salat = prayer? How do you explain this then...
-
7-143
...When he awoke, he said "Glory be to You, I repent to You and I am the first of those who believe."
Were there no believers before Moses?
Peace Jack@
A more coherent understanding of the passage in question would be that Moses declared himself to be the first of the "acknowledgers" i.e. he acknowleged that G-D cannot be seen (by mortals).
SLM
-
Amen means to realize or make something a particular way through realization and not believe. Moses realized as a consequence of the experience.
And the lesson is that God has no form or shape, or time and place, but it omnipresent and in control of every atom. Moses realized this among other things. He was repentant because he had already known the nature of God but was still testing God due to some doubt inside him. After this he had realized for sure.
Salaam
-
Peace MOF,
hope everything is going well your way.
As far as i know, derivatives of the (semitic) root mn ( ن can denote various meanings (depending on the context), including acceptance, acknowledgement, trust, confidence, conviction, assurance, safety, security
My (current) understanding is that mana (َ means To acknowledge (ie. accept as true, real, or factual). Its 'direct antonym' (in the Qurn) is kafara (َ which means To deny (ie. reject as untrue, unreal, or fictional)
Ps imo, Mose's request was not initiated by "doubt"
but curiosity.SLM
-
Yes Hicham. You are right. Moses was curious. But apparently he did not understand that Allah cannot be seen visually hence his question. His response is that now he realizes about the nature of Allah. I doubt the Rabb really sought to hurt Moses due to his innocent question though, but the Rabb probably shook the mountain pretty well.
I do find amen to be more of a realization than to acknowledge something, even if both realization and acknowledgement can be considered related to each other. However, I find realization to be more versatile and fit for the usage in whole Quran.
If you have for example , used several times in the shorter surahs, then it speaks of having a (substantial) realization, e.g. "Aha! I understand/realize (this) now". This is also as I perceive how Moses responded the Rabb in the ayah in question.
Kafar is slightly more controversial than yours. I feel it implies more on the production of something than to cover something up, suppress or deny. The Rabb is furious about blasted fabricators than of someone who chooses to disbelieve. The hateful passages towards kafaroon are simply disproportionate to their failure to realize there is a "higher intelligence". On the other hand I can give empathy and sympathy to the Rabb for anger with fabricators, i.e. a person who either lies or bases his or her foundation on conjecture.
Anyway, we both hopefully do the will of the Rabb and we dispute on mere formalities. I have some different perception considered the being of Allah and that is rather than treating the Rabb separately I claim that we should be absorbed in what is Allah and thus synchronously do the will of Allah rather than exist separately ourselves. I see no use in projecting Allah as an image of anything in Heaven or Earth since Allah is all existence.
Most people on the forum think this or that about my regard of Allah which Rabb I do the will of wholeheartedly in spite of what people think.
And I take do mean submission and to be confident/reliant/safe/whole/peaceful/harmonious. Aslama Lrabb is to trust (have faith in) the Rabb. It all circulates around faithfulness. Faith is security and you put your security to Allah. That is still not submission by definition but to depend on Allah.
Ok highly my controversial argument, but as according to me is "Conscious To Thereof" (where "thereof" obviously depends on context/mental image). I worked for months to reach an understanding and personal consensus on that and this is the present one. But it can, if right, testify that Salam means you have something to depend on, a shelter, safety.
Not sure why it is so twisted up, but it seems like someone knew what the text was supposed to say but mixed up the words.
But of course, you may as most everyone else consider it conjecture. I wish you salam anyway.
Salaam
-
can you please explain exactly what this apparent 'most powerful argument' is?
See
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htmSince writing the article, the only somewhat plausible explanation given, albeit weak in my view, is that these verses are referring to an exception to no compulsion in deen/etc. If one can accept such a critical exception being mentioned in an indirect manner, and having no precedence in Quran, then fair enough - each to their own view.
-
Prayer is one of the central elements of Islamic practice and worship. Indeed, it is the second of the Five Pillars of Islam and, along with the testimony of faith, the pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting the month of Ramadan and paying the poor tax, forms the essential framework of religious life for Muslims.
-
Prayer is one of the central elements of Islamic practice and worship. Indeed, it is the second of the Five Pillars of Islam and, along with the testimony of faith, the pilgrimage to Mecca, fasting the month of Ramadan and paying the poor tax, forms the essential framework of religious life for Muslims.
May God increase your knowledge and may you start seeking the truth in an unbiased manner.
