salat = prayer? How do you explain this then...
-
peace,
Two of your colour groupings make no sense
Idolaters to be fought who have repented
Why would you fight the ones who repented?
Idolaters to be fought who have asked for protection
If they have asked for protection, why would you fight them?!
- Do you agree with my color codes ?
No, because of the above.
I think the "straight in "as long as they are straight with you concerns only the fair idolaters.
I agree, that is what I found.
- What is the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" in ?
I already answered that question.
Is there no a blatant contradiction ?
No! I see what you are seeing though. Please stop embellishing on what 'al quran' says, that will resolve the so-called contradiction you are seeing. When 'al quran' states "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger?" It is a rhetorical question, it is not a statement of law! If it was a stated rule, why make it a question? With the vast majority (perhaps all) of the rhetorical questions asked in 'al quran' it is asking us to reflect/think. It is obvious some believers were hesitant in fighting those who reduced from the treaty or those who fought them, and perhaps wanted to seek negotiation or a further treaty, thus The God asks this rhetorical question, asking them to ponder on what is happening, i.e. what they are doing and have done.
I hope I have been clear.
Wakas
-
peace,
Two of your colour groupings make no sense
Idolaters to be fought who have repented
Why would you fight the ones who repented?
Idolaters to be fought who have asked for protection
If they have asked for protection, why would you fight them?!
Sorry, it seems that my labels are lacking clarity.
Among the idolaters who have to be fought, some may have repented. Thus, they are not to be fought anymore. So, they are former idolaters to be fought. But, they are not among the straight idolaters, who have not to be fought.
Idem for the ones who have asked for protection.
- Do you agree with my color codes ?
No, because of the above.
I think the "straight in "as long as they are straight with you concerns only the fair idolaters.
I agree, that is what I found.
No, you were saying that the "they" in "as long as they are straight with you" could be referring to the fair as well as the unfair idolaters.
But now, we are agreed.- What is the salat in "aqamoo alssalata" in ?
I already answered that question.
Sorry, but your answer is not clear to my mind.
Is the salat in the same as in and ?Is there no a blatant contradiction ?
No! I see what you are seeing though. Please stop embellishing on what 'al quran' says, that will resolve the so-called contradiction you are seeing. When 'al quran' states "How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger?" It is a rhetorical question, it is not a statement of law! If it was a stated rule, why make it a question? With the vast majority (perhaps all) of the rhetorical questions asked in 'al quran' it is asking us to reflect/think. It is obvious some believers were hesitant in fighting those who reduced from the treaty or those who fought them, and perhaps wanted to seek negotiation or a further treaty, thus The God asks this rhetorical question, asking them to ponder on what is happening, i.e. what they are doing and have done.
I hope I have been clear.
Wakas
Be it a rhetorical question or not, the lesson is clear the muslims cannot pledge themselves anymore with this kind of idolaters. They should fight them (except if they repent or ask for protection).
The crucial point between us is the content of the repentance What have the idolaters to say when they repent ?
If they say "OK, sorry, we should not have violated our pledge, we will stick to it up to now", then, clearly, this cannot be accepted by the muslims.
God warns them to refuse this in the following terms
"How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger?" ()
" How is it when they gain the upper-hand they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge." ()
" They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts are hostile, and most of them are wicked. " ()
" They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. " ()
" These are the transgressors/wrongdoers. " ()The only repentance that can be accepted from us is something like the following "We repent for having violated our pledge, whe have always been wrongdoers, and want to change it. Our hearts have always been hostile toward you, and we want to purify ourselves. Now, we want to change our way of life, and to follow God's laws as enshrined in the quran, and to bring forth purification".
I do not invent it, this is what God is reproaching them in verses .They have to become of the muslims, since there can be no more pledging with them.
The messenger has been forbidden to take a new pledge with them, and he has been ordered to fight them. But, he has to stop the fight if they say that they want to be of the muslims.In , the idolaters who have repented are mentioned again, and, in this verse, it is obvious that they have submitted to the divine system.
Only enliven/visit institutes of acknowledgment of The God those who trust/believe in The God and the deferred/last time/day and uphold/establish/maintain the bond/oration and bring forth the betterment and none fears except The God, perhaps such people to be from the guided/directed.
Peace
-
peace,
No, you were saying that the "they" in "as long as they are straight with you" could be referring to the fair as well as the unfair idolaters.
Yes, but I said it most likely refers to the latter, i.e. the "fair idolaters" as you put it. Then I amended my trans. to reflect that.
