On Salah and Sujood - an indepth study
-
I forgot to say
Remember the Quran itself is a mutawatir tradition. So I find it impossible to on one hand accept the Quran, and on the other reject hadiths that have been transmitted by 70 or so people at different times and places.
This is commonly stated, but is critically flawed. See
A commonly stated argument by those who wish to raise traditional hearsay/ahadith to divine-status level is that its compilation was the same as The Quran.
Is that really true? Lets look at the simple and obvious facts...
The Quran = God's Word
Ahadith = man's wordThe Quran = 100% fact/truth/perfect
Ahadith = mix of truth and falsehood (hence weak and strong hadith)The Quran = recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet Muhammad
Ahadith = not recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet MuhammadThe Quran = written AND memorised word for word as soon as it was transmitted
Ahadith = no-one ever claimed to record and memorise ahadith word for word as soon as it was transmittedThe Quran = protected explicitly by God Himself as stated in The Quran
Ahadith = no such explicit protection statedThe Quran = no Muslim doubts its credibility
Ahadith = each sect has its own versions, weak & strong ones etcThe Quran = in-built verification mechanism, e.g. challenges others to find inconsistancy, bring a chapter like it etc.
Ahadith = no such in-built mechanism, full of inconsistancies etc. -
Hahaha...Wakas I find your faith in the Quran's method of collection endearing, but you have a tendency to ignore academic methods and just take the Quran at its word.
This is fine for a Muslim, but not fine for an academic. I prefer to follow the devil's advocate and challenge my own beliefs.
Therefore, the quote that you posted with random unsupported generalizations doesn't really mean anything to me.
Academically speaking, all the evidence (because evidence actually matters) tells us that the Quran is a mutawatir tradition. Ie. many important people came together to make sure it was exactly what the Prophet uttered.
The concept of a physical prayer is possibly the most mutawatir tradition of all. Why? Because there are hadiths that talk about reciting the fatihah, there are hadiths that talk of sujood, there are hadiths that talk of rukoo3 - BUT - every single one of these hadiths assume that salah is performed with physical prostrations.
Therefore, if ever there was a mutawatir tradition - it is that salah is performed with physical movements.
Therefore, evidence supports my belief, and wild unproven conjectures support yours. I base mine on history and academic scholarship, and you base yours on your own faulty understanding of Quranic verses.
I consider the logic/reasoning in your article to be poor
Well thank you for that non-answer Wakas, but generally when I slam someone else's hard work I think it proper to provide evidence and justification and not just b.s. subjective generalizations.
How is my logic "poor"?
It's funny you should say so considering some of the world's top universities didn't think my logic was poor....but hey, if wakas says so!
and did not address many points
Which points?
Please state your source for the above statement. Thanks.
Feel free to consult an Arabic teacher. You have problems in understanding how Arabic pronouns work. This is unsurprising as you're using English as your base, in which pronouns work differently.
Lastly, let me make a clarification. My view of salah is very holistic. I assume everything incorrect until valid evidence is provided to support it. You assume that salah was perverted at some point from a mental one into a physical one. This is fine - but where is the historical evidence?
Therefore I went and searched for this change. I looked for any mention of such a change in history - and found none. There simply isn't any.
I am not arguing that this is how salah should be done according to the Quran - what I am arguing is that this is how Muhammad performed salah. I believe that, as someone who knew the Quran better than any other, he combined all verses calling for timed worship - tasbih, salah, reading, dhikr, etc. - and created a form of prayer that includes all of these aspects. The traditional salah includes all of this, in all the timings mentioned.
It's my belief that if you read the Quran as thoroughly as Muhammad and spotted every timed decree, and then went home and tried to do all the necessary dhikr, all the necessary tasbih, you would largely end up with Muhammad's version of prayer.EDIT Oh, and you haven't responded to my debunking of your alternate definitions of sujood - turning towards, acknowleding, etc etc. The Quran already had words for all of these.
-
peace ths,
The reason I did not correct or point out your flaws because there were too many, and it would have been time-consuming for me. You are free to take on board what I have said or disregard it (not only in this thread, but others also). Same applies to readers of the forum.
Feel free to consult an Arabic teacher.
Thanks for answering. As I suspected, the only evidence you have is that according to your knowledge of Arabic it is possible/likely. I assume if you had found anyone or book claiming as you have, you would have referenced it. Of course, this is not even mentioning the validity of your alternative version, just the grammar aspect.
