New Salat Article

progod

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

ayman

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

progod

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

ayman

Peace Anwar,

I am just going to address one point which perhaps wasn't clear to you. I think that I have made myself clear otherwise.

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.

I never said anything about Aramaic. By trying to put Hebrew and Aramaic in the same basket, it shows that you don't know how differently those languages developed. Also, when I am talking about Hebrew, I am not talking about modern Hebrew. I am talking about Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which Classical Arabic was modeled after. As in CA poetry and unlike the great reading, case endings were part of the ancient Hebrew poems metrical blue print. Poetic Biblical Hebrew has the nominative "u", genitive "i" and accusative "a" that CA borrowed.

Case endings were regarded as orthodoxy and interestingly, in the 7th century CE we see increasing Jewish scholarship that eventually led to the Medieval Hebrew (which has revived the old Hebrew case endings). The increased Jewish interest in Poetic Biblical Hebrew and in Niqqud around the 7th century is not a coincidence. In my opinion, the Jewish scholars considered the great reading to be poetry and thus wanted to revive their own religious poetic tradition, of which case endings were an intimate part of the meter. I would say that the development of Medieval Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew on one hand and Classical Arabic on the other are not separate but are two parallel occurrences that fed off one another.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace Ayman,

You have been clear, but clearly wrong. Here is the answer to your last post.

I never said anything about Aramaic. By trying to put Hebrew and Aramaic in the same basket, it shows that you don't know how differently those languages developed. Also, when I am talking about Hebrew, I am not talking about modern Hebrew. I am talking about Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which Classical Arabic was modeled after. As in CA poetry and unlike the great reading, case endings were part of the ancient Hebrew poems metrical blue print. Poetic Biblical Hebrew has the nominative "u", genitive "i" and accusative "a" that CA borrowed.

Oh My God! Why are you grasping at straws now? I never said these were the same langauges, but these two would be the languages Arabic would have borrowed anything from. In fact it did mix with these languages giving us the basis of the Arabic dialects of today. One classic example is that in the Sham (Levant) dialect, 'who' is 'meen' and not the Arabic 'man'. And in Hebrew guess what it is . . . 'meen.' As for Hebrew case endings, I'll give you an example of what you are talking about

Vocabulary. There are several Hebrew words which occur most frequently and in some cases exclusively in poetry. In the following list the corresponding prose word is put in parenthesis millah, "word" (= dabhar); enosh, "man" (= 'ish); orach, "way" (= derekh); chazah, "to see" (= ra'ah); the prepositions ele, "to," adhe, "unto," ale, "upon," and minni, "from," instead of the shorter forms el, adh, al, and min. The pronoun zu, rare in prose, has in poetry the double function of a demonstrative and a relative pronoun in both genders. The negative bal, is used for lo'. For the inseparable prepositions b, k, l ("in," "as," "to&quot the separate forms bemo, kemo and lemo are employed.

(2) Grammar. (a) Accidence The pronominal suffixes have peculiar forms in poetry. For -m, -am, -em ("their," "them&quot we find the longer forms -mo, -amo, -emo. For the plural ending of nouns -n (-in) takes the place of -m (-im), as in Aramaic (see Job 42; 1211), and frequently obsolete case endings are preserved, but their functions are wholly lost. Thus, we have the old nominative ending -o in Psalms 5010, etc., the old genitive ending -i in Isaiah 121, and the accusative -ah in Psalms 33. (b) Syntax The article, relative pronoun, accusative singular 'eth and also the "waw-consecutive" are frequently omitted for the sake of the rhythm. There are several examples of the last in Psalms 11210. The construct state which by rule immediately precedes nouns has often a preposition after it. The jussive sometimes takes the place of the indicative, and the plural of nouns occurs for the singular.

And here are the reasons for that
Hebrew has lost some of the original vowels still retained in classical Arabic, that loss has not assumed such proportions as in the case of Aramaic. This is due chiefly to the retention in Hebrew of the pretonic "a" vowel (see Shewa). Of case-endings, entirely lost in Aramaic, Hebrew has preserved some remnants, although these have become meaningless.

Classical Arabic has most faithfully preserved the Proto-Semitic system of case endings of nouns and adjectives and mood endings of the verb and the Proto-Semitic sound system though in its syntax and use of tenses it is more removed from Proto-Semitic than is Biblical Hebrew.

You can do a simple search on google for this information. Key words Poetic Hebrew Case endings.
Search the pages for 'case' or 'case-endings' or 'case endings.'

So the following is your invented story. And obviously an unfounded falsehood of yours

Case endings were regarded as orthodoxy and interestingly, in the 7th century CE we see increasing Jewish scholarship that eventually led to the Medieval Hebrew (which has revived the old Hebrew case endings). The increased Jewish interest in Poetic Biblical Hebrew and in Niqqud around the 7th century is not a coincidence. In my opinion, the Jewish scholars considered the great reading to be poetry and thus wanted to revive their own religious poetic tradition, of which case endings were an intimate part of the meter. I would say that the development of Medieval Hebrew and Tiberian Hebrew on one hand and Classical Arabic on the other are not separate but are two parallel occurrences that fed off one another.