-
One thing to consider is that "al mushrikeen" doesnt mean "polytheists" (per se as per an English dictionary definition.) Shias and Sunnis are mushrikeen since they set up idols next to God and uphold hadith and the so-called sunna and sharia - sunnas/ways and sharias/laws other than that of God! Mushrikeen as described in the Quran did know that God was the creator of the heavens and the earth. They just set up idols beside Him. You could similarly replace them with "Sunnis" in that verse. Can Sunnis not do "al salat" ?either in the sectarian "Islam" way or in the way of upholding God's law and/or reciting The Reading - just because they are mushrikeen/idolators?
See 2961-2965, 1635
See 835 which mentions that ingrates/disavowers engaged in salat but did so insincerely.Also, The Reading mentions the command to follow the creed of Abraham frequently - perhaps the people at the time knew of him and salat?
That being said, this is not to prove that salat = ritual prayer as sectarians do. However, what is so hard to understand/believe that mushrikeen can recite the Quran and turn towards peacefulness and stop agresssing in the deen (peacefulness) by upholding their oaths in the truce/peace treaty? Or even to just recite The Reading regularly or something related to monotheism/peacefulness that could benefit their life?
I do see that 910-12 can be seen in different ways either that they became monotheist or simply that adopted peace/peacefulness or something else they learned through hearing the words of God (96) since they were agressive before and now switch to peacefulness.
910 They neither respect the ties of kinship nor a pledge for any those who acknowledge. These are the transgressors
911 If they repent, and they hold the salat, and they bring forth the zakat, then they are your brothers in the deen. We explain the revelations for a people who know.
The deen is peacefulness.
912 If they break their oaths after their pledge, and they taunt and attack your system; then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.
Since they reverted to war and aggression and rejected peacefulness, they went back on their oaths and are those kafirs mentioned.
Attacking monotheists/mumineen makes one a kafir. These verses may not mean that they were mushrikeen throughout - and most certainly not all of them were kafirs/ingrates/disavowers.
Another verse to note from before this is
96 If any of those who have set up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.
Perhaps this is related to engaging in salat and upholding peacefulness and thus bringin gabout self-development/self-improvement/purification/betterment/zakat.
Furthermore, why can't TWB mean turning to God? Just because "they" is used to refer to the same group as mushrikeen and then positively doing salat and then negatively again breaking their oaths -why does this have to imply that they are still in a state of being mushrikeen while doing salat? Perhaps it can also mean turning to the truth by reading The Reading and also by upholding peacefulness without accepting all that it entails to be one who trusts/mumineen and upholding everything in the Reading.
-
Shirk means to be associated, and the word can be used positively as well as negatively. It is not necessarily wrong being Mushrikeen depending on in what context.
Be well
Qarael Amenuel -
I have read the verses again and have made some new inferences. I will present my new findings and interpretation. It is helpful if we look at these verses in phases and first agree on certain premises and principles.
Premises and principles
a. the "deen" is peacefulnessb. those who believe in God can set up partners with God. You can live your whole life thinking you believe when in fact you are an idolator.
c. those who set up partners are not necessarily disavowers ("kafireen" - if they fight the monotheist believers, they become/are referenced as such
d. people who set up partners are free to do so without getting a punishment
e. the only time believers/trusters are allowed to fight them is in self-defense and in pursuit to end oppression
f. no person shall bear the burden of another
g. God is most wise and most merciful
What we will see
God is in fact being very merciful and giving the idolators a very fair chance.Phase 1 Cease and desist, aggressors!
91 This is an ultimatum from God and His messenger to those who set up partners with whom you had entered a treaty.
92 Therefore, roam the land for four months and know that you will not escape God, and that God will humiliate the ingrates.
The meat of the ultimatum
93 A declaration from God and His messenger to the people, on this, the day of the greater debate/convention/hajj "That God and His messenger are free from obligation to those who set up partners (al mushrikeena.)" If you (plural) "tubtum," then it is better for you, but if you "tawalla"/turn away, then know that you will not escape God. Promise the those who disavowed (alatheena kafaroo) a painful retribution.The exception to the ultimatum/retribution and explanation of what happened - the reason for the ultimatum
94 Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall fulfill their terms until they expire. God loves the observant.Summary of Phase 1
a. Clearly this is a warning to those who set up partners - a warning in the sense that idolators still have the chance to "tubtum" i.e. return to what is right, repent from their aggression.b. The reason for the ultimatum is given in 94 - idolators attacked the believers/trusters and thus/and broke their oaths.
c. Notice the change of how God calls them "mushrikeena" first and then in the instance that they do not "tubtum" He calls them "alatheena kafaroo" because it is talking abouth te consequences of these people not accepting the ultimatum/their old oath/treaty. We have clearly established that they are an aggressive group and are disavowers if they continue and must be attacked.
d. They are to be attacked as per the law of self-defence if they do not accept the ultimatum, which is only there in the first place because of their aggression.
e. Notice that this is still during the restriction. Believers are not told to fight them yet. In fact, peace and justice is sought.
f. There is nothing unfair here. They are the aggressors. God is giving them a chance - and not their last chance at that! Indeed, God is the Most Merciful.
