Destiny of those praying 5x towards the cube?
-
Thanks brother,
Very interesting article, truly very informative! I really do not find any problem submitting mentally (electronically, cellularly) or spiritually (Soul, non-physically??) or physically. But the problem is when physically submitting to God people starts to focus to the stones with a direction (qibla etc). That I do have problem with. If one wants to put ones' head on the floor its OK, but to stones and to a certain diraction is problematic.
What do you think.
Peace
-
Yes, i agree, till nowi don't see a connection, convincing proof between qibla being involved with physical direction. The only function a physical praying focal point could have, is a social function. So we have to focus on how the Quran itself explains the meaning of 'masjid al-haram', without using the pre-programmed strings tying conclusions together. This is what i mean with, concepts, are our conclusions, our understandings how to interpretate verses or words, pre-programmed by tradition, or by Quran? Does the Quran made strings between verses and words, or did we made them because of our program that says there should be a physical qibla? This is a study that is still not undertaken.
We have a little list we have to work out1.God is everywhere.
a.So no need for a physical direction.
b.It has a social function.2.Don't pray towards an object.
a.Because didn't we turn it into a 'holy'/'special' direction?
b.The Masjid al-haram is only a focal point, it is not the focus of the prayer.This is more homework....
This article of Edip, is the only honest and objective article i have found so far, that acknowledges both sides of salat meaning physical and being obedience, and its convincing in its points next to Ayman's, also some ideas of Parwez are interresting. But we have to put all theories next to another, and see what fits.
Peace
-
If the Quran doesn't tell us something that is from the unseen world, God thinks it can be described, or it is not necesarry for us to know. As to the history, ok.
Bro the Quran told us many things from the unseen world, like the hell fire for example and like the angels, even historical data was mentioned in the Quran
Praise be to Allah, Who created (out of nothing) the heavens and the earth, Who made the angels, messengers with wings,- two, or three, or four (pairs) He adds to Creation as He pleases for Allah has power over all things.
(1)
I would never think your a fool, but i know we have to be carefull when we read somethings...
Thaks bro for that and thanks for the long article about the angel history, but as you know the history records are hearsay, like the hadith exactly, I hoped you bring evidences from the Quran though
Defenition wings
A winglike organ or structureAs you can see "wings" can be taken in several ways. So to which definition do you refer then? And where is your logic and proof behind it?
Bro wing is the following simple definition as you quoted above
A winglike organ or structure,
like a plan wing
now if the angels use it for flying or not, I really don?t know because the Quran didn?t talk about that, the bottom line is this
you said the Quran never described the angels physically and clearly the Quarn said that Allah made 2 or 3 or 4 A winglike organ for the angels,
but you still asking for proofs, what proofs exactly bro?, that wings means Jinah in arbic?
The proof is I?m an arbic speaker
Your question is like asking a native English speaker to prove that a school means a school in English
All in all if we face a sentence with word that have many meanings, only the context that will control that meaning
And the literal context for the verses clearly says they have wings
this is one of the many things we need to do to be called submitters as the Quran explained to us the laws
exactly....
You don't know what i am talking about i see, it has nothing to do with language or not, which language or book or faith. It has to do with conceptions, ideas about how you see the word used in life, how it was thaught to you what it means. This has nothing to do with being a native speaker or not, this has to do with perception of words and definitions and meanings. This has to do if the word 'salat' really was used as to mean prayer during Mohammed's time.
Well, as far as I believe that Allah is not going to trick us in His Quran, i.e. it means literal unless specified otherwise, , yet you have not provided one Quran verse to sypport your coneption
As you can see, the word salat was used in a total different way in the ancient times, so when did it got also the meaning of prayer? By whom? The Quran uses it in different ways, so who has explained the concept of how to use the word salat? Isn't it logical then to see in what way God uses it in His Quran? He teaches us how He means it. This is the only research that can prove it. Who thaught you it also means physical prayer? Not the ancient dictionaries. This is the answer we are looking for, so your referrences you are a native speaker, doesn't apply at all when we investigate concepts, because we have to understand who thaught you, your concept of understanding the word, how to read it, what kind of meaning it has in a verse and so on.
