Destiny of those praying 5x towards the cube?
-
Well this is always a nice try by the people who claim that Muslims who perform sijood facing the Kaaba are committing idolatry, first of all and as I said before, they forgot that it was an order from Allah in His Quran,
Salam AB where is the order in the Quran?
Its interesting that I recently saw an intervied in PTV with Ziauddin Sardar. It was very interesting. Particularly, muslims always attaching too much to history, hadith, shariya etc, even the understanding of the Quran-its Arabic from primitive Arabs as those at the time of Mohammed and few centuries later has frozen ourselves in the past and hindered us from progressing. This I think is very true. Zia suggested that every 100 years we should re-interpret the Quran. I think this is great, I suggest we should interpret it every 10 years if we have to.
The take home message for you AB is to think ligically and intelectually rather than quoting/cutting/pasting verses from the Quran, as we do not want to be frozen back in time. We now have to move on. Its a pity that sometimes I will be forced to go to Jumma (Friday prayer). And guess what happen, people bowing (arobics etc) to the cube, reading namaz without knowing the translation, laughing, chilling, showing their cars outside the mosque, the imam is basically just prasing the Prophet, lying and manipulating the monkeys sitting infront of him, who with every lie shout the takbir. Now what the hell is this ?
The solution for us into serve/commit rather then to pray/worship to the stone ! If we do not do this nothing gona change.
Peace
-
Maybe the history can change the contents of a message, but NOT the totality of an occurance! Prophet Mohammad did pray and quite surely during congregational prayer!
How did he do it?
How often?
in which occasions?these are all the questions which I find of least priority! THE FACT IS THAT HE DID AND SO IS IN QURAN and in association with different stories are very strong signs of THE BEHAVIOR OF OTHER PROHETS and that they did prayed GOD!
IF WE AGREE ON THIS AND ALSO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD GIVE OUR OWN SELVES A GOOD DOSSAGE OF PRAYER AND THEN TEACH OTHERS OF ITS MEANING AND ITS SPIRIT. then
It is not important HOW, WHERE, HOW OFTEN and........................
It is far more important to search for its function, purpose, usability, ......in spiritual attainment, being a good human, being a positive and productief member of society!
Prayer is performed by those who are moved. Those people get emotionally involved with GOD and need to talk to their FRIEND often.
Are they dancing (like sufis) or bowing (like jews) or prostrating ( like many muslims) or singing( like many black Americans) ARE ALL WELL as long as it is meant to lower our selfish ego and raise the iamge of ALMIGHTY.
They connect in their own ways to GOD.
We pray to say thanks for the existence and that of ours too.
We pray to say sorry of our human shortcomings
We pray to contemplate on beautiful attributes of GOD which should become our own.
We pray to evaluate our daily life and see if it was straight enough.
We pray to see which GOOD actions did I do today?
We pray to remember whom we forgot and to whom we were unjustWe thank and get humble! Getting Humble is a practice to reach a point to leave our selfish desire completly behind us.
THIS IS PRAYER. I do pray and most certainly I do pray toward the cube ; THE HOUSE OF GOD. As I do while watching the sun, or watching the birds or feeling the rain on my skin! All these are blessings of HIS ALMIGHT.
DON?T MIND MY FINGER SHOWING THE MOON. KEEP YOU EYES ON THE MOON,.
peaceGood post Alpha. I think the prophet did commit in congregation at jumma. I like the Bruce Lee's words at the end of your message.
Peace
-
For people to understand, i'm still studying the concept of salat, but Ayman's article showed me that, we have to understand the concept mostly from the Quran itself. I agree with it being obedience and it being physical prayer, but the arguments like the ones from AB aren't enough to prove his position, that is all i'm trying to prove here. So i see both sides are being to confident on their position. Is this because they have to defend their concept, or because it is the true concept? For now i'm still in the middle. Like i can't agree with Ayman that the washing in 56 is just the morning and evening "wash". Still it has a more 'special' function, but is this because of mine pre-programmed concept, or my seeing a logical true concept? This is what i'm trying to find out. In this debate i still see two sides that both are not convincing me, it looks more a germany versus holland soccer game fans shouting at each other, shouting who's the best, i'm waiting till the game is finished, and the players strenght (arguments from the Quran) determine the game.............