The truth is that

Old Arabic (i.e. Classical Arabic) which started to die off after the era of the hadeeth and be completely replaced by a creole version of Arabic (influenced by Aramaic dialects (Hebraic and non-Hebraic) and other local languages and dialects of the region) always had case endings, just like we find them in the Quran, pre-islamic poetry and the hadeeths. (We also find them as remnants in many Arabic dialect words. Especially in adverbs.)
The truth is that the case endings found in Biblical Hebrew (and ancient hebrew poetry) are not case endings at all. They are REMNANTS of case endings, that are traced to the Proto-Semitic origins of Hebrew. Otherwise they would be a normal part of the Biblical language and they are not. They are interesting anomalies. So those cases are not used grammatically in any way, they have just remained on the ends of CERTAIN words, which as you see are only used in certain passages. Much like Washington comes from Washing-town, but no one understands that ton as town anymore nor is its use limited to the original meaning of town. That does not count as a case ending (although its etymology is obvious by studying Classical Arabic and comparing it with other semitic langauges). Thes are just remnants of case endings like any source on case endings in Biblical Hebrew will openly admit.
The truth is that your conjectures are just that. It is well known that Hebrew died out as a spoken language and could only be read by scholars. Aramaic then replaced it. The Isrealites began to use a Hebrew influenced Aramaic dialect. After the advent of the Islamic empires the Jews who found themselves under Arab rule started to study Classical Arabic and because of the similiarities between Old Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew they were able to piece Biblical Hebrew back together. The result was Mishnaic Hebrew, a variety of Hebrew with heavy Aramaic syntax. I'm sure the urges of some Medieval Hebrew scholars to add consistent case-endings to post-Quranic Hebrew speech was a result of seeing the consistency of Old Arabic case endings and seeing that the few words that had case remnants on them in Biblical Hebrew hearkened back to a Classical Arabic usage of case-endings. After all Classical Arabic is considered to be the most conservative of the languages that derived from Proto-Semitic.

Please let this falsehood go and realize that the once colloquially spoken Classical Arabic (case endings and all) evolved (I like the word corrupted but this word is pretty negatively charged) into simpler (not easier) case-less Arabic dialects (the result of admixture with Hebrew, Aramaic and other languags) and the Classical-like Modern Standard Arabic which came to life in Modern times as a media language ommitted uses such as the energetic and other grammatical forms, as well as full fluid use of all Old Arabic forms with their innate connotations. In addition to that it actually added some more rigid rules of grammar to distinguish itself from Arabic dialects and simplify its use for native dialect speakers. (For instance use of only singular verbal forms to lead in verbal sentences despite pluralnes of subject and this is reason for all of the alleged "grammatica mistakes.&quot. MSA can be spoken with or without case endings. It also relies more on word placement, i.e. it is more analytical than synthetic.

These are the facts and your conjectures are only conjectures. Yes you have been clear, perfectly clear about your conjectures. What you have not been clear about is the fact that you are conjecturing, and your readers deserve for your to tell them what you have been defending are your biased, unfounded theories and conjecutures only.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

The truth is that

Old Arabic (i.e. Classical Arabic) which started to die off after the era of the hadeeth and be completely replaced by a creole version of Arabic (influenced by Aramaic dialects (Hebraic and non-Hebraic) and other local languages and dialects of the region) always had case endings, just like we find them in the Quran,

This is not truth. This is complete falsehood. We don't find vocalization case endings in the great reading. We can perfectly understand the great reading without them so as you said about Hebrew "they are not used grammatically in any way". So this is the exact same situation with Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which is not surprising because as I said, CA is modeled after it (since PBH is the older and the pre-existing religious language).

Moreover, in the case of the language of the great reading its inherent rhyme makes it an emprically verifiable truth that case endings were not part of the vocalization. On the other hand, the case endings were part of the rhyme and vocalization of Poetic Biblical Hebrew. So while in both cases they were not used grammatically, in Poetic Biblical Hebrew they were at least used aesthetically.

You keep throwing around the word "grammar" and how important it is but you don't even understand the basics of what grammar means. Grammar's purpose is not showing off or aesthetics. Ungrammatical speech is ununderstandble gibberish. Since we can perfectly understand the great reading without the vocalization case endings then it is an empirically verifiable fact that they are not grammar. If you disagree then please show even one passage of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings and everyone will see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

If you want to talk about truth then there are two possibilities

If one doesn't believe in the divine origin of the great reading then one can say that it may have had vocalization case endings except when they interferred with the rhyme (or "9 out of 10" as you say). This assumes that the supposed human author of the great reading wasn't intelligent enough to make the inherent rhyme with the case endings.
If one believes in a divine origin of the great reading then one must conclude that there were no vocalization case endings whatsoever since the god doesn't need to be inconsistent to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.

Again either way this all has to do aethestics and has nothing to do with grammar because either in 1 or 2 vocalization case endings have no grammatical function.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman,

This is not truth. This is complete falsehood. We don't find vocalization case endings in the great reading. We can perfectly understand the great reading without them so as you said about Hebrew "they are not used grammatically in any way". So this is the exact same situation with Poetic Biblical Hebrew, which is not surprising because as I said, CA is modeled after it (since PBH is the older and the pre-existing religious language).

More lies and conjecture. What Quran are you reading or listening to? We all know that the Quran is in most texts written with its vowels and is always recited with its vowels (except for single words preceding a pause). We find these case endings almost always in the text and 9 out of 10 times in recitation (again only ommited before a pause). So why are you lying? Secondly how can Classical Arabic case endings be modeled off of a langauge that does not use case endings? As I explained to you, what you call case endings in Biblical Hebrew are not really case endings, they are what scholars have ASSUMED to be remnants of a case system used before Hebrew. I agree with their assumption, however as I said these are NOT case endings. And out of the 10's of thousands of words they are only found in a handful of words in the books. Not to mention that the reason why we know they are remnants of a Pre-Hebraic case system is because of Classical Arabic. Not the other way around.