You may be interested to know, that I am currently working on several sub-articles to the one I posted on Quranic words/terms recently, one of which is SuJuD. GW, I will finish it within a month or two.
-
Peace ths.
Well, first off, I had a read through all the arguments against physical salah before undertaking this project.
Good. Its important to read arguments for and against something before accepting it.
Can't you see that you are forcing your own interpretation onto the entire Quran?? Can't you see that you have not applied any methodology??
The methodology I use is simply and practical. I cross-reference words and concepts. And use a contextual approach when analyzing the quranic laws and ideas. I don't need to force any interpretation on the Quran because the Quran explains itself. All the evidence for Salat is in the Quran.
Also, there have been countless wise and educated scholars of Islam, and none of them ever questioned the physical aspect of salah. So I find it difficult to believe that a bunch of guys on freeminds 'cracked' the true meaning of the Quran - especially after I just debunked their suggestions for the "true" meanings of salah (ie. turning towards, acknowledging, etc.)
I appreciate the works of many scholars, and I am eager to learn their ideas. However, none of the scholars are perfect. And none of the scholars have learned everything about the Quran. So I don't like to appeal to authority. And I never put any scholar on pedestal. Every decade something new is discovered about the Quran. The quran is dynamic and flexible, and i think every generation will discover things about it that the past generations did not know. Some of the greatest scholars, did not know that qibla is not physical, and that pilgrimage to mecca is not a quranic concept (it has nothing to do with the teachings of the Quran).
One more thing, the Quran uses metonyms many many times. I believe in Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. And the simplest explanation for salah is that it is in fact a physical prayer as indicated by many verses, but that there are some verses where wordcraft is used, such as metonyms.
I like occam's razor, and I also believe in simplicity. And i know that the simplest explanation often is the correct one. But often is not the same as always. And when it comes to salat, it is a wide and comprehensive concept, so I believe, it should be studied integratively.
Edip-Layth say
Sala prayer observed properly keeps away from immorality and crimes (2945)
I agree that if salat is observed properly, it will keep people away from immorality and crimes. However, prayer alone, can never keep people away from immorality and crimes. Prayer alone can not make a person recognize the difference between right and wrong. Many mullahs and sheiks observe prayer properly, does this make them higly moral? You should ask yourself this question. To know the difference between right and wrong, a person needs to know the laws of god. A person needs to know the natural laws of mankind. A person needs to have knowledge about what is moral and immoral. And all the laws of God does not exist in the ritual prayer. So ritual prayer is not enough if someone wants to be a moral human being. If ritual prayer alone would keep people away from morality and crimes, you could teach people to forget the quran, forget all knowledge, and only pray. Would only praying, keep people away from immorality and crimes? Off course not. So by using logic, we can see that ritual prayer alone can not keep away from immorality and crimes.
But what is supremely illogical to me is to assume that we have had the wrong interpretation for 1400 years and that freeminds has 'cracked' it, despite the fact that hundreds of scholars have noticed this problem in the past and thought nothing of it.
Your argument holds little weight. For hundreds of years all kinds of people, including intellectuals, believed that the earth was flat. But that does not make it a fact, that does not make it true. The majority of scholars also believe that malaika were angels, or if you will physical beings. But that does not make it a fact. From my understanding of the quran malaika is controllers/hidden laws of nature.
The majority of scientists, and the most famous scientists in the world also believe in the theory of evolution, and has not noticed problems with the theory, or acknowledged its logical cracks. But even dough the majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution is true, it does not make it true. The idea that apes were ancestors of human beings, is based on falsehood. And this is proven by archeology. So your arguments is weak.
Birds and animals do not have free will, and know their salat because it is hardwired into their instinct - humans have free will and must choose to perform it.
I agree. And I have already mentioned this in the thread "my view on salat". Yes, humans must choose to perform it by using the quran alone, not by using sunna and hadith and not by praying the sunni, shia or zoroastrian way.
-
Salaam Wakas, I decided to explain to you the preposition (not pronoun as I wrote before) issue since I have the time right now, just to get it over with..
So in Arabic prepositions (huroof al-jarr) can rotate. They aren't as fixed as in English.
So in 2573 we have the following
Shakir And they who, when reminded of the communications of their Lord, do not fall down thereat deaf and blind.
Arberry who, when they are reminded of the signs of their Lord, fall not down thereat deaf and blind;
Pickthall And those who, when they are reminded of the revelations of their Lord, fall not deaf and blind thereat.
