If Allah wants things to be easy for us, why so much confusion about salat?
-
Peace Hope4,
Selam
Thanks for your replies. I am still reading the text so do not have an overall view yet. So far I get the impression he is trying to say that Islam is not a religion. He implies that it is a system or way of life with no rituals and which he claims that men have invented the ritual part. It is a new concept to me and a different way at looking at things. There is a website which you can put questions to him or read others who have questioned his views/beliefs etc and read the replies. http//mentalbondageinthenameofgod.wordpress.com/
PeaceAidid makes a lot of linguistic and logical mistakes. His work is emotionally charged, and he relied too much on making his arguments strong compared to the sectarian arguments as opposed to based on studying the great reading. Of course, given that sectarians are illogical, any half-baked argument would sound good compared to their arguments.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Hope4,
Aidid makes a lot of linguistic and logical mistakes. His work is emotionally charged, and he relied too much on making his arguments strong compared to the sectarian arguments as opposed to based on studying the great reading. Of course, given that sectarians are illogical, any half-baked argument would sound good compared to their arguments.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace Ayman
Thank you for your comment, he does actually sound emotionally charged ;D However, I have one question. Is his claim of Islam not being a religion and not having rituals have any basis?
Peace
-
peace Hope4,
please see http//www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-religion.htmlThe word "ritual" is a simple and common word, and can mean
#any customary observance or practice
#the prescribed procedure for conducting religious ceremoniesThe first definition can include brushing one's teeth for example, and there is nothing wrong in such a "ritual". Rituals by themselves are not wrong, but a ritual that has no basis in AQ or its principles is most likely wrong.
I forgot to say I 100% agree with bro Ayman's previous reply (#136) about Aidid's work.
-
Since getting the mark depends on skin type then it is implied in your reasoning that skin type is more important than piety. So in your world a very bad person or a terrorist or someone who physically prostrates to physical idols with the skin type that easily gets marked with contact and has a physical mark is more pious than a good person with a skin type that doesn't get marked with extended contact. Of course you didn't say this directly but it is implied by your strange logic.
This is your conclusion based off of your interpretation not mine. You cannot tell me what I mean or intend if you have absolutely no knowledge of what I am thinking. (unless you can read minds). This is NOT the Prospective that I believe nor is it my conclusion. It is you interpretation and conclusion based off of what I have said. How are you going to argue My Opinion?
You clearly are great at doing this. You belong in the court room. You right "So in your world..." no its not my world...you are making up your own ideas and claming they are mine by saying that thats what I INDIRECTLY meant.
You know what Ayamn, You INDIRECTLY like Grown Aborted babies because its a Trendy and cool thing to watch....
There you go with the contradictory nonsense again that a physical mark "has a lot to do with the believers and piety." You then contradict yourself again and admit that bad people will have the same exact mark as good guys. So you know that the physical mark is irrelevant and yet you insist on this nonsense. This is a sign that you are lost.
Your conclusion is 100% false. How do you know that they are "good muslims"? How about "good muslims" without the physical mark? Are they not as pious? It is NOT a combination. The physical mark is 100% irrelevant.
Call it what you will Ayman. There are Good Muslims who dont have the Prayer mark. (i dont have it)... I am just saying that that it is a Symbol.
Do you watch UFC and Boxing? There is a Symbol for fighters called "Colly Flower Ear". Not everyone who fights gets it.
But it is a badge of honor. It usually means that you have endured endless years of fighting...(and most people reach the conclusion that you are a Good Fighter because of it)However this is a Logical Fallacy. (yes I agree), because There are some guys who have Colly flower ear, and are STILL terrible at fighting. Yes they may have edured endless hours of fighting and training...But it becomes Irrelevant because somewhere down the line they lacked.
So in that respect...Yes it is Irrelevant for people like that.
But for All the fighters that I have ever meet in my life who have the colly flower ear....They are Great fighters.
(there are some a small minority who are great fighters and dont have it...But the Majority of GREAT fighters in the world...have colly flower ear...however this doent necessarily mean they are good fighters...You would say it is a coinsodence...Id say its a matter of Minority and Majority.The MAJORITY of great fighters have it....Key Word MAJORITY....so does majority mean irrelevant?
