Salat is physical (and mental)
-
Ok, assuming your interpretations of 5/6, 4/103 are correct. Why can't we establish these mental states at given times and wash ourselves before establishing these states?
Why does it HAVE to be a ritual? Maybe because some of us are stuck on'em and can't let go?
Do you believe Muhammad bargained with God to drop the number of salat from 50 to 5?
what's your interpretation of 5/6. do you think it's completely mental? what gives you that impression?
is it because it's a ritual practiced by sunnis/shias (even though it's adapted) is that why you refuse to accept it as an act to do physically?
curious.. why is there a physical rebellion of it? possibly i have misunderstood you if so, do correct me.
-
The describing of "salat" as physical or mental is nonsensical use of terminology, and this has been discussed before, e.g.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598162.msg199326#msg199326
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597865.msg193643#msg193643Interestingly, I find the people who use such terminology tend to have little idea about what "salat" is according to AQ. Just my own observation.
Salam, Peace,
so what is then salat according to AQ?
and what do you mean by mental?For me
How many salat?
given in 11114 and 1778 for the 2 salats, and one Nafila at night given in 1779.How?
part of salat is a rememberance/meditation ("dhikr" to God 2014 , this "dhikr" is achived by reading the Coran 5045.
Notice that meditation is "mental".
Other part of salat include paryers (du3a) 17110 cause God is the best hearer of du3a 338.
one position for salat (standing position) as per 238 and 339, prostration is not excluded depending on how you understand 4102.
notice that standing and reading AQ is "physical".How long?
Salat's duration is given in 1778 and 2187, this duration can vary depending on your geographical location, more you go to the north longer it is, in equator it is about 20 min.
For Nafila can be 1/3, 1/2, 2/3 of the night or what you can of it.This my comprehension at the present, and I would like to understand what do you mean by mental?
Peace
-
O you who believe, do not observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) while intoxicated, so that you know what you are saying...
how can salat be only mental if the word saying is there^
The hypocrites think that they are deceiving GOD, but He is the One who leads them on. When they get up for the Contact Prayer (Salat), they get up lazily. That is because they only show off in front of the people, and rarely do they think of GOD.
the word/words get up indicates that salat is physical, (as well as mental)
-
peace/salaam,
Salam, Peace,
so what is then salat according to AQ?
and what do you mean by mental?I always recommend people to study "salat" from AQ directly. A while ago, I created a checklist of sorts to run an understanding through, e.g. see here.
My view on what is "salat" can be read here.
By "mental" I was referring to how it seems to be used by some, e.g. no involvement of the body other than the mind.
prostration is not excluded depending on how you understand 4102.
See past discussion, e.g. here.
-
Peace Wakas,
I think the thread is in reference to those who say that "salaat" involves no physical action whatsoever, alleging that it is "mental", as in entirely nonphysical. He wasn't talking about those who believe it to be physical AND mental...
-
O you who believe, do not observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) while intoxicated, so that you know what you are saying...
how can salat be only mental if the word saying is there^
What makes u think it's only saying to OTHER PEOPLE? Maybe its self-talk.
-
laugh As amusing as this post is (in my opinion), I agree with QS on this. Everybody seems to want to make salaat "mental", "spiritual", "figurative", or some other type of non-physical activity. Based on the Qur'aan, I don't see how it can't be physical; certain parts of the scripture clearly refer to the people as standing, bowing, prostrating, reciting certain words, and conducting certain rites at certain times. How can this all be mental, especially considering the fact that most people agree that "wudhu" is a physical act?
Well, I guess Bani israil entered the door while having their foreheads to the ground (2/58 - udkhulu al-baab sujjada).
-
what's your interpretation of 5/6. do you think it's completely mental? what gives you that impression?
is it because it's a ritual practiced by sunnis/shias (even though it's adapted) is that why you refuse to accept it as an act to do physically?
curious.. why is there a physical rebellion of it? possibly i have misunderstood you if so, do correct me.Yes I do think it's mental because words like wujuh, ayd, arjul and ru'us could easily be 'expression, capacities, mobility and minds'. I wouldn't like to reject anything just because sunnis and shia do it. Rather, i went back to the text and built my understanding based on its world-view. Quran simply never bothers with any religious rituals and sticking in a ritual just makes it look very awkward, im sorry to say.
-
Well, I guess Bani israil entered the door while having their foreheads to the ground (2/58 - udkhulu al-baab sujjada).
You're saying they DIDN'T have their foreheads to the ground? confused
So, you're saying that the Tauraat doesn't instruct the Jews to "prostrate" with their foreheads to the ground? As I've told you plenty of times, you need to do a comparative study on monotheistic religions. When it comes to certain things, it seems like you have no idea what you're talking about... The Rabbinical Jews were instructed to pray in their scripture, and their "du3a" is nearly identical to Islaamic prayer. Do you think this is coincidence?
