An Argument Against "salat" being "commitment

Idris

found here http//faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6501

I am focusing this discussion on what the words Salat and Zakat mean.

Traditionalists hold that Salat refers to "ritual prayer" and Zakat refers to "obligatory charity" (sic!). Since charity is not obligatory, for all practical purposes, this a form of tax.

Using these meanings, verse 95 is asking believers to kill the idol worshippers (soon after the sacred months are past and no covenants of peace are in placeor have expired), unless they follow the ritual prayer and make obligatory payments to believers.

Under the traditionalist meaning, it is an oppressive proposition that makes no concession for free observance of idol worshipping. Soon after the sacred months are past and no peace treaty is in place, this verse is not only giving the right to attack and kill the idol worshippers, it is asking them to.

Quran-Only Followers propose that there are multiple meanings for Salat and Zakat. In the case of verse 95 in particular, Salat refers to "commitments or obligations" and Zakat refers to "Keeping pure". Using these meanings, 95 means something very different from what the traditionalists propose. It is now asking believers to maintain harmony with idol-worshippers as long as the idol-worshippers have commitments (agreements or covenants) of non-aggression with believers and keep pure (ie., do not violate those commitments).

Give multiple meanings, both these extreme interpretations are possible. Which is the more likely one?

Quran-Only followers suggest that their version is more likely since that is internally consistent with other verses in Quran that grant freedom of pursuing religion and that permit war only under aggression.

Here, I make a case for the traditionalist translation.
Please refer to the translations of verses around 95. The attitude setup by these verses is very clear
(1) God has disowned idol worshippers.
(2) Prophet has disowned idol worshippers.
(3) Idol worshippers (disbelievers) are promised painful retribution.
(4) If idol worsippers have a chance to prevail over believers, they will never observe any kinship between believers and themselves. In other words, idol worshippers only want covenants of peace when they do not have or perceive a chance to prevail over followers.
(5) Idol worshippers passify believers with lip service when their (idol worshipper's) hearts mean the opposite - ie., peace is only in their (idol worshipper's) words but they do not want it in their hearts.
(6) Most of the idol worshippers are wicked.

Given this attitude, idol-worshippers can only be described as a despicable bunch according to Quran. In light of this, traditionalist version certainly fits-in and makes more sense.

Now, does it not disagree with the verse that provides freedom to follow one's own religion (Quran - 2256) ? It does not. It just makes the freedom conditional to having a covenant in place all the time and observing salat and zakat as per the traditionalist definition. Sura 9 is not repeting what has already been said in 2256. Sura 9 is specializing the general rule established in 2256 by making the religious freedom conditional. Specialization allows for exceptions to be added to a general rule.

But, then, does it not violate the rule that war can be waged only in defense? Not if the extremely suspicious attitude, as shown in items 1 to 6, is maintained. Furthermore, "wage a war only in defence" is a general rule. This has been stated elsewhere in Quran and does not need repetition again in Sura 9. Sura 9 provides specialization to this general rule by saying that believers can attack idol worshippers under certain conditions. In other words, specialization provides an exception to the general rule. As per Sura 9, this exception is applied to idol worshippers who are categorized as a highly suspect and a despicable bunch.

There is a gap in the Quran-Only version It does not say what to do when the covenant is not in place. However, Quran-Only followers will exhort that this is covered under the general "war only in defence" proposition. This is a weak argument since these verses become redundant then. Would Quran need so many redundant verses just to say "Engage in war only in defence" and "Allow people to follow their own faith" ? The generalization-specialization explanation provided for the traditionalist approach explains why sura 9 verses are not redundant.

Finally, one could also argue that "keeping pure" (meaning of Zakat as per Quran-Only followers) is same as observing "ritualistic prayer" and "obligatory charity". This will bring the Quran-Only version to be the same as the traditional version.

Hence, traditionalist version is not in conflict with other verses in Quran and is the right interpretation.

ayman

Peace brother Idris,

I think that 95's clarification is in 911. Here is my translation of 911

If they repent and maintain the learning connection and bring the purification/betterment then they are your brothers/sisters in the obligation and we detail the signs for people who know.

In 95 and 911 the context is clearly corrective action. Corrective action requires that one first recognizes that his way is wrong (i.e., learns from his mistake), correct/improve his way, and finally is committed/obligated to the new way. Thus, maintaining commitment as a first step is actually counter-productive because he was committed to the wrong thing. Commitment to the new correct course is needed AFTER one learns from his mistake and makes things better. The meaning of "deen" is obligation, which is almost a synonym of commitment.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman