Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory
-
Selam all,
Brother Wakas sorry but I did not mean to say that SALAT does not mean prayer at all. However, in your site at the bottom of your article I remember there was a sentence something like this...
After all evidence shown above are you still sure SALAT=PRAYER?
I know you never said that SALAT does not encompass prayer and it is more than that.
Maybe I should have said that you proved that SALAT does not mean a prayer only it is more than that. ) This is better, right?God bless
FJ -
Salam no_shirk
Salaam FJ
do you believe bond is the best translation for salaat? Can you give me the links where wakas proved that prayer cannot be translated as salaat?
As far as translation of the word salat is concerned the word bond fits better than any other.
God bless
FJ -
Peace,
I am still interested to know why this thread is debating the behaviour or history of this or that people and then trying to link them with God`s laws?
Are we not told that to follow even the majority of people is folly as they almost always follow conjecture, and they fail to think...
?And if you obey the majority of those on Earth they will lead you astray; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.? (The Message 6116)
Stick to the facts in the Scripture...
"....... As often as a messenger came unto them with that which their souls desired not (they became rebellious). .." (570)
-
Soul2Squeeze,
and at the approaches of the night
Read this part as 'including the promixities of the night"
Proximity and approaches mean that something is close to something else. This part clarifies the two edges of daylight. So that the prayer times are
the two edges of daylight (sundown and sunrise) and those parts of the night that are close to these two. That means the part of the night before the light of dawn and the part of the night right after the light of dusk disappears. This part of the sentence expounds on these 2 prayer times which are at the two edges of daylight(dawn and dusk).Secondly 20130 when it says 'before the rising of he sun and the setting of the sun', before or 'qabl' in Arabic like in English can mean 'In front of, or in the presence of' So 'while in the presence of the rising and setting sun' we are to glorify God. This does not say pray, this says 'glorify' God, but because of other passages that mention the word Salat (praying, ibtihaal also means prayer and is mentioned in the Quran) and these passsages connect Salat to these times there is no conflict because of course we will be glorifying God at these times. As for what is said as 'hours of the night and sides of the day' that is a registered expression in Classical Arabic (anaa'alaili wa atraafanahaari) and it means 'all the time' like saying 'day and night' in English. Just anaa'alaili means 'all night long.' and this is because 'anaa'' means 'a span of time' so when you say 'anaa' the night it means 'the span of night' or 'all night long.' It is best to not try to make that passage mean a time for prayer, especially when it doesn't mention the word Salat there, says to 'glorifiy' and then uses words that if you were to take literally as you are trying to do (and at the same implying without good basis that glorifying = praying) then you might as well bow down and intend to never get up, because according to that verse you should be praying, knelt down 24 hours a day. With all due respect. muscle
Godbless handshake,
Anwar -
I did some more thinking and whereas I will still stick to my point that we should not be implying 'prayer' or Salaat/ibtihaal where the word is not mentioned, I am going to make some amendments on what I said about min anaa'illaili and atraafanahaari. This is a registered expression toghether but the passage has them separated by 'sabbih' or glorify. Moreover, the 'min' here can modify the anaa'illaili so that the glorifying does not have to go on all night long and just at some point during the night-time.
As for atraaf, the underlying issue here you will find posted on sites that try to claim that the Quran has grammatical mistakes in it. There is a passage in the Quran that talks about two parties of people and then after refering to them in the dual refers to them in the plural. And that is because, like here, you have a concept that can be expressed both ways. If you look at 'daylight' in its collective sense to include every daylight that we ever experence there are more than just two edges, there are many. It's like using sunset and sunsets interchangeable. Each day only has one sunset but there is more than one sunset because there is more than one day. Nonethess, even though these passages can be looked at from a literally sense, there is still no reason to read Prayer in these verses where it doesn't exist.
I would do one more flex but I don't feel like its appropriate. How about O0
Yeah I like that better.Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace be upon you Al Khidr,
I forgot about this thread.
Regarding Ankh Aton, he was one who did not understand the spiritual system and messed things up. The Khamitans did not serve many Gods, there is only one God "Nebertcher" meaning "Lord of All". All other concepts where just ATTRIBUTES, just like this reading. For example, "RA" is not some sun God, it is the Solar Force which manifests in the human as the Life Force (Chi/Kundalini/Ruh). Ankh Aton tried to put all the attributes of "Nebertcher" under the worship of "RA".
I will check the info you gave on Anta Diop, I think I may have the book at home, but if not I can get it easily.