-
You're saying they DIDN'T have their foreheads to the ground? confused
So, you're saying that the Tauraat doesn't instruct the Jews to "prostrate" with their foreheads to the ground? As I've told you plenty of times, you need to do a comparative study on monotheistic religions. When it comes to certain things, it seems like you have no idea what you're talking about... The Rabbinical Jews were instructed to pray in their scripture, and their "du3a" is nearly identical to Islaamic prayer. Do you think this is coincidence?
Yeah, i find it difficult crawling with my forehead to the ground. It's very abrasive and my forehead turns red.
To understand Quran (and not for academic purposes) , why do I need to study ?other monotheistic religions? ? Did God tell me to do this? Where please or is it one of your ?too simple for Quran to mention so let me tell you instead? sort of deals?!
What tauraat? Who was given tauraat? All prophets were given AL-KITAAB BIL HAQQ (2/213) and al-kitab is mufassal/detailed (6/114). I don't use any other books to explain Quran, sorry.
And no, it?s no coincidence at all that the Jewish rituals (and laws) resemble sunnism but have nothing to do with the Quran?s outlook on things.
-
Ok so words like wujuh, ayd, arju,l ru?us, can easily mean those other things right? though in this contexts it seems specific to mention physical aspects
Wipe your feet ila ka3bayn. Upto your ankles/heels..
And if you?re in junuban you need to be tahir.. Even goes on to say if you can?t find water...
There is no implication (to me) that this isn?t a physical ritual aspect of establishing salat.
Sometimes no rituals make things too flimsy.
So what?s AlQuran telling us here? Don?t bother about hygiene or specific acts? When you establish salat be mentally alert through (actually what is your interpretation)???
Though coming to think of it isn?t establishing a mental state intentionally in a specific rite a ritual act anyway?
-
Yeah, i find it difficult crawling with my forehead to the ground. It's very abrasive and my forehead turns red.
That could have many meanings, as described in Q. 258. It could mean 'enter the gate submissively', or it could mean 'enter the gate prostrating'. And even if it's referring to the latter, it's obviously not telling them to enter the gate while dragging their heads across the ground. That's just your ridiculous viewpoint on the matter. When you read the Qur'aan, you should do so while applying logic and reasoning.
To understand Quran (and not for academic purposes) , why do I need to study ?other monotheistic religions? ? Did God tell me to do this? Where please or is it one of your ?too simple for Quran to mention so let me tell you instead? sort of deals?!
So, you're saying that the Qur'aan DOESN'T say that, if one is in doubt as to what the Qur'aan is saying on an issue, the people should refer it to the people who received the scripture before (i.e. Tauraat, Injiyl, etc.)? I think you should look at Q. 1094. The Qur'aan never tells anybody to follow the guidance of the Tauraat? Maybe you should check out Q. 543, 47, 68, 69... Yes, the Qur'aan DOES tell us to study the doctrines of the other monotheistic systems, which are found in their scriptures, in order to gain a better understanding of Islaam and the Qur'aan. If you don't agree, it's because you haven't studied the Qur'aan.
What tauraat? Who was given tauraat? All prophets were given AL-KITAAB BIL HAQQ (2/213) and al-kitab is mufassal/detailed (6/114). I don't use any other books to explain Quran, sorry.
It sounds like you're worshipping the Qur'aan, taking it as your god beside Allah... The prophets were not all given the same book (that's obviously why you follow the Qur'aan but reject the Tauraat). So, the claim that they were all given "the book with truth" is not a relevant argument. Why were they given this book with truth? The same verse explains why
...That it might judge between people concerning that which they differed. And none but the very people who were given it (the book) differed about it after clear arguments had come to them, envying one another. (Q. 2213)
This plainly says that "al kitaab bil haqq" was given to the people to clear up their differences, and this was AFTER they disagreed about the guidance. So, what did they disagree on before the Tauraat? Obviously these were the guidelines that Abraham established for them. What about before Abraham? Most likely the guidance that Noah left them with. This has nothing to do with all the prophets receiving the same message or even receiving a "detailed" scripture at all. It says they were simply given their books to clear up their differences. So, in this case, how do you know those previous books weren't just scriptures of "correction"? In order to understand the corrections that one book is making of another, you have to first look at the book in error, so that you can understand what is being corrected and why...
And no, it?s no coincidence at all that the Jewish rituals (and laws) resemble sunnism but have nothing to do with the Quran?s outlook on things.
How do they have 'nothing to do with the Qur'aanic outlook on things'? Can you explain this?
