the Messenger is passed on out of this life. So to take it literally and apply it exactly the same in today?s time would be ridiculous. We can only get an idea of how we should look at things based on how Allah dealt with them. None of us are Muhammad the Messenger of Allah that is in the process of receiving the final revelation to be a mercy to All the Worlds.
I hope the reader has realised it is extremely unlikely that the idolaters are being ordered to uphold/maintain the prayer, thus in order for the salat=prayer view to hold, reinterpretation of the text/meanings becomes necessary.
Wrong again. I haven?t realized anything except that maybe you didn?t considered the alternative points of view that I am putting forth. Nothing so far has the remote effect of making me want to ?reinterpret? the word ?salaat=prayer?. Further evidence will follow.
The rest to come in the following post
-
Continuing the rebuttal
Traditional Muslims have explained away this anomaly by arguing that somehow a conversion has taken place and the previous idolaters have now become Muslims. Even though the actual text says nothing like this, they put forth the following argument the word repent (taboo in Arabic) implies a conversion. They are forced into choosing this because the only word in between "If they (idolaters)..." & "...and uphold/maintain the salat" is repent/taboo. Hence, a change must have occurred between these two points, and this change must be related to taboo.
'The reading' has already shown this word, as used in 93, simply means 'repent'. But lets further examine this reinterpretation of repent/taboo to see if it is correct. The root of the Arabic words tubtum & taboo is Ta-Waw-Ba (TWB) and this root occurs 87 times in 'the reading'Okay, let us take this one step at a time. You said the key in this verse is the word ?taboo? which you say means ?repent?. Okay, what does ?repent? mean? Let?s see what the dictionary meaning of ?repent? is taken from Webster?s New Explorer Dictionary and Thesaurus. Granted ?repent? also means take from The American Heritage College Dictionary (third edition). So you don?t think that it could mean that they repented not only from breaking the treaty, but also from being ?mushrikeen? and ?kaafireen?, as you agreed that they are? These are also violations as well before God, but He has given them respite to maintain these violations against God before the current events took place. At some point, God says enough is enough, either straighten up or be destroyed. Remember the people of Lot?
taba verb form (I)
The examples in this specific case are in the perfect active state, and occur 34 times
imperfect active state -
imperative state -
matab, noun masculine -
tawwab, noun masculine -
Grammatically 'perfect' means an action done or completed, 'active' refers to the doer of the action, 'imperfect' means action in the process of being done, 'imperative' means "mood," order or command.
Can this word possibly mean conversion? To find out, we can use several different methods
I think I made this point already. It doesn?t have to mean ?conversion?. It can mean that they realized ?ALL? of their violations against Allah and His messenger and repented from them. That would be a reversion to the truth if you will allow just some plain old common sense to enter into the equation without the focus only on the technical analysis of it. To limit the repenting to only the treaty violations doesn?t carry enough weight in evidence or make sense.
-
Check all 34 occurrences to see if there is a clear example of 'conversion'. Not only that, we can check the entire root to see if this meaning (conversion) is possible. Thus, out of 87 occurrences, how many show a conversion has taken place? The answer is zero, there are no other examples of idolaters converting to Muslims. Feel free to check the occurrences.
-
Check if the Classical Arabic dictionaries give 'conversion' as a possible meaning of the root Ta-Waw-Ba
'Dictionary of the Holy Quran' by Abdul Mannan Omar
(which utilises 'Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran', 'Lisan al-Arab', 'Taj al-Arus min Jawahir al Qamus' and 'The Arabic English Lexicon'
To return; repent; turn one's self in a repentant manner (with ila/to or without it), turn with mercy (with ala), repentance.'The Arabic English Lexicon' by Edward W. Lane
He repented; or repented toward God (as will be shown by what follows), adapt to repentance, returning from disobedience to obedience.You are making many points for my argument, but let?s just continue anyway.
From the above, its clear 'conversion' is not listed as one of the possible meanings.
It should be noted that the possible meaning 'return' is given. Thus some might say they are being asked to return to Islam, or return as Muslims. Since the context never mentions they were Muslims originally, this is a completely baseless assumption. Furthermore, it can be seen from the usage of the word itself throughout 'the reading', it is unlikely to mean 'return'. Even if it did mean return, it would obviously refer to returning to the treaty.
