My problems with Free-Minds (very long post, please read)
-
guy, I wasn't talking about any false messenger RK's hadith or beliefs of any cult. I was talking about ahadith shia or sunni. bring on any hadith that says there are 2/3/4 and not 5.
Okay... First of all, your attack on Rashad Khalifa and his followers is complete foolishness, especially since Rashad Khalifa adamantly believed in 5 daily salaat observances, even to the point of creating a mathematical formula to support all 5 of them and their contents... But, as I said, Ismailis (just to name one group) claim that the Qur'aan, Sunna, and Hadiyths support the idea of THREE salaat observances, not five. Shias say the same thing, as do many Hanafis, who are considered a branch of the Sunni sect...
-
Amid,
So what if they are general terms? There are tons of words that can be used in many different ways depending on the context. You are missing the point, obviously. I simply pointed out that a ritual prayer is, in fact, a bond/connection to God. You keep repeating the fact that Salaat is a general term for "bond" but that doesn't change anything at all. Your logic goes something along these lines
If Salaat equals Bond, then Salaat cannot equal Ritual Prayer.
Actually I never said "if... then...", nor does my logic go like this. Please reproduce a quote of mine where I said this. It is you who is missing the point. If you would have actually read the links which I have referenced, you would have maybe understood. The basic meaning of slw is "go/turn towards" (in a close/positive manner). Obviously it means different things in different contexts (although, I have found, mostly it means "bond/connection". For example, look at 911 which tells "kafireen/mushrikeen" (concealers of the truth/those who set up partners) to uphold the salat. Are they told to uphold some sort of "ritual prayer"? See this.
Just becuase ritual prayer is a bond/connection with God, and "salat" means (in most contexts) "bond", it doesnt mean that salat is a ritual prayer.
Absolute nonsense. You need to take a critical thinking class because I never made this fallacy. If I had said Salaat must be a ritual prayer because it is written so in Bukhari or any other hadith collection, then yes I would have made this fallacy. I simply said that we have many many narrations, at least (but much more) than 30000 narrations from various different sources, and not even one narration from any one of those sources, not even one half of a narration, not even 0.01%, shows, describes, or even remotely implies, that Salaat is anything other than worship/ritual prayer.
Please read
Your logic is based on the fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. The same exact thing can be said about the Christians' belief that Jesus is the son of the god (the god be most exalted above what they describe). All the Christian sources, including those questioned by "scholars", agree that Jesus is the son of the god. The same thing can also be said a few hundred years ago about the earth being flat and a bunch of other things that everyone agrees on or agreed on at one point and we know are false. It is therefore not surprising that you are unable to answer the following
I did that in order to show that your belief (that salaat is something else) has very little logic behind it, and has a very high probability of being erroneous, unless of course you can provide a reasonable explanation or ANY explanation for that matter, as to why absolutely no historical source and no narration describes the "real salaat." So why haven't you answered the question I asked you? Here it goes again
That is your problem. You base your position on history/hadith (primarily), rather than going from the quran/reading without any preconceptions. You think that just because all/many Hadiths say that salat is this and this, that is what it actually is, or that it cant be something else/severely different. That's why I referenced the fallacy links.
Yes I absolutely agree. Stoning to death, killing apostates, oppressing women, etc. are all excellent examples of fabrications which have nothing to do with the Qur'an, yet they are practiced (sadly).
First, how am I a perfect example when I am not one of those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter?
I was referring to people picking what they want from Hadith, which is described by the Reading, which is exactly what you are doing. When something "doesnt contradict" the Reading from the Hadith, you adopt that teaching/practice; when something "contradicts" the Reading (Quran), you discard it.
Second, yes the Qur'an is fully detailed, but it was not revealed in a vacume. It also didn't just pop out of the sky with every Surah in it. Now... you do realise that by not knowing arabic you in fact ARE going to sources beside the Qur'an to understand it. You do know that, right? I hope you do, because every translation you read is from a FALLIBLE HUMAN BEING who TRANSLATED the Qur'an. That fallible human being = outside source.
4144 Had We made it a non-Arabic reading, they would have said, "If only its signs were made clear!" Non-Arabic and Arabic, say, "For those who acknowledge, it is a guide and healing. As for those who conceal the truth, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away."
A question for you when was the first Hadith/Hadith collection compiled/recorded?
Or, in other wordsBy the way please answer this easy question what is the date of the oldest hadith book?
What about your response to my other points (e.g. "al masjid al haram"?
Peace
-
Actually I never said "if... then...", nor does my logic go like this. Please reproduce a quote of mine where I said this. It is you who is missing the point. If you would have actually read the links which I have referenced, you would have maybe understood. The basic meaning of slw is "go/turn towards" (in a close/positive manner). Obviously it means different things in different contexts (although, I have found, mostly it means "bond/connection". For example, look at 911 which tells "kafireen/mushrikeen" (concealers of the truth/those who set up partners) to uphold the salat. Are they told to uphold some sort of "ritual prayer"? See this.
Just becuase ritual prayer is a bond/connection with God, and "salat" means (in most contexts) "bond", it doesnt mean that salat is a ritual prayer.
