The ultimate proof traditional prayer is salat !
-
Salam Wakas
Part of the verse in 93 reads in its arabic as follows
anna Allaha baree-on mina almushrikeenawarasooluhu
which literally should read as
The God is quit/free from the idolators and His Messenger.
But in your article you interpreted it as
The God is quit/free from the idolators and so is His Messenger.
I know the literal translation doesn't make sense but isn't this the correct way (literal way) to read it?
-
peace adik,
What I translated was the implied meaning. The following words show that its highly unlikely that The God is quite/free from His messenger, as no wrongdoing is mentioned by His messenger in the context and the "you" references the mushrikeen, hence the implied meaning. If one can bring evidence to suggest otherwise, then please do so.
When I say my ideal trans. is literal, I do not mean absolutely, it should be readable but follow the wording of the Arabic. It makes it a lot easier for those who are investigating the Arabic if the order of the English words matches those of the Arabic words. I try to do this in my translations for verification purposes, as I value this very highly. I want people to be able to check what I've written, because if they spot a mistake, all the better for me as I'm trying to improve my understanding all the time.
It took me a while to translate 91-12 but I'm very happy with the result.Wakas
-
Salam,
Salam Wakas
Part of the verse in 93 reads in its arabic as follows
anna Allaha baree-on mina almushrikeenawarasooluhu
which literally should read as
The God is quit/free from the idolators and His Messenger.
But in your article you interpreted it as
The God is quit/free from the idolators and so is His Messenger.
There is two subjects for this sentence "quit/free from the idolators", the God and His messenger, we can read it in this way
The God and is quit/free from the idolators and His Messenger is quit/free from the idolators.
or
The God and His messengers are quit/free from the idolators.
The translation of brother wakas is correct.
-
peace saladin,
When I say refute the article, I mean refute its premise, i.e. what its built on. What it is built on is that 'aqamoo al salat' refers to mushrikeen/idolaters/polytheists in these signs (91-12) and as you should know this phrase is often used for believers... so salat cannot mean prayer. Thats its premise.
and didnt Hussein(hlatif) already refute that article ?
This statement clearly shows you have not read the original thread properly, nor the article properly. If you had done so, you would know that the content of the article mentions many points not covered in the original thread.
Incidentally, nor do I feel the argument was refuted in the original thread (in fact, your the first to imply it was).I strongly suggest you read the article and the original thread. I must point out though, like the article says, the article is only for those who actually appreciate al quran's purpose.
Wakas
-
When I say refute the article, I mean refute its premise, i.e. what its built on. What it is built on is that 'aqamoo al salat' refers to mushrikeen/idolaters/polytheists in these signs (91-12) and as you should know this phrase is often used for believers... so salat cannot mean prayer. Thats its premise.
salam wakas .
the verse says "if they(idolators) repent" . that means they are no longer idolators . -
When I say refute the article, I mean refute its premise, i.e. what its built on. What it is built on is that 'aqamoo al salat' refers to mushrikeen/idolaters/polytheists in these signs (91-12) and as you should know this phrase is often used for believers... so salat cannot mean prayer. Thats its premise.
salam wakas .
the verse says "if they(idolators) repent" . that means they are no longer idolators .They repent from what?
The answer is in the chapter itself. Your deduction is not supported accerding the context.
From the article of Wakas
....................
taba verb form (I)The examples in this specific case are in the perfect active state, and occur 34 times
imperfect active state -
imperative state -
matab, noun masculine -
tawwab, noun masculine -
Grammatically 'perfect' means an action done or completed, 'active' refers to the doer of the action, 'imperfect' means action in the process of being done, 'imperative' means "mood," order or command.
Can this word possibly mean conversion? To find out, we can use several different methods
-
Check all 34 occurrences to see if there is a clear example of 'conversion'. Not only that, we can check the entire root to see if this meaning (conversion) is possible. Thus, out of 87 occurrences, how many show a conversion has taken place? The answer is zero, there are no other examples of idolaters converting to Muslims. Feel free to check the occurrences.
-
Check if the Classical Arabic dictionaries give 'conversion' as a possible meaning of the root Ta-Waw-Ba
'Dictionary of the Holy Quran' by Abdul Mannan Omar
(which utilises 'Al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Quran', 'Lisan al-Arab', 'Taj al-Arus min Jawahir al Qamus' and 'The Arabic English Lexicon')
To return; repent; turn one's self in a repentant manner (with ila/to or without it), turn with mercy (with ala), repentance.'The Arabic English Lexicon' by Edward W. Lane
He repented; or repented toward God (as will be shown by what follows), adapt to repentance, returning from disobedience to obedience.From the above, its clear 'conversion' is not listed as one of the possible meanings.
It should be noted that the possible meaning 'return' is given. Thus some might say they are being asked to return to Islam, or return as Muslims. Since the context never mentions they were Muslims originally, this is a completely baseless assumption. Furthermore, it can be seen from the usage of the word itself throughout 'the reading', it is unlikely to mean 'return'. Even if it did mean return, it would obviously refer to returning to the treaty.
The underlined parts in the dictionary quotes show that the word (repent) can mean repent with or without a following 'ila' which means 'to'. And secondly, the object that follows 'repent' can tell us to whom the repentance is being done, if it is not clear from the context. Please note, that both sources state it is not necessary for an object to follow the word 'repent'.