Irrespective of those debates, why would you wear those white sheets?
Those white sheets have a direct relation to the false pagan idea that you would return sinless like a newborn if you kiss the black stone and spin 7 times around a black cube.
I dont believe I will be sinless. and I dont believe in kissing the black stone.
Circling it and screaming Allah AKbar seems fun. So maybe thats why....because its fun. (and not haraam).The question is now that YOU KNOW that those are lies, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Are you going to continue to happily believe in spinning 7 times around a black box and kissing or weaving to a black stone while wearing white sheets?
So you know that wearing white sheets and spinning 7 times around a cube has nothing to so with what you know is the purpose of "hajj"! What are you going to do about it?
Nothing, I think its fun. I think its pretty cool and a fu thing to do....as long as I am not Praying to Another Allah, or making Partners to Allah...What is realy wrong with screaming Allah Akbar in the desert at a black Box?
Why not do the same at my own house with a bunch of people? or at a Concert? I think its fun and traditional....Its only haram when its Shirk.
Yes it is bad and HARAAM to take what you admit to have no knoweldge of and make it part of what the god has asked you to do. It is bad to follow blindly. Especially, in this case the white sheets and the spinning 7 times around a black cube have NOTHING to do with the purposes of "hajj" and have everything to do with the false purpose of "returning sinless like a newborn".
You keep saying how bad it is by attributing Pegan-beliefs into it...However If you take the pegan beliefs out...you know I could be right.
What is really Wrong with dancing around a box saying Allah Akbar? As long as its not shirk....i dont see what the matter is.As long as you arent doing Shirk, or Breaking Quranic Rules...I dont see how following ANY TRADITION can be haraam.
Its only Haraam when it breaks Quran rules and commits shirk...(right)?If me and a bunch of Free-minders decided to dance around a Campfire wearing Yellow Jump Suits....and Said Allah Akbar... would that be Haraam?
-
peace ths,
Thanks for your subjective psychological analysis and advice. I have some advice try and answer the questions you are asked when involved in a discussion, and not skip them, some examples
Can you provide a literal translation, so we can see if Lane is giving us the meaning of the phrase (because he understands the idiom).
You admit it is an idiom on one hand, yet seemingly imply it can be taken literally sometimes. Can you clarify exactly what your position is on this?
Also see bro Ayman's post for a similar point.
So there is a final meaning, and an intermediate meaning?
I recommend looking up the definition of "idiom" and how they work. In every example you gave the word in the idiom (dirt, tongue, head) is crucial in determining the meaning (this is simple logic to most, i.e. without the exact words in the phrase it is no longer an idiom and hence cant be taken as such, so the words are crucial). Again, you seem to be confusing the literal idiom and the intended meaning.
Wakaso you take it as such when it applies to humans, i.e. do they also "come crashing down". Please clarify this point exactly.
ths Yes. They fall to the ground eagerly. They fall swiftly as they weep.Are you implying your understanding is we should physically fall swiftly in prostration?!
This is EXACTLY what you are doing.
You are saying that XYZ does not mean ABC, and that shows there are no examples of ABC in XYZ.
No. My point to you is that no context (or by way of logic) of any of these occurrences shows it is a physical prostration, e.g. if in the following verse it said "and when on the ground praise your lord" or something like that then you'd have a point. It is classic circular reasoning
Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."
I took 'prayer' to mean dhikr, du3a2, salah, and worship in general?the English word prayer encompasses those things.
Thanks for the convenient clarification, but I repeat please answer it so we can see if your claim of "Sujood is overwhelmingly used in concordance with prayer" is correct or not.
The verse I quoted is not addressing anybody. It is making an example of previous messengers and prophets.
Read it again. I quote verse 1958Those are the ones whom God has blessed from amongst the prophets from the progeny of Adam, and those We carried with Noah, and from the progeny of Abraham and Israel, and from whom We have guided and chosen. When the revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fall down prostrating, and in tears.
It is a shame that a non-Arabic speaker such as myself has to correct you on basic Arabic. 1958 is addressing specific people. Not to mention the following verse 1959 makes it blatantly obvious by starting with "then succeeded after them successors who neglected...". But dont believe me, let us know what your expert in linguistics says about this.