This is what i am investigating, and till now, just saying it means prayer is not enough.
Peace
Bro I discussed this matter before, the word Salat is the same foe me since I was a baby, it means literally a connection, now applying that literal meaning on our action or performing Salat, it means we are making a connection with Allah
Very simple and does not need rocket science
Peace man
-
Peace all,
Jews who bang their heads on the Wailing Wall say "we are ordered to do this by God Himself". Christians who venerate Jesus will also say "we are ordered to do this by God Himself". EVERYONE who does any kind of nonsense will try to justify it by saying "we are ordered to do this by God Himself". One thing that they will never be able to do is to answer "WHY". They don't know the purpose and all their arguments collapse when quized on the purpose.
For those who think "sujud" is merely and primarily a physical act, is this how you do your "sujud"?
17.107.
Supposedly, some here can read and understand Arabic. So do they understand what means? It means to the "chins" NOT the "foreheads".
If one believes that "sujud" is physical then one must obey The God and do it to the "chin" NOT the "forehead".
The only time the "forehead" is mentioned in relation to "salat", it is the lying and errant "forehead" of those that PREVENT the real "salat" in Chapter 96.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ahmed,
Your question is like asking a native English speaker to prove that a school means a school in English
This is a good example. Because the walls and ceilings of a certain physical building is not what defines a "school". A school is not primarily a physical building, it is primarily an institution of learning. Thus, you can't send your kids to be taught by the physical building. You send them to be taught by the institution, which is not a physical concept. Sure a physical building is one component of the institution but it is not the primary one nor is it the most important one. Thus people can be "home schooled" and we even have on-line schools where people can go to learn.
Hence, a native English (and Arabic) speaker will tell you about a certain school of thought and someone in the need of "schooling" is not in the need of a physical building but is in the need of "learning".
Really such concepts are universal in all languages and your using of "native Arabic speaker" argument sounds as pathetic as a native English speaker arguing "I am a native English speaker" whenever someone argues against his understanding of the King James Bible.
Moreover, like the native English speaker your knowledge of the language is limited to what you were taught at school. For example, you seem happy to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between Modern Arabic and Classical Arabic. This is as silly as a modern English speaker imagining that there is no difference between modern English and old English.
This is basic stuff about Arabic and all languages that you are probably the least knowledgeable about on this forum and yet ironically out of all the native Arabic speakers here you are the only one always boasting the "I am a native Arabic speaker" as your strongest argument. My observation as a fellow Egyptian and native Arabic speaker is that it really sounds pretty hollow after hearing it so many times. This has nothing to do with you personally as I am sure that it would sound hollow from me and all Arabic speakers if they repeat it as much as you do and use it as their main argument.
This is my honest observation and it is not meant negatively, it is meant as advice that I sincerely hope would help.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Arnold,
I agree with what you said in your post that salat, sujud, and ruku could be mental only or both mental and bodily, and that the context of the verses will determine if they are just mental, or both mental and bodily.
I was going to post the verse 17107 but brother Ayman beat me to it. I agree that according to that verse if the physical sujud is performed it has to be on the chin and not on the forehead as per the sectarians.
Brother Arnold, I have a question, maybe you can clarify it for me. If sujud or ruku is physical then it is usually preceded by "kharra" but that is not always true as in the case of 2724 where the prostration is physical but is not preceded by "kharra". On the other hand in 12100 the prostration is preceded by "kharroo" but it is not bodily. So "kharra" does not always mean bodily and the absence of "kharra" does not necessarily mean mental only; so how can one determine if the sujud or ruku is mental only or both mental and bodily in a particular verse, because the "kharra" rule does not always work ? Also how can you be sure if the prostration is really bodily when preceded by "kharra" as "kharra" does not always imply bodily ?
