Traditional Sunni Challenge to Quranities

mmkhan

Salaaman quantum1,

bravo

We do not even need to follow that "wahy"/inspiration to the messenger other than the quran because the quran says it is fully detailed and contains clarification of all things. Therefore it contains ALL the hadeeth of the messenger and ALL the uswa/example of the messenger necessary and relevant for our guidance, and to follow and obey the messenger.

AlQuraan contains not only hadeeth of Prophet Mohammed but also

209
209 And did the narrative of Moses come to you?

and the details follow

5124
5124 Has the narrative of the noble guests of Abraham come to you?

and the details follow

8517
8518

8517 Has narrative of the soldiers come to you?
8518 Pharaoh and Thamud?

and...

5681
5681 Are you disregarding this narrative?

If so...

6844
6845

6844 Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject this narrative; We will entice them from where they do not perceive.
6845 And I will lead them on; for My planning is formidable.

May Allah guide us all towards the Truth. pr
Mohammed M. Khan

quantum1

Hello readers, peace

This is in response to the challenge issued by the body/mind/soul complex who addresses self as "Isa".

That person wanted to know if anyone here has a connection to the messenger by virtue of being his descendant.

Not a single descendent of the Prophet is from your ranks. Think on that. Not a single one.

Even though it is completely irrelevant for our guidance, I want to make a public statement because of the challenge being issued

I am a muslim who tries his best to serve God alone. I am not a quranite or quran only because His signs are all around us in the horizons and ourselves in addition to the quran.

I am the descendent of prophet Muhammad through his grandson Hussain. I have a certified geneology proving it showing the whole chain of my forefathers all the way to Hussain. (Of course this is unverifiable hearsay/hadeeth similar to the hadeeth recorded by Bokhari)

If the criterion of following and obeying the messenger is solely to believe/trust someone who has a "connection" to Muhammad by virtue of being his descendant, then O "Isa", I hereby command you to follow what I said in my above post so that you can follow and obey the messenger jedi

For God alone muslims, of course this is completely irrelevant and fallacious, and a moot point )

sonnie

Hello readers, peace

This is in response to the challenge issued by the body/mind/soul complex who addresses self as "Isa".

That person wanted to know if anyone here has a connection to the messenger by virtue of being his descendant.

Even though it is completely irrelevant for our guidance, I want to make a public statement because of the challenge being issued

I am a muslim who tries his best to serve God alone. I am not a quranite or quran only because His signs are all around us in the horizons and ourselves in addition to the quran.

I am the descendent of prophet Muhammad through his grandson Hussain. I have a certified geneology proving it showing the whole chain of my forefathers all the way to Hussain. (Of course this is unverifiable hearsay/hadeeth similar to the hadeeth recorded by Bokhari)

If the criterion of following and obeying the messenger is solely to believe/trust someone who has a "connection" to Muhammad by virtue of being his descendant, then O "Isa", I hereby command you to follow what I said in my above post so that you can follow and obey the messenger jedi

For God alone muslims, of course this is completely irrelevant and fallacious, and a moot point

Wow....
Too bad he'll never read your post. I would've liked to seen his response....

Salaam

loxbox13

Hello readers, peace

This is in response to the challenge issued by the body/mind/soul complex who addresses self as "Isa".

That person wanted to know if anyone here has a connection to the messenger by virtue of being his descendant.

Even though it is completely irrelevant for our guidance, I want to make a public statement because of the challenge being issued

I am a muslim who tries his best to serve God alone. I am not a quranite or quran only because His signs are all around us in the horizons and ourselves in addition to the quran.

