Support for a Middle Prayer?
-
So in my view sallaat Al Wusta is talking about the best sallaat not the middle sallaat according to the meaning of the word in the above mentioned verses.
What is this ?best sallaat?? The only sallaat I can think of is sallaat al jumu3a 629-11
But I have a problem with this because I don?t know at which time this sallaat al jumu3a is. I know it must be done when the call is heard. BUT who is this one who gives this call? And how does this one know at what time he must do the call to the sallaat Al Jumu3a?Salaaman Bender,
Please check when you have time.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597144.msg178646#msg178646
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601815.msg269776#msg269776
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601629.msg267955#msg267955
May Allah guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Salaaman Bender,
Please check when you have time.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597144.msg178646#msg178646
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601815.msg269776#msg269776
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601629.msg267955#msg267955
May Allah guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. KhanSalaam Mohammed,
thanks for the links
If I have questions then I know where to find you -
Peace Kevin,
For the second time read these verses SLOWLY
370 O people of the book, why do you reject God's signs while you are bearing witness?
371 O people of the book, why do you dress the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?447 O you who have received the book(Jews and the Christians), acknowledge what We have sent down authenticating what is with you, before We cast down faces and turn them on their backs or curse them as the people of the Sabbath were cursed. God's will is always done.
Doesn't the above verse imply that the Jews and Christians are more knowledgeable in the Scripture than those you are new to the teachings of the Quran???Read it again several times and maybe you'll see my point
1094 If you are in doubt regarding what We have sent down to you, then ask those who have been studying the book from before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.
If the Jews and the Christians are not aware of the truth then why would God say "ask those who have been studying the book from before you " ??? ???
I've read the verses carefully, in context, and I do not disagree with them. The People of the Book will see the truth. But it's referring to the truth about the Abrahamic God and that the Quran is from Him, not every fine detail, as even you yourself said that there are changes regarding salat, zakat, etc.
In light of 548, there are portions of truth remaining in the previous books, however the Quran was presented to correct any differences, hence why it says the religion is completed with it. Moses and Jesus were for Israel/the lost sheep of Israel, and Muhammad was to bring the message to the whole world. Even Jesus says this.
But honestly, this argument regarding the authenticity of previous books can go on forever. It's pretty much why Jews and Christians and Muslims exist in separate denominations anyway. So let us put that aspect to rest regarding this matter, and perhaps we can debate about it in it's appropriate section another time.
And this idea about me not being a Quran alone muslim stems from what ....my translating the verse 'salat al wusta' as middle prayer!? The reason why I believe that it is a correct translation is because I KNOW THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES! This is not a new religion but an old one. The same that was practiced by Abraham, Moses and Jesus( who was a JEW if didn't know!!!!) Three daily prays is not a new practice. Where have I strayed from the Quran??? It is you who lacks knowledge. Ask a Jew or Christian how many prays are taught in the previous scriptures and 95% (if not all ) will tell you that they're three, so how am I straying if I translate 'salat al wusta' as middle prayer? rotfl Hmmm, maybe 'wusta' only means 'balanced'...... What a basless argument!
This is what it boils down to. You and I both claim to believe in the Quran. The Quran claims to be fully detailed and sufficient regarding the religion of Abraham.
Correct?
Therefore, all I'm asking is for those who believe in the 3 daily salat to present their evidence using the Quran alone, which is sufficient as far as we are concerned. Brother youssef4342 listed some points with the Quran and a few regarding the OT. I rebutted against the arguments presented, all the ones regarding the grammar and logic of the Quran were conveniently disregarded, and any hint of a 3 daily salat from non-Quranic sources were clung to. So far from your points it seems to just be what the previous books say, and that therefore 'wusta' should hold the definition which would put it in line with the previous books, disregarding any errors it might cause within the Quran.
What else am I to make of this? I'm not debating to try to be right and just call your arguments "baseless" without showing sufficient evidence. I've gone through all the reasons as to why I don't believe there are 3 daily salat and they are undeniable at this point. If there are any valid points in opposition, I want to hear them as I would like to know the truth.
Anyone who looks through this entire thread can see for the 2 daily salat, there are dictionary definitions, there are several examples of where MAJOR errors occur if 'wusta' is translated as 'middle', there is evidence from other areas in the Quran where 'wusta' is 'most balanced/moderate'...
So far the only argument for 3 daily salat presented is that the Quran says there is truth in the previous books, and the previous books say 3 daily salat. The Quran isn't an index for other books. It must sufficiently explain itself. If one cannot prove there are 3 daily salat using the Quran alone, then they must 1) Admit there is great contradiction in the entire religion if they believe all the holy books to be infallible (and not only with salat, with countless other matters as well), 2) Perhaps just realize that it was once 3 and it's now 2, if you believe the previous books are infallible, or 3) Realize that the Quran supersedes and corrects the previous books, which it claims to in 548, therefore meaning there are corruptions in the previous books.
But whether one wants to believe in the previous books or not, is a different issue. Either way, the Quran should be able to explain itself on it's own if we believe in it and believe it is sufficient. Please provide proof of 3 daily salat using the Quran alone if you would like to convince followers of the Quran that it is so. Otherwise, to you is your system, and to me is mine.
May peace be with you.
-
Peace Kevin,
I've read the verses carefully, in context, and I do not disagree with them. The People of the Book will see the truth. But it's referring to the truth about the Abrahamic God and that the Quran is from Him, not every fine detail, as even you yourself said that there are changes regarding salat, zakat, etc.
In light of 548, there are portions of truth remaining in the previous books, however the Quran was presented to correct any differences, hence why it says the religion is completed with it. Moses and Jesus were for Israel/the lost sheep of Israel, and Muhammad was to bring the message to the whole world. Even Jesus says this.
But honestly, this argument regarding the authenticity of previous books can go on forever. It's pretty much why Jews and Christians and Muslims exist in separate denominations anyway. So let us put that aspect to rest regarding this matter, and perhaps we can debate about it in it's appropriate section another time.
This is what it boils down to. You and I both claim to believe in the Quran. The Quran claims to be fully detailed and sufficient regarding the religion of Abraham.
Correct?
