Is Rukooh and Sajood part of Salaat ?
-
Peace truthseeker11,
?The evidence from the qur'aan suggests that sujud during salaat is mental + physical as evidenced by 4102 ?..?
What you cite is not the most general description for the sujud. You have taken a specific case and generalized it. This is not acceptable. Here is why
In this scenarios the believers are standing up to begin the salat, and then they perform the sujud. All able bodies are performing the salat.
You cannot force this situation on to person who is performing salat lying down to start with due to physical limitation. I will give you an extreme but valid example.
I saw a TV show that showed a guy (British person?) who got bitten by a Mamba snake in Africa. Typically Mamba bite is almost 100% fatal. In this case the guy survived and he was telling how he survived.
He knew he was bitten by Mamba snake. Therefore, he walked very slowly until he got help. Eventually, he was taken to a hospital. But there was no antidote available. He was not able to talk, unable to move any parts of his body. His eyes were open, however. The doctors and nurses were saying that this is a lost case and that he was going to die soon. But the God saved him.
After he got well, he said he was able see and hear everything the doctor and nurses were saying but could provide them with any sign. He could not even move a single muscle, but fully conscious.
Now, please tell me how is this person supposed to perform sujud?
The solution is mental only. Please try to understand the situation.
Aren?t you the person who is advocating that solution must be applicable to all possible scenarios?
?Quote
- Prostration on face directed by human brain
No evidence in the qur'aan. I am sorry but no matter what you say, it is unacceptable if it is unevidenced from the qur'aan.?
There is lots of evidence in the Quran for prostration on face but you cannot see them because you are seeing the Quran through a flaw dictionary or may not be utilizing your understanding faculties properly.
?Quote
2. Prostration on chin directed by human brainNo evidence in the qur'aan. The wording of the qur'aan in 17107 translates to "fall TO/WITH the chins in sujud (LI al-athqaan)". It does not say Fall ON chin which would be "3ALA al-athqaan".?
True but the concept I laid out is still valid.
?Saying "we hear and obey" on hearing the god's signs (references given in one of my earlier posts)?
With your approach how do you account for a deaf believer?
Also, don't forget hoopoe is a lier as evident from below verse
2727 - (Solomon) said, "We will see if you told the truth, or if you are a liar.
Why would Solomon questioned his honesty? Why would he not trust him?
-
peace guest,
Re 556
You ask what are they acknowledging? Same question to you what are they prostrating for/to? The answer is the same in both. Implicit in context.
Re 4829
This verse is commonly cited by those who promote physical prostration. However, it does no such thing
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9031.02724 - "I found her and her people giving acknowledgment to the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."
2277 - O you who believe, you shall incline (or "be humble", acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.
1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be of those who acknowledge.
As you can see, no contradicitons. Makes sense to me.
Let us know once you have finished trying to find contradiction, then feel free to address the points raised against your view in this thread.
-
peace all,
I was reading Mustansir Mir's unique work "Verbal Idioms of The Quran" and in it he cites "fall to the chin" as a verbal idiom meaning extreme humility, for the chin represents pride, it is something to be held high, and to fall down on one's chin is to abase oneself, and when used in AQ means to humble oneself before God, and cites a poem by Imru al-Qays* about how mighty trees were humbled by a strong downpour of rain, and they "fell to the chin".
*alleged Classical Arabic poet.
For those unfamiliar with Mustansir Mir's work, you can read some of his articles online.
-
peace guest,
Re 556
You ask what are they acknowledging? Same question to you what are they prostrating for/to? The answer is the same in both. Implicit in context.
Re 4829
This verse is commonly cited by those who promote physical prostration. However, it does no such thing
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9031.02724 - "I found her and her people giving acknowledgment to the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."
2277 - O you who believe, you shall incline (or "be humble", acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.
1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be of those who acknowledge.
As you can see, no contradicitons. Makes sense to me.
Let us know once you have finished trying to find contradiction, then feel free to address the points raised against your view in this thread.
"Ya ayyuha" is already "o you who acknowledge".
-
Peace Wakas,
?You ask what are they acknowledging? Same question to you what are they prostrating for/to??
This is about disproving your concept. You should defend your position and not ask me question. You are showing weakness. You are crumbling.
