salat = prayer? How do you explain this then...
-
peace Br. Tanveer, all,
Until ayat 94 the pagans have not broken their treaty.
Strictly speaking yes, but this is clearly implied. The very first word of the chapter tees up the subsequent signs in this direction
baratun = acquittal/absolve
Furthermore, in 94 it states
PM Except (illa) 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...
Thus directly implying the reference of the prior sign(s) is those who reduced from the treaty or planned to attack you.
The repenting of pagans as above clearly means their repentance from setting up partners because of the immediately preceding words.
That in no way can be called clear. Why cant it simply be about making a public announcement that we are innocent from them, i.e. they broke the treaty, they are to blame.
If that is so then 96 could have the alternative meaning of the pagans repenting from setting up partners, thereby becoming muslims, and then upholding salat and bringing forth zakat, thereby now becoming believers.
For that opinion to hold, you are forced to insert a lot of interpretation into the signs. Please remember they are not referenced as anything other than transgressors/idolaters etc.
This protection and letting them go is not a free and clear one as brother Wakas implies
I did not imply that. That, as far as I understood was Br. Hussein's position, thus I was pointing out its absurdity. That was not my own opinion.
they can either repent and become believers
Just like when the thief commits a crime, they repent, nothing to do with conversion. Same as this case. When al quran wishes to point out its twb/repentance to The God, the word "ila" is used, there is no "ila" here, nor in the thief example.
2 MORE POINTS
1 - why do you think 95 has the clause "if"? The subsequent sign allows for the situation when not everyone accepts the condition.
2 - the next sign, 912 proves they are not brothers in terms of Muslims or believers or in terms of conversion because it states "And if they break their oaths after making them..." Its clear the signs have been referencing "they" with trangressors/idolaters throughout, especially the previous signs prior to 911. If they have converted, why are they still being held to account for their oaths? What is going on? What oaths? Is there a word in the previous sign, 911, that can be connected with a oath/bond/link? Yes! That word is slw.
In fact, based on this new observation, I think the above signs conclusively prove that they are not converts! Beyond reasonable doubt!
Its further reinforced with "uphold the slw... brothers in deen/obligation/system" and then says "break their oaths... denounce the authority of your deen/obligation/system".
Anyone else agree with this observation?
Wakas
As a side note, I dislike capitalising islam into Islam, as if its a magical name/noun/title. Its primary signification is a mindset, i.e. a description.
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Wakas,
Thank you for your explanations, and answers to my questions and points. I think you have conclusively proved your position.
This protection and letting them go is not a free and clear one as brother Wakas implies
I did not imply that. That, as far as I understood was Br. Hussein's position, thus I was pointing out its absurdity. That was not my own opinion.
I apologize for the above. It was a misunderstanding on my part.
As a side note, I dislike capitalising islam into Islam, as if its a magical name/noun/title. Its primary signification is a mindset, i.e. a description.
By Al-Islam I meant The Islam which is submission or surrender to Allah and not just a regular islam meaning submission or surrender which could be to anyone. Maybe I should write islam lillah. That is why I capitalized it to distinguish islam lillah from islam.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
peace Br. Tanveer,
About Al-Islam, I knew what you meant. I was just making an observation. Your response about differentiating any old islam/compliance from Al-Islam is a valid one. Its unlikely though, for someone to use islam in any other way, in fact, thats how it probably got its title.
The way I see it... Muslims with a capital M, implies the primary signification is the title, whilst a muslim, with small m, implies the primary signification is the mindset/description. Same with Islam and islam.
God bless.
Wakas
-
peace Wakas .
So you think 'al quran' changes its reference and now wishes them to repent from idolatry rather than the object of reference the treaty?
they are repenting from both idolatry and from breakng the treaty . as muslims they are not going to fight against muslims ,right ?
You think the word twb can somehow imply 'repent & convert' even though this meaning is nowhere to be found in a classical Arabic dictionary nor in the 87 occurrences of 'al quran'?
the usage of 'repent' alongwith 'salat' and 'zakat' indicates that they 'converted' .
You think 'al quran' actually gives an ultimatum in which people either convert or are punished? And not only that, according to your explanation it doesn't even mention it, just implies it, like its no big deal when this strikes at the very core of the deen!
idolators were going to be killed . it should be considered a mercy from God that their life will be spared and they will be set free if they repent and establish salat and give 'zakat' .
You think the suffix "...hum" somehow miraculously refers to the new converts not mentioned in the context, even though you have not provided one example from the entire quran in which this happens.
it is still refering to the same people .