Therefore, all I'm asking is for those who believe in the 3 daily salat to present their evidence using the Quran alone, which is sufficient as far as we are concerned. Brother youssef4342 listed some points with the Quran and a few regarding the OT. I rebutted against the arguments presented, all the ones regarding the grammar and logic of the Quran were conveniently disregarded, and any hint of a 3 daily salat from non-Quranic sources were clung to. So far from your points it seems to just be what the previous books say, and that therefore 'wusta' should hold the definition which would put it in line with the previous books, disregarding any errors it might cause within the Quran.
What else am I to make of this? I'm not debating to try to be right and just call your arguments "baseless" without showing sufficient evidence. I've gone through all the reasons as to why I don't believe there are 3 daily salat and they are undeniable at this point. If there are any valid points in opposition, I want to hear them as I would like to know the truth.
Anyone who looks through this entire thread can see for the 2 daily salat, there are dictionary definitions, there are several examples of where MAJOR errors occur if 'wusta' is translated as 'middle', there is evidence from other areas in the Quran where 'wusta' is 'most balanced/moderate'...
So far the only argument for 3 daily salat presented is that the Quran says there is truth in the previous books, and the previous books say 3 daily salat. The Quran isn't an index for other books. It must sufficiently explain itself. If one cannot prove there are 3 daily salat using the Quran alone, then they must 1) Admit there is great contradiction in the entire religion if they believe all the holy books to be infallible (and not only with salat, with countless other matters as well), 2) Perhaps just realize that it was once 3 and it's now 2, if you believe the previous books are infallible, or 3) Realize that the Quran supersedes and corrects the previous books, which it claims to in 548, therefore meaning there are corruptions in the previous books.
But whether one wants to believe in the previous books or not, is a different issue. Either way, the Quran should be able to explain itself on it's own if we believe in it and believe it is sufficient. Please provide proof of 3 daily salat using the Quran alone if you would like to convince followers of the Quran that it is so. Otherwise, to you is your system, and to me is mine.
May peace be with you.
You have a very interesting take on the ?Quran Alone? doctrine. I have been waiting to talk about this for a long time since there are a few members on this forum who cry ?Quran Alone !!!?, Quran Alone!!!!,? and don?t know what ?Quran Alone? means.
Quran Alone Discussion?
Some verses on Quran Alone Doctrine?.
1746 We place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and deafness in their ears. If you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion.
6940 This is the utterance of an honorable messenger
6941 It is not the utterance of a poet; rarely do you acknowledge.
6942 Nor the utterance of a soothsayer; rarely do you take heed.
6943 A revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
6944 Had he uttered any other teachings.
6945 We would have seized him by the right.
6946 Then, We would have severed his life-line.
6947 None of you would be able to prevent it.
6948 This is a reminder for the righteous.THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT THE 'QURAN ALONE' DOCTRINE.....
(1) Using outside sources to derive an interpretation from the Quran is NOT a violation of the 'Quran Alone' doctrine that is taught in Quran.
The ONLY TIME when using outside sources becomes a problem is when they CONFLICT with the teachings of the Quran.Here are two examples....
Look at the translation of Sura 962 by some translators
962 He created the human being from an embryo.Obviously this is not classical translation of "alaqin" which means (1) blood clot; (2) hanging thing; (3) leech. But is Dr. Bucaille (the man responsible for this translation) wrong in combining the likeness of the three translations to come up with the translation of the word 'alaqin' in Sura 962 to mean embryo? No he is not wrong. But in your view Eikon he would be wrong since he used science(another source other than the Quran) to derive his interpretation.
Second Example...
What about God's constant (persistent) reminder in the Quran to investigate the signs in nature? Wouldn't to investigate the signs of nature be a source other than the Quran. Isn't Science a source other than the Quran???? Common Sense people.Obviously the 'Quran Alone' doctrine applies only to conflicting teachings of the Quran and not sources that are in harmony with the Quran!
Thus using other sources to interpret the Quran is not a crime (sin) , but rather using sources that conflict with the Quran is.
For example...here is a conflict
The Quran says the earth is egg-shaped
7930 The land after that, He made it like an egg.Now lets pretend that science says that the world of flat. In this case we must ignore science since it conflicts with the teachings of the Quran
Example 2
Fact #1 'salat al wusta' can be translated as 'middle prayer'. The Jews (who had 30x or more prophets than the arabs!!! And are followers of the Abrahamic religion ) and the Christians prayed three daily prayers for centuries! Using this and other signs in the Quran as the cornerstone of my preferred translation is not in violation of the "Quran Alone " doctrine since "SALAT AL WUSTA" CAN BE TRANSLATED AS MIDDLE PRAYER!!!. Salat al wusta is not outside the Quran, it is in the Quran! Your argument should be focused on why I prefer the middle prayer translation and not based on the illogical interpretation of on what you think Quran Alone doctrine means!
"Quran Alone " simply means to follow the teachings(religious, scientific etc) that are not in conflict with the Quran. Using outside sources like Science, the Bible,Mathematics, and the Hadiths is not a crime!!!The sin lies when you use them when they conflict with the Quran! 95% of what is taught in the Hadiths and Sunna are in direct confliction with the Quran since Muhammad was banned from teaching any other teaching other than the Quran!!! Do you see where I coming from Eikon? You and others have to reevaluate your definition of the "Quran Alone" doctrine since it doesn't make any sense at all.
Regarding the evidence that you seek for the middle prayer in the Quran I will not bother to get in argument with you on this since you have already been shown the evidence of them on other forum topics but chose not to acknowledge them. So why give my typing fingers the extra burden???
Peace,
Kevin.
-
Thank you KDC501 for your wonderful post!
You are completely right, and I agree totally with you.
By the way, GOD ALONE is much more important then Quran alone!
-
Peace Kevin,
You have a very interesting take on the Quran Alone doctrine. I have been waiting to talk about this for a long time since there are a few members on this forum who cry Quran Alone !!!, Quran Alone!!!!, and dont know what Quran Alone means.
(1) Using outside sources to derive an interpretation from the Quran is NOT a violation of the 'Quran Alone' doctrine that is taught in Quran.
The ONLY TIME when using outside sources becomes a problem is when they CONFLICT with the teachings of the Quran.Here are two examples....
Look at the translation of Sura 962 by some translators
962 He created the human being from an embryo.Obviously this is not classical translation of "alaqin" which means (1) blood clot; (2) hanging thing; (3) leech. But is Dr. Bucaille (the man responsible for this translation) wrong in combining the likeness of the three translations to come up with the translation of the word 'alaqin' in Sura 962 to mean embryo? No he is not wrong. But in your view Eikon he would be wrong since he used science(another source other than the Quran) to derive his interpretation.
