New Salat Article
-
peace,
Which verse(s) are you referencing for the example with Mary?
Are you working along the lines of since 'B' is mentioned in the same verse/context as 'A' then that means 'B' is done during 'A'? Or is it simply one of the possibilities?
I'm still waiting Anwar.
-
Whatever position you are in, whatever the way you are facing, God always sees us.
And you can do the prayer as true as you can, if the prayer isnt sincere, then what is the use of it
That's why i avoid public places like mosques, i feel like i pray just because everyone prays. That's bad.
-
Wakas,
Sorry I forgot about you.
343 O Mary! Remain thou truly devout unto thy Sustainer, worship (asjudi), and bow down (arka'i) with those who bow down."
I also beleve that zakaat meaning betterment or what is right/just aa'too az-zakaata can mean do what is right (give yourself (for III) to what is right).
So in the below and in other passages that say the same
243 and be establish prayer, do what is right and bow down (along) with all who bow down.
Waaqeemoo alssalata waatoo alzzakata wairkaAAoo maAAa alrrakiAAeena555 yuqeemoona alssalata wayutoona alzzakata wahum rakiAAoona
912 alrrakiAAoona alssajidoona (these go together)
4829 Thou canst see them bowing down, worshipping seeking favour with God and goodly acceptance
Godbless,
Anwarsajada means to worship generally and to prostrate in worship (reverence) as thas was the custom of showing reverence then. I don't think prostration is necessary but it is totally acceptable.
-
peace Anwar,
Thanks for clarifying.
So, from the verses you referenced Mary is not linked to "bowing" in "salat" but as part of "sajada" which you translate as "worship" from the possibilities. In my opinion this is not what I call solid evidence for your statement below
Now the Quran does associate raka&a (which is to bow or kneel) with Salat in particualr Mary's salat.
And in the other verses you referenced, you cant make a direct link to "bowing" in "salat" but make this link based on "sajada" being "worship" and presumably its proximity to the word "salat" in some contexts. Is this correct?
Also, I dont think you answered my second question. I will clarify it you imply that bowing is part of prayer (I will assume you mean "salat" by prayer) due to its proximity in context (or do you have some other evidence?) so my point was do you also consider other things mentioned in close proximity to "salat" as part of "salat", e.g. "atawoo az-zakat"? If not, what is your criteria for what you think is part of it and what is not or do you have no criteria?
-
Peace,
Yes you are correct that is based on sajada. I'll do my best to find some contexts where it is mentioned more specifically with the word Salat. But I will say that I think it is logical that when our Salat means prayer and it is directed towards God that it implies worship. As I said also eetaa' uzzakaat is doing what is right/just, so in the contexts where it is mentioned with Salaat it can be connected to Salaat or considered on its own. I'm sure at one time I had enough evidence for this, which is why i bow in some form when I pray. But honestly, when I come accross this evidence I apply it in my life and don't write it down or formulate it to prove it to others because in the end many won't accept what I have to say anyway. There are so many things I have seen in my study of the Quran that I don't decide to write down and bring up here on free-minds, that when the topics come up I'm at a loss for soild evidence to disprove the unquranicness of the many erroneous statements people say here. I'm sure those are just words to many of my enemies and critics here. But they can buzz off, because it is truth. So I apply these discoveries in my life and live and let live. But you'll have to give me some time to more deeply re-discover where and why i came to this conclusion, and the other verses that may have pointed me in this direction. As of this point I could care less about challenges to give concrete evidence. If you'd like to know my reasons for your own edification I'd be happy to dig up the passages and my reasonings and give them to you however. I'm sure you can easily see how any context where we are bowing to God in worship is salat (in its meaning of prayer.)
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Don't worry. I just checked it. My conclusion is definitely based on the fact that when we pray we are definitely in worship. And I remember being of the opinion that whenever we pay respects (the real meaning of worship) we should bow in some way. So yes, when we worship God we should bow or kneel in someway. To me that can be a head bow, a full kneel or prostration it doesn't really matter. I have not been able to connect this with the specific word Salaat but if the logic is sufficient and prayer is obviously a form of worship, is that necessary? Do you see what I mean? Looking forward to your comments.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace,
Do you see what I mean?
I understand what you are trying to link and how you are trying to link it, but I dont consider it solid. I have no qualms about what prayer and worship may or may not involve, to kneel or not kneel, as a general point, only that you said bowing/kneeling was part of Mary's "salat", when this is not what is said in AQ. That was my main point, and it was related to my following point to take a word mentioned in close proximity to "salat" and then say it's part of "salat" with no evidence.