From the discussions though there does not seem to be any proof.
Salaat according to this reading is only two times, dawn and dusk. They are the times where day(consciousness) and night(subconsciousness) merge together. It is a highly symbolic message.
I went to your site and saw the 19 theory, so I could not read anymore. Respectfully.
Lastly, salaat is not described as prayer in this reading, the word Du'a is prayer, so this whole atempt to tie it into prayer has no foundation.
-
To Kyle and to all,
Lastly, salaat is not described as prayer in this reading, the word Du'a is prayer, so this whole atempt to tie it into prayer has no foundation.
Neither the word Du'aa or the word Salaat are explained in the Quran. The Quran is not a dictionary. Du'aa in Classical Arabic, which is the language that God chose to reveal the Quran in, means 'crying out, calling out to or calling on.' It doesn't mean prayer. Prayer, is included in the meanings of Salaat and ibtihaal. When you pray you call on God but when you call on God you are not necessarily praying. I think that you've let the fact that in English we only used one word to display both concepts steer your wrong, in additon to doubting the meanings presented dictionaries, without good reason, and thinking that a self-explanatory Quran means that the Quran explains the Classical Arabic words that it uses, instead of that it explains in detail the messages that it communicates to us. You cannot undersand the meanings of the words of the Quran through the Quran, the Arabs of Muhammad's day didn't do it that way, and they didn't do it this way naturally because the Quran didn't come down to explain the Arabic language it came down to explains its messages.
Furthermore if you think that contextual clues have led you to this belief(and remember that you have denied that the Quran's Cl. Arabic words can be undestood by Classical Arabic speakers, because they are not the Quran) then understand that firstly you are using the dictionaries to understand the words surrounding dua to try to guess at its meanings. If you already understand this and I"m sure you do take into consideration that you are also guessing the meaning of the word, know that guessing in context is not a method to accurately understand words, but to generally understand them, given that the context is detailed enough. I think I've talked with you enough on this issue. Just please understand that your contextual analysis is guesswork and biased becuase from the beginning you have had a bias against 'prayer' and didn't want 'prayer' to be as an important and numerously mentioned topic as it is in the Quran.
However, had you taken into consideration the other meanings available for this word in addition to prayer (which I did not make up, but which you were unwiling to research and look up for yourself to prove to you that I was not fabricating these meanings and to calm your doubtful heart) you have meanings such as 'blessings (think about what a blessings really are.), commendation, oratory, adherence and other meanings that I have mentioned to you before. I know that you think that multiple meanings are the root of confusion, and therefore want to deny them because you know that God's book is not confusing, however this is your limited view of language. The Quran will not be clear for everyone. It will only be clear for those who use their minds and pick the best meanings available. The Quran is clear on who its messages are for. The Quran admits itself that it misguides the wrong-hearted and leads right the righteous. Take the words of any truthful person, like farrakhan for instance. He speaks alot of truth but those who are sick in the heart just look at it as fuel for their venemous fire, they see an insult instead of the truth, they twist his words, they see the ambiguity of a parable and say "Look, he can't even speak clearly." So to those whose hearts are bent on evil, they don't see the truth because they don't want to, they only see ambiguity because that is what they want to see. Once they see this ambiguity they take it, leave the rest, and say "you see, I told you . . .'
So please take into consideration that as, with every language, the compositon willingly subjects itself to the rules of the human language that it uses. God is quite capable of handling the ambiguities in the English language just as much as in Cl. Arabic. He knew what he was doing when he picked a language that plays on metaphor and whose words can have more than 5 different meanings at one time or depending on the context. He sent his book to us to open up our minds, not to appease to the simple, basic levels of humanity when it is not moulded mentally. I have learned so much studying classical Arabic, thinking on what these passages can be saying, when its words can mean 5 different things, learning the differnce between Modern and Ancient Arabics, learning how there are meanings to these words that sometimes even educated modern Arabs don't know, learning that these words can have meanings embedded in their grammatical structure that the traditional (usually Islamic) field of Arabic linguistics has forgotten about.
I have become very conscious of my own language in the process and just through studying this language, because of the Quran, and its relation to the Quran, I have come to see things that I know most people don't see. I try to show these things to you guys through my posts, but we can only know about what we've been exposed to. And I can't always find the magical words to open my mind up to you guys. Personally, Kyle I wish we would have had more time to study with each other, and I wish you would have taken some of my advice on books to read and refer to. Arabic dictionaries and lexicions available to you at Temple and University of Penn Libraries. I was kind of upset that when I told you all of my thoughts and conclusions in person you just said 'Yup, unh-hunh,' and passively agreed with me, only to openly disagree with me on these forums. That is where some of that anger came from as we continued to exchange of the forum but didn't meet anymore.