Yusuf Ali Those who, when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind;So in this case, we have a rotating harf jarr that doesn't mean "on", but "min ithrihaa" - as a result of it
This is shown elsewhere in the Quran
5113
They are saying and so we would be witnesses "on her" - ie. the miracle.
Shakir and that we may be of the witnesses to it.
Arberry and that we may be among its witnesses.
Pickthall and that thereof we may be witnesses.
Yusuf Ali and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle.So again we have 3alayhaa (on her), and yet the most appropriate translation is "witnesses to the miracle"
728
Shakir And when they commit an indecency they say We found our fathers doing this
Arberry And whenever they commit an indecency they say, 'We found our fathers practising it
Pickthall And when they do some lewdness they say We found our fathers doing it
Yusuf Ali When they do aught that is shameful, they say "We found our fathers doing soLiteral And if they made/did an enormous/atrocious deed , they said "We found our fathers on her
Were their fathers literally on the shameful deed? Of course not! They found their fathers at it.
12105
shakir And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth which they pass by, yet they turn aside from it.
arberry How many a sign there is in the heavens and in the earth that they pass by, turning away from it!
pickthall How many a portent is there in the heavens and the earth which they pass by with face averted!
yusuf ali And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by? Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!Literal And how many a sign/verse in the skies and the earth, do they pass on her? and they are from it objecting/opposing
And from what I can tell, there are many more similar verses in the Quran.
The point is, that you would never translate these verses any differently, so why do you insist on forcing an interpretation on 2573, when it follows the same principles as these?
You can read more about it here. Just scroll down to where it says
If you find anything on this in English, let me know.
EDIT
I assume if you had found anyone or book claiming as you have, you would have referenced it.
Hahahahahahah! This is coming from a lone-ranger, non-Arabic speaker who thinks he has the truth on salah and sujood and who thinks he has corrected a thousand years worth of linguists and poets! This is from someone who is part of a cult of about 1000? maximum? people who don't believe in the traditional salah. This is from someone who cannot find a single scholar to support his perverted views on the Quran! Classic!
Go ask any neighborhood sheikh what that verse means and they will corroborate what I've said.
Now go and ask them how many of them think sujood means "to acknowledge" and nothing more - and then come and tell me I have no scholarly backing. -
Salaam David,
I appreciate your comments.
Firstly,
Some of the greatest scholars, did not know that qibla is not physical, and that pilgrimage to mecca is not a quranic concept (it has nothing to do with the teachings of the Quran).
That is a pretty big assumption you're making there. But we'll discuss that another time.
I like occam's razor, and I also believe in simplicity. And i know that the simplest explanation often is the correct one. But often is not the same as always. And when it comes to salat, it is a wide and comprehensive concept, so I believe, it should be studied integratively.
Agreed. Which is why I tried to find in historical resources any references to the "change" in salah from a mental to a physical one. I don't know if you read this so I'll quote myself again
I am not arguing that this is how salah should be done according to the Quran - what I am arguing is that this is how Muhammad performed salah. I believe that, as someone who knew the Quran better than any other, he combined all verses calling for timed worship - tasbih, salah, reading, dhikr, etc. - and created a form of prayer that includes all of these aspects. The traditional salah includes all of this, in all the timings mentioned.
It's my belief that if you read the Quran as thoroughly as Muhammad and spotted every timed decree, and then went home and tried to do all the necessary dhikr, all the necessary tasbih, you would largely end up with Muhammad's version of prayer.As to this
I agree that if salat is observed properly, it will keep people away from immorality and crimes. However, prayer alone, can never keep people away from immorality and crimes. Prayer alone can not make a person recognize the difference between right and wrong. Many mullahs and sheiks observe prayer properly, does this make them higly moral? You should ask yourself this question. To know the difference between right and wrong, a person needs to know the laws of god. A person needs to know the natural laws of mankind. A person needs to have knowledge about what is moral and immoral. And all the laws of God does not exist in the ritual prayer. So ritual prayer is not enough if someone wants to be a moral human being. If ritual prayer alone would keep people away from morality and crimes, you could teach people to forget the quran, forget all knowledge, and only pray. Would only praying, keep people away from immorality and crimes? Off course not. So by using logic, we can see that ritual prayer alone can not keep away from immorality and crimes.