Because you chose sjd=acknowledgement, you must show the input/output relation in the verse which you failed to do. Therefore, you have a contradictory concept.
And your answer ?Implicit in context? is an admission of such contradiction. Simply put, you are violating your own definition of acknowledgement.
My position does not require an input/output relation and therefore no contradiction. I simply accept this ?556 - The stars and the trees prostrate? as a fact. Yes, they are prostrating to the God. But the key is no explicit acknowledgement is necessary in my case.
?Re 4829
This verse is commonly cited by those who promote physical prostration. However, it does no such thing
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9031.0?I read all the posts in the referenced thread. My general comment is the question is good but answers are misleading.
Here are some specific comments to your post in that thread.
Your biggest mistake is the reliance on the PRL. You are seeing Quran through PRL instead of your innermost instinct built-in by the God.
?My translation
"... their distinction is in/on their will/faces/purpose from trace of the prostration/submission/responding positively...??This is a very poor translation indeed. You throw multiple words at it and say this is my translation. This is very confusing and misleading. A guided person (people with knowledge) will give one and only one translation and stand by their translation. You need to do the same.
Then you say this ?If I did a translation I would prefer to keep it open.?
This is a contradictory position since you have already given your translation of the verse. Further, your position to keep the translation open is very flimsy. If you do not have the understandings do not provide one. Everybody is not cutout for this job.
?2724 - "I found her and her people giving acknowledgment to the sun, instead of GOD. The devil has adorned their works in their eyes, and has repulsed them from the path; consequently, they are not guided."?
You failed to understand my point i.e. where is the input. Did they get an order from the sun to which they are acknowledging?
?2277 - O you who believe, you shall incline (or "be humble", acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.?
2277 - O you who believe, you shall acknowledge, acknowledge, serve your Lord, and work righteousness, that you may succeed.
This certainly does not make sense.
"1598 - You shall sing the praises of your Lord, and be of those who acknowledge."
Again where is the input i.e. those who acknowledge what?
-
"Ya ayyuha" is already "o you who acknowledge".
EDIT "Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo" is "o you who acknowledge".
-
peace guest,
Your reasoning is so bad, it's impressive.
Violating my own definition of "acknowledgement"? I think you'll find it is YOU who made up the definition.
Relying on PRL? If you had bothered to read the links on PRL's homepage, specifically "which root meaning is being used?" you would see the methodology is more than what you make it to be.
A guided person will give only one translation? Perhaps, but a humble and logical person will give a translation that does not rule out other possibilities unless 100% certain. Funny how you remained silent on the rest of it, such as how the marks on their face reference in The Quran is not literal.
Re verses
I am not working to your made up definition of acknowledgement. Ironically, if you had bothered to read The Quran, you would know what input God has on the world and the beings in it, the ayaatin/signs He send us etc.But the icing on the cake is your explaining away of "implicit in context"...
Quran "O you who believe..."
Faulty reasoning Believe what? It doesn't say believe in what. Contradiction. Disproven.;D
Thanks for the entertainment. I am innocent of what you serve, and you are innocent of what I serve.
-
Peace Wakas,
?Violating my own definition of "acknowledgement"? I think you'll find it is YOU who made up the definition.?
You selected sjd= acknowledgement. The meaning is not mine, it is Standard English meaning. Why didn?t you refute it right after its uses? Anyway, give me one meaning that you like best and I will go over the process again.
?Relying on PRL? If you had bothered to read the links on PRL's homepage, specifically "which root meaning is being used?" you would see the methodology is more than what you make it to be.?
I supposed the Quran told you to consult the PRL. How do you know that the satan do not have a share in it.
?A guided person will give only one translation? Perhaps, but a humble and logical person will give a translation that does not rule out other possibilities unless 100% certain.?
If you are not 100% certain, why are you talking about it? I hope no one forced you to do it.
?Funny how you remained silent on the rest of it, such as how the marks on their face reference in The Quran is not literal.?
I said it is misleading. Therefore, I did no criticize it any further.
?Quran "O you who believe..."
Faulty reasoning Believe what? It doesn't say believe in what. Contradiction. Disproven.?
Why are you shying away form the main discussion of sjd=acknowledgement (your position).