As a sidenote, in your explanation, you implied sajada=worship. In terms of AQ's usage, I disagree. That is not it's primary usage, however I do not wish to discuss it, as it has been discussed in detail many many times before.
-
Peace all,
I was reading the Quran and a couple of verses reminded me of this thread
969 Have you seen the one who deters,
9610 A servant from communing?
9611 Have you seen if he was being guided,
9612 Or he ordered righteousness?
9613 Have you seen if he lied and turned away?
9614 Did he not know that God can see?
9615 Alas, if he does not cease, We will strike the frontal lobe.
9616 A frontal lobe which lies and errs.
9617 So let him call on his supporter.
9618 We will call on the guardians.
9619 So do not obey him, prostrate and come near.This seems to signify prostrating and coming near is part of "communing". It could be more than a case of proximity. Anyway I hope this helps your discussion.
-
Peace,
Aalmakto,
It is that word "prostrating" that we are discussing. It can mean to prostrate or to worship (and worship means to pay homage to).
Wakas,
I understand your point. And for the most part I have done my best to connect issues of salat to contexts with just the word salat mentioned. However, we may disagree on this point, because I feel that when we pray to God we are paying homage/respects to God and when paying respects/homage we are to bow or kneel in someway. As for the contexts of the Quran and sajada, I think you know that this word is used in many places only in the meaning of to pay homage/respects. However, I do understand that the word can also mean to prostrate in homage. I believe I may have rejected this last meaning previously. As far as I know I don't know if i had a good reason to. Although I will say that to prostrate and then kneel is a very backwards and almost illogical kind of wording. To kneel is to go from a standing position down or an upright position to a less upright one. So to say 'prostrate in homage and bow down/kneel' is definitely more of an ambiguous wording than 'worship and bow down/kneel.' I'll be giving this some more thought. Thanks Wakas, it might have been time for me to refresh my conclusions on this topic.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace bro aalmakto,
A few points
9610 has the verb form "salla".
You can study the verb form occurrences in PRL. It poses problems for a "prayer" understanding
salla (ي vb.II m.
perf. act. 7531, 8715, 9610
impf. act. 339, plu. neg. 4102, plu. 4102, tusalli (ل neg. 984, yusallee (ي sing. 3343, yusalloona (ن plu. 3356
salli (ل impv. 9103, salloo (ا plu. 3356, 1082
musalleena (ن pcple. act. plu. acc. gen. 7022, 7443, 1074It does link sjd with "salla", perhaps not in a concrete way, but reasonable. What we can deduce from this usage is that "sjd and come near" (to God) is contrasted to "obey him" (i.e. the person who was deterring). If it was a physical prostration, it obviously does not mean "come near" in a literal sense, as one would be stationary when prostrating. The primary usage of sjd in AQ is 'to acknowledge / give recognition', which also fits the context. I'm not aware of an occurrence in whic sjd clearly means "prostrate" but I am aware of occurrences where it definitely cannot mean to physically "prostrate" (124, 4154, 25.
It should also be read in conjunction with chapter 107.
-
Peace be upon you,
To "sujood" to God is to submit to God, this draws us closer.
Islam is peacefulness, not submission.
-
Peace,
Yeah, based on the meanings of the CLASSICAL ARABIC words found in the Quran and the wording when it comes to the use of sujood I am going to stick with the position I laid out in my last post in this topic (two posts above). Wakas, you have done a lot of research and have made alot of resources available about these Classical Arabic words I would hope that you would not abondon that because of the naive and simple idea of the Quran somehow being a dictionary of the words it borrowed from the Classical Arabic language. Anyways, to God within I'm not going to comment on your meaning of sujood as I think my position is clear on context guessing and not using Classical Arabic dictionaries to understand the Old Arabic words used in the Quran. (I use Old Arabic and Classical Arabic as synonyms). However as for your definition of Islam, that is only ONE of the definitions of this word. Now you won't find that meaning in any dictionary but you will find it in the connotations of form 4 when the root salima is used. (For those who think that I am somehow contradicting myself here I have always said that dictionary defintiions AND grammatical, formed based connotations are the rules to understand the langauge that the Quran uses. That has been my stance for a very long time now. So if you misunderstood me that was your misunderstanding not my contradiction.)