The underlined parts in the dictionary quotes show that the word (repent) can mean repent with or without a following 'ila' which means 'to'. And secondly, the object that follows 'repent' can tell us to whom the repentance is being done, if it is not clear from the context. Please note, that both sources state it is not necessary for an object to follow the word 'repent'.Who made ?conversion? as one of the meanings of ?taboo? as a primary or necessary deduction for salaat to mean prayer? The context doesn?t have to ?say? that they were ever Muslims, all human beings were and are born Muslim and instructed by Allah of the truth before they ever entered into this realm of existence. You are familiar enough with the Quran to know where I got this point. So it is NOT a baseless assumption as you put it, to recognize that their ?repenting/returning? is to the truth; repenting and returning not only back to the treaty fulfillment, but also repenting and returning from being idol worshippers and rejecters of faith! This I have already proven sufficiently for any that would care to see clearly. It really isn?t that big of a deal to prove or accept with a little contemplation.
From the dictionary meanings, the only possibility of a word that could imply conversion is "turn", i.e. turn to God/Islam (even though the underlined part is an insertion/extrapolation). However if "turn" is used, then it should be followed by an object. Not only does this make sense logically, this is how 'the reading' itself uses it! Can those who support the 'taboo=turn (to God/Islam) in 95' view find another example where "turn" is meant but no object is mentioned? The answer is no, there is none.
In other words, this word is never used to mean "turn" without mentioning an object that the turning is done to. Once again, feel free to check the occurrences.
In fact, this is how 'the reading' distinguishes the usage of the term. When the prepositions 'ila/to' or 'ala/to' are used twb always means turn. Without them, twb means repent. You will not find an exception to this rule in the entire quran. Not only is this alluded to in 'Dictionary of the Holy Quran', it is also explicitly stated in 'A Concordance of The Quran' by Hanna E KassisAll irrelavent to this discussion based off of the evidence and arguments given so far!
taba vb. (I) ~ repent, to be penitent, to do penance; (with prep. ala) to turn towrds someone (in forgiveness); (with prep. ila) to turn towrds someone (in penance). (n. vb.) repentnce, penitance. (pcple. act.) one who repents, penitent.
- Use the grammar of the verse. A closer examination of the grammar reveals that it is extremely unlikely for the final "...hum" to refer to other than the previous "...hum" (i.e. the idolaters). "...hum" is simply an Arabic suffix (found at the end of words) which means "them/their/they" referring to the previous object of reference. An example "The Government is responsible for the control and administration of public policy. They decide which laws to pass through debate and review committees which they appoint."
The transliteration and translation will be posted side by side for comparison
Fa-itha insalakha al-ashhuru alhurumu faoqtuloo almushrikeena haythu wajadtumoohum wakhuthoohum waohsuroohum waoqAAudoo lahum kulla marsadin fa-in taboo waaqamoo alssalata waatawoo alzzakata fakhalloo sabeelahum inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
So when the restricted months are passed, then you may fight the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then clear/vacate their path. Truly, The God is Turning/Forgiving, Embracing/Merciful.
If those who believe the final "hum" in "sabeelahum" refers to converts, then please provide other examples where 'the reading' changes the object of reference mid-sentence. Furthermore, where a verb (e.g. repent/taboo) is used to create a new group of people, then that creation is used as a reference for "...hum". Can they find any examples like this in the entire quran?
To put it simply, there is zero evidence from the grammar or linguistically that shows this passage refers to people who are not mentioned at all. In fact, the evidence goes against that being the case.I don?t get the relevance of your point here, but I think that is because you are making it for some other people with a different argument and point than what I have presented; at least to the degree. If I say ?there are a group of young children over there that when they grow up will likely be fine men and women, but right now they are going down the wrong path?; does this mean that they are still not one and the same people being referred to in two and more possible different states of existence? Maybe you can find something wrong with this analogy, it just came off the top of my head and I am not going to even give it much thought. I think the concept speaks for itself.
- Use our logic/reason. Is it logical that The God would give the idolaters an ultimatum, forcing them to convert to Muslims otherwise they will be punished? This notion is nowhere to be found in 'the reading' and completely goes against its principles, which state
The ultimatum is not to be a Muslim, or if you are an Idolater you will be punished! That is not an accurate description of the complex scenario that is being described in great detail by Allah here. The clear distinction is that this is a ?portion? of the Idolaters that are kaafireen and have violated the treaty that they have agreed to. It is clearly a case of multiple offences that deserve a retaliatory attack by the offended party. But even so, an option is given to this ?group? of idolaters only, which was not a condition for the other idolaters who had NOT violated the treaty. Anyone that would take from this occurrence that Allah is saying ?if you don?t become Muslims, all of you idolaters for all time and in any situation, I will for all time tell all of my believers to attack and fight you!? ? would simply not be realizing the importance and clarity of all the ayat in question.
Clearly the first example given here is to remain true to the treaty with Idolaters that have remained true to their agreement. So order to repent, establish prayer or give charity (contribute to the betterment, etc.) are given as a prerequisite for peace with idolaters. NO SUGGESTION IS GIVEN TO MAKE THEM ACCEPT ISLAM EVEN AS A PART OF THE PEACE AGREEMENT.
