problem with salah(contact prayer) please help me:(
-
will my fasting be accepted if i dont pray salah?
Can you pray fajr,maghrib and isha with 2 rakats? (instead of prayig isha with 4, you do 2 etc.)
difference btw reading the quran and praying?
Peace agphys
- will my fasting be accepted if i dont pray salah?
There is no "accepting" of salat. Salat is "spiritual food" for your soul.
- Can you pray fajr,maghrib and isha with 2 rakats? (instead of prayig isha with 4, you do 2 etc.)
There are no set number of rakats, the Quran only mentions one sequence "one rakat"
(I cannot find the word rakat in the Quran.)- difference btw reading the quran and praying?
The Quran is a text that has many attributes, while prayer is for the self.
God bless
-
Peace agphys
- will my fasting be accepted if i dont pray salah?
There is no "accepting" of salat. Salat is "spiritual food" for your soul.
- Can you pray fajr,maghrib and isha with 2 rakats? (instead of prayig isha with 4, you do 2 etc.)
There are no set number of rakats, the Quran only mentions one sequence "one rakat"
(I cannot find the word rakat in the Quran.)- difference btw reading the quran and praying?
The Quran is a text that has many attributes, while prayer is for the self.
God bless
I agree with all that. I can not guarantee anyone's efforts might garner any good results or bad results, or if anyone's efforts will be rewarded in the ways they might expect, thus like it has been said, one should do these things for oneself and their immediate benefits rather than a view that they are meaningless and to please Allah.
-
I think salat is for Allah*, but salat is also something good for us.
Say, truly, my salat, my service of sacrifice (?), my life and my death are for Allah, the Lord of the 'Alamin
*and it doesn't mean that Allah need us to do that, but He commands the believers to do that
-
Salat is giving your time for God, listening to Him, talking to Him, Silently sitting can also be a form of Salat.
lets not assume our ancestors had a well developed language, they used different methods to communicate, symbols and signs too were part of their communication, so ritual Salat is also good in a way we are giving our respect symbolically, it conditions ourselves.I believe the primary purpose of Salat is to take us out from excess, think of us working nonstop through out the day, our mind is occupied totally on our selves/desires, too much stress is the result. we need balance and so we stop and spend some time remembering Him(the common goodness provider) and continue.
To me Salat is no different from the worship of dieties in temples. The objective in both is all the same, only the symbols are different. -
Thanks to God, i have now started to pray again and i feel much better)
But i still have a long road to go (spiritually) because after knowing the truth and the laws of God, i made several mistakes that wasnt so good and i slipped, but now im going to start and begin with fast and pray, then Gods knows best.
Basically, i was on the str8 path and i slipped and fell. Now i need to clean the dust from my shoulders and if God wills, i have learned from my mistakes and i will not repeat them.
Being clean/pure from sins = Euphoria and happiness. <=
"therefore, be patient, for God's promise is true, and ask forgiveness for your sin, and glorify and praise your Lord night and day."
Quran 4055"For them, joy and happiness in this world, as well as in the Hereafter. This is God's unchangeable law. Such is the greatest triumph." Q 1064
"We granted him happiness in this life, and in the Hereafter he will be with the righteous." Q. 16122
"You have no idea how much joy and happiness are waiting for you as a reward for your (righteous) works." Q.3217
"These have deserved happiness." Q.9018
-
To me Salat is no different from the worship of dieties in temples. The objective in both is all the same, only the symbols are different.
Salam Amin.
While I agree to most of what you said, the last comment quoted above caught me surprised. I believe rather there is a clear distinction between ritual salaat (as expected to be practiced by a follower of millat-i-ibrahim) and the worship of dieties in temples.
The objective of worship of deity in a temple, be it some ancestors or imaginary heavenly beings or angels or even a singular deity ? is to offer respect / blessings and seek help from one or more entities that exist (or supposed to exist) separately from us. The underlying idea is, if the deity can be pleased, the deity can do good to us. Channeling one?s reverence to a deity turns one into an idolater ? fanatic and hateful towards others outside the group.
On the other hand salaat (as expected to be practiced by a follower of millat-i-ibrahim), is not offered to any entity that exist, rather it is directed to the One source of all existence. The underlying idea is, focusing all our reverence and prayer to the ?Source? of all existence ? the source of our ?soul? and our sense of right and wrong - is our natural obligation. The salat symbolizes our ritual submission to that Master ? our unconditional acceptance of our obligation of acting righteously ? and our spontaneous acceptance that whatever is the God-gifted outcome of acting righteously is indeed the best for us. The goal should not be to please Allah (for Allah does not need our worship) ? the goal should be to reaffirm ourselves that we submit to Allah. Channeling one?s reverence to the Master of all that exists turns one into muttaqui (conscious) ? peaceful from within and fair and merciful to all others.