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace,
I would hope that you would not abondon that because of the naive and simple idea of the Quran somehow being a dictionary of the words it borrowed from the Classical Arabic language.
I have no idea why I would abandon that based on the above, but erm, ok, thanks for the advice.
I follow a methodology that gives more weight to Quranic usage than to Dictionary usage, you dont, simple.
-
Wakas,
I follow a methodology that gives more weight to Quranic usage than to Dictionary usage, you dont, simple.
We could continue this on a pm basis if you would like because I don't want this to sound like a challenge or for it to get out of hand because of what may be interpreted as antogonistic comments. But anyway, I would like to know why you follow this methodology and your reasons for it. My first set of questions following this will be clarification for my own edification and then I will follow up with a set of possibly challenging, but respectful, questions.
I will also explain that from my perspective there is really no such thing as Quranic usages versus dictionary usage, as you imply. The Quran uses/chooses from the dictioanary uses so the two will never conflict. (you may find more usages in the dictionary but the usage that fits the Quran's context will always be there as well). In addition to that grammatical connotations which cannot be found in the dictionary but are apart of the usage of Classcical Arabic words is another source for understanding Classical Arabic words in Quranic context or any other context. Honestly, I just don't fully understand your phrasing above because the Quran borrowed the Classical Arabic language and the dictionaries are tools for exposing the usages of this language, which again the Quran borrowed, in their entirety. So I don't see the dichotomy and as such I don't see the reasoning in your above phrasing. Thanks.
Godbless,
Anwar -
peace,
Giving more weight to one than the other does not imply a dichotomy in my opinion. Perhaps a preference.
Anyways, I would genuinely love to discuss if I felt I would be able to give it the attention/time it deserves. Sadly, I dont think I would be able to.
-
Peace,
Alright, I guess I'll have to accept. Again pm is always an option if you ever do get some sufficient time and want to keep it between us. Anyway thanks for the honest response. Hopefully we'll discuss it one day and one day come to a consensus.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Anwar,
Thank you for your help. I was hoping that you would present some new non-traditional arguments but unfortunately you pretty much sang the traditional chorus
-
Like fallacious minded traditionalists you keep asking for negative proof that fictionalized Jahiliya poems are not true.
-
In one way you have defended Jahiliya poetry more dogmatically than the average traditionalist because you proclaimed that the way the great reading was preserved is similar to how Jahiliya poetry was preserved. Only the most irrational traditionalist would dare to make such claim about Jahiliya poetry.
-
Like traditionalists, in reality you have more faith in Classical Arabic than you do in the great reading. You don?t realize that the god could have easily made the great reading rhyme with all of the vocalization case endings. The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading. So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings. Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that those case endings have very low functional load and thus are grammatically useless. They are nothing more than hypercorrections made by later scholars who drew on Jewish scholarship and who (much like you) never spoke Classical Arabic in their lives but wanted to appear more learned than the average street language speaker by imitating Biblical Hebrew case endings.
-
Like traditionalists you are desperately trying to find excuses for the many glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries as if their authors were not humans who can make errors (and no, there is no attribution to a scholar for the meaning or classification of Allat in Lisan Al-3arab as you conjecture).
-
You claim that the Abbasid spoke Classical Arabic, when in fact we can only find Classical Arabic in formalized writings but not in any early mundane inscriptions or manuscripts such as business documents, etc. In fact, we often see dotting in those mundane documents used for disambiguating the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet but never for case endings.
-
Like traditionalists you claim that CA grammatical errors in the great reading are not errors but then you conveniently fail to quote any Classical Arabic rule according to which these are not errors. For example, you never provide any reference to a Classical Arabic grammar rule by Sibaweh or any CA grammarian where it is prescribed that ?sabirin? instead of ?sabirun? should be used in 2177 or ?sabi?un? instead of ?sabi?in? should be used in 569 or ?moqimin? instead of ?moqimun? should be used in 4162. Instead, you make up your own excuses for those clear errors.
-
The only new argument that you make is a laughable one about words of the form Fa3aLY as relating to the form AF3AL being non-existent in the Arabic language, which even the most ignorant traditionalist wouldn?t dare to make. This is because there are too many examples to list such as AWThAN/WaThaNY, A3RAB/3aRaBY, ANSAR/NaSaRY, ASBAT/SaBaTY, ANBAT/NaBaTY, etc. Of course, you make this argument to distance the word A3RAB from 3aRaBY (and its clear meaning of having to do with A3RAB). Traditionalists have tried to detach the meaning but they never say why and in fact Lisan Al-3arab claims that 3aRaBY has nothing to do with A3RAB and no reason is given other than the insinuation that A3RAB are portrayed in an unfavorable light in the great reading (and of course this doesn?t bode well for Lisan Al-3arab extreme Arab nationalistic bias).