Again, case endings in Hebrew are really not case ednings. They are in no way apart of the langauge. This is an assumption made based on studies of Classical Arabic.

Moreover, in the case of the language of the great reading its inherent rhyme makes it an emprically verifiable truth that case endings were not part of the vocalization. On the other hand, the case endings were part of the rhyme and vocalization of Poetic Biblical Hebrew. So while in both cases they were not used grammatically, in Poetic Biblical Hebrew they were at least used aesthetically.

More verifiable lies. Stop this Ayman. Where is the empirical truth? The only truth is that all recitations employ case endings and 9 of 10 Quranic texts write using the vowel system. Stop making up this inherent rhyme thing. People MAKE the Quran rhyme. And sometimes the Quran rhymes MORE with case endings than without. This is your erroneous conjecture. Use your eyes and see. Who are you to talk about the rhyme of Poetic Biblical Hebrew? The most you can get from the literature out there on what you call "case endings'' in Biblical Hebrew is that they were not really case endings, but archaic forms of a few words which resemble the case system used in Arabic. Stop these lies, brother. Stop, please.

You keep throwing around the word "grammar" and how important it is but you don't even understand the basics of what grammar means. Grammar's purpose is not showing off or aesthetics. Ungrammatical speech is ununderstandble gibberish. Since we can perfectly understand the great reading without the vocalization case endings then it is an empirically verifiable fact that they are not grammar. If you disagree then please show even one passage of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings and everyone will see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

You are the one who assumes that case endings are just for aesthetics. Case endings have grammatical meaning, also remember that style is also apart of langaug (although case endings are not stylistically employed). However case endings have grammatical meanings, whether you want to accept them or not. This empirical evidence that you claim is inexistent. Case endings are the nuances of Classical Arabic which have been lost in modern Arabic. In addition to that if you take the case endings off of the Quranic words in many places and you WILL misunderstand, and it will not be as clear. Take the adverbial form. if I said al-walad darab ar-rajul (note the vowel in between the consonants and how they are not case endings), you would say that is perefectly 'the boy hit the man' But this can also be 'the man hit the boy.' Now the only way to clear this confusion up would be to say alli (alladhee) daraba al-rajul huwa al-walad. But if you say ar-rajulu daraba al-walada or ar-rajula daraba al-waladu there will never be any confusion. And this is a simple example of what could become a compound problem without the case system that is native to Classical Arabic but not Modern Arabic which relies more on prhasing and word placement to clarify meaning.

If you want to talk about truth then there are two possibilities

If one doesn't believe in the divine origin of the great reading then one can say that it may have had vocalization case endings except when they interferred with the rhyme (or "9 out of 10" as you say). This assumes that the supposed human author of the great reading wasn't intelligent enough to make the inherent rhyme with the case endings.

For the last time who in the world said that the quran has to rhyme and that that gives it its validity? Also please go through and read surah ar-rahman with all the case endings and see how most of it DOES RHYME, and quite beautifully at that.

If one believes in a divine origin of the great reading then one must conclude that there were no vocalization case endings whatsoever since the god doesn't need to be inconsistent to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.

Wow, what an extreme ultimatum! And what an erroneous one! And what does 'the god doesn't need to be inconsistent to make the inherent rhyme in the great reading.' mean anyway? First thing is first, GOD IS NEVER INCONSISTENT. Second thing what does consistency have to do with rhyming? Who told you that the Quran is a poetic book of rhymes? If it does rhyme at times, great, that sounds good. We can then say that that particular verse had an intersting or evoking rhythm. As for when it doesn't rhyme . . . who cares?

Again either way this all has to do aethestics and has nothing to do with grammar because either in 1 or 2 vocalization case endings have no grammatical function.

Your assumptions again. You say this like you are so right when all the facts are against you. This delusion has got to stop. Come to your senses, Ayman. Please.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

And sometimes the Quran rhymes MORE with case endings than without. This is your erroneous conjecture.

Examples please so that everyone (including me) can see my "erroneous conjecture".

Case endings have grammatical meaning...

Please show even one passage of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings and everyone will see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

You are fully aware that you didn't answer and you know why you didn't answer. Unlike you, I wouldn't say that you are lying or delusional. It is hard and I don't blame you. It is very hard to face up to a new truth.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace Anwar,

Examples please so that everyone (including me) can see my "erroneous conjecture".

I told you already. Go to Surah Ar-rahmanu and read it with the case endings. THEY DO RHYME (not that that even matters).

Quote from progod on Today at 073927 AM
Case endings have grammatical meaning...

Quote from Ayman
Please show even one passage of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings and everyone will see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

I'lll tell you that what you are asking me to do will be of no use. Everyone here can read a Quranic translation or you for instance will pick up a Quran with case endings. So I will point out a verse to you and you will say "Of course I can understand that without case endings" even though you read it WITH the case endings or you read a translation (not to mention that you know already what case endings belong where from listening to both Quranic recitation all your life and media broadcasters who use case endings, as well as Hadeeths and other such literature). So what is the point of this exercise if you can easily cheat and say you didn't?

Not to mention that I could give you a passage and you will say it means X (assuming you don't cheat). Then I will say no because of these case endings it means Y, and you will tell me 'No, those case endings are made up, that passage means what I said.' So again, what is the point of this if you can easily be dishonest (which you have been up until now)?