And in response to that I clearly said just because Salaat means "bond" it doesn't mean that Salaat CANNOT be a ritual prayer.
That is your problem. You base your position on history/hadith (primarily), rather than going from the quran/reading without any preconceptions. You think that just because all/many Hadiths say that salat is this and this, that is what it actually is, or that it cant be something else/severely different. That's why I referenced the fallacy links.
But the links were not appropriate since I did not make that fallacy.
I was referring to people picking what they want from Hadith, which is described by the Reading, which is exactly what you are doing. When something "doesnt contradict" the Reading from the Hadith, you adopt that teaching/practice; when something "contradicts" the Reading (Quran), you discard it.
4144 Had We made it a non-Arabic reading, they would have said, "If only its signs were made clear!" Non-Arabic and Arabic, say, "For those who acknowledge, it is a guide and healing. As for those who conceal the truth, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away."
How does that apply to me? Please explain. It is not true that I take from hadeeth whatever doesn't contradict the Qur'an. Salaat is something that is mentioned in the Qur'an and is even implied to be some sort of ritual in the Qur'an itself. Before you do Salaat, wash your faces, arms, etc. Don't do Salaat if you are in a state of junub, etc. Do Salaat in the morning, do it at night, etc.
I am not adding any new laws to the deen through the hadeeth, nor am I following instructions on how to do salaat from the hadeeth. I am simply saying to those who say it is not a worship/ritual prayer to give me a reasonable explanation as to why they think that in over 30000 narrations and even all those that are deemed fabricated by scholars you will not find one hadith that shows it to be something else. Not a single one. You still haven't given me your views on that.
A question for you when was the first Hadith/Hadith collection compiled/recorded?
Complete sidestep. I couldn't care less about it. The fact is that not even the "newest" hadith or the "oldest" hadith, or the most "authentic" hadith or "fabricated" hadith, shows Salaat as anything other than a ritual prayer. It is irrelevant whether the hadeeth contradict each other as to how salaat should be performed. I don't do it the way as described in hadeeth anyway.
What about your response to my other points (e.g. "al masjid al haram"?
You gave your own interpretation, and that's fine. I have no problems with it. So what are the prohibited months based solely on the Qur'an?
-
Salam, Peace,
So for you Allah swt has forgoten to tell us how to do the ritual salat in The Reading and "historians" (hadhitist) filled the gap to help upcoming generation?
By the way please answer this easy question what is the date of the oldest hadith book?
best regards
1.) No he did not forget. If the details of Salaat were important he would have given it to us (movements to be performed, length of the ritual, things to recite, etc). He gave us enough. He also gave us a brain to read the Qur'an carefully and find out what it is. I myself can conclude using the Qur'an alone that it is indeed a ritual of worship/prayer. I am only mentioning the hadeeth because of those who reject the ritual prayer, simply to ask themselves why no narration from any source whether authentic or inauthentic in history describes or even remotely implies the salaat as being "something else."
2.) Irrelevant sidestep. The fact is that not even the "newest" hadith or the "oldest" hadith, or the most "authentic" hadith or "fabricated" hadith, shows Salaat as anything other than a ritual prayer.
-
Amid,
And in response to that I clearly said just because Salaat means "bond" it doesn't mean that Salaat CANNOT be a ritual prayer.
So what does it mean in 911 then?
Also, please show us how to do salat based on the Hadiths.How does that apply to me? Please explain.
- Do you accept the practice/teaching of stoning married adulterers/adultresses?
- Do you accept the prohibition of eating dog meat?
- Do you accept that salat is a ritual prayer with the 2-4-4-3-4 format (rakahs)?
Answering these questions will clarify.
Complete sidestep. I couldn't care less about it. The fact is that not even the "newest" hadith or the "oldest" hadith, or the most "authentic" hadith or "fabricated" hadith, shows Salaat as anything other than a ritual prayer. It is irrelevant whether the hadeeth contradict each other as to how salaat should be performed. I don't do it the way as described in hadeeth anyway.
I didnt refer to salat. What I was getting at was that the Hadiths were compiled about 200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Did the people 100 years after the death of Muhammad follow the Hadiths? Of course the logical answer would be "no".
How do you do the salat, then, if not as described by the Hadiths?
-
Peace Amid,
Absolutely not. When you start off with a false premise, nothing right will follow. You completely skipped over what I said regarding the Bible, and also my response to "progressive1993." There are numerous Bible verses where Jesus (pbuh) says he is the son of man. Verses where he says he is a prophet. Verses where he says the Father is greater than him. Verses where he says he can do nothing of himself. Verses where he says "our God" is one. Verses where he stresses good deeds and love for God as the way to salvation, etc. etc. This all shows that there is some truth to be found in the Bible, things which are completely compatible with Islam.
