My problems with Free-Minds (very long post, please read)

Amid

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 Yashfau Indahu 'Ill Bi'idhnihi Yalamu M Bayna 'Aydhim Wa M Khalfahum Wa L Yuna Bishay'in Min Ilmihi '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

nimnimak_11

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

ayman

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.&quot 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

noble

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)

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

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&quot 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&quot.

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&quot. 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

Prince

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

burhan

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.

Dotty

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.

bravo

Amid

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.

Amid

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.

Amid

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.

Amid

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&quot. 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

Amid

To my knowledge, you have not responded to Herbman (forgive me if i'm wrong).

You are forgiven. ;D I have answered it, but I'm not in the mood right now to search for it and paste what I said. Look it up, please.

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

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.
Am I asking for too much? One simple writing that supports your theory. Just one! rotfl

You are continuing with this nonsense. I already told you that this is 100% irrelevant. There could be 5 million Hadiths that indicate that salat is nothing but a ritual prayer as the Sunnis/Shias do it, and I still wouldn't care.

And what is your argument? I don't see it. Surely you've missed something?

You've missed something. The rejecters/idolaters are told to uphold the salat and bring forth the zakat. It is contrasted to "breaking their oaths after their covenant" and "assail in your obligation". You may want to read this.

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

More of your nonsense...
What does a simple question have to do with any drunkeness or what Free-Minders think about alcohol?

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?

If you ask God to bless your wife, then that is not a problem. However, if you ask God to bless some dead prophet, for example Muhammad, then there is, since you would be making a distinction among the prophets. We are to commemorate God alone and not the prophets. For you to want God to bless them and their families would be out of a religious reason, so you would be idolizing them. Those who idolize their idols only do so because they think that it makes them closer to God. We are never asked to ask God to bless them - they are already blessed by God. They are dead - why would you want to ask God to bless them? Also, why would you ask God to bless the dead prophets' dead families? What do they have anything to do with you serving God? We are never asked to ask God to bless the prophets by mere lip service. Furthermore, when a prophet dies, he no longer is a prophet. Even with your interpretation of 3356, it wouldnt make sense to bless the prophets by lip service since this would only supposed to be done when they are ALIVE.

Person F) Salaat means "bond", therefore it definitely can't be a ritual (aka progressive1993's argument).

I have already asked you before to quote me where I have alledgedly said "salat means bond therefore..."
Do you have proof or are you making up lies?

Peace

Amid

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.

It would seem that you have a problem reading words that are right in front of you. I used the Bible to show that it is exactly like Ahadith. Falsehood mixed with truth. We test what is truth by using the Qur'an.

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

What did I not answer?? LOL laugh Point it out please.

Regarding the prohibited months, every other person has a different opinion, just like Salaat. "Uncertainty" seems to be a very interesting pattern here.

If you continue to evade then you will be submitting to the fact that you have no argument to stand on.

If there is anyone who is intellectually bankrupt it is individuals like yourself who make Salaat into whatever they want it to be. They are also the ones who make halal haram, and haram halal, and funniest of all they claim to use the Qur'an alone yet they're using outside sources -- translations made by fallible human beings.

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.

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).

It demonstrates your intellectual bankrupcy and nothing else. Because Salaat can be used in many different ways therefore it cannot be a ritual prayer. That is your "argument," and it's pathetic for crying out loud. Produce one document, one narration, one simple writing since the beginning of Islamic history that supports your theory.

Why can't you do so?

Face it you have no case.

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.

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".

If everyone can see the real Salaat as you claim, then why does almost every other person in the "Qur'an alone" group completely disagree on this matter? LOL!!! rotfl Just by browsing this forum one can see how "certain" you guys are regarding Salaat

Person A) It is a ritual prayer.
Person B) No, it is simply remembering God.
Person C) What are you talking about? Salaat = doing good deeds.
Person D) I disagree, Salaat is charity. I've researched this for a long time.
Person E) You're all wrong, Salaat is simply studying the Qur'an.
Person F) Salaat means "bond", therefore it definitely can't be a ritual (aka progressive1993's argument).
Person G) I have no idea what it is. I've been trying to find out for many years.