I am the descendent of prophet Muhammad through his grandson Hussain. I have a certified geneology proving it showing the whole chain of my forefathers all the way to Hussain. (Of course this is unverifiable hearsay/hadeeth similar to the hadeeth recorded by Bokhari)

If the criterion of following and obeying the messenger is solely to believe/trust someone who has a "connection" to Muhammad by virtue of being his descendant, then O "Isa", I hereby command you to follow what I said in my above post so that you can follow and obey the messenger jedi

For God alone muslims, of course this is completely irrelevant and fallacious, and a moot point &nbsp

How do we know Hussein was a grand son of the prophet ?
if the prophet was his grand father, that contradicts mohamed wasn't a father of any man , because Joseph called abraham his father, than abraham is indeed a father, but prophet mohamed was not, not a father to a direct or indirect son
i could be wrong, but i was surprised to see that prophet mohamed had grand son.
just like Isaak was called father of joseph, even though he was his grand father.

mmkhan

Salaam anti,

1-a) Allah's command to follow Muhammad (sm) is so strict that HE tagged our love for him with whether we follow Muhammad (sm) {{331 Say, "If you love God then follow me so God will love you and forgive your sins." God is Forgiver, Compassionate.}}---Translated by Edip-Layth.

This ayat indicates that if we do not follow Muhammad (sm), then that will make the meaning that WE DO NOT LOVE ALLAH. In other words, If we say that we love Allah, but do not follow Muhammad (sm), then our "love" is not real love, and will not be granted to Allah.

Well, whom "Qul" is referring to you in 331 as per your understanding bro?

If you think it is referring to Prophet Mohammed, then how about the same "Qul" in next aayat? 332? Whom that "Qul" is referring to?

Please reply.

May Allah guide us all towards the Truth.
Mohammed M. Khan

mmkhan

Salaam Mushu,

Correct. No one disputes this. The problem is that you believe Muhammad taught something other than the quran which you are required to follow. We follow exactly what he gave us the kitab.

Brother please look at reply # 44

May Allah guide us all towards the Truth pr
Mohammed M. Khan

antibhondo

Assalamu Alaikum.

Peace readers,

Yes we have been asked to follow and obey the messenger in the quran.

When we follow another person like our fathers/families, friends, peers, imams etc we are following and obeying them not the messenger.

Anyone who follows another contemporary person and then says he/she is following and obeying the messenger is A LIAR

How do you know the messenger did or say exactly what the contemporary person is doing or saying?

Let's start with {{How do you know the messenger did or say exactly what the contemporary person is doing or saying?}}.

So do you say that, yes, if we could know for sure that this and this was really done and said by Muhammad (sm), then, of course, according to the Quran, we are bound to follow him?

Then, I salute you. This is the thing that I wanted to hear first. handshake

But how do I know?

Well, this is a very simple question in case me. I believe in the Quran, only because, I believe in the transmission source that transmitted the Quran to me.

If I do not trust the source that transmitted the quran to me, then how am I so sure that this quran is really from Allah? And or, nobody has altered some ayats in this Quran? You know, if someone has altered, then they must have been the one who inserted the ayats that say that none can alter the Quran, or Allah will preserve this. The same source has transmitted the System of Salat and so many other things of which even the Shias and Sunnis do not differ. I am at least sure about those things of which these two opposing groups do not contrast.

Now, think otherwise, starting from the Quran. You believe/I believe, Quran is unaltered. So, the transmission source was definitely reliable. So, description about Muhammad (sm)'s practice related to Quran's command transmitted by them must have been reliable.

I think my answer touches all your points, basically. If it does not, please let me know.

Thank you.

progod

Peace,

This is where knowing how the Quran was trasmitted and how Hadeeth were transmitted becomes of the utmost importance. 10 readings of the Quran (beside 4 of them) are mutawaatir. All sahih hadeeeth are ahadi hadeeth. Mutawaatir hadeeth are in accordance with authentication of accounts found in 2411-13. So the Quran's transmission is historical and acceptable because it is mutwaatir (10 levels). No Ahadi hadeeth can be accepted as even historical, unless it falls under mutawaatir al-ma'any. Which means that atleast four separate and completely independent chains quote the same event or have something in common. Mutawaatir al-ma'aany is weaker than mutawaatir but it is still acceptable as historical. However no hadeeth has religious authoriy. And there is no way to connect many Muslim rituals including traditional salat to the prophet Muhammad (God bless him). Partly because the definitions of terms we use cannot be used in a pre-islamic sense, making them post-quranic islamic theological jargon. And partly because none of these rituals can be traced to hadeeth that are mutawaatir or even mutawaatir al-ma'any. Lastly and most importantly the Quran says that it is the only religous authority and that it is fully detailed.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Peace,