-
That could have many meanings, as described in Q. 258. It could mean 'enter the gate submissively', or it could mean 'enter the gate prostrating'. And even if it's referring to the latter, it's obviously not telling them to enter the gate while dragging their heads across the ground. That's just your ridiculous viewpoint on the matter. When you read the Qur'aan, you should do so while applying logic and reasoning.
How do you enter a gate while prostrating? Can you please describe it for us? Do you prostrate, then do the sitting in between prostrations, then from that sitting position, jump across? Or maybe in that prostrating position, you can put your weight on your forehead and just cartwheel across the gate? Why doesn?t God just tell us to study yoga and gymnastics? It?d be more effecive, I think.
By the way, since you want to take the concept literally, take it literally. It says udkhulu al-baaban sujjada which means enter the door in prostration.
Another thing you could please tell us is, why do you accept the possibility that it ?could mean? enter the gate submissively only here? Why not accept it everywhere else?
Apply my logic and reasoning? Ok I will. Here are my results Allah doesn?t want me to hit the floor 34 times day. That has nothing to do with my faith. Had he wanted me to affect some ritual, he would described it from top to bottom and said ?this is salat, make no mistake about it?. Rather, he had to depend on people like you who snatch pieces of verses from here and there and claim ?this is salat?. No, my logic and reasoning tells me you?re clinging to delusions.So, you're saying that the Qur'aan DOESN'T say that, if one is in doubt as to what the Qur'aan is saying on an issue, the people should refer it to the people who received the scripture before (i.e. Tauraat, Injiyl, etc.)? I think you should look at Q. 1094.
Nice try. Firstly, God doesn?t need you to parenthesise for him ?tawraat, injeel etc?. Had he wanted to say so, he would have.
Secondly, ?al-kitab? is God?s teaching which was given to all prophets. The Quran gives the details of this ?al-kitab? (10/37) and so why on earth would you take this to mean read ?previous books?? It?s telling you to consult previous readers of the Quran itself. The Quran never acknowledges other books as source of authority.
Thirdly, where did you get the ?what the Quran is saying on an issue? part? Lol. Dude, talk about clutching at straws. Look at 10/94?s ending the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord so be in no wise of those in doubt.
This is not talking about issues at all. This is talking about the divine origin of the text so quit making stuff up, ok?The Qur'aan never tells anybody to follow the guidance of the Tauraat? Maybe you should check out Q. 543, 47, 68, 69... Yes, the Qur'aan DOES tell us to study the doctrines of the other monotheistic systems, which are found in their scriptures, in order to gain a better understanding of Islaam and the Qur'aan. If you don't agree, it's because you haven't studied the Qur'aan.
Lets address the embolded bit first, shall we? If you don't agree, it's because you haven't studied the Qur'aan. So I guess anyone who disagrees with you hasn?t studied Quran? Are you some kind of a super-Quranist with perfect tafseer? If so, mr Super-Quranist, why was your response to 6/83-90 just a ?to you your understanding to me mine? instead of one of your Super-Quranist corrections and to the nasara thread where you asked me to study history (sic), your response was an absolute zilch? Super-Quranists like you need to guide people like me so we can understand islam better.
Right, on to the ?tawraat?. You claim that I need to study the Torah because Quran tells me to study at-tawraat. Here are my questions for you-
Where does Quran tell me to ?study the tawraat?? Note, the word is ?study? and you can use any of the words from Quran which amount to study such as tadabbur, tafakkur, ta3aqul or ta3allum or whatever you like. Just show me where Quran tells me to study at-tawraat.
-
Quran tells us that a certain promise is in at-tauraat, 9/111. Please show me this promise in what you consider as Torah. Please don?t bring us shreds of Torah verses ok? God does?t approximate. He tells us straight. So I want to see this promise in the Torah.
-
Historically, who was the Torah given to? Can you please show us in Quran ONE occurrence where Musa was given the tawraat?
-
Isa was given al-kitaab, al-hikmah, at-tauraat and al-injeel. Since you think tauraat is the Torah (or whatever) , what are al-kitab and al-hikmah ?
I await your Super-Quranist response.
It sounds like you're worshipping the Qur'aan, taking it as your god beside Allah... The prophets were not all given the same book (that's obviously why you follow the Qur'aan but reject the Tauraat). So, the claim that they were all given "the book with truth" is not a relevant argument. Why were they given this book with truth? The same verse explains why
...That it might judge between people concerning that which they differed. And none but the very people who were given it (the book) differed about it after clear arguments had come to them, envying one another. (Q. 2213)This plainly says that "al kitaab bil haqq" was given to the people to clear up their differences, and this was AFTER they disagreed about the guidance. So, what did they disagree on before the Tauraat? Obviously these were the guidelines that Abraham established for them. What about before Abraham? Most likely the guidance that Noah left them with. This has nothing to do with all the prophets receiving the same message or even receiving a "detailed" scripture at all. It says they were simply given their books to clear up their differences. So, in this case, how do you know those previous books weren't just scriptures of "correction"? In order to understand the corrections that one book is making of another, you have to first look at the book in error, so that you can understand what is being corrected and why...