And I could go on.

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.

So because it bears similarity to something it automatically means it must be a rip-off? The Bible contains the teaching Eye for an Eye. The Code of Hammurabi contains that teaching too. So by your logic the Bible must have plagarised from the code of Hammurabi. Similarly many concepts in the Qur'an are similar to the Torah, so the author of the Qur'an copied the Torah? LOL

Furthermore, the Sunni Salaat it is not exactly like the Zoroastrian prayer. Now instead of changing subjects, you should come to terms with the following

You have no evidence to support what you are saying, and therefore you have no case. It's as clear as that. You cannot produce one document throughout history, not only a document but not even one narration, not even a single sentence, not even half a sentence, written anywhere, anytime, from any source, whether deemed authentic, weak, or fabricated, that supports your theory of salaat not being a ritual prayer.

Please come back when you can show me some evidence.

Best wishes,
Amid

Amid

You are continuing with this nonsense. I already told you that this is 100% irrelevant. There could be 5 million Hadiths that indicate that salat is nothing but a ritual prayer as the Sunnis/Shias do it, and I still wouldn't care.

That's pure denial on your part, no more no less. Irrational and unreasonable. The evidence stares you in the face, but you simply don't want Salaat to be a ritual prayer, for whatever reason.

How can I respond to an irrational statement such as yours? I can't.

You've missed something. The rejecters/idolaters are told to uphold the salat and bring forth the zakat. It is contrasted to "breaking their oaths after their covenant" and "assail in your obligation". You may want to read this.

You may want to try and show me one document/writing/narration/half-a-narration/sentence/half-a-sentence since the beginning of Islamic history that implies Salaat is not worship/ritual prayer. If you can't do so, then I simply can't take you seriously. I want evidence, not twisted translations and misinterpretations of Qur'anic verses.

More of your nonsense...
What does a simple question have to do with any drunkeness or what Free-Minders think about alcohol?

I was simply astonished as to how you could ask if I believe in intercession, seeing how I stated my beliefs clearly so many times.

If you ask God to bless your wife, then that is not a problem. However, if you ask God to bless some dead prophet, for example Muhammad, then there is, since you would be making a distinction among the prophets. We are to commemorate God alone and not the prophets. For you to want God to bless them and their families would be out of a religious reason, so you would be idolizing them. Those who idolize their idols only do so because they think that it makes them closer to God. We are never asked to ask God to bless them - they are already blessed by God. They are dead - why would you want to ask God to bless them? Also, why would you ask God to bless the dead prophets' dead families? What do they have anything to do with you serving God? We are never asked to ask God to bless the prophets by mere lip service. Furthermore, when a prophet dies, he no longer is a prophet. Even with your interpretation of 3356, it wouldnt make sense to bless the prophets by lip service since this would only supposed to be done when they are ALIVE.

Perhaps I gave a bad example. I don't do it myself anyway. However, if I say Allah, please let your peace be upon all your prophets and messengers from the first to the last, I am not violating anything. Show me how that would be a violation of the Qur'an. Of course, this is not during Salaat but during Dua (as I stated before).

If I'm singling out a Prophet, then yes I'm violating the Qur'an because I'm making a distinction between Prophets. Otherwise, no.

I have already asked you before to quote me where I have alledgedly said "salat means bond therefore..."
Do you have proof or are you making up lies?

You don't type the exact phrase "salaat means bond, therefore", but you certainly do try with all your might to "show" how salaat is not a ritual prayer because the word itself means bond. You even devoted an entire post (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599473.msg231815#msg231815) to explain that salaat means bond, as if that proves anything.

sarah2505

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."

could you give examples of what IS NOT Salat?

I mean, a person may make a ritual prayer, another person might say a prayer verbally without going through the motions, others might keep God in mind and act accordingly. I don't see how these are mutually exclusive.

Don't you think you are being too concerned about terminology?