WHAT IS SALAT? Edip Yuksel on Physical salat
SALAT With Both Mind and Body
Edip Yuksel
19.org29 May 2004
The moment I joined the forums of free-minds.org and posted the first message about the FIVE PROJECTS (not five prayers!) we were working on, my faith was questioned by several people and I was immediately challenged regarding my opinion on SALAT. On any subject I wrote, I was harassed and demanded to indulge in their favorite argument. It seems that several people were so excited from freeing their minds and their bodies from performing a ritual; they just wanted to PROHIBIT such a ritual in the name of God. According to these people, anyone disagrees with their INTERPRETATION, INFERENCES and SPECULATIONS on some Quranic verses or words, or someone prays differently, he or she must be a MUSHRIK or DISBELIEVER. According to them I should not spend much time to think and study their claims. They did not even recognize a right for me to spend time on anything else in my life. I was expected either to reject their position IMMEDIATELY or accept IMMEDIATELY. Studying their argument was either a luxury, or evasion of absolute truth! I should have had acted reflexively, with a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps like they have done it.
As a response, I told them that I was taking their position seriously, and I even acknowledged that though I have heard the argument 30 years ago when I was living in Turkey, I learned a few new good points raised in their argument, and I added that after studying their assertions, if I find their argument to be factual and coherent I would not hesitate to change my position. I never accused them of committing sin by NOT observing Salat prayers physically. I was simply following the instructions in 20114; 1736; 3938.
I would like to share two incidents with you before I venture to briefly state my reasons why I disagree with their RIGID position (accusing those who observe prayers mentally and physically of being mushriks), and why I am not so far persuaded by their SOFT position (that the Salat prayers should be observed mentally).
Several years ago, when I came to the conclusion that according to the Quran the number of Salat prayers were not FIVE, but THREE, I started praying three times a day. I shared my view with the members of my small congregation, and some of them, including my wife, did not want to change their routine of praying 5 times a day. They found my argument difficult to follow, and they had some arguments supporting their position. Yet, I never questioned their faith. I knew that it was still possible that a group of people following the Quran alone could have some differences in their understanding of its verses, since their knowledge, experience, and background were not all the same. The most important thing was their intention to devote their religion to God alone. Perhaps, with more research and some friendly discussion their differences would fade out with time. I did not and do not expect that every believer in Quran Alone must understand every verse, every word and their implications the same. My wife still prays five times a day and follows the traditional numbers of units. If I listened to these people and did not mind my own business and demanded her to accept my version of understanding some verses, I would have accused her of committing SHIRK, the ultimate crime. How could a believer blame another for merely observing EXTRA prayers based on their differences in understanding of the Quran?
The second incident I want to share with you involves a spin-off group of Tucson submitters. Some submitters led by a couple of messenger claimants (Yes, after Rashad Khalifa dozens of people claimed to be messengers) came to believe that uttering Allah-u Akbar was wrong, since AKBAR was not a Quranic attribute of God. Instead, they started using Allah-ul Kabeer in their prayers. I preferred the attribute used by the Quran to the one that was not, and I started uttering Allah-ul Kabeer; but unlike them I did not have problem with someone who uttered Allah-u Akbar. Though AKBAR was not used in the Quran as an attribute for God, it shared the same root KBR with KABEER and there was no problem with its meaning. It was a beautiful attribute and all beautiful attributes, regardless of language, belonged to God. However, most of those who converted to Kabeer acted divisively and started condemning those who uttered Akbar. The other group also reacted similarly. They claimed that Kabeer was an innovation and switching from Akbar to Kabeer was a diversion from their late messenger's practice (that is Rashad Khalifa's Sunnah! Ironically, these people were the same people who rejected Hadith and Sunnah attributed to Muhammad arguing that the Quran alone must be the ONLY authority of their religion).
Turning back to present topic?. The same extremism or desire for schism is at work among some members of free-minds. A group of people come to believe and practice a particular issue differently than others; and they start turn that issue to a sales-pitch for their cult or group. They develop and sharpen their arguments and use it like a holy sword. They might have some good points, they might be even totally correct; but they start abusing their newly discovered DIFFERENCE by exaggerating the issue and by making it a categorical measure of faith. It is curious dynamic that comes into play in every new religious or political group. Desire to create a separate identity overwhelm their rational thinking and blinds them to see the common values. Soon after Jesus, Paul the Pharisee distorted many facts to divorce Jesus' message from of Moses. Soon after Jesus departure the followers "of the Pharisee son of Pharisee" started calling themselves Christians. This divisive pattern is common in almost all groups that advocate a particular religion, sect, or cult.