Is the salat in the same as in and ?
The core meaning will always be the same. I would translate it the same way, but not necessarily referring to the treaty discussed in the earlier signs. If it references the "mumineen", it is clear what they have pledged to uphold, it is 'al quran' and thus the obligation/system enshrined in it.
If it is unclear, what exactly is unclear to you?
Be it a rhetorical question or not, the lesson is clear the muslims cannot pledge themselves anymore with this kind of idolaters. They should fight them (except if they repent or ask for protection).
It might be a lesson (i.e. because it asks us to think), that still doesn't make it a law! I personally do not derive laws from the rhetorical questions within 'al quran'. I would be interested to know if anyone here does, because if so, thats another potential hundreds of laws I havent even thought about.
They have to become of the muslims, since there can be no more pledging with them.
The messenger has been forbidden to take a new pledge with them, and he has been ordered to fight them. But, he has to stop the fight if they say that they want to be of the muslims.Let's have a look at your suggested solution
- According to you, the "muslims" cant accept their re-pledge until those who fight convert to "Muslims". Its a pity that solution contradicts 'al quran'. You will not find this notion anywhere.
" These are the transgressors/wrongdoers. " ()
911 does not say that, you misreferenced it. In any case, 911 is a continuation of the prior signs (this is clear grammatically), referencing the same people, and it is clear, that a pledge (i.e. slw/bond) was made, thus a re-pledge was in fact done, converse to your understanding. If not, then you believe this slw is either something else you haven't mentioned or you believe its referring to the original slw in 95, if so, you cant explain the progressing options shown between 95 & 912. Or you can you? Quite simply, why the difference in solution in 95 & 912?
Wakas
-
peace,
No, you were saying that the "they" in "as long as they are straight with you" could be referring to the fair as well as the unfair idolaters.
Yes, but I said it most likely refers to the latter, i.e. the "fair idolaters" as you put it. Then I amended my trans. to reflect that.
OK, sorry.
Is the salat in the same as in and ?
The core meaning will always be the same. I would translate it the same way, but not necessarily referring to the treaty discussed in the earlier signs. If it references the "mumineen", it is clear what they have pledged to uphold, it is 'al quran' and thus the obligation/system enshrined in it.
If it is unclear, what exactly is unclear to you?
What is the salat in ? Is it about the pledge to God to follow the quran ?
Or is it about the pledge between the muslims and the idolaters ?Be it a rhetorical question or not, the lesson is clear the muslims cannot pledge themselves anymore with this kind of idolaters. They should fight them (except if they repent or ask for protection).
It might be a lesson (i.e. because it asks us to think), that still doesn't make it a law! I personally do not derive laws from the rhetorical questions within 'al quran'. I would be interested to know if anyone here does, because if so, thats another potential hundreds of laws I havent even thought about.
Here is, in some examples, how I draw lessons from rhetorical questions
How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life?
=> we can not reject God.How can God guide a people who have rejected after believing, and they witnessed that the messenger is true, and the clarity had come to them?
=> God cannot guide such people.Originator of the heavens and the Earth, how can He have a son when He did not take a wife?
=> God cannot have a son.How can those who have set up partners have a pledge with God and with His messenger?
=> There cannot be a pledge with the idolaters.Would you force the people to make them believe?
=> The prophet cannot force the people to believe.They have to become of the muslims, since there can be no more pledging with them.
The messenger has been forbidden to take a new pledge with them, and he has been ordered to fight them. But, he has to stop the fight if they say that they want to be of the muslims.Let's have a look at your suggested solution
- According to you, the "muslims" cant accept their re-pledge until those who fight convert to "Muslims". Its a pity that solution contradicts 'al quran'. You will not find this notion anywhere.
No, it doesn't.
Perhaps you are saying that because you think it contradict
And had your Lord willed, all the people on Earth in their entirety would have believed. Would you force the people to make them believe?
As you know, there are 2 kinds of idolaters the "fair" and the "unfair".
The fair ones are mentioned here
- Except for those with whom you had a treaty from among the idolaters if they did not reduce anything from it nor did they plan to attack you; you shall continue the treaty with them until its expiry. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
- Except for those with whom you made a pledge/agreement at the institute of acknowledging the restriction, as long as they are straight with you, then you are straight with them. Truly, The God loves the forethoughtful/conscientious.
Theses idolaters are to be left in peace by the Muslims. The muslims should not attack them, nor they should force them to anything.