There is no compulsion in this obligation/system, the right way has been made clear from the wrong way. Whoever rejects falsities, and believes in The God, then he has grasped the most solid branch that will never break. The God is Hearer, Aware/Knower.
Thank you for already having this ayat available to prove to those who would suggest otherwise, that Islam is not a Deen that is forced by compulsion.
The rest to follow in the following post reply
-
-
continuing again
The situation in 91-12 is similar to the thief and those who fight against The God and His messenger , they are not required to convert, they are required to repent and amend, i.e. it is not necessary for them to become Muslim, as this would be absurd. Nor are they required to repent to The God, because this would imply there are no disbelieving thieves, an impossibility. That is why there is no 'ila/to' mentioned in the context, just like in 93, 95, 911. 'The reading' could have easily used 'ila/to' if that was actually the intended meaning, like it did in 664 for example, but it didn't.
If repenting to The God or converting to Muslim was required then imagining a workable example in a real-life situation is difficult. The reader is strongly recommended to think of real-life situations.
Okay, neither does 534-39 suggest that they will not be punished in some other way by the believers than what was given
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime and Allah is Exalted in power.
In both instances, Allah is the one who is said to forgive them. We are only ordered not to give the punishment
described, but we are not order like we are in 95 to??.so free their way/path, that God (is) forgiving, merciful.?
Therefore, they could be given a lessor punishment if warranted. Are you suggesting that Allah is saying that anyone in the future who is a thief, when they are caught, if they say they repent, then no punishment is to be given ever? I don?t think this is a real-life situation that would make sense, do you?
On the other hand, 95 is telling the believers to ?free their way/path? if they repent, establish prayer and give the charity. This is a full PARDON!
96 If we accept conversion as one of the options, lets look at the solution apparently suggested
- The idolaters convert to Muslims, uphold/maintain the prayer and bring forth the betterment.
OR - They can seek protection, without the need to give an apology, no re-commitment to the treaty, no compensation, delivered to safety/security, nothing in return except having to ask for protection.
This is extremely unlikely, especially when considering the firm tone of the verses. The only way the above can be made plausible is if option (2) actually refers to delivering them to their safety/security, i.e. out with the community/land, i.e. banishment. From my understanding of the verses and taking into account 533, this is what is recommended. But if this is chosen for those who hold the salat=prayer view, then it means people either convert to Muslims or are banished from the land/community. Is this likely?
First, if they did number 1, then they are entitled to safety, a normal person upon becoming a sincere Muslim or Believer will ask for forgiveness from those whom they have wronged that they still have contact with. This is part of the normal humbling that one gets upon becoming Muslim; no treaty would be necessary because true ?Muslims? will not be at war with each other; Allah is offering them forgiveness for the past transgressions from Himself; AS WELL AS ORDERING THE BELIEVERS TO DELIVER THEM TO SAFETY!
If your option are, after proving by your actions to be a mushrik and kaafir, then after that even making a peace treaty with you, in which you continue to break your oaths of the treaty, and we now have power over you and offer you to repent and become ?Muslim?, be banished from the land, or we will just simply kill you; which would you choose? The options seem overly reasonable to me considering the crimes committed by the perpetrators. These people are not just idolaters again, they are those who are lying, scheming and attacking the Messenger of Allah and the believers as well. They are the ones initiating hostilities! Would you on your own without the order from God ever invite an enemy such as this to become your brother by accepting the Deen of Al Islam? Most people would rather just kill them, especially if they have already killed some of your family members or close friends.
The phrase which follows "fa khalloo sabeelahum" = "then clear/vacate their way/path", implies that they should be allowed to go their own way/path, i.e. practice their own faith, if they "uphold/maintain the oath/bond* and bring forth the betterment". This is an insightful understanding for any multi-faith based society. In fact, this is how many Western societies work today, i.e. as long as you live by the law of the land you are allowed to practice your own faith.
Where and how did you include ?their own faith? in this equation from ?fa khalloo sabeelahum?? That is definitely stretching and adding to what is actually written. You can surely appreciate the need not to do this since this entire article is built around this premise.
Although your analogy makes good common sense in today?s modern society, there is no basis to read that into the actual words of this ayat!
*to see how 'salat' can be understood as 'oath/bond', please read on.
How does salat meaning ?oath/bond? negate it from also meaning ?prayer?? To me, prayer also means ?oath/bond?. This is what you fulfill while making salaat in worship to Allah!
97-10 continues with the object of reference the idolaters.