Prayer alone won't teach you right from wrong. Whether done correctly or incorrectly. But that doesn't mean that it isn't an integral part of the Quran and the deen, and diluting the meaning of the word salah to fit some kind of all-encompassing interpretation won't help either.
If someone wants to be a moral human being, they need much more than the Quran. I am not denying that. But that isn't the point. Will making regular tasbih throughout the day or making regular dhikr throughout the day make a person supremely moral? Of course not! Would it make you more moral? Yes.
Your argument holds little weight. For hundreds of years all kinds of people, including intellectuals, believed that the earth was flat. But that does not make it a fact, that does not make it true. The majority of scholars also believe that malaika were angels, or if you will physical beings. But that does not make it a fact. From my understanding of the quran malaika is controllers/hidden laws of nature.
The majority of scientists, and the most famous scientists in the world also believe in the theory of evolution, and has not noticed problems with the theory, or acknowledged its logical cracks. But even dough the majority of scientists believe the theory of evolution is true, it does not make it true. The idea that apes were ancestors of human beings, is based on falsehood. And this is proven by archeology. So your arguments is weak.
I'm sorry but this argument holds even less weight. Science and evolution are one thing, and Arabic another. We are constantly growing in our knowledge of science and biology - but the people of Muhammad's time were at the pinnacle of knowledge in Arabic linguistics. We have not grown in our knowledge since then, we are simply re-hashing and reinterpreting concepts and words that have been interpreted before.
Yes, humans must choose to perform it by using the quran alone, not by using sunna and hadith and not by praying the sunni, shia or zoroastrian way.
Who said that it is a sunni, shia, or zoroastrian way? The Quran tells us that every community has received their own messengers. Couldn't these be vestiges of that??
1636
Indeed, We sent forth among every nation a Messenger
287
And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him.
The problem with salah is that it is vast, complex concept, and people have been confused by certain metonymical, metaphorical verses. But there is overwhelming evidence that salah is physical. If salah were simply sitting and thinking about God, or sitting and reading the Quran, how is that any better than the traditional salah??
How does that incorporate sujood, rukoo3, and qiyaam? Or are we now going to go through every word in the Quran and find alternate meanings? Isn't it supremely ironic that a bunch of people on free-minds who don't even speak Arabic are going to correct a long line of poets and linguists? And I am the illogical one?!
Can you explain what your conception of salah and sujood are so that we can compare them to what is stated in the Quran and to the traditional salah?
-
Salaam ths
Thanks for your comments
Who said that it is a sunni, shia, or zoroastrian way? The Quran tells us that every community has received their own messengers. Couldn't these be vestiges of that??
The generations that came after the messengers, lost their Salat
Quran 1959
Then, generations came after them who lost the contact prayer, and followed desires. They will find their consequences.As we can see from the verse above, the generations who came after the messengers, lost their salat. Therefore the salat of shia and sunni can not have been preserved.
If salah were simply sitting and thinking about God, or sitting and reading the Quran, how is that any better than the traditional salah??
There is a difference between ritual prayer and salat because salat is none of the above. Salat is a comprehensive concept. Salat is not just reading the quran, or thinking about god. Salat is reading the Quran, and practicing the quran; following its principles and values. Salat demands taking full responsibility for ones actions. Its a divine system. And its comprehensive/wide as I have already mentioned.
How does that incorporate sujood, rukoo3, and qiyaam? Or are we now going to go through every word in the Quran and find alternate meanings? Isn't it supremely ironic that a bunch of people on free-minds who don't even speak Arabic are going to correct a long line of poets and linguists? And I am the illogical one?!
First of, some people on free-minds speak Arabic. Second, some people want to learn more arabic. Third, language is not a barrier for understanding the Quran. The Quran is a spiritual scripture, and its words trancends above language. Fourth, we have to be patient if we want to understand the Salat. It took me a lot of time to connect the dots. And I am still learning. I don't claim to have all the answers.
Can you explain what your conception of salah and sujood are so that we can compare them to what is stated in the Quran and to the traditional salah?
I have already explained it in the thread "My view on Salat".
I am curious, how do you perform Salat? Can you tell us how you perform Salat step by step, with back up from Quranic verses?
-
peace ths,
It is unfortunate that you have resorted to ad hominem attacks whilst trying to explain something to me. But what is perhaps even more unfortunate is that once again, your inability to read has resulted in explaining not what I highlighted. Let me re-quote what I said
Re 2573
However, The feminine pronoun "ha" here can refer to the act of reminding, and not on the ayaat.