Their books? Scripture of correction? LOL. All it says is they were given al-kitaab bil haqq. There is no scripture of correction nonsense here. Sorry.
This is why you cleverly avoided answer 6/83-90 which I quoted before in another thread. Once again, many prophets were mentioned all were given al-kitab. Why don?t you study this passage since you?ve studied the Quran so well and anyone who disagrees with you hasn?t studied it properly?
I acknowledged before that al-kitab isn?t literally the same book (i.e. the same wordings and sentences in case you don?t understand my figure of speech). However, al-kitab does imply one thing One set of teachings. All prophets were given the same teachings. THAT?s why its called al-kitab and that?s why al-quran is tafseel al-kitab (10/37), the detailing of God?s teachings. Al-kitab is mufassal /detailed for that reason so why would I need to consult some other book? It?s all detailed there. God never tells me to study at-tawraat for ?monotheistic religions?. This you and your tri-religious myth talking. Allah has always given al-islam and al-islam is detailed in al-quran.
As for worshipping the Quran and rejecting thetawraat, kindly prove to me that what you call tawraat is actually it. Printing ?tawraat? on the cover doesn?t make it so. Quran tells me why it?s the word of God. I expect to see the same kind of thing in the Torah. I?ve seen you quoting the Torah before so I hope it won?t be that kind of slipshod kind of quotes you provide again. -
-
By the way, since you want to take the concept literally, take it literally. It says udkhulu al-baaban sujjada which means enter the door in prostration.
Another thing you could please tell us is, why do you accept the possibility that it ?could mean? enter the gate submissively only here? Why not accept it everywhere else?When a word has different meanings then in every verse its meanings are established according to context.It is just nonsense that you impose a "Single Meaning" every where by hook or by crook.
Unfortunately common sense is very uncommon.
Regards
-
When a word has different meanings then in every verse its meanings are established according to context.It is just nonsense that you impose a "Single Meaning" every where by hook or by crook.
Unfortunately common sense is very uncommon.
Regards
you are right brother, just see an example of such nonsense
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599310.msg227916#msg227916
-
When a word has different meanings then in every verse its meanings are established according to context.It is just nonsense that you impose a "Single Meaning" every where by hook or by crook.
Unfortunately common sense is very uncommon.
RegardsThere's no need for hooking or crooking about, QS. When you apply this principle, all the ayaat fall into place easily. There's no need for (so-called) elliptical fillers where brackets are needed or anything. All that's needed is for us to let go of these made up rituals.
In truth, its you guys who are forcing meanings in. That's why you guys need to say 'here this means this and there this means that'. God doesn't run out of words.
-
peace,
Yes I do think it's mental because words like wujuh, ayd, arjul and ru'us could easily be 'expression, capacities, mobility and minds'.
Can you provide a translation of the verses in question, staying true to the Arabic, so I/we can understand your view better?
Depending on the result, we can also determine to what degree cross-referencing is utilised or not.The reason I ask the above is primarily because I have not seen anyone explain it away successfully.
Quran simply never bothers with any religious rituals and sticking in a ritual just makes it look very awkward, im sorry to say.
"ritual" is a very ordinary word meaning "any customary observance or practice", e.g. brushing one's teeth daily.
"religious ritual" however is a specialised meaning.
Are they the same? -
peace,
"ritual" is a very ordinary word meaning "any customary observance or practice", e.g. brushing one's teeth daily."religious ritual" however is a specialised meaning.
Are they the same?Peace
A ritual is a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value, which is prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community. The term usually excludes actions which are arbitrarily chosen by the performers, or dictated purely by logic, chance, necessity, etc..
Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual
Regards
-
Abdalquran,
It seems like these debates just go on for pages and pages, all with circular arguments. In the end, the idea could be presented in different ways, and there are often several ways to interpret the same Qur'aanic passage. There's already plenty of information on this issue all over the internet, and even on this website. Feel free to study these. You can believe whatever you want to believe. Allah is the Judge...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Abdalquran,
and there are often several ways to interpret the same Qur'aanic passage.
Peace,Ahmad
If some word or sentence or passage can be interpreted MANY ways ,it is called Ambiguous i.e not definite.
Is the Quran really ambiguous Not Tibyaan?
Regards