2256 There is no compulsion in the resolution (ِ. Verily, right has become clearly distinct from the error ? then whoever represses (faith) in deity (ِ and has faith in Allah has grasped the most firm handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Listener, Knowledgeable.
2257 Allah is the patron of those who have put faith; He brings them out from darkness into light. And those who repress (faith) ? their patrons are the deities ( they bring them out from light into darkness; they are the ones ? the society of the fire; they will be in there permanently.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
The irony is, many faith repressors among the broader family of Abrahamic religion have resorted to worshipping an artificial deity defined by the books with the authority of their religious clergy. Even though they call the deity by the name Elohim / God / Allah, even though they may seem to be the strictest monotheist, they none-the-less worship a deity (ُ.
On the contrary, some purer sects within Hinduism do focus reverence on one Brahman, and many enlightened Budhdhas do focus reverence on the singular spirit sustaining this universe seeking unity with the same. Perhaps their worship can be comparable to Abrahamic salaat, with different symbolism.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Related posts
- http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607118.msg361084#msg361084
- a. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607181.msg363613#msg363613
b. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607181.msg363885#msg363885
c. http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607181.msg364054#msg364054
Regards,
Arman -
Good answer!
-
Arman,
I am fascinated with your growth of perception of what "GOD" is.
-
-
Arman,
Can't do, because I am not "reinventing" the Arabic language but rather discovering what others have not.
Besides, the translations I work on are supported by ancient lexicons over the roots.
It is you who will have to conform to my revelations or you will be stuck in the delusion unless you figure out for yourself how wrong the interpretations are.
Be well
-
Arman,
Can't do, because I am not "reinventing" the Arabic language but rather discovering what others have not.
Besides, the translations I work on are supported by ancient lexicons over the roots.
It is you who will have to conform to my revelations or you will be stuck in the delusion unless you figure out for yourself how wrong the interpretations are.
Be well
Okay brother.
Let's watch then. I am with you among those who keep watching.
Salam.
Arman
-
I gave you a compliment Arman and you gave me an insult.
But to have your newfound realization fit with Quran you first have to open your eyes to the available interpretations of it and see that people were not at all awake when they deciphered it.
Be well
-
Okay brother.
Let's watch then. I am with you among those who keep watching.
Salam.
Arman
A nice compromise is listening to what Man of Faith has to say and taking whatever might be useful from it. It might not be academically accepted at this time (or possibly ever by the mainstream), but I try to see whatever of value I can take from anything at all. If someone comes with a different take on Islam or Buddhism or whatever, to me it is a legit philosophy and I pay careful attention like a leech or a sucking creature (a creature that sucks deeply) to what blood (insight) might be derived from it, what nutrients might be in it.
In the case of the philosophy Man of Faith is presenting, however it may be derived, the message is definitely a rather old one, to turn away from the infatuation with worldly or bodily things and focus more on the spiritual. Though mainstream Islamic interpretations generally do not partake in austerities and asceticism, and tends to have a good deal of focus on the bodily, Man of Faith seems to present the idea that the proper accomplishment in life is to overcome matter and master one's urges.
-
Salam Freedom.
I have nothing against the "Philosophy" that brother MoF is preaching. In fact I have been through this with him earlier - I do consider his "no ritual - no symbolism - no holy site - no personification of God - just pure awareness" type philosophy to be one of many valid paths to understand and approach "God". In fact, this philosophical position is very similar to Shikhism philosphy (though shikhs personify God).
If one can "purify" one's awareness from all form of symbolism and still remain "Conscious (muttaqui)", that's great! But per my humble understanding Qur'an recommends a middle path where personification of God and sybmbolification is an acceptable approach. This middle path is more "digestable" to men - knowledgeable and less knowledgeable alike.
Given this, what I find problematic is he is hell bent to prove that Qur'an preaches the "no symbolism" philosophy, and to prove his point he takes a free ride in redefining even the most basic arabic words. Even when that falls apart, he happily rejects the verses he cannot reconcile - as "manmade".
This approach I do find troublesome. This is the similar problem with 19-ers. Good intension does not make falsification justified.
449 Did you not see those who purify their souls? No! Allah purifies whomever He wills and they will not be wronged (by) a hair?s breadth .
450 Watch how they invent the lie about Allah ? and it suffices as a clear sin.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
I gave you a compliment Arman and you gave me an insult.
But to have your newfound realization fit with Quran you first have to open your eyes to the available interpretations of it and see that people were not at all awake when they deciphered it.
Be well
Salam Man of Faith.
I invited you towards acceptance of the truth. If you find it insulting, I am sorry for that.
And by the way, my conception of God has not changed since I started participating in this forum. Perhaps my communication has become a bit clearer - that's all.