From the dictionary meanings, the only possibility of a word that could imply conversion is "turn", i.e. turn to God/Islam (even though the underlined part is an insertion/extrapolation). However if "turn" is used, then it should be followed by an object. Not only does this make sense logically, this is how 'the reading' itself uses it! Can those who support the 'taboo=turn (to God/Islam) in 95' view find another example where "turn" is meant but no object is mentioned? The answer is no, there is none.
In other words, this word is never used to mean "turn" without mentioning an object that the turning is done to. Once again, feel free to check the occurrences.
In fact, this is how 'the reading' distinguishes the usage of the term. When the prepositions 'ila/to' or 'ala/to' are used twb always means turn. Without them, twb means repent. You will not find an exception to this rule in the entire quran. Not only is this alluded to in 'Dictionary of the Holy Quran', it is also explicitly stated in 'A Concordance of The Quran' by Hanna E Kassistaba vb. (I) ~ repent, to be penitent, to do penance; (with prep. ala) to turn towrds someone (in forgiveness); (with prep. ila) to turn towrds someone (in penance). (n. vb.) repentnce, penitance. (pcple. act.) one who repents, penitent.
- Use the grammar of the verse. A closer examination of the grammar reveals that it is extremely unlikely for the final "...hum" to refer to other than the previous "...hum" (i.e. the idolaters). "...hum" is simply an Arabic suffix (found at the end of words) which means "them/their/they" referring to the previous object of reference. An example "The Government is responsible for the control and administration of public policy. They decide which laws to pass through debate and review committees which they appoint."
The transliteration and translation will be posted side by side for comparison
Fa-itha insalakha al-ashhuru alhurumu faoqtuloo almushrikeena haythu wajadtumoohum wakhuthoohum waohsuroohum waoqAAudoo lahum kulla marsadin fa-in taboo waaqamoo alssalata waatawoo alzzakata fakhalloo sabeelahum inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun
So when the restricted months are passed, then you may fight the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and surround them, and stand against them at every point. If they repent, and uphold/maintain the salat and bring forth the betterment, then clear/vacate their path. Truly, The God is Turning/Forgiving, Embracing/Merciful.
If those who believe the final "hum" in "sabeelahum" refers to converts, then please provide other examples where 'the reading' changes the object of reference mid-sentence. Furthermore, where a verb (e.g. repent/taboo) is used to create a new group of people, then that creation is used as a reference for "...hum". Can they find any examples like this in the entire quran?
To put it simply, there is zero evidence from the grammar or linguistically that shows this passage refers to people who are not mentioned at all. In fact, the evidence goes against that being the case.- Use our logic/reason. Is it logical that The God would give the idolaters an ultimatum, forcing them to convert to Muslims otherwise they will be punished? This notion is nowhere to be found in 'the reading' and completely goes against its principles, which state
There is no compulsion in this obligation/system, the right way has been made clear from the wrong way. Whoever rejects falsities, and believes in The God, then he has grasped the most solid branch that will never break. The God is Hearer, Aware/Knower.
The situation in 91-12 is similar to the thief and those who fight against The God and His messenger , they are not required to convert, they are required to repent and amend, i.e. it is not necessary for them to become Muslim, as this would be absurd. Nor are they required to repent to The God, because this would imply there are no disbelieving thieves, an impossibility. That is why there is no 'ila/to' mentioned in the context, just like in 93, 95, 911. 'The reading' could have easily used 'ila/to' if that was actually the intended meaning, like it did in 664 for example, but it didn't.
If repenting to The God or converting to Muslim was required then imagining a workable example in a real-life situation is difficult. The reader is strongly recommended to think of real-life situations.96 If we accept conversion as one of the options, lets look at the solution apparently suggested
- The idolaters convert to Muslims, uphold/maintain the prayer and bring forth the betterment.
OR - They can seek protection, without the need to give an apology, no re-commitment to the treaty, no compensation, delivered to safety/security, nothing in return except having to ask for protection.
This is extremely unlikely, especially when considering the firm tone of the verses. The only way the above can be made plausible is if option (2) actually refers to delivering them to their safety/security, i.e. out with the community/land, i.e. banishment. From my understanding of the verses and taking into account 533, this is what is recommended. But if this is chosen for those who hold the salat=prayer view, then it means people either convert to Muslims or are banished from the land/community. Is this likely?
The phrase which follows "fa khalloo sabeelahum" = "then clear/vacate their way/path", implies that they should be allowed to go their own way/path, i.e. practice their own faith, if they "uphold/maintain the oath/bond* and bring forth the betterment". This is an insightful understanding for any multi-faith based society. In fact, this is how many Western societies work today, i.e. as long as you live by the law of the land you are allowed to practice your own faith.
....................peace
-
-
peace saladin,
the verse says "if they(idolators) repent" . that means they are no longer idolators .
So you think 'al quran' changes its reference and now wishes them to repent from idolatry rather than the object of reference the treaty?
You think the word twb can somehow imply 'repent & convert' even though this meaning is nowhere to be found in a classical Arabic dictionary nor in the 87 occurrences of 'al quran'?
You think 'al quran' actually gives an ultimatum in which people either convert or are punished? And not only that, according to your explanation it doesn't even mention it, just implies it, like its no big deal when this strikes at the very core of the deen!
You think the suffix "...hum" somehow miraculously refers to the new converts not mentioned in the context, even though you have not provided one example from the entire quran in which this happens.
You think its a mere coincidence the so-called converts are never referenced with a word which would prove they are converts, e.g. mumineen/believers.
Do you think thieves also convert or is it just this special case?
How do you explain the problem of 912? progressing options etc.
Instead of making a comment, perhaps one could actually try and provide evidence for such a view.
Wakas
