My problems with Free-Minds (very long post, please read)

Amid

What would you say is the basic teaching of Quran?
By 'basic teaching', i mean its overall purpose, its most fundamental creed. What does it ask of you as a human being?

I don't think there is such a thing as a "basic" teaching. You could say the basic teaching of the Qur'an is simply obeying God and worshipping him, but that is too broad a statement. You could say that the Old Testament and the Qur'an have the same "basic teaching" which is worshipping God and abstaining from sin, but in fact those two books are very much different. Religious books has several "basic teachings" which can be expanded further. The Qur'an has several teachings; Worshipping God and not associating partners, Performing Salaat, fasting Ramadhan, accepting Muhammad (saw) as a Messenger of God, doing many good deeds, abstaining from evil/sinning, etc.

From this basic teaching, how congrous is the ritual prayer?
Assuming you got this basic teaching articulated, does the ritual prayer fit into its overall scheme of things?

Yes, it fits into the overall scheme of things. It is stressed several times how important Salaat is, and how misguided/astray those are who don't do Salaat.

What do you get from saying salawat to the Prophet?
Since his job is done, he was praised by God himself, does he or God need anyone to tell them to bless him further? Can blessings be procured by mere words? Connect it back to the 'basic teaching', is it congrous to that?

What I get from it is the satisfaction that I'm following God's command in verse 3356. Simply saying sallalahu alayhi wasalaam or peace be upon him when mentioning his name is not the same as worshipping him. It is simply showing respect.

Amid

Let me ask you, you say you are not a follower of any sect yet you say that because of numerous ahadith in support of prayer as a ritual couldn?t be an innovation? it couldn?t be anything else?

How can you accept this evidence? If you don?t follow their books? Anyway you say there is simple too much evidence, can you share?

It is highly improbable, because of the fact that no single narration/hadith in history describes Salaat as anything OTHER than worship/ritual prayer. If 95% showed Salaat to be a ritual prayer and 5% showed something else, I would say there's a chance it's an innovation although even then the probability would be very low. However we have 100% of every single source of hadeeth showing Salaat as a ritual prayer and nothing else. If it is an innovation, surely among hundreds and even thousands of narrations you should be able to find one single hadith that even slightly implies Salaat is something other than prayer.

javed1

I have never read such a balanced post at free.minds.Surely you must be over fourty.Most of the young minds are bogged down in hair splitting discussions leading to no conclusions.And offcourse the 19ers are a big diversion,a red herring.To delete two verses (whatever the hadith history about them may be) to balance their accounts is a big no no.And the the messengership claim of Rashad Khalifa has put back the cause of the focus on Quran by light years.Most of decent right thinking friends of mine are attracted to the idea of focus on Quran alone but are horrified on reading about his messengership based on a highly Mutashabih verse.
Your comment on Salawat on the Messenger is very apt.There is a verse (even if it is remotely suggestive)from which the practice springs and it cannot be dismissed as idol worship.
Without taking anything away from members and their innovative minds i urge them avoid narrow tubular thinking and think of all the dimensions before insisting on a particular interpretation otherwise there is a danger of missing the forest for the tree.
Javed1

Amid

I have never read such a balanced post at free.minds.Surely you must be over fourty.

Thank you, I'm not over 40 though. laugh

Most of the young minds are bogged down in hair splitting discussions leading to no conclusions.And offcourse the 19ers are a big diversion,a red herring.To delete two verses (whatever the hadith history about them may be) to balance their accounts is a big no no.And the the messengership claim of Rashad Khalifa has put back the cause of the focus on Quran by light years.Most of decent right thinking friends of mine are attracted to the idea of focus on Quran alone but are horrified on reading about his messengership based on a highly Mutashabih verse.
Your comment on Salawat on the Messenger is very apt.There is a verse (even if it is remotely suggestive)from which the practice springs and it cannot be dismissed as idol worship.
Without taking anything away from members and their innovative minds i urge them avoid narrow tubular thinking and think of all the dimensions before insisting on a particular interpretation otherwise there is a danger of missing the forest for the tree.
Javed1

Your post is right on. Narrow tubular thinking as you describe really is the main problem here, and that is also the problem with Sunnis and Shia.

ayman

Peace Amid,

I will divide my reply into the following sections

?Salat?.
Mistranslation of the great reading.
Addressing ?the Quran is the only source of religious law? issue.

First let?s start with ?salat?

