I think I have figured out Salat times
-
Peace,
I don't know what you are talking about by hadissul lugha being an authority for language. Secondly I don't want to argue whether sunset is a point of time or a period of time. That seems pretty pointless to me. Even if you may think it is "crucial." In which case if you do and are ready to argue men down about this, l'll be glad to bow out of this conversation right now.
The sun takes some time to set anyway (not much, but it does take some time). I take ishaa to mean evening which inludes the times approximating sunset, which is early afternoon, sunset, the twilight that follows and the very early part of the night, when all of the sun's light has gone. If you check out Lane's Lexicon you will see that in Classical Arabic it can mean what i have just stated OR the time from late afternoon (approximating sunset) until dawn. I think this is the basis upon which many Muslims feel that they can pray Ishaa' all the way up until the time for fajr (which Islamically is just dawn's twilight). But that doesn't even matter. The meaning of ishaa' as the times that approximate sunset can be found in the dictionaries and more importantly concur with all of the other references in the Quran concerning where prayer being at the edge/end/extreme of daylight, including the parts of the night that approximate the edge/end/extreme of daylight. That's the way I see it. And in case you get stuck on as-salaatul-wustaa or as-salawaatul-wustaa. Wustaa can mean moderate or best. The first has a Quranic reference as to being modest/moderate when we pray (not being loud about our prayer or hiding our prayer). The second can just apply to us giving our all when we pray and not trying to half-as* God.
I don't want a long drawn out argument where you try to prove me wrong by any means possible, or try to prove yourself more alpha than me. I think many people have this complex here. If you want evidence from the Quran read it and the pertinent passages and keep my points in mind. That should be enough. If that's not there's nothing I can do for you, nor you for me. And we can just let each other be.
Godbless,
AnwarDear progod.
If you have some evidence from the Quran for thetime of Ishaa ,most welcome. References from Bukhari and Muslim of Lugha i.e Lane ,Tajuluroos ,Lisaan ularab. have nothing to do with the Quran.
Regards -
Peace,
Dear progod.
If you have some evidence from the Quran for thetime of Ishaa ,most welcome. References from Bukhari and Muslim of Lugha i.e Lane ,Tajuluroos ,Lisaan ularab. have nothing to do with the Quran.
RegardsWith that line of thought we can stop here. Peace and as always . . .
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I found this on the forum here. I wrote it a long time ago but i think it is pertinent to the ideas present in this topic. I hope whoever reads it can benefit from it
Dictionaries and history books have two separate functions. History books are dedicated to stories and those stories are often too tempting not to touch by people who have some investment in the story; Ethnocentrism, Egocentrism etc etc. But dictionaries only seek to record how people use words. No stories involved. They also tag on well known usages to solidify the research. That's it. Sometimes a story of the origin of the word pops up but that is a back track for how the word was already being used. It is of no importance. There's no ego or ethnocentrism involved in finding out how people use words by getting them to use them. In the end if the only sources we have for the meanings of Arabic words used in the Quran and in other literature is falsified and corrupted you might as well throw your Quran in the fire because it is no more than hieroglyphs on paper. You cannot read unless you have a reliable source for the meanings of the words used. Open up your Quran, look at the Arabic and say to yourself that every meaning of these words before me has been lost and corrupted (unless you choose to be a hypocrite and justify how the words you like or need to further your own agenda were somehow magically saved from this conspiracy). Then ask yourself how you will find out what they mean in order to read the book if all the meanings have been corrupted.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I found this on the forum here. I wrote it a long time ago but i think it is pertinent to the ideas present in this topic. I hope whoever reads it can benefit from it
Dictionaries and history books have two separate functions. History books are dedicated to stories and those stories are often too tempting not to touch by people who have some investment in the story; Ethnocentrism, Egocentrism etc etc. But dictionaries only seek to record how people use words. No stories involved. They also tag on well known usages to solidify the research. That's it. Sometimes a story of the origin of the word pops up but that is a back track for how the word was already being used. It is of no importance. There's no ego or ethnocentrism involved in finding out how people use words by getting them to use them. In the end if the only sources we have for the meanings of Arabic words used in the Quran and in other literature is falsified and corrupted you might as well throw your Quran in the fire because it is no more than hieroglyphs on paper. You cannot read unless you have a reliable source for the meanings of the words used. Open up your Quran, look at the Arabic and say to yourself that every meaning of these words before me has been lost and corrupted (unless you choose to be a hypocrite and justify how the words you like or need to further your own agenda were somehow magically saved from this conspiracy). Then ask yourself how you will find out what they mean in order to read the book if all the meanings have been corrupted.