-
You know...when you meet someone the first time in the day you tell them peace (or salamualaikum handshake and when you're done seeing them you bid them farewell with another "salamualaikum". People are treating posting as if each post is each day they meet them laugh You guys are making posts every about 15-20 minutes tops so there's no need to say peace at the beginning (or at the end of the post unless you're leaving bravo, IMHO.
I also thought prostration and bowing were mentioned in the Quran. I had no idea they weren't meant to be literal.
-
I also thought prostration and bowing were mentioned in the Quran. I had no idea they weren't meant to be literal.
Prayer is physical
2226; 3824; 4829Also see http//19.org/index.php?id=14,276,0,0,1,0
-
Peace guest,
I am responding because you raised some new issues.
What you cite is not the most general description for the sujud. You have taken a specific case and generalized it. This is not acceptable. Here is why
In this scenarios the believers are standing up to begin the salat, and then they perform the sujud. All able bodies are performing the salat.
You cannot force this situation on to person who is performing salat lying down to start with due to physical limitation. I will give you an extreme but valid example.
I saw a TV show that showed a guy (British person?) who got bitten by a Mamba snake in Africa. Typically Mamba bite is almost 100% fatal. In this case the guy survived and he was telling how he survived.
He knew he was bitten by Mamba snake. Therefore, he walked very slowly until he got help. Eventually, he was taken to a hospital. But there was no antidote available. He was not able to talk, unable to move any parts of his body. His eyes were open, however. The doctors and nurses were saying that this is a lost case and that he was going to die soon. But the God saved him.
After he got well, he said he was able see and hear everything the doctor and nurses were saying but could provide them with any sign. He could not even move a single muscle, but fully conscious.
Now, please tell me how is this person supposed to perform sujud?
The solution is mental only. Please try to understand the situation.
Aren?t you the person who is advocating that solution must be applicable to all possible scenarios?
Salaat is for the god's remembrance and involves reading the qur'aan in a moderate tone (17110). The pre-salaat washing or tayammam is also necessary. The person in the example given above by you cannot even establish salaat as required by the qur'aan so there is no sujud during salaat either. I was referring to the sujud during salaat, not to any sujud, so your example is invalid and irrelevant and my point of sujud during salaat being physical + mental stands.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
False attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant source in support of an argument
False analogy false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument
Incomplete comparison where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
Psychologist's fallacy occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Straw man argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's positionThe sujud on hearing the god's signs (outside salaat) can be mental alone if the person cannot physically say "we hear and obey". Then he/she can "mentally" say it, and the god hears.
There is lots of evidence in the Quran for prostration on face but you cannot see them because you are seeing the Quran through a flaw dictionary or may not be utilizing your understanding faculties properly.
Instead of providing the evidence you are making personal attacks. Another logical fallacy
Ad hominem an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
Judgmental language insultive or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgmentTrue but the concept I laid out is still valid.
How can it be valid without supporting evidence from the qur'aan?
Bare assertion fallacy premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
?Saying "we hear and obey" on hearing the god's signs (references given in one of my earlier posts)?
With your approach how do you account for a deaf believer?
Believer's are supposed to perform sujud on hearing the god's signs (17107). If the believer cannot even hear then how can he/she be expected to perform sujud? If the deaf "hears" the god's signs by sign language, then he/she can perform sujud by using sign language to communicate "we hear and obey".
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
False attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
False analogy false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argumentAlso, don't forget hoopoe is a lier as evident from below verse
2727 - (Solomon) said, "We will see if you told the truth, or if you are a liar.
Why would Solomon questioned his honesty? Why would he not trust him?
He does not call the hoopoe a liar. He says that he will see if he told the truth or if he lied. That does not mean that the hoopoe is a liar. The lesson we learn is that we cannot blindly trust anyone but have to verify everything before trusting it (see 1736) That does not mean that whoever brought the information is a liar.
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis)
False attribution occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid)As a side note, the input/output relationship in acknowledgment does not mean that the input has to be a verbal input from the other entity. The input could be just the presence of that entity or just seeing that entity. People are sitting in the court and when the judge enters they stand to acknowledge the judge's presence. Here the input is just seeing the judge or the judge's presence. Similarly, when the idolaters see the sun, they acknowledge its presence by performing certain action and that is their "sujud"/acknowledgment to the sun.