But the "unfair" idolaters don't share the same fate ! These ones have to be fought ! So, freedom of deen is not an issue for them. Will you care of the freedom of deen of the enemies you are fighting ? That's nonsense !
Nevertheless, there is a last chance for them to submit to the divine system.
God cannot let the prophet kill people who say they want to become muslims. That's why God gives them this last chance." These are the transgressors/wrongdoers. " ()
911 does not say that, you misreferenced it.
It is in .
In any case, 911 is a continuation of the prior signs (this is clear grammatically), referencing the same people, and it is clear, that a pledge (i.e. slw/bond) was made, thus a re-pledge was in fact done, converse to your understanding.
Look at !
It is impossible that a pledge may have been made with the idolaters in !
In , God is deterring the Muslims to pledge again with them.- How can those idolaters have a pledge/agreement with The God and His messenger?
- How is it when they gain the upper-hand they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge. They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts are hostile, and most of them are wicked.
- They purchased with The God's signs/revelations a small gain, so they could turn others from His path. Truly, evil is what they were doing.
- They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge. These are the transgressors/wrongdoers.
If not, then you believe this slw is either something else you haven't mentioned or you believe its referring to the original slw in 95, if so, you cant explain the progressing options shown between 95 & 912. Or you can you? Quite simply, why the difference in solution in 95 & 912?
The oath in is the oath the idolaters made in their repentance, when they have decided to submit to the divine system.
The chiefs should be fought first, because they influence the others.Peace,
JM
-
peace,
What is the salat in ? Is it about the pledge to God to follow the quran ?
Essentially, yes, but I would not phrase it like that.
How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life?
=> we can not reject God.We can reject The God. These people are called rejectors/idolaters/polytheists etc. Like I said, if you want to derive law from rhetorical questions, feel free. I dont. Like you said, "draw lessons", not law.
If you wish to embellish upon the signs and use this as a basis for your arguments, thats up to you. Thanks for the pointers though, as it made me solidify my argument further.
Wakas
-
peace,
What is the salat in ? Is it about the pledge to God to follow the quran ?
Essentially, yes, but I would not phrase it like that.
How would you phrase it ?
Like that ?
If it references the "mumineen", it is clear what they have pledged to uphold, it is 'al quran' and thus the obligation/system enshrined in it.
You are claiming that salat in and designates a pledge with the idolaters. And now, you are admitting that salat in designates a pledge with God.
Why this change of meaning of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat", in a unchanging context ?
If the idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and are not mentioned in , are they mentioned in ?
How can you reject God when you were dead and He brought you to life?
=> we can not reject God.We can reject The God. These people are called rejectors/idolaters/polytheists etc. Like I said, if you want to derive law from rhetorical questions, feel free. I dont. Like you said, "draw lessons", not law.
-
I have never said the rhetorical question in was a statement of law.
-
Let's take what appears to be a statement of law
O people, serve your Lord who has created you and those before you that you may be righteous.
Does it imply that we CANNOT refuse to serve God ?
NO ! It does NOT ! We CAN indeed refuse to serve God....
Yes, we CAN...
If we are of these people who are called rejecters/idolaters/polytheists !So, your argument falls through.
- Now, if you still refuse to draw from the conclusion that the muslims can not pledge again with the idolaters, let's consider
How is it when they gain the upper-hand they disregard all ties, either those of kinship or of pledge.
=> Will you make a pledge with this kind of people who will surely reject it when they gain the upper-hand ?They seek to please you with their words, but their hearts are hostile, and most of them are wicked.
=> Will you have enough confidence in such guys to pledge with them ?They do not respect believers, nor a kinship, nor a pledge.
=> Will you pledge with such people, who do not respect you, and are unable to respect a pledge ?These are the transgressors/wrongdoers.
=> Will you make a pledge with transgressors/wrongdoers ?As a conclusion, salat in cannot be a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims. This would contradict all the verses quoted above.
Salat in and is about the pledge of the muslims with God, as salat in
Peace
-
-
peace,
i would phrase it, like ive always phrased it
'uphold the going/turning towards' OR 'uphold the bond'.
For anyone who had done some study on who the mumineen are, it is blatantly obvious what they uphold, and what bond they are associated with.
Why this change of meaning of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat", in a unchanging context ?
Is your definition of unchanging context, the same chapter? If you think the context is the same, fine. 'al quran' doesn't. In 918, it is referencing the mumineen. In any case, i did not change the meaning at all.