This is where knowing how the Quran was trasmitted and how Hadeeth were transmitted becomes of the utmost importance. 10 readings of the Quran (beside 4 of them) are mutawaatir. All sahih hadeeeth are ahadi hadeeth. Mutawaatir hadeeth are in accordance with authentication of accounts found in 2411-13. So the Quran's transmission is historical and acceptable because it is mutwaatir (10 levels). No Ahadi hadeeth can be accepted as even historical, unless it falls under mutawaatir al-ma'any. Which means that atleast four separate and completely independent chains quote the same event or have something in common. Mutawaatir al-ma'aany is weaker than mutawaatir but it is still acceptable as historical. However no hadeeth has religious authoriy. And there is no way to connect many Muslim rituals including traditional salat to the prophet Muhammad (God bless him). Partly because the definitions of terms we use cannot be used in a pre-islamic sense, making them post-quranic islamic theological jargon. And partly because none of these rituals can be traced to hadeeth that are mutawaatir or even mutawaatir al-ma'any. Lastly and most importantly the Quran says that it is the only religous authority and that it is fully detailed.

Godbless,
Anwar

Brother Progod
Assalamu Alaikum.
Thank you very much for the quick reply.

Please tell me some more thing regarding this

Mention the ayat, where it is clearly written that {{it is the only religous authority}}.
I explained that the Quran was fully detailed in the real life of a human, namely Muhammad (sm), like us. Please tell something about this.

Is there any verse that clearly tells that {{Quran is fully detailed by itself?}}

Would you please elaborate your following comment

However no hadeeth has religious authoriy. And there is no way to connect many Muslim rituals including traditional salat to the prophet Muhammad (God bless him).Partly because the definitions of terms we use cannot be used in a pre-islamic sense, making them post-quranic islamic theological jargon.

Would you please rephrase and elaborate you comment about what you said about Mutawatir narration?

Mutazilaah

Now, think otherwise, starting from the Quran. You believe/I believe, Quran is unaltered. So, the transmission source was definitely reliable. So, description about Muhammad (sm)'s practice related to Quran's command transmitted by them must have been reliable.

First of all you make many good points, there is no doubt that the rationale behind your arguments makes sense - especially to one who is have literal interpretations and pursue dogma (not meant to offend one who takes this approach but rather to define what type of approach we are dealing with); but as a follower of Ilm-al-Kalam and the Qur'an (only), there are philosophical responses to the ordeal.

I think we need to consider first and foremost that the 'sanad' that the compilers of Sunni Ahadith considered were trusted according to the theology as it was understood and believed in according to the theology of the four Sunni Fuqaha. Prior to the compilation of Ahadith, the Sunnis had already formed their four schools and condemned all other existing denominations such as the Jahmiyya, Mu'tazilah, Khawarij, Shi'a, and had also shunned Ilm al-Kalam by then. This means narrations from any people from these schools was regarded as 'fabricated' ... the Muhaditheen even identified that there were many fabricated Ahadith and fabricators and untrustworthy narrators etc. etc. This means that the Sunni Ahadith have a biased isnad; the entire science of Ahadith is based on accepted 'isnad' - there is nothing more to the 'science' other than who are the narrators in the chain of narrations; although, except for one other aspect called 'matn' - or the implications of the Ahadith; in other words any Ahadith that disagrees with their theology due to the 'matn' or implications of the Hadith, it is usually dismissed.

In any event, one would have to evaluate whether those individuals found in each isnad at some point are 'Sunni-biased' or not.

