My view on Salat
-
Salaam David,
First of all, namaz isn't an Arabic word. I don't understand why you use it as evidence that there is no ritual prayer in the Quran, since Persians and East Asians call it namaz....did it not occur to you that they simply call it namaz because that was their word for it? Arabic uses the word salah, and that is the word used in the Quran.
Secondly, namaz originally means "to bow" or "to prostrate". Doesn't it make perfect sense that the Persians and Indo-Aryan peoples called salah 'namaz' because they already had a word that perfectly described it?
Thirdly, when did this distortion happen exactly?
Quran aloners love (as do I) to point out to sectarians that Muhammad told his followers in a hadith not to write down anything from him other than the Quran.
Quran aloners also love to point out how Omar is said to have refused to allow hadiths to be written because Muhammad didn't want this.
So thus we have established that Quran aloners use hadiths for historical research. The hadiths undoubtedly have some truth to them, but have much corruption as well, and this is why we cannot trust them as a religious source.However,
why are there no hadiths, not a single one, that state how surprised everyone was when people began doing physical prayer out of the blue!?
If Muhammad can be trusted to have taught his followers how to pray, then we must assume that Muslims prayed correctly for some time, until this distortion happened. So let's say that all Muslims in what is now western Saudi Arabia, prayed correctly (ie, not physically) until Muhammad's death.
Then let us assume that this namaz distortion occurred when Persia was conquered and Islam spread eastwards. So what happened then? How come we don't have a single shred of historical evidence that shows us any sort of change happened whatsoever?
Surely we would have something from Omar or Abu Bakr or ANYONE of the multitudes of people who prayed with Muhammad say "oh yeah we never used to perform prayers like this with Muhammad, but I'm convinced this is the correct way."All I'm trying to point out to you David, is that as people in search of the truth, we must study history. There is a copious amount of research that we on freeminds have not done.
Currently I am doing research to find out when the aspects of traditional salah developed, and I believe that the greetings to the Prophet can be narrowed down to the influential scholar Shafe'i, who lived 100 years after Muhammad in western Arabia. He is known to have stated that no prayer is valid unless we pray for Muhammad and his family, so it is reasonable to assume that this tradition started from him.
The repetition of the fatiha can be traced to a hadith by Abi Hurayrah, who said that no prayer is valid unless the fatiha is recited in every rak'a.
But I have yet to come by a single mention, nor a single shred of historical evidence to assume that prayer was ever done in any other way other than physically.
-
Peace ths
First of all, namaz isn't an Arabic word. I don't understand why you use it as evidence that there is no ritual prayer in the Quran, since Persians and East Asians call it namaz....did it not occur to you that they simply call it namaz because that was their word for it? Arabic uses the word salah, and that is the word used in the Quran.
Yes, they use namaz because it is the word for Ritual prayer. But the concept of ritual prayer (which is called namaz) is totally different from the concept of salat. Actually Ritual prayer has nothing to do with salat, and nothing to do with the quran. But Ritual prayer has everything to do with sunnism and zoroastrianism.
Secondly, namaz originally means "to bow" or "to prostrate". Doesn't it make perfect sense that the Persians and Indo-Aryan peoples called salah 'namaz' because they already had a word that perfectly described it?
See what i wrote in one of my posts is in this thread
And when it comes to Rukoo and Sajda, Rukoo is to bow down the laws of god, while Sajda is to fall down for these laws completely. So Rukoo is to accept the laws of God, and Sajda is to follow the laws of god. Many people think the word Rukoo and Sajda are physical movements where you should bow down your body throw yourself down. However, the fact is that these words have metaphorical meanings, not literal. So the meaning of the word Sajda is metaphorical and the meaning of the word Rukoo is metaphorical.
As you can see from what I wrote above, the meaning of the word Rukoo (bow down) and Sajda (prostrate) is wrong. The word Rukoo = Accept. And the word Sajda = Surrender.
Quran aloners love (as do I) to point out to sectarians that Muhammad told his followers in a hadith not to write down anything from him other than the Quran.