You are fully aware that you didn't answer and you know why you didn't answer. Unlike you, I wouldn't say that you are lying or delusional. It is hard and I don't blame you. It is very hard to face up to a new truth.

I didn't answer what?

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

The last section of that post should have been

You are fully aware that you didn't answer and you know why you didn't answer. Unlike you, I wouldn't say that you are lying or delusional. It is hard and I don't blame you. It is very hard to face up to a new truth.

I didn't answer what?

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

I told you already. Go to Surah Ar-rahmanu and read it with the case endings. THEY DO RHYME (not that that even matters).

You made the extraordinary claim that sometimes the Quran rhymes MORE with the case endings. So can you put side by side a transliteration of the Chapter called Al-Rahman with and without case endings and show us how it rhymes MORE with the case endings. As far as everyone can tell EACH AND EVERY SINGLE chapter in the great reading rhymes without the case endings and doesn't rhyme with them.

It is not surprising that you keep avoiding to provide even ONE example. This is fine because I know that you can't and it demonstrates to everyone who is making "erroneous conjecture".

I'lll tell you that what you are asking me to do will be of no use. Everyone here can read a Quranic translation or you for instance will pick up a Quran with case endings. So I will point out a verse to you and you will say "Of course I can understand that without case endings" even though you read it WITH the case endings or you read a translation (not to mention that you know already what case endings belong where from listening to both Quranic recitation all your life and media broadcasters who use case endings, as well as Hadeeths and other such literature). So what is the point of this exercise if you can easily cheat and say you didn't?
Not to mention that I could give you a passage and you will say it means X (assuming you don't cheat). Then I will say no because of these case endings it means Y, and you will tell me 'No, those case endings are made up, that passage means what I said.' So again, what is the point of this if you can easily be dishonest (which you have been up until now)?

Stop making up silly excuses. It would have taken you less time to provide the example (if it existed) than going on the above useless rant. The reason that you didn't is not because of me. This is not a private conversation between you and me. This is a public debate. Or do yo think that everyone who reads your post can "easily be dishonest". Stop insulting everyone and give even ONE example. How hard can it be man?

It is in fact very hard and you know very well that you can't provide even ONE example of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings. This is why you are giving all those silly excuses.

Since you couldn't provide even ONE example, everyone can see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace,

You made the extraordinary claim that sometimes the Quran rhymes MORE with the case endings. So can you put side by side a transliteration of the Chapter called Al-Rahman with and without case endings and show us how it rhymes MORE with the case endings. As far as everyone can tell EACH AND EVERY SINGLE chapter in the great reading rhymes without the case endings and doesn't rhyme with them
.

Again I want to first say that the Quran rhyming has nothing to do with whether case endings are apart of Classical Arabic or not. So if everyone should be able to tell something it should be that. Rhyming has nothing to do with the validity of how a language uses its words. Secondly, where do we put the stops? Do you want me to go through the whole Quran looking for the qafs above the words that indicate a stop? Or should we deal with verse endings (which we both admit are not originally apart of the Quran)? For something to rhyme we have to stop somewhere and emphasize some syllables, so where are we suppose to emphasize the syllables? I don't know what you are talking about by 'as far as anyone can tell' because nothing in the way the Quran is recited is natural. That is over 1000's years of recitation style development that we hear and learn. If you go on line you can see how one of the famous Quranic reciters al-baasit recites Surah Al-rahman with all the case endings, then repeats and stops a certain points (everytime he stops he doesn't pronounce the case ending). But in addtion to that as I have pointed out to you some long vowels are not pronounced either (wa laili idha yasri) is pronounced as just wa laili idha yasr.) And that ya is not even a case ending. I pointed out some other instances of this but you are too stubborn to see the truth.

The fact that you are an Arab and don't know this just points to your lack of education, and imagination for explaining why your modern language is so similar yet so different than the Old language. My advice is that you educate yourself some more and stop just trying to rebel against whatever yout think is the status quo.

It is not surprising that you keep avoiding to provide even ONE example. This is fine because I know that you can't and it demonstrates to everyone who is making "erroneous conjecture".

Oh please. Here's the proof show me ONE place in the Quran where a word is not paused on that is pronounced WITHOUT a case ending. I explained your phenomenon but you did not explain mine.

Quote from progod on Yesterday at 065430 PM
I'lll tell you that what you are asking me to do will be of no use. Everyone here can read a Quranic translation or you for instance will pick up a Quran with case endings. So I will point out a verse to you and you will say "Of course I can understand that without case endings" even though you read it WITH the case endings or you read a translation (not to mention that you know already what case endings belong where from listening to both Quranic recitation all your life and media broadcasters who use case endings, as well as Hadeeths and other such literature). So what is the point of this exercise if you can easily cheat and say you didn't?
Not to mention that I could give you a passage and you will say it means X (assuming you don't cheat). Then I will say no because of these case endings it means Y, and you will tell me 'No, those case endings are made up, that passage means what I said.' So again, what is the point of this if you can easily be dishonest (which you have been up until now)?

Stop making up silly excuses. It would have taken you less time to provide the example (if it existed) than going on the above useless rant. The reason that you didn't is not because of me. This is not a private conversation between you and me. This is a public debate. Or do yo think that everyone who reads your post can "easily be dishonest". Stop insulting everyone and give even ONE example. How hard can it be man?