Suppressed Evidence Failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant
Confirmation Bias The tendency to look only for evidence in favor of one's controversial hypothesis and not to look for disconfirming evidence, or to pay insufficient attention to it.
Selective Attention Improperly focusing attention on certain things and ignoring others.http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
http//www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm -
Sorry this is sort of directing off topic though it seems sujood and ruku are not part of salat. How does reading the quran = salat? For those who believe that.
17110 implicates calling on God, reading the Quran is more like guiding us? well maybe possibly it helps tell us ways we could call on God??
17111 implicates we should say it for salat because it follows on from 17110
Though it seems salat is very short? Why would people want to shorten it 410 ??
Part of the purpose of salat is rememberance 2014 and 2945 though were does reading come in?
What are your understandings of yousbihouna or sabbih e.g 3191, 1598, 20130
Progressive1993 .. 4829. I read that verse but I didn?t understand it all. Sujood appears to be physical here, but where?s the link to salat?
-
peace Sarah,
AQ = al quran
There are some articles on the relationship between the regular timed salat and reading/reflection/oration of AQ, e.g.
http//www.free-minds.org/salat-Hamed
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htmHaving said that though, the best research is to simply go through the occurrences of slw in AQ and extract all possible information, see what it says.
Same with SBH etc.
-
I forgot to say, if you meant SBH and the timing aspect to it in AQ, e.g. 20130, then some equate it to the regular timed "salat". Of course, this has no evidence from AQ, and actually, AQ refutes it, because the timings contradict each other if an attempt to match them is made. Now, I say they contradict, but more correctly, when I studied it I tried all possible ways I could think of to make them match but failed, and I have never read a post or article that has managed it. Thus, my conclusion is that they are to be taken as idiomatic expressions, meaning all the time. As far as I'm aware, this is commonly stated in dictionaries and even by traditional scholars.
-
Why I asked about tasbih is because I was wondering if you thought of it as different from salat anyway I will look at the links.
If SBH and Salat are different, those timings wouldn?t be for salat in reference to 20130. Also the purpose isn?t remembrance it?s so that you can ?tarda?. ? so we can be contentment? Joyful? happy?I don?t recall salat having that..
Also I thought of Salat as a state we do standing but I?m not so sure now.
When I read the verses 3191 although it doesn?t mention salat, it mentions remembering God I thought maybe it?s not standing.(3191)
? 3191 (Asad) who remember God when they stand, and when they sit, and when they lie down to sleep, and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth "O our Sustainer! Thou hast not created this without meaning and purpose. Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! Keep us safe, then, from suffering through fir
And if part of salat?s purpose is remembering then maybe it doesn?t mean standing but maybe this verse is just for different times.
anyway thanks for the links
salam
-
You may have a point about "tarda", as in it is not directly linked/associated with "salat", implying a possible difference/differentiation in what salat and SBH acheive.
According to my studies of AQ, being stationary (i.e. one location) is the preference, not necessarily standing. Standing is more of an interpretation.
-
Peace truthseeker11,
You say
?Salaat is for the god's remembrance and involves reading the qur'aan in a moderate tone (17110). The pre-salaat washing or tayammam is also necessary. The person in the example given above by you cannot even establish salaat as required by the qur'aan so there is no sujud during salaat either. I was referring to the sujud during salaat, not to any sujud, so your example is invalid and irrelevant and my point of sujud during salaat being physical + mental stands.?
In the example cited by me the person in question is washed daily (sponge bath) by nurses to maintain good hygiene. Family member may perform this job as well. Also, rich believing family members can have this service performed as many time as deemed necessary. Why couldn?t the person use this wash to satisfy the pre-salat washing? Remember he is aware of the surrounding; therefore, he may perform salat right after the wash. The question to you is how does he perform sujud during salat?
In your previous post you said
?No more comments from me on this issue because otherwise it would become logical fallacy of repetition (argumentum ad nauseum).?
Then you did the very thing you said you are not going to do i.e. provide new comments to my post. But that?s not the worst of it; you showed extreme arrogance by making such statement. You implied that you were right and that was the end of it, even though your post on this thread and elsewhere proves otherwise. What kind of logical thinking is this? I will have to say that this is neither smart nor a righteous behavior. Please be open-minded and leave the door open for different views.