I know to most of you all this linguistic stuff is intimidating and maybe I am at an advantage because I have a niche and more so a love for these sort of things. I can get through the tough jargon to understand what they really mean when they say stuff like 'causitive form of a noun' informational noun, etc. etc. etc. But I have only been trying to help you guys understand these things as they really are without the fancy words so that you guys can better your understandings.
Last time I left off with you, Kyle, you were doubthing the intentions of the authors of those dictionaries and lexicons, as it concerned the pure Classical Arabic that I often referred to. Mainly because you often came accross Islamic meanings of words when you searched these dictionaries. But at the root of the issue their are some simple observations
- Dictionaries try to show you all of the meanings of words that have been used by the speakers/users of a certain language (in this case Cl. Arabic).
- Dictionaries are limited to the amount of material that has been made available to the author. So some dictionaries can be better than others.
- Meanings of words that can be traced back to an originator or event that happened after the Quran should not be read into the Quran even though those meanings are valid in the Cl. Arabic spoken after the orignator of that meaning or the event that originated that meaning. Obvious post-Quranic meanings are meanings that originated from the later field of Islamic theology. I like to call the Cl. Arabic of this age, which is still used in Islamic circles, Islamic Classical Arabic.
- Conversely, meanings that cannot be connected to events or originators after the Quran, and that there is an obvious possibility that people could have used these meanings before the Quran, can be read into the Quran. (this is a principle based off of the logic of innocent until proven guilty. there is no reason to believe that these meanings were invented after the Quran, if the ideas that they communicate could have been communicated by a pre-Koranic Arab, Christian, Jew, Pagan, idiot or genius.)
- Setting up the Quran as a book whose ideas are inscrutinzeable and relying on accepted interpretations without subjecting these interpretations(but more importantly these passages) to logical and linguistic is the wrong approach.
- Just because a Classical Arabic dictionary obviously has post-Quranic Islamic meanings does not mean that that dictionary is incorrect or corrupted.
It just means that it is covering a wider era than what we desire when trying to understand the words of the Quran. Therefore we have to employ some logic and discretion and sift through the words that are obviously tied to events, phenomena or people that came after the Quran.
When the Arabs recieved the Quran they were already supplied with certain tools which they were to use to validate the Quran, their language and their minds. Depending on how well they were acquainted with the use of these tools determines how well they understood what the Quran could be saying. (If they wanted to understand what it is saying) If you are not willing to scrutinize the Quran, or are not open to properly preparing yourself to do this, before you make conclusions about its passages, then you might as well just call it a day. You are only fooling yourself into thinking that you want God to increase your knowledge. That comment was to everyone.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace be upon you Anwar,
All of this we have gone over time and time again. Classical Arabic this and that, but you are not driving anything home for me personally. Your conclusions dont hit home with me and allow me to practice them in everyday life.
I was kind of upset that when I told you all of my thoughts and conclusions in person you just said 'Yup, unh-hunh,' and passively agreed with me, only to openly disagree with me on these forums.
Anwar, we disagreed for a very long time before we even met. We agreed to meet and we came to a common agreement that ended up with us giving a talk at Masjidullah, which only two people came to by accident.
It was more important to me to put my disagreements aside and try to enlighten my community with the points we agreed upon, rather than continue to argue the points we dont agree upon.
That is where some of that anger came from as we continued to exchange of the forum but didn't meet anymore.
Your inabiliy to control your temper and arrogance has been the problem all along. That is opposite to the message of the God. But even with that said, there is no animosity from my side because my practice is to purify my NAFS from emotions and reduce them back to the servants they are suppossed to be. I live in walking distance from you for about a year now, about 6 or 7 blocks down Germantown Ave. We can still link up but I dont want to be beat upside the head with classical arabic theories that I had disagreed with for years now. What you can do to convince me is to put it all together, take what you say is in your mind and bring it home to everyday life. What is your understanidng of "jinn"? What is your understanding of "malaika"? I already disagree with your articles on salaat and hajj, unless they have changed.
Du'aa in Classical Arabic, which is the language that God chose to reveal the Quran in, means 'crying out, calling out to or calling on.' It doesn't mean prayer.
I cant understand your reasoning. If I say in my mind "O God, please help me understand the salaat issue", is that not calling out to God?