Now comes the dilemma of the Qur'an. Is it true that there were Hufaz among the Khawariji, Shi'i, Mu'tazili, and Jahmi Muslims? Well, we do know that its verses are authenticated by Shi'i and Sunni sources, making the preservation of the Qur'an more likely, given that denominations agreed on the ayats of the Qur'an, whereas they did not agree on the Ahadith. There is no way to possibly say that the early denominations of the Muslims during the first three generations of Muslims ever agreed on the Sunni-biased science of Ahadith or with the compilation of Ahadith by its Sunni compilers. Is this true?

Wakas

peace,

Now, think otherwise, starting from the Quran. You believe/I believe, Quran is unaltered. So, the transmission source was definitely reliable. So, description about Muhammad (sm)'s practice related to Quran's command transmitted by them must have been reliable.

You are simply perpetuating a myth

A commonly stated argument by those who wish to raise traditional hearsay/ahadith to divine-status level is that its compilation was the same as The Quran.

Is that really true? Lets look at the simple and obvious facts...

The Quran = God's Word
Ahadith = man's word

The Quran = 100% fact/truth/perfect
Ahadith = mix of truth and falsehood (hence weak and strong hadith)

The Quran = recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet Muhammad
Ahadith = not recorded under the DIRECT supervision of prophet Muhammad

The Quran = written AND memorised word for word as soon as it was transmitted
Ahadith = no-one ever claimed to record and memorise ahadith word for word as soon as it was transmitted

The Quran = protected explicitly by God Himself as stated in The Quran
Ahadith = no such explicit protection stated

The Quran = no Muslim doubts its credibility
Ahadith = each sect has its own versions, weak & strong ones etc

The Quran = in-built verification mechanism, e.g. challenges others to find inconsistancy, bring a chapter like it etc.
Ahadith = no such in-built mechanism, full of inconsistancies etc.

unknownuser

This thread is a striking example of what the quran terms "vain discourse". You will get nowhere arguing for or against ahadith, both sides are perfectly blind to the truths & falsehoods in each other.

antibhondo

Brother Mutazilaah
Assalamu Alaikum.

First of all you make many good points, there is no doubt that the rationale behind your arguments makes sense - especially to one who is have literal interpretations and pursue dogma (not meant to offend one who takes this approach but rather to define what type of approach we are dealing with); but as a follower of Ilm-al-Kalam and the Qur'an (only), there are philosophical responses to the ordeal.

Thank you very much for your appreciation and criticism. Please never ever hesitate to criticize me. I always appreciate that.

However in this part of your comment, I really did not understand your last line

but as a follower of Ilm-al-Kalam and the Qur'an (only), there are philosophical responses to the ordeal.

Can you try to make it clear?

In any event, one would have to evaluate whether those individuals found in each isnad at some point are 'Sunni-biased' or not.

Now comes the dilemma of the Qur'an. Is it true that there were Hufaz among the Khawariji, Shi'i, Mu'tazili, and Jahmi Muslims? Well, we do know that its verses are authenticated by Shi'i and Sunni sources, making the preservation of the Qur'an more likely, given that denominations agreed on the ayats of the Qur'an, whereas they did not agree on the Ahadith. There is no way to possibly say that the early denominations of the Muslims during the first three generations of Muslims ever agreed on the Sunni-biased science of Ahadith or with the compilation of Ahadith by its Sunni compilers. Is this true?

Nice logic. Thank you. Now, would you tell me what you think about the basic method of Salat (which got a similar treatment)? Let alone Ahadith for the time being.

Layth

Salam,

Quran was written and compiled during the lifetime of the prophet, therefore, the argument that those who transmitted the Quran are the same people who transmitted the hadith holds no water and is a falasy.

Quran is from God and His messenger.

Hadith is from Satan and his followers.