1.) Salaat not being a ritual prayer
I see so many Muslims here with differing views on this VERY important issue. Tons and tons of theories of what Salaat really is. I've even heard many of you say that Salaat simply means "good deeds", which quite honest, I thought was funny, and sad, at the same time.
Let's stick to facts There is simply too much evidence that Salaat is, indeed, a ritual prayer. The evidence is simply overwhelming. To say that every single Hadith that describes Salaat as a ritual prayer is inauthentic is quite an ignorant thing to say. It is irrational and unreasonable. We need to keep in mind that Satan is our biggest enemy and he never rests. He will always try to deceive believers and lead them away from the true path. Now as far as how Salaat should be performed, that is a different discussion. I will make a separate thread for it soon.

If the ritual prayer accomplishes the purposes of "salat" for you then this is fine. The main purpose is of course to remind you of the god. However, my experience and empirical evidence proves that ritual prayer quickly becomes a mechanical thing and most people do it and then turn around and setup partners with the god anyway. So it is not very effective at reminding people of the god. I think that the most important part of "salat" is reciting the great reading (the reminder that reminds us of the god). Unfortunately, sectarians have relegated this part to be the least important part of ritual prayer. So they typically mechanically recite the shortest chapter possible without even pondering on it. They instead focus on repeating things as if the god didn't hear them the first time around. They also repeat some things three times as if they are praying for a trinity (which we know the pagans did and this is probably why sectarians are obsessed with repeating things three times). Also, facing a pagan stone cube while praying has nothing to do with the god and reeks of idol worship. Also, if you do physical prostration then it should be the chin and not to the forehead (17107).

On the other hand, the real "salat" can be understood by its purpose. From the great reading, its purpose is to remember the god. It can also be understood by its effect. From the great reading, its effect is to take us out of the darkness and into the light (enlightment). Salat also instructs us not to do bad things.

There is no other way to remember or memorize anything other than by learning it and then reinforcing that learning.

Also, enlightment is the effect of learning and teaching others.

Also, if you want children not to do something bad you teach them not to do it and then remind them.

So my understanding is that the primary aspect of "salat" is learning/teaching of the god's signs either alone or in group.

This is also why it is best done at the specific times when our mind is most open to learning.

2.) Not giving salawat to Muhammad (saw)
It is one thing not to make Muhammad (saw) a partner to Allah, but it is another thing to disrespect him by not giving salawat. Examples Edip Yuksel mentioning the Prophet (saw) several times in his posts and never giving salawat. And it is not just Edip, it is many many posters. Some will even write their whole post normally and then write "muhammad" without even capitalizing the first letter. What is the reason for this? It's like they're not respecting him at all. Fact check The Qur'an instructs us to give salawat when we talk mention the Prophet (saw).

Where does it say in the great reading "when we mention the Prophet"? Please underline the word "mention" in the original Arabic. The god "yusali" on all those who have faith and not just the prophet

He is the One who "yusali" on you, he and the controllers, to take you out of the darknesses into the light. And He is ever merciful towards those who have faith.

Do you think that the god goes around mindlessly repeating ?saly 3alyh? whenever the name of any of the believers or the prophet is mentioned?!

The prophet was also "yusali" on those who have faith

Take from their money a charity to cleanse them and purify them with it, and "salli" on them. Your "salat" is a tranquility for them, and the god is hearer, knowledgeable.

Do you think that the prophet was going around saying ?Allahuma salli 3alyh? anytime the name of any of the believers was mentioned?! Of course not! Like the ?salat? of those who have faith, the ?salat? of the prophet was equivalent to teaching the god?s signs and has the same effect as the god?s ?salat? on those who have faith

A messenger who recites on you the god's clarifying signs, to take those who have faith and work righteousness out of the darknesses into the light. Anyone who has faith in the god and leads a righteous life, He will admit him into gardens with flowing streams; they abide therein forever. the god will generously reward him.
"Alr" a book which we have sent down to you so that you may take the people out of the darkness and into the light by their lord?s leave to the path of the almighty, the praiseworthy.
the god Has bestowed favor upon those who have faith by sending them a messenger from amongst themselves reciting his signs on them and purifying them and teaching them the book and the wisdom, and they were before in manifest darkness.

All those passages clearly confirm what ?salat? is about and they refute the notion that ?salat? consists of ?ritual prayer? or mindlessly repeating ?sala allahu 3alayh? every time someone?s name is mentioned.