-
Salaam progod
I have question I want to ask. What do you think of the word bond being used to translate salaat? What are your suggestions?
To Kyle and to all,
Lastly, salaat is not described as prayer in this reading, the word Du'a is prayer, so this whole atempt to tie it into prayer has no foundation.
Neither the word Du'aa or the word Salaat are explained in the Quran. The Quran is not a dictionary. Du'aa in Classical Arabic, which is the language that God chose to reveal the Quran in, means 'crying out, calling out to or calling on.' It doesn't mean prayer. Prayer, is included in the meanings of Salaat and ibtihaal. When you pray you call on God but when you call on God you are not necessarily praying. I think that you've let the fact that in English we only used one word to display both concepts steer your wrong, in additon to doubting the meanings presented dictionaries, without good reason, and thinking that a self-explanatory Quran means that the Quran explains the Classical Arabic words that it uses, instead of that it explains in detail the messages that it communicates to us. You cannot undersand the meanings of the words of the Quran through the Quran, the Arabs of Muhammad's day didn't do it that way, and they didn't do it this way naturally because the Quran didn't come down to explain the Arabic language it came down to explains its messages.
Furthermore if you think that contextual clues have led you to this belief(and remember that you have denied that the Quran's Cl. Arabic words can be undestood by Classical Arabic speakers, because they are not the Quran) then understand that firstly you are using the dictionaries to understand the words surrounding dua to try to guess at its meanings. If you already understand this and I"m sure you do take into consideration that you are also guessing the meaning of the word, know that guessing in context is not a method to accurately understand words, but to generally understand them, given that the context is detailed enough. I think I've talked with you enough on this issue. Just please understand that your contextual analysis is guesswork and biased becuase from the beginning you have had a bias against 'prayer' and didn't want 'prayer' to be as an important and numerously mentioned topic as it is in the Quran.
However, had you taken into consideration the other meanings available for this word in addition to prayer (which I did not make up, but which you were unwiling to research and look up for yourself to prove to you that I was not fabricating these meanings and to calm your doubtful heart) you have meanings such as 'blessings (think about what a blessings really are.), commendation, oratory, adherence and other meanings that I have mentioned to you before. I know that you think that multiple meanings are the root of confusion, and therefore want to deny them because you know that God's book is not confusing, however this is your limited view of language. The Quran will not be clear for everyone. It will only be clear for those who use their minds and pick the best meanings available. The Quran is clear on who its messages are for. The Quran admits itself that it misguides the wrong-hearted and leads right the righteous. Take the words of any truthful person, like farrakhan for instance. He speaks alot of truth but those who are sick in the heart just look at it as fuel for their venemous fire, they see an insult instead of the truth, they twist his words, they see the ambiguity of a parable and say "Look, he can't even speak clearly." So to those whose hearts are bent on evil, they don't see the truth because they don't want to, they only see ambiguity because that is what they want to see. Once they see this ambiguity they take it, leave the rest, and say "you see, I told you . . .'
So please take into consideration that as, with every language, the compositon willingly subjects itself to the rules of the human language that it uses. God is quite capable of handling the ambiguities in the English language just as much as in Cl. Arabic. He knew what he was doing when he picked a language that plays on metaphor and whose words can have more than 5 different meanings at one time or depending on the context. He sent his book to us to open up our minds, not to appease to the simple, basic levels of humanity when it is not moulded mentally. I have learned so much studying classical Arabic, thinking on what these passages can be saying, when its words can mean 5 different things, learning the differnce between Modern and Ancient Arabics, learning how there are meanings to these words that sometimes even educated modern Arabs don't know, learning that these words can have meanings embedded in their grammatical structure that the traditional (usually Islamic) field of Arabic linguistics has forgotten about.
I have become very conscious of my own language in the process and just through studying this language, because of the Quran, and its relation to the Quran, I have come to see things that I know most people don't see. I try to show these things to you guys through my posts, but we can only know about what we've been exposed to. And I can't always find the magical words to open my mind up to you guys. Personally, Kyle I wish we would have had more time to study with each other, and I wish you would have taken some of my advice on books to read and refer to. Arabic dictionaries and lexicions available to you at Temple and University of Penn Libraries. I was kind of upset that when I told you all of my thoughts and conclusions in person you just said 'Yup, unh-hunh,' and passively agreed with me, only to openly disagree with me on these forums. That is where some of that anger came from as we continued to exchange of the forum but didn't meet anymore.