Chose what you follow carefully.

antibhondo

Peace,

This is where knowing how the Quran was trasmitted and how Hadeeth were transmitted becomes of the utmost importance. 10 readings of the Quran (beside 4 of them) are mutawaatir. All sahih hadeeeth are ahadi hadeeth. Mutawaatir hadeeth are in accordance with authentication of accounts found in 2411-13. So the Quran's transmission is historical and acceptable because it is mutwaatir (10 levels). No Ahadi hadeeth can be accepted as even historical, unless it falls under mutawaatir al-ma'any. Which means that atleast four separate and completely independent chains quote the same event or have something in common. Mutawaatir al-ma'aany is weaker than mutawaatir but it is still acceptable as historical. However no hadeeth has religious authoriy. And there is no way to connect many Muslim rituals including traditional salat to the prophet Muhammad (God bless him). Partly because the definitions of terms we use cannot be used in a pre-islamic sense, making them post-quranic islamic theological jargon. And partly because none of these rituals can be traced to hadeeth that are mutawaatir or even mutawaatir al-ma'any. Lastly and most importantly the Quran says that it is the only religous authority and that it is fully detailed.

Godbless,
Anwar

Brother Anwar

I was waiting for your reply.

Your assumption that {{Mutawaatir hadeeth are in accordance with authentication of accounts found in 2411-13.}} has been found to be a wrong assumption.

Here are the ayats 2411-13 (Translated by Edip-Layth)

2411 Those who have brought forth the false accusation were a group from within you. Do not think it is bad for you, for it is good for you. Every person amongst them will have what he deserves of the sin. As for he who had the greatest portion of it, he will have a great retribution.

2412 If only when you heard it the acknowledging men and women should have thought good of themselves and said "This is an obvious lie!"

2413 If only they had brought four witnesses to it. If they did not have the witnesses, then these with God are the liars.

My explanation
These ayats clearly express that if someone brings up any allegation/accusation against someone, only then does he/she have to produce four witnesses. How do you relate these with any rumor or any news? Why would he/she produce four witness if the news is a normal news?

The quran does not require this. Please brother, do not make quran say something that it did not say at all.

Rather look at the following ayat
496 O you who acknowledge, if a wicked person comes to you with any news, then you shall investigate it. Lest you harm a people out of ignorance, then you will become regretful over what you have done.

This ayat indicates that if a wicked person comes with any news, then we should investigate. What if the news comes with someone who we know is definitely not wicked? This ayat requires no investigation against it, and there is no formal quranic constraint to accept the news!

However, here is a brief account of Mutawatir Hadith copied from this link http//www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout&cid=1158658487972

Please read this and let me know whether you have any disagreement

Depending on the number of the reporters of the hadith in each stage of the isnad, that is, in each generation of reporters, the hadith can be classified into the general categories of mutawatir or ahad (single) hadith. A mutawatir hadith is one that is reported by such a large number of people that they cannot be expected to agree upon a lie, all of them together (Al-Jaza?iri 33).

Al-Ghazali (d. AH 505) stipulates that a mutawatir narration be known by the sizeable number of its reporters equally in the beginning, in the middle, and at the end (Al-Jaza?iri 33). He is correct in this stipulation because some narrations or ideas, although known as mutawatir among some people, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, are not originally mutawatir. There is no precise definition for a ?large number of reporters?; although the numbers 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 40, and 70? among others?have all been variously suggested as a minimum, the exact number is irrelevant. (Some reporters, for example, imams of Hadith, carry more weight, anyway, than others who are their contemporaries.) The important condition is that the possibility of coincidence or ?organized falsehood? be obviously negligible (Al-`Asqalani 8?9).

Examples of mutawatir practices are
the five daily prayers, fasting, zakah, the Hajj and recitation of the Qur?an. Among the verbal mutawatir hadiths, the following has been reported by at least 62 Companions from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and has been widely-known among the Muslims throughout the ages ?Whoever invents a lie and attributes it to me intentionally, let him prepare his seat in the Fire.?

Mutazilaah

wa'alaykumus salaam,

Now, would you tell me what you think about the basic method of Salat (which got a similar treatment)? Let alone Ahadith for the time being. [Of course I will talk to you about this later, if you allow.

