SALAT :FOR THE ATTENTION OF LAYTH.
-
Peace be upon you Kaamil,
Being from nigeria, have you ever studied Yoruba?
And a personal note, have you ever been to the Fela Kuti "temple"?
Regarding salaat, if it was to read the book called "Quran", how did those before "Quran" perform salaat?
-
Peace be upon you Kaamil,
Being from nigeria, have you ever studied Yoruba?
And a personal note, have you ever been to the Fela Kuti "temple"?
Regarding salaat, if it was to read the book called "Quran", how did those before "Quran" perform salaat?
It should please you to note that there has never been a nation without a message. If any intellegent person wishes to seek Allah he ll develop the will to learn by keeping the message before him and Allah's grace ll help him to carry it out in his conduct. this is salat this is how salat deters from evil and vice.
-
Salaamun alaikum Kaamil,
You're quoting the ayaat carelessly, im sorry to say. Here's an exampleSalat is obligatory on every Muslim (Q20132, 95, 3333)
How do any of the verses above validate your statement?
20135 salat is to be enjoin on the believers
95 those who repent are to observe regular salat
3333 prophets wives are to keep up regular salat.
pls let me know how these ayat are out of contest. -
20135 salat is to be enjoin on the believers
95 those who repent are to observe regular salat
3333 prophets wives are to keep up regular salat.
pls let me know how these ayat are out of contest.Im assuming you mean 20/132 here, not 20/135, correct me if im wrong.
Your original statement was
Salat is obligatory on every Muslim (Q20132, 95, 3333)
20/132Wa 'Mur 'Ahlaka Bi-alati Wa Aabir `Alayh . And command your ahl (family, or those connected to you) WITH as-salaat and seek endurance on it.
It's telling you to command your family with as-salaat. Obligatory, muslim etc isn't in the verse. It doesn't assume your family are muslim.
9/5 speaks of al-mushrikoon who return to thier ahd/covenant. It says IF they establish as-salaat, open the way for them.
33/33 speaks of the prophet's wives and once again posits as-salaat.
The word obligatory (arabic fardh) isnt any of these verses.
-
20135 salat is to be enjoin on the believers
95 those who repent are to observe regular salat
3333 prophets wives are to keep up regular salat.
pls let me know how these ayat are out of contest.Im assuming you mean 20/132 here, not 20/135, correct me if im wrong.
Your original statement was
Salat is obligatory on every Muslim (Q20132, 95, 3333)
20/132Wa 'Mur 'Ahlaka Bi-alati Wa Aabir `Alayh . And command your ahl (family, or those connected to you) WITH as-salaat and seek endurance on it.
It's telling you to command your family with as-salaat. Obligatory, muslim etc isn't in the verse. It doesn't assume your family are muslim.
9/5 speaks of al-mushrikoon who return to thier ahd/covenant. It says IF they establish as-salaat, open the way for them.
33/33 speaks of the prophet's wives and once again posits as-salaat.
The word obligatory (arabic fardh) isnt any of these verses.
Granted that all these people are muslims. Allah teaches tha Qur'an because one verse explain the other. in Q4102 or 103 salat is made incumbent on believers and not on any other person. the rationalisation is that only those who repent among the aggressors are those who realise Allah and turn to Him them they are to observe salat.
the prophets wives are muslims they commanded to keep up regular salat.
The prophet is to tell his people to keep up salat his people here or his family are the muslims.
If saslat is not obligatory you please contest it by showing your proves from the Qur'an.
May Allah gives you a good view and understanding of the issue in question -
Salaamun alaikum Wakas,
-
Would you say that 9/11's 'fa'in taabu waqamu as-salaat wa atu az-zakaat' the equivalent of 9/12' 'wa'in nakutsu aimaanuhum min ba'da ahdihim' because the former is the factor of 'them becoming ikhwaan' while the latter rescinds that state?
-
What would you call you 'ikhwaan fiddeen' ?