Second Example...
What about God's constant (persistent) reminder in the Quran to investigate the signs in nature? Wouldn't to investigate the signs of nature be a source other than the Quran. Isn't Science a source other than the Quran???? Common Sense people.Obviously the 'Quran Alone' doctrine applies only to conflicting teachings of the Quran and not sources that are in harmony with the Quran!
Thus using other sources to interpret the Quran is not a crime (sin) , but rather using sources that conflict with the Quran is.
For example...here is a conflict
The Quran says the earth is egg-shaped
7930 The land after that, He made it like an egg.Now lets pretend that science says that the world of flat. In this case we must ignore science since it conflicts with the teachings of the Quran
lol Honestly, I'm really not sure what implications I gave to warrant this response. Obviously when I say Quran alone I'm referring to it's divine guidance and that things should be seen in light of the Quran alone first, which is what you are saying, meaning we are in agreeance.
Obviously I didn't mean it so literally like only the Quran can be used and we can't even glance at another source for clarification. See those examples you gave, after presenting the other sources in light of the Quran, nothing was conflicted! Therefore it was OK to take them in because in context and logic it made perfect sense. We just didn't see it, but this idea was what the Quran was saying all along. This doesn't mean something was ADDED to the Quran. I am saying that in this case, there is a conflict with context and logic. In fact, I don't think I know of a single person who believes outside sources shouldn't help clarify and understand the Quran. If you do, please introduce me to them. I apologize if I gave this impression, and if it needs to be said more blatantly I do believe we are allowed to take from other sources to help understand the Quran. I felt that I gave this impression when I myself used a dictionary and even presented verse 548 which shows there is truth in line with the Quran from previous holy books.
Now that it's clear that we are on the same page with that, let's put it aside as it's only external to the grand point. I'd like to address some very key things you pointed out
The ONLY TIME when using outside sources becomes a problem is when they CONFLICT with the teachings of the Quran.
Obviously the 'Quran Alone' doctrine applies only to conflicting teachings of the Quran and not sources that are in harmony with the Quran!
Thus using other sources to interpret the Quran is not a crime (sin) , but rather using sources that conflict with the Quran is.
Exactly! But in order for us to know what is in harmony with the Quran (or a term I used prior, which further illustrates I never implied we can't use other sources - "in light of the Quran", don't we need to establish what is in the QURAN first? We can put other tools to use to see if interpretations can exist, and how they work in flow of the entire Quran, sure. But if the Quran itself is showing you that the interpretation from the outside source is creating conflict, then you must abandon that tool for interpretation. Right?
And this is what I've been striving so hard to do from the beginning. But what the opposition is doing is saying
"1) The definition for 'wusta' that we will pick is 'middle', 2) and in OT/past centuries there was a middle prayer, therefore 'al salat al wusta' must be translated as 'the middle prayer'!"
But we cannot discuss 2) if there is a problem with 1)! This is why I keep saying put the OT/NT aside while we discuss the Quran alone because I have evidence that 'wusta' does NOT mean 'middle' in context of 2238. And if it can be proven it does not, then that also proves OT/NT are corrupt and upholding their views on this aspect are creating conflict with believing in the Quran.
In order to know what is correct in light of the Quran, and in harmony of the Quran, and what does/does not conflict with the Quran we must discuss what is in the Quran alone before seeing what supports it. If you already uphold the supporting arguments for something that cannot be proven using the Quran, then even by your accord it is a sin. So I am asking for your proof.
Fact #1 'salat al wusta' can be translated as 'middle prayer'. The Jews (who had 30x or more prophets than the arabs!!! And are followers of the Abrahamic religion ) and the Christians prayed three daily prayers for centuries! Using this and other signs in the Quran as the cornerstone of my preferred translation is not in violation of the "Quran Alone " doctrine since "SALAT AL WUSTA" CAN BE TRANSLATED AS MIDDLE PRAYER!!!. Salat al wusta is not outside the Quran, it is in the Quran! Your argument should be focused on why I prefer the middle prayer translation and not based on the illogical interpretation of on what you think Quran Alone doctrine means!
My argument is that 'salat al wusta' in CONTEXT of 2238 DOES NOT MEAN "MIDDLE PRAYER". From the very beginning. It's not a matter of which you prefer or why, it's a matter of one translation making sense and one being totally erroneous. I'm not trying to interpret what the Quran alone doctrine means, the conversation took a giant tangent because of the inclusion of the OT/NT and all I was saying was that we must establish FACTS using the Quran alone first, which you pretty much just agreed with in your post. So let us do that. Using the Quran, in 2238, 'salat al wusta' DOES NOT MEAN MIDDLE PRAYER and I have proved this multiple times in this thread, and not once were the arguments countered let alone mentioned.
"Quran Alone " simply means to follow the teachings(religious, scientific etc) that are not in conflict with the Quran. Using outside sources like Science, the Bible,Mathematics, and the Hadiths is not a crime!!!The sin lies when you use them when they conflict with the Quran! 95% of what is taught in the Hadiths and Sunna are in direct confliction with the Quran since Muhammad was banned from teaching any other teaching other than the Quran!!! Do you see where I coming from Eikon? You and others have to reevaluate your definition of the "Quran Alone" doctrine since it doesn't make any sense at all.
Exactly, and translating 'wusta' as 'middle' (in 223 is in conflict with the Quran! Therefore upholding that view, especially because of what OT/NT say, is not Quran alone.
I see where you are coming from, and I know that anything in agreeance with the Quran is true, and anything that is not, is false and a sin to uphold. 2238 does NOT refer to a middle prayer (I have provided the evidence countless times), therefore upholding the 3 prayers because of the influence of other books is a sin!
Regarding the evidence that you seek for the middle prayer in the Quran I will not bother to get in argument with you on this since you have already been shown the evidence of them on other forum topics but chose not to acknowledge them. So why give my typing fingers the extra burden???
Well, one can say the same for you as well. But I won't, because the discussion is here and now and we are knee-deep in it, and if one feels so strongly about their opinion they should be able to convey it especially if it's something that should be so apparent. So would it really be that hard to present some evidence for something that should be so clear? This is what this entire discussion should have been about from the very beginning.
Listen, put aside EVERYTHING for a moment that we talked about. We have discussed the authenticity of the OT/NT, the meaning behind the "Quran alone doctrine", etc. and pretty much everything but the key points at hand. This will help cut the burden down for you as well.