I would also make one point clear. Understanding and accepting differently is not the same as rejecting God's ayaats/signs in the Quran and/or in the nature. Rejecting to believe an ayat (sign) or ayaat (signs/revelations) is disbelief and considered a great sin. For instance, if 9128-129 were verses of the Quran, rejecting them would be important. Similarly if 9128-129 were not verses of the Quran, accepting them would be important too. (I am deliberately using the word VERSES rather than AYAAT, since the singular word Ayat is used 84 times in the Quran and in all those occurrences it is used to mean signs and miracles, and never in its singular form refers to the verses of the Quran. However, both signs/miracles and revelation is referred with the plural of the word, that is Ayaat. Knowing that the Quran challenges disbelievers to produce minimum 1 chapter similar to the Quran, and knowing that the shortest chapter has three verses, then it is appropriate to use the plural word AYAAT for at least three verses. ) Since, the Code 19 involves this issue and also is considered as one of the greatest miracles (AYAAT) and a test, the very witnessing or understanding becomes a matter of faith. (I will inshallah later post an article on this issue).
Salat
After this lengthy introduction, here are my reasons why I still continue observing the Salat prayers both mentally and bodily. I will focus on brother Layth's article titled What is Salat"
It is true that SaJDa means obedience, submission to God's law (1649). From this verse we should not necessarily infer that everything has mind like humans. Even if we subscribe to such a fancy assumption, mental events too are physical events; they are the consequence of interaction of electrons. In fact, the prostration of all the creatures we perceive is PHISICAL. Any event that can be sensed by our five senses is a physical event. Atoms physically (chemical reactions too are physical events in this sense) surrender to God's laws when they interact with each other. When water freezes it surrenders to God's law and expands, when it is heated to a certain degree it evaporates. When Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen atoms come together in a particular order and create bases called Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine, and when these bases join each other in a particular order, pre-ordained by God, they create DNAs that produce new qualities and events, including life. Every cell and organ in our bodies submits to God's law. These are all physical demonstration of SaJDa to God. No wonder, the entire universe is stated to have submitted to God (383; 1315). Interestingly, in these two verses the same idea is depicted yet in 383 the verb aSLaMa (submitted) is used while in 1315 the verb yaSJuDu (prostrating) is used. This is a strong evidence that botq verbs belong to the same semantic field. As we know submission to God is not just a mental activity but a physical action, such as working hard, delivering God's message, feeding the poor, etc.
On verse 4137 Layth makes the following inference "We are commanded not to prostrate before sun and moon, which means DO NOT GET ON THE GROUND AND BOW BEFORE PHYSICAL CREATIONS thinking you are worshiping The God. The God uses Sun and Moon as examples to represent all day and night."
This is not only a far-fetched speculation; it is also based on misunderstanding of the Arabic suffix Li. The verse does not say "BEFORE sun and moon," but "FOR/TO sun and moon." In connection to Layth's argument, the difference is huge. Furthermore, to describe time the Quran frequently uses day and night, not sun and moon. The verse does not prohibit physical prostration for God, but physical and mental prostration to others than God.
-
I agree with Layth that the word SaJDa in some verses means ONLY mental (in quantum, electronic or neural level) prostration while in other verses it means ONLY bodily (atomic and molecular level) prostration. (I do not deliberately use the word PHYSICAL since both mental and bodily events are physical). I agree with Layth in his excellent observation on 2720-24 and deduce that the prostration in question must be physical. I also agree with Layth that 7748 most likely refers to mental prostration.
-
As for verse 2218, it describes both mental and bodily submission to God. After quoting this verse Layth asks a rhetorical question, "Has anyone ever seen any of these creations bow and prostrate on the ground (animals excluded)?" He claims that since all things in heavens and earth do not prostrate to God by casting themselves facedown on the ground in humility, then we should not prostrate that way either. But, this conclusion is based on a false assumption that ALL creatures prostrate the same way. Every creature in heavens and earth glorifies God (2441; 571; 591,24; 611; 621; 641). But we do not understand their glorification (1744). We are also instructed to glorify our Lord day and night, not like birds or planets, but like humans, in our language (341; 598; 7206; 1911; 20130; 3215; 4055; 5039-40; 5248-49; 5674,96; 6952; 7626; 871; 1103).
Hence "Do you not see that everything in heavens and earth glorify God, including the birds in columns. Each knows his/her/its prayer (Salat) and glorification. God is fully aware of everything you do." (2441).