The threads on Salat had good examples to show that there is more than one way to worship God. What is wrong with that? And what does it matter what it is called?

sarah2505

If what you're saying is true, that Salaat is not a worship/ritual prayer, then surely in over 32265 narrations you would be able to find ONE SINGLE NARRATION that even remotely IMPLIES that the Salaat is something other than worship/ritual prayer.

do you mean that those articles state that Salaat is NOT a ritual prayer, or NOT JUST a ritual prayer?

(capital letters for emphasis)

No longer a Sunna-rejecter

Peace Amid,

That's pure denial on your part, no more no less. Irrational and unreasonable. The evidence stares you in the face, but you simply don't want Salaat to be a ritual prayer, for whatever reason.

How can I respond to an irrational statement such as yours? I can't.

You may want to try and show me one document/writing/narration/half-a-narration/sentence/half-a-sentence since the beginning of Islamic history that implies Salaat is not worship/ritual prayer. If you can't do so, then I simply can't take you seriously.

"Evidence"? "Irrational"? You are persisting in your appeal to popularity and authority.
I suggest reading up on the links on the logical fallacies, which I gave you.

You may want to try and show me one document/writing/narration/half-a-narration/sentence/half-a-sentence since the beginning of Islamic history that implies Salaat is not worship/ritual prayer.

Define "Islamic history". "Islam" (peacefulness/surrender) is the obligation/system of all of God's prophets (i.e. it started before Muhammad). See 4213.
I also told you numerous times that it is IRRELEVANT what your beloved Hadith idol says.

If you can't do so, then I simply can't take you seriously. I want evidence, not twisted translations and misinterpretations of Qur'anic verses.

Ahh..I see. When The Reading contradicts your views/challenges them/brings about problems/inconsistencies with the traditional/mainstream understandings, it is a "twisted translation" and a "misinterpretation"...

You don't type the exact phrase "salaat means bond, therefore",

Thanks for acknowledging your lie.

but you certainly do try with all your might to "show" how salaat is not a ritual prayer because the word itself means bond. You even devoted an entire post (http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599473.msg231815#msg231815) to explain that salaat means bond, as if that proves anything.

That post was not entirely dedicated to salat. Read carefully - I adressed more than just the salat issue. Anyways, even if it was just dedicated to salat being a bond/commitment, what would be the problem?

I only showed how the interpretation of "salat=prayer" is refuted by The Reading. I also gave you part of my view. Sad-lam-waw is used for a number of things in The Reading, that's why I said it's a general concept and that's why its nonsensical to translate it as "ritual prayer" (in all occurences). I strongly recommend you to re-read my last post where I explained 911-12 as well as the link I gave you which talks about the the things mentioned in the beginning of chapter 9 - especially the salat.

ayman

Peace Amid,

It would seem that you have a problem reading words that are right in front of you. I used the Bible to show that it is exactly like Ahadith. Falsehood mixed with truth. We test what is truth by using the Qur'an.

At least I made you realize that you were wrong and that Jesus divinity is not the same as him being the son of the god and therefore you stopped repeating this. Why don't you do like you say and test the issue of "salat" using the great reading. You can't even answer 3356 and tell us what "salat" means in this passage.

What did I not answer?? LOL laugh Point it out please.

You didn't answer anything of those posts.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599473.msg231810#msg231810

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9599473.msg231813#msg231813

You also continue to evade answering this one and even completely deleted it from your quotes

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).

Now answer what the "salat" of the god in 3356 means or have the courage to admit that you don't know instead of evading like you have been doing.

Regarding the prohibited months, every other person has a different opinion, just like Salaat. "Uncertainty" seems to be a very interesting pattern here.

This is a surrender to the fact that your challenge about the restriction period not being known based on the great reading has failed. Your challenge was not about "different opinions", otherwise your false arbitrary timing for the restriction period is also "another opinion". Your challenge was about the question not being feasible to answer or give ANY opinion to begin with based on the great reading.