Can you please quote where you talk about Jesus or him being the son of god in any of your posts before my post? You are missing the point. Christians interpret the "son of man" as references to the human aspect of Jesus. They all agree that Jesus had a human aspect. Trinitarians interpret this to mean that he is equally human and equally divine as part of the trinity. Monophysites believe that his divine-aspect is so powerful that it overcame his human-aspect and thus he is 100% divine. Unlike Trinitarians and Monophysites who make Jesus divine to various degrees, Nestorians believe that he is the son of man son of god, in other words they believe he is the human son of god and is 100% human and is not divine. Similarly, people can interpret "salat" to mean "ritual prayer" despite the clear evidence against it in the great reading. This is why you can't address anything in my previous posts, plus it looks like my posts went over your head.
Yet there is no Hadith that describes Salaat as something else than a ritual prayer.
You see, I already mentioned that in order to avoid replies like yours, but you completely ignored what I said.
Now keep in mind that this is the Bible we're talking about. The Bible is something which is called accurate and authentic by christians, and yet still you will find inconsistencies regarding Jesus. Not to mention how many inconsistencies we find when we read the "non-authentic" gospels, the gnostic texts and the apocrypha. So the reason why your example is bad is because I specifically stated that there is not even one "weak" (daif) or "fabricated" (mawdu) Hadith that implies Salaat is something other than worship/ritual prayer.
If you had read my post, you would have seen that I already said everything that I'm saying to you now.How about the Hadiths that tell us that the god "yusalli 3la alnabi"? Do you think that those Hadiths describe the god performing "ritual prayer" on the prophet?! Do you think that the god performs a 5 times a day 2,4,4,3,4 ritual prayer formula on the prophet? Or do you think that like you the god mindlessly repeats "salla allah 3alayh wa salam" everytime the name of the prophet is mentioned! Surely, from the strongest of Hadiths to the weakest of Hadiths, the "salat" of the god on the prophet cannot be interpreted as "ritual prayer" by anyone with a sober mind and this creates major inconsistencies just like the inconsistencies in the Bible regarding Jesus.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Can you please quote where you talk about Jesus or him being the son of god in any of your posts before my post?
I never said I talked about Jesus (pbuh) specifically. I said I mentioned the Bible and how it contains truth as well as falsehood. Here is what I said
Even in the Bible there is truth in it, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. So many different authors, different sources, different gospels, yet you can find some truth in it, something which is compatible with the Qur'an and it's teachings.
You are missing the point. Christians interpret the "son of man" as references to the human aspect of Jesus. They all agree that Jesus had a human aspect. Trinitarians interpret this to mean that he is equally human and equally divine as part of the trinity. Monophysites believe that his divine-aspect is so powerful that it overcame his human-aspect and thus he is 100% divine. Unlike Trinitarians and Monophysites who make Jesus divine to various degrees, Nestorians believe that he is the son of man son of god, in other words they believe he is the human son of god and is 100% human and is not divine. Similarly, people can interpret "salat" to mean "ritual prayer" despite the clear evidence against it in the great reading. This is why you can't address anything in my previous posts, plus it looks like my posts went over your head.
Again, wrong. It is you who is missing the point. There are Christians, and quite a few actually, who reject the divinity of Christ, and they use the Bible to defend their beliefs. Did you know that? There are also Christians who reject the Trinity. There are also Christians who do not believe in eternal hell, but in universal salvation (meaning everyone will at some point enter heaven, after they've been punished and "corrected." They are usually called heretics and not "real Christians" by Evangelicals and Catholics, but they do exist. These people also claim to follow the Bible and they have solid reasons for what they believe. Many trinity rejecting Christians quote Biblical verses and Jesus' quotes to support their beliefs that there is no trinity. Now what did I not address in your previous posts? What exactly do you want to know? Please ask.
I'm still waiting for people to tell me what the prohibited months are based solely on the Qur'an. This is the 4th time I'm asking.
How about the Hadiths that tell us that the god "yusalli 3la alnabi"? Do you think that those Hadiths describe the god performing "ritual prayer" on the prophet?! Do you think that the god performs a 5 times a day 2,4,4,3,4 ritual prayer formula on the prophet? Or do you think that like you the god mindlessly repeats "salla allah 3alayh wa salam" everytime the name of the prophet is mentioned! Surely, from the strongest of Hadiths to the weakest of Hadiths, the "salat" of the god on the prophet cannot be interpreted as "ritual prayer" by anyone with a sober mind and this creates major inconsistencies just like the inconsistencies in the Bible regarding Jesus.
That is a very weak and absurd argument, and "progressive1993" put it forth as well. The word Salaat can be applied in more ways than one. And... so what?! Explain how this creates a problem, please? The same can be said for tons of different words! LOL! laugh Numerous words can be applied/used in many different ways. The Salaat that God performs is not the Salaat God has commanded us to perform. Of course the Salaat of God cannot be interpreted as a ritual prayer because it has nothing to do with our Salaat. The fact remains that in over 30000 narrations and even all those that are deemed fabricated by scholars (which are not even included in these 30000!!!) you will not find one hadith that shows OUR SALAAT (not God's Salaat) as anything else than worship/ritual prayer.
Not a single one. This should be a big problem for you, but it isn't, since you simply don't seem to want Salaat to be a ritual. You believe that if you look at any source outside the Qur'an that you are automatically a Sunni. You are not. If you reject Shariah you are not a Sunni.