You think its a mere coincidence the so-called converts are never referenced with a word which would prove they are converts, e.g. mumineen/believers.
their establishing salat and zakat makes it crystal clear that they are no longer idolators . isnt that enough ? by the way they are also called our brothers in 'Deen' . what do u think ?
Do you think thieves also convert or is it just this special case?
no . the thieves are not commanded to establish salat and give 'zakat'.
How do you explain the problem of 912? progressing options etc.
what about 912 ?
that is what i think .
by the way, u say that 'salat' means 'bond' or 'oath' . what exactly do u mean by that . what bond ? i dont get it . please tell me.
peace. -
peace Saladin,
Lets run through it point by point...
they are repenting from both idolatry and from breakng the treaty .
So, even though the object of reference is the treaty in the context before & after 93, you think an additional repentance from shirk is being made here. Unlikely (lets see how many unlikely situations have to arise for your interpretation to hold).
The reason why the word 'mushrikeen' is used in 93 is those people are with whom the treaty was made (it has to make reference to them!), not because it is wanting to use this as an object of reference for the word taboo/repent. The following sign 94 proves beyond doubt the object of reference is the treaty because it uses the word 'illa/except'. Proving the previous sign is on about 'those who reduced from the treaty'. If you disregard this, you are following the least likely interpretation.as muslims they are not going to fight against muslims ,right ?
Please tell me I have misunderstood you. Are you saying the repent/taboo in 93 is implying conversion to muslims? This is not supported by the context whatsoever.
the usage of 'repent' alongwith 'salat' and 'zakat' indicates that they 'converted' .
Ahh, so you're saying 'taboo' does indeed mean 'repent' but the implication of conversion is made by the usage of slw & zkw. Well, at least you're consistent with the word 'taboo'. Firstly, the implication of conversion just by using the words slw & zkw and not mentioning the actual conversion, would come as an absolute shock to the student of the scripture. According to you, 'al quran' treats this conversion as if its nothing and simply implies it and does not mention it directly even though it has huge implications for the whole deen. Unlikely. Can you provide another similar example in which the guilty are required to convert to Islam to escape punishment in the entire quran? Just give me one, thats all I want. If you cant, this means your interpretation is unlikely.
idolators were going to be killed . it should be considered a mercy from God that their life will be spared and they will be set free if they repent and establish salat and give 'zakat' .
They were not necessarily going to be killed, please see 96, so this is a non-point.
it is still refering to the same people .
I'm glad you said this. I agree the suffix "hum" refers to the same people. That is fine for my understanding but if you also take this view, your view gets completely and utterly demolished. If you believe "hum" refers to the same people, then in your view 'al quran' contains a contradiction/error. Lets translate it according to your interpretation, and leave the people of reference in, according to the "hum"...
So when the restricted months are passed, then you may fight the idolaters wherever you find the idolaters, and take the idolaters, and surround the idolaters, and stand against the idolaters at every point. If the idolaters repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then clear/vacate the idolater's way/path. Truly, The God is Turning/Forgiving, Embracing/Merciful.
BEFORE and AFTER slw & zkw are mentioned, they are referenced as the same idolaters. According to you, a conversion has taken place, so it is impossible for al quran to reference them as the same! Who is right? You or al quran? If you are proposing al quran changes the people of reference mid-sentence then please bring another example of this in the entire quran, if you speak the truth. If you cant, then your view is extremely unlikely.
their establishing salat and zakat makes it crystal clear that they are no longer idolators . isnt that enough ? by the way they are also called our brothers in 'Deen' . what do u think ?
These questions are answered in the article. I assumed you read it, was this a mistake on my part?
no . the thieves are not commanded to establish salat and give 'zakat'.
I'm glad you admitted this. This means you believe the option of conversion is only given with specific wrongdoings and not others. I would be interested to hear your criteria/reasoning of why this option is only given for certain situations and not others.
How do you explain the problem of 912? progressing options etc.
what about 912 ?
This clearly shows to me you either never read the article properly or you never understood this point in my article. Which is it? In either case, I suggest reading/re-reading the article.
by the way, u say that 'salat' means 'bond' or 'oath' . what exactly do u mean by that . what bond ? i dont get it . please tell me.
The article discusses 91-12. Thus 'oath/bond' is an understanding of slw based on these signs/ayatin. Did I ever say this is its blanket meaning in the entire quran? Once again, this shows you either never read the article properly or you never understood the premise of the article. In either case, I suggest reading/re-reading the article.