Quran aloner is a label that does not exist in the Quran. Hence, it is uncompatible with the Quran. I have never been a Quran aloner and I will never be a Quran aloner. Quran aloner is a false label. Those who follow islam based on Quran are either muslims or mumins. We are adviced to follow God alone (monotheism)
Quran 2135
They said, "Be Jews or Nazarenes so that you may be guided!" Say, "No, rather the creed of Abraham, monotheism; for he was not of those who set up partners."35Quran 367
Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Nazarene, but he was a monotheist who peacefully surrendered; he was not of those who set up partners.Quran 4125
Who is better in the system than one who peacefully surrenders himself to God, and is a good doer, and he followed the creed of Abraham in monotheism? God took Abraham as a friend.Quran 16123
Then We inspired to you "You shall follow the creed of Abraham, monotheism, and he was not of those who set up partners".The hadiths undoubtedly have some truth to them, but have much corruption as well, and this is why we cannot trust them as a religious source.
Hadiths can be used as a source of history if they do not contradict Quran etc. But as you probably know, hadiths can never be used as a source of law in islam (not be used for the Salat). The Quran contains all the laws we should follow.
How come we don't have a single shred of historical evidence that shows us any sort of change happened whatsoever?
Because the generations who came later, lost salat
Quran 1959
Then, generations came after them who lost the contact prayer, and followed desires. They will find their consequences.And because the enemies of the prophets inspired fancy words to eachother to deceive the people
Quran 6112
And as such, We have permitted the enemies of every prophet mankind and Jinn devils to inspire each other with fancy words in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.All I'm trying to point out to you David, is that as people in search of the truth, we must study history. There is a copious amount of research that we on freeminds have not done.
I agree. History is important. However, there are things in Quran that may not be supported by history (at least we don't have the historical source for those things yet), but that does not mean that we should dismiss those things.
Currently I am doing research to find out when the aspects of traditional salah developed, and I believe that the greetings to the Prophet can be narrowed down to the influential scholar Shafe'i, who lived 100 years after Muhammad in western Arabia. He is known to have stated that no prayer is valid unless we pray for Muhammad and his family, so it is reasonable to assume that this tradition started from him.
I think this research is important. Interesting information about the scholar Shafe'i. Keep us updated if you find more interesting information about the history of traditional salat.
But I have yet to come by a single mention, nor a single shred of historical evidence to assume that prayer was ever done in any other way other than physically.
All the evidence we need is in the Quran. I have yet to come by a single historical evidence of Aad, but that does not mean that Aad didn't exist.
The Quran is detailed and complete. History is important when it comes to many things in the quran. History can back up quranic claims. However, the quran explains itself, and therefore I think Salat should be answered by the Quran alone. The quran has all the evidence we need.
-
All I'm trying to point out to you David, is that as people in search of the truth, we must study history. There is a copious amount of research that we on freeminds have not done.
Currently I am doing research to find out when the aspects of traditional salah developed, and I believe that the greetings to the Prophet can be narrowed down to the influential scholar Shafe'i, who lived 100 years after Muhammad in western Arabia. He is known to have stated that no prayer is valid unless we pray for Muhammad and his family, so it is reasonable to assume that this tradition started from him.
The repetition of the fatiha can be traced to a hadith by Abi Hurayrah, who said that no prayer is valid unless the fatiha is recited in every rak'a.
But I have yet to come by a single mention, nor a single shred of historical evidence to assume that prayer was ever done in any other way other than physically.
sounds like an interesting topic, do share what you find.
-
But I have yet to come by a single mention, nor a single shred of historical evidence to assume that prayer was ever done in any other way other than physically.
This is not 'evidence' for anything. I would've thought we'd have learned by now how unreliable 'islamic history' really is. In most ways it seems to be an outright fabrication. Yet, we find the 'history' to be trustworthy?! These are the same sources that teach us that a 60+ year old nabi consummated with a girl who hadn't even had her first menstrual cycle...
