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

Wakas

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

wildguest1956

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.htm

Could you go farther, and translate/explain verses ?
And especially ?

Thanks in advance,

JM

Wakas

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

wildguest1956

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

Wakas

peace,

Yes, the people referenced in 917 could be those of 95 & 911.

The part you quoted of 97 is self-explanatory, what specifically about it is it that you want clarified? Is it 'those'?

Wakas

wildguest1956

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

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).

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

wildguest1956

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

Wakas

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

Wakas

As a result, I'd like to alter my trans. slightly, changing punctuation

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.

Wakas

wildguest1956

OK, I will try to push the right buttons.

An acquittal/release from The God and His messenger to those with whom you made a treaty from among the idolaters.
Therefore, roam the earth for four months and know that you will not escape The God, and that The God will disgrace the concealers/rejecters.
And an announcement from The God and His messenger to the people on the greatest/peak day of the conference/symposium "The God is quit/free from the idolaters and so is His messenger". If you repent, then it is better for you, and if you turn away, then know that you will not escape The God. And give news to those who conceal/reject of a painful retribution.
Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among the idolaters if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
So when the restricted months are passed, then you may fight the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then clear/vacate their way/path. Truly, The God is Turning/Forgiving, Embracing/Merciful.
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.
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.
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.
And if they break their oaths after making them, and they slander your obligation/system; then you may fight the chiefs of concealment/rejection. Truly, their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then stop.
Will you not fight folk who have violated their trust and intended to exile the Messenger? They attacked you first! Are you afraid of them? You ought to be even more afraid of God if you are believers.
Fight them, so God may punish them at your hands and disgrace them, and support you against them, and heal the breasts of believing folk,
and remove the fury from their hearts. God turns to anyone He wishes; God is Aware, Wise.
Or do you reckon you will be abandoned once God knows which of you have struggled, and did not adopt anyone as an ally besides God, His messenger and believers? God is Informed anything you do.
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.
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.

Meaning of the colors

Idolaters to be fought (unfair idolaters)
Idolaters not to be fought (fair idolaters)
Idolaters to be fought who have repented
Idolaters to be fought who have asked for protection

So, here are my questions

Do you agree with my color codes ? Especially in ?
I think the "straight in "as long as they are straight with you concerns only the fair idolaters.
It is only confirming "you shall continue the treaty with them " from .
What is the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" in ? Is it about a former pledge/treaty ? Or is it about the system enshrined in the quran ?
According to me, everywhere "aqamoo alssalata" occurs, it is about the system enshrined in the quran. Especially in and , where it implies that the idolaters have submitted to the divine system.
Assuming "aqamoo alssalata" means "uphold the pledge/treaty" in and

So when the restricted months are passed, then you may fight the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and uphold/maintain the pledge/treaty and bring forth the betterment, then clear/vacate their way/path. Truly, The God is Turning/Forgiving, Embracing/Merciful.
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.
But if they repent, and uphold/maintain the pledge/treaty 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.

How could the believers uphold/maintain a pledge/treaty, it being the case that

These idolaters cannot have a pledge with the believers
These idolaters may disregard all ties, either those of kinship or a pledge
They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge

Is there no a blatant contradiction ?

Hope I have been clear,

Peace

Wakas

peace,

Two of your colour groupings make no sense

Idolaters to be fought who have repented

Why would you fight the ones who repented?

Idolaters to be fought who have asked for protection

If they have asked for protection, why would you fight them?!

Do you agree with my color codes ?

No, because of the above.

I think the "straight in "as long as they are straight with you concerns only the fair idolaters.

I agree, that is what I found.

What is the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" in ?

I already answered that question.

Is there no a blatant contradiction ?

No! I see what you are seeing though. Please stop embellishing on what 'al quran' says, that will resolve the so-called contradiction you are seeing. When 'al quran' states "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger?" It is a rhetorical question, it is not a statement of law! If it was a stated rule, why make it a question? With the vast majority (perhaps all) of the rhetorical questions asked in 'al quran' it is asking us to reflect/think. It is obvious some believers were hesitant in fighting those who reduced from the treaty or those who fought them, and perhaps wanted to seek negotiation or a further treaty, thus The God asks this rhetorical question, asking them to ponder on what is happening, i.e. what they are doing and have done.