I'm still waiting for "progressive1993" to explain to me why he believes that these corrupters hid the real Salaat. For what reason, and also why did they change it into a ritual prayer instead of what it really is? And how likely is it that not even those "weak" and "fabricated" narrations contain the "real" Salaat?
Peace
-
So what does it mean in 911 then?
I have just responded to this same argument a few moments ago to "ayman." You guys keep bringing up the fact over and over again that the word "Salaat" can be used in more ways than one. So what does that change?? What do you think you have proven by showing that?? LOL. Here's what I wrote a moment ago
The word Salaat can be applied in more ways than one. And... so what?! Explain how this creates a problem, please? The same can be said for tons of different words! LOL! laugh Numerous words can be applied/used in many different ways. The Salaat that God performs is not the Salaat God has commanded us to perform. Of course the Salaat of God cannot be interpreted as a ritual prayer because it has nothing to do with our Salaat. The fact remains that in over 30000 narrations and even all those that are deemed fabricated by scholars (which are not even included in these 30000!!!) you will not find one hadith that shows OUR SALAAT (not God's Salaat) as anything else than worship/ritual prayer.
Also, please show us how to do salat based on the Hadiths.
There is no "one way of doing Salaat" based on the Hadeeth. I already stated this before. They are contradicting each other on how it should be performed, and the details of it, and also the details of wudu/ablution are not consistent. That's why Sunni and Shia have a different way of doing Salaat, and also a different way of doing wudu/ablution. This is completely irrelevant. All narrations, even the ones thought to be weak or fabricated show it to be a ritual where you are worshipping Allah at specific times throughout the day.
- Do you accept the practice/teaching of stoning married adulterers/adultresses?
No, absolutely not. It violates God's law. Not only is that teaching against the spirit of the Qur'an but it also violates the specific command of using lashes as a punishment.
- Do you accept the prohibition of eating dog meat?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify.
- Do you accept that salat is a ritual prayer with the 2-4-4-3-4 format (rakahs)?
I don't take it to be a requirement. But I believe there is no harm done if someone uses that format. I also believe there is no harm done if someone uses a 3-3-3-3-3 format or a 1-2-3-4-5 format.
I didnt refer to salat. What I was getting at was that the Hadiths were compiled about 200 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Did the people 100 years after the death of Muhammad follow the Hadiths? Of course the logical answer would be "no".
Well no, but they didn't have to, since alot of that information was available from the people, only not in written form. Hearsay, rumors, etc. Those are all hadeeth. It was transmitted orally at the time until those such as Bukhary started "collecting" the narrations.
How do you do the salat, then, if not as described by the Hadiths?
I'm planning to make a separate thread for it since I don't want to derail this particular one. Sure I do take some information from the hadeeth and I test it with the Qur'an. Whatever violates God's commands in the Qur'an I have to reject. To sum it up for you, I do a modified version of the Sunni way. I do everything except
Reciting At-Tahiyyat during Tashhahud.
Reciting Durood-e-Ibrahimi at the end.Instead of reciting those two, I recite Ayat-ul-Kursi (2255) and the ayat right after it (2256).
Allhu L 'Ilha 'Ill Huwa Al-ayyu Al-Qayymu L Ta'khudhuhu Sinatun Wa L Nawmun Lahu M F As-Samwti Wa M F Al-'Ari Man Dh Al-Ladh Yashfa
uIndahu 'Ill Bi'idhnihi Yalamu M Bayna 'Aydhim Wa M Khalfahum Wa L Yuna Bishay'in MinIlmihi 'Ill Bim Sh'a Wasia Kursyuhu As-Samwti Wa Al-'Ara Wa L Ya'duhu if?uhum Wa Huwa Al-Alyu Al-`A?mu (2255)L 'Ikrha F Ad-Dni Qad Tabayyana Ar-Rushdu Mina Al-Ghayyi Faman Yakfur Bi-ghti Wa Yu'umin Billhi Faqadi Astamsaka Bil-
Urwati Al-Wuthq? L Anfima Lah Wa Allhu Samun `Almun (2256)Translation
"Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)." (2255)
"Let there be no compulsion in religion Truth stands out clear from Error whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." (2256)
The reason I reject At-Tahiyyat and Durood-e-Ibrahimi is very simple. Salaat is our bond/connection to God, and during that specific time it is only Allah that should be mentioned, worshipped, glorified, and called upon. At-Tahiyyat is addressing Muhammad (pbuh) as if he is present during the prayer. "Allah's peace be upon you, O Prophet..." At-Tahiyyat also violates the Qur'an in that it makes a distinction between messengers, by adding "Muhammadan RasulAllah" after La Ilaha Il Allah. Of course I accept Muhammad (pbuh) to be God's messenger, but by adding Muhammadan RasulAllah we have a problem
"The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord and the believers. Each one believes in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say We make no distinction between any of His Messengers." (2285)
"And those who believe in Allaah and His Messengers and make no distinction between any of them, We shall give them their rewards, and Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (4152)
Clearly, Sunnis (and other sects) are making a distinction. If anyone prayed in a mosque and kept saying "La Ilaha Il Allah Isa RasulAllah" or "La Ilaha Il Allah Musa RasulAllah" they would be harshly criticised and most likely even banned from entering. Also "La Ilaha Il Allah Muhammadan RasulAllah" is not mentioned in the Qur'an as a statement of faith. I believe the best statement of faith is La Ilaha il Allah There is no god except The One God. (Ilah = God, Allah = The God, The One God, The Only God, the One and Only God, etc.)
