Fight them until they convert?
-
Peace Bookish.
GOD is talking about the " Idol worshippers" Mushrikeem.They already do salat and Zakat but a corrupted version. If they repent, they will require to do them " devoted to GOD Alone".That is the correction required of them.
If you have noticed the" traditional muslims" of today also do salat and zakat ,but they do a corrupted version. They include other names with GOD and are not done with sincerity...They also mix and match men rules with GOD s rules.
I hope this clarifies for you.
Peace.
-
peace ths,
Perhaps if you had clarified what you meant by "prayer" there would be less confusion.
In any case, I have no war against salat meaning prayer. If I did, one may expect to find in my thousands of posts me saying things like "it is impossible for salat to mean prayer", "it is wrong to pray", "one must not physically prostrate" etc.
I am however engaged in a "war" (if one wishes to use that word) against misinformation, of which there is plenty about.
Thanks for the link to the video about reciting Quran during salat. I have no doubt there is much evidence of this in Traditional Islamic history, e.g. Ibn Kathir explains 1187 as "does your salat order you..." means "does your reading order you" etc.
Getting back to the original topic, these verses are problematic for those who consider salat to mean prayer here, as I outline in the article. It is for readers to weigh and consider. In my view, the explanations given to explain such verses by such people has been poor so far.
-
Peace,
There is still no sense in killing them unless they perform contact prayer. That is zealotry and dogma. But if you change the meaning to what it really means of establishing a link to God and works with the purification of their Judgement.
Sujud is also a word I do not associate the traditional way.
But it is still a prayer-like situation with s l w but more like I mentioned in the previous post with direct communication with God.
God bless you
-
This argument does not consider alternatives. How about if the enemy simply surrenders? Why would the believers want to force their faith on them?
Peace
You say
How about if the enemy simply surrenders?that is exactly what they are asked to do, but surrender IS to God...
there is no other faith than surrender to God...
or did you mean surrender and keep plotting to kill? so at the nearest opportunity they kill their captors who cannot afford, nor have the means to incarcerate them?
war is not easy...
-
prayer is simply DUA or asking Allah at any time,communicating with him through inner or out verbal or nonverbal means.
as for " salat " i believe it might have a totally different meaning ,please if try to separate the two we might grasp a better understanding of many ayas . DUA or prayer can be done after Salat .and there is the word YA3KUf in the Quran.YA3kuf and sujud ,see once we get a peice of the puzzle then all will be clearer but it has to fit in all .
peace. -
that is exactly what they are asked to do, but surrender IS to God...
there is no other faith than surrender to God...
or did you mean surrender and keep plotting to kill? so at the nearest opportunity they kill their captors who cannot afford, nor have the means to incarcerate them?
war is not easy...
Why would they surrender and then plot to kill? When the enemy surrenders, it means they have given up.
Why should you go to the extent of demanding "submission to God" from them? If they propose peace, that's reason enough for you to spare them. They can simply offer peace and then happily go about their own ways of religion.
You are almost suggesting that we keep fighting them until they give up idol-worship. Why? Or are you suggesting that they cannot be sensitive and peace-loving people?
The question remains is there a way to explain these verses if salat = prayer and there is no compulsion in religion?
Such verses are easy ammunition for people to criticize the Koran, and quite rightly so...because an explanation is wanting.
-
or mushrik comes from the root work -- , SH-R-K means to be a companion, be a sharer or partner.
The letter or m(u) is added to make a noun which makes it mean 'one who associates / has partner(s)'. It does not always has to be polytheist or pagan unless the word God is added next to the root word or derivatives of the root word. -
The issues you raise are addressed in that article, and the links contained therein, e.g. http//www.mypercept.co.uk/slw.htm
Have you read this article?I happened to read your article today. My connection at work was blocking the URL so I couldn't read it earlier.
It's well-explained, and it essentially proposes that Salat has a much wider meaning, and that this also covers the prayer that we are familiar with.
So it does seem to solve the problem. And this makes the war verses are a very marked deviation from the Koran's usual use of Salat and Zakat for the believers.
I wonder if there's another explanation....
-
Why would they surrender and then plot to kill? When the enemy surrenders, it means they have given up.
Why should you go to the extent of demanding "submission to God" from them? If they propose peace, that's reason enough for you to spare them. They can simply offer peace and then happily go about their own ways of religion.
You are almost suggesting that we keep fighting them until they give up idol-worship. Why? Or are you suggesting that they cannot be sensitive and peace-loving people?
The question remains is there a way to explain these verses if salat = prayer and there is no compulsion in religion?
Such verses are easy ammunition for people to criticize the Koran, and quite rightly so...because an explanation is wanting.
Precisely what that series of ayas in the Qur'an depict is a situation in which there are allies in good faith and also hyocrites who use double speech. Sio, yes, not in every case, but in certain cases, at any time in history of humand kind it has been so, just as an opportunistic ploy to spare oneself and then forget treaties or pacts and agress again. I think the whole lot of those ayas revolves precisely about that, about ploys to lay dirty in war, which by the way is a very common phenomenon of all ages. Empires have been built and preserved usinng those very dirty tactics, and today we have exactly the same thing.
Salaam
-
Wakas' article also mentions there is a difference between mumin and muslim. The FM link given says, "The Submitter is not required to accept the Quran, or any of the previous Books, or any of the messengers?He simply a) accepts One God, and b) does good works."
I really find it difficult to digest this. So basically, you needn't do Salat and Zakat? And you need not accept the Koran?
How can that be...when the Koran repeatedly says that those who do not accept the book will be punished. And that righteousness involves believing in past books, angels, prophets etc.
I really can't find any basis for this in the Koran. It seems more like some modern day fallacy which is based on a selective reading of the Book. The Koran makes no such explicit claims. I find no difference between believing and submitting.
The verse about the nomads saying "we submit" can be understood even if believing = submitting.
Peace
-
Peace,
Salat or zakat is nothing new for The Book (Quran) so why this confusion? And it is still the issue of using the traditional way of seeing these words.
But you ought to accept The Book as divine scripture although it takes not long to absorb its Knowledge and Wisdom. You could however live without it as long as you accept God's system and Judgement. The Torah (teachings) of Moses or the Gospel to Jesus are enough to live by. The famous ten commandments say a whole lot. Justice and fair judgement is the key and absolute devotion to God alone.
God bless you
-
Wakas' article also mentions there is a difference between mumin and muslim. The FM link given says, "The Submitter is not required to accept the Quran, or any of the previous Books, or any of the messengers?He simply a) accepts One God, and b) does good works."
I really find it difficult to digest this. So basically, you needn't do Salat and Zakat? And you need not accept the Koran?
How can that be...when the Koran repeatedly says that those who do not accept the book will be punished. And that righteousness involves believing in past books, angels, prophets etc.
I really can't find any basis for this in the Koran. It seems more like some modern day fallacy which is based on a selective reading of the Book. The Koran makes no such explicit claims. I find no difference between believing and submitting.
The verse about the nomads saying "we submit" can be understood even if believing = submitting.
Peace
I agree with MofF "And it is still the issue of using the traditional way of seeing these words."
That is the issue you are having I think. You may find it interesting many have discussed the difference between muslim/mumin including Traditional "scholars". There are even books on it, e.g. this one.
I recommend actually studying The Quran with regards to this important concept, before dismissing it.
-
Peace Man of Faith.
There is still no sense in killing them unless they perform contact prayer. That is zealotry and dogma. But if you change the meaning to what it really means of establishing a link to God and works with the purification of their Judgement.
Can you force someone to establish a link to the god? Wouldn't this contradict 2256 in a similar way as forcing someone to perform a ritual?
In my view salat does not refer to the god in this context. If we take salat to mean something like bond or link (as implied in Wakas' article for example) then it probably refers to the broken contracts, doesn't it?
-
Peace Bookish.
Wakas' article also mentions there is a difference between mumin and muslim. The FM link given says, "The Submitter is not required to accept the Quran, or any of the previous Books, or any of the messengers?He simply a) accepts One God, and b) does good works."
I do not agree with this view, because being a muslim has nothing to do with believing in the god in the first place. As explained at many places throughout the forum and also in this article by brother ayman http//www.quran4peace.org/documents/Quran4peace-English-part2.pdf muslims are simply peacemakers. Being a peacemaker does not imply believe as pointed out in 4914-15. But a believer must necessarily be a peacemaker.
The verse about the nomads saying "we submit" can be understood even if believing = submitting.
So how can you do it?
-
Why would they surrender and then plot to kill? When the enemy surrenders, it means they have given up.
Why should you go to the extent of demanding "submission to God" from them? If they propose peace, that's reason enough for you to spare them. They can simply offer peace and then happily go about their own ways of religion.
You are almost suggesting that we keep fighting them until they give up idol-worship. Why? Or are you suggesting that they cannot be sensitive and peace-loving people?
The question remains is there a way to explain these verses if salat = prayer and there is no compulsion in religion?
Such verses are easy ammunition for people to criticize the Koran, and quite rightly so...because an explanation is wanting.
You need to get it that the context of Surah 9 Taubah is a context of fierce war from non-believers against a small group of believers, and the commandments of the Surah concerns these two groups only, in that specific context in time, place and history...
so you cannot generalise it, or complain about it in any other context...
as you are not of that time...
-
Peace,
It is not the bond to God that you force this people to establish but the consciousness of God's System and Judgement. The Book "nags" about upholding or establishing a system of justice and this is the inclination with God's command to fight these people until they quit their evil deeds. Not to dogmatically and zealously implement a ritualistic system on them that they must observe contact prayer. How is this Muslim state be able to control that these repenters observe their traditional prayer anyway. The verse is lacking reason and logic with the traditional interpretation in many ways. And salat and zakat overall do not add up if you add logic in the analysis of the discourse.
People simply accept it unquestionably until now because it has been interpreted that way from when someone invented this meaning.
But at the same time salat could possibly be understood with prayer as its partial meaning but then you have to count in that it is communication with the Lord or a general consciousness/awareness which the word implies.
Another issue is that humans are obsessed with objects so we idolize things from right to left and a ritual could possibly be an idolatry when we cause an objectification of our service to God. In other words these words are very straightforward but man makes them objects through its idolatrous nature.
God bless you
-
I do not agree with this view, because being a muslim has nothing to do with believing in the god in the first place.
Sorry brother but I find such a claim too bizarre and unsubstantiated. It also goes against the very message of the Koran.
Being a peacemaker AND believing in God and the Last Day still has some support in the Koran. Because the Koran ALSO mentions that people who reject God and the Last Day - their deeds will be in vain.
How can a muslim not have anything to do with God?
5156 And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to serve Me.
Peace brother