Please note, I will not entertain any further debate until I am sure you have actually read the article in question and the associated links. This is a conclusion based on your comments and the fact that not once have you quoted from my article.
Wakas
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Wakas,
Following is quote from our pm
tanveermd wrote
There are a couple of points I am researching pertinent to the topic. The first point is that it seems the idolaters also used to uphold salat very similar to that of the believers !!. Salat is not only post quranic but is also pre quranic as Abraham, Moosa, Isa, Shuaib they all upheld salat. That salat was already being upheld by the idolaters at the time of revelation of the quran also which was similar to that of the believers but was not for Allah but for their own gods ( what I mean is the external physical actions i.e. the physical part of salat were similar but the content was different). It is possible that the salat of the idolaters mentioned in the first part of chapter 9 could be that salat !!The following ayat may be the evidence for the above
955 And what prevented what they would spend from being accepted from them except that they rejected God and His messenger, and they do not attend to the salat except lazily, and they do not spend except unwillingly.
Arabic Original Text 955Here they clearly references the idolaters. Could the salat mentioned in 96 and 912 be the same salat?
Wakas wrote
That is a long-shot. It references not true believers, those hesitant, opportunistic etc. My understanding would be oration, and it fits fine.tanveermd wrote
Maybe what Allah means is that if the idolaters uphold the same salat that they always upheld (not directed to Allah but to their gods or directed to Allah but lazily) in addition to repenting (from breaking the treaty) then leave them alone. What do you think brother Wakas?Wakas wrote
Impossible. I have never read anywhere else of The God recommending/condoning other gods. Nor would He recommend/condone a lazy salat.The context of ayat 955 is rejecters (kafiroon) and not idolaters as I mistakenly said above
950 And from them are those who Say "Grant me leave, and do not test me." But it is in the test that they have indeed fallen, and Hell is surrounding the rejecters.
951 When any good befalls you, it upsets them, and if any bad befalls you, they Say "We have made our precautions beforehand," and they turn away happy.
952 Say "Nothing will befall us except what God has decreed for us, He is our Patron." And in God the believers shall put their trust.
953 Say "You can only expect for us one of two good things; while we wait for you to be afflicted by God with a retribution from Him, or by our hands. So wait, we are with you waiting."
954 Say "Spend willingly or unwillingly, it will not be accepted from you. You are a wicked people."
955 And what prevented what they would spend from being accepted from them except that they rejected God and His messenger, and they do not attend to the salat except lazily, and they do not spend except unwillingly.
956 So do not be impressed by their wealth or children; God only wishes to punish them with it in the worldly life, and so that their lives will end while they are rejecters.955 is talking about the salat of the rejecters. Can you please give me your understanding about what is the salat of the rejecters? What is the meaning of salat in 955? How can a rejecter (kafir) attend to the salat? You say that your understanding is oration. Oration of what? The rejecters do not believe in Al-Quran. So what would they be orating?
So if a rejecter can attend to salat, maybe idolaters can also uphold their own salat to their gods? In 96 The God mentions about salat of the idolaters, could it be similar to the salat of the rejecters? The God saying that if the idolaters repent (from breaking the treaty) and uphold salat and bring forth zakat does not necessarily mean recommending/condoning other gods. It may merely mean that if the idolaters uphold their own version of salat in addition to repenting from breaking the treaty then leave them alone, the stress being on repentence from breaking the treaty.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
In 96 The God mentions about salat of the idolaters, could it be similar to the salat of the rejecters? The God saying that if the idolaters repent (from breaking the treaty) and uphold salat and bring forth zakat does not necessarily mean recommending/condoning other gods. It may merely mean that if the idolaters uphold their own version of salat in addition to repenting from breaking the treaty then leave them alone, the stress being on repentence from breaking the treaty.
Khi- Salam. I believe the pagans of Mecca knew well n casually performed the same PHYSICAL way of salat as it was passed down from Abraham. This is exactly y salat is nothing new 2 the pagans. They knew how 2 perform it but many of them were getting casual. GOD Bless!
-
peace Tanveer,
I shall post my response
Peace Tanveer,
It is clear from your message that you are trying to justify the unjustifiable. A pre-conceived notion can do that to an understanding. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, so thats how I know.
The context of ayat 955 is rejecters (kafiroon) and not idolaters as I mistakenly said above.
Firstly, the core meaning of kfr is to conceal (with active/concious intent) but I would agree that it can mean reject.
Secondly, what is the meaning of "yatoona"?