I hope I have been clear.

Wakas

wildguest1956

peace,

Two of your colour groupings make no sense

Idolaters to be fought who have repented

Why would you fight the ones who repented?

Idolaters to be fought who have asked for protection

If they have asked for protection, why would you fight them?!

Sorry, it seems that my labels are lacking clarity.

Among the idolaters who have to be fought, some may have repented. Thus, they are not to be fought anymore. So, they are former idolaters to be fought. But, they are not among the straight idolaters, who have not to be fought.

Idem for the ones who have asked for protection.

Do you agree with my color codes ?

No, because of the above.

I think the "straight in "as long as they are straight with you concerns only the fair idolaters.

I agree, that is what I found.

No, you were saying that the "they" in "as long as they are straight with you" could be referring to the fair as well as the unfair idolaters.
But now, we are agreed.

What is the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" in ?

I already answered that question.

Sorry, but your answer is not clear to my mind.
Is the salat in the same as in and ?

Is there no a blatant contradiction ?

No! I see what you are seeing though. Please stop embellishing on what 'al quran' says, that will resolve the so-called contradiction you are seeing. When 'al quran' states "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger?" It is a rhetorical question, it is not a statement of law! If it was a stated rule, why make it a question? With the vast majority (perhaps all) of the rhetorical questions asked in 'al quran' it is asking us to reflect/think. It is obvious some believers were hesitant in fighting those who reduced from the treaty or those who fought them, and perhaps wanted to seek negotiation or a further treaty, thus The God asks this rhetorical question, asking them to ponder on what is happening, i.e. what they are doing and have done.

I hope I have been clear.

Wakas

Be it a rhetorical question or not, the lesson is clear the muslims cannot pledge themselves anymore with this kind of idolaters. They should fight them (except if they repent or ask for protection).

The crucial point between us is the content of the repentance What have the idolaters to say when they repent ?

If they say "OK, sorry, we should not have violated our pledge, we will stick to it up to now", then, clearly, this cannot be accepted by the muslims.
God warns them to refuse this in the following terms
"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 do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. " ()
" These are the transgressors/wrongdoers. " ()

The only repentance that can be accepted from us is something like the following "We repent for having violated our pledge, whe have always been wrongdoers, and want to change it. Our hearts have always been hostile toward you, and we want to purify ourselves. Now, we want to change our way of life, and to follow God's laws as enshrined in the quran, and to bring forth purification".
I do not invent it, this is what God is reproaching them in verses .

They have to become of the muslims, since there can be no more pledging with them.
The messenger has been forbidden to take a new pledge with them, and he has been ordered to fight them. But, he has to stop the fight if they say that they want to be of the muslims.

In , the idolaters who have repented are mentioned again, and, in this verse, it is obvious that they have submitted to the divine system.

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.

Peace

Wakas

peace,

No, you were saying that the "they" in "as long as they are straight with you" could be referring to the fair as well as the unfair idolaters.

Yes, but I said it most likely refers to the latter, i.e. the "fair idolaters" as you put it. Then I amended my trans. to reflect that.

Is the salat in the same 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.

If it is unclear, what exactly is unclear to you?

Be it a rhetorical question or not, the lesson is clear the muslims cannot pledge themselves anymore with this kind of idolaters. They should fight them (except if they repent or ask for protection).

It might be a lesson (i.e. because it asks us to think), that still doesn't make it a law! I personally do not derive laws from the rhetorical questions within 'al quran'. I would be interested to know if anyone here does, because if so, thats another potential hundreds of laws I havent even thought about.

They have to become of the muslims, since there can be no more pledging with them.
The messenger has been forbidden to take a new pledge with them, and he has been ordered to fight them. But, he has to stop the fight if they say that they want to be of the muslims.

Let's have a look at your suggested solution

According to you, the "muslims" cant accept their re-pledge until those who fight convert to "Muslims". Its a pity that solution contradicts 'al quran'. You will not find this notion anywhere.