Speaking of which, where did I "...has driven you to disrespect the friend that I mentioned above." ? Can you give me an example so I can see what you're talking about.But thanks for making me revisit 1958, as it implies "neglecting/losing the salat/bond and followed desires" is in contrast to "When the revelations of the Almighty are recited to them, they fall in SJD and in tears.". Perfect fit for my view on SJD and on salat/bond.
-
Wakas,
Let me quote myself,
I'm more than happy to discuss this and all issues with anybody in this forum, but I'll tell you here and now, that if you weren't taught to speak with respect in your childhood, then you'll learn it now for I'll respond this time, and if you continue with your condescending tone it'll be my last. If you can speak and respond as an adult, then I'm more than happy to continue discussing with you.
Did you think I was joking?
You know exactly what I'm talking about, because it's not your brain that's at fault, in fact your mind is sharp, it's your pride and narcissism. Because to stop doing what you're doing would mean to accept that you've made a mistake and lose face, so instead your going to act blind and continue.
This lack of maturity is why Ayman was able in a few sentences to describe the hypothesis that you weren't able to do in 5 posts. Why? Because you acted like you knew what you were talking about, when it was clear you didn't. You chose to argue, instead of being upfront and saying from the start you don't know Arabic, simply not to lose face.
That's also the reason why you continued to ignore the "kabbahul-sailu-lidhaqnihi" example, which made me think you were choosing to ignore it. You were choosing, but not because it doesn't fit your theory as I thought, but because you had no idea what I was talking about and didn't want to admit it.
"and, of a stone, kabbahu-l-sailu lidhaqnihi The torrent overturned it."
Literal translation Overturned it the torrent to its chin.
Kaf-Ba-Ba = To invert, overthrow, throw one with the face to the ground, throw face downwards, prostrate anyone on (the face), he prostrated him, he bent his head towards the ground, to fall down, turn a thing upside down,
So that's all I'm going to discuss with you this time Wakas, hopefully next time we come to discuss something you'll have matured a bit.
Salaam 3alaykum
Oh! I almost forgot!
It is a shame that a non-Arabic speaker such as myself has to correct you on basic Arabic.
It's not the Arabic that's at fault here, it's your understanding of English.
It's a pity that a non-native English speaker such as myself has to correct you on basic English, but "to address someone" means "to talk TO" someone, not "to talk ABOUT someone" as you seem to think.
The ayah does talk about prophets from the progeny of Adam, but it is not talking TO them.Peace Ayman,
Ayman I'll try to be as quick as possible since I'm in a rush (I'm travelling in a few hours for Easter). So I apologize for that.
Grammatically, the accusative word "sujjudan" in "yakhorruun lil2adhqaan sujjudan" names the action or manner of the verb preceding.
Yes I've noted that many times. No problem with that.
There could be two situations, either you fell in a physical hole or it is an idiom for falling in trouble.
Agreed.
Since it names the action that came before it, then if it was a physical action (i.e., literally falling in a physical hole) then "intact" must also be physical (i.e., with no broken limbs). On the other hand, if "fell in the hole" is an idiom for falling in trouble then "intact" is also an idiom and doesn't mean physically intact (i.e., with no broken limbs).
Agreed.
Because it describes the manner of the preceding action, it can't be literal while the action is idiomatic. So you can't say for example, that "fell in a hole" is an idiom but "intact" is physical meaning with no broken limbs.
Yes, but only in the example you've given.
You were right. It is an idiom (a poetic device). It follows that "sujjadan" names the action of the idiom yakhorruun lil2adhqaan. In other words, it describes how "they fell to the chins". So if "they fell to the chins" is an idiom as you admit then "sujjadan" is also idiomatic and is not physical.
The problem is that it can be an idiom, and still be physical. Because an idiom is anything that doesn't make sense if we translate each constituent element on its own.
And the example you've given doesn't really correspond with the example from the Quran, because it only has oneNow I wasn't able to describe my intuition any better than I've already done, so I googled the term in Arabic?and God only knows why I didn't think of doing that before.
The problem is that we should've started discussing this topic in Arabic right from the start instead of blundering about talking about idioms and not idioms.