Next, I will deal with the remaining points.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Amid,

Now let?s address your next point about the mistranslation of the great reading.

3.) Mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an
There are many mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an here at Free Minds. Example of a mistranslation

I agree that no one translates or interprets the great reading perfectly and therefore you will find mistranslations and misinterpretations with any person. However, as I will explain, the particular example that you presented doesn?t happen to be a good example and actually demonstrates a major problem with how people have traditionally interpreted the great reading.

"We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Qur'an alone, they run away in aversion." (Rashid Khalifa translation)
"And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion." (Free Minds translation)
The followers of Rashid Khalifa as well as Free Minds argue that the Sunnis translated this verse incorrectly. Here are the earlier translations
and when you mention your Lord alone in the Quran they turn their backs in aversion. (Shakir)
and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion. (Pickthall)
when thou dost commemorate thy Lord and Him alone in the Qur'an, they turn on their backs, fleeing (from the Truth). (Yusuf Ali)
waitha thakarta rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran (Arabic)
They argue because "wahdahu" (alone) is AFTER "alqurani", therefore it means "the Qur'an alone." They support their views by citing several instances in the Qur'an where "wahdahu" is used in a certain way
Allaha wahdahu = Allah alone 77
Allahu wahdahu = Allah alone 3945
Allahu wahdahu = Allah alone 4012
Allahi wahdahu = Allah alone 4084
Allahi wahdahu = Allah alone 604
However, the reasoning behind this is incorrect, since the Arabic language is not that simple. The word "wahdahu" (Him alone) serves as the modifier/descriptive word to the word "rabbaka" (your Lord) and it doesn't modify the word ALQURANI. Arabic grammar rules can never allow this falsification. The modifier (na't, or descriptive word) needs to be in the same grammatical case as the modified noun. In order for modifier "wahdahu" to modify ALQURANI, it has to agree with it in the grammatical case, but it doesn't. Why? Because WAHDAHU is in the accusative case and ALQURANI is in the gentive case, and is governed by the preposition "fi." The word "wahdahu" must modify the word "rabbaka" (your Lord), which are both in the accusative case, as indicated by the fathah (represented by the letter A in English) on the second syllable. Therefore, this is a mistranslation not by Yusuf Ali or Pickthall, but by Rashad Khalifa and also by Free Minds.

There are two issues with your analysis. The first issue is linguistic while the other issue is logical. The fact that you neglected the logical issue in your analysis also demonstrates a major problem with how linguistics are misused to mask logical problems in sectarian interpretations.

The linguistic issue

From the linguistic point of view, what you are describing in terms of case endings is what every 6th grade elementary student is taught in Arabic classes in the Middle East. This is the limit of the knowledge that Classical Arabic (CA) learners are taught for the rest of their lives. They never question this or use it for any practical purpose. What I will tell you are obvious problems with case endings that no one is taught at school. Arabic linguists may only find out about those problems after doing advanced graduate level research despite those problems being readily obvious to anyone who reads the great reading in Arabic.

The first problem is that early manuscripts of the great reading didn?t have vocalization marks. Those vocalization marks didn?t appear until the 10th century CE. So one should take those vocalization marks with a grain of salt and not blindly accept them as divinely inspired.

Secondly, as we will see, upon closer examination of the great reading, one can in fact observe distinct differences between CA and its language when it comes to case endings. The first difference that is immediately apparent is that there are many passages in the great reading which clearly demonstrate that it was originally meant to be recited without vocalization case endings. For example, According to CA, the start of Chapter 55 should be read as follows and this is indicated in the text using CA vocalization marks

Alrahmanu ?alam-alqurana

Despite this well known CA rule of case endings for the nominative ?u? declination for the subject and accusative ?a? declination for the object in the sentence and the clear vocalization marks on the letters, everyone disregards this rule and ignores the vocalization marks precisely noted in the text and instead recites the passage as follows

Alrahman ?alam-alquran

Everyone who recites the great reading routinely and intuitively disregards the vocalization marks for the case endings because its passages have a certain pleasant flowing rhyme and with the CA vocalization this feature would be lost and the great reading would sound terribly awkward and pretentious.

Before the advent of the great reading, Arabic was a purely spoken vernacular that was rarely written. Indeed, passages such as 144 indicate that its message is in the ?tongue? of the people of the messenger. In other words, it is in the oral vernacular language that they spoke at home and on the street.