If the idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and are not mentioned in , are they mentioned in ?
I am not using the Warsh numbering, thus in 918, the idolaters are not mentioned. FACT.
- I have never said the rhetorical question in was a statement of law.
You may not have used the word "law" explicitly, but when someone makes an absolute or factual statement, which leaves no room for interpretation, about a sign in 'al quran' like you did, its the same thing.
As a conclusion, salat in cannot be a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims. This would contradict all the verses quoted above.
No it wouldn't. Firstly, the are not statements of absolutes. Secondly, you disregard the feeling of those with the messenger who were fighting them. They were clearly hesitant (see 913, 916), hence re-stating / reflection on what the idolaters did.
Salat in and is about the pledge of the muslims with God, as salat in
Its a pity that doesn't work grammatically, logically, or contextually
pledge with God? Not once mentioned.
muslims? Not once mentioned, and disproven grammatically.
In 918, it is the mumineen, not the muslimeen. FACT.
95 it is fight them all, 912 it is fight the chiefs.Please note, I will not discuss this issue further, unless I feel a solid point has been made.
Wakas
-
Salaam,
I will just say that I don't believe in the physical sujood, where in Quran it says that we shall perform salat and make physical sujood?
Before when I was sunni I did the physical sujood but it never felt good and then I couldn't understand why.
It feels strange to physically sujood it feels like you idolize the ground you stand and sit on.
I believe instead that salat is a way to uphold the good and to uphold the contact with God at the both ends of a day salatul fajr and salat ishaa.
I think a form of meditation is a way to let your spirit be in good shape.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace sister Majidah,
How would you understand/interpret the following signs ?
17108 Say "Believe in it or do not believe in it. Those who have been given the knowledge before it, when it is recited to them, they fall to their chins prostrating, and they Say "Praise be to our Lord. Truly, the promise of our Lord was fulfilled."
17109 And they fall upon their chins crying, and it increases them in humility.Here falling on chins is mentioned in context of SJD, which clearly makes it a physical act (not on the forehead though as per the sectarians).
-
Salaam Tanveermd,
I cannot see it as a physical act because in my understanding the contact with God is through the spirit and spirits doesn't bend physically but ofcourse I can bend spiritually.
I also believe that our physical needs is only connect to this earth and that is the curse we got after been kicked out from the paradise.
I know that you will ask why God use chin, hands, feets and so on in Quran to explain things but that I see as a real challenge to look beyond the words and we humans we are also talking about he hands of God and so on but we don't know if God has hands or not, so that is only to express something to make it logic to our physical behaviours here on earth.
The face is also a very important part of our body because it is in our face we can see the different kind of feelings a person express like hapiness, sorrows, evilness and so on.
I cannot see that verse you mentioned to be a way of performing salat and absolutely not an obligatory act.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
Peace Majidah,
I agree that upholding salat is not an obligatory act because it is for the mumineen (believers) and not necessarily for the muslimeen (submitters).
When hands are mentioned in context of The God then of course that is allegorical, but when chin is mentioned in context of humans then it is clearly physical. Please support what you are saying from Qur'aan and bring me ONE example of an ayat where the word "CHINS" is used in context of humans ALLEGORICALLY.
The context of the signs that I quoted is clearly salat
17107 And a compilation that We have separated, so that you may relate it to the people over time; and We have brought it down gradually.
17108 Say "Believe in it or do not believe in it. Those who have been given the knowledge before it, when it is recited to them, they fall to their chins prostrating, and they Say "Praise be to our Lord. Truly, the promise of our Lord was fulfilled."
17109 And they fall upon their chins crying, and it increases them in humility.
17110 Say "Call on God or call on the Almighty. Whichever it is you call on, for to Him are the best names." And do not be too loud in thy SALAT, nor too quite; but seek a path in between.
17111 And Say "Praise be to God who has not taken a son, nor does He have a partner in sovereignty, nor does He have an ally out of weakness." And glorify Him greatly.According to the following sign recitation of Qur'aan is clearly mentioned in context of salat
1779 Thou shall uphold the SALAT at the setting of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.
Oration of Qur'aan as well as prostration are parts of upholding salat and according to the above signs the prostration is being mentioned in context of salat and is clearly physical involving falling on ones chin as opposed to the forehead.
Prostration also has a general meaning of obedience, so in addition to physical prostration on the chin it also means obeying The God in our daily lives and following His guidance, when mentioned in context of humans upholding salat.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
Why this change of meaning of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat", in a unchanging context ?