Godbless,
AnwarBrother Salaam
The difference between history books and dicitonary books is just arabitrrary. These ae are same persons narrating the narrating the historical aspect and as well lexical aspect.
Once liar,, liar for ever.As far as excuses are concerned ,those can be be created. Even Iblis created an excuse for not prostatrating in front of Adam.
Regards -
Peace,
Believe as you will. I have said all I can say. Good day and . . .
Godbless,
AnwarBrother Slalaam
The fact is ,all of us use Extra-Qurani source but shout ,Quran ,quran Quran .
Sunni use Hadithul Rasool
Quran alone use Hadithul Lugha
Submittiers use Code19
Ayman uses IncriptionCannot we leave his hypocratic attitude ?
-
Peace,
I think you have a very distorted view on how to understand a language, especially when it comes to the language used by the Quran, i.e. Classical Arabic. I'm not trying be incendiary or to offend you so please don't take it that way. I think if you think on it more and try to apply your method to reading a book in any other language you will understand what is more logical. Why people try to leave the realm of logic when it comes to books of spiritual importance, I have never fully understood. Using a dictionary to understand the Classical Arabic words that the Quran borrowed from the "classical" Arabs is natural, logical and necessary. Again think about trying to understand a Spanish book or a chinese book without using a dictionary to understand the chinese or spanish words that it uses. Just think about that for a second. Now apply logic and sense to your study of the Quran.
If it comes down to not trusting the dictionaries, which is Ayman's case, and why he tries to rediscover "original" meanings of Classical Arabic words that were "corrupted" (according to him) by later dictionary sources, just think about the purpose of a dictionary, think about and research the intentions of the researchers who compiled Classical Arabic dictionaries and think about and consider the sources of early classical Arabic that we have.
As for those who follow the hadeeth or code 19 these are totally different issues. Hadeeth followers usually believe that the Quran is not a complete spiritual guide on its own. And the don't see the hadeeth as the unreliable rumors that they are.
Those who follow code 19 believe that they see the reason for a code in the Quran and think that it proves the Quran. I don't see the reason for the code or its consistency, but to them their way and to me mine, I guess. In the end if they pay more attention to the number 19 or the hadeeth than the Quran then there will be problems. Maybe with me, but more importantly with God. However, I'm not following anything that could possiblly compete with the Quran as it concerns my spiritual guidance. Dictionaries don't have a spiritual relevance to them, nor do they simbolize or hold God's divine guidance. Moreover, although I disagree with Ayman's method of thinking and view of this issue, i don't think he's looking for spiritual guidance when it comes to the way he interprets the inscriptions he cites. He is only making linguistic conclusions from them and then seeing these understandngs as meanings to the Classical Arabic words that the Quran uses.
I hope I wasn't long winded. Just explaining what i see as a misinterpretation of the issue on your part. Again i don't wish to argue. If you disagree with all I have said, I'm sure you will express that in your response. In which case I will probably not beat a dead horse.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
I think you have a very distorted view on how to understand a language, especially when it comes to the language used by the Quran, i.e. Classical Arabic. I'm not trying be incendiary or to offend you so please don't take it that way. I think if you think on it more and try to apply your method to reading a book in any other language you will understand what is more logical. Why people try to leave the realm of logic when it comes to books of spiritual importance, I have never fully understood. Using a dictionary to understand the Classical Arabic words that the Quran borrowed from the "classical" Arabs is natural, logical and necessary. Again think about trying to understand a Spanish book or a chinese book without using a dictionary to understand the chinese or spanish words that it uses. Just think about that for a second. Now apply logic and sense to your study of the Quran.