The following verse is also important "Are they seeking other than God's religion, when everything has submitted (aSLaMa) to Him in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned?" (383). Now Layth should ask similar question about how to be a muslim as he asked about how to perform prostration "Has anyone ever seen any of these creations give charity or deliver God's message or study the Quran?" So, according to Layth, muslims also should not give charity, should not deliver the message, should not study the Quran, and should not use computers?!!
After quoting verse 262 Layth adds "No, not all of the mentioned people bow and prostrate on the ground. Will they be punished? No, it is the people who do not SUBMIT to The God and FOLLOW HIS COMMANDS that will deserve His punishment." Again, Layth reaching conclusions hastily. The groups mentioned in the verse (believers, Jews, Nazarenes, and those from other religions) attain salvation as long as they believe in God, do righteous work and believe in hereafter. Perhaps not all these groups bow and prostrate, and perhaps not all these groups believe and follow the Quran, either. First, we should remember that God hold responsible depending on their circumstances. As those who witnessed Moses' miracles will be hold responsible for their reaction to them, similarly those who are instructed to bow and prostrate will be held responsible for their reaction. Each nation received a messenger and each received their instruction (1047; 2234; 402.
Referring to verse 1850, Layth concludes "There is no need to get on the ground to worship your Lord because He has not commanded us to do this. He wants us to Bow and Prostrate our WILLS to that of HIS WILL." This is a reasonable conclusion. However, knowing that the word prostration was also used to mean humbly getting on the ground, we cannot equate the prostration in this verse to all others. The verse refers to an event took place before the creation of life on earth. Besides, the instruction is to Satan, a creature made of energy not matter like us. The nature of prostration asked from Satan or angels might be little different than the one asked from us. Or, more accurately, the form, way or style of our prostration might not necessarily be expected to be the same with angels.?
Layth makes an interesting point "Most times it is preceded by the word "Khar'a" (fall down), which adds to "prostration" to let us know that it is indeed physical prostration. If "prostration" was automatically understood as physical, there would be no need to add "Khar'a" along with it." He later quotes verse 12100 which describes how Joseph's vision/dream was fulfilled. That verse uses the words "fall" and "prostrate" together. But, Layth forgets that in the beginning of the chapter, Joseph's vision that describes the very event described in 12100 uses ONLY one word SaJeDeen, which means "they were prostrating."
Furthermore, David who was observing Salat prayer is described by the Quran as "? He then implored his Lord for forgiveness, bowed down (KhaRra RuKka'An), and repented." (3824). David's repentance is clearly described as bowing down, BOTH MENTAL AND BODILY.
I do not know Layth, but some of his friends are not only reaching the wrong conclusion about the nature of Salat prayer, they further arrogate themselves by insulting, harassing and condemning those believers who observe Salat prayer BOTH MENTALLY and BODILY.
I hope that Layth will carefully re-visit this issue and reform his position. I would like to remind him and others who are trying hard to eliminate the formal component of Salaat prayer the following verse
"? When the revelations of the Gracious are recited to them, they fall prostrate (KhaRRu SuJjaDan), weeping." (195
-
-
Thanks brother,
Very interesting article, truly very informative! I really do not find any problem submitting mentally (electronically, cellularly) or spiritually (Soul, non-physically??) or physically. But the problem is when physically submitting to God people starts to focus to the stones with a direction (qibla etc). That I do have problem with. If one wants to put ones' head on the floor its OK, but to stones and to a certain diraction is problematic.
What do you think.
Peace
-
Yes, i agree, till nowi don't see a connection, convincing proof between qibla being involved with physical direction. The only function a physical praying focal point could have, is a social function. So we have to focus on how the Quran itself explains the meaning of 'masjid al-haram', without using the pre-programmed strings tying conclusions together. This is what i mean with, concepts, are our conclusions, our understandings how to interpretate verses or words, pre-programmed by tradition, or by Quran? Does the Quran made strings between verses and words, or did we made them because of our program that says there should be a physical qibla? This is a study that is still not undertaken.
We have a little list we have to work out1.God is everywhere.
a.So no need for a physical direction.
b.It has a social function.2.Don't pray towards an object.
a.Because didn't we turn it into a 'holy'/'special' direction?
b.The Masjid al-haram is only a focal point, it is not the focus of the prayer.This is more homework....
This article of Edip, is the only honest and objective article i have found so far, that acknowledges both sides of salat meaning physical and being obedience, and its convincing in its points next to Ayman's, also some ideas of Parwez are interresting. But we have to put all theories next to another, and see what fits.
Peace
-
If the Quran doesn't tell us something that is from the unseen world, God thinks it can be described, or it is not necesarry for us to know. As to the history, ok.