Please state your source for the above statement. Thanks.
You cite no evidence for your above claim, and when asked for it, you again, cite none. Why not simply say something like according to my understanding of Arabic grammar what I said is theoretically possible, but I have not come across a source saying what I have with regard to this point.
I would have accepted that, end of story.
-
Why mutawatir isn't the greatest method, is simply forgery.
If you read on the history of hadith, hadiths were passed down not just be generations of family but by story tellers, sufism has a big significance in this. People also openly admitted to the forgery of spreading hadiths. I know you're talking about "actions" but hear me out.
What makes a hadith/action mutawattir? that so many people know it that it's "impossible" for it to be an error. that's not a true argument considering all the influences that happen in time.
Let me give you a scenario example. Imam malik collected ahadith of people in medinah. he believed the practices of people in medinah is most pure most true. So from then on in he maintained practices from them, people as a whole also revered him and followed his actions. so much so that the caliph at the time asked him to put his work at the kaabah for all people to see and follow. he refused and said along the lines of "one man can be wrong, and it wouldn't be wise to subjugate a whole community by one mans opinion". wise words, imagine today if we refuse his work with that claim? people will say we are defaming scholarly work!
I'll argue about imam malik some more, his work is one of the earliest work on hadith, yet his work has forged and broken chains. forged and broken chains = not sahih. his work is of the early work if his work has crookedness what of the future generations?
you might argue again there are numerous hadiths so many hadiths that support these actions. People in the past admitted to forgery of hadith to bring people closer to God! imagine of things not admitted? so more hadiths spread more of them became popular, practices got adopted. but it's in hadith must be true!!! it's mentioned so many times it's gotta be a mutawatir.
if you're going to take mutawatir action to be your justification, it would be almost impossible to separate what was or wasn't influenced by hadith and also what really happened.
Quran is also a document, a book not just a mutawatir tradition.
I know it might be said with the 1000's of hadiths that support a physical action etc how can it be totally wrong. how can the method be totally turned upside down??
God knows the truth but i'll mention also political powers had influence on muslim practices
peace
-
Dear All,
The topic came out in my search for something else but I read throug and I found the discussion very useful, yet I see that no further discussions were made. As I understand the debate was physical aspect of Prayer vs the true meaning of it. Furthermore the concept that the prayer muslims perform today have been almost unchanged more or less in its physical nature and it is more likely how Prophet had prayed and then the concept of the physical prayer being a ritual hence could not what Quran attributed to Salat.
I am also puzzled as to the following as I could see both parties have valid opinions (ths vs others).QURAN mentioning physical ritual.
I believe there are many verses in quran which indicate that many nations have been practising ritual prayers i.e. sujud, qayam, ruku etc. because Quran does talk about group of people performing this act as "congregational prayer", such as ruko ma alrakaeen etc.. So I believe there has to be a phsycal prayer existence, are we denying this fact? if not then that means how one performs the salat ritual as "congregational prayer" if there is no clear definition of it? One cant just go to mosque and start performing these acts as he wishes, has to be synch?
The verse 629-10 is surely asking people to leave a phsycal act (trading) and go to perform friday salat? should we take this as a non physical some sort of meditation order from God?
The above is not my conclusion, am only refering it here for others to correct me or guide me please.The other aspects of the ritual prayer which is practised today and claimed to be "mutawatir" are several words that we speak during the prayer out of quran. For example the prayer to the prophet. Almost every muslim whe he/she prays towards the end, is sending prayers to the prophet and his aal similar to god did so for Ibrahim and his aal
My only question, may God forgive me, is that has the prophet asked muslims to do that? if yes doe it not seem self praise act by the prophet? we are praying to God almighty and all praises to be for Him alone.
Furthermore did it really work? I mean the Aal of Ibrahim was known to have been very blessed and successful? but did prophet Aal reached the same status? history tells us that prophet aal has very unfortunate events (event of qarbala). So point is incurrent time, prophet is not alive, is it still significant to utter the prayer to prophet and his aal in tashahud?? whats the point here?I have more questions on this but appreciate if I get a reply on the above
Regards
-
peace fusion, all,
Thanks for reviving this thread. Upon re-reading it perhaps I was a little harsh in my criticism of ths' work. I think it is a worthy read but of course that does not mean I agree with everything in it.
You may find these posts useful
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607589.msg371591#msg371591
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610353.msg419239#msg419239