Those are my two reasons for rejecting the recitation of At-Tahiyyat during Tashhahud. As far as Durood-e-Ibrahimi is concerned, what I said earlier also applies here of course Salaat is our bond/connection to God, and during that specific time it is only Allah that should be mentioned, worshipped, glorified, and called upon. To bless others during our worship of God, even if it's prophets and their families, is wasting time when we should be glorifying Him instead. Therefore replacing Durood-e-Ibrahimi with words through which we glorify your Exalted Creator is much better and goes hand in hand with the Qur'an.
If during a supplication (dua) you wish to ask Allah to bless his prophets and their families, I believe that's fine. But it has no place in Salaat.
Peace
-
peace Amid
To my knowledge, you have not responded to Herbman (forgive me if i'm wrong). So can you please answer the following
So for you Allah swt has forgoten to tell us how to do the ritual salat in The Reading and "historians" (hadhitist) filled the gap to help upcoming generation?
Heres my question let's say that all Hadiths are consistent in their info about Salat. From this we can POSSIBLY imply that that is how the prophet upheld his salat. This does not mean that God wants us to uphold the salat in such a way does it?
Let's the Quran says remember God. The prophet's method is to look up at the sky and remember God. All hadiths are consistent in recording that this is how the prophet did it or saying this is how it should be done. Does this mean that we have to do the same? The prophet did it in his chosen way and style but the key thing is that he fulfilled what was required (remember God). So if i fulfill the criteria of remembering God by singing a song, i have followed the instructions.
Similar with salat, there is a criteria to be fulfilled as ayman pointed out. The method and style, is up to us. The prophet had his own method. But we are all different and have different prefrences.
So no matter how correct the Hadith may be with respect to how the prophet upheld his salat, it does not mean that we should all do it like that.
Peace,
Nyma -
Peace Amid,
I never said I talked about Jesus (pbuh) specifically. I said I mentioned the Bible and how it contains truth as well as falsehood. Here is what I said
Even in the Bible there is truth in it, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. So many different authors, different sources, different gospels, yet you can find some truth in it, something which is compatible with the Qur'an and it's teachings.
Again, wrong. It is you who is missing the point. There are Christians, and quite a few actually, who reject the divinity of Christ, and they use the Bible to defend their beliefs. Did you know that? There are also Christians who reject the Trinity. There are also Christians who do not believe in eternal hell, but in universal salvation (meaning everyone will at some point enter heaven, after they've been punished and "corrected." They are usually called heretics and not "real Christians" by Evangelicals and Catholics, but they do exist. These people also claim to follow the Bible and they have solid reasons for what they believe. Many trinity rejecting Christians quote Biblical verses and Jesus' quotes to support their beliefs that there is no trinity. Now what did I not address in your previous posts? What exactly do you want to know? Please ask.The divinity of Jesus and him being the son of the god are two different issues as evidenced by the Nestorians who don't believe Jesus to be divine and yet take him as the very much human son of the god. You didn't really understand what I said in my previous post and it seems like it went over your head like my first two posts that you are still unable to answer.
I'm still waiting for people to tell me what the prohibited months are based solely on the Qur'an. This is the 4th time I'm asking.
This has been answered many times before. Do you think that you are the first guy who comes here and claims to have found some loophole in the great reading's timing of the restriction which justifies using Hadiths? Before asking to be spoonfed info that is readily obvious and available, please use the search function (you know the one next to Help on the top of your screen) and you will find the answer. In fact, the answer is in one of the busiest and most viewed threads on this forum
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9188.0
While your question has been answered many times over, it seems that you still don't have enough knowledge to answer even a single point from the following posts and are running away from them
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599473.msg231810#msg231810
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599473.msg231813#msg231813
If you continue to evade then you will be submitting to the fact that you have no argument to stand on.
That is a very weak and absurd argument, and "progressive1993" put it forth as well. The word Salaat can be applied in more ways than one. And... so what?! Explain how this creates a problem, please? The same can be said for tons of different words! LOL! laugh Numerous words can be applied/used in many different ways. The Salaat that God performs is not the Salaat God has commanded us to perform.
Perhaps you need to learn to read the great reading first before making such plunders. In the passage in question (3356) the believers are ordered to do "salat" in the same exact context at the god's "salat". So it is clearly the same concept. Also, the only reason you think that they mean different things is that your "ritual prayer" interpretation is an absuridity that produces huge inconsistencies. So now you are forced to invent THREE definitions of "salat"
- Ritual prayer.
- Mindlessly repeating "allahuma salli 3lih" every time a certain name is mentioned.