Phase 2 The consequences of aggression, but forgiveness for those who do not wish to fight the trusters/"believers" and even for those who desist after wanting to fight
95 Once the restricted months have passed, then you may kill/confront/fight those who have set up partners wherever you find them, take them, surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they taboowa, aqeemu al salat, and atawoo al zakat, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
Again, an exception is given
96 If any of those who have set up partners seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the words of God, then let him reach his sanctuary. This is because they are a people who do not know.
97 How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger? Except for those with whom you made a pledge near/during/in the presence of al masjid al haram. As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the observant.
98 How is it that if they ever defeated you they would neither respect neither any rights of kinship nor any pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts deny, and most of them are corrupt.
99 They trade away God?s revelations for petty gains and hinder people from His path. They spread inequity/are vicious.
910 They neither respect the ties of kinship nor a pledge for any those who acknowledge. These are the transgressors.
911 If they return to good/repent ("tawaboo", and they uphold the salat, and they bring forth/give/cause the zakat, then they are your brothers in the system/doctrine (i.e. peacefulness.) We explain the signs for a people who know.
Summary of Phase 2
a. Those who are not part of the exception of returning to good/repenting, shall be fought as per 95
b. Even then, those who do not aggress in phase 2 are given yet another chance They may seek protection and hear the "words of God" - can also mean "command of God" - this could very well include the overall message of peace, upholding your oaths, etc. Note It only says hearing the word of God. It does not say they need to make obeaisance/submission/acknowledgement ("sujjud" - they are guaranteed safe passage.
c. It is emphasized that the idolators do not regard their pledges nor ties, would not be as just as God and the "mumineen" and most/a significant amount are not peaceful/honest. The bad ones are referred to as "transgressors" - not the good ones.
d. After transgressing twice in phase 2, they can still have forgiveness! However, this time they will need, in addition to "tawaboo," uphold the salat and bring forth the zakat. The way this can be understood is that they need to formally meet with the believers and the messenger and they will hear God's words. They would need to make "sujjud" and acknowledge peace. This is not a violation of 2256 since they have cotinued aggression upon aggression and have been given non-salat chances. This is supposed to be the last resort. The result will be to bring forth purification/self-development/development of the situation overall. They are given this chance twice in this phase - it needs to be emphasized.
e. The deen is peacefulness. Uphold peace, learn from upholding the salat with the believers and thus be a brother in the deen. Does this mean they convert? I do no want to make a conclusion at this point.
Phase 3 Enough is enough. They are just using the peaceful system.
912 But if they break their oaths after their pledge, and they taunt and attack your system/doctrine; then you may kill/fight the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.
Aggressors must be fought. This isnt unjust.
913 Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the messenger, especially while they were the ones who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God who is more worthy to be feared if you are those who acknowledge.
Going to skip forward to and end at this
917 It was not for those who have set up partners to maintain God's masajid while they bear witness over their own disavowal ("kufr". For these, their works have fallen, and in the fire they will abide.
918 Rather, the masajid of God are maintained by the one who acknowledges God and the Last day, uphold/establish the salat, brings forth the zakat, and he does not fear except God. It is these that will be of the guided ones.
Summary of Phase 3
a. They get what they deserve after so many chances
b. Notice the "al kufri" in 912 because they taunt and attack the system of peacefulness
c. Furthermore, breaking of oaths is emphasized again along with intending to expel the messenger and them attacking the mumineen first.
d. Fighting them is a last resort. And then the clear message is given "perhaps they will then cease" - i.e. if they finally stop after being defeated, then all can return to normal.
e. Notice again how "kufr" is discussed in 917 since they continually attack the monotheists.
f. Notice how in 918 it says that the trusters/believers/those who acknowledge (in this translation) are not only told to uphold/establish the salat and bring forth the zakat, but also that "he does not feat except God." Fearing God and any other such positive result other than stopping fighting is not mentioned when talking about the idolators establishing salat and bringing forth the zakat. -
Peace Wakas,
I have read your article and read this thread but still I have a question. My apology if i missed anything which was already explained in the thread. Your understanding helped me to understand those controversial verses. I know it is an old thread and I appreciated if you answer my question.
My question is simple. What is the relationship of chapter 5 verse 33 with above discussion?. Is there any relationship or they are separate verses with no relationship with above discussion
Salam.