Bro the Quran told us many things from the unseen world, like the hell fire for example and like the angels, even historical data was mentioned in the Quran
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs) He adds to Creation as He pleases for Allah has power over all things.
(1)
I would never think your a fool, but i know we have to be carefull when we read somethings...
Thaks bro for that and thanks for the long article about the angel history, but as you know the history records are hearsay, like the hadith exactly, I hoped you bring evidences from the Quran though
Defenition wings
A winglike organ or structureAs you can see "wings" can be taken in several ways. So to which definition do you refer then? And where is your logic and proof behind it?
Bro wing is the following simple definition as you quoted above
A winglike organ or structure,
like a plan wing
now if the angels use it for flying or not, I really don?t know because the Quran didn?t talk about that, the bottom line is this
you said the Quran never described the angels physically and clearly the Quarn said that Allah made 2 or 3 or 4 A winglike organ for the angels,
but you still asking for proofs, what proofs exactly bro?, that wings means Jinah in arbic?
The proof is I?m an arbic speaker
Your question is like asking a native English speaker to prove that a school means a school in English
All in all if we face a sentence with word that have many meanings, only the context that will control that meaning
And the literal context for the verses clearly says they have wings
this is one of the many things we need to do to be called submitters as the Quran explained to us the laws
exactly....
You don't know what i am talking about i see, it has nothing to do with language or not, which language or book or faith. It has to do with conceptions, ideas about how you see the word used in life, how it was thaught to you what it means. This has nothing to do with being a native speaker or not, this has to do with perception of words and definitions and meanings. This has to do if the word 'salat' really was used as to mean prayer during Mohammed's time.
Well, as far as I believe that Allah is not going to trick us in His Quran, i.e. it means literal unless specified otherwise, , yet you have not provided one Quran verse to sypport your coneption
As you can see, the word salat was used in a total different way in the ancient times, so when did it got also the meaning of prayer? By whom? The Quran uses it in different ways, so who has explained the concept of how to use the word salat? Isn't it logical then to see in what way God uses it in His Quran? He teaches us how He means it. This is the only research that can prove it. Who thaught you it also means physical prayer? Not the ancient dictionaries. This is the answer we are looking for, so your referrences you are a native speaker, doesn't apply at all when we investigate concepts, because we have to understand who thaught you, your concept of understanding the word, how to read it, what kind of meaning it has in a verse and so on.
This is what i am investigating, and till now, just saying it means prayer is not enough.
Peace
Bro I discussed this matter before, the word Salat is the same foe me since I was a baby, it means literally a connection, now applying that literal meaning on our action or performing Salat, it means we are making a connection with Allah
Very simple and does not need rocket science
Peace man
-
Peace all,
Jews who bang their heads on the Wailing Wall say "we are ordered to do this by God Himself". Christians who venerate Jesus will also say "we are ordered to do this by God Himself". EVERYONE who does any kind of nonsense will try to justify it by saying "we are ordered to do this by God Himself". One thing that they will never be able to do is to answer "WHY". They don't know the purpose and all their arguments collapse when quized on the purpose.
For those who think "sujud" is merely and primarily a physical act, is this how you do your "sujud"?
17.107.
Supposedly, some here can read and understand Arabic. So do they understand what means? It means to the "chins" NOT the "foreheads".
If one believes that "sujud" is physical then one must obey The God and do it to the "chin" NOT the "forehead".
The only time the "forehead" is mentioned in relation to "salat", it is the lying and errant "forehead" of those that PREVENT the real "salat" in Chapter 96.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ahmed,
Your question is like asking a native English speaker to prove that a school means a school in English
This is a good example. Because the walls and ceilings of a certain physical building is not what defines a "school". A school is not primarily a physical building, it is primarily an institution of learning. Thus, you can't send your kids to be taught by the physical building. You send them to be taught by the institution, which is not a physical concept. Sure a physical building is one component of the institution but it is not the primary one nor is it the most important one. Thus people can be "home schooled" and we even have on-line schools where people can go to learn.
Hence, a native English (and Arabic) speaker will tell you about a certain school of thought and someone in the need of "schooling" is not in the need of a physical building but is in the need of "learning".
Really such concepts are universal in all languages and your using of "native Arabic speaker" argument sounds as pathetic as a native English speaker arguing "I am a native English speaker" whenever someone argues against his understanding of the King James Bible.