All I'm trying to point out to you David, is that as people in search of the truth, we must study history
That's all well and good, but you will never attain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, using this approach. Truth is realized upon seeing the full picture, not the glimpse of a picture. I am not saying to disregard it completely. I just think It needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. This is really a big reach here, in an attempt to 'prove' the traditional prayers.
The hadiths undoubtedly have some truth to them, but have much corruption as well, and this is why we cannot trust them as a religious source.
A) Unreliable is unreliable. There is no such thing as 'well you are unreliable for x, but sorta-reliable for y!' That's nonsensical, bro.
B) Yes most books/stories/narrations have 'some truth in them'. This does not mean that they are a reliable source for ANYTHING.
C) Subjective criteria. -
peace ths,
Sounds interesting. Let us know what you find.
Although, I would say one thing, your regular use of "physical" implies you may not have understood the original post in this thread. This has been commented on before, e.g.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597865.msg193643#msg193643 -
Peace Wakas, all
I read the post in your link. I agree that salat is not only mental or only physical. Everything we do both has a mental and a physical side. For example, when an athlete is running, he is running both mentally and physically. Thinking that salat is only physical or non physical is a black and white view. However, as most long term members know, Ritual prayer (even dough it is both and physical and mental act) has nothing to do with the Quran.
-
Salaam Wakas,
Will do. My only problem is getting my hands on the information I'm looking for...I don't really fancy a read through Shafe'i's or al-Ghazali's collected works, for example, so the research is coming along slowly...I started it a few months ago. I've been trying to find hadith scholars of whom I could ask some questions, but one doesn't run into those every day.
And I understand what you mean about the physical/nonphysical classification in salah. I just call it physical because some people believe that the words sujood and rukoo3 are emotional/mental actions only, whilst I believe they are both emotional and physical. Also, most people on the forum argue that there is no "ritual prayer" in the Quran when what they mean is that there is no physical sujood where the forehead is placed on the ground...but their definition of salah is still a ritual regardless of that opinion.
So I think we should get a proper classification of what we're describing here
ALL salah = a ritual. Unless you believe that there are no timed prescriptions for salah.
ALL salah = prayer. Because even if you don't think someone needs to bow down and prostrate in salah, it is still a form of prayer, in my opinion.
Mental/Emotional salah = sujood and rukoo3 are emotional actions only
Physical salah = sujood and rukoo3 are emotional/mental AND hold the traditional physical connotations.That's how I use the terms, but don't mind switching if anyone can define the arguments better.
Salaam David,
Yes, they use namaz because it is the word for Ritual prayer. But the concept of ritual prayer (which is called namaz) is totally different from the concept of salat. Actually Ritual prayer has nothing to do with salat, and nothing to do with the quran. But Ritual prayer has everything to do with sunnism and zoroastrianism.
The point I was trying to make was that the Persians and Indo-Aryan groups that converted to Islam called the prayer namaz because that is what they observed the Muslims doing, not the other way around.
Frequently people who argue of a Zoroastrian "influence" argue that the Muslims conquered Persia, and then for whatever reason started doing their prayers like the Zoroastrians did them. What I'm trying to say is, it happened the other way around - the prayer was already similar, and the Persians named it namaz because that word already meant what they saw the Muslims doing.
As you can see from what I wrote above, the meaning of the word Rukoo (bow down) and Sajda (prostrate) is wrong. The word Rukoo = Accept. And the word Sajda = Surrender.
There is ample historical evidence to show that the Arabs knew what these words meant, before Islam.
This is extremely important.
Why?
Because the Quran was sent down in the language of the Arabs, and therefore we must ascertain what these words meant to the people from whose language the Quran was created. God did not send the Quran down to the Arabs with words they knew and recognized, but with meanings they did not.