You also mentioned that 7748 most likely refers to mental prostration. However 7748 talks about ruku and not sujud. Are you taking ruku here to mean prostration ?
Also can you please post the verse/verses which convincingly show that a bodily ruku is part of salat ? 17107-17111 shows clearly that a bodily sujud is part of salat according to the context but I could not find the verse/verses showing that bodily ruku is part of salat. The closest I came was 555 but the context in that verse seems to imply that the ruku mentioned is mental only.
Would you agree that 2237, 340, 4102, and 4142 convincingly prove a bodily standing position for salat ?
Oration or recitation of verses from qur'aan in salat in a moderate tone as per 17110-111 is also bodily.
Can you also please comment on the proof that qiblah and al-masjid al-haram is mental and not physical as shown in the following post ?
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80128#80128
-
Peace bro,
First of all, it is Edip who wrote the article, not me. So your questions are directed to him. He is in the memberslist. But i will check those verses and see what answer i can give, but i'm not an arabic expert.
And i don't need to give my opinion on the masjid al-haram, as brother Ayman has given perfect examples i agree with, but more research has to be done. God always has some tricks up His sleeves to keep us focused and awake.
So more comments will come Godwilling, but on verse 12100, people have to remember that also raising them on the trone can be taking symbolic, and the prostrating is done or before God, like Asad thinks in his translation, or others were prostrating, not his parents, to God. Or the raising up the trone and the prostration are two seperate events that don't occur right after each other. Or they bow out of homage, as respect and love for their lost son. So taking the order as something that occur the second after one another is wrong, and i also believe raising them on the trone is used symbolic. And it could be reffering to be prostration to God. But i have to check more.
But i believe that a lot of concepts are fixed by outside sources, and not Quran. This is my whole discussion. It still doesn't leave out physical prayer. But i believe Salat mostly refer to obedience, that obedience is the most important understanding, because now still most people read salat in most verses as contact-prayer, instead of reading it mostly as obedience to Gods laws, ands that in some verses it refers to prayer. You see the difference in reading and understanding a concept?
Peace
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Ahmed,
please beofore i go to bed, i need to ask you a quick question before i respnd to the above tomorrow inshallah, is the long comment about masjid by you or by brother Ayman?
That is my current understanding on the subject, based on my research so far. I would appreciate if you can comment on that and give me your evidences from qur'aan if you don't agree with that understanding.
The link to that post is as follows
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80128#80128
-
Peace all,
The ONLY source of guidance towards the straight path necessary to serve Allah and submit to Him according to His will is Allah Himself. If we commit some physical or mental act to submit to Allah, and that act was not sanctioned by Allah but by someone else, then we are taking someone else's words at par with those of Allah, and it becomes idolatry as we are making someone else partner with Allah by doing that.
An example would be bodily prostrating towards the so called Kaaba in Mecca. Nowhere has Allah ordered in qur'aan for us to face the Kaaba or physically prostrate towards it during salat (I am saying TOWARDS it not TO it). Now if someone does that, then even if their intention is to prostrate to Allah and to uphold their salat for Allah, it still would become an idolatrous act to bodily prostrate towards Kaaba as Allah has not sanctioned it. When some people perform bodily prostration towards Kaaba in Mecca they are not following Allah, no matter what their intentions are but they are either following/obeying their peers, or forefathers, or the imams/scholars or the unverifiable hearsays/rumors/"hadeeth" falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammad and compiled by Bukhari and company, and that makes it idolatry. They will be committing idolatry without even being aware of it !! thus becoming one of those people Allah talks about in 622-24.
As far as the intentions are concerned, of course their intention is to face and bodily prostrate towards Kaaba in Mecca, otherwise they will not be physically doing it if they did not have the intention of doing it. It is not that they just had the intentions of upholding salat only to Allah and bodily prostrating only to Allah and then just by chance, or magically, or by a reflex action they happened to be facing and bodily prostrating towards the Kaaba in Mecca. Of course the intention is there.