The entire point was, in 2238-2239, the translation that utilizes the English word "middle" for the Arabic "wusta" is WRONG. I have pointed out the MANY reasons, all of which were ignored from the beginning. I will "burden" my fingers and present them once again in hopes that you can repay me the favor. ALL I WANT IS PROOF THAT 'wusta' TRANSLATED AS 'middle' IN THESE VERSES MAKES SENSE IN HARMONY WITH THE QURAN! We agree that the Quran takes superiority and that all issues must agree with it to be true. I am showing you that if the Quran does NOT support a middle prayer, upholding any source that says there is a 'middle prayer' is wrong and is a sin, by even your own accord.
Once again, the translation I have a problem with
2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.-
REDUNDANCY ERROR "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer" is redundant. All prayers were already addressed in the first portion. Nothing implies that it is within the day, it is all the prayers of a person's life.
-
ILLOGICAL ERROR "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer" is illogical. Granted the Arabic says "al-salat al-wusta", which specifies that it would mean THE middle prayer, and we know this is all the prayers in one's life, this would imply finding the middle salat of ALL your life's prayers. Doesn't make sense.
-
CONTEXT ERROR With 2239 in mind, which starts with a word along the lines of "But.." which links it to the prior verse, using the translations of "most balanced/moderate/excellent" creates a perfectly flowing and relative decree, as opposed to addressing a "middle prayer" and then simply saying what to do if you can't do it in the "most balanced/moderate/excellent way". This is as clear as day.
~4) Granted the instruction is smack-dab in the middle of a chapter about marriage and family commitments, and "aqimis/aqamas" is not in front of "salat" it is most likely that this isn't even about ritual prayer. But even then, it would say to guard your marriage/family duties in the best way, not in the "middle way". Either way, it has no place for the translation "middle".
Now if you input the OTHER definition
2238 BE EVER mindful of prayers, and of praying in the most excellent way; and stand before God in devout obedience.
2239 But if you are in danger, walking or riding; and when you are again secure, bear God in mind - since it is He who taught you what you did not previously know.Wa-la! ALL THE ERRORS ARE GONE! And we know for sure this definition of 'wusta' is used in other areas of the Quran. Also, the other verses outlining ritual salat, 2458, 11114, and 1778 all support only 2 daily salat. I've outlined proof of this before.
Put aside everything else for now, prove to me how 'wusta' can mean 'middle', in this situation, after this evidence. That is all you have to do, and it will prove most of your supporting points true as well since they would now be in harmony with the Quran. If you cannot prove this, you are upholding something that is not in harmony with the Quran and are therefore in sin, by your own accord.
That's all. This is all anyone opposing in this thread so far had to do from the very beginning, and this is what I showed in my first response to this thread.
May peace be with you.
-
-
Peace everyone!
I Personally believe in the 3 daily salat currently because i see the verses as meaning another prayer. These verses containing the salat can be deemed as "mutashabih", and so only His supreme Majesty alone knows their meaning.Here is an earlier post by a member
"Brother Salawaat surely is plural that means at least three, but lemme ask you something.
If someone ask you to keep all the books in a rack/shelve and the red one also. How do you understanding this?
When you say ALL BOOKS why not RED BOOK is included in it? Cause, RED BOOK is not with those books, but it was in another place.
Another look
2458
2238
"AL" = The
Salaat + Al + Fajr - 2458
Salaat + Al + Eishaan - 2458Al + Salaat + Al + Wusta - 2238"
May His Most Supreme, Blessed Majesty Resolve our disputes!
-
Brother Yousef made a good point.
2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.FACT #1 The Middle prayer is not a fixed prayer. It can be done anytime between the dawn contact prayer and the evening prayer. So ?Preserve the contact prayers and the middle prayer? cannot be redundant since the dawn and evening prayers are fixed prayers and the middle prayer isn?t.
This is also further verified when King Solomon missed a contact prayer (this is correctly implied since Solomon was so worried that he got rid of his horses!!!)
3830 To David We granted Solomon. What an excellent and obedient servant.
3831 When, during dusk, (bil-?ashiyi) well trained horses were displayed before him.
(Since all the followers of the two daily prayer theory believe in a dawn and dusk prayer let us be consistent for all the roots for ?ayn shn ww? )
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!" (It is still evening or dusk)
3833 "Send them back." He then rubbed their legs and necks. ( This verse can be used to imply that Solomon missed a contact prayer)Hence the prayer that was missed by Solomon was a prayer before the Dusk prayer.
Again the middle prayer is NOT A FIXED PRAYER. So Sura 2238 isn't redundant. All it is saying is to Maintain the contact prayers (which are fixed prayers dawn and dusk) AND a middle prayer (which is not a fixed prayer).
The reason it not being a fixed prayer is because this prayer is in working hours of the day. (the time which we are usually preoccupied)
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.The Assembly prayer is another sign in the Quran that points to a middle prayer during the working hours of the day.
629 O you who acknowledge, if the contact prayer is called to on the day of assembly, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.
6210 Then, once the contact prayer is complete, you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, so that you may succeed.
There are also other verses in the Quran that indicate a middle prayer which have already been posted on this forum topic and many others. One sign that I found out a few weeks ago was that there are only three verses in the entire Quran that says to face towards the Restricted Sanctuary (2144, 2149 and 2150) . Could this be a coincidence???
Basically Eikon you and the followers of the two contact prayer theory only base your arguments on Linguistics while mines and others are based on Linguistics AND the knowledge of the previous scriptures which show that the Jews have been praying three daily prayers for centuries!!! This is the religion of Abraham! This is the same religion which was taught to Isaac, Jacob and the Twelve patriarchs. Three contact prayers is not a new practice unlike the two daily pray theory that suddenly just sprout out of nowhere!!!!
In the end both opposing sides can argue about who has the correct Linguistics but in the end the question should be asked who has the MORE PROOF to support there claim. In this case, the three daily pray practice trumps all other theories.
Peace,
Kevin.
-
Salam to all,
I had also always viewed Salawat as blessings. Heres my take on it,trying to stay in context, altho not sure if i had missed out on other verses that contained salawat.2155 Be sure we shall test you with something of fear and hunger, some loss in goods or lives or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings to those who patiently persevere,
2156 Who say, when afflicted with calamity "To Allah We belong, and to Him is our return"-
2157 They are those on whom salawatun(blessings) from Allah, and Mercy, and they are the ones that receive guidance.997 The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which Allah hath sent down to His Messenger. But Allah is All-knowing, All-Wise.