And we have not sent any messenger except in the tongue of his people, so that he may clarify for them. But the god misguides whom he wills, and he guides whom he wills, and he is the exalted, the wise.

Practically speaking, vocalization case endings have very low functional load. So they are essentially a memorized form that serves no real purpose in a spoken vernacular. Case endings that are indicated by vocalization marks but are absent from the written text are spontaneously dropped from all Arabic varieties. The absence of vocalization case endings seems to be the default, since it naturally turns up untaught, whereas the vocalization case endings are exclusively found in the taught theoretical CA variety. Since the language of the great reading was a spoken vernacular, it was more likely to rely on intrinsic grammar as opposed to memorized forms that serve no real purpose other than making the speaker appear more learned. In fact, vocalization case endings were deemed so useless that even the formal Modern Standard Arabic has done away with them. Thus, people are perfectly capable of understanding and vocalizing MSA newspapers and books despite being devoid of vocalization marks. Similarly, early Quranic and other mundane ancient manuscripts and inscriptions are completely devoid of vocalization marks and people who read this material, even for the first time, are able to easily and fully understand it without vocalization marks.

Another major difference between CA and the language of the great reading is that even the consonantal text often shows complete disregard of case endings. Some well-known examples include passage 569 where sabi'un should be sabi'in according to the rules of Classical Arabic. Another is moqimin should be moqimun in 4162 and sabirin should be sabirun in 2177. Given the casual disregard of even the visible case endings in the consonantal text, this further confirms that the invisible vocalization case endings would not have been part of the language. People came up with some fairly desperate arguments to explain this casual disregard for CA rules. For example, some researchers have attributed this to grammatical errors or scribal errors while others have tried to find convoluted and illogical explanations for what would indeed be glaring errors according to CA grammatical standards. However, those errors are so obvious in their respective sentences that they would be unacceptable even from an elementary school student who studies CA but never uses it in real life. So if a modern eleven years old child who never spoke CA can regularly get those case endings right in the classroom then it is highly unlikely that contemporaneous scribes who actually used the language and are much more intimate with the real language of the great reading at the time would commit what would be far worse than childish mistakes over and over again. Therefore, the simplest explanation and the one likely to be the most correct is that CA doesn?t represent a true picture of the language of the great reading. Also, in CA the dual verb is a compulsory conjugation for the dual subject. The Quran often disregards the CA dual rules in passages such as 499, 664, and 2219.

Another feature of CA which the language of the great reading deviates from is the triptote and diptote dichotomy. In the great reading, we find several examples where Classical Arabic diptotes rules are not respected. If one scans for the name of the tribe of "Thamuud", for example, it can be seen that it is diptote one time and triptote another. In fact, in the same verse (Quran 116 it is both but it should be a diptote according to CA rules because it is a proper name of non Arabic origin. One more thing that is noticeable upon scanning all the occurrences of ?Thamuud? is that the inconsistencies all occur in the accusative where an Alif is added to the text. On the other hand, the rule is applied uniformly in the other declinations. This would point to an artificial regularization by grammarians. They applied the rule uniformly in all declinations except the accusative because they could freely add vocalization marks but they couldn't delete the letter Alif from the consonantal text of the great reading. This raises some interesting points. Firstly, this observation is a ?smoking gun? showing that CA grammarians artificially regularized the vocalization marks of the great reading to conform to their artificial CA rules. Secondly, this would also prove that the consonantal text of the great reading is very well preserved since the vocalizers couldn?t delete or add even a single letter (Alif) to make the text match their artificial grammar rules.

So all this confirms that one should take vocalization marks with a grain of salt and not blindly accept them as divinely inspired, especially when they contradict logic as we will see below.

The logical issue

The logical analysis requires that we examine the great reading as a whole, while keeping in mind that it is a logically accurate book with no inconsistencies.

Verse 1746 reads

"...wa itha thakart rabak fil quran wahdah..."
"...when you remembered your lord in the quran alone..."

There is a simple and glaring fact

There are many others that are remembered or mentioned in the great reading. For example, we are reminded of Dawood in 3817, the brother of 3ad in 4621, fighting in 4720, the people of Nuh in 769, and of Ismail, Alyasaa, and Tha Elkifl in 3848. We are also reminded of the god?s signs in 1857 and 3222, and many others.

Accordingly, the statement that ?our lord alone is remembered in the great reading? is logically false. If one agrees that the great reading is a logically accurate book with no inconsistencies then "Wa7DaH" in 1746 has to refer to the great reading and not to our lord.