You don?t think these ayat have any relevance to the current points of view? I do, let me include them for you
97
{7}
Transliteration Kayfa yakoonu lilmushrikeena AAahdun AAinda Allahi waAAinda rasoolihi illa allatheena AAahadtum AAinda almasjidi alharami fama istaqamoo lakum faistaqeemoo lahum inna Allaha yuhibbu almuttaqeena
Literal How (can there) be for the sharers/takers of partners (with God) a promise/contract at God and at His messenger, except those who you promised/made a contract (with) at the Mosque the Forbidden/Sacred ,so what they became straight/direct for you, so be straight/direct for them, that God loves/likes the fearing and obeying.
Free-Minds How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger? Except for those with whom you made a pledge near the Restricted Temple, as long as they are upright with you, then you are upright with them. God loves the righteous.Doesn?t the ?except? in this verse make it clear that Allah is allowing His Messenger and the believers to live in peace with Idolaters that have a treaty with them and they are direct or true to it? Again, the issue is NOT about become a Muslim or face war from Allah for being an Idolater!
98
{8}
Transliteration Kayfa wa-in yathharoo AAalaykum la yarquboo feekum illan wala thimmatan yurdoonakum bi-afwahihim wata/ba quloobuhum waaktharuhum fasiqoona
Literal How, and if they conquer/defeat on you, they do not observe/guard (respect) in you a relationship/contract and nor promise/contract/guarantee, they please/satisfy you with their mouths and their hearts/minds refuse/hate, and most of them (are) debauchers .
Free-Minds How is it that when they come upon you they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts deny, and most of them are wicked.This is further evidence of those that are given the ?final? ultimatum. They also disregard all ties of kinship or pledge. They lie with their words as deception and are wicked and debauchers! At least they are being given an option instead of out right being killed as ?those in the war against terror? want to do to their enemies. Think about it, do you think that Osama would be offered to become a Christian and if he does, all will be forgiven? LOL..sorry, couldn?t help that one.
99
{9}
Transliteration Ishtaraw bi-ayati Allahi thamanan qaleelan fasaddoo AAan sabeelihi innahum saa ma kanoo yaAAmaloona
Literal They bought/volunteered with God's verses/evidences a small price, so they prevented/obstructed from His road/path, that they truly are bad/evil/harmful what they were making/doing .Free-Minds They purchased with God's revelations a small price, so they turn others from His path. Evil indeed is what they used to do.More evidence of their crimes! They are not just idolaters, they are also multiple criminals!
910
{10}
Transliteration La yarquboona fee mu/minin illan wala thimmatan waola-ika humu almuAAtadoona
Literal They do not observe/guard (respect) in a believer a relationship/contract and nor promise/contract/ guarantee, and those are the transgressors.
Free-Minds They do not respect those who are believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. These are the transgressors.Their crimes have reached such a high level for not respecting the believers, nor kinship, nor pledges, that they are given an additional name or description as ?al-mu?tadoon?, transgressors that exceed all limits!
They have clearly been distinguished from the idolaters that have upheld their part of the treaty, at least twice now I believe. They are a specific and special class of idolaters in a specific context and time period in history.
911 "they" (mushrikeena/idolaters, muAAtadoon/transgressors/wrongdoers) are asked to repent/taboo. Once again, those who believe salat=prayer are forced to reinterpret taboo to mean "turn", even though there is no ila/to used after, and it has been shown taboo is never used in the entire quran to mean "turn" without stating the object that is being turned to in the context. This fact alone should disprove their entire argument but they can cling to the implication that telling them to uphold/maintain the salat is sufficient enough to imply the object must be Islam/God. Even if this is a possible implication, it doesn't change the fact its never used like that in the rest of 'the reading'.
I am perfectly fine with interpreting ?taboo? as repent and still understanding salat=prayer. Don?t you see it also by now?
It can be alleged that they must be converts because they can be regarded as our "brothers in the system/obligation*". On the surface this seems like a good point, but after examination of the term akhw/brother, it becomes weak. Firstly, lets see what the Classical Arabic dictionaries say about this word
*deen does not mean religion . Alternatively, please check any Classical Arabic dictionary.
Deen to me means the complete system or way of life as prescribed by Allah for the human being. Is that acceptable to you?
'Dictionary of the Holy Quran' by Abdul Mannan Omar
Male person having the same parents as another or a male only having one parent in common; person of the same descent/land/creed/faith with others; brother; friend; companion; match; fellow of a pair; kinsman; intimately acquainted.'The Arabic English Lexicon' by Edward W. Lane
A brother. Signifying the relation of a brother - brotherhood/fraternity. Act in a brotherly manner. An associate/fellow. Sister, female friend. When it does not relate to birth, it means conformity/similarity and combination/agreement or unison in action.Clearly, according to the dictionaries, akhw has a much wider meaning. In fact, 'the reading' itself confirms this understanding
continued following
- The idolaters convert to Muslims, uphold/maintain the prayer and bring forth the betterment.