Thirdly, the signs are discussing the opportunistic, the hypocrites, the neither here nor there, the wishy washy type of people. Al Quran describes these type of people amongst the worst type of people. Where is the word mushrikeen?
955 is talking about the salat of the rejecters. Can you please give me your understanding about what is the salat of the rejecters? What is the meaning of salat in 955? How can a rejecter (kafir) attend to the salat?
If you think the translation is "attend to the salat", then why do you presume it means "salat of the rejectors"? Is this your assumption or is this what the sign says? If you attend a meeting lets say, can I describe it as your meeting? Or more correctly, are you a participant? In any case, once you have clarified "yatoona", I will give my answer.
You say that your understanding is oration. Oration of what? The rejecters do not believe in Al-Quran. So what would they be orating?
Once again, if you think it says "attend to the salat" then why do you presume the "rejecters" would be orating? Is this your assumption or is this what the sign says?
So if a rejecter can attend to salat, maybe idolaters can also uphold their own salat to their gods? In 96 The God mentions about salat of the idolaters, could it be similar to the salat of the rejecters? The God saying that if the idolaters repent (from breaking the treaty) and uphold salat and bring forth zakat does not necessarily mean recommending/condoning other gods. It may merely mean that if the idolaters uphold their own version of salat in addition to repenting from breaking the treaty then leave them alone, the stress being on repentence from breaking the treaty.
I cant believe you're making this statement. Firstly, nowhere does The God condone/recommend upholding incorrect beliefs/practices. Your interpretation does imply that, quite clearly I might add, there is no ifs or buts. Secondly, lets say that interp. is correct, what possible reason would The God have for incorporating 'upholding their own version of slw to their false gods' into the solution?! It is completely illogical.
Wakas
-
Peace Wakas,
Thank you for improving my (mis)understanding of 955 and 96. "yatoona" means those who attend or come and not uphold. You have convincingly proved your point; the matter is clear to me now. Your understanding of 91 to 913 seems to be the most likely one. (All verse numbering mentioned in my post is the pm translation numbering adopted from the warsh version)
Regards,
Tanveer
-
-
peace,
You have convincingly proved your point...
Thats twice you've said that wink Like most things, all it takes is careful study, as I did not come to my understanding overnight. Your input did help solidify/clarify my argument.
Thanks for clarifying "yatoona". As for oration, there are many examples of communication being relayed prior to 954.I'm afraid it will not convince a sunni that salat is not a ritual prayer because they believe that the idolaters performed ritual prayer back in those days as well
I agree that it cannot convince everyone, but this counter-argument is clearly contradictory to the specific signs, and 'al quran' as a whole.
On an unrelated note, nice quote by Dom Helda Camara.Wakas
-
Peace Wakas,
I a m continuing our dialogue of here
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3463&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
about your article
http//mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/think-786/disproved_salatequalsprayer.htmCould you go farther, and translate/explain verses ?
And especially ?Thanks in advance,
JM
-
- Ma (not) kana (it was/is) lilmushrikeena (to/for the polytheists/idolaters) an (to) yaAAmuroo (enliven/visit) masajida (institutes of acknowledgment) Allahi (of The God) shahideena (they testify/witness) AAala (on/against) anfusihim (themselves) bi (with/in) al kufri (the concealment/rejection) ola-ika (such like/people) habitat (are fruitless/failed) aAAmaluhum (their works/efforts) wafee (and in) al nnari (the fire) hum (they) khalidoona (stay/remain forever)
It is not for the polytheists/idolaters to enliven/visit institutes of acknowledgement of The God while they testify/witness on themselves with concealment/rejection, such people's works are fruitless and in the fire they will dwell forever.
- Innama (only) yaAAmuru (enliven/visit) masajida (institutes of acknowledgment) Allahi (of The God) man (those who) amana (trust/believe) bi Allahi (in The God) wa (and) al yawmi (the day/time) al-akhiri (the deferred/last) wa (and) aqama (uphold/maintain/establish) al ssalata (the bond/oration) wa ata (and bring forth) al zzakata (the betterment) wa lam (and none) yakhsha (fears) illa (except) Allaha (The God) faAAasa (expected/perhaps) ola-ika (such like/people) an (to) yakoonoo (be) mina (of/from) al muhtadeena (the guided/directed).
Only enliven/visit institutes of acknowledgment of The God those who trust/believe in The God and the deferred/last time/day and uphold/establish/maintain the bond/oration and bring forth the betterment and none fears except The God, perhaps such people to be from the guided/directed.