- Some other mysterious meaning that you ignore and are unable to tell us and that you apply only in the first "salat" by the god in 3356.
Of course the Salaat of God cannot be interpreted as a ritual prayer because it has nothing to do with our Salaat. The fact remains that in over 30000 narrations and even all those that are deemed fabricated by scholars (which are not even included in these 30000!!!) you will not find one hadith that shows OUR SALAAT (not God's Salaat) as anything else than worship/ritual prayer.
This just demonstrates your mental laziness. Unable to tell us what the "salat" of the god means, you revert back to your logical fallacy of appeal to popularity (the 30,000 nonsense).
Not a single one. This should be a big problem for you, but it isn't, since you simply don't seem to want Salaat to be a ritual. You believe that if you look at any source outside the Qur'an that you are automatically a Sunni. You are not. If you reject Shariah you are not a Sunni.
No. Salat is whatever the god says it is. It is not what 30,000 Hadiths or even 30 Billion Hadiths say it is. You have nothing except making fallacious arguments based on appeal to popularity. This logical fallacy is your comfort zone and therefore when cornered you keep going back to that place of blissful ignorance.
I'm still waiting for "progressive1993" to explain to me why he believes that these corrupters hid the real Salaat. For what reason, and also why did they change it into a ritual prayer instead of what it really is? And how likely is it that not even those "weak" and "fabricated" narrations contain the "real" Salaat?
They didn't hide the real "salat". Everyone can see the real "salat" in the great reading in 3356 and many other passages but they choose to ignore it. Salat is not some ritual that you learn. It is something that happens naturally like the birds knowing their "salat". What you call "salat" now is the "Islamicized" Zoroastrian Geh, which is a 5 times a day ritual adapted into sectarian practices along with some pagan customs such as obsession with repeating things three times for a pagan trinity. The best part about the sectaian "salat" is the reading of the great reading and unfortunately this was shortened to a minimum and even in group much of it is done in silence.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Bros
I will take Amid's side on Salat in The Quran - but will not use Hadith as support (even if I do not reject them wholesale).
May I also say that if you understand the Quran you will find out that it was never meant to be compulsory, but voluntary,
all of it.
Yes that is right... It is up to the community through Shurah to vote for how they decide to live their Islam. The tragedy of the Ummah
is that they created this monster they called the Caliphate which hijacked executive powers and removed the powers of consultation from its citizens, that was a big theft indeed!!!
In particular, the rule of Law, or as they call it Sharia is not supposed to be imposed by the State, it is also voted in by referendum and after consultation, all of this voluntary.
The Quran and Islam are not religious, they introduced for the first time the principles of a secular system, that abides by logic and reason.
This was so dangerous and threatening to rulers that of course they found a way to corrupt it.
To quote a Hadith "Islam came strange and will become back strange... glad tidings to strangeness." (maybe true?)
So even the ritual of Salat could be / might have been arrived at through consultation, but there is evidence in The Quran that the word Salat has at least two different meanings depending on context, one of which is a ritual that involves bowing and prostrating, and another conceptual one meaning supporting, watching over.
The reason I think it makes sense there is a physical element to Salat is that unlike animals whose Salat is automatic, ours has got to have an element of free-will testing into it, and this might be why we need to build it, physically that is.
Of course Salat =/= Dua.
Another thing I meant to quote is this masdar business (roots) - one has to use the singular of the words, and it does not always work, particularly for words which are not of arabic origins, so this can lead to problems in translations (for those who do not master Arabic that is)...
That was my piece anyways...
I had a peaceful time in banishment...now to relocate soon as
Idriss 3rd (more in line with my lineage)
-
Amid,
I have just responded to this same argument a few moments ago to "ayman." You guys keep bringing up the fact over and over again that the word "Salaat" can be used in more ways than one. So what does that change?? What do you think you have proven by showing that?? LOL. Here's what I wrote a moment ago
The word Salaat can be applied in more ways than one. And... so what?! Explain how this creates a problem, please? The same can be said for tons of different words! LOL! laugh Numerous words can be applied/used in many different ways. The Salaat that God performs is not the Salaat God has commanded us to perform. Of course the Salaat of God cannot be interpreted as a ritual prayer because it has nothing to do with our Salaat. The fact remains that in over 30000 narrations and even all those that are deemed fabricated by scholars (which are not even included in these 30000!!!) you will not find one hadith that shows OUR SALAAT (not God's Salaat) as anything else than worship/ritual prayer.
I see that you are not very familiar with The Reading and/or you have mixed stuff up in your head. Reading your 30000+ Hadiths must be a tiring thing.
I was talking about 911 not 3356. You may want to add 95 as well. For this I gave you some links so you could in order to understand - I see you were too lazy to read them. I also see that you are persisting in your appeal to popularity.91 This is an acquittal from God and His messenger to those who set up partners ("al mushrikeen" with whom you had entered a covenant.
92 Therefore, roam the land for four months and know that you will not escape God, and that God will humiliate the ingrates/rejecters ("al kafireena".