-
-
Granted that all these people are muslims. Allah teaches tha Qur'an because one verse explain the other. in Q4102 or 103 salat is made incumbent on believers and not on any other person. the rationalisation is that only those who repent among the aggressors are those who realise Allah and turn to Him them they are to observe salat.
the prophets wives are muslims they commanded to keep up regular salat.
The prophet is to tell his people to keep up salat his people here or his family are the muslims.
If saslat is not obligatory you please contest it by showing your proves from the Qur'an.
May Allah gives you a good view and understanding of the issue in questionSorry, I'm not making myself clear here. I'm not saying as-salaat isnt obligatory (if you take 'obligatory' to mean 'defining factor'). Im just saying the verses you quoted doesn't prove that. 9/11 in my view proves that.
-
- I'm not sure I understand your question, please clarify
Ok.
9/11 says if they 'taabu', establish as-salaat, render az-zakaat THEN (fa) they are ur ikhwaan-fiddeen
So I take the factors toward being 'ikhwan fiddeen' to be to return to peace (opposite of qatl anyway - 48/16), establishment of as-salaat and rendering az-zakaat.
9/12 says 'if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and assail you in your deen' THEN FIGHT....
What I'm saying is the 2 possiblilities of relationships 'ikhwan fiddeen' and 'NOT ikhwaan fiddeen' is determined by
- taabu/returning to peace in this case
- establishment of as-salaat
- rendering of az-zakaat
OR
4. violation of thier aymaan after thier ahd
5. assailment of ad-deenSo Im saying, do you think 1,2,3 immediately above is the OPPOSITE of 4,5?
- brothers/fellows in the obligation/system
Ok, i call them muslimeen because
a. they were formerly in qitaal but now they are in islaam (48/16 again)
b. ad-deen inda Allah is al-islaam. -
peace mq,
Thanks for clarifying. I would say in this case 2 & 3 are opposite to 4 & 5.
The backdrop to these signs in chapter 9 is an established quranic system for the people. To me, this is what is being referred to with al-deen in 911.
Can I ask you, out of curiousity, why would al-deen be used in 911 and deenikum be used in 912? I know "deenikum" means 'your deen'. Is there no way of saying "al-deen" in both cases in Arabic? I ask because if you see "al-deen" as "al-islam", why say "your" in 912? Why not just say 'al-deen' for both?
Wakas
-
peace mq,
I just noticed it says "fee" before "deen" in both cases. We are translating "fee" as "in" in 911, why not for 912?
So if we use your trans. of "assail" for "taAAanoo", shouldn't it be "assail in your deen", which would directly imply "deen" is a structure.??
From PRL
Tay-Ayn-Nun = to thrust, defame/discredit, to speak ill of someone, traducing, assail, revile, scoff, pierce, spear, wound, calumniate.Wakas
-
Thanks for clarifying. I would say in this case 2 & 3 are opposite to 4 & 5.
Np Wakas. Ok, why not the 'taboo' (i.e. 1 as well as 2 &3) bit?
The backdrop to these signs in chapter 9 is an established quranic system for the people. To me, this is what is being referred to with al-deen in 911.
Sounds reasonable, agreed.
Can I ask you, out of curiousity, why would al-deen be used in 911 and deenikum be used in 912? I know "deenikum" means 'your deen'. Is there no way of saying "al-deen" in both cases in Arabic? I ask because if you see "al-deen" as "al-islam", why say "your" in 912? Why not just say 'al-deen' for both?
I've been aware of the problem of 'al' and this point, my opinion is that when they did 1,2 and 3, its the same for everyone, what you need to do to be in ad-deen, conceptually. However , they also committed the crime of 4&5, they havent done any damage to the conceptual of ad-deen, only the manifestation of ad-deen in the world. Ad-deen is a conceptual entity in the world, its absolutel. It's like 'as-salaat' and 'salatuhum'.
side note please look at 3/81, why is it just 'kitab' and 'hikmah' with no 'al' ?