I know to most of you all this linguistic stuff is intimidating and maybe I am at an advantage because I have a niche and more so a love for these sort of things. I can get through the tough jargon to understand what they really mean when they say stuff like 'causitive form of a noun' informational noun, etc. etc. etc. But I have only been trying to help you guys understand these things as they really are without the fancy words so that you guys can better your understandings.
Last time I left off with you, Kyle, you were doubthing the intentions of the authors of those dictionaries and lexicons, as it concerned the pure Classical Arabic that I often referred to. Mainly because you often came accross Islamic meanings of words when you searched these dictionaries. But at the root of the issue their are some simple observations
- Dictionaries try to show you all of the meanings of words that have been used by the speakers/users of a certain language (in this case Cl. Arabic).
- Dictionaries are limited to the amount of material that has been made available to the author. So some dictionaries can be better than others.
- Meanings of words that can be traced back to an originator or event that happened after the Quran should not be read into the Quran even though those meanings are valid in the Cl. Arabic spoken after the orignator of that meaning or the event that originated that meaning. Obvious post-Quranic meanings are meanings that originated from the later field of Islamic theology. I like to call the Cl. Arabic of this age, which is still used in Islamic circles, Islamic Classical Arabic.
- Conversely, meanings that cannot be connected to events or originators after the Quran, and that there is an obvious possibility that people could have used these meanings before the Quran, can be read into the Quran. (this is a principle based off of the logic of innocent until proven guilty. there is no reason to believe that these meanings were invented after the Quran, if the ideas that they communicate could have been communicated by a pre-Koranic Arab, Christian, Jew, Pagan, idiot or genius.)
- Setting up the Quran as a book whose ideas are inscrutinzeable and relying on accepted interpretations without subjecting these interpretations(but more importantly these passages) to logical and linguistic is the wrong approach.
- Just because a Classical Arabic dictionary obviously has post-Quranic Islamic meanings does not mean that that dictionary is incorrect or corrupted.
It just means that it is covering a wider era than what we desire when trying to understand the words of the Quran. Therefore we have to employ some logic and discretion and sift through the words that are obviously tied to events, phenomena or people that came after the Quran.
When the Arabs recieved the Quran they were already supplied with certain tools which they were to use to validate the Quran, their language and their minds. Depending on how well they were acquainted with the use of these tools determines how well they understood what the Quran could be saying. (If they wanted to understand what it is saying) If you are not willing to scrutinize the Quran, or are not open to properly preparing yourself to do this, before you make conclusions about its passages, then you might as well just call it a day. You are only fooling yourself into thinking that you want God to increase your knowledge. That comment was to everyone.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Idol Free,
My temper, maybe. My arrogance, no. I can pretty much gist from your post that becaue you think that Classical Arabic is too theoretical and Academic for you that it can't apply to your daily life. We gone over this alot as you've said and Classical Arabic is the only way to understand the Quran to make it apply to your life. Pulling words out and ingoring their real meanings and then guessing at the context is not knowledge, whether what you end up with applies to your life or not.
I cant understand your reasoning. If I say in my mind "O God, please help me understand the salaat issue", is that not calling out to God?
Exactly it is calling out. I never said that it wasn't. What I said is that Salat specifically is setting aside time to stop all things and focus on God. You call out on him, talk to him or just think on him that is fine. But it is the dedication of your meditating to God, or the combination of your meditation and your calling out to God, stopping all other activities that is Salat (alteast one of the meanings).
Calling out to God is just that. You can do that at anytime you don't have to stop any activity to concentrate on this. Calling out to God, while your doiing a test, while you are on the battle field, playing a chess game, or in prayer, that is du'aa.
But prayer is the combination of meditation and calling out to God, or just medition on God. You might not call him at all, you might just think of him in the third person and praise him. But this meditation on God is what is Salat, and what make it distinct from 'du'aa'.
As for my thoeries. Let me say this. I have been studying Arabic for a long time. And to you it may seem that I'm pulling this stuff out of my backside, but I'm not. I guess you can't see what I've seen because you haven't dedicated yourself to the same studies. So you look at me and think that we are on the same level Arabic wise, but that is not the case. I know that all the study that I have done is not in vain. And even though you may look at the Arabic and see those fat-has and kasras and not think much this is a language that God chose to write his book in. Not studying it, analyzing it and respecting it would be throwing knowledge of God's book away just because it is in foreign language that doesn't mean anything to me personally.