998 Some of the desert Arabs look upon their payments as a fine, and watch for disasters for you on them be the disaster of evil for Allah is He That heareth and knoweth (all things).
999 And of the wandering Arabs there is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day, and taketh that which he expendeth and wasalawati (blessings of) the messenger as acceptable offerings in the sight of Allah. Lo! verily it is an acceptable offering for them. Allah will bring them into His mercy. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.231 The believers must (eventually) win through,-
232 Those who humble themselves in their prayers(salatihim);
233 Who avoid vain talk;
234 Who are active in deeds of charity;
235 Who abstain from sex,
236 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess,- for they are free from blame,
237 But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
238 Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants;
23,9 And who (strictly) guard salawathim( their blessings bestowed)
2310 These will be the heirs,
2311 Who will inherit Paradise they will dwell therein (for ever).and thus
2238 Guard strictly your alsalawati (the blessings bestowed), and the best prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
2239 If ye fear, pray on foot, or riding, but when ye are in security, celebrate Allah.s praises in the manner He has taught you, which ye knew not.
2240 Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence; but if they leave (The residence), there is no blame on you for what they do with themselves, provided it is reasonable. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.Please forgive me if i had err in understanding.
-
I had also always viewed Salawat as blessings. Heres my take on it,trying to stay in context, altho not sure if i had missed out on other verses that contained salawat.
2157 They are those on whom salawatun(blessings) from Allah, and Mercy, and they are the ones that receive guidance.
999 And of the wandering Arabs there is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day, and taketh that which he expendeth and wasalawati (blessings of) the messenger as acceptable offerings in the sight of Allah. Lo! verily it is an acceptable offering for them. Allah will bring them into His mercy. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
232 Those who humble themselves in their prayers(salatihim);
23,9 And who (strictly) guard salawathim( their blessings bestowed)2238 Guard strictly your alsalawati (the blessings bestowed), and the best prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
Salaam brother,
Please look at the Arabic text to see the difference.
The above three are similar but 2238 is different
Do you see the difference brother? There is "AL" in the beginning and "Saad" has a tashdeed over it.
May Allah guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Salaam to u too brother MMkhan,
Thank you for pointing that out. I know nothing of arabic grammar, language, tashdeed etc etc, but trying to learn as i go along.
The way i understood it is like, for example, the word educate. ( i am not saying salawat means educate) and the "Al" denoting a "the".
So in my ignorance, i understood it as...for eg educated , education , educating, (Al)the education.Again, tq so much for pointing it out. Only Allah can give u best of rewards. I will look up on the grammar/language/tashdeed etc.
Peace
-
Thank you for pointing that out. I know nothing of arabic grammar, language, tashdeed etc etc, but trying to learn as i go along.
The way i understood it is like, for example, the word educate. ( i am not saying salawat means educate) and the "Al" denoting a "the".
So in my ignorance, i understood it as...for eg educated , education , educating, (Al)the education.Again, tq so much for pointing it out. Only Allah can give u best of rewards. I will look up on the grammar/language/tashdeed etc.
Salaam brother,
You are welcome )
Yes, you are right "Al" simply means "The" and the difference that I have shown you does not require grammar or language knowledge to understand, you can just take a look at Arabic words and compare them, you will find the difference, inshaAllah.
Tashdeed is nothing but a small "w" on a letter.
May Allah increase us all in knowledge and guide us all to His true path pr
Mohammed M. Khan -
Peace Kevin,
Brother Yousef made a good point.
2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.FACT #1 The Middle prayer is not a fixed prayer. It can be done anytime between the dawn contact prayer and the evening prayer. So Preserve the contact prayers and the middle prayer cannot be redundant since the dawn and evening prayers are fixed prayers and the middle prayer isnt.
This is also further verified when King Solomon missed a contact prayer (this is correctly implied since Solomon was so worried that he got rid of his horses!!!)
3830 To David We granted Solomon. What an excellent and obedient servant.
3831 When, during dusk, (bil-ashiyi) well trained horses were displayed before him.
(Since all the followers of the two daily prayer theory believe in a dawn and dusk prayer let us be consistent for all the roots for ayn shn ww )
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!" (It is still evening or dusk)
3833 "Send them back." He then rubbed their legs and necks. ( This verse can be used to imply that Solomon missed a contact prayer)Hence the prayer that was missed by Solomon was a prayer before the Dusk prayer.
Again the middle prayer is NOT A FIXED PRAYER. So Sura 2238 isn't redundant. All it is saying is to Maintain the contact prayers (which are fixed prayers dawn and dusk) AND a middle prayer (which is not a fixed prayer).
The reason it not being a fixed prayer is because this prayer is in working hours of the day. (the time which we are usually preoccupied)
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.- I'm not sure if I entirely understand what you mean by "fixed". Do you mean like a pinpoint certain time verses a range? What makes you believe the dawn and dusk prayers aren't also assigned ranges? The words fajr (dawn) and isha (dusk) indicate the twilight times at the 2 ends of the day, which are occurrences that happen within a range of time. You don't look at a sunrise or a sunset and the sun just jumps the horizon in an instant and it's over.
When 2458, 11114 and 1778 are examined together, we see that it is clearly a range of time given for the 2 daily salat (I explained it with more detail in my first response, but I'll briefly show it again here)
2458 is simply where the names of the salat are given. Salat al-fajr, and salat al-isha. This is agreed upon by all parties that it means dawn and dusk, which obviously occur within a range of time.
11114 You shall hold the contact prayer at both ends of the day and the near part of the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder for those who remember.
"Waaqimi alssalata tarafayialnnahari wazulafan mina allayli inna ..."
Obviously the "wa" holds the property of referring to the multiple ideas prior, so it's referring to both salats performed at both ends. Take note of the "both ends" by the way, which is dual in this case since it's referring to the 2 edges close to the night. The "near part of the night" shows that it's closer to the night, as the night has just finished/is just approaching (fajr/isha respectively). Again the night doesn't just appear like the flick of an off-switch. It happens in a range of time.1778 You shall hold the contact prayer at the setting of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.