To further confirm this finding, let's examine all the other verses where the word "Wa7DaH" occurs (770, 3945, 4012, 4084, and 604). What we will see is that except for verse 1746, all the other verses use the noun "allah" (the god) when they talk about the god alone, as opposed to the noun "lord" ("rab&quot. The noun ?rab? is used to describe others in the great reading (for example, see 1241-42). In fact, the same exact word "rabbak" is mentioned in the great reading to denote the lord of Youssef's jail mate in Chapter 12 and not our Lord. So, once again, we clearly see that the expression "our lord alone is remembered in the great reading" is logically false.

The logical analysis is conclusive and confirms that "alone" definitely refers to the great reading.

Empirical verification

This is another point that I would like to add. It is empirically verifiable that remembering our lord in the great reading alone is a problem for the idolaters and we can easily see 1746 in action. For example, many of the Sunnis who take their dead scholars and saints as partners and idolize and kiss black stones will sit and listen to you for hours reciting the great reading and they will even say and chant that the god doesn't have a partner. However, the minute you tell them to remember their lord in the great reading alone and not in the books of their partners such as Bukhari, they will start being averse and run from you exactly as described in 1746.

Now an example of a misinterpretation
"And when God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!" (Qur'an 3945)
This verse is often interpreted by Free Minds to be talking about Sunnis, Shias, etc., underlining the words "God Alone." But they do not underline the most important part of the verse "those who do not believe in the hereafter." The verse in clearly talks about those who don't believe in the afterlife (the hereafter). It is their hearts that shrink. As far as I know, Sunnis believe in the hereafter, therefore this verse cannot apply to them.

Do Sunnis believe in the real hereafter or in an imaginary hereafter where whoever can do a high wire circus act on the ?sirat? can enter heaven and where eventually the prophet will put all of them in heaven, etc... ? Their circus that they believe in is certainly not the real hereafter talked about in the great reading. Indeed they believe in an imaginary hereafter and disbelieve in the real hereafter.

Next, I will deal with the last remaining point.

Peace,

Ayman

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

Peace Amid,

Re Salat

2157 To these will be salawat from their Lord and a mercy; they are the guided ones.

Does God send his "prayers" to us?

Take from their money a charity to cleanse them and purify them with it, and bond (salli) unto them. Your bond (salat) is a tranquility for them, and the god is hearer, knowledgeable.

I recommend this and this. Other points were already adressed by Ayman.

The timed bond (salat) (see 4103) is to be carried out by the "mumineen" (those who trust/have assurance) at 2 times per day - dawn and dusk.

11114 You shall uphold the bond (salat) at the two edges of the day (tarafay al nahar), that are at the near parts/proximities/adjacent parts (zulufan) of the night (min al layl). Good deeds that create balance in the society remove the ill effects of bad deeds. This is a reminder to those who take heed.

1778 You shall uphold the bond at the setting of the sun (li duluk al shamsi), until the darkness of the night (illa ghasaq al layl); and the reading of dawn (quran al fajr), the reading at dawn (quran al fajr) has been witnessed.

These two verses are adressed to the messenger and are therefore, to my understanding so far, not applicable for us. You may want to ask Wakas who is researching about this.

The following verse adresses the "mumineen" (those who have trust/assurance)

2458 O you who have assurance/trust, let those who are committed to you by oath and have not yet attained puberty request your permission regarding three times Before the bond of dawn (salat al fajr), and when you take off your attire from the heat of the noon, and after the bond of dusk (salat al isha). These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

It is important to note that "salat/salawat/etc" are general terms used for general things that do not mean "prayer". The timed "salat"/bond includes reading from the reading/quran. Read the link that I have referenced earlier on.

Re Quran alone

1745 When you read the reading (quran), We place between you and those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter an invisible barrier.

1746 We place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the reading alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

1746 WajaAAalna AAala quloobihimakinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-ithathakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran.

"rabbaka" = your Lord
"fee" = in
"al quran" = the reading
"wahdahu" = alone

Therefore, and if you don't object to these translations

"rabbaka fee al quran wahdahu" = your Lord in the reading alone
One does not even need Arabic skills to understand this (I dont speak Arabic, for example).

Please note that those who have a covering over their hearts and deafness in their ears will not acknowledge this, and cannot understand this.

6112 We have permitted the enemies of every prophet, human and invisible devils, to inspire in each other fancy words in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.