Doing a quick search, I found 3 links of interest
http//www.alfaseeh.com/vb/showthread.php?7788-%DE%C7%E1-%CA%DA%C7%E1%EC-%ED%CE%D1%E6%E4-%E1%E1%C3%D0%DE%C7%E4-%D3%CC%CF%C7*
http//www.alhsa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87802
http//www.drmosad.com/index167.htm
The argument goes that it is a poetic device where the part (chin) describes the whole (face)
We have an example in this (from the 3rd link discussing the letter L in Arabic grammar) from the poetry of
(Pre-islamic poety and friend of Imru-l-qays)
The verse is as follows
And the resultant meaning is
( , ( ء ( .The explanation (from the 1st link) is thus
, ( ) ( ) .
(Rotation of prepositions - which the 3rd link goes into detail about)
Then he is asked
.. ( )
And the response
Then he notes on the repetition 2 verses later of yukhirruuna sujjadan
, , , , .
As in, the repetition serves a rhetorical purpose ( ة that I've tried to express all along. To put stress on khrr, and indicate the extent of the khudoo3 and khushoo3 they were feeling.
The first link also makes a note of the grammatical usage of the letter L (rotation of prepositions) as follows
I really apologize for the rushed response Brother Ayman, but I really have to go.
I'll be travelling all week, but I'll have my laptop with me so I'll try to check the discussion as it moves along.Also, I'd like Wakas to put some of that considerable time into translating the discussion in the first link, because it shows how a group of adults can come together and discuss a matter with maturity.
It's ironic that with all the abuse 'traditionalists' get on this forum, as being stupid, barbarians, pagans - they still manage to discuss things with the utmost civility, making them more 'muslim' in their manners and behaviour than most of the 'enlightened' people on this forum.Wassalaam 'Alaykum
-
peace ths,
not because it doesn't fit your theory as I thought, but because you had no idea what I was talking about and didn't want to admit it
You do realise I have online access right? So I can look up most Arabic words in google translate or an Arabic dictionary. So, is your above statement more likely, or is it the following...
"and, of a stone, kabbahu-l-sailu lidhaqnihi The torrent overturned it."
Literal translation Overturned it the torrent to its chin.
I had a very good idea on what it meant, but I wanted you to realise and everyone else how Lane translates the obviously idiomatic expression and gives us the intended meaning. The literal words of the idiom are CRUCIAL in getting the intended meaning, so not like your claim of "chin" means nothing/irrelevant, or whatever nonsense you claimed. There is nothing more powerful than seeing the truth for oneself. By asking you to translate it, I was aiming for this, whether it succeeds or not is another story. This example helps my case, not yours. Once again, I recommend re-reading on what an idiom is and how it is used. If unsure, ask your expert friend.
Here is what you said about 1958...
And there are a few verses saying that people should do sujood when hearing God's words
1958 When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping. (Kharruu sujjadan)Also,
1958 says, "when the signs of the all-merciful are recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping"
By your logic, we would have to weep every time we hear the quran - obviously not, because common sense applies.Because God tells us to physically prostrate upon hearing His words in 8421, 1958, and 3215
So there is the example for you of prophets and messengers crying when hearing God's words.
The verse I quoted is not addressing anybody. It is making an example of previous messengers and prophets.
Read it again. I quote verse 1958Note how you contradict yourself, i.e. you blatantly imply it is applicable to people in general or all the time, then admit it is addressing a specific people. And now you say
but "to address someone" means "to talk TO" someone, not "to talk ABOUT someone" as you seem to think.
The ayah does talk about prophets from the progeny of Adam, but it is not talking TO them.I NEVER claimed the verse talking TO them. I said the verse is referring to a specific people thus what it says is specific to them. Very simple to understand I would have thought.
Interesting how you clarify "to others" and "about others" when you interpret entering the gates in SJD, as SJD to others ;D
This lack of maturity is why Ayman was able in a few sentences to describe the hypothesis that you weren't able to do in 5 posts.
We were discussing many other things other than the grammar. But if it makes you feel any better, here is what I wrote before bro Ayman posted what he said to you
Tell us what your expert in Arabic linguistics says about the construction of 1958 etc in which khrr is a verb in the perfect tense and sjd is a noun. I'd be interested to know the implications of the grammar.