"Aqimi alssalatalidulooki alshshamsi ila ghasaqi allayli ..."
li = Preposition meaning "just after"
dulooki = "rubbing of"
alshamsi = "the sun" (in context this must be the apparent rubbing on the horizon as according to the Quranic edges of the day it's sunrise/sunset)
ila = "until"
ghasaqi = "darkness of"
allayli = "the night"Both salat al-fajr and salat al-isha are given ranges to perform them in. If there were a middle prayer, by the admitting of those who abide by it, there is a range also. It would only be a very long range, but a range nonetheless. Does anyone believe one must pray the entire duration of the "middle" range? Of course not. This shows that there isn't any differentiating of the prayers, and "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer..." is still redundant and illogical. Also, there is no indication of the "middle prayer" being special, nor that the salawati are within a day (they are all the salat in a person's life), thus creating the errors I outlined in my last post. If the reasoning for singling out the prayer was in fear of missing it, wouldn't it make more sense to single out the dawn and dusk prayer since the ranges are shorter than that of the lengthy alleged middle prayer range?
With this said, where do those who abide by this middle prayer find their timing for it? If it's just in the middle of the dawn and dusk prayer, why do you choose the middle of the day? There is also a middle of the 2 salat in the night. And in fact, within the 3-salat theory community, there is a split as a group of people perform this prayer in the night instead of the day.
++
- I haven't scrutinized this situation with Solomon as much as I'd like to, but when examining the context and logic of the verses and their words, I don't see it referring to a missed contact prayer at all. The explanation is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to outline the main reasons.
Here is the translation you used
3830 To David We granted Solomon. What an excellent and obedient servant.
3831 When, during dusk, well trained horses were displayed before him.
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!"
3833 "Send them back." He then rubbed their legs and necks.Here is, in my opinion, a slightly better translation (lengthy bracketed additions removed)
3830 AND UNTO DAVID We granted Solomon, how excellent a servant! Behold, he would always turn unto Us
3831 when, towards the close of day, nobly-bred, swift-footed steeds were brought before him
3832 he would say, Verily, I have come to love the love of all that is good because I bear my Sustainer in mind!" until they were hidden by the veil ,
3833 Bring them back unto me!"- and would stroke their legs and their necks.The only reason this is attributed to a missed prayer, is because of the appearance of the "dusk" and "totally dark" in certain translations making it seem like a prayer time is being referred to. But it's quite a leap to assume so, and when seen in context, it's hard to say it's even talking about the night. Let's settle that 3831 says "dusk". That's fine, it appears to be dusk/evening or something like that anyway. What about this "totally dark" translation in 3832? We know first of all that "ghasaq" means the complete dark, and "layl" means night. None of which is apparent there. In fact, the words used there are "tawarat bialhijabi" which means "hidden in/by the veil". This is apparent in the second translation and makes sense as he says "Bring them back unto me!" - "rudduha" means "bring them back/return them" which is evident since he can now pet them once returned. Why would he say "Bring them back!"? This means they were away from him, "hidden by the veil" most likely of distance or just out of his sight. Even if one argues it's the veil of night, there is no indication he missed a prayer. In the first translation, it's not indicated what even happened to the horses to make him call for the horses to be returned. You say in regards to the first translation, "this is correctly implied since Solomon was so worried that he got rid of his horses!!!", so he got rid of them, then rubbed their legs and necks? This obviously doesn't make sense.
Even if you insist on the first translation though, nothing indicates that this was the time of some middle prayer. In light of the ranges I outlined in the above point and prior, salat al-isha is to be held just after the rubbing of the sun until the darkness of the night (lidulooki alshshamsi ila ghasaqi allayli). Note that it specifically says the DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT. Not just the night, as dusk is somewhat night, but the DARK night (when there is totally no more light) is when the range for salat al-isha ends.
Now if we look at Solomon's exclamation in the first translation
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!"
Why did he feel the need to say "totally" dark? At this total darkness, the time for salat al-isha has ended. If one believes this is referring to some middle prayer, then that would mean that the ranges overlap as both "middle" and isha prayers would have to end at the darkness of the night! This confusion obviously cannot and does not exist. Furthermore, I would find it hard to believe that if there was a middle prayer with such a long range, a God-conscious individual like Solomon hadn't thought about his salat for all those hours. It makes more sense that one would miss salat al-isha as it's a short range that ends when total darkness arrives.
But this is only if you entertain the former interpretation. I think it's now safe to say it has error in it.
The Assembly prayer is another sign in the Quran that points to a middle prayer during the working hours of the day.
629 O you who acknowledge, if the contact prayer is called to on the day of assembly, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.
6210 Then, once the contact prayer is complete, you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, so that you may succeed.
Nothing implies a daily middle prayer at all here. This is a big topic on it's own, but here are some quick things to note
This yawmialjumuAAati means Day of THE Assembly/Congregation, as evident by the "al". What is this day that it is not just any day, but the Day of THE Assembly/Congregation? It's still up for debate as far as I am concerned, but at this point an official day in which the most Muslims assemble and congregate, is for the pilgrimage. Many also believe that it is just whenever a congregation is held.
The problem here is assuming that business is ONLY held between salat al-fajr and salat al-isha, and that's it. This is obviously not true. During the pilgrimage, business is being conducted at almost all hours, before and after dawn, as well as before and after dusk. This would lead me to believe that when the call for both salat al-fajr and salat al-isha respectively is called, business is still being conducted, and the instruction is that those doing so must hasten towards the prayers, and cease the business until it is over.
This works in line with salat al-fajr and salat al-isha, and does not imply a middle prayer. And if you take this chapter to refer to ANY time in which an official gathering is held (marriage, etc.), the same obviously still applies as not everyone just congregates between fajr and isha.
There are also other verses in the Quran that indicate a middle prayer which have already been posted on this forum topic and many others. One sign that I found out a few weeks ago was that there are only three verses in the entire Quran that says to face towards the Restricted Sanctuary (2144, 2149 and 2150) . Could this be a coincidence???
While I don't completely dismiss the numerology aspect of the Quran, I don't take it this seriously to present as proof for something that should be a lot more certain. I have seen many people use similar things to prove 2, 4, 5 salat and a plethora of other aspects and it isn't really substantial. If you stare at the clouds long enough, you'll begin to see faces and animals, etc..
Since this too will open up another can of worms, I suggest putting it aside and dealing with the tangible proofs, if you don't mind.