6113 That is so the minds of those who do not have assurance with the Hereafter will listen to it, and they will accept it, and they will take of it what they will.

6114 "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book fully detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.

6115 The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

6116 If you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you away from God#s path; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.

You are disobeying God if you pick and choose Hadith that "do not contradict the Quran". The reading/quran is fully detailed and we are to use it alone, without any sources beside it.

Re Night journey and al masjid al aqsa

171 Exalted is the One (God) who took His servant by night from "al masjid al haram" to the "al masjid al aqsa", which We had blessed around, so that We may show him of Our signs. Indeed, He (God) is the Hearer, the Seer.

First of all, you need to know what "al masjid al haram" is

2144 We have seen the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a target ("qibla&quot that will be pleasing to you, "You shall set yourself towards 'al masjid al haram'"; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the book know it is the truth from their Lord. God is not oblivious of what you do.

Note we are to face "al masjid al haram" WHEREVER we are - not just during "salat".

2145 Even if you come to those who have been given the book with every sign, they will not follow your target, nor will you follow their target, nor will some of them even follow each other's target. If you were to follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you would be one of the wicked.

"Qibla" here again refers to target/goal, not a focal point during salat. Note that it says "nor will some of them follow each other's target". Is their any evidence that the people of the book are facing various different directions for their prayers? How is it that they know that the target/goal towards "al masjid al haram" is the truth from their Lord? Do they know that phyiscally facing a building called "Al Masjid Al Haram" during their ritual prayers is the truth from their Lord?

2146 Those to whom We have given the book know it as they know their own children, and a group of them hides the truth while they know.

2147 The truth is from your Lord; so do not be one of those who doubt.

2148 To each is a direction that he will take, so you shall race towards good deeds. Wherever you may be. God will bring you all together. God is capable of all things.

This verse makes it clear that we are to race towards good deeds.

2149 From wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards "al masjid al haram"; it is the truth from your Lord; and God is not oblivious of what you do.

This verse again emphasizes that we are to set ourselves towards "al masjid al haram" WHEREVER we are - not just during "salat".

2150 Wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards "al masjid al haram". Wherever you may be, you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no room for debate with you, except those of them who are wicked. You shall not fear them, but fear Me so that I may complete My blessings upon you and that you may be guided.

The fact is that "al masjid al haram" means "the inviolable institution of submision/obedience".
It is not a physical building - it is about obedience to God and his laws. I am sure that Ayman will elaborate on this.

"Al masjid al aqsa" = the utmost/farthest institution of submission/obedience

It is very simple "al masjid al aqsa" is in heaven/with God. Muhammad (the one who, I think, is adressed in 171) was taken (spiritually, of course,) from the inviolable instuition of submission/obediece to the farthest/utmost institution of submission/obeidience, which has the most submission/obedience to God.

Peace

Amid

1745 When you read the reading (quran), We place between you and those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter an invisible barrier.

1746 We place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the reading alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

1746 WajaAAalna AAala quloobihimakinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-ithathakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran.

"rabbaka" = your Lord
"fee" = in
"al quran" = the reading
"wahdahu" = alone

Therefore, and if you don't object to these translations

"rabbaka fee al quran wahdahu" = your Lord in the reading alone
One does not even need Arabic skills to understand this (I dont speak Arabic, for example).

Why do I see a pattern of people completely ignoring what I say? I clearly stated this has nothing to do with the order the words are in. This is Arabic, not English. Here is what I wrote

The word "wahdahu" (Him alone) serves as the modifier/descriptive word to the word "rabbaka" (your Lord) and it doesn't modify the word ALQURANI. Arabic grammar rules can never allow this falsification. The modifier (na't, or descriptive word) needs to be in the same grammatical case as the modified noun. In order for modifier "wahdahu" to modify ALQURANI, it has to agree with it in the grammatical case, but it doesn't. Why? Because WAHDAHU is in the accusative case and ALQURANI is in the gentive case, and is governed by the preposition "fi." The word "wahdahu" must modify the word "rabbaka" (your Lord), which are both in the accusative case, as indicated by the fathah (represented by the letter A in English) on the second syllable. Therefore, this is a mistranslation not by Yusuf Ali or Pickthall, but by Rashad Khalifa and also by Free Minds.

I will respond to your other material later.

Amid

Take from their money a charity to cleanse them and purify them with it, and bond (salli) unto them. Your bond (salat) is a tranquility for them, and the god is hearer, knowledgeable.