Wakas
-
Thank you,
-
Who are the idolaters mentioned in ? Are they the ones that have upheld salat and brought forth zakat in or ?
-
In , we can read "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger"... What does it mean ?
Peace
-
-
peace,
Yes, the people referenced in 917 could be those of 95 & 911.
-
In , these idolaters are said to be brothers of the Muslim in the din. According to you this does not mean that they have become Muslim, but this just mean that they have committed themselves to cooperate with the din of the Muslims.
But, in , we learn that these idolaters cannot visit the masjid of God.
How do you explain that ? What is wrong with visiting the masjid of God ? Is this really brotherhood ? -
In , we learn that these idolaters have committed themselves to bring forth zakat.
But, in , we learn that their works are fruitless.
How can bringing forth of zakat be fruitless ?
The part you quoted of 97 is self-explanatory, what specifically about it is it that you want clarified? Is it 'those'?
As I understand it, there are 2 kinds of idolaters
- The (unfair) ones, who have disregarded their pledges, and have attacked the muslims they have to be fought, except if they repent, uphold the salat and bring forth the zakat
- The (unfair) ones, who have respected their pledges, and have not attacked the muslims they should not be fought, they should be left in peace.
The reason why the unfair ones should be fought is that they are unwilling to respect their ties, and that their hearts are hostile (). About these guys, God says "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger" ().
Does this not imply that their upholding of salat in or cannot be a new pledge with the muslims ?Peace
-
-
peace,
- In , these idolaters are said to be brothers of the Muslim in the din. According to you this does not mean that they have become Muslim, but this just mean that they have committed themselves to cooperate with the din of the Muslims.
Please dont add to 911, or use wording not used by the sign itself. It says what it says. I will post it here
But if they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then they are your brothers/allies in the obligation/system. We detail/explain our signs/revelations for a people who know.
But, in , we learn that these idolaters cannot visit the masjid of God.
Firstly, 917 does not say that. It does not ban them, it says its not right for those type of people (muShRK who are in concealment/rejection) to enliven/visit the MaSJD. In fact, it talks about it like it happened / is happening.
How do you explain that ? What is wrong with visiting the masjid of God ? Is this really brotherhood ?
I believe I answered that above. You may wish to review your understanding of the term 'brotherhood' in the context (for which I gave extensive references in the article).
- In , we learn that these idolaters have committed themselves to bring forth zakat.
But, in , we learn that their works are fruitless.
How can bringing forth of zakat be fruitless ?
Those two signs are not even referencing the same people
911 - repent, uphold the bond, bring forth the betterment ---> ally/brother in the system/obligation
As you can clearly see, those of 911 are past their concealment/rejection phase, and amended.
917 - muShRK still in the concealment/rejection phase, thus they are not the same type of people.
Does this not imply that their upholding of salat in or cannot be a new pledge with the muslims ?
Hmm, I would be uncomfortable in making such a leap. It could be just a general comment.
Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps you can answer some of mine? Quite simply, do you believe salat=prayer in 95 & 911?
Wakas
-
peace,
- In , these idolaters are said to be brothers of the Muslim in the din. According to you this does not mean that they have become Muslim, but this just mean that they have committed themselves to cooperate with the din of the Muslims.
Please dont add to 911, or use wording not used by the sign itself. It says what it says. I will post it here
But if they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then they are your brothers/allies in the obligation/system. We detail/explain our signs/revelations for a people who know.
But, in , we learn that these idolaters cannot visit the masjid of God.
Firstly, 917 does not say that. It does not ban them, it says its not right for those type of people (muShRK who are in concealment/rejection) to enliven/visit the MaSJD. In fact, it talks about it like it happened / is happening.
How do you explain that ? What is wrong with visiting the masjid of God ? Is this really brotherhood ?
I believe I answered that above. You may wish to review your understanding of the term 'brotherhood' in the context (for which I gave extensive references in the article).
OK, according to you, akhw = allies
- In , we learn that these idolaters have committed themselves to bring forth zakat.
But, in , we learn that their works are fruitless.
How can bringing forth of zakat be fruitless ?
Those two signs are not even referencing the same people
911 - repent, uphold the bond, bring forth the betterment ---> ally/brother in the system/obligation
As you can clearly see, those of 911 are past their concealment/rejection phase, and amended.
917 - muShRK still in the concealment/rejection phase, thus they are not the same type of people.
In the last post, you were answering
- Who are the idolaters mentioned in ? Are they the ones that have upheld salat and brought forth zakat in or ?
Yes, the people referenced in 917 could be those of 95 & 911.