Basically Eikon you and the followers of the two contact prayer theory only base your arguments on Linguistics while mines and others are based on Linguistics AND the knowledge of the previous scriptures which show that the Jews have been praying three daily prayers for centuries!!! This is the religion of Abraham! This is the same religion which was taught to Isaac, Jacob and the Twelve patriarchs. Three contact prayers is not a new practice unlike the two daily pray theory that suddenly just sprout out of nowhere!!!!
In the end both opposing sides can argue about who has the correct Linguistics but in the end the question should be asked who has the MORE PROOF to support there claim. In this case, the three daily pray practice trumps all other theories.
Like I said before - quality over quantity. I don't care who has more proof, I don't see it as a point system. It's about what is quality and in line with the Quran. And in terms of linguistics, the opposing arguments are hardly even as the many errors I pointed out still exist after one realizes this alleged middle prayer is not in any way shown to be special... or to even exist.
We both agreed prior that things must be seen in light of the Quran first, and then other sources can begin to help support via interpretation, etc. So why can't we stick to the Quranic arguments for now?
The debate about the authenticity of the previous scriptures can go on forever, hence why I was trying to bring the debate down to the completely tangible aspects involving the Quran, so that it doesn't contain too many tangents.
In terms of history, there is also a lot of proof that 2 salats have been around since the beginning as well; Wakas and Ayman have both presented many sources on the forum. These evidences were mostly around the time of Islam spreading, and yet it was corrupted, imagine if we try to get evidence from Moses or Jesus' era, there is chance for so much more corruption to have occurred. And indeed we know about such events as the Council of Nicea. I don't believe the modern Torah and Bible are 100% infallible, therefore using them is fruitless in this debate, especially when we both agree that the Quran comes first. The original recordings have not been preserved, and therefore it is prone to being misinterpreted in many areas. Imagine if we didn't have the Arabic of our Quran and read an English verse like 1779 from a certain interpretation (And rise from thy sleep and pray during part of the night , as a free offering from thee, and thy Sustainer may well raise thee to a glorious station) in conjunction with 7626 or something - people would argue until the end of time that Quran followers must wake up in the middle of the night and do salat. But we see the original text and differentiate between salat and dua and nafil and so on. This cannot be done as surely with previous texts. In fact many who advocate 5 daily prayers find their "proof" of 5 prayers in previous books as well.
I don't believe the noble and righteous man who Allah sought to be a prophet, Lot, prostitued (Gen. 191- nor had drunken incestuous sex with his daughters (Gen. 1930-3, or that followers of Jesus can drink deadly poison and survive (Mark 1617-1, or that degrading females (the references are way too plentiful and obvious on this one - from saving their hymen blood rags for proof of virginity, to not being allowed to ask questions in church, to being the cause of all sin and thus being punished with childbirth) or that circumcision or death penalties or rape are or ever were parts of Allah's decree. Or that sprinkling your house seven times with animal blood protects it from certain plagues (Lev. 1449-52), etc. Anybody who wants to believe these atrocious things, can do so. But I would hope that you can at least see why I personally believe these are obvious additions of humankind. The prior books were corrupted until the Quran, the message for ALL HUMANKIND and not just Israelites, was sent down and the original decree was preserved.
If you claim the previous books are 100% infallible, you uphold MANY MANY things that conflict with the Quran, and therefore by your own words, are in sin. If you do not claim they are 100% infallible, then they are hardly proof and you fall susceptible to being misguided when you pick and choose, much like many of the hadithers are. Take your pick.
Either way you are welcome to believe them and take them as support for your beliefs, but they hold next to no weight in the argument in the eyes of someone who follows the Quran alone. You say just because the previous books said something all through out history, the Quran must be interpreted with that. So then should we interpret verses like 434 to mean beating wives? Why not? Degrading females has been a part of religion for centuries! Circumcision has been a part of religion for centuries! Death penalties have been a part of religion for centuries! If you endorse these, you conflict with the Quran. And you do endorse them if you uphold the modern Torah and Bible to be the complete words of Allah.
You can continue to try and prove the authenticity of these past books, but it won't really prove anything if you cannot first establish sound evidence from the Quran - and the issue is obviously still in debate. In light of 548, the Quran confirms that there is some truth in previous books, but that the Quran corrects and supersedes where there is error due to human corruption. Be open to the fact that this may very well be one of those situations.
May peace be with you.
-
Peace,
This is somewhat besides the point, but that verse about Solomon actually brought to light something interesting. I actually may not accept Ayn-Shiin-Waw to mean dusk all the time. Maybe it does in that verse, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference at the moment. But I was just going through all the examples in the Quran with similar formations, and many seem a bit out of place or some are oddly paired with different words for the "morning" part and other references that too have roots with different meanings.
Interesting to note the other definitions given in dictionaries that are never utilized. It seems everyone just accepted it meant dusk, and maybe it only does. But some like "weak sighted/blind", "forsake", "withdraw" tend to shed entirely different meanings when used in some verses. I wish I knew enough Arabic and had the time to investigate all the grammar, etc.
Just throwing it out there. Never know who is reading and investigates and finds something most completely missed.
May Allah guide us all.
-
Brother Ekion,
To you is your way and to me is my way. This is why I am always hesitant to participate in Salat discussions. Everyone believes that there take on Salat is the correct one. I have seen hundreds of discussions on Salat on this website. Your questions have already be answered countless of times. I believe the only practical way to settle all of our disputes is weigh the proofs; and as far as I'm concerned the "three salat prayer" theory, beats all other theories by a mile. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves. It is a practice that has been done by most of the prophets (From Abraham to Jesus) before Muhammad. Abraham did it, Issac did it, Jacob did it , the Children of Israel did it, Moses did it, Mary (who was related to Zechariah a high priest in Jerusalem) did it, Jesus (who was born into a Jewish Society) did it. The proof is there. And it outweighs all other theories. As an ex-Christian I will follow what I am knowledgeable of and not something that is completely foreign to me.
Peace,
Kevin.
-
Brother Ekion,
To you is your way and to me is my way. This is why I am always hesitant to participate in Salat discussions. Everyone believes that there take on Salat is the correct one. I have seen hundreds of discussions on Salat on this website. Your questions have already be answered countless of times. I believe the only practical way to settle all of our disputes is weigh the proofs; and as far as I'm concerned the "three salat prayer" theory, beats all other theories by a mile. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves. It is a practice that has been done by most of the prophets (From Abraham to Jesus) before Muhammad. Abraham did it, Issac did it, Jacob did it , the Children of Israel did it, Moses did it, Mary (who was related to Zechariah a high priest in Jerusalem) did it, Jesus (who was born into a Jewish Society) did it. The proof is there. And it outweighs all other theories. As an ex-Christian I will follow what I am knowledgeable of and not something that is completely foreign to me.
