Rebuttal to article by Wakas: Disproved once and for all salat=prayer
-
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
-
peace MM,
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?
If we are using what I meant in my article, then I know exactly what I meant, thus I can correct a reader's view on my article, with respect to this point.
My article is not infallible however, as someone could disprove some points in it, as long as they understand what my point is in the first place.
Having an infallible article is not logical, so I'm not entirely sure of how you deduced this.
IQO did have some good points, I only commented on the part I felt was incorrect.
-
Salam Wakas,
If we are using what I meant in my article, then I know exactly what I meant, thus I can correct a reader's view on my article, with respect to this point.
My article is not infallible however, as someone could disprove some points in it, as long as they understand what my point is in the first place.
Having an infallible article is not logical, so I'm not entirely sure of how you deduced this.
IQO did have some good points, I only commented on the part I felt was incorrect.Understood. That's why I asked. )
Thank you.
-
As-Salaamu Alaikum Wakas,
peace IQO,
It is like "downloading" a webpage. Those who wish to read it can click on the link below
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=14091.0;attach=1064Interesting, but I prefer evidence-based discussion, not subjective opinion.
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.
Just to make a note, ALL discussion on Al Quran is "opinion". Everything from the dictionaries, lexicons, to what you call "facts" are still just "opinions". The only true "evidence" is Al Quran itself. I hope that makes sense to you. If you care not to disguss "opinion", then what else is left except to quote the entire Arabic Quran?
I think I have made my point for this rebuttal. Your title was/is "Diproved once and for all salat=prayer" For me, for you to continue to promote this falacy is disingenious. "As-Salaat" does mean "The Prayer" in the sense of it being related to the physical function of praising and remembering Allah the way He has described in Al-Quran. Just because you disagree with the way "tradional muslims" have distorted the "Deen" with their use of "hadith", this doesn't give you any right to confuse the minds of those who have come to the conclusion that they are to follow the Quran only as guidance from Allah in written form. This is very destructive and can mislead many from the "Siratul Mustaqeem". I am sure that I don't have to tell you what the Quran says about that.
If you wanted to point out that the root "slw" does not always mean "prayer" when used in Al Quran, that would have been a beneficial article to the readers of Freeminds, etc. It would have taught them that we are not to send "prayers" on the Prophet, etc. But for whatever reason you have gotten it in your mind that Allah does not enjoin us to practice a "ritual prayer". That is your choice and you are welcome to follow it and even promote it if you like. On the other hand, I am obligate to point out that it is false and against Quranic teaching.
I don't see any more need to continue to rebute or refute your article, because regardless of what you wrote in your rebuttal to me, I think it is clear from my arguments and the amount of evidence contained in Al Quran that "As-Salaat" does mean "ritual prayer", in the general sense that we use it. A much better focus would be to continue to strive to understand this process from Al Quran and arrive at some unity that is beneficial to all, insha Allah.
You are again welcome to post your responses to my rebuttal on here and then we can just let the members decide which argument has more weight. Although that may not be necessary because in actuality I believe that there are many more members here who believe that As-Salaat is a "ritual prayer". Allah knows best.
As-Salaamu Alaikum peace
-
Peace all,
I think if brother Wakas would change the heading of his article to "disproved once and for all salat = prayer IN SOME OCCURRENCES", it would clarify all the misunderstandings about his article !
Right now, the heading "disproved once and for all salat = prayer" also allows the interpretation that "disproved once and for all salat = prayer IN ALL OCCURRENCES", and that is what is causing all the misunderstanding IMO.