If it comes down to not trusting the dictionaries, which is Ayman's case, and why he tries to rediscover "original" meanings of Classical Arabic words that were "corrupted" (according to him) by later dictionary sources, just think about the purpose of a dictionary, think about and research the intentions of the researchers who compiled Classical Arabic dictionaries and think about and consider the sources of early classical Arabic that we have.
As for those who follow the hadeeth or code 19 these are totally different issues. Hadeeth followers usually believe that the Quran is not a complete spiritual guide on its own. And the don't see the hadeeth as the unreliable rumors that they are.
Those who follow code 19 believe that they see the reason for a code in the Quran and think that it proves the Quran. I don't see the reason for the code or its consistency, but to them their way and to me mine, I guess. In the end if they pay more attention to the number 19 or the hadeeth than the Quran then there will be problems. Maybe with me, but more importantly with God. However, I'm not following anything that could possiblly compete with the Quran as it concerns my spiritual guidance. Dictionaries don't have a spiritual relevance to them, nor do they simbolize or hold God's divine guidance. Moreover, although I disagree with Ayman's method of thinking and view of this issue, i don't think he's looking for spiritual guidance when it comes to the way he interprets the inscriptions he cites. He is only making linguistic conclusions from them and then seeing these understandngs as meanings to the Classical Arabic words that the Quran uses.
I hope I wasn't long winded. Just explaining what i see as a misinterpretation of the issue on your part. Again i don't wish to argue. If you disagree with all I have said, I'm sure you will express that in your response. In which case I will probably not beat a dead horse.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam
What is the authenticity that lisaan ul Arab narrated meanings correctly. Same narrators or Hadiths are quoted by them which we already know are liars. If they could fabricate Hadiths to distort the meanings of the Quran ,why not meanings of the words.
Why are we insisting on using Extra Quranic sources when Quran is Mufassal and detailed.
Sunni use - Hadeethul Rasool
Quran alone - Hadeethul Lugha
Submitters - Code -19
Ayman - Inscriptions
Why not only and only quran? Why do we cheat ourselves and others ?
Regards -
Peace,
The only comment I really want to make is that the hadeeth can be accepted as linguistic sources (that is how they use Classical Arabic words and Classical Arabic syntax) but they cannot be trusted as it concerns the messages that they transmit. If a liar came to you and told you a lie about your mother, would you question the authenticity and veracity of his English grammar and the meanings of the English words he uses, or would you question the authenticity and veracity of the message that he is communicating to you? I'm sure you understand what I am trying to say. Besides that what I wrote in my previous post was clear. If you still want to insist in thinking that dictionaries somehow compete with the Quran, than I can do nothing for you.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
The only comment I really want to make is that the hadeeth can be accepted as linguistic sources (that is how they use Classical Arabic words and Classical Arabic syntax) but they cannot be trusted as it concerns the messages that they transmit. If a liar came to you and told you a lie about your mother, would you question the authenticity and veracity of his English grammar and the meanings of the English words he uses, or would you question the authenticity and veracity of the message that he is communicating to you? I'm sure you understand what I am trying to say. Besides that what I wrote in my previous post was clear. If you still want to insist in thinking that dictionaries somehow compete with the Quran, than I can do nothing for you.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam
A liar cannot be trusted in any manner whether for history of deen or history of language.A liar is a liar.Why cannot we depend on the Qruan only ? which we shout ,cry day and night. Why do we extra quranic sources against which we are propagating a lot. Why this hypocracy ? Are we not confident that we have to take support of lies ?Regards
-
Peace,
I can do nothing for you.
Godbless,
AnwarSalaam brother
Do not worry. I do the same as all do.
I preache "only Quran" but also use "dictioanaries" to get the meaning. All of us are in the same category. But the only difference is I accept that I use extraQuranic sources and some do not.
Regards