-
final piece of the rebuttal
Now, I will admit that this wider understanding of akhw/brother for 911 is not solid from the evidence so far, but the following verse clarifies and proves the point conclusively. Please note the final object of reference for this verse "then they are your brothers...".
This argument is very weak in logic and viewing the other alternative. Are you saying that once a person is labeled as an idolater, that Allah can never refer to them by using the term ?they? at the end of a verb to indicate that they are something now other than idolaters? That doesn?t hold any weight or measure! Surely I can say that if criminals repent then they would forgiven and treated nicely, but if they don?t, they will be punished. I never mentioned the word ?citizen?, but in actuality they do become ?citizens? of the state again once they are forgiven if they don?t continue to commit any more crimes.
912 proves "they" are not brothers in terms of Muslims or believers or in terms of conversion because it continues on from 911 with And/wa and states "And if they break their oaths after making them...". Its clear the verses have been referencing "they" with transgressors/idolaters throughout, especially the verses before 911. If they have converted, why are they still being held to account for their oaths? What is going on?
One answer, and perhaps the only one that can be put forth, to resolve this confusion from the traditional viewpoint, is that these oaths refer to the "oath of Islam" that was apparently undertaken during the alleged conversion! Firstly, there is no formal/ceremonial public "oath of Islam" ever mentioned in 'the reading'. Secondly, if this is the view held then they are expecting a great deal from the small word taboo "oath of Islam" is a noun, whilst turn/taboo is a verb, so which is it? It cant be both. And last but by no means least, nowhere in 'the reading' does it state fight those who break their "oath of Islam", i.e. those who become disbelievers after accepting Islam. In fact, people are free to believe then disbelieve if they wish .
This obsession with the suffixes ?they? and who they refer to, to me has lead you down the wrong understanding of these very clear ayat otherwise. I hope that I have added a speck of clarity to the issue for yourself or anyone that was confused by this article, Allah willing.
Additional Notes
Not once in 91-12 are a section of the idolaters/transgressors referenced as believers/mumineen. If indeed, a conversion had taken place and they were performing prayer (which requires belief) they could have been referenced as believers. This could have easily been done in 911 with "then they are believers in the obligation/system". This would have nullified my entire argument. Its no coincidence this never happened. It never happened because this was never meant.There is no need to call them that since they were still ?mushrikeen? at the time the revelation was being given. This is clear from the context of the ayat. How can you tell Allah what He could have done or said in order to make something more clear or easy for you? Doesn?t Allah know best how to reveal His Message?
Some people have still argued that these signs/verses discuss conversion in order to make peace. IF this is the case, where else in the entire quran does The God give conversion as a possible solution for similar problematic situations? Can they find any? And if this is possible, why is this so-called solution listed some of the time and not others? What is their criteria?
Where in the Quran do you find another situation as special as this given one in terms of a treaty? Do you believe that there are no other situations in the Quran that exist only once? Surely you know this is not true. Many things in the Quran are only talked about once, and many have several references for further instruction. Allah is the one who determined the necessity thereof, not us!
It has been suggested that since they are required to bring forth the zakat this implies they must be Muslims because only Muslims can give/bring/produce the zakat. This is not the case
Say "I am no more than a human being like you, who is being inspired that your God is one God, therefore you shall be straight towards Him and ask His forgiveness. And woe to those idolaters.
"Those who do not bring forth the zakat, and with regard to the Hereafter, they are rejecters/concealers"
As a side note zakat does not equal charity. It means positive development (which can include giving charity). However reviewing the meaning of this word is not the purpose of this article. For further reading on this point, please click here.
Can you please show me the relevance here? I think I have given sufficient proof to not deal with this, but if need be, I can later, if Allah wills.
Conclusion
Now, I would like to concentrate on what the verses are actually recommending rather than discussing the traditional argument.All of this become null and void with the above refutations that make it clear that even in this Sura, salaat still means prayer/oath/bond and there is no problem with the meaning or understanding!
Those who violated the treaty are asked to repent. A true repentance obviously means actually acknowledging wrongdoing, apologising, and ceasing wrongdoing . Those who do not are warned of an upcoming painful retribution.
Once the restricted months are past (like a period of amnesty), those who violated the treaty and did not repent can be fought. If any of them now repent, they are required to uphold/maintain the oath/bond and bring forth the betterment. If they do this, their way is cleared. If they disagree, they can continue to be fought until they accept the terms or ask for protection (i.e. give up but still not accept the terms). If they do this, protection is granted, and they are delivered to their safety/security out with the land/community.