You may disagree with me on Hajj. But remember that you took one possible meaning, discarded the others with no good reason and made debate, which is not helpful in and of itself, a virtue. Debate leads to continuous argument and believe me continuous argument can go on forever. A pilgrimage leads to the strenghtening of a community and provides a common-ground where it can become organized and goal oriented, while sharing the experience of honoring each other, honoring God and eating together in peace and for God. That is the holiness of pilgrimage. The Koran promotes that through its Arabic and that archaic sense of visiting some shrine is what the Quran revamped, and those who use their good sense, logic and think about this books message to all mankind can see this. You may not know what I'm talking about because you haven't analyzed the Arabic. But that is what all my "theories" as you call them have been for you give you the tools to do the same thing I have. Not having the tools is one thing but denying just because you don't have the tools and not pursuing the tools is another.
I have studied Arabic and continue to study it to open up myself to all that the Quran can actually be saying and not to make up things. Everything that I have said here about Arabic is based on real grammar, its based on the real language. Maybe you can't appreciate it but don't reduce my observations to meaningless "theories."
I don't live blocks away from you anymore. I am in California, continuing my pursuit to master Arabic and to be able to present my theories to the world but with knowledge backing me up. Not guesswork. So people won't just tell me that all that I've been saying are theories and so I won't be subject to doubt those who know, only because I don't know.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam Arnold
You have mentioned that your Arabic is not good enough to participate in this discussion
?So only the arabic of the Quran can be proof. So this has to be the main focus. My arabic is not good enough to really participate in that discussion.?
To tell you the truth Arnold you do not need to know Arabic to resolve this heated debate. It is so clear in the Qur?aan that 5 Salaat are in there. This subject matter does not take an Arabic scholar. All you have to do is remove the spiritual blinders from your eyes and then you will see.
Arnold again
June 21, 2006, 091215 PM
?Oh yeah, you say that the 5 pillars were also known with the Nubians. Yes, they had pilgrimage, prayer, fasting, tawheed. If they had zakaat i couldn't get from your article.?My rebuttal was not designed to go in depth of the Nubian History. What I was illustrating was that they did not perform 3 Salaat and that the presence of Islaam was in Africa during ancient times, which is a history that definitely predates your hadiyth.
You have said this
?You just have some to be visible traced references to some rituals, but we lack the information if there was more.?
Arnold where did you get this ?WE? from? It is you who lacks knowledge of African History, this stuff have been thoroughly documented. The whole history of ancient Africa could not be contained in my rebuttal to A. Muhammad and again that was not its purpose. The purpose of my article was to destroy the false arguments by him and many others who stand on the ?3 Salaat Theory?. But this again does not surprise me coming from a guy like your self. I did not forget that one thread where you have said the Nubians could not build the pyramids because they were to advance and the technology must of have came from some other people. No_shirk was right on point. When you got called to task or put on the spot light, thus you made a foolish attempted to say, yes it came from Africans but the one?s before the Nubians. This right here did not make any sense what so ever because they (who you identified as the one?s before Nubians) were Nubians, they were the same race, they are genetically the same race. Now if we take your theory and if the Nubians received such information from others before them, then it would lead more credence of the Nubians to have built the pyramids because they have taken the knowledge of the one?s before and would have built upon that knowledge to expand it or advance it. But the truth of the matter is they (the Nubians) built the pyramids. There are 100 pyramids in Sudan (originally called Nubia) and there are 80 pyramids in the country called today Egypt. The pyramids in Sudan are older then the one?s in Egypt and many scholars say that they were the forerunners to the pyramids in Egypt. We can see how the Nubians who migrated to the territory we call Egypt today and advanced the technology of the pyramids there (in Egypt) in that location compared to the one?s in Sudan. But, just like the members of the dominant group who always try to displace that advance technology out of the hands of the poor Africans and give it to some one else, thus you have attempted the same feat but to cover the obvious racism, you shuffled and said that they got the technology from some one else but they are Black to. Like they are a different race of Blacks or something. Arnold if this is true they were the same RACE. The ancient people who ruled Sudan and Egypt was of the same racial stock, in other words they were the same race and in actuality it was considered one territory. Enough on that point.
In regards to what you said about Zakaat and the Nubians Zakaat is helping the Poor, the needy, your relatives, your friends etc. If you do not think the Nubians of antiquity done that, then you need to research more.