93 A declaration from God and His messenger to the people, on this, the peak day of the debate "That God and His messenger are free from obligation to those who set up partners." If you repent, then it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you will not escape God. Promise those who have rejected of a painful retribution;
94 Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among those who have set up partners if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall fulfill their terms until they expire. God loves the observant.
95 So when the restricted months have passed, then you may fight those who have set up partners wherever you find them, take them, surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they (those who hsve set up partners) repent, uphold the salat, and bring forth towards betterment, then you shall leave them alone. God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
A few verses later
911 If they (those who have set up partners) repent, and uphold the salat, and bring forth the zakat, then they are your fellows/brethren in the obligation ("deen". We explain the signs for a people who know.
912 If they break their oaths after their covenant, and they assail in your obligation ("deen" then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.
You can see that "uphold the salat" is contrasted to "breaking their oaths after their convenant".
Also, "zakat", which is not charity, but "betterment/development", is contrasted to "assail in your obligation (deen)".
It is also important to note that the people who are being adressed THE WHOLE TIME are "al kafireena/al mushrikeena" (the rejecters/those who have set up partners).I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify.
Eating dog meat is prohibited according to Hadith. What I was getting at is that you pick and choose from the Hadith. You accept some and reject some. This is exactly what is being described in 6113.
Do you also believe in the intercession of Muhammad?
Well no, but they didn't have to, since alot of that information was available from the people, only not in written form. Hearsay, rumors, etc. Those are all hadeeth. It was transmitted orally at the time until those such as Bukhary started "collecting" the narrations.
Bukhari is said to have collected 700,000 hadith and accepted only about 7000, rejecting 99 percent of them. With all this "science of Hadith" of verifying the chain of narrators, plus the travelling he would have done, the eating, the sleeping, etc. etc. it would be impossible to have done.
If during a supplication (dua) you wish to ask Allah to bless his prophets and their families, I believe that's fine. But it has no place in Salaat.
3945 When God alone is mentioned, the minds of those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!
7218 The institutions of submission (masajid) are for God, so do not call on anyone alongside God.
7220 Say, "I only call on my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with Him."
4012 This is because when God alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when partners were associated with Him, you acknowledged. Therefore, the judgment is for God, the Most High, the Great.
Peace
-
There is no "one way of doing Salaat" based on the Hadeeth. I already stated this before. They are contradicting each other on how it should be performed, and the details of it, and also the details of wudu/ablution are not consistent. That's why Sunni and Shia have a different way of doing Salaat, and also a different way of doing wudu/ablution. This is completely irrelevant. All narrations, even the ones thought to be weak or fabricated show it to be a ritual where you are worshipping Allah at specific times throughout the day.
You are working an interpretation backwards my friend. You admit there are inconsistencies in hadiths on how it is performed which should ring some alarm bells anyway. But yet you so adamantly start your core interpretation of salat being a ritual based on those very hadiths that are inconsistent ??? If that isn't a fallacy right there then someone point out to me what is please.
Remember that the quran is the furqan (criterion) and not the hadiths.
PEACE
-
2.) Not giving salawat to Muhammad (saw)
It is one thing not to make Muhammad (saw) a partner to Allah, but it is another thing to disrespect him by not giving salawat. Examples Edip Yuksel mentioning the Prophet (saw) several times in his posts and never giving salawat. And it is not just Edip, it is many many posters. Some will even write their whole post normally and then write "muhammad" without even capitalizing the first letter. What is the reason for this? It's like they're not respecting him at all. Fact check The Qur'an instructs us to give salawat when we talk mention the Prophet (saw).
Salaam Amid,
On the surface nothing wrong with adding (saw) or (pbuh) but you must ask yourself why you do it. It smacks of hero worship and fake lip service to me.
Muhammad is already a beautiful and respectful title I don't need to add anything else to it. In Quran which we are supposed to read as-is doesn't add anything to any of the prophets names. Those verses about "yusali" and "tasleem" have already been dealt with earlier here - so I won't go in to it.
Burhan.
-
-
Heres my question let's say that all Hadiths are consistent in their info about Salat.
But they're not consistent. I already stated that they're not consistent in the way how Salaat should be performed, but they're consistent in that Salaat is worship/ritual prayer. All of them, from the most "authentic" ones to the "weak" and "fabricated."
From this we can POSSIBLY imply that that is how the prophet upheld his salat. This does not mean that God wants us to uphold the salat in such a way does it?
I think that's what I've been saying all along? It's not matter how this worship is performed as long as it doesn't violate the Qur'an (a.k.a setting up partners, etc.). It is a bond where we worship God and remember Him at specific times throughout the day. Some people don't see this by reading the Qur'an, but I do. Now if you're saying that Salaat is something else like "doing good deeds" or some other theory, then no, I would have to disagree there.
Let's the Quran says remember God. The prophet's method is to look up at the sky and remember God. All hadiths are consistent in recording that this is how the prophet did it or saying this is how it should be done. Does this mean that we have to do the same? The prophet did it in his chosen way and style but the key thing is that he fulfilled what was required (remember God). So if i fulfill the criteria of remembering God by singing a song, i have followed the instructions.