As you can see so far, all options are covered, except what happens to those who repent and uphold/maintain the oath/bond and bring forth the betterment initially but eventually break the oath/bond. This is covered in 911-12. If the oaths are now broken, the leaders of this activity are fought until this activity is stopped.It is interesting to note the progressing options from 91-12. A point not recognised by the traditional understanding. Perhaps this is because to acknowledge progressing options would disprove their position. What I mean by this is that in 912 the punishment recommended is fighting the chiefs of rejection only, but this is not the case in 95. Therefore, they cannot be referring to the same situation. So what has changed? Since 912 is a continuation of
911, we can analyse them both together to see if there is an explanation. Upon examination, it is clear the only thing they were asked to uphold/maintain is the salat, and in doing so a direct opposing/contrasting comparison is made-
But if they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then they are your brothers in the obligation/system. We detail/explain our signs/revelations for a people who know.
-
And if they break their oaths after making them, and they slander your obligation/system; then you may fight the chiefs of concealment/rejection. Truly, their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then stop.
To give this further weight, a question has to be asked can salat mean oath/bond? The answer is a resounding "yes!".
'The Arabic English Lexicon' by Edward W. Lane
prayer, supplication, petition, oration, eulogy, benediction, commendation, blessing, honour, magnifiy, bring forth, follow closely, walk/follow behind closely, to remain attached, to contact or to be in contact.
In a horse race when the second horse follows the first one so closely that its head always overlaps the first horse?s body that horse is called AL-MUSSALLI (i.e. the one who follows closely / remains attached / remains in contact).
Central portion of the back, portion from where the tail of an animal comes out, the rump.For further evidence, please read the following article, which demonstrates the core meaning of Sad-Lam-Waw (root of salat) is "to go/turn towards (in a positive/close manner). There is not one exception to this core meaning in the entire quran.
An Understanding of salat from Al Quran
All of this become null and void with the above refutations that make it clear that even in this Sura, salaat still means prayer/oath/bond and there is no problem with the meaning or understanding!
Thus, it has been shown that 'the reading' itself proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that "salat" cannot mean "prayer" in these verses. Nor, in these verses. This conclusion exposes the myth of the traditional understanding.
Once again, the options are clear does one accept what al quran says or does one accept what they've been taught it says?Shall I seek other than The God as a judge when He has sent down to you this scripture fully detailed? Those whom We have given the scripture know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt. And the word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice, there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower. And if you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.
It is hoped that this article will serve to expose the truth.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
This article reflects my personal understanding, as of May 10th, 2005. Seeking knowledge is a continual process and I will try to improve my understanding of the signs within 'the reading' and out with it, unless The God wills otherwise. All information in this article is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify 1736, 20114, 3528, 496, 5811. If The God willed, the outcome of this article will be beneficial.
I pray that you are committed to the understanding of the Quran and not just to promote and defend what you have written at some point during the growth process of your journey in Al Islam. If this disclaimer is genuine, and personally I believe it is, then you should be able to accept the changes that Allah reveals to your intellect and heart as they continue to come. We are all evolving and will continue to learn from each other, insha Allah. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion about something strongly and then changing it upon receiving a better understanding or more information, as allowed by Allah. THAT IS HOW WE ALL CAME TO THIS POINT ANYWAY, ISN?T IT?
All feedback is welcome.
email the author 786kas (at) lineone.net
(at) = @ with no spacesBooks of Reference
'The Arabic English Lexicon' by Edward W. Lane
'Dictionary of the Holy Quran' by Abdul Mannan Omar
Concordance of The Quran by Hanna E. Kassis
The argument in this article initially began as a thread on a forum, which can be found here.NB The title/noun "Muslim" (with capital 'M' was used in this article to ease understanding, however, the author strongly rejects the primary signification of the word muslim is as a title/noun. It is a description first & foremost, then a title/noun.
This article was written be the author of think786.cjb.net
As Salaamu Alaikum wa RaHmatuallaahi wa Barakaatuhu!
ImamQuranOnly
-
-
Thanks!
I will review it this week and get back to you.
Out of curiousity, can you tell me what specifically is wrong with your vision? If you do not want to discuss it here, please pm me. The reason I ask is you began with enlarged font, then now used enlarged red and blue font, even larger than what you used previously.
-
Thanks!
I will review it this week and get back to you.
Out of curiousity, can you tell me what specifically is wrong with your vision? If you do not want to discuss it here, please pm me. The reason I ask is you began with enlarged font, then now used enlarged red and blue font, even larger than what you used previously.
Salam Wakas,
Honor
-
-
Peace all,
Let?s learn as we go along, how to have a dialogue. Every window colours the light according to its reference point of its own shade, but eventually all come from the same light. The LIGHT SOURCE HIMSELF has created these spectrum of point of views FOR A REASON!!. So let there be talks. In a dialogue i look at your light and you look at mine. GAME of REFUTE will soon become ego-driven. So let,s create a sphere to talk according to THE MESSAGE.
