salat = prayer? How do you explain this then...

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

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 peacefulness

b. 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&quot - 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&quot, 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&quot - 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&quot. 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.

NK

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.

Wakas

peace NK,

From the article
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

The 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?

NK

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?

Wakas

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...&quot? Yes/No.

NK

No.

bookish

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!

Wakas

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.

reel

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.

Do you see any link between contact and "call upon Allah" mentioned in several verses? I also noticed believers most often are talking to him. I think this is one of the clearest instructions about salat

Say, "Invoke Allah or invoke the Most Gracious. By whatever name you invoke, to Him belongs the Most Beautiful Names. And do not be loud in your prayers and not be silent therein, but seek between that a way." 7194

I feel id'u should be translated as "call" and not invoke. This way we get
Say, "Call Allah or Call the Most Gracious. By whatever name you call, to Him belongs the Most Beautiful Names. And do not be loud in your contact and not be silent therein, but seek between that a way. " 7194

Wakas

Do you see any link between contact and "call upon Allah" mentioned in several verses?

I'm not sure what you mean but a "bond" (or contact) involves a relationship between two (or more) entities. To "call upon Allah", to praise/magnify Allah, to seek God's guidance, to read/recite God's guidance etc are all in a similar area, hence me saying there is some overlap between understandings.

Makaveli

To pray is to meditate/contemplate/focus/concentrate and to establish healthy thinking patterns to live in harmony with universal law (God). It does not necessarily mean literally to pronounce words and call upon him. Pray means to form an image, that's what the word from root SL means, an image behind a problem to contemplate upon and to harmonize your thoughts. That's what basmala is for, for its purpose is harmony of mind, to find your purpose in life and remind yourself of your personal task in universal law. That is why every chapter starts with basmala, to give you a hint on how to read the rest of it.