Then you said
?From the above the only logical deduction would be that the preferred sujud to the god during salaat according to the qur'aan is saying "we hear and obey" with utmost humiliation on hearing the god's signs.?
?Only logical deduction? implies that you are 100% correct. What is the rationale behind such thinking? Did you receive a revelation from the God or are you infallible?
I asked you to justify how your approach works for a deaf believer. Instead of answering the question you said this
?Believer's are supposed to perform sujud on hearing the god's signs (17107). If the believer cannot even hear then how can he/she be expected to perform sujud? If the deaf "hears" the god's signs by sign language, then he/she can perform sujud by using sign language to communicate "we hear and obey".?
First - 17107 has nothing to do with sujud during salat. According to you this discussion is about sujud during the salat. Then, why are you bring this subject up.
Second - your question ?If the believer cannot even hear then how can he/she be expected to perform sujud?? implies that salat is not mandatory for deaf believers. This is contrary to many Quranic verses. This kind of absurdity arises only with your concept of sujud. Please note that salat is mandatory for all mature people of all times. Only believers comply with this requirement of the God. The exception is no salat/sujut when one is in the state of intoxication. A normal believer can become deaf due to an accident or as war casualty. In this situation he can recite Quran and know how to perform physical sujud but your idea will put this person in the category of non-salat performer (disbeliever?)
Here is an instance of how you violated your own definition of sujud during salat (we hear and obey) by equating ?hear? with ?sign language?. You are giving new meaning to the word ?hear?? Is this Quranic?
Here is another question you should ponder on When the whole Quran is being continually receited from begining to the end, do you sit or stand still for the entire duration and keep saying "we hear and obey"
You say ?He does not call the hoopoe a liar. He says that he will see if he told the truth or if he lied. That does not mean that the hoopoe is a liar.?
Solomon may had a good reason for suspecting hoopoe (may be he lied to Solomon before) otherwise Solomon will be guilty of violating Quranic verse 4912 - O you who believe, you shall avoid any suspicion, for even a little bit of suspicion is sinful. You shall not spy on one another, nor shall you backbite one another; this is as abominable as eating the flesh of your dead brother. You certainly abhor this. You shall observe GOD. GOD is Redeemer, Most Merciful.
-
Peace guest,
In the example cited by me the person in question is washed daily (sponge bath) by nurses to maintain good hygiene. Family member may perform this job as well. Also, rich believing family members can have this service performed as many time as deemed necessary. Why couldn?t the person use this wash to satisfy the pre-salat washing? Remember he is aware of the surrounding; therefore, he may perform salat right after the wash. The question to you is how does he perform sujud during salat?
You conveniently ignored an important part of what I said in my last post. Here it is again
Salaat is for the god's remembrance and involves reading the qur'aan in a moderate tone (17110). The pre-salaat washing or tayammam is also necessary. The person in the example given above by you cannot even establish salaat as required by the qur'aan so there is no sujud during salaat either. I was referring to the sujud during salaat, not to any sujud, so your example is invalid and irrelevant and my point of sujud during salaat being physical + mental stands.
I have no cure for your inability to comprehend what I said in bold above and then question me again about something I have already answered appropriately.
First - 17107 has nothing to do with sujud during salat. According to you this discussion is about sujud during the salat. Then, why are you bring this subject up.
17107 is about their sujud when the god's words are recited to them. In a group salaat the god's words are recited to others. So 17107 has everything to do with sujud during salaat too, in addition to sujud outside salaat.
Second - your question ?If the believer cannot even hear then how can he/she be expected to perform sujud?? implies that salat is not mandatory for deaf believers. This is contrary to many Quranic verses. This kind of absurdity arises only with your concept of sujud. Please note that salat is mandatory for all mature people of all times.
Strawman fallacy.
It does not imply that salaat is not mandatory for deaf believers. It just applies to performing sujud when the god's revelations are recited to them. Is that not what 17107 and other signs say? Don't they clearly talk about sujud when the god's revelations are recited to them? Is "recited to them"/"yutlaa alaihim" same as reciting to oneself? Do you have trouble comprehending the god's words?