If we are to believe that, then every single word in the Quran could mean whatever we want it to mean.From Encyclopaedia of the Quran, Vol. 4 Page 219
The Quran attests that prostration met strong opposition among Arabs (2560, 6842-3) and that pride was the cause of this opposition (7206, 1649, 3215)
Sujuud was known among the peoples of the Middle East in pre-Islamic times as a gesture of respect at royal courts and as an act of adoration in Christian worship. Pre-Islamic poetry cites a few examples of prostration (sujuud) before a tribal chief in recognition of his superiority and as an expression of one?s submission (cf. Tottoli, Muslim attitudes, 5-34).
The act of prostration hurt the pride (q.v.) of the Arabs (Q 2560; 7206; cf. 1649; 3215; 6842-3) because it appeared to them as a humiliating gesture and an alien practice (cf. Kister, Some reports, 3-6).The Meccans did not object to this practice because they themselves were used to praying near the Kaaba after sunrise. In addition, it was the custom of the Bedouins coming to town early in the morning to sell their wares, to extol God (takbr) and bow in prayer (sujd) at the Kaaba after completing their business in the markets (q.v.). As the sun sank toward the horizon, however, Muhammad and his companions had to scatter secretly in the ravines on the outskirts of Mecca to pray the afternoon prayer (salt al-'asr) before sunset (cf. Q 1031 for the use of 'asr in an oath).
-- From this information we can gather that prostration was well known to the Arabs prior to Islam. And that they disliked it because they were too proud to make such obviously humbling obeisance. Therefore, you cannot come 2000 years later and assign whatever meanings you feel like assigning to these words.
-- Secondly, the words 'accept' and 'surrender' already have Arabic words for them, used in the Quran. Accept is taqabbalah (q-b-l) and Surrender is istislam (s-l-m)
Quran aloner is a label that does not exist in the Quran...
I know that. You're preaching to the choir here. Nor do I ever refer to myself as such. I was just trying to define a group of people who reject the notion that hadiths be used for religious law, and wanted to point out that they like to use hadiths for historical investigation - for which they can and should be used.
If I had said "Muslims love to point out to sectarians that Muhammad..." then you wouldn't have had a clue what I was talking about, now would you?
Hadiths can be used as a source of history if they do not contradict Quran etc
No, hadiths can be used as a source of history regardless of whether they contradict the Quran or not. Hadiths are a reflection of the prevalent beliefs of the time, and their corruption is a reflection of the divinity of the Quran. For example, there is a hadith that says the world is resting on a bull's head, and earthquakes happen when the bull shakes its head.
This is a useful hadith to see what people in Arabia during the 7th century thought of the world, but contradicts teachings in the Quran.
It is even possible that Muhammad might have said such a thing! The important thing to note is that it (and others like it) never ended up in the Quran.All the evidence we need is in the Quran. I have yet to come by a single historical evidence of Aad, but that does not mean that Aad didn't exist.
No, we need MUCH more evidence than the Quran. We need Arabic dictionaries, we need historical texts written by early Muslims. It is all important. We have to know what pre-Islamic Muslims did and thought. It is all useful information.
Also, I remember reading that there is historical information relating to Aad, such as a contemporary Greek or Roman text mentioning it.
Salaam Jack,
This is not 'evidence' for anything. I would've thought we'd have learned by now how unreliable 'islamic history' really is. In most ways it seems to be an outright fabrication. Yet, we find the 'history' to be trustworthy?! These are the same sources that teach us that a 60+ year old nabi consummated with a girl who hadn't even had her first menstrual cycle...
Well, first of all, I believe the hadiths state that the marriage was consummated after she reached appropriate age....so you might want to recheck that.
Secondly, I am amused by the fact that you think history doesn't matter. I wonder if you still feel that way when a discussion comes up about the location of the Hajj, and whether or not Jerusalem or Mecca were meant to be the direction of the qibla.
Thirdly, I am not only talking about researching hadiths. I'm talking about the huge corpus of existing texts and writings of people of that time. Not just Muslims, but Syriac Christians who wrote down their observations of the Muslims, Egyptian Copts who mentioned Muslim habits, Western academic scholarship isn't limited to hadiths, it looks for historical and archaeological evidence. That's what I'm talking about, and the first descriptions of Muslims that we have from non-Muslims, also corroborate what I've said about salah and sujood.