It is a similar construction to the point bro Ayman made.
And as for not being clear about not knowing Arabic, most people on the forum (or at least definitely long term members) know I have very little knowledge of Arabic, but knowledge of Arabic is irrelevant in most cases, as our discussion has shown. If you disagree, why dont you ask any long term member (e.g. bro Ayman) if they feel my lack of knowledge of Arabic holds me back to any significant degree. When a person has access to awesome Quran study tools, knowledge of Arabic is the least of their problems. First and foremost is sincerity/purity of heart, application of logic and thorough research (e.g. cross-referencing). Since I know my Arabic is not good, I stack the odds in my favour of being correct by utilising these things to the maximum when I can. God knows best.
-
Peace ths,
The argument goes that it is a poetic device where the part (chin) describes the whole (face)
This contradicts what you said earlier here about "kharruu lil2adhqaan" being the idiom
"From Lane's Lexicon, we can infer that the phrase "kharruu lil2adhqaan" can be used to denote anything falling over surprisingly/swiftly/eagerly/completely
It is a poetic device"You are changing your mind and repeating a traditional argument that only "lil2adhqaan" is the idiom and not "kharruu lil2adhqaan". The traditionalists probably realized very quickly what I have pointed in my previous post. Namely, that if one takes the "kharruu lil2adhqaan" as idiomatic then "sujadan" must also be idiomatic. So as usual, they resort to massacring the passage by taking each word individually out of context to divert attention to a tree away from the forest. This should have been an indication for the reader that he or she should be careful and not accept what the traditionalists are saying at face value without further thought.
The logic they present below for taking only "lil2adhqaan" as idiomatic doesn't hold up to scrutiny
We have an example in this (from the 3rd link discussing the letter L in Arabic grammar) from the poetry of
(Pre-islamic poety and friend of Imru-l-qays)
The verse is as followsAnd the resultant meaning is
( , ( ء ( .Here they compare the expression to the idiom of using a part to indicate a whole. However, this is a false analogy. If you read the poem carefully, the idiom is using the hands and mouth to indicate that the whole body fell. It is not using the hands and mouth to indicate that physically a different part of his body such as the knees fell.
In physical prostration the whole face doesn't actually fall to the ground but only the forehead does. The idiom would be the part (chin) to a whole (face) and not the part (chin) to another part (forehead). So if you say that "the chin" means that the whole face fell then "falling to the face" is actually another idiom and again cannot be physical. So what you are saying is that you have an idiom that is interpreted as yet another idiom, which is of course illogical.
But this is not the only problem. By taking the "kharruu" (fall/collapse) part away from the idiom, you are implying that they literally fall/collapse under the weight of gravity. In other words, if you take this physically then they are likely to break a few teeth or worse or at least get hurt and maybe have to get a few stitches.
You see the problem that the Sunni fellows were trying to solve is not the idiom but it is "lil2adhqaan" (to the chins). This is because they know that this is not how they do their physical prostration but they do it to the forehead. Unfortunately for them, physically, there is no logical problem or difficulty with prostration to the chin. If you bend your neck backwards and move your chin forward you can actually make your chin touch the ground while physically prostrating. You can easily try it if you don't believe me.
On the other hand, the physical difficulty is actually with "kharruu" (fall/collapse). So it doesn't make any sense to take the part that doesn't cause a physical absurdity as an idiom while taking the part that does cause a physical absurdity as literal. But if one takes the whole clause "kharru lil2adhqaan" as idiomatic then we are back to the fact that "sujjdan", which describes the manner of the preceding idiomatic action must also be idiomatic.
Now if you are interested in analysing the idiom in more depth, what you will notice as you physically prostrate to your chin is that it is physically impossible for the chin and the forehead to touch the ground at the same time. You have to either bend your head forward and make your forehead touch the ground or bend it backwards and make your chin touch the ground. So in terms of the image of physical prostration evoked by the idiom, the chin and the forehead (how the traditional prostration is done) actually have a contradictory relationship. The passage is essentially telling you on so many levels that whether you interpret it idiomatically or physically, break each word individually or put the words together, the traditional prostration to the forehead is not what is meant.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Ayman,
This contradicts what you said earlier here about "kharruu lil2adhqaan" being the idiom
You are changing your mind and repeating a traditional argument that only "lil2adhqaan" is the idiom and not "kharruu lil2adhqaan".