And yes, ad-deen is al-islaam. To me this makes a muslim, iqamus-salaat, itaa'u az-zakaat. This makes most sense to me because 'aslama' works on a 'wajh' level (aslamtu WAJHIYA lillah..3/20)
many thanks for the thought provoking question.
-
I just noticed it says "fee" before "deen" in both cases. We are translating "fee" as "in" in 911, why not for 912?
So if we use your trans. of "assail" for "taAAanoo", shouldn't it be "assail in your deen", which would directly imply "deen" is a structure.Well, to me, a deen is a relationship between an abd and rabb (10/104) which MANIFESTS as a behavioural pattern of iqamus-salaat and itaa'u az-zakaat. This is what they're assailing, in my view.
-
peace mq,
Ok, why not the 'taboo' (i.e. 1 as well as 2 &3) bit?
I just felt the 'taboo' was referring to a prior event, thus should be taken out of the equation.
...they havent done any damage to the conceptual of ad-deen, only the manifestation of ad-deen in the world.
I see your point, and that seems reasonable but I think this is where you perhaps missed my subtle point, it is not 'damage to your deen' it is 'damage in your deen'.
Well, to me, a deen is a relationship between an abd and rabb (10/104) which MANIFESTS as a behavioural pattern of iqamus-salaat and itaa'u az-zakaat. This is what they're assailing, in my view.
Nice reference with 10104, that is pretty much a direct answer to the question "what is 'deen'?".
I'm not questioning your understanding of 'deen', what I'm saying is they are not "assailiing" your deen. They are "assailing" in your deen.If someone causes trouble/damage in your 'deen', then this clearly shows it is an activity that is being done in your 'deen', i.e. it is not a belief, it is not a set of beliefs, it is something tangible/physical, something present in the real-world. To me, this for example weakens the traditional understanding of 'deen' as 'religion'. For proof of this, it is no coincidence traditional translators omit the "fee/in" in their translations because they are using "deen = religion" and I guess they figured this doesn't sound right.
I think you may be right with "atw zkw" being a good contrast to "t3n dyn".
I had a look at 381. That is interesting, as I never checked the Arabic to see if "al" was there or not. I know from experience al-quran is precise in its word usage thus if its not there, its for a reason.
many thanks for the thought provoking question.
The same to you.
Wakas
-
WakasI just felt the 'taboo' was referring to a prior event, thus should be taken out of the equation.
I hear you on that but I think we need to find another equational statement just to be sure.
I see your point, and that seems reasonable but I think this is where you perhaps missed my subtle point, it is not 'damage to your deen' it is 'damage in your deen'.
Right, once again I hear you. Ad-deen does manifest in structural form in some way.
Nice reference with 10104, that is pretty much a direct answer to the question "what is 'deen'?".
I owe Izutsu for that one. His 'Semantics of the Koranic Weltanschaung'
I'm not questioning your understanding of 'deen', what I'm saying is they are not "assailiing" your deen. They are "assailing" in your deen.
Perhaps 'committting assailment' , just to make it sound more palatable to the ears?
If someone causes trouble/damage in your 'deen', then this clearly shows it is an activity that is being done in your 'deen', i.e. it is not a belief, it is not a set of beliefs, it is something tangible/physical, something present in the real-world. To me, this for example weakens the traditional understanding of 'deen' as 'religion'. For proof of this, it is no coincidence traditional translators omit the "fee/in" in their translations because they are using "deen = religion" and I guess they figured this doesn't sound right.
Well, if 'aslama' works on a 'wajh' level (3/20) and our deen is al-islaam, then our deen must work on a wajh or expressive level as well. The 'ta3anoo' chaps must be doing something discernible.
I think you may be right with "atw zkw" being a good contrast to "t3n dyn".
So iqamus-salaat must be establishing our aymaan and ahd? We need to find more of these equations in order to be sure.
I had a look at 381. That is interesting, as I never checked the Arabic to see if "al" was there or not. I know from experience al-quran is precise in its word usage thus if its not there, its for a reason.