If we do something to walk the straight path and to serve Allah by submitting to Him, we should do it only if Allah has ordered/commanded/sanctioned it, otherwise it becomes an act of idolatry.
-
Hello all
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron", i will prepare a long comment regarding masjid, my other long comment was regarding Masajid which is the plural or Masjid, but it seems there are many who can't handle the truth but can handle conjecture and non sense
peace
-
Peace taveern,
Remember, this is my understanding, i'm no expert.
2724 The prostrating doesn't have to immediatly refer to them bodily prostrating, this can also refer to that they obeyed what they believe are their sun-god commands. All their obedience is directed to the sun-god.
Because the Quran refers to bodily movement with karoo, why change the pattern now? Then there is no consitensy at all, so we are the ones who read the verse wrong. So i believe the above is a better understanding and makes more sense.12100 Like i explained already we have several options
1.The raising on the trone is symbolic. The prostration is to God.2.The raising is physical, but the prostration doesn't have to be directly after the raising, there is no time given here, so we read it wrong, and the prostration happens later and is meant for God.
3.Not only the parents prostrated, but everybody, including Joseph, to God, for helping them all.
4.The prostration is as a homage to Joseph.
I myself believe the first 3 are all highly likely. And give a much wider understanding. Keep in mind, that we have to search the best understanding, and that is reached by thinking slowely and wisely.
7748 Is indeed bowing, so Edip made a mistake in his article, i will mail him.
555 Yes, interresting, can apply both on bowing for obedience to God, bowing to His laws, as to prayer. So both meanings can apply. Why limit the understanding to one?
i believe we can have multiple understandings from one word or verse, as long their logic and the best ones, they can all apply. That is the beauty of arabic. See what i found with 2432-33. Read the last post i put there.http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5387
2238 This can refer also to both understandings.
-Keep your prayers balanced, in the middle, there is one prayer in the middle, between the ones from 11104
-Keep a balance in the reading and obeying, follow the middle.These all can apply in my eyes. Not one sticking out.
339 Yes, standing and praying, but if it really refers directly to salat-prayer, i'm not sure. I don't see the word salat in this verse, maybe i read it wrong, then correct me. It is late for me...
4102 Here also both can apply. Him standing in recitation, and they prostated/obeyed.
And they prayed, standing and then they prostrated. Both needs concentration, so both need a group guarding them.
Here i also read both. To read and obey what we read, and pray standing and ending it with a prostration.4142 Yes, this can apply again to both understandings. Stand up for prayer or stand up for recitation/following the commandments. But i believe here the standing up is meant symbolic, like they're pretending to making effort for the salat, but it is only for show.
17110 Again, this gives a rule for keeping the middle in recitation as well in prayer tone.
Peace
-
Peace Ahmed,
Peace Ayman
Your question is like asking a native English speaker to prove that a school means a school in English
This is a good example. Because the walls and ceilings of a certain physical building is not what defines a "school". A school is not primarily a physical building,
I agree, as a school is any place where people are gathering to learn from a teacher even if it is in a car park
it is primarily an institution of learning. Thus, you can't send your kids to be taught by the physical building. You send them to be taught by the institution,
but these are two different issues, don?t mix them up please, LOL, the first issue is sending them to a place called school to learn, then the second issues it is their willingness to learn
which is not a physical concept.
sure but that is a different issues to the fact that parents send their children to a place called schools to learn
Sure a physical building is one component of the institution but it is not the primary one nor is it the most important one.
well, as I said there are two different issues, I can bring a teacher to my child at home to teach him and then my home can be called a school
Thus people can be "home schooled" and we even have on-line schools where people can go to learn.