No I wasn't posing it as my own argument. Personally I feel that Lane's use of the idiom is more correct. I was posing this as new information that I had just found for everyone to mull over.
Here they compare the expression to the idiom of using a part to indicate a whole. However, this is a false analogy. If you read the poem carefully, the idiom is using the hands and mouth to indicate that the whole body fell. It is not using the hands and mouth to indicate that physically a different part of his body such as the knees fell.
Yeah I agree. I was rushing too much and hadn't noticed this. I was too pleased with the new information on rotation of prepositions.
Now if you are interested in analysing the idiom in more depth, what you will notice as you physically prostrate to your chin is that it is physically impossible for the chin and the forehead to touch the ground at the same time.
Come on Ayman?there's no need to state the obvious and insult my intelligence.
The passage is essentially telling you on so many levels that whether you interpret it idiomatically or physically, break each word individually or put the words together, the traditional prostration to the forehead is not what is meant.
I honestly believe that your interpretation is the less likely of the 2?and here's why
If we are to take your interpretation of this sentence, then we are to believe that the whole phrase is entirely idiomatic - i.e. the entire phrase put together means that they fell mentally hearing and obeying God (hearing and obeying is your interpretation of sujood right?), or their pride collapsed as they heard and obeyed God.
So that is 1 possibility. And by no means a bad one.
But if you're going to take this position, then you're also taking the position that Lane's Lexicon is entirely false when he states the following examples for kharruu lil2adhqaan
(of a stone)
These examples make perfect sense, and are consistent with what I've been saying.
So are there any other instances where you've disagreed with Lane's definitions?
Is this the first time?
And if you are disagreeing with it 100%, can you state why your interpretation is more likely to be correct?If I try to be as unbiased as I can be, and weigh the likelihood of the two possibilities, I come to the conclusion that Lane's examples here are more likely to be correct than yours.
This is because
-
Kharruu lil2adhqaan is repeated 2 verses later with bakiyyan - this ties it with an extreme state of khushoo3 and khudoo3 and lends it the meaning "to collapse", or "to fall to the ground swiftly or earnestly".
-
Looking at all the other examples of the usage of khrr in the Quran, (I listed them all here) it is never used as a metaphor, not even once, unless you count kharruu deaf and blind from 2573, for which there is an obvious explanation they physically prostrate but are deaf and blind when they do it, i.e. not focused at all on what they're doing.
Also, there are instances of the use of khrr that are 100% undeniably physical, such as 1990, 1626, 2231, 3414, etc etc.
Now, just to preemptively avoid you having to bring this up and then requiring a response from me I definitely do not believe that the Quran has one meaning for a word in every context. The Quran doesn't - it has different meanings in different contexts.
What I AM trying to say, is that there is no evidence of the word khrr being used as an idiom anywhere else in the Quran. This by itself is not enough evidence to prove my position, but it's one point in a group of points that together make the chance of the entire phrase being an idiom less likely.- If we take sujood to be the traditional prostration to the head, then it renders adhqaan here to obviously be an idiom. You can then argue that this is a circular argument. But you are taking sujood to NOT mean physical prostration to the forehead, and thus have to render kharruu lil2adhqaan to be an idiom altogether - an equally circular argument.
You see the problem that the Sunni fellows were trying to solve is not the idiom but it is "lil2adhqaan" (to the chins).
True, but aren't you doing the exact same thing? You don't like the literal meaning of prostrating to the chin either, and have thus rendered the whole passage as an idiom. So you can hardly blame the sunnis now can you?
- If you take this entire phrase to be an idiom, what is your position on 3215 (kharruu sujjadan), 3824 (kharra raaki3an wa2anaaba)? Are they idioms too? If so, have you then found an alternate meaning for raaki3an?