Best regards,
Arman
-
Salam Freedom.
I have nothing against the "Philosophy" that brother MoF is preaching. In fact I have been through this with him earlier - I do consider his "no ritual - no symbolism - no holy site - no personification of God - just pure awareness" type philosophy to be one of many valid paths to understand and approach "God". In fact, this philosophical position is very similar to Shikhism philosphy (though shikhs personify God).
If one can "purify" one's awareness from all form of symbolism and still remain "Conscious (muttaqui)", that's great! But per my humble understanding Qur'an recommends a middle path where personification of God and sybmbolification is an acceptable approach. This middle path is more "digestable" to men - knowledgeable and less knowledgeable alike.
Given this, what I find problematic is he is hell bent to prove that Qur'an preaches the "no symbolism" philosophy, and to prove his point he takes a free ride in redefining even the most basic arabic words. Even when that falls apart, he happily rejects the verses he cannot reconcile - as "manmade".
This approach I do find troublesome. This is the similar problem with 19-ers. Good intension does not make falsification justified.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanIn cases like that I just find it important to clarify that this is not the mainstream idea or method, but it follows such and such method etc. I do the same for the Hadith, I try to clarify that ok this is from Sahih Bukhari, written down some time after the Prophet and anyone else who might have been around was long dead by people who did not know him directly, supposedly a collection of stories that were existing at the time they were written down in Persia, take them as one may those are at least the basic accepted facts about them.
Meanwhile, that such and such is the mainstream version of the Qur'an and the academically accepted translation of a word, but here is Man of Faith's definition, which he explains is based on a method where each letter of the Arabic language has its own meaning which combined ends up making the meaning of the word, which he then also confirms somewhat based on ancient lexicons, and even if one is to disregard the methods he uses, this is at least what he says such and such means which may not correspond with the definitions accepted by academics or current linguists that specialize in the Arabic language, etc.
I notice that when I clarify things to basically what is going on or supposedly going on, then one can approach things in a more honest way and more comfortably. Things only get troublesome when false claims are made or claims are made too brashly or boldly, like "This is what Muhammed said!" or whatever.
-
Arman,
If I personify something it is the Rabb which is treated as a singular entity in Quran, and elsewhere, and frequently used. I do not make a separation of the Rabb from myself as I do not consider myself existent separate and which I consider the real idolatry and dualism or even polytheism depending on the perceptive (if you include every human who is separate from the Rabb).
Just as you say I do not understand you, you probably do not understand me either.
There is you and your Rabb or me and my Rabb or our Rabb, and we are each a separate "node" if seeing it from the perspective of a network with the Rabb being the mainframe, but yet one shall cling unto that Rabb as if you were one with it, although that is because you are not separate on one level of perception even if you are a sub-consciousness of the Rabb, sharing the source of energy streaming to you, but you first must open the "Door" by preventing the body from interfering or the signal will be weak and risks being terminated.
Here we differentiate from each other because I do not acknowledge any scriptural rituals as truly from the Rabb but being a sectarian fabrication. However, I do not know what you think of me, but I never said that a person cannot meditate, but I do not call it ritual because a ritual to me is when you need to do something or else face the consequences, e.g. as per Muslim dogma. A ritual is compulsory within a doctrine and essential to please a clearly physical representation of a god or an idol with other words.
The 'Ten Commandments', which shine with their absence from the sectarian interpretation of Quran despite being there for the perceptive, explicitly told about that in the first two commandment. The first talked about being in unity with the Rabb and there is nothing to approve except the Rabb and not even yourself aside. The second said do not take an of anything in Heaven or Earth to worship it. Notice it says "Heaven" which includes a MENTAL IMAGE or representation of the Rabb. No physical personification of the Rabb it means and the first really explained it. Abdoo Allah ahad, "Adhere to being inseparably (no separation)". Ahad means in unity/unique. Abd means "keep to inseparably" by lexical definitions. The main problem is the misconception of Allah here which is from the root Alef-Lam-Lam and is not a word for the Rabb but means "To Be" as a grammatical structure, i.e. "adhere to be inseparably".
I said it to Nabster before, but if Allah was to be an entity it would require to be written , but he denies it. Only then it is a noun because it is not a name due to the AL, otherwise the must be used to refer to another subject or predicate in a context. It is wise to learn all about the grammar and restrictions. But when people do not even know that the pronunciation for is teh then obviously you know they do not know everything about Arabic and also Aramaic.
Be well
-
Salam Man of Faith.
Thank you for elaborately explaining your understanding one more time. As I told you earlier, and also mentioned to Freedom on this thread, my understanding of "God" is fairly consistent with your understanding. Although I probably would not use the words "I do not make a separation of the Rabb from myself " as they could be misleading. For me better suited words are "The universe, including all of us is merely an expression of the will of Allah - whatever Allah wants to create, He asks it to be and it is." To me the best analogy of Allah is that of a novelist where we are all characters in his novel - as such we do not exist independently from Allah, but then again we are not Allah. Allah is much more than collection of us all ? much, much more. However, I do believe this slight difference of understanding is acceptable. At the end of the day we are by design incapable to comprehend the nature of Allah ? we merely come-up with some understanding that makes sense to us.
The difference between you and me does not arise so much in terms of understanding God (or the RABB) - rather in understanding "How to approach God". In your world view taking any form of symbol for the RABB is unacceptable to the RABB. You feel physical acts like prostrations imply God to be a physical entity and hence is a form of "shirk"! This is where I absolutely differ. I view there can be many different ways of approaching God or RABB and each major religion in fact preaches some different approach. To me, since humans themselves are limited in physical time and space and their body and mind are synchronized into one - physically prostrating to the RABB definitely helps him concentrate his respect and reverence to the "Foundation" of all existance. And adhering to physical rituals is one of the very many paths that can potentially lead us to the same destination.
Your excessive emphasis on "no physical ritual approach" turns you incapable of accepting and understanding approaches of others. "My path is the only right path" attitude arises out of envy of others - and is sure to lead to a narrow sectarian mindset.
2213 Mankind used to be a single community. Then Allah animated the prophets, as bearer of (glad) tidings and as bearer of warnings, and sent down with them the book in truth to judge among mankind in what they differed in it. And none differed in it except the ones ? they were given it from after clear proofs which came to them - envy among them. Then Allah guided those who had faith regarding what they differed in it from the truth with His authorization. And Allah guides to straight route whomever He wills.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
My Master has been kind enough to broaden my mind and guide me to how people differ in the teaching of various prophets - and I am not going back to a narrow mindset, no matter how much you try. I have learnt from the Qur?an that piety is not in turning to the east or the west. God does not differentiate between who goes to Mecca for spiritual awakening vs. who goes to Kailsh. God judges by faith and action of people. But of all the various paths leading to God, Qur?an recommends a middle path (millat-i-ibrahim) which encourages ritually offering our reverence, our purity and our obedience to the Master of the universe, but rejects taking any image of God and then calling it God. The criteria of judgement is not whether one is expressing his reverence physically or mentally - the criteria is whether one has been conscious and had faith and acted righteously.
4123 - By neither your wishful thinking, nor the wishful thinking of the fraternity of the book ? whoever acts in wickedness will be repaid for it and will neither find any patron nor any helper from beside Allah.
4124 And whoever acts out of righteousness ? among male or female ? and is faithful, then they are the ones to enter the garden and they will not be wronged by crumbs.
4125 And who is on an nicer resolution (ا than the one who submits his face to Allah and he has been nice and follows the religion of Abraham the precise? And Allah took Abraham as a friend.
4126 And whatever (is there) in the heavens and whatever (is there) on the earth (all) belong to Allah and Allah happens to (completely) surround everything.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
A bird which has been freed from the cage to embrace the sky, must not go back into another cage. As long as you stick to ?my path is the only path acceptable to the RABB? mindset, the difference between your world-view and my world-view is real and irreconcilable.
As for your approach to force-fitting Qur'an into your world view is concerned, I find it not worthy of discussion. Then again there are bigger non-sense fetishes that people of this forum enjoy including anti-west conspiracy mongering and flat earth fantasies. Perhaps once people distance themselves from mainstream fanaticism of the clergies, they become easier pray to shaitan?s provocation to create a world of pseudo-realities. Simply - be good, love others, live peacefully ? is too humble a message to be ?Godly? for many of us; we love to make things complicated. I am trying to distance myself from these unproductive discussions as much as possible.
However, after taking some time to think about it, I do realize that I owe you an appology. Specifically on this thread my response to your comment was a bit unnecessarily aggressive and perhaps impolite. Although I never shy away to clarify my differences with you, probably I should have deferred it for some other appropriate thread than bringing up it here. I do sincerely appologize for that.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Armanaziz,
The difference between you and me does not arise not so much in terms of understanding God (or the RABB) - rather in understanding "How to approach God". In your world VIEW taking any form of symbol for the RABB is unacceptable to the RABB. You feel physical acts like prostrations imply God to be a physical entity and hence is a form of "shirk"! This is where I absolutely differ. I view there can be many different ways of approaching God or RABB and each major religion in fact preaches some different approach. To me, since humans themselves are limited in physical time and space and their body and mind are synchronized into one - physically prostrating to the RABB definitely helps him concentrate his respect and reverence to the "Foundation" of all existance. And adhering to physical rituals is one of the very many paths that can potentially lead us to the same destination.
I too very much agree with you on this. Thanks for your explanation )
Peace.