Sujud as mentioned in the qur'aan in the context of the god's revelations and salaat is always when the god's revelations are recited TO SOMEONE ELSE. I would appreciate if you can reference a sign in evidence of sujud on reciting the god's revelations oneself. The god chooses his words very carefully and we cannot attribute lies to the god by saying that the god meant something when he never said it. Where does it say to perform sujud in response to reciting the god's revelations oneself?
Now you tell me, how can a deaf person know what is being recited to him (not by himself)? How does the deaf person know if it is the god's words being recited or something else being recited to him?
Here is an instance of how you violated your own definition of sujud during salat (we hear and obey) by equating ?hear? with ?sign language?. You are giving new meaning to the word ?hear?? Is this Quranic?
2285 and 2451 refer to all believers including the deaf ones right? You tell me how can deaf persons say "we hear and obey" when the god's signs are recited to them?
Here is another question you should ponder on When the whole Quran is being continually receited from begining to the end, do you sit or stand still for the entire duration and keep saying "we hear and obey"
While salaat includes recitation of the god's words, recitation of the god's words is not always necessarily during salaat. Where does it say that the people listening to the god's signs should stand or sit still when the god's revelations are being recited to them? It says to stand/persist for salaat or to stand/persist to warn others (742) but where does it say to stand or sit still to listen to someone else reciting the god's words to you?
If people keep saying "we hear and obey" while the other person is reciting the god's words then how will they be able to hear the signs in entirety in the first place? Actually they will be lying if they keep saying say "we hear and obey" during the recitation because then whenever they say that they will miss out on what is being recited and they are not actually hearing that part. It might also cause other people to not be able to listen to the recitation because of some people continually saying "we hear and obey" during the recitation. When the god's words are being continually recited, all the signs are one block and so the people listening can say "we hear and obey" at the end of the recitation. If there is a break in the recitation then they can say it when the break occurs. This is common sense.
Solomon may had a good reason for suspecting hoopoe (may be he lied to Solomon before) otherwise Solomon will be guilty of violating Quranic verse 4912 - O you who believe, you shall avoid any suspicion, for even a little bit of suspicion is sinful. You shall not spy on one another, nor shall you backbite one another; this is as abominable as eating the flesh of your dead brother. You certainly abhor this. You shall observe GOD. GOD is Redeemer, Most Merciful.
Firstly, 4912 says "katheer min al-zann"/much suspicion/imagination/conjecture/assumption/thought, and not just "al-zann" which would imply any zann. Why are you mistranslating "katheer" to "any" and why are you mistranslating "baadh"/some to "even a little bit" thereby attributing lies to the god?
378 And from among them is a group who twist their tongues with the book so that you may think it is from the book, while it is not from the book, and they say it is from the god while it is not from the god, and they say about the god lies while they know.
Secondly, Solomon was trying to verify the information brought by the hoopoe. We are all advised to do that per 1736
Thirdly, suspecting someone does not mean they are actually a liar. "Maybe he lied to Solomon before" is an assumption/conjecture on your part which falls under "al-zann". You made an explicit statement in your post that the hoopoe IS a liar without any evidence to back up this accusation/statement.
Here is what you said in one of your earlier posts
Also, don't forget hoopoe is a lier as evident from below verse
2727 - (Solomon) said, "We will see if you told the truth, or if you are a liar.
NO MORE COMMENTS FROM ME ON THIS ISSUE UNLESS YOU COMPREHEND MY POSTS PROPERLY AND COME UP WITH LOGICALLY SOUND ANSWERS. OTHERWISE I WILL JUST HAVE TO SAY PEACE AS PER 2563 AND 2855
-
Peace truthseeker11,
You said
"You conveniently ignored an important part of what I said in my last post. Here it is again
Quote from truthseeker11
Salaat is for the god's remembrance and involves reading the qur'aan in a moderate tone (17110). The pre-salaat washing or tayammam is also necessary. The person in the example given above by you cannot even establish salaat as required by the qur'aan so there is no sujud during salaat either. I was referring to the sujud during salaat, not to any sujud, so your example is invalid and irrelevant and my point of sujud during salaat being physical + mental stands."I did not ignored it intentionally. I answered it mentally and forgot to bring it out. I am sorry about that and do thank you for giving me another opportunity to address the issue.