You have attempted to advance some conjecture on the 5 Pillars of Faith. I have always said its fine to use the 5 Pillars of Faith to explain Islaam in a nutshell. You need to look up the word ?nutshell?, it is a word that does not possess the meaning of explicit detail. All conversations in Islaam do not call for the level of dialogue to address Islaam in explicit details and using the 5 Pillars Of Faith to address Islaam in a nutshell is perfectly fine. Now if you feel that it?s not a good idea then that?s fine but that is only your opinion because you still have not proven in Qur?aan (chapter and verse) that it?s a violation of Qur?aan to explain Islaam in a nutshell using the 5 Pillars Of Faith. So we have to dismiss your dogmatic view as an opinion. We do not follow dogmatic opinions and views of no body. Arnold if I would made the claim that the 5 Pillars Of Faith explains Islaam in complete details then and only then you will have an argument.
Arnold you have said this
Arnold notice that you have said on June 22, 2006, 010514 PM
?So to keep professing the 5 pillars (the most important subjects of Islam) as Quranic is wrong?
I want to highlight your statement here
?(the most important subjects of Islam)?
This right there never was my claim, again you are arguing issues, subject matters that I have not addressed nor claimed.
In my absence no_shirk has done a good job of demonstrating how you are creating points and arguing those points that I have NOT addressed and argued them as though you have proved me wrong. We all know what this is called. I challenge you Arnold to prove where I have said in this thread the 5 Pillars Of Faith are-?(the most important subjects of Islam)?. I never claimed that the 5 Pillars Of Faith are the most important subject of Islaam and I never claimed that the 5 Pillars Of Faith explains Islaam in its totality or in explicit details. You guys can?t even debate the 5 or 3 Salaat subject properly nor prove your claim of Allah authorizing 3 Salaat in the Qur?aan, so you guys have to babble and mesmerize the people to create an illusion that you so-called Muslims are defending your sectarian belief of the ?3 Salaat Theory? in Al Qur?aan.
Arnold you have said the following
June 21, 2006, 083331 PM
?In reality, from historical point of view, there is no proof it was 5 in Muhammed's time as several sources show they performed 3, and then suddenly it was changed into 5.?Arnold if you believe in that you must believe the tooth fairy is real.
In closing because I don?t want to waste too much time with you here. This is what Allah says about your hadiyth that you attempted to use to leave the door cracked for belief in 3 Salaat
Qur?aan 7750
Which hadiyth, other than this, do you believe?Qur?aan 456
These are Allah?s revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadiyth other than Allah and His revelations do they believe?All history, historical data, evidence from the Qur?aan demonstrate that there was 5 Salaat practiced by Muhammad and all Muslims during his era.
Salaam
-
Salaam progod
You have said this
?Proximity and approaches mean that something is close to something else. This part clarifies the two edges of daylight. So that the prayer times are the two edges of daylight (sundown and sunrise) and those parts of the night that are close to these two. That means the part of the night before the light of dawn and the part of the night right after the light of dusk disappears. This part of the sentence expounds on these 2 prayer times which are at the two edges of daylight(dawn and dusk).?
I would like to provide an excerpt from Basma Khalifa when she debated Omar Edibat on Salaat
?The second key expression is the use of "zulafan mina allayl" or "during the night". You based your conclusion on a very wrong grammatical basis. The word "Zulafan" is a simple plural form of the word "Zulafah" which means "part". No proximity, closeness or nearness is involved hear. You are mistaken with another word that has the same Arabic letters but pronounced different. This word is "Zulfa" with no "a" after the "L" and it means near and cannot, by any mean, have a plural form. Please check the Arabic and examine how God's perfect word is written and how its "Tashkeel" or" vowel indication" is clear.
You can see that some of the other translators, have combined "near" and "parts" in their translation of that verse, others used the word approaches and the rest have failed to translate the real meaning of the word. This is all because of their ignorance of the real meaning of the word "Zulafan" and the mix up with the other word that means "near".
The third key word is the preposition" Mina" or "of the". If we translate word by word, "Zulafan mina allayl" would be "parts of the night". Again no proximity or closeness is involved here. The contact prayer we are commanded to observe is falling in any part of the night and is mentioned by name as a single contact prayer " Salat al Ashaa" in 2458. No confusion, no meditation or supplication. It's one, single contact prayer to be observed at any part of the night.
It's also important to notice the use of the word "Al layl" in 11114 and "Al -eshaa" in 2458 which are definitely indicating to dark points of the night, which is very important to differentiate between the night prayer and the sunset prayer that is observed at the early stages of the night.