I think it becomes very difficult to argue that the Salat as it is practiced by the Sunni Muslims is not from the Prophet (sa) given that both Sunni and Shi'i Muslims with different sources perform the Salat similarly and as you said there are 'mutawattir' chains that back the Salat method as it is described in Ahadith. However, we should first define the word and concept of Salat according to the Qur'an before we allow any other source to define it. We should also distinguish Salat from dua, as dua is a supplication, invocation, or prayer in the literal sense; whereas the word Salat/Salah can have different meanings. For example

Allh sends His Salt (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy, etc.) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels too (ask Allh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salt on (ask Allh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As?Salmu 'Alaikum). (Al-Ahzab 3356)

Many Christians have tried to make an objection that Allah (swt) and his angels prayed to Muhammad (sa) according to this verse, when in actuality this is not the case. I have also heard Salat being defined as 'connection' or to make a connection with God. But clearly, this ayah is not talking about prayer nor is it talking about the five daily Sunni/Shi'a Salat.

The Qur'an also talks about Prophets such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob performing the Salat, but it is unlikely that they repeatedly went up and down and up and down saying words in Arabic. Example

And We made them (Isaac and Jacob) leaders, guiding others by Our Command, and We inspired in them the doing of good deeds, performing Salt, and the giving of Zakt and of Us (Alone) they were worshippers. (Al-Anbiya 2173)

Now the Qur'an by itself never gives us any details about what Salat is or how to perform it. As a rationalist, whenever a Sunni Muslim asks - well how do you know how to pray if you use only the Qur'an? The very question itself surprises me as if there is a 'how' to pray. There shouldn't be a 'how' to pray, prayer to God is something the individual can do without being taught. I can communicate to God, praise Him, worship Him, without any formal ritual.

It is interesting for example, that the Qur'an gives full details about wudhu/ablution (56) but does not describe any method on 'how' to pray. This is because I don't think there is a necessary HOW to pray. But if there is no necessary 'how' to pray then why do we have Muhammad (sa) praying the way he (sa) did? And if he prayed the way he did, how can you say that we should pray other than the way that he prayed and makeup our own Salat?

This has been the battle between rationalism and traditionalism. My belief is that Muhammad ibn Abdullah (sa) completely made up his Salat according to his own seventh century Arab rationale. This was not something that was mandated by God himself, that you have to go up and down and up and down repeatedly saying words in Arabic. Hence it is my belief that the Salat is not limited to the way Muhammad (sa) did it, nor is ritualistic 'Salat' of Muhammad (sa) from Allah, but it is from the Prophet. When Allah judges whether a believer performed Salat, He will not judge it according to the performance of repetitious raka'ats with ritualistic Arabic words; rather Salat is a personal, subjective meditative state of mind where one can pray however and in whatever position he or she likes given that the Qur'an itself does not dictate what Salat is. Had the Qur'an dictated a specific way to pray, fine, but since it did not, we cannot limit the understanding and definition of Salat according to how Muhammad (sa) chose to perform it.

Also, the Qur'an simply gives three times for the Salat - Fajr, Asr, Isha ... the Hadith where Moses and Muhammad went back and forth between 5,000 prayers a day and finally ended up with five is just ... well ... nonsensical, with all due respect.

Likewise is the issue of Hajj. The Qur'an does not mention any Kabaa or any devil statue that you have to throw rocks at, or any black stone you have to kiss, nor that you have to run between the mountains to relive Hagar finding water for Ishmael, nor is there anything about walking about the Kabaa chanting I am here .... these are pagan rituals that are not from the Qur'an, nor does Allah (swt) require them. The Hajj is simply a pilgrimage to a city called Mecca, where one should go to learn from scholarly individuals, experience unity and brotherhood, and for other spiritual witnessing. Not rituals.

Your thoughts?

Farhan

antibhondo

Salam,

Quran was written and compiled during the lifetime of the prophet, therefore, the argument that those who transmitted the Quran are the same people who transmitted the hadith holds no water and is a falasy.

Quran is from God and His messenger.

Hadith is from Satan and his followers.

Chose what you follow carefully.

Brother Layth
Assalamu Alaikum.