According to you, sujud during salat is accomplished by saying "we hear and obey". It must be physically said and cannot be done mentally.
Further, in a group salat one person (lead) recite the Quran and rest says "we hear and obey" at the end of recitation.
These facts are derived from the following quote of yours
"If people keep saying "we hear and obey" while the other person is reciting the god's words then how will they be able to hear the signs in entirety in the first place? Actually they will be lying if they keep saying say "we hear and obey" during the recitation because then whenever they say that they will miss out on what is being recited and they are not actually hearing that part. It might also cause other people to not be able to listen to the recitation because of some people continually saying "we hear and obey" during the recitation. When the god's words are being continually recited, all the signs are one block and so the people listening can say "we hear and obey" at the end of the recitation. If there is a break in the recitation then they can say it when the break occurs. This is common sense."
Here is my answer that disproves your sujud theory
Pre-salat wash In the example cited by me the person in question is washed daily (sponge bath) by nurses to maintain good hygiene. Family member may perform this job as well. Also, rich believing family members can have this service performed as many time as deemed necessary. Why couldn?t the person use this wash to satisfy the pre-salat washing? Remember he is aware of the surrounding; therefore, he may perform salat right after the wash.
Reading the qur'aan in a moderate tone (17110) The person (patient) is doing the recitation from within himself but the sound (voice) is not coming out due to the impact of venom in his body. He knows that his voice is not working because he cannot hear it via his ears. Now, I will change the situation a bit so that he does not have to recite the Quran in a moderate tone i.e. his visitors (relatives) is holding a group salat in his room and the patient is performing salat with them (not leading the salat). Therefore, my question is still valid and here it is again
The question to you is how does he perform sujud during salat?
The deaf person example also disproves your sujud theory i.e. he cannot say "we hear and obey" thus nullifying your theory.
You say "Now you tell me, how can a deaf person know what is being recited to him (not by himself)? How does the deaf person know if it is the god's words being recited or something else being recited to him?"
Why are you asking me that question. I am using that example to disprove your theory via contradiction. You are contradicting your own theory via your own question. How silly. I know it does not work. Therefore, I am abandoning your theory, so should you. My theory is free of such absurdity because it is base on the concept Quran is easy to understand.
You say
"Firstly, 4912 says "katheer min al-zann"/much suspicion/imagination/conjecture/assumption/thought, and not just "al-zann" which would imply any zann. Why are you mistranslating "katheer" to "any" and why are you mistranslating "baadh"/some to "even a little bit" thereby attributing lies to the god?"
First - Taking dictionary meaning to define Quran is same as believing in hadith. No difference. Anyone who does this, have surrender their God given basic instinct to a dictionary. How awful. Basic instinct is used to determine right from wrong. Therefore, it must be used very carefully. Going to hell or heaven is dependent on decision made via this basic instinct. Please sink the dictionary you are using in the depth of ocean and forget about it.
Second - The meaning you provided for 4912 is flawed. It does not satisfy the basic instinct of mine. Here is why
If you use "much suspicion" then you must define the threshold value that determines how much suspicion is allowed and what is not allowed. This is pure absurdity. This is something satan would advocate to lead us astray.
The rationale for the meaning "some" is same as above rationale.
Are you trying to mislead us, are you twisting the God's word to gain mislay worldly gain? I hope the answer is a no for your own good.
You said
"Secondly, Solomon was trying to verify the information brought by the hoopoe. We are all advised to do that per 1736
Thirdly, suspecting someone does not mean they are actually a liar. "Maybe he lied to Solomon before" is an assumption/conjecture on your part which falls under "al-zann". You made an explicit statement in your post that the hoopoe IS a liar without any evidence to back up this accusation/statement."
The difference between "verify" and "suspicion" is as far apart as the two Easts. I will illustrate my view via an example.
When Prophet Muhammad brought us the message we should have verified it against our basic instinct without being suspicious of him. Had he contradicted our basic instinct or if his initial message were proven to be wrong then we would have reason to suspect him with any additional message.
It is not right to be suspicious of someone without a good reason. This would be like false acquisition crime which is forbidden by the Quran and does not sit well with me (basic instinct). Therefore, when Solomon suspected hoopoe's integrity, I took that to be are you lying again.