As you can see, word by word translation by saying "and at parts of the night" doesn't sound as clear and as beautiful as "during the night"
The complete debate can be analyzed here
http//www.freewebs.com/suprememathematics/omarbasmadebate.htm
Salaam
Soul2Squeeze,
and at the approaches of the night
Read this part as 'including the promixities of the night"
Proximity and approaches mean that something is close to something else. This part clarifies the two edges of daylight. So that the prayer times are
the two edges of daylight (sundown and sunrise) and those parts of the night that are close to these two. That means the part of the night before the light of dawn and the part of the night right after the light of dusk disappears. This part of the sentence expounds on these 2 prayer times which are at the two edges of daylight(dawn and dusk).Secondly 20130 when it says 'before the rising of he sun and the setting of the sun', before or 'qabl' in Arabic like in English can mean 'In front of, or in the presence of' So 'while in the presence of the rising and setting sun' we are to glorify God. This does not say pray, this says 'glorify' God, but because of other passages that mention the word Salat (praying, ibtihaal also means prayer and is mentioned in the Quran) and these passsages connect Salat to these times there is no conflict because of course we will be glorifying God at these times. As for what is said as 'hours of the night and sides of the day' that is a registered expression in Classical Arabic (anaa'alaili wa atraafanahaari) and it means 'all the time' like saying 'day and night' in English. Just anaa'alaili means 'all night long.' and this is because 'anaa'' means 'a span of time' so when you say 'anaa' the night it means 'the span of night' or 'all night long.' It is best to not try to make that passage mean a time for prayer, especially when it doesn't mention the word Salat there, says to 'glorifiy' and then uses words that if you were to take literally as you are trying to do (and at the same implying without good basis that glorifying = praying) then you might as well bow down and intend to never get up, because according to that verse you should be praying, knelt down 24 hours a day. With all due respect. muscle
Godbless handshake,
Anwar -
As Salaamu Alaykum Layth
You have quoted the following verse
Qur?aan 6116
If you obey the majority of people on the planet earth, they will divert you from the path of Allah. They follow only conjecture; they only guess.We have to be a little more practical in understanding this verse. You see in the real world there are many things that the majority do believe in that is truth. However, you are one of the Progressive Muslims who stands on the ?3 Salaat Theory?. If you quote that verse, it would have more impact if you would also back up your arguments and prove that 5 Salaat are wrong in the Qur?aan but simply quoting that verse is not enough. Us Muslims who follow Qur?aan ALONE use that verse a lot on the Sunni Muslims who follow hadiyth because they represent the majority but we just don?t quote that verse, we also prove it inside Al Qur?aan and example is below
Qur?aan 456
These are Allah?s revelations that We recite to you truthfully. In which hadiyth other than Allah and His revelations do they believe?Qur?aan 7750
Which hadiyth, other than this, do you believe?Qur?aan 316
Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless hadiyth, and thus divert others from the path of Allah without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution.But you on the other hand have overly translated those verses in English to where a Muslim will not be able to detect that Allah has condemned hadiyth by name in the Holy Qur?aan. The Progressive Muslims compromise this very important principal that we who follow Qur?aan ALONE stand upon through their watered down translations of Al Qur?aan.
Below are the Progressive Muslim?s water down translations
Qur?aan 456
These are God's revelations that We recite to you with truth. So, in which narration, after God and His revelations, do they believe?Qur?aan 7750
So in what words after it will they believe?Qur?aan 316
And from the people, there are those who accept baseless narrations to mislead from the path of God without knowledge, and they take it as entertainment. These will have a humiliating retribution.How can a Muslim who do not believe in hadiyth stand for this watered down translation where Progressive Muslims translate hadiyth as ?narrations? or ?words?. Could there be a Sunni or Ismaili plot behind this?
Salaam
-
As Salaamu Alaykum Idolfree1 or Kyle
After reading your post, you must have taken a 24 hour crash course in Black History. Your research is outdated and I see that you promote the same ideologies as the dominant group. We are trying to present accurate history of our Ancient ancestors that has been twisted/distorted by design from white so-called scholars/historians and I think it?s a shame to see you as a brother promote that same garbage that makes our people look like they were idol worshippers. One of the bigger problems other then white historians/scholars distorting clear facts are puppets like your self carrying out their biding. It is really hard for me to accept your claim in another thread of yours when you said that you knew these scholars that I have been highlighting. I have been checking out some of your threads and I notice that you provide quick responses that are infested with mysticism and talk around in circles that have no meaning nor lead to anything except an empty void of nothingness? The ancient Nubians