At this junction, I think that given all the objections that you presented, the facts and arguments that I provided are solid and can stand up well to any traditional arguments brought against them.
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
Peace Anwar,
Peace Ayman,
Thank you for your help. I was hoping that you would present some new non-traditional arguments but unfortunately you pretty much sang the traditional chorus
Sure. Nicely put but wrongly assessed. Traditional arguments don't have to be wrong. And maybe that is your crux, you think that if it's traditional it must be wrong and that is a biased predjudice that doesn't stand the test of truth. I can tell by this email that you know that i'm right but just have to say something to save face. Sure. Have it your way. Consider your face saved. I wasn't having this discussion for pride's sake.
1
. Like fallacious minded traditionalists you keep asking for negative proof that fictionalized Jahiliya poems are not true.Just wonderful. Blame it on the traditionalists and try to make me guilty by association. Let those who have eyes see. You are the one claiming that these poems (but more importantly their grammar) is fictionalized. I told you I don't believe they are fictionalized but I am not against that possibility if it had some evidence. Scepticism doesn't count as evidence. In the end this was not even the issue. The issue is whether or not these poems (and their possible fictionalization) were before the Quran or after it. The only thing you proved is that you are a skeptic of anything traditional or that traditionalists accept. That is not scholarship, traditional or untraditional.
- In one way you have defended Jahiliya poetry more dogmatically than the average traditionalist because you proclaimed that the way the great reading was preserved is similar to how Jahiliya poetry was preserved. Only the most irrational traditionalist would dare to make such claim about Jahiliya poetry.
Right, right. The only thing i did was show that you have no real evidence to claim what you claim. Like I said, if these poems are fiction that doesn't really matter much to me. What really matters is if the grammar that they use is fiction. In the end the grammar of pre-Islamic poems and the Quran are the same. And every piece of real, written evidence points to that. I know you would like to accuse me of shirk by trying to compare the method of preservation of the Quran with the pre-Islamic poems, but this is a very extremist point of view on your part. The issue here is that what I said was true and all real evidence points to this fact (that the Quran and pre-Islamic poems were mainly preserved in an oral fashion through schools of narrators). You've got to be able to tell the forest from the trees. Please brother, open your eyes and see. How can I be an irrational traditionalist when everything that I said can be backed up and none of your claims have anything to back them up except your suspicious and conjecture and that of Taha Hussein (as it seems)? Not everything that is traditional is wrong.
- Like traditionalists, in reality you have more faith in Classical Arabic than you do in the great reading. You don?t realize that the god could have easily made the great reading rhyme with all of the vocalization case endings. The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading. So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings. Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that those case endings have very low functional load and thus are grammatically useless. They are nothing more than hypercorrections made by later scholars who drew on Jewish scholarship and who (much like you) never spoke Classical Arabic in their lives but wanted to appear more learned than the average street language speaker by imitating Biblical Hebrew case endings.
I've got a feeling that you've really got something against traditionalists and traditions. Are your feelings kind of like this? voodoo
But anyway, why do you have to bring up faith in a language and compare it to the Quran? As if they are opposing things? The Quran (or the great reading as you call it) uses this language. If I read a book in English or Spanish should my faith in those languages have anything to do with my faith in what that book has to say? Does that even make sense?The god doesn?t need to be inconsistent or ?9 out of 10? to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.
confused I don't get it? What does that have to do with anything? You said that the Quran doesn't use case endings and used Quranic recitation to try to prove that. And I showed you that even in the recitation of the Quran (where they don't not always read the text faithfully for rhyme and style) they pronounce case endings 9 times out of 10. That is all. So I really don't understand what this comment means, or has to do with anything. And I don't understand how you can say "So for anyone who has more faith in the great reading than in Classical Arabic, this fact alone is completely sufficient as evidence that the language of the great reading couldn?t have had any vocalization case endings." Why are you trying to pit faith the language that a book is written in with the content of that book?