Moreover, like the native English speaker your knowledge of the language is limited to what you were taught at school. For example, you seem happy to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between Modern Arabic and Classical Arabic. This is as silly as a modern English speaker imagining that there is no difference between modern English and old English.
This is basic stuff about Arabic and all languages that you are probably the least knowledgeable about on this forum and yet ironically out of all the native Arabic speakers here you are the only one always boasting the "I am a native Arabic speaker" as your strongest argument. My observation as a fellow Egyptian and native Arabic speaker is that it really sounds pretty hollow after hearing it so many times. This has nothing to do with you personally as I am sure that it would sound hollow from me and all Arabic speakers if they repeat it as much as you do and use it as their main argument.
This is my honest observation and it is not meant negatively, it is meant as advice that I sincerely hope would help.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Arnold,
I agree with what you said in your post that salat, sujud, and ruku could be mental only or both mental and bodily, and that the context of the verses will determine if they are just mental, or both mental and bodily.
I was going to post the verse 17107 but brother Ayman beat me to it. I agree that according to that verse if the physical sujud is performed it has to be on the chin and not on the forehead as per the sectarians.
Brother Arnold, I have a question, maybe you can clarify it for me. If sujud or ruku is physical then it is usually preceded by "kharra" but that is not always true as in the case of 2724 where the prostration is physical but is not preceded by "kharra". On the other hand in 12100 the prostration is preceded by "kharroo" but it is not bodily. So "kharra" does not always mean bodily and the absence of "kharra" does not necessarily mean mental only; so how can one determine if the sujud or ruku is mental only or both mental and bodily in a particular verse, because the "kharra" rule does not always work ? Also how can you be sure if the prostration is really bodily when preceded by "kharra" as "kharra" does not always imply bodily ?
You also mentioned that 7748 most likely refers to mental prostration. However 7748 talks about ruku and not sujud. Are you taking ruku here to mean prostration ?
Also can you please post the verse/verses which convincingly show that a bodily ruku is part of salat ? 17107-17111 shows clearly that a bodily sujud is part of salat according to the context but I could not find the verse/verses showing that bodily ruku is part of salat. The closest I came was 555 but the context in that verse seems to imply that the ruku mentioned is mental only.
Would you agree that 2237, 340, 4102, and 4142 convincingly prove a bodily standing position for salat ?
Oration or recitation of verses from qur'aan in salat in a moderate tone as per 17110-111 is also bodily.
Can you also please comment on the proof that qiblah and al-masjid al-haram is mental and not physical as shown in the following post ?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80128#80128
-
Peace bro,
First of all, it is Edip who wrote the article, not me. So your questions are directed to him. He is in the memberslist. But i will check those verses and see what answer i can give, but i'm not an arabic expert.
And i don't need to give my opinion on the masjid al-haram, as brother Ayman has given perfect examples i agree with, but more research has to be done. God always has some tricks up His sleeves to keep us focused and awake.
So more comments will come Godwilling, but on verse 12100, people have to remember that also raising them on the trone can be taking symbolic, and the prostrating is done or before God, like Asad thinks in his translation, or others were prostrating, not his parents, to God. Or the raising up the trone and the prostration are two seperate events that don't occur right after each other. Or they bow out of homage, as respect and love for their lost son. So taking the order as something that occur the second after one another is wrong, and i also believe raising them on the trone is used symbolic. And it could be reffering to be prostration to God. But i have to check more.
But i believe that a lot of concepts are fixed by outside sources, and not Quran. This is my whole discussion. It still doesn't leave out physical prayer. But i believe Salat mostly refer to obedience, that obedience is the most important understanding, because now still most people read salat in most verses as contact-prayer, instead of reading it mostly as obedience to Gods laws, ands that in some verses it refers to prayer. You see the difference in reading and understanding a concept?
Peace
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Ahmed,
please beofore i go to bed, i need to ask you a quick question before i respnd to the above tomorrow inshallah, is the long comment about masjid by you or by brother Ayman?
That is my current understanding on the subject, based on my research so far. I would appreciate if you can comment on that and give me your evidences from qur'aan if you don't agree with that understanding.
The link to that post is as follows
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80128#80128
-
Peace all,
The ONLY source of guidance towards the straight path necessary to serve Allah and submit to Him according to His will is Allah Himself. If we commit some physical or mental act to submit to Allah, and that act was not sanctioned by Allah but by someone else, then we are taking someone else's words at par with those of Allah, and it becomes idolatry as we are making someone else partner with Allah by doing that.