I should have figured you'd say that. I didn't provide one because the assessment is yours and yours alone, not everyones. And you will be dishonest about it and the people who read this might just think that you have some integrity and are telling the truth. What you ask me to do is like me asking you to solve a math problem that you know you don't know but you have the answers in the back of the book at home. Give me a break. I gave you and everyone a simple example in my post above. But you refuse to even address it, because you know it was accurate. You are trying to use the name of the Quran to give yourself some credibility here when the issue here is language, not the Quran. That is also why you keep pitting the Quran against the language it was written in which is really the silly thing here.

It is in fact very hard and you know very well that you can't provide even ONE example of the great reading that is non-understandble without the vocalization case endings. This is why you are giving all those silly excuses.

I gave you a language example above. The only thing silly here are you challenges.

Since you couldn't provide even ONE example, everyone can see who is speaking the truth and who is making conjectures.

Yeah keep throwing these hard terms around like examples and empirical evidence when anyone who has eyes and can read the Quran and ears to hear the Quran knows that case endings are a natural part of Old Arabic. Who here says bi-ism-allah-arrahman, ar-raheem. Rather, you say bismI llaah I rahmaanI raheem. The case ending is left out on the rahim because of the poetic style invovled in this formula. How about what you say after you mention the last prophet. Salla allahU alaihi wa sallam (no case on the sallam for the last reason I gave). How about radiyA allaahU 'an(hu). The hu doesn't have to be pronounced because of the reason above. Still my explanation stands and Ayman's does not. What you should say Ayman is that the reason why case endings dropped out of the language was because of the Arameo-Hebraic element brought in when Arabs conquered the non-Arab areas of the middle east.

English for instance has something like a case ending for the thrid person singular. Take the verb take. He takes, she takes etc. Now some Americans don't use this. So do we think it originally did not exist? Thinking that like thinking what you think about Arabic and case endings is erroneous. Here, let's take another Arabic example. If I said in Classical Arabic 'yah-rub minka fa laa tukheefahu' that would be different from 'yah-rubu minka fa laa tukheefahu' and this slight but real difference could affect a local meaning significantly. Now you tell me what the difference is. Or will you tell me I'm just making it up because you don't want to study it. That would not be anything new.

The fact here is whether you like them or not (or stumble on them or not) they were apart of the Old Arabic language,and those Old Arabs understood them and made regular use out of them sometimes omitting them for poetic license. If you knew anything about Latin and Greek you would see how modern Latin speakers and Greek speakers can make sense out of the Old stuff without all their case endings either. The only thing here is that Greek had a superior writing sytem which included cases and all vowels so they don't find themselves in a situation where they read old texts and have to add all vowels and case endings. They can read it all accurately without falling into the modern pronunciations Their modern versions no longer use the case endings either just like Arabic, but to claim that they were falsely added to the Old language is ludicrous. And then to point to a few words in the Bible that are ASSUMED to have derived from a case system similar to Classical Arabic's is another folly on your part. It's like you will go to any lengths and use any half-baked false argument to support your conjecture. This is wrong Ayman, very wrong.

I honestly find it hard to believe that after all this you refuse to recognize the truth. Open your eyes and recognize the truth.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

It is clear by now that you can?t provide even ONE example from the great reading that is non-understandable without the vocalization case endings. This proves that vocalization case endings added to the great reading have nothing to do with grammar. On the other hand, you were able to easily give Classical Arabic language examples earlier. Therefore, thank you for proving my point that the language of the great reading is different from the language called Classical Arabic.

In addition, you keep repeating hopelessly false arguments such as the example of 894 ?wa laili idha yasri with a yaa that is pronounced as wa laili idha yasr?, when in truth there is no ?yaa? in the text as you can see here

http//www.islamicity.com/mosque/arabicscript/80_114/89_1-13.gif

Since as you can see, you are evading bringing even ONE real example and have only brought confused and false examples, it is no wonder that you don?t like hard terms such as ?examples and empirical evidence?. It is not about me or you. As I said, it is about testing whether this new reality about the language of the great reading can withstand any argument brought against it. So far not only did it withstand your run of the mill traditional arguments, it actually exposed their weaknesses.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace,

More total ignorance on the development of the Arabic script on your part. This is one of the reasons why what you say is totally based on your own biased conjecture. I've told you before how long vowels (alif, waw, ya) are often interchangeable with their short vowel counterparts. Why is that? This is because these are remnants of different writing conventions within Arabic script development that we see in the Quran. Most people (except for very highly educated individuals in the history of the Arabic script and those willing to read what they read or have authored) have no clue about how to explain these phenomena. So it is not a suprise to me that you have no clue about this and have decided to introduce your own conjecture. The only dissapointing part is that you have the audacity to call your conjectures empirical evidence. Let me ask you a few questions.

Does the word 'thing' or shay'(un) have an alif in it?
Is the Arabic word for 'my lord' have an ending ya? How about nakiri (my rejection) or at-tanadi (mutual calling)?
Is 'li' always attatched to the word that it follows?
Why are hadhaa and rahman pronounced with an alif that is not written? (a dagger alif is technically a tashkeel which you are against and say are additions.) This also stands for allAAhu.
And don't as'aloo (plural command to ask) and attakhadhta (second person, sing. past tense of to take) have an alif in the front?

I've got some more for you but I'll end with this last question.