You seem to be just parroting what you said before without responding to the real issues. You never gave any good reasons for how Arabic hypercorrected by borrowing case endings from a language that doesn't have case endings. Niether Hebrew or Aramaic have case endings. All they had were dots that represent vocal sounds, you know like a, e, i, o u in English. That is it. No case endings in (Biblical) Hebrew or Aramaic.- Like traditionalists you are desperately trying to find excuses for the many glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries as if their authors were not humans who can make errors (and no, there is no attribution to a scholar for the meaning or classification of Allat in Lisan Al-3arab as you conjecture).
Well, I looked in Lisan Al-Arab, and if it's the quot about the mixture of wheat, barely and dates in front of the idol and it being named after that that you mentioned, that is someone's quote. A certain Mujaahid said that. Maybe your Lisan Al-Arab doesn't have that in there . . . . maybe. And another meaning for it being the name of a rock it says is a story connected to a certain rock someone was making that mixture on top of, but the authencitiy of this story is doubted.
This is great. sun I hope I am not the only one who sees what you have resorted to. No glaring errors in Classical Arabic dictionaries just glaring errors in your understanding which you will not admit to.
- You claim that the Abbasid spoke Classical Arabic, when in fact we can only find Classical Arabic in formalized writings but not in any early mundane inscriptions or manuscripts such as business documents, etc. In fact, we often see dotting in those mundane documents used for disambiguating the Nabataean Aramaic Alphabet but never for case endings.
Wrong again. Those inscriptions are in Classical Arabic. You see some dotting to distinguish consonants. Again the Arabic script had to evolve. Some scripts used some dots erratically and not in any consistent way. But the development of the script has nothing to do with what was actually said. Colored dots were used to distinguish vowels. How many times must this be repeated to you? You don't write the vowels in rAjUl but the vowels are still spoken, how about qiblah and qublah (this is a modern Arabic example)? No written vowels but they ARE pronounced and changing vowels changes the meaning. Please don't equate the deficient phases of a script or it's deficiency as a whole with what is actually said. An efficient script system for Arabic took time (and innovation) to evolve.
- Like traditionalists you claim that CA grammatical errors in the great reading are not errors but then you conveniently fail to quote any Classical Arabic rule according to which these are not errors. For example, you never provide any reference to a Classical Arabic grammar rule by Sibaweh or any CA grammarian where it is prescribed that ?sabirin? instead of ?sabirun? should be used in 2177 or ?sabi?un? instead of ?sabi?in? should be used in 569 or ?moqimin? instead of ?moqimun? should be used in 4162. Instead, you make up your own excuses for those clear errors.
I don't make up my own rules and I did point you to a book that can solve that for you. Wright's Classical Arabic grammar. Look up the use of nasb and it will all become clear. Stop taking these mistakes that only stump novices as evidence of anything. I'm sure if you read through Sibawayah and the like it would become clear to you.
- The only new argument that you make is a laughable one about words of the form Fa3aLY as relating to the form AF3AL being non-existent in the Arabic language, which even the most ignorant traditionalist wouldn?t dare to make. This is because there are too many examples to list such as AWThAN/WaThaNY, A3RAB/3aRaBY, ANSAR/NaSaRY, ASBAT/SaBaTY, ANBAT/NaBaTY, etc. Of course, you make this argument to distance the word A3RAB from 3aRaBY (and its clear meaning of having to do with A3RAB). Traditionalists have tried to detach the meaning but they never say why and in fact Lisan Al-3arab claims that 3aRaBY has nothing to do with A3RAB and no reason is given other than the insinuation that A3RAB are portrayed in an unfavorable light in the great reading (and of course this doesn?t bode well for Lisan Al-3arab extreme Arab nationalistic bias).
Stop the traditionalist rantings. Again I point to grammar, some traditionalists haven't looked in the grammar books either. That is their problem too. They put down the grammar book (if they ever pick it up) where their dogma starts to loose ground because of sound grammar (all the while exlaiming how educated they are). And the modern Arabs who don't understand Classical grammar won't pick up the books because they think they're pretentious and they feel stupid when they read them. This is a very vicioius circle of ignorance that goes from the top down. Main culprit? Ego and arrogance.
At this junction, I think that given all the objections that you presented, the facts and arguments that I provided are solid and can stand up well to any traditional arguments brought against them.
I really just want to laugh here. But really this is very, very sad. You have eyes Ayman, see! Humble yourself, see the truth of the nomenclature and history of this language you are attatched to, study what the scholars study and be able to tell them where they are not following the very truth they claim to follow. Your deficiencies and the deficiencies of the scholars is based on arrogance and a resistance to humble scholarship.
Peace,
God bless,
Anwar