An example would be bodily prostrating towards the so called Kaaba in Mecca. Nowhere has Allah ordered in qur'aan for us to face the Kaaba or physically prostrate towards it during salat (I am saying TOWARDS it not TO it). Now if someone does that, then even if their intention is to prostrate to Allah and to uphold their salat for Allah, it still would become an idolatrous act to bodily prostrate towards Kaaba as Allah has not sanctioned it. When some people perform bodily prostration towards Kaaba in Mecca they are not following Allah, no matter what their intentions are but they are either following/obeying their peers, or forefathers, or the imams/scholars or the unverifiable hearsays/rumors/"hadeeth" falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad and compiled by Bukhari and company, and that makes it idolatry. They will be committing idolatry without even being aware of it !! thus becoming one of those people Allah talks about in 622-24.
As far as the intentions are concerned, of course their intention is to face and bodily prostrate towards Kaaba in Mecca, otherwise they will not be physically doing it if they did not have the intention of doing it. It is not that they just had the intentions of upholding salat only to Allah and bodily prostrating only to Allah and then just by chance, or magically, or by a reflex action they happened to be facing and bodily prostrating towards the Kaaba in Mecca. Of course the intention is there.
If we do something to walk the straight path and to serve Allah by submitting to Him, we should do it only if Allah has ordered/commanded/sanctioned it, otherwise it becomes an act of idolatry.
-
Hello all
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron", i will prepare a long comment regarding masjid, my other long comment was regarding Masajid which is the plural or Masjid, but it seems there are many who can't handle the truth but can handle conjecture and non sense
peace
-
Peace taveern,
Remember, this is my understanding, i'm no expert.
2724 The prostrating doesn't have to immediatly refer to them bodily prostrating, this can also refer to that they obeyed what they believe are their sun-god commands. All their obedience is directed to the sun-god.
Because the Quran refers to bodily movement with karoo, why change the pattern now? Then there is no consitensy at all, so we are the ones who read the verse wrong. So i believe the above is a better understanding and makes more sense.12100 Like i explained already we have several options
1.The raising on the trone is symbolic. The prostration is to God.2.The raising is physical, but the prostration doesn't have to be directly after the raising, there is no time given here, so we read it wrong, and the prostration happens later and is meant for God.
3.Not only the parents prostrated, but everybody, including Joseph, to God, for helping them all.
4.The prostration is as a homage to Joseph.
I myself believe the first 3 are all highly likely. And give a much wider understanding. Keep in mind, that we have to search the best understanding, and that is reached by thinking slowely and wisely.
7748 Is indeed bowing, so Edip made a mistake in his article, i will mail him.
555 Yes, interresting, can apply both on bowing for obedience to God, bowing to His laws, as to prayer. So both meanings can apply. Why limit the understanding to one?
i believe we can have multiple understandings from one word or verse, as long their logic and the best ones, they can all apply. That is the beauty of arabic. See what i found with 2432-33. Read the last post i put there.http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5387
2238 This can refer also to both understandings.
-Keep your prayers balanced, in the middle, there is one prayer in the middle, between the ones from 11104
-Keep a balance in the reading and obeying, follow the middle.These all can apply in my eyes. Not one sticking out.
339 Yes, standing and praying, but if it really refers directly to salat-prayer, i'm not sure. I don't see the word salat in this verse, maybe i read it wrong, then correct me. It is late for me...
4102 Here also both can apply. Him standing in recitation, and they prostated/obeyed.
And they prayed, standing and then they prostrated. Both needs concentration, so both need a group guarding them.
Here i also read both. To read and obey what we read, and pray standing and ending it with a prostration.4142 Yes, this can apply again to both understandings. Stand up for prayer or stand up for recitation/following the commandments. But i believe here the standing up is meant symbolic, like they're pretending to making effort for the salat, but it is only for show.
17110 Again, this gives a rule for keeping the middle in recitation as well in prayer tone.
Peace
-
Peace Ahmed,
Peace Ayman
Your question is like asking a native English speaker to prove that a school means a school in English
This is a good example. Because the walls and ceilings of a certain physical building is not what defines a "school". A school is not primarily a physical building,
I agree, as a school is any place where people are gathering to learn from a teacher even if it is in a car park
it is primarily an institution of learning. Thus, you can't send your kids to be taught by the physical building. You send them to be taught by the institution,
but these are two different issues, don?t mix them up please, LOL, the first issue is sending them to a place called school to learn, then the second issues it is their willingness to learn
which is not a physical concept.
sure but that is a different issues to the fact that parents send their children to a place called schools to learn
Sure a physical building is one component of the institution but it is not the primary one nor is it the most important one.
well, as I said there are two different issues, I can bring a teacher to my child at home to teach him and then my home can be called a school
Thus people can be "home schooled" and we even have on-line schools where people can go to learn.