-
peace NK,
From the article
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htmThe situation in 91-12 is similar to the thief and those who fight against The God and His messenger , they are not required to convert, they are required to repent and amend, i.e. it is not necessary for them to become Muslim, as this would be absurd. Nor are they required to repent to The God, because this would imply there are no disbelieving thieves, an impossibility. That is why there is no 'ila/to' mentioned in the context, just like in 93, 95, 911. 'The reading' could have easily used 'ila/to' if that was actually the intended meaning, like it did in 664 for example, but it didn't.
If repenting to The God or converting to Muslim was required then imagining a workable example in a real-life situation is difficult. The reader is strongly recommended to think of real-life situations.96 If we accept conversion as one of the options, lets look at the solution apparently suggested
- The polytheists convert to Muslims, uphold/maintain the prayer and bring forth the betterment.
OR - They can seek protection, without the need to give an apology, no re-commitment to the treaty, no compensation, delivered to safety/security, nothing in return except having to ask for protection.
This is extremely unlikely, especially when considering the firm tone of the verses. The only way the above can be made plausible is if option (2) actually refers to delivering them to their safety/security, i.e. out with the community/land, i.e. banishment. From my understanding of the verses and taking into account 533, this is what is recommended. But if this is chosen for those who hold the salat=prayer view, then it means people either convert to Muslims or are banished from the land/community. Is this likely?
Or did you mean something other than the above?
- The polytheists convert to Muslims, uphold/maintain the prayer and bring forth the betterment.
-
Peace Wakas,
I think I was not clear in my question. I mean, the punishment states in 533-34 is not same as 95-6. I mean that part of 533 "that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land".
Is God talking about same thing in both verses?
-
Is God talking about same thing in both verses?
To answer that question, we have to consider does Quran use same wording/phrasing in both verses (i.e. in both verses describe them as "...allatheenayuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu wayasAAawna feeal-ardi fasadan..."? Yes/No.
-
Sorry for resuming an old thread. I read the original article and it's quite persuasive in it's conclusion that prayer/worship isn't the only meaning for Salat. It's a word with multiple meanings depending on the context.
But it would really help if you could write another article to explain how timed Salat is to be done based on the Quran. Does it only involve reading the Quran? If that's so, how can you be 100% sure? Is there no basis in the Quran for performing Salat the way it's traditionally done (standing, reciting Al-Fatiha, bowing down)?
There are several articles by other Quran-alone monotheists on this site that establish timed Salat as a form of prayer, and that it clearly involves a position of standing and bowing down. What are your thoughts about such articles?
On the other hand, reading the Quran also makes a lot of sense because many traditional Muslims don't read the Quran to actually understand it. And many of them pray in the traditional way but are otherwise not mindful of God; they just do it as a ritual or formality, especially the Friday prayer. I find it very fascinating that the Quran can be interpreted in such a new manner that makes so much of sense.
Another thing I've noticed is this, and this is a personal observation Sometimes when I'm praying, I get distracted and just feel as if I'm doing a ritual. It seems forced sometimes, but it might also be that my faith isn't so strong. I currently pray thrice a day in English. I recite Sura Al-Fatiha and prostrate, twice (2 rakaats or units).
But when I read the Quran or read about God's signs (scientific stuff), it makes me more aware and mindful of God. Even just visiting these forums and reading the discussions about the Quran makes me feel more aware of God.
It is also interesting to note that the Koran does not say anywhere that we should recite Surah Al-Fatiha during prayer and pray two units.
Thanks!
-
peace,
But it would really help if you could write another article to explain how timed Salat is to be done based on the Quran.
I wrote a basic article a while back http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm
I was in the process of writing a much more detailed article, and I may resume it at some point in the future.Does it only involve reading the Quran? If that's so, how can you be 100% sure? Is there no basis in the Quran for performing Salat the way it's traditionally done (standing, reciting Al-Fatiha, bowing down)?
It's difficult to be 100% sure, but if we are going by Quran then there is very limited evidence for the common salat/prayer format. Bear in mind there is some overlap.
There are several articles by other Quran-alone monotheists on this site that establish timed Salat as a form of prayer, and that it clearly involves a position of standing and bowing down. What are your thoughts about such articles?
I have never seen one with any convincing evidence. As I said there is limited evidence for such an understanding, so all of those articles use that limited evidence and extrapolate from it, to arrive at the pre-conceived notion they have of salat as a ritual prayer.
Whilst there are some differences in understanding one should consider the significance, if any, of such differences in the big scheme of things. Both are remembering/mentioning God, using Quran for their source material, and aiming to live by what they reading from it.