If case endings aren't supposed to be apart of the Classical Arabic language explain the use of waw and ya after ahl in 4811 and 4812

Godbless,
Anwar

I hope you are learning here and aren't just trying to conjecture more to save face or defend an erroneous position for pride's sake.

ayman

Peace Anwar,

More total ignorance on the development of the Arabic script on your part. This is one of the reasons why what you say is totally based on your own biased conjecture. I've told you before how long vowels (alif, waw, ya) are often interchangeable with their short vowel counterparts. Why is that? This is because these are remnants of different writing conventions within Arabic script development that we see in the Quran. Most people (except for very highly educated individuals in the history of the Arabic script and those willing to read what they read or have authored) have no clue about how to explain these phenomena. So it is not a suprise to me that you have no clue about this and have decided to introduce your own conjecture. The only dissapointing part is that you have the audacity to call your conjectures empirical evidence.

This is false. They are not interchangeable. Can you say "alhamd lillah rabbi/ al-3alamin"? No you can't. You are now making the sentence nonsensical. Why? Because now the sentence is ungrammatical. The "ya" is part of the grammar that makes the language understandable. On the other hand, the Kasara is not. In fact, vocally pronouncing the Kasra makes the sentence equally ungrammatical because now it sounds exactly like , which is ungrammatical speech.

Let me ask you a few questions.

Does the word 'thing' or shay'(un) have an alif in it?

No it has a hamza.

Is the Arabic word for 'my lord' have an ending ya? How about nakiri (my rejection) or at-tanadi (mutual calling)?

If we are talking about "my lord, my rejection, or my calling" then it has a Yaa. If we are talking about "lord, rejection, or calling" then it doesn't have a Yaa. It is the same as in English where I can address the lord by saying "lord" or saying "my lord".

Is 'li' always attatched to the word that it follows?

I am not sure what you are asking here. You seem to be confused again. If you are talking about the proposition "li" then it is always attached to the word that follows it (not that it follows).

Why are hadhaa and rahman pronounced with an alif that is not written? (a dagger alif is technically a tashkeel which you are against and say are additions.) This also stands for allAAhu.

For the same reason that "mule" is pronounced with a "yu" while rule is pronounced with an "oo" and people know how to correctly pronounce those words despite a small "u" or a small "oo" not being displayed on top of the letter U. Why do you think that English speakers are intelligent enough to figure it out while Arabic speakers are morons who need the exact vocalization spelled out for them?

Can't you figure out the pronounciation without the vocalization marks or are you not as intelligent as English and modern Arabic speakers?

And don't as'aloo (plural command to ask) and attakhadhta (second person, sing. past tense of to take) have an alif in the front?

Yes.

I've got some more for you but I'll end with this last question.
If case endings aren't supposed to be apart of the Classical Arabic language explain the use of waw and ya after ahl in 4811 and 4812

I am talking about vocalization case endings not the case endings that are actually part of the word. However, even the rules for the case endings that are part of the text are casually discarded as we often see in the great reading. So if even the case endings that were actually shown in the text were sometimes discarded then we can be sure that the invisible vocalization case endings were even more discarded. Moreover, we can see many examples in the great reading where the case endings shown in the text are part of the inherent rhyme while the supposed invisible vocalization case endings distort the inherent rhyme. So these two cannot be equated.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace,

Thanks for answering the questions. I'll have your answers tomorrow. You're really gonna get it now. We'll see what you make up when I show you the plain truth for all to see. Oh and you were right about what I meant in my question about 'li'. You obviously haven't been paying close enough attention to your Quran. You'd better brace for tomorrow.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

I look forward to your answers.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace,

I was pretty ill for the last two days so sorry about not responding. However, there is one point in my post that I am having trouble finding the Quranic reference for. I cannot find my notes on it and I am planning on having to read through the Quran from the beginning up to find it. I could still make my point without it but I know the enemies of truth, the ignorant and the unjust criticizers of my character will consider it proof against me if I don't bring to the table what I said I would. So I will need some more time. Thank you.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

I am sorry to hear about your illness and I hope that you are feeling better by now. Perhaps you can post what you are looking for and I can help you find it or someone else on the forum may already know it.

Peace,

Ayman

anthonywallace

prayer

Introduction

What is prayer?

Prayer to the believers becomes a timed schedule that prohibits evil and vice.
Prayer is an act of humble worship in which we seek God with all our heart.
Prayer often begins with a confession of our sins.
Prayer is asking God for guidance and waiting for His direction and leading.
Prayer is an expression of an intimate relationship with our Lord who makes his own love and recourses available to us.
Through prayer we praise our Mighty God.
Through prayer we remember our Mighty God.

The importance of prayer

Prayer is obligatory on every adult submitter to God, and children should be taught how to pray at age 7. They may be encouraged to begin them at even a younger age, and they should be told to observe them at age ten or puberty.

The delay of prayer beyond its designated period without a valid or legitimate reason is prohibited.

Any submitter who observes an obligatory prayer after having done their ablution, will have his previous sins canceled.

Denial of prayers as an obligatory act of worship constitutes apostasy from Islam( submission to God ), while neglecting it is an act of infidelity.

On the Day of Resurrection God will ask the criminals " What has caused you to be in the scorching heat?" They will say " We were not of those who prayed."

Not only is prayer obligatory, it must be observed at two prescribed times every day. The following are the two daily prayers

The Dawn Prayer The period of this prayer is from the crack of dawn to sunrise.
The Evening ( Sunset ) prayer The evening prayer may be observed soon as the sun sinks below the horizon until dusk has ended.

Does God always answer prayers?

We can be confident that God will respond to our prayer when we submit to His will.

Sometimes, we find that God answers prayers by giving us not what we ask for but something even better.

Our prayer must be accompanied by a willingness to obey with our actions.