A) Unreliable is unreliable. There is no such thing as 'well you are unreliable for x, but sorta-reliable for y!' That's nonsensical, bro.
B) Yes most books/stories/narrations have 'some truth in them'. This does not mean that they are a reliable source for ANYTHING.
C) Subjective criteria.Unreliable for religious law =! unreliable for historical evidence. I'm sorry if you can't undertand that, but you're taking a very fundamentalist approach to history and hadiths here. 6th century texts by Syriac travelers on the habits of Muslims isn't something I'd use on a religious basis, but it IS something I'd use to make a historical argument.
We love to point out to hadith followers that Muhammad demanded no one transcribe hadiths about him. We also like to point out how Zayd refused to write hadiths and that Omar was going to write hadiths but didn't. So let us not balk at the use of hadiths for historical research in this particular instance.
We are told in hadiths that Aysha didn't like Abu Hurayra, that Hassan called Omar a liar, etc etc. But not one single mention of prayer being changed. We are even told how the Prophet liked to urinate! So clearly the collectors were not shy of drama-enducing hadiths such as those, so they wouldn't have shied away from other controversial hadiths.
Secondly, the hadiths and other writings from that specific time period give us a lot of information on how people prayed and worshiped. The fact that not one single person thought to mention that prayer changed after the death of Muhammad is very telling.
Thirdly, Western scholars have been pivotal in bringing doubt upon the traditional interpretation of Islamic history, the importance of hadiths, the importance of Mecca, etc etc. But there is no single Western scholar that I have come upon who doubts the accepted meaning of sujood and salah.
You may be interested in looking up Roberto Tottoli's Early Muslim Attitudes Towards Prostration, Studia Islamica 88, and The Origins of Muslim Prayer, a phD study by Justin Hienz, which is available online, and which corroborates the evidence that the Arabs already knew what sujood was prior to Islam, and which is an interesting read in itself.
So far, everything I've read from Western academic scholarship, and from Islamic hadiths, lore, and contemporary writings of the time, indicate that there is zero doubt that Muhammad prayed by performing physical actions in concordance with the emotional and mental aspects of prayer, and that this prayer is largely how modern Sunnis pray.
Whether or not Muhammad himself was influenced by Jewish prayer from Arabian Jewish tribes, Christian prayer from the cousin of his wife, Waraqa, or Zoroastrian prayer from Salman the Persian, one of his earliest followers - is another matter entirely.
Having said all this, I'm still digging, and if I find anything, I shall not fear to change my view and let freeminds know about it.
-
peace ths, all,
I do not see the need to have formal classification, we simply need to be accurate when we are discussing.
Firstly, when looking at sources discussing "muslims" or pre-Islamic practice, please bear in mind what extant script they are taking their information from. As far as I'm aware, almost all of the sources describing early "islam/muslims" are from about two centuries later. Interspersed amongst this are occasional mentions of the early period from "non-muslim" sources.
Secondly, when a text says "sujud" and the interpreter translates that as "prostration" that doesn't prove anything. And lastly, the Encyclopedia quotes you provided implied it meant "prostration" in one and "bow" in the other.
-
Salaam Wakas,
The important thing to note is that the prostration of Christians and Jews of the time was called sujood by Arabs. I've come across several Western academics now who state this.
The phd study I mentioned, which is a secular study (ie. they take the view that everything comes from humans, and not from God) says this right on the first page
Conclusions reached indicate that ritual washing was influenced by Jewish and Zoroastrian practice. Prostration was likely an influence from indigenous Arabian traditions and not from Jewish and Christian traditions, as previous studies have concluded. Direction faced during prayer was an influence stemming from the Jewish tradition. Number of times prayer is performed throughout the day was primarily a Zoroastrian influence, while other traditions also likely had some influence.
The point is that if we can prove that Arabs called prostration sujood, then it becomes evermore unlikely that sujood would mean anything other than prostration..