Also, it is an indisputable fact that each sectarian has a different opinion about "salat"

It is ritual prayer.
It is mindlessly parroting "sala allah 3alih" every time someone's name is mentioned.
It is something else that you have no idea what it is and therefore are unable to answer what it means in 3356.

If there is anyone who is intellectually bankrupt it is individuals like yourself who make Salaat into whatever they want it to be. They are also the ones who make halal haram, and haram halal, and funniest of all they claim to use the Qur'an alone yet they're using outside sources -- translations made by fallible human beings.

This is again a surrender on your part that you have no idea what "salat" of the god means in 3356. When cornered you are beginning to sound like a bearded Mullah and exposing your dogmatic side.

It demonstrates your intellectual bankrupcy and nothing else. Because Salaat can be used in many different ways therefore it cannot be a ritual prayer. That is your "argument," and it's pathetic for crying out loud.

You are building a strawman. It is not about different ways. It is about contradicting meanings even in THE SAME EXACT context where it is clear that the meaning is the same as in 3356 where one time you interpret "salat" to mean "mindlessly parroting "sala allah 3alih"" and the other as some meaning that you ignore and evade telling everyone what it is.

Produce one document, one narration, one simple writing since the beginning of Islamic history that supports your theory.
Why can't you do so?
Face it you have no case.

I already did. Whether you like it or not, the great reading is the earliest Islamic document and it supports my theory.

If everyone can see the real Salaat as you claim, then why does almost every other person in the "Qur'an alone" group completely disagree on this matter? LOL!!! rotfl Just by browsing this forum one can see how "certain" you guys are regarding Salaat

Person A) It is a ritual prayer.
Person B) No, it is simply remembering God.
Person C) What are you talking about? Salaat = doing good deeds.
Person D) I disagree, Salaat is charity. I've researched this for a long time.
Person E) You're all wrong, Salaat is simply studying the Qur'an.
Person F) Salaat means "bond", therefore it definitely can't be a ritual (aka progressive1993's argument).
Person G) I have no idea what it is. I've been trying to find out for many years.
And I could go on.

The fact is that every creature, including birds know its "salat", unless you want to contest 2441. Even newborn babies know their "salat" as clear from 1931.

You also forgot Person H who is completely confused and thinks "salat" is ritual prayer or mindlessly repeating "sala allah 3alih" or has no idea what it is when it comes, for example, to 3356. )

Also, based on the above you admit that "salat" being "ritual prayer" is just another opinion.

So because it bears similarity to something it automatically means it must be a rip-off? The Bible contains the teaching Eye for an Eye. The Code of Hammurabi contains that teaching too. So by your logic the Bible must have plagarised from the code of Hammurabi. Similarly many concepts in the Qur'an are similar to the Torah, so the author of the Qur'an copied the Torah? LOL
Furthermore, the Sunni Salaat it is not exactly like the Zoroastrian prayer.

I could reverse your question and say Are you saying that "rip-offs" bear no similarity?

You forget that your question to Progressive1993 was "why did they change it into a ritual prayer instead of what it really is?"

The most likely answer is that they simply renamed the Geh as "salat" and "Islamcized" it.

This answer is further confirmed by the fact that the earliest Islamic document (the great reading) has no evidence of the 5 daily ritual prayers and even Sunnis admit to this and thus always use it as an argument for why we need Hadiths.

Now instead of changing subjects, you should come to terms with the following

You started this subject and I was simply answering another one of your weak challenges. Of course, when your challenge is defeated you now say that this is not our subject.

You have no evidence to support what you are saying, and therefore you have no case. It's as clear as that. You cannot produce one document throughout history, not only a document but not even one narration, not even a single sentence, not even half a sentence, written anywhere, anytime, from any source, whether deemed authentic, weak, or fabricated, that supports your theory of salaat not being a ritual prayer.
Please come back when you can show me some evidence.

I already showed everyone 3356, which is an earlier and more reliable document than any of your Abbasid era Hadiths and you still can't answer and never will. This is all I needed to do because your argument is a fallacious house of card.

Peace,

Ayman