" These are the transgressors/wrongdoers. " ()

911 does not say that, you misreferenced it. In any case, 911 is a continuation of the prior signs (this is clear grammatically), referencing the same people, and it is clear, that a pledge (i.e. slw/bond) was made, thus a re-pledge was in fact done, converse to your understanding. If not, then you believe this slw is either something else you haven't mentioned or you believe its referring to the original slw in 95, if so, you cant explain the progressing options shown between 95 & 912. Or you can you? Quite simply, why the difference in solution in 95 & 912?

Wakas

wildguest1956

peace,

No, you were saying that the "they" in "as long as they are straight with you" could be referring to the fair as well as the unfair idolaters.

Yes, but I said it most likely refers to the latter, i.e. the "fair idolaters" as you put it. Then I amended my trans. to reflect that.

OK, sorry.

Is the salat in the same 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.

If it is unclear, what exactly is unclear to you?

What is the salat in ? Is it about the pledge to God to follow the quran ?
Or is it about the pledge between the muslims and the idolaters ?

Be it a rhetorical question or not, the lesson is clear the muslims cannot pledge themselves anymore with this kind of idolaters. They should fight them (except if they repent or ask for protection).

It might be a lesson (i.e. because it asks us to think), that still doesn't make it a law! I personally do not derive laws from the rhetorical questions within 'al quran'. I would be interested to know if anyone here does, because if so, thats another potential hundreds of laws I havent even thought about.

Here is, in some examples, how I draw lessons from rhetorical questions

How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life?
=> we can not reject God.

How can God guide a people who have rejected after believing, and they witnessed that the messenger is true, and the clarity had come to them?
=> God cannot guide such people.

Originator of the heavens and the Earth, how can He have a son when He did not take a wife?
=> God cannot have a son.

How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger?
=> There cannot be a pledge with the idolaters.

Would you force the people to make them believe?
=> The prophet cannot force the people to believe.

They have to become of the muslims, since there can be no more pledging with them.
The messenger has been forbidden to take a new pledge with them, and he has been ordered to fight them. But, he has to stop the fight if they say that they want to be of the muslims.

Let's have a look at your suggested solution

According to you, the "muslims" cant accept their re-pledge until those who fight convert to "Muslims". Its a pity that solution contradicts 'al quran'. You will not find this notion anywhere.

No, it doesn't.

Perhaps you are saying that because you think it contradict

And had your Lord willed, all the people on Earth in their entirety would have believed. Would you force the people to make them believe?

As you know, there are 2 kinds of idolaters the "fair" and the "unfair".

The fair ones are mentioned here

Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among the idolaters if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
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.

Theses idolaters are to be left in peace by the Muslims. The muslims should not attack them, nor they should force them to anything.

But the "unfair" idolaters don't share the same fate ! These ones have to be fought ! So, freedom of deen is not an issue for them. Will you care of the freedom of deen of the enemies you are fighting ? That's nonsense !
Nevertheless, there is a last chance for them to submit to the divine system.
God cannot let the prophet kill people who say they want to become muslims. That's why God gives them this last chance.

" These are the transgressors/wrongdoers. " ()

911 does not say that, you misreferenced it.

It is in .

In any case, 911 is a continuation of the prior signs (this is clear grammatically), referencing the same people, and it is clear, that a pledge (i.e. slw/bond) was made, thus a re-pledge was in fact done, converse to your understanding.

Look at !
It is impossible that a pledge may have been made with the idolaters in !
In , God is deterring the Muslims to pledge again with them.

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.

If not, then you believe this slw is either something else you haven't mentioned or you believe its referring to the original slw in 95, if so, you cant explain the progressing options shown between 95 & 912. Or you can you? Quite simply, why the difference in solution in 95 & 912?

The oath in is the oath the idolaters made in their repentance, when they have decided to submit to the divine system.
The chiefs should be fought first, because they influence the others.

Peace,

JM

Wakas

peace,

What is the salat in ? Is it about the pledge to God to follow the quran ?

Essentially, yes, but I would not phrase it like that.

How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life?
=> we can not reject God.

We can reject The God. These people are called rejectors/idolaters/polytheists etc. Like I said, if you want to derive law from rhetorical questions, feel free. I dont. Like you said, "draw lessons", not law.

If you wish to embellish upon the signs and use this as a basis for your arguments, thats up to you. Thanks for the pointers though, as it made me solidify my argument further.

Wakas

wildguest1956

peace,

What is the salat in ? Is it about the pledge to God to follow the quran ?