Is your definition of unchanging context, the same chapter? If you think the context is the same, fine. 'al quran' doesn't. In 918, it is referencing the mumineen. In any case, i did not change the meaning at all.
Why do you exclude that, in and , the idolaters have, in their repentance, committed to become mumineen ?
To repent = to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one's life (Merriam-Webster)Is there any occurrence of the expression "uphold salat and bring forth zakat" where it does not reference believers ? I don't think so.
And I have difficulties to imagine how one could purify oneself (or bring forth purification) without turning toward God's guidance.
As We have sent a messenger to you from amongst yourselves to recite Our revelations to you, and purify you, and teach you the Scripture and the wisdom, and teach you what you did not know.
If the idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and are not mentioned in , are they mentioned in ?
I am not using the Warsh numbering, thus in 918, the idolaters are not mentioned. FACT.
I never said I were using Warsh numbering.
I am looking for those idolaters who have, according to you, pledged with the muslims in and .
After and , It seems that we have no news of them.
Can they enliven/visit institutes of acknowledgment ?- I have never said the rhetorical question in was a statement of law.
You may not have used the word "law" explicitly, but when someone makes an absolute or factual statement, which leaves no room for interpretation, about a sign in 'al quran' like you did, its the same thing.
As a conclusion, salat in cannot be a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims. This would contradict all the verses quoted above.
No it wouldn't. Firstly, the are not statements of absolutes. Secondly, you disregard the feeling of those with the messenger who were fighting them. They were clearly hesitant (see 913, 916), hence re-stating / reflection on what the idolaters did.
Yes, they were hesitant, but this does change anything.
In all these verses, God deters the muslims to pledge with these idolaters, and orders the muslims to fight them.
Is this not clear ?Salat in and is about the pledge of the muslims with God, as salat in
Its a pity that doesn't work grammatically, logically, or contextually
pledge with God? Not once mentioned.
This is what they have pledged to uphold, i.e 'al quran' and thus the obligation/system enshrined in it.
muslims? Not once mentioned, and disproven grammatically.
Why, " disproven grammatically" ?
In 918, it is the mumineen, not the muslimeen. FACT.
What does it change ?
95 it is fight them all, 912 it is fight the chiefs.
What does it change ?
Please note, I will not discuss this issue further, unless I feel a solid point has been made.
WakasYou claim that salat in and is a pledge between the idolaters and the muslims.
But this interpretation is made imposible by verses , whereGod deters the muslim to make any other pledge with the idolaters.
I think it is an enough solid point.Peace.
-
Salaam Wakas,
Thank you very much for this thread it helped me much.
I do hope Br Tanveermd read it too.
Peace
Sis Majidah -
An update on the article
One of the things I'd change in the above article is "assail IN your system/obligation" in 912. This weakens the traditional understanding of deen=religion. Further reading see here
Another thing I thought of was that it states "and THEY (muAAtadoona/transgressors/wrongdoers) assail in YOUR deen". Now traditional interpretations of these signs say the muAAtadoona have become Muslims, if that is the case, why separate them by THEY and YOUR. This clearly shows they are still thought of as separate groups, as the article points out.
To conclude
It is not considered theirs to assail in, thus they never entered into a religion/deen* (Islam).*traditional understanding
Comments?
-
I was reading my article today and happened to notice it was exactly 1 year after I wrote it. Thought those who haven't might like to read it
Also, Layth/Zein, if you could add it to the articles list and the what's new section, that would be cool.
http//mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/think-786/disproved_salatequalsprayer.htm
I would really love for some traditional scholars to challenge it.
Anyways, it should be read with the following change (as stated in the above post)
912 "And if they break their oaths after making them, and THEY assail in YOUR obligation/system...
-
Peace Wakas,
Great article, I've saved it for future reference as well. I also wanted to bring to your attention an article that I found today about 'prayer' from a different perspective ..... I found it to be very interesting, to say the least. I'm curious to read your opinion on what he writes. Here's the link ... if you have the time...
http//www.nierica.com/prayers/ExplorePrayer.html
With gratitude...
-
The updated article
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm
very nice article and a lot of work..
I vote for it to be promoted at the free-minds website under Articles. It's definitely one explanation that's emerging to be the final explanation to Salat.. all else have led to ambiguity. I guess it's time Allah wants the God-Alone community to finally have a unanimous outcome to this most important debate.