So, you have changed your mind.
Are these idolaters who have committed themselves to uphold salat and bring forth zakat referenced in ?
What does "uphold salat and bring forth zakat" mean in ? Is it the same meaning as in and ?
Does this not imply that their upholding of salat in or cannot be a new pledge with the muslims ?
Hmm, I would be uncomfortable in making such a leap. It could be just a general comment.
It is a leap of only 2 verses !
Verses are justifying why the believers have to fight the (unfair) idolaters.
How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger How is it when they gain the upper-hand they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts are hostile, and most of them are wicked. They purchased with The God's signs/revelations a small gain, so they could turn others from His path. Truly, evil is what they were doing. They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. These are the transgressors/wrongdoers.
In light of what I have underlined, I think it is clear that "aqamoo alssalata" in and cannot mean "to renew the pledge".
Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps you can answer some of mine? Quite simply, do you believe salat=prayer in 95 & 911?
No, but I think "aqamoo alssalata" does not have a specific meaning in and .
I believe, that, everywhere it occurs in the quran, the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" is directed to God, and that "aqamoo alssalata" (like "atawoo alzzakata" )can only be an ordinance for muslims.That's why I think, even though it is not explicitly written, that the people mentioned in and to uphold the salat have submitted to the divine system.
Peace
-
peace,
OK, according to you, akhw = allies
Not only me. Lane explicitly states this, and it can be inferred easily from its usage in 'al quran'.
So, you have changed your mind.
No, I have not changed my mind. I said "could", because it uses the same word, i.e. "mushrikeen", thus its a theoretical acknowledgement it could be. Another reason I said "could" is because I have already stated from the outset in the article, that the progressing options of 95 & 912 show that subsets within the "mushrikeen" exist. Which makes sense, since not every single 'mushrik' (I think thats the singular of "mushrikeen") would make bonds and break bonds, or agree/disagree, or fight, surrender etc (i.e. they are not all the same). In fact, you also recognised this.
Are these idolaters who have committed themselves to uphold salat and bring forth zakat referenced in ?
I try not to extrapolate further than what the sign says. It simply says those muShRK who bear concealment/rejection upon themselves, they should not enliven/visit the maSJD of The God.
What does "uphold salat and bring forth zakat" mean in ? Is it the same meaning as in and ?
The core meaning will always be the same. I would translate it the same way, but not necessarily referring to the treaty discussed in the earlier signs. If it references the "mumineen", it is clear what they have pledged to uphold, it is 'al quran' and thus the obligation/system enshrined in it.
It is a leap of only 2 verses !
If thats the case, I dont understand what you mean. Please clarify exactly what you mean. I thought I got you, perhaps I did, but I tend not to be conclusive unless it is pretty conclusive.
In light of what I have underlined, I think it is clear that "aqamoo alssalata" in and cannot mean "to renew the pledge".
I would in no way call that "clear". In fact, I can confidentally say you are wrong. You have proved my point beautifully. Lets review the signs
- And if anyone from the idolaters seeks your protection, then you may protect him so that he may hear the word of The God, then deliver him to his safety/security. This is because they are a people who do not know.
- How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger, except for those with whom you made a pledge/agreement at the institute of acknowledging the restriction? As long as they are straight with you, then you are straight with them. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
idolaters = those who upheld the bond initially and broke it and thus fought, or those who did not take the opportunity to uphold the bond, and fought, and still did not agree and thus gave up and asked for protection (but still not agreeing), and thus were escorted to their place of safety outwith the community/land, i.e. banishment. I have argued this from the start. I did not have anything conclusive though, until now.
those = those who took the opportunity to uphold the bond and followed through. This also indirectly implies, such activity takes/took place at the/a maSJD.
they = could be referring to either, but likely the latter.
That's why it says "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement..."
From then on, it references the idolaters in red, all the way up to 917. Try it, it reads perfectly.
And this also explains the progressing options between 95 & 912 !!! Amazing! In 912, it is on about the idolaters in red, whilst initially up to 95 it discussed them grouped together generally.I would like to thank you for pushing the right buttons that made me see the answer. The logical precision of 'al quran' never fails to amaze me.
I believe, that, everywhere it occurs in the quran, the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" is directed to God, and that "aqamoo alssalata" (like "atawoo alzzakata" )can only be an ordinance for muslims.
To me, that is blatantly wrong. If after reading this, you still believe that, then please answer the questions I raised in my article.
Hopefully, this discussion has clarified your understanding, as well as mine.
D
Wakas