Gee thanks Wakas but I sort of realised that
Come on, just fire away. Why do you feel there's no 'al' there? Help me out here, man.
-
peace mq,
they were given of book/decree/prescript and wisdom. This makes sense in the context. It seems to indicate they were given a fraction of the pool. You dig?
So iqamus-salaat must be establishing our aymaan and ahd? We need to find more of these equations in order to be sure.
Bro, I just thought, this slw that was being upheld/established was in context, i.e. its specific to the bond/oath that the mushrikeen took. This is an explicit reference to what "iqamus-salaat" is!
Thus, all we need to ask ourselves is what bond/oath is upon us! What is the context for us.
Wakas
-
Wakasthey were given of book/decree/prescript and wisdom. This makes sense in the context. It seems to indicate they were given a fraction of the pool. You dig?
I dig but the issue's not dug, I'm afraid. A principle I employ for my tafseer is that when al-quraan uses a certain phrase to say a certain thing, it won't use another phrase to mean exactly the same thing. This is why it's 'kitaaban mutashabihan mathany' (39/23). I'm sure you recall phrases like
"naseeban min al-kitaab/portion of the book"3/81 has no
- taifan /section (of the book)
- fariqan / division (of the book)
you get the idea, I'm sure. All it says is, 'kitab wa hikmah'. So its literally a book and wisdom. Could it be because next to Allah, nothing is absolute (thus requiring an 'al') ? I'm still at guesswork for this one.
Bro, I just thought, this slw that was being upheld/established was in context, i.e. its specific to the bond/oath that the mushrikeen took. This is an explicit reference to what "iqamus-salaat" is!
Thus, all we need to ask ourselves is what bond/oath is upon us! What is the context for us.
Right, I see your point. Perhaps 2/83-85 is the covenant? It is described as 'al-kitaab' after all and 29/45 tells us to 'follow whats revealed to us min al-kitaab and aqimu as-salaaat'.
-
peace mq,
min kitabin wahikmatin
from my research thus far, min is a partitive. Since it is addressing them collectively, perhaps it is more proper to say 'given you from book and wisdom'. I dont think its logical to assume (and in my view al-quran confirms this) all prophets received an exact same book & wisdom, hence this usage.
Perhaps 2/83-85 is the covenant? It is described as 'al-kitaab' after all and 29/45 tells us to 'follow whats revealed to us min al-kitaab and aqimu as-salaaat'.
I wasn't thinking about 283-85 at all. I was thinking more along the lines of what we pledged to uphold prior to this life/test, or what is upon those who received scripture.
In 2945, isn't it "otlu/recite"? I would agree however there is a connection being made between reciting what is inspired/revealed to you from al-kitab and establishing the slw. Knowing whats in al-kitab puts one in a position to establish al-slw.At the moment, to me, the closest English word to salat is "bond". It is interesting to note though that its not exactly like this English equivalent. For example, I could say the following sentence "Sarah has a special bond with her pet cat". The word "bond" here implies a closeness in relationship/affection / connection, but does not really imply the other aspect of the Arabic word salat, and that is it inherently contains decree/prescript/law/information / code of conduct / behaviour, just like the salat/bond the mushrikeen pledged to uphold/establish. These two aspects of the word can easily be seen from the Classical Arabic meanings found in a dictionary.
Actually, perhaps the English word "bond" does, as I'm sure the special bond Sarah has with her pet cat would make her act accodringly. Perhaps this is why salat is said to deter fahsha & munkari (2945).
Also, I was thinking how in 912 "break their oaths" and "assailment" are pretty much synonymous, i.e. cant do one without the other. Thus, another contrast could be made "aqimu as-salaaat" can be opposed to 'assailment' or more generically "to cause damage".
I did a google to get a definition for "to damage" and here is what I found
the occurrence of a change for the worse
thus, its opposite would be
the occurrence of a change for the better
Does this resonate with your view of salat? It does with mine.
Wakas