I swear by Allah I didnlt read this before I put my last two lines, LOL, this is funny, as I just said my home will be called a school if I bring a teacher to teach my child at my home
Hence, a native English (and Arabic) speaker will tell you about a certain school of thought and someone in the need of "schooling" is not in the need of a physical building but is in the need of "learning".
we need a place to gather and a teacher or someone is there to teach others, that place can be your home, my home, the car park or the open air, at the end of the day it is called a school and each one of the students bear the onus on their neck to be willing to learn or not, see another different issue
Really such concepts are universal in all languages and your using of "native Arabic speaker" argument sounds as pathetic as a native English speaker arguing "I am a native English speaker" whenever someone argues against his understanding of the King James Bible.
excuse me your comment is so ignorant, LOL
the bible was not written originally in English, but the Quran was written originally in Arabic, got it or not mate?
Moreover, like the native English speaker your knowledge of the language is limited to what you were taught at school.
not really because my knowledge at school was the basics, then I took it from there, see, it is my willingness to learn, LOL is my language professionalism is limited to what I?m willing to learn
For example, you seem happy to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that there is a difference between Modern Arabic and Classical Arabic.
it is you who is the ignorant here, I never said such a statement, all I said that the Classical Arabic is the one that is taught in all Arabic svhools in all Arabic countries, as well as the modern Arabic, how the hell you accuse me as such?
Oh yeh, trying hard to discredit me, LOL
This is as silly as a modern English speaker imagining that there is no difference between modern English and old English.
well, sure exactly like the arabic
This is basic stuff about Arabic and all languages that you are probably the least knowledgeable about on this forum and yet ironically out of all the native Arabic speakers here you are the only one always boasting the "I am a native Arabic speaker" as your strongest argument. My observation as a fellow Egyptian and native Arabic speaker is that it really sounds pretty hollow after hearing it so many times. This has nothing to do with you personally as I am sure that it would sound hollow from me and all Arabic speakers if they repeat it as much as you do and use it as their main argument.
the aove is clear cut non sense, see from day one you are trying hard to descvredit me, I guess I should ignore you for good
This is my honest observation and it is not meant negatively, it is meant as advice that I sincerely hope would help.
Peace,
Ayman
No thanks keep it for yourself then if it is accompanied by discrediting me while you don?t really know me
salam
-
Salaamun alaikum Arnold,
12100 Like i explained already we have several options
1.The raising on the trone is symbolic. The prostration is to God.2.The raising is physical, but the prostration doesn't have to be directly after the raising, there is no time given here, so we read it wrong, and the prostration happens later and is meant for God.
3.Not only the parents prostrated, but everybody, including Joseph, to God, for helping them all.
4.The prostration is as a homage to Joseph.
I myself believe the first 3 are all highly likely. And give a much wider understanding. Keep in mind, that we have to search the best understanding, and that is reached by thinking slowely and wisely.
The only problem with your argument is the following
124 When Joseph said to his father "My father, I have seen eleven planets and the sun and the moon, I saw them SAJIDEEN to ME."
The vision was them doing sujud to Joseph and 12100 was the fulfillment of that vision, so logically that implies that in 12100 his parents were doing sujud to Joseph, and if that is the case, the "kharra" before the sujud would make it a bodily prostration to Joseph, or am I missing something here ?
-
Good point. Missed it, like i said it is late for me. Interresting......
-
Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron",
Can you please show us how it is a metaphor from the Arabic language and the qur'aanic context ?
-
Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron",
Can you please show us how it is a metaphor from the Arabic language and the qur'aanic context ?
Peace
well, quickly as I'm gworking on something very important, the word Yakhor, clearly means to proceed throgh slowely, we use it commonly with water taps when they are dropping water and need fixing, we can also use in any thing that got punctured and whatever was inside is seeping slowely out
it is a metaphor because it can't be used physically with a humman, unless the humans got hurt and the blood started to Yakhor out
i will see if the Quran has used this word "Yakhor" in any other verses later
peace
-
Salaamun alaikum Arnold,
Another point
555 Yes, interresting, can apply both on bowing for obedience to God, bowing to His laws, as to prayer. So both meanings can apply. Why limit the understanding to one?
But this verse does not contain the word "kharra" so how can we assume that it is referring to a bodily ruku in salat as opposed to a mental ruku ?