I don't understand your point; even the people who acknowledge hadith also acknowledge that Quran was written during the lifetime of the prophet. There are some Bukhari-hadiths regarding this.

So, how does Quran's being written in the lifetime of the Prophet prove that
those who transmitted the Quran are not the same people who transmitted the hadith???

Please carefully read the following point and let me know, whether we have any disagreement about this issue

In the period of Sahaba, the system of Salat (I take Salat for example, whereas I could take example for Zakat, too) must have been established in the society, whatever the meaning of Salat is. So, everywhere there were the daily practice of the System of Salat (and other system commanded by Islam, and duly practiced by Muhammad (sm)). I assumed this based upon only the importance given by the concerned quranic ayats.You don't need to believe in the history or HADITH! You can simply read quranic ayats, and these can be easily calculated.

One last question how do you know that Quran was also "COMPILED" during the lifetime of the Prophet?

Mutazilaah

Asalaamu alaykum again, brother antibhondo, did you have a chance to review my last post?

progod

Antibhondo,

I sent you a reply already. Feel free to respond to it in this discussion.

Mutaazilah,

The ritual prayer is not mutawaatir as there is no isnaad that can trace this back to the last prophet. Even when considering the term raka'ah, this word means to bow once. The meaning most Muslims understand today is a purely invented theological meaning, just as 'rapture' has a theological meaning connected to the return of Christ (God bless him), but does not possess this meaning at all in a purely linguitistic sense. It is the linguistic meanings that hold water when we read old literature, not the invented theological meanings imposed on the text later on. So in essence these traditional Islamic prayers aren't even saheeh in nature, let alone mutawaatir.
The Quran does mention the Ka'bah, clear as day. Please revisit the Quran again. It says that God has made the Ka'bah God's house.
I'm assuming you understand as-salaatul-wustaa as 'asr. Am I correct? If so I won't get into the discussion now. We will get seriously derailed from the main crux of this interaction.
Have you read Zamakhshari's tafsir or any of Al-Jahiz's work. I have yet to get my hands on Zamakhshari's work. I am dying to get a hold of it. i have read bits and pieces of al-jahiz's work. There is one online that i have favorited. The Arabic is tough, but I plan on tackling it one of these days.

Godbless,
Anwar

antibhondo

Brother Farhan
Assalamu Alaikum.

Of course, I will. Give me some time for my Office. This is morning here. I just rose from bed. Before going office I have read it two times already. The total body of your comment did not make sense to me, but I know that could be the result of my existing beliefs. Let me read it for some more times during the leisure hours, think freely with cool head and then review.

Some points have already gathered in my head; let me share it

It is not necessary for all words of the same roots to be of exactly similar meaning. Is it?
Whatever be the meaning, I can understand that Salat was/is one of most basic points of Islam. But you also said that {{the Qur'an by itself never gives us any details about what Salat is or how to perform it.}}. It just did not make sense to me.

Rather I have read 2456
Translated by Edip-Layth
Hold the contact prayer and contribute towards betterment, and obey the messenger, that you may attain mercy.

However I will rethink about this.

The Hukum for Wudu indicates that the hukum for Salat is ritual in nature.
The hukum for assembly Salat indicates that you cannot have a different meaning of your own for "Salat".
In my sense, whoever thinks of Quran important for him must feel "Salat" important, of couse. Every muslim society must have thought of the word similarly.
If I start thinking from the period of Sahaba, the system of Salat (I take Salat for example, whereas I could take example for Zakat, too) must have been established in the society, whatever the meaning of Salat is. So, everywhere there were the daily practice of the System of Salat (and other system commanded by Islam, and duly practiced by Muhammad (sm)). I assumed this based upon only the importance given by the concerned quranic ayats.You don't need to believe in the history or HADITH! You can simply read quranic ayats, and these can be easily calculated.
The Quran is Clear, and detailed. So, how come that people rejecting Hadiths completely have been coming out with different conclusions on many basic points of Islam by deriving the meanings only from Quran?

Please forgive me. I am to go now. I will reply later Inshaallah.