If sujood meant something else when it came down from the Quran, then there would be some kind of evidence somewhere that scholars would have picked up in the intervening 2000 years, but there is simply no mention anywhere. -
peace ths,
If sujood meant something else when it came down from the Quran, then there would be some kind of evidence somewhere that scholars would have picked up in the intervening 2000 years, but there is simply no mention anywhere.
You mean other than Classical Arabic Dictionaries and The Quran? )
Thanks for the info in that study. I have read similar in various books.
-
Peace,
And Salat is the method/mission/programming that enables the worker bee to do its tasks (tasbih) mentioned above.
When we approach the concept of salat, we should not see it as black and white (either Ritual prayer or nothing at all). To believe that salat is Ritual prayer, is like looking at one little cloud while ignoring the whole sky. This is a one-dimensional view. When we approach the concept of salat, we should be concerned with the whole. Salat can be compared to a huge tree. The tree is only one, but it has many branches. Salat can be compared to a tree, while tasbih can be compared to the branches of the tree. Salat is the method for every creature in the universe (2441). Hence, Salat is a Universal concept. From my understanding of the Quran, if we follow our Salat (the purpose of our lives), we will evolve and reach the next stage in the next life.
David, i mostly agree with your view on Salat, as i have come to similar conclusions regarding some aspects of Salat.
There's just this one thing, apparently a quite important part in your exposition --i don't find your rendering of SbH/tasbiH to be literally accurate. You translated tasbiH as "task". I think this or this will more or less explain what you mean by task, CMIIW. I don't know for sure, but there could be another word in AQ that is more related to this concept, related to obligation/responsibility etc. However, from Lane's sbH entry
sibaAHat signifies "coursing along upon water without immersion of oneself"
sabH also signifies "the /running/ of a horse"
~yasbaHuwna~ "All (glide/) travel along swiftly, like the swimmer upon the surface of the water"
~yasbaHuw~ "Such a one busies himself in going to and fro"
sabHa~ "He occupies himself according to his own judgement/discretion in the accomplishment of his needful affairs"
...We can see that the original concept of sbH is more closer to swimming, gliding, floating, moving swiftly/continuously/gracefully. The pattern here is of a continuous motion or continuous movement--not dropping, falling or drowning, not fluctuating wildly, but instead the one who's in motion is floating/gliding stably and swiftly in his course (e.g. like a swimmer or a running horse).
The word "course" for the bird's tasbiH in 2441 is therefore more accurate, though i'd prefer "flow" or something similar, to suggest the "movement" instead of the "path/route" taken.
So, if you want to relate this sbH concept to the word "task", then i think the emphasis should be on the continuous/flowing motion through the tasks/deeds/actions (without stopping/breaking the flow e.g. to engage in utterly useless things ~ hmm, talking about procrastination -X ~ of course a good break is always a useful thing when you're feeling stuck, so that could be categorized as "part of the flow" peace.
Other examples related to sbH to our rabb/his names--i'm sure you're familiar with these
sabbiH Asma rabbika ...
fa sabbiH bi Hamdi rabbika ...Just as the birds/bees following their own "flow", we are commanded --for our own sake-- to continuously hold the Asma/names of our Rabb (as guidance/inspiration/reference) through day and night, morning and afternoon etc. Then for us, the tasbiH is in continuously observing, referring to, and applying (or taking lesson/inspiration from) the best names of our Rabb into our daily actions. As for exactly how to practice this--personally i need to investigate these verses more carefully, but i hope you get my point. For example, it could be as simple as observing the name "Sustainer", "originator", then taking inspirations from how some little bit of nature efficiently solves its problems, and then you obtain an idea to solve your own problem. Sounds cliche -[ but really isn't that how science work?
For your tree analogy, then, i think its Salat is in the sustenance of its life, while its tasbiH is in every flow/movement happening continuously in its system (transportations, respiratory, syntheses, growth etc). For us, ... quite similar! After all, this concept of continuous/flowing movement pattern will be even more fitting to your view on Salat, imho. What d'you think?