-
Salaamun alaikum Ahmed,
the arbic words " " is nothiing but a metaphor, this is evident from the word "Yakhoron",
Can you please show us how it is a metaphor from the Arabic language and the qur'aanic context ?
Peace tanveermd
As I mentioned before the Arabic word ?Kharra? means drop down, scientifically speaking it would be under the effect of the gravity, and spiritually speaking it will be like totally declaring the submission to Allah by going down, 3215 is a metaphor and the sijood mentioned was not really the one we required to do to Allah, that sijood mentioned in 3215 is a metaphor on what the believers should do WHEN THEY ARE REMINDED WITH THE SIGNS OF ALLAH
Only those believe in Our Signs, who, when they are recited to them, fall down in prostration, and celebrate the praises of their Lord, nor are they (ever) puffed up with pride.
(15)
-> See the key words ? when they are recited to them ?,
The same metaphor was used again but the other way around, the metaphor is using the same word ?Yakhorro? but with being deaf and blind, i.e. when they are reminded with the signs the believers WILL NOT YAKHORO in deafness and blindeness, can you see the metaphor bro?
Those who, when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind;
(73)
-> Again to confirm ? when they are admonished with the Signs of their Lord, droop not down at them as if they were deaf or blind?
And finally we will see the word ?Khara? in a physical use, i.e. going down to the ground in this verse
And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.
(143)
-> See, ? ; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon?, clearly it says ? ?, ? and Musa fell down in a swoon?
Peace bro
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Ahmed,
Thanks a lot for explaining the usage of "kharra" in the qur'aan. It makes sense that in 3215 and 2573, "kharra" is used in the metaphorical sense and in 7143 it is used in a physical sense. It follows that the "sujjadan" in 3215 is also a mental sujud and not a physical one.
So when the word "kharra" precedes "sujud" it does not always mean a physical falling down in physical prostration. We have to look at the context to determine if it is a mental or physical falling down in prostration.
What is your understanding about 12100 and 17107, whether "kharroo" and "sjd" in those verses is physical or mental ? In 17107 it says "they fall down on chins prostrating" which clearly implies that it is a physical falling down on the chin and not mental.
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Ahmed,
Salam brother
Thanks a lot for explaining the usage of "kharra" in the qur'aan. It makes sense that in 3215 and 2573, "kharra" is used in the metaphorical sense and in 7143 it is used in a physical sense. It follows that the "sujjadan" in 3215 is also a mental sujud and not a physical one.
no worries bro, as you can see, i simplify things and not make it complicated and full of conjectures, regarding the metaphorical use, while I agree it is metaphorical, the sijood after the word Karra, can actually mean both, spritually and physically, in fact doing the sijood physically while not expressed in the deeds in the other daily life activities is like blowing a tyre with a puncture in it
so i take it as both at the same time
So when the word "kharra" precedes "sujud" it does not always mean a physical falling down in physical prostration. We have to look at the context to determine if it is a mental or physical falling down in prostration.
as i explained bro, kharra means going down to the ground, some can go down because they lost concouosness like Moses, and some will go down to sleep on the floor and others will go down to perfom sijood, but i streess again doing the pphysical sijood at its times then not being reflected upon as a sincere belivers in the day to day life deeds is like blowing a punctured tyre, i.e. the sijood most likely will not be acceoted as a good deed rather as a bad deed because it will be rendered as hypocricy and this is a major sin according to Allah laws
What is your understanding about 12100 and 17107, whether "kharroo" and "sjd" in those verses is physical or mental ? In 17107 it says "they fall down on chins prostrating" which clearly implies that it is a physical falling down on the chin and not mental.
12100 is clearly a physical sijood, but that sijood is sort of to Yusuf because of his position as leader and wisdom, it as to be physical because that is what should haooen according to his dream, you can see that Yusuf told his father about the dream coming true at this specific moment
17107 is identical to 3215, it can be taken as both but remeber the physical sijood is useless without the spritual submission
peace mate