Essentially, yes, but I would not phrase it like that.

How would you phrase it ?

Like that ?

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.

You are claiming that salat in and designates a pledge with the idolaters. And now, you are admitting that salat in designates a pledge with God.

Why this change of meaning of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat", in a unchanging context ?

If the idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and are not mentioned in , are they mentioned in ?

How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life?
=> we can not reject God.

We can reject The God. These people are called rejectors/idolaters/polytheists etc. Like I said, if you want to derive law from rhetorical questions, feel free. I dont. Like you said, "draw lessons", not law.

I have never said the rhetorical question in was a statement of law.
Let's take what appears to be a statement of law

O people, serve your Lord who has created you and those before you that you may be righteous.

Does it imply that we CANNOT refuse to serve God ?
NO ! It does NOT ! We CAN indeed refuse to serve God....
Yes, we CAN...
If we are of these people who are called rejecters/idolaters/polytheists !

So, your argument falls through.

Now, if you still refuse to draw from the conclusion that the muslims can not pledge again with the idolaters, let's consider

How is it when they gain the upper-hand they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge.
=> Will you make a pledge with this kind of people who will surely reject it when they gain the upper-hand ?

They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts are hostile, and most of them are wicked.
=> Will you have enough confidence in such guys to pledge with them ?

They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge.
=> Will you pledge with such people, who do not respect you, and are unable to respect a pledge ?

These are the transgressors/wrongdoers.
=> Will you make a pledge with transgressors/wrongdoers ?

As a conclusion, salat in cannot be a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims. This would contradict all the verses quoted above.

Salat in and is about the pledge of the muslims with God, as salat in

Peace

Wakas

peace,

i would phrase it, like ive always phrased it

'uphold the going/turning towards' OR 'uphold the bond'.

For anyone who had done some study on who the mumineen are, it is blatantly obvious what they uphold, and what bond they are associated with.

Why this change of meaning of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat", in a unchanging context ?

Is your definition of unchanging context, the same chapter? If you think the context is the same, fine. 'al quran' doesn't. In 918, it is referencing the mumineen. In any case, i did not change the meaning at all.

If the idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and are not mentioned in , are they mentioned in ?

I am not using the Warsh numbering, thus in 918, the idolaters are not mentioned. FACT.

I have never said the rhetorical question in was a statement of law.

You may not have used the word "law" explicitly, but when someone makes an absolute or factual statement, which leaves no room for interpretation, about a sign in 'al quran' like you did, its the same thing.

As a conclusion, salat in cannot be a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims. This would contradict all the verses quoted above.

No it wouldn't. Firstly, the are not statements of absolutes. Secondly, you disregard the feeling of those with the messenger who were fighting them. They were clearly hesitant (see 913, 916), hence re-stating / reflection on what the idolaters did.

Salat in and is about the pledge of the muslims with God, as salat in

Its a pity that doesn't work grammatically, logically, or contextually

pledge with God? Not once mentioned.
muslims? Not once mentioned, and disproven grammatically.
In 918, it is the mumineen, not the muslimeen. FACT.
95 it is fight them all, 912 it is fight the chiefs.

Please note, I will not discuss this issue further, unless I feel a solid point has been made.

Wakas

SwedenMajidah

Salaam,

I will just say that I don't believe in the physical sujood, where in Quran it says that we shall perform salat and make physical sujood?

Before when I was sunni I did the physical sujood but it never felt good and then I couldn't understand why.

It feels strange to physically sujood it feels like you idolize the ground you stand and sit on.

I believe instead that salat is a way to uphold the good and to uphold the contact with God at the both ends of a day salatul fajr and salat ishaa.

I think a form of meditation is a way to let your spirit be in good shape.

Peace
Sis Majidah

unknownuser

Peace sister Majidah,

How would you understand/interpret the following signs ?

17108 Say "Believe in it or do not believe in it. Those who have been given the knowledge before it, when it is recited to them, they fall to their chins prostrating, and they Say "Praise be to our Lord. Truly, the promise of our Lord was fulfilled."
17109 And they fall upon their chins crying, and it increases them in humility.

Here falling on chins is mentioned in context of SJD, which clearly makes it a physical act (not on the forehead though as per the sectarians).