Conditions for the validity of prayer

Purity

One must be in the state of purity obtained after an ablution which includes the below conditions

If one rises to observe the prayer, then he must (1) wash his face, (2) wash his hands, (3) wash his arms up to the elbows, (4) wipe his head, and (5) wipe his feet up to the ankles; If he has had intercourse/ejaculated semen then they must bath the whole body. And if one is ill, or traveling, or have excreted feces, or have had sexual contact, and they cannot find any water, then they must select from clean soil and wipe their faces and hands with it.

Besides purity of the body, purity of the place whereon prayer is observed is also necessary. The place or spot on which prayer is observed should be pure and clean.

It is also essential that the clothing donned by the submitter be pure and clean.

The obligatory prayers may be observed alone or in congregation led by a leader.

The times of prayer

The time for morning prayer

Approximately 1 ? hours before sunrise a dim whitish glow appears vertically in the eastern horizon. Soon after this vertical glow, a brightness appears horizontally in the eastern horizon. This horizontal glow spreads instantly along the horizon becoming larger and larger until after a short while it becomes light. The time for Dawn prayer commences with the appearance of this horizontal glow in the eastern horizon. The time for Dawn prayer lasts until sunrise.

(It is preferable to observe the Dawn prayer when it is a bit light)

The time for the evening prayer

Immediately after sunset the time for evening prayer commences, and lasts until it has become completely dark.

The two prayers must be observed after entry of their respective times. These prayers cannot be observed prior to their appointed time.

How to pray

Effective prayer includes elements of adoration, confession, and commitment, as well as requests.

True prayer is the result of an intimate relationship with the Lord and includes a dependency for daily needs, commitment to obedience, and forgiveness of sin.

Prayer is to be consistent and persistent.

When you pray, do not be like those show-offs who love to stand up and pray in the meeting places and on the street corners. They do this just to look good. I can assure you that they already have their reward.

When you pray, go into your room and close the door. Pray to your Lord in private. He knows what is done in private, and He will reward you.

When you pray, don't talk on and on as people do who don't know God. They think God likes to hear long prayers. Do not be like them. Your Lord knows what you need before you ask.

You should pray like this

"Our Lord in heaven, help us to honor your name. Come and set up your Kingdom. Give us each day the food we need. Forgive our sins, as we forgive those who has done wrong to us. And keep us from being tempted and protect us from evil."

If you forgive others for the wrong they do to you, your Lord in heaven will forgive you. But if you don't forgive others, your Lord will not forgive your sins. ( Matt 65-15 )

Suppose one of you goes to a friend in the middle of the night and says, " Let me borrow three loaves of bread. A friend of mine has dropped in, and I don't have a thing for him to eat." And suppose your friend answers, " Don't bother me! The door is bolted, and my children and I are in bed. I cannot get up to give you something."

He may not get up and give you the bread, just because you are his friend. But he will get up and give you as much as you need, simply because you are not ashamed to keep on asking.

So I tell you to ask and you will receive, search and you will find, knock and the door will be opened for you. Everyone who asks will receive, everyone who searches will find, and the door will be open for everyone who knocks. Which one of you fathers would give your hungry child a snake if the child asked for a fish? Which one of you would give your child a scorpion if the child asked for an egg? As bad as you are, you still know how to give good gifts to your children. But your Lord in heaven is even more ready to give the Holy Spirit and the good things to anyone who asks. ( Luke 115-13 )

God does not forgive that partners be set up with Him, and He forgives what is beside that for whom He wills. Whoever sets-up partners with God has indeed invented a great sin.

So know that there is no god besides God, and ask forgiveness of your sins and also for the believing men and the believing women. And God knows your movements and your place of rest.

And be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you.

It is not for the prophet and those who believe that they should seek forgiveness for those who have set up partners, even if they are relatives, after it has been made clear to them that they are the dwellers of Hell.

And ask God from His favor, God is Knowledgeable over all things.

The human being often prays for something that may hurt him, thinking that he is praying for something good. The human being is impatient.

And whoever wants the rewards of this world We give him of it, and whoever wants the reward of the Hereafter, We give him of it. And We will reward the thankful.

Whoever desires the harvest of the Hereafter, We will increase for him his harvest. And whoever seeks the harvest of this world, We will give him there from, and he will have no share in the Hereafter.

From among the people are those who say; " Our Lord, give us from this world!," but in the Hereafter he has no part.

And some of them say " Our Lord, give us good in this world, and good in the Hereafter, and spare us from the retribution of the Fire."

These will have a benefit for what they have gained; and God is quick in judgment.

Prayer Method and the reading

Kneeling/bowing and prostration are appropriate postures for worship. Our worship to God should be orderly and beautiful.

The position of standing erect.

The submitter stands erect, facing the Focal Point, gaze cast down. He forms the intention for his prayer and says

" Glory be to our God!"

As he utters this he raises both hands upward towards his head in such a manner that the palms of both hands face the Focal Point, and the hands should be raised a height where the thumbs are in line with the lobes of the ears. Once the hands reach the required height ( i.e. the ear lobes), the submitter can immediately bring them down and fold them below the navel or over the chest or simply keep his hands raised. When folding the hands the submitter should ensure that

(I) the right hand is on top of the left hand.

Once the hands have been folded as explained above or while raised, the submitter should recite

"Praise be to God who has not taken a son, nor does He have a partner in sovereignty, nor does He have an all out of weakness."

( N.B. This is an important part of both morning and evening prayers cause it is the affirmation of the submitters monotheism and Gods providence. And it is the foundation of Submission ( Islam).The posture of standing ends at this point, I.e,after the affirmation.)