Peace,
Kevin.
Peace Kevin,
I can say your issues have been answered countless times as well, as I've seen similar discussions exhausted. But we all believe what we believe for certain reasons. For me I believe that if someone is living on an island and is isolated from outside religion, and I wanted to give them the complete and preserved religion of Abraham, I would hand them a Quran and not hesitate that it would be sufficient for their salvation (in the hereafter, not on the island). No other books needed. And the Quran's sufficiency in itself is what makes the points that utilize it only much more valid than incorporating other sources containing random fragments of truth.
Your claim that prior prophets did it, is just based on the reports. You were not a witness to them doing this, you rely on the sources claiming they did this, and I've shown these sources to be corrupt and conflicting with the Quran. It's much like the hadith claiming Muhammad did certain things that we know conflict with the Quran. Nothing has protected or is protecting these sources from corruption.
In the end, to you is your system and to me is mine. It's not the biggest of issues anyway, as the main idea here is monotheism. But debating is always good to flesh out ideas and test your faith. I appreciate one who debates more than one who just merely spreads their view but doesn't participate in or welcome opposing arguments.
May peace be with you.
-
Peace Kevin,
I can say your issues have been answered countless times as well, as I've seen similar discussions exhausted. But we all believe what we believe for certain reasons. For me I believe that if someone is living on an island and is isolated from outside religion, and I wanted to give them the complete and preserved religion of Abraham, I would hand them a Quran and not hesitate that it would be sufficient for their salvation (in the hereafter, not on the island). No other books needed. And the Quran's sufficiency in itself is what makes the points that utilize it only much more valid than incorporating other sources containing random fragments of truth.
Your claim that prior prophets did it, is just based on the reports. You were not a witness to them doing this, you rely on the sources claiming they did this, and I've shown these sources to be corrupt and conflicting with the Quran. It's much like the hadith claiming Muhammad did certain things that we know conflict with the Quran. Nothing has protected or is protecting these sources from corruption.
In the end, to you is your system and to me is mine. It's not the biggest of issues anyway, as the main idea here is monotheism. But debating is always good to flesh out ideas and test your faith. I appreciate one who debates more than one who just merely spreads their view but doesn't participate in or welcome opposing arguments.
May peace be with you.
Not all of the beliefs in the Bible are corrupted. This is shown countless of times in the Quran!
370 O people of the book, why do you reject God's signs while you are bearing witness?
371 O people of the book, why do you dress the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?
447 O you who have received the book(Jews and the Christians), acknowledge what We have sent down authenticating what is with you, before We cast down faces and turn them on their backs or curse them as the people of the Sabbath were cursed. God's will is always done.
2947 Similarly, We have sent down to you the Book. Thus, those whom We have given the book will acknowledge it.(Jews and the Christians) Also, some of your people will acknowledge it. The only ones who mock Our signs are the ingrates.
If you believe that every part of the Bible is false then it is quite clear to me that you don?t read the Quran carefully. How can any group of people bear witness to something they do not know???? confused
Even God told Muhammad that if he was unsure of anything that was sent down to ask the people of book!
1094 If you are in doubt regarding what We have sent down to you, then ask those who have been studying the book from before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.
If there wasn't any truth in the Bible then why would God ask the Jews and the Christians to judge by was sent them. Doesn't this imply that the Bible has the truth in it. Common sense Eikon.
543 How can they make you their judge when they have the Torah, containing God's judgment; then they turn away after that. They do not acknowledge.
544 We have sent down the Torah, in it is guidance and a light; the prophets who have peacefully surrendered judged with it for those who are Jews, as well as the Rabbis, and the Priests, for what they were entrusted of God's book, and they were witness over it. So do not revere the people but revere Me; and do not purchase with My signs a cheap price. Whoever does not judge with what God has sent down, then these are the ingrates.
547 Let the people of the Injeel judge with what God has sent down in it. Whoever does not judge by what God has sent down, then these are the vile ones.
FACT #1 The Jews are a group of people who had over 28 prophets and the Arabs only had one! What person in there right mind could insinuate that these people don?t know the correct number of prays after so many prophets !!! It is asinine!
If I interpret 2238 to be a sign of the middle pray how I can be wrong! No one in there right mind can deny the history of the people of the book because if you do that then it implies that you don't trust God when he told Muhammad ?ask those who have been studying the book from before you? !
The only way for us to know what is correct from what is false is by the Quran. The Quran authenticates the previous scripture not the previous scripture the Quran. Think of the Quran as the sifter and the Bible the flour. Anything that is not in the Quran are assumptions of the Bible but everything else are facts!!! I see three daily prayers in the Quran and you don?t. To you is your way and to me is mine. If you want to believe in a theory that has zero historical basis (based on the previous scriptures) then that is your own lost.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Is the number of salaat prayers 5 or 3
excellent text on that
http//realquran.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2is-the-number-of-salaat-prayers-5-or-3&catid=6religious-questions&Itemid=3
-
Peace Everyone peace
As Layth has stated in the begining of the discussion, that the prayer on the day of Gathering (yowm Al juma3a), is the biggest affirmation of a middle prayer because- This prayer is a concievable Daily prayer, since it is A prayer Which happen to fall on a Special day, a day of gathering (i.e It's not a prayer of gathering, but a prayer ON the day of gathering)
- God Almighty clearly tells us that we should DROP ALL BUISNESS in 629
- God Almighty tells us that after we finish, we CAN PRESUME OUR BUISNESS and seek his bounty in 6210
- God ALmighty Clearly defines the daylight as a timiming to seek from his bounty in 2873
This Can only mean that This - daily prayer - has to be in the daylight hours (drop/presume buisness), and that it's timing (daylight hours) is the timing for the prayer when the day of gathering (youm al-jum3a) takes place.
~ May His Most Blessed, Dominating, Supreme, High Majesty Resolve our disputes ~
~ Most Blessed is His Supreme, High Majesty YHWH, the Initiator, the Ruler, the Sustainer, the Dominator of the Worlds ~