I swear by Allah I didnlt read this before I put my last two lines, LOL, this is funny, as I just said my home will be called a school if I bring a teacher to teach my child at my home
Hence, a native English (and Arabic) speaker will tell you about a certain school of thought and someone in the need of "schooling" is not in the need of a physical building but is in the need of "learning".
we need a place to gather and a teacher or someone is there to teach others, that place can be your home, my home, the car park or the open air, at the end of the day it is called a school and each one of the students bear the onus on their neck to be willing to learn or not, see another different issue
Really such concepts are universal in all languages and your using of "native Arabic speaker" argument sounds as pathetic as a native English speaker arguing "I am a native English speaker" whenever someone argues against his understanding of the King James Bible.
excuse me your comment is so ignorant, LOL
the bible was not written originally in English, but the Quran was written originally in Arabic, got it or not mate?
Moreover, like the native English speaker your knowledge of the language is limited to what you were taught at school.
not really because my knowledge at school was the basics, then I took it from there, see, it is my willingness to learn, LOL is my language professionalism is limited to what I?m willing to learn
For example, you seem happy to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between Modern Arabic and Classical Arabic.
it is you who is the ignorant here, I never said such a statement, all I said that the Classical Arabic is the one that is taught in all Arabic svhools in all Arabic countries, as well as the modern Arabic, how the hell you accuse me as such?
Oh yeh, trying hard to discredit me, LOL
This is as silly as a modern English speaker imagining that there is no difference between modern English and old English.
well, sure exactly like the arabic
This is basic stuff about Arabic and all languages that you are probably the least knowledgeable about on this forum and yet ironically out of all the native Arabic speakers here you are the only one always boasting the "I am a native Arabic speaker" as your strongest argument. My observation as a fellow Egyptian and native Arabic speaker is that it really sounds pretty hollow after hearing it so many times. This has nothing to do with you personally as I am sure that it would sound hollow from me and all Arabic speakers if they repeat it as much as you do and use it as their main argument.
the aove is clear cut non sense, see from day one you are trying hard to descvredit me, I guess I should ignore you for good
This is my honest observation and it is not meant negatively, it is meant as advice that I sincerely hope would help.
Peace,
Ayman
No thanks keep it for yourself then if it is accompanied by discrediting me while you don?t really know me
salam
-
Salaamun alaikum Arnold,
12100 Like i explained already we have several options
1.The raising on the trone is symbolic. The prostration is to God.2.The raising is physical, but the prostration doesn't have to be directly after the raising, there is no time given here, so we read it wrong, and the prostration happens later and is meant for God.
3.Not only the parents prostrated, but everybody, including Joseph, to God, for helping them all.
4.The prostration is as a homage to Joseph.
I myself believe the first 3 are all highly likely. And give a much wider understanding. Keep in mind, that we have to search the best understanding, and that is reached by thinking slowely and wisely.
The only problem with your argument is the following
124 When Joseph said to his father "My father, I have seen eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them SAJIDEEN to ME."
The vision was them doing sujud to Joseph and 12100 was the fulfillment of that vision, so logically that implies that in 12100 his parents were doing sujud to Joseph, and if that is the case, the "kharra" before the sujud would make it a bodily prostration to Joseph, or am I missing something here ?
-
Good point. Missed it, like i said it is late for me. Interresting......
-
Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron",
Can you please show us how it is a metaphor from the Arabic language and the qur'aanic context ?
-
Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron",
Can you please show us how it is a metaphor from the Arabic language and the qur'aanic context ?
Peace
well, quickly as I'm gworking on something very important, the word Yakhor, clearly means to proceed throgh slowely, we use it commonly with water taps when they are dropping water and need fixing, we can also use in any thing that got punctured and whatever was inside is seeping slowely out
it is a metaphor because it can't be used physically with a humman, unless the humans got hurt and the blood started to Yakhor out
i will see if the Quran has used this word "Yakhor" in any other verses later
peace
-
Salaamun alaikum Arnold,
Another point
555 Yes, interresting, can apply both on bowing for obedience to God, bowing to His laws, as to prayer. So both meanings can apply. Why limit the understanding to one?
But this verse does not contain the word "kharra" so how can we assume that it is referring to a bodily ruku in salat as opposed to a mental ruku ?