At the very least, Ayman, you have to admit that this argument is far from obvious, and that both sides could be argued till the cows come home. Personally I think a professional linguist should be consulted to see if Lane's examples were made up by himself and based on the verse in the Quran, or if he actually heard or read those examples in other poetry..
-
-
- Looking at all the other examples of the usage of khrr in the Quran, (I listed them all here) it is never used as a metaphor, not even once, unless you count kharruu deaf and blind from 2573, for which there is an obvious explanation they physically prostrate but are deaf and blind when they do it, i.e. not focused at all on what they're doing.
Completely incorrect. The Arabic CLEARLY states the falling/khrr is done upon the ayatin/signs, by the feminine pronoun "ha" in "alayha" !!!!!!
Not only that, your so-called obvious explanation can be refuted by logic, as it implies they in part heard the command to fall but not other parts. So can apparently hear&obey at first but not immediately after. Nonsense.- If we take sujood to be the traditional prostration to the head, then it renders adhqaan here to obviously be an idiom. You can then argue that this is a circular argument. But you are taking sujood to NOT mean physical prostration to the forehead, and thus have to render kharruu lil2adhqaan to be an idiom altogether - an equally circular argument.
No. A circular argument is one in which there is no other supporting evidence other than the claim itself. SJD not meaning physical prostration to the forehead is all over The Quran.
-
Wakas, as you've so many times preferred to accuse me of, you don't seem to able to read properly. I've told you several times that I'm in no mood to discuss this with you as
a) you don't seem to have been taught proper etiquette
b) you're more focused on proving me wrong than on finding the truth about anything in an amicable discussion amongst interested parties
c) you don't even know arabic, so your participating in this discussion...no, arrogant and stubborn ridiculing within this discussion, is as laughable as me telling a Chinese guy how to understand Chinese idioms - that are written in Chinese! Using google translate and a dictionary no less! And then mocking HIM! And then telling him HE's not understanding basic Chinese!
d) if you can't understand my above point then you're pride and obvious narcissism are clouding your judgment, and won't even allow you do admit that this is out of your scope, but you're continuing to mock and ridicule and make laughable comments like the above.If you want to understand more about Arabic prepositions, and find the answer to your insolently posed argument above, then feel free to stick this site into google translate http//vb.arabsgate.com/showthread.php?t=492742
And to learn proper etiquette and manners befitting a Muslim, stick this site into google translate http//www.alfaseeh.com/vb/showthread.php?7788-%DE%C7%E1-%CA%DA%C7%E1%EC-%ED%CE%D1%E6%E4-%E1%E1%C3%D0%DE%C7%E4-%D3%CC%CF%C7
Like I said before, I'm not going to waste any time hair-splitting the word "alayha" with you and all it's possible delineations...my explanation of that verse is 100% befitting the Arabic language. Translate the link and read it for yourself.
Salaam
P.S
-
One thing that baffles me is how can one debate or argue a point if they don't understand the language of the debate in the first place?
It's like you telling Bill Gates how to write a computer programme whilst you have never seen a computer in your life and are living in a remote village in the 1500's.
This is similar to me asking my staff member to make me a cup of tea including milk and sugar, and they come back telling me that my car tyre has a puncture which is parked in the parking lot, expecting me to accept this as the cup of tea, when everyone else in the world knows that the basics of tea include water, tea leafs/tea bags/tea granules.
Wakas, my dear friend, this is exactly how I see your interpretation of Sujood/Prostration. Absolutely ridiculous.
Peace
-
ths,
Thanks for once again giving us a subjective rant, now back to the discussion
I would be very interested to see how your interpretation of 2573 is 100% befitting the Arabic. Unfortunately, since you lack credibility in my view, I will wait to see if someone knowledgeable of Arabic confirms/denies your claim. If not, I will ask a professional Arabic linguist myself.
zulu, thanks for your subjective opinion. Unfortunately for you, Al Quran never says "those most knowledgeable of Arabic will understand it best" or similar. I'm glad it doesn't say this because if it did it would be a logical fallacy and thus disprove itself. However, this position assumes an underlying respect for logical argument.
-
Salaam
Now you as me has come to conclusion that blind obedience is blind,
and rituals is as most Muslims do, are just that BLIND. BUT...