PEACE,
-
Salaam IQO
Personally I find a message with different fonts and colours difficult to follow. I feel it is a bit intimidating, as if shouting at me read this and accept it. I am sure of it!
But again, maybe it is only me.
So, would you please write in a lower voice?
-
honor, I am an eyecare professional and I was genuinely curious as to what condition IQO has. Primarily to satisfy my curiousity because it does not fit with what I know and also to offer advice if possible, just like I offered advice to member YankeeDoodle (if anyone recalls him) who was suffering from reduced vision. Advice he found helpful I might add.
It is clear you took my intentions/tone to be other than this. This of course is up to you. I am here for evidence-based discussion so I can improve my understanding and help others if I can along the way, not second guessing someone else's intentions/sincerity/tone etc. I leave you with peace.
IQO, I was able to review your "rebuttal" last night and I will post the response soon. I noticed you used the older version of the article in your "rebuttal", the latest one is here
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm -
As Salaamu Alaikum all and Wakas and Samia,
The font issue is partly because of my vision, although I don't wear glasses or contacts. I have noticed that my eyesight is getting worse for whatever reason. I am not that old really though. ;D But I think some of the fonts are larger than I would like them to be. I will say that different colors, bold, underlined, different sizes and italicized fonts are used to "highlight" certain points that the author wants to stick out more to the reader. All if not the vast majority of the articles do this on this site. Just check them out if you are not sure. Maybe mine are a little more drastic on this site because I originally did these in Microsoft word for convenience, and then tried to just copy them into the posts. As you all who have been here for a while, or on other forums are aware, when you do this, the font sizes, colors, etc. don't copy over into the post always. So then it takes me a long time to go through everything and try to reformat it for the post. After spending all the time to prepare the material, this second process is tedious and gets boring, so this scenario is my excuse! yes
I will try to be more conscious of everyone's sensitivities as I post more things, Allah willing. But I will continue to use tools to "highlight" things just as most articles do.
Wakas, I wasn't aware that there was another version of the article, as I copied that version directly from the site the day before I posted the rebuttal. I don't know if it is possible, but if you have updated the article, maybe the site should replace the old article with your updated version. I will read the updated version to see where it differs from the one that I copied from here a few days ago.
I should be finished with the rebuttal for the other articles you did on the subject by tomorrow, Allah willing. I combined it with a couple of the links that you had on the subject to support your view. I will post them all as one on here when I finish it, Allah willing. Of course I am looking forward to your reply.
As Salaamu Alaikum peace
-
I do not have access to the site you got the article from anymore, thus I cant update it.
Salaams Wakas bro,
Do you mean this site at Freeminds? I thought that you were one of the administrators? I could be wrong. Just shows how much I know about the site. Can you request those that maintain the site to change an article that you have authored to reflect updates, once they have put up one of your articles? It is a curious situation if not.
Just so that you know Wakas, I really do respect and appreciate your intellect and knowledge. Disagreeing with you about salaat does not mean that I disrepect you in anyway. I think you have a mind that seeks the truth, and that ingredient very important and rare among the majority of humanity. Even if we never agree on this subject matter, I believe that we can learn a lot from each other as time passes, Allah willing.
Talk to you soon bro.
As Salaamu Alaikum, peace
-
peace IQO,
I am not an administrator of this site. I am a moderator on the forum only.
However, I can request Layth to update the article. I will do so in a few weeks perhaps.
And also I do not take your critiquing of my articles as any disrespect to me, however, what I do dislike is if someone attempts to critique but does not stick to an evidence-based discussion, offers mostly opinion, poorly thought out arguments and the worst of all does not properly read/reflect upon my article and thus attempts to disprove points I never even made in my article or assumes things I never even said. These things are easy to avoid if one critically analysises their own arguments. I try to do this on a regular basis.
-
peace IQO,
I am not an administrator of this site. I am a moderator on the forum only.
However, I can request Layth to update the article. I will do so in a few weeks perhaps.
And also I do not take your critiquing of my articles as any disrespect to me, however, what I do dislike is if someone attempts to critique but does not stick to an evidence-based discussion, offers mostly opinion, poorly thought out arguments and the worst of all does not properly read/reflect upon my article and thus attempts to disprove points I never even made in my article or assumes things I never even said. These things are easy to avoid if one critically analysises their own arguments. I try to do this on a regular basis.