Similar with salat, there is a criteria to be fulfilled as ayman pointed out. The method and style, is up to us. The prophet had his own method. But we are all different and have different prefrences.
Yes we can do it differently, I do it differently and I gave my reasons why. But we can't just do anything we want and slap the name "Salaat" on it. Some people have been saying that "doing good deeds" is Salaat, or simply "remembering God" without doing anything physically at all it "Salaat."
So no matter how correct the Hadith may be with respect to how the prophet upheld his salat, it does not mean that we should all do it like that.
I completely agree. I have said that many times. Doing it the way the hadeeth describe it (or the ways the hadeeth describe it) violates the Qur'an, in my opinion.
I already gave my reasons why in a previous post. Read up on what I said regarding Tashhahud etc.
And God knows best.
-
Salaam Amid,
On the surface nothing wrong with adding (saw) or (pbuh) but you must ask yourself why you do it. It smacks of hero worship and fake lip service to me.
Muhammad is already a beautiful and respectful title I don't need to add anything else to it. In Quran which we are supposed to read as-is doesn't add anything to any of the prophets names. Those verses about "yusali" and "tasleem" have already been dealt with earlier here - so I won't go in to it.
Burhan.
That's your opinion and I respect it.
-
You are working an interpretation backwards my friend. You admit there are inconsistencies in hadiths on how it is performed which should ring some alarm bells anyway. But yet you so adamantly start your core interpretation of salat being a ritual based on those very hadiths that are inconsistent ??? If that isn't a fallacy right there then someone point out to me what is please.
Remember that the quran is the furqan (criterion) and not the hadiths.
PEACE
No fallacy at all. The hadeeth are not a criterion. On the contrary, we test authenticity of hadeeth by using the Qur'an. It would seem the most important things I wrote in my posts went right over your head. In the Bible there is much falsehood, but there's also truth to be found. The fact that you are not able to produce one single writing since the beginning of islamic history that shows the Salaat as something other than a ritual prayer simply doesn't bode well for you.
-
I see that you are not very familiar with The Reading and/or you have mixed stuff up in your head. Reading your 30000+ Hadiths must be a tiring thing.
Actually, the number is probably over 70000 if we were to add the "weak" and "fabricated" ones, none of which show the Salaat to be anything other than a worship ritual.
I was talking about 911 not 3356. You may want to add 95 as well. For this I gave you some links so you could in order to understand - I see you were too lazy to read them. I also see that you are persisting in your appeal to popularity.
Your post starts off interesting, then goes downhill as you throw in verses (and twisted translations I might add) which have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. No, it is not appeal to popularity, it is called using logic and reason. It would seem that you have difficulty in producing one writing since the beginning of Islamic history that shows the Salaat is not a ritual prayer. laugh
Am I asking for too much? One simple writing that supports your theory. Just one! rotfl
911 If they (those who have set up partners) repent, and uphold the salat, and bring forth the zakat, then they are your fellows/brethren in the obligation ("deen". We explain the signs for a people who know.
912 If they break their oaths after their covenant, and they assail in your obligation ("deen" then you may kill the chiefs of rejection. Their oaths are nothing to them, perhaps they will then cease.
You can see that "uphold the salat" is contrasted to "breaking their oaths after their convenant".
Also, "zakat", which is not charity, but "betterment/development", is contrasted to "assail in your obligation (deen)".
It is also important to note that the people who are being adressed THE WHOLE TIME are "al kafireena/al mushrikeena" (the rejecters/those who have set up partners).And what is your argument? I don't see it. Surely you've missed something?
Eating dog meat is prohibited according to Hadith. What I was getting at is that you pick and choose from the Hadith. You accept some and reject some. This is exactly what is being described in 6113.
I reject whatever violates God's commands. I must be writing in invisible font since I've repeated this statement at least 10 times by now.
Do you also believe in the intercession of Muhammad?
Of course not, since it violates the Qur'an. Are you drunk perhaps? It wouldn't surprise me to hear that some "Free Minders" have found a way to make Alcohol "halal." laugh
Bukhari is said to have collected 700,000 hadith and accepted only about 7000, rejecting 99 percent of them. With all this "science of Hadith" of verifying the chain of narrators, plus the travelling he would have done, the eating, the sleeping, etc. etc. it would be impossible to have done.
3945 When God alone is mentioned, the minds of those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!
7218 The institutions of submission (masajid) are for God, so do not call on anyone alongside God.
7220 Say, "I only call on my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with Him."
4012 This is because when God alone was mentioned, you rejected, but when partners were associated with Him, you acknowledged. Therefore, the judgment is for God, the Most High, the Great.
Again, what is your argument? How can anyone with any brain tissue come to the conclusion after reading my posts that I am associating partners with God?? You are very funny.
Prayers for God to bless someone is associating partners? If I am asking God to bless my wife, I'm associating my wife as a partner with God? You can't be serious? I clearly said that the prayer for blessing certain people has no place in Salaat, but "dua" is NOT Salaat.
Dua is PRAYER/SUPPLICATION.
Regards,
Amid