There is a but, think about before and now, and the transformation you as me have gone through
in FAITH. The question is, are we closer to Allah now?Me I have never stopped reading and searching and trying out my spiritual life,
and with all my faults, I do think this is for a reason. Yes I do think the blind rituals is blind,
not necessarily bad, but blind. You tease me because I do pray the ritual prayers when I am with
Rahma, and soon you also will be with a new man, leading him to Islam.I have re-read "the Fourth way" (you need to buy it and study it, it will lead to many
understandings, so please buy it) and I have come to the conclusion that ritual prayer CAN also be a TOOL.Think of friends that have lost faith, they does not any more know what to do, how to connect,
and ritual prayer is such a tool for us that see it as this. How to "remember", how to submit, how to
bend and discipline ourself?? I have come to the conclusion that we do need tools.
Yes many put to much emphasis on the tool, but read the old "Sufis", how even them that were in a
more direct contact and was in deeper understanding, they still did the ritual prayers.
Ask ourself why??You may at first glance disagree with me, and laugh, that is OK, I am not afraid to see and say that
I have started to see things differently. When I saw my daughter, bend with her sister, for me
it was a revelation. WE do NEED this, yes we do.Also with spouse, we need to do some prayer, not the 5 or whatever, but at least every day, to
bend to His will, to KNOW that we ARE Muslims, we are a unity with all our faults, and I am sure you with
your understanding and background will free many from slavery, but lead to submission to Him.I know this seems strange, but I have given it much thought and asked for understanding. It is NOT
an easy way out, and I have no reason to please anybody, and I am sure the Muslims and Aidid Safar and all,
will call me a heretic. But our whole purpose is to search for truth and Him.So think about it and do not just pass a quick judgement, as whatever I say is not to mislead or twist anything.
Anyway, I am sure you will in time come to your own understanding, so May Allah guide us all.
Bahr
-
Salaam Bhr,
I assume by you mentioned the book The Fourth way You are reffering to G.I. Gurdijeff? Correct?
If so, I have not read the 4th way but however read half of PD Ouspenski's "In Search of the Miraculous", and am a little familir with Gurdijeff's using the Anagram (9pointed star) and Dancing as a tool to higher your Essence and destroy the ego.
I agree with your view of Prayer being used as a tool.
Conscious faith is freedom. Emotional faith is slavery. Mechanical faith is foolishness. -G.I. Gurdijeff
What did the fourth way say about Prostration/prayer?
-
I dont mean to sound like an idiot or ask a dumb question....
Many people say that Its impossible to pray towards Mecca (or any point on earth) because the Earth is a Sphere and your praying towards space...or somthing.
If this is true, Then why and How does a Quibla Compass work?
http//www.meccalocator.com/It caims to point the direction where Mecca (kabba) is located....so if this is Impossible...why does Mecca-locater point in a direction?
-
I recommend googling how a compass works.
Thanks Wakas, I am pretty sure how a REGULAR Compass works.
however, I am not sure how a Mecca Compass Works.
Because I suppose according to Most Free-minders....It is IMPOSSIBLE to Navigate your body towards the Direction of Mecca (or any place for that matter).
Apparently, It is Physically IMPOSSIBLE to turn towards Mecca.So, I am a bit confused. If I was sailing on a Boat in the Atlantic Ocean, I wonder if I could Sail towards Mecca with my Ipod MeccaLocator App.
If So, Then I suppose We can then say I can also Pray Towards Mecca using my MeccaLocator App.Correct or Incorrect?
-
It depends on what you mean. Technically, you will be facing or turning towards a random point in space, however if you were to travel in that direction on the surface of the spherical earth then eventually you'd reach Mecca, assuming you had accurate info, e.g. in the USA if one were even a degree off, then they can end up miles off Mecca, let alone the black cuboid.
Basically, even in practice we can glimpse the real reason behind facing a certain direction, because since it is near impossible to be exactly facing the black cuboid (unless one is very close to it) thus 99% of people will be off, so if exact physical direction was important, why is it so difficult to actually do? Thus, the point more likely lies in terms of unity/purpose/goal, not physicality. Of course, this is not even mentioning the problem of AQ itself putting a huge dent in this practice to begin with.