At the end of the above, the submitter should utter

" Glory be to our God!"

And go into the kneeling posture.

2.The form of kneeling

When sitting in the kneeling, the hands are placed on the thighs with the fingers held together facing the Focal Point very close to the knees or the hands are lifted up in prayer.

In the posture of kneeling the submitter should say the prayers It is recommended for one to make a prayer list so one doesn't forget anything. The submitter should pray for their forgiveness, for the forgiveness of the believing men and the believing women, and for God to have mercy or their parents. One may choose a few or all of the prayers below or say their own prayers.

"Our Lord, do not mind us if we forget or make mistakes; our Lord, do not place a burden upon us as You have placed upon those before us; our Lord, do not place upon us what we cannot bear; pardon us, and forgive us, and have mercy on us; You are our patron, so grant us victory over the disbelieving people."

"Our Lord, we believe, so forgive us our sins, and spare us the retribution of the Fire."

"My Lord, forgive and have mercy, and you are the best of those who are merciful."

"Our Lord, You encompass all things with mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repented and followed Your path, and spare them the agony of Hell." "Our Lord, and admit them into the gardens of Eden which You had promised for them and for those who did good of their fathers, their spouses, and their progeny. You are the Noble, the Wise." "And save them from the sins. And whomever You save from the sins, on that Day, You have granted him mercy. And that is the greatest triumph."

After reciting the prayers in kneeling the submitter should recite

" Glory be to our God!"

And then rise up slightly bowing lowly, taking 3 steps back while remaining bending to prepare for prostration. And then go into prostration.

The posture of prostration.

In this posture of prostration the submitter should glorify as desired, one may recite the following

" Glory be to our God!" at least thrice.

0r/and

" Our god, Possessor of Kingship; You grant Kingship to whom you please, and You revoke Kingship from whom You please, and honor whom You please, and humiliate whom You please; in Your hand is goodness. You are capable of all things. You blend the night into the day, and blend the day into the night; and You bring the living out the dead, and bring the dead out the living; and You provide for whom You please with no reckoning." "Our god, Initiator of the heavens and the Earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen, You will judge between Your servants regarding what they disputed in."

After reciting the above in prostration, the submitter recites

"Glory be to our God!"

And then goes into the kneeling posture.

The kneeling after prostration.

During the kneeling the submitter glorifies further as one desires It is recommended for one to make a prayer list so one doesn't forget anything. The submitter should ask God from His favor. One may choose a few or all of the prayers below or say their own prayers.

"Our Lord, give us good in this world, and good in the Hereafter, and spare us from the retribution of the Fire."

"Be patient with us,"

"Our Lord, do not make our hearts deviate after You have guided us, and grant us from You a mercy; You are the Grantor." "Our Lord, You will gather the people for a Day in which there is no doubt; God does not break His appointment."

"My Lord, increase my knowledge."

Say "My Lord, if You show me what they are promised." "My Lord, then do not leave me amongst the wicked people."

"Our Lord, avert from us the retribution of Hell. Its retribution is terrible." "It is a miserable abode and dwelling."

"Our Lord, grant us from our mates and our progeny what will be the comfort of our eyes, and make us role models the righteous."

Your prayer method has now been complete.

The reading

It is even more important to read, memorize, and study the Scripture than to pray, for it is more important for God to talk to us than for us to talk to Him. We certainly aren't going to tell Him something He does not know, but He has much in His word that He wants us to learn. the prayers is a good deed that cancels our bad deeds. But the remembrance of God is the greatest. God knows everything you do.

The position of standing erect

Immediately after completing the prayers, the submitter says

" Glory be to our God!"

And enters the standing posture, I.e. he once again stands erect to read or recite the Quran.

In the standing posture the submitter should recite the following

" My Lord, admit me an entrance of truth and let me exit a exit of truth, and grant me from Yourself a support to victory."

" The truth has come, while falsehood has perished. Falsehood is always bound to perish!"

After reciting the above he should say

"My Lord, I seek refuge in You from the whispers of the sneaking devils. And I seek refuge in You my Lord. Lest they should come near."

After reciting the above he opens the Quran and reads from any chapter/s or verses of the Quran.

( During the dawn prayer one may read all the way up until its expiry (sunrise). And for the evening prayer one may read all the way up until midnight or its expiry.).

After the reading/recital of the Quran he utters

" Glory be to our God!"

And goes into prostration.

The posture of prostration

In prostration he says

"The truth has come, while falshood has perished. Falshood is always bound to perish!"

Then he utters

" Glory be to our God!"

And goes into the kneeling posture

The kneeling posture after prostration

In the kneeling posture he supplicates further as desired; as previously mentioned.

Your prayer method and the reading has now been complete.

The Two daily prayers

The observance of prayers two times daily is obligatory upon all submitters of God - male and female. The two compulsory prayers are

Morning prayer ( Dawn) 2. Evening prayer ( Sunset )

Additional prayers

Outside of the obligatory prayers morning and evening, one can pray at anytime of the day or night. Daniel prayed three times a day in his bedroom. Nehemiah prayed while he was working several times he uttered quick, impromptu prayers under his breath when a crises arose. Jesus also prayed often- from early morning to late at night ( God charged him with the prayer as long as he was alive).

Too much praying?

While one can pray at any time outside of the obligatory morning and evening prayers, even unceasingly, it is to be done reverently and meaningfully. Jesus warned about idly and endlessly repeating empty phrases in prayer (Matt. 67).

Most Acclaimed