salat = prayer? How do you explain this then...
-
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
-
-
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
-
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 -
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).
-
Salaam Tanveermd,
I cannot see it as a physical act because in my understanding the contact with God is through the spirit and spirits doesn't bend physically but ofcourse I can bend spiritually.
I also believe that our physical needs is only connect to this earth and that is the curse we got after been kicked out from the paradise.
I know that you will ask why God use chin, hands, feets and so on in Quran to explain things but that I see as a real challenge to look beyond the words and we humans we are also talking about he hands of God and so on but we don't know if God has hands or not, so that is only to express something to make it logic to our physical behaviours here on earth.
The face is also a very important part of our body because it is in our face we can see the different kind of feelings a person express like hapiness, sorrows, evilness and so on.
I cannot see that verse you mentioned to be a way of performing salat and absolutely not an obligatory act.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Majidah,
I agree that upholding salat is not an obligatory act because it is for the mumineen (believers) and not necessarily for the muslimeen (submitters).
When hands are mentioned in context of The God then of course that is allegorical, but when chin is mentioned in context of humans then it is clearly physical. Please support what you are saying from Qur'aan and bring me ONE example of an ayat where the word "CHINS" is used in context of humans ALLEGORICALLY.
The context of the signs that I quoted is clearly salat
17107 And a compilation that We have separated, so that you may relate it to the people over time; and We have brought it down gradually.
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.
17110 Say "Call on God or call on the Almighty. Whichever it is you call on, for to Him are the best names." And do not be too loud in thy SALAT, nor too quite; but seek a path in between.
17111 And Say "Praise be to God who has not taken a son, nor does He have a partner in sovereignty, nor does He have an ally out of weakness." And glorify Him greatly.According to the following sign recitation of Qur'aan is clearly mentioned in context of salat
1779 Thou shall uphold the SALAT at the setting of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.
Oration of Qur'aan as well as prostration are parts of upholding salat and according to the above signs the prostration is being mentioned in context of salat and is clearly physical involving falling on ones chin as opposed to the forehead.
Prostration also has a general meaning of obedience, so in addition to physical prostration on the chin it also means obeying The God in our daily lives and following His guidance, when mentioned in context of humans upholding salat.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
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.
Why do you exclude that, in and , the idolaters have, in their repentance, committed to become mumineen ?
To repent = to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life (Merriam-Webster)Is there any occurrence of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat" where it does not reference believers ? I don't think so.
And I have difficulties to imagine how one could purify oneself (or bring forth purification) without turning toward God's guidance.
As We have sent a messenger to you from amongst yourselves to recite Our revelations to you, and purify you, and teach you the Scripture and the wisdom, and teach you what you did not know.
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 never said I were using Warsh numbering.
I am looking for those idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and .
After and , It seems that we have no news of them.
Can they enliven/visit institutes of acknowledgment ?- 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.
Yes, they were hesitant, but this does change anything.
In all these verses, God deters the muslims to pledge with these idolaters, and orders the muslims to fight them.
Is this not clear ?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.
This is what they have pledged to uphold, i.e 'al quran' and thus the obligation/system enshrined in it.
muslims? Not once mentioned, and disproven grammatically.
Why, " disproven grammatically" ?
In 918, it is the mumineen, not the muslimeen. FACT.
What does it change ?
95 it is fight them all, 912 it is fight the chiefs.
What does it change ?
Please note, I will not discuss this issue further, unless I feel a solid point has been made.
WakasYou claim that salat in and is a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims.
But this interpretation is made imposible by verses , whereGod deters the muslim to make any other pledge with the idolaters.
I think it is an enough solid point.Peace.
-
Salaam Wakas,
Thank you very much for this thread it helped me much.
I do hope Br Tanveermd read it too.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
An update on the article
One of the things I'd change in the above article is "assail IN your system/obligation" in 912. This weakens the traditional understanding of deen=religion. Further reading see here
Another thing I thought of was that it states "and THEY (muAAtadoona/transgressors/wrongdoers) assail in YOUR deen". Now traditional interpretations of these signs say the muAAtadoona have become Muslims, if that is the case, why separate them by THEY and YOUR. This clearly shows they are still thought of as separate groups, as the article points out.
To conclude
It is not considered theirs to assail in, thus they never entered into a religion/deen* (Islam).*traditional understanding
Comments?
-
I was reading my article today and happened to notice it was exactly 1 year after I wrote it. Thought those who haven't might like to read it
Also, Layth/Zein, if you could add it to the articles list and the what's new section, that would be cool.
http//mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/think-786/disproved_salatequalsprayer.htm
I would really love for some traditional scholars to challenge it.
Anyways, it should be read with the following change (as stated in the above post)
912 "And if they break their oaths after making them, and THEY assail in YOUR obligation/system...
-
Peace Wakas,
Great article, I've saved it for future reference as well. I also wanted to bring to your attention an article that I found today about 'prayer' from a different perspective ..... I found it to be very interesting, to say the least. I'm curious to read your opinion on what he writes. Here's the link ... if you have the time...
http//www.nierica.com/prayers/ExplorePrayer.html
With gratitude...
-
The updated article
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm
very nice article and a lot of work..
I vote for it to be promoted at the free-minds website under Articles. It's definitely one explanation that's emerging to be the final explanation to Salat.. all else have led to ambiguity. I guess it's time Allah wants the God-Alone community to finally have a unanimous outcome to this most important debate.
-
ILisa,
Sorry, I thought I replied to this. I read it. I dont have much to say on it. The only comments I'd make is that a balance of giving thanks and requesting blessings needs to be struck. Now, I tend to stay away from specific blessings, just general ones, as I am more comfortable with that. I do agree with the gist of the following statement "It really is true that what we give or do to others, we give or do to ourselves. If we want peace, healing, light and love in our lives, we must focus our will, intent and actions on opening to these qualities and extending them to self and others."
PA,
Thanks for the feedback. The older article is present on the free-minds articles page
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/salat_wakas.htm -
Wakas,
I know this is a very old forum. Sorry for re-opening it. I dont know what is your current position on salat. Please send me the link on your recent article on this subject. I found this debate very thought provoking.
I am not sure if you are still maintaining "non-muslims can also perform salat" based on chapter 9.
My question
In 56, believers are asked to clean themselves before salat. Can we infer from this that only believers are expected to perform salat?
"O you who believe, if you rise to hold the Salat, then wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you have had intercourse, then you shall bathe. And if you are ill, or traveling, or you have excreted feces, or you have had sexual contact with the women, and you cannot not find water, then you shall select from the clean soil; you shall wipe your faces and your hands with it. God does not want to place any hardship on you, but He wants to cleanse you and to complete His blessings upon you that you may be appreciative." (56)
-
peace explorer,
My position is that the regular/timed "salat" is only upon the mumineen/believers.
And yes, my position is still that according to chapter 9, non-believers can uphold/maintain the "salat". This can confuse some, however, if you read my articles all should become clear
http//mypercept.co.uk/slw.htm (an introductory article to the basic concept)
http//mypercept.co.uk/quran_on_salat.htm (reasonably comprehensive list of additional information)
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm (a discussion on chapter 9's pivotal usage)