As-Salaamu Alaikum Wakas,
I think your assessment of how other people review your material is based on "your opinion" of how you think it should be done. You can't make all people to utilize the exact same "techniques" as you do in your work. What is proof to someone else is not to you, and vice versa. That's just life and the different complexities of different minds and ways of thinking. I have read your article enough to understand what it means to my mind, regardless of what you may "think" my mind should be perceiving. This also happens with Al Quran. Ten people can read the same ayat and get 10 different approaches to the understanding. That is what this process is all about.
I am still looking forward to your arguments to my rebuttal. As I said, we may never agree, but hopefully we will learn a thing or two from each other, Allah willing.
As Salaamu Alaikum peace
-
peace IQO,
Firstly, it seems you may just need prescription glasses to correct your reduced vision. I recommend an eye exam.
I have read your article enough to understand what it means to my mind, regardless of what you may "think" my mind should be perceiving.
Incorrect. Since I am the author of the article, I know exactly what I meant when I stated certain things, thus if a reader (i.e. you) takes it another way, then I can correct them. This is not an identical situation to 'al quran', thus your analogy using 'al quran' is not comparable.
I have attached my response to your "rebuttal" as a .htm file (viewable with any web browser).
-
As Salaamu Alaika Wakas,
peace IQO,
Firstly, it seems you may just need prescription glasses to correct your reduced vision. I recommend an eye exam.
Incorrect. Since I am the author of the article, I know exactly what I meant when I stated certain things, thus if a reader (i.e. you) takes it another way, then I can correct them. This is not an identical situation to 'al quran', thus your analogy using 'al quran' is not comparable.
I have attached my response to your "rebuttal" as a .htm file (viewable with any web browser).
Thanks for your recommendation for an eye exam.
Being the author of an article does not give you carte blanc to determine how what you wrote will be determined to mean for the mind reading it. Many writers find this to be the case and therefore spend years improving their craft so as the convey the meaning that they would like to get across better. You obviously can correct a reader by stating what "you intended" something to mean, but that is not always accepted as credible if what "you intended" seems to far away from what you actually wrote. Nevertheless, these are very small points.
I have just finished reading your response to my rebuttal to your article. I must say that I was not convinced by anything you rebutted or how you rebutted them. I can easily show the faults with most if not all of the arguments that you have made. I think you may want to implore Allah to open your mind to the "spirit" of the Quran and not just the linguistical grammatical analysis only as your basis for debate. You are missing a big portion of the "guidance" from Al Quran when you do this. When a person does this, then they are only engaging the Quran with their "mind" and their "heart" has not yet even begun to comprehend the guidance given.
I will write a response to your rebuttal soon, it will be time consuming and I'm trying to get the rest of the books sections up for those who DO believe that Allah has ordered us to perform a "ritual" prayer. This will be my first priority. It would be nice if you can take the time to format your response and post it here as well so that all can see without having to download it. I think people can clearly then make their assessment of which argument they are more in line to follow and believe. Until next time....
As Salaamu Alaikum peace
-
peace IQO,
It would be nice if you can take the time to format your response and post it here as well so that all can see without having to download it.
It is like "downloading" a webpage. Those who wish to read it can click on the link below
I must say that I was not convinced by anything you rebutted or how you rebutted them. I can easily show the faults with most if not all of the arguments that you have made. I think you may want to implore Allah to open your mind to the "spirit" of the Quran and not just the linguistical grammatical analysis only as your basis for debate. You are missing a big portion of the "guidance" from Al Quran when you do this. When a person does this, then they are only engaging the Quran with their "mind" and their "heart" has not yet even begun to comprehend the guidance given.
Interesting, but I prefer evidence-based discussion, not subjective opinion.
I think people can clearly then make their assessment of which argument they are more in line to follow and believe.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Look forward to your response, however I must point out I am unlikely to reply to any points that are not evidence-based.
-
Salam Wakas,
I wanted ask you about this
Incorrect. Since I am the author of the article, I know exactly what I meant when I stated certain things, thus if a reader (i.e. you) takes it another way, then I can correct them. This is not an identical situation to 'al quran', thus your analogy using 'al quran' is not comparable.
I understand what you mean by since you wrote and are its author you understand what you are meaning, but isn't attempting to "correct" another views on your article implying they are incorrect in their views and therefore your article is infallible?
I thought IQA had some very good points on
I think your assessment of how other people review your material is based on "your opinion" of how you think it should be done. You can't make all people to utilize the exact same "techniques" as you do in your work. What is proof to someone else is not to you, and vice versa. That's just life and the different complexities of different minds and ways of thinking. I have read your article enough to understand what it means to my mind, regardless of what you may "think" my mind should be perceiving. This also happens with Al Quran. Ten people can read the same ayat and get 10 different approaches to the understanding. That is what this process is all about.
Please let me know what you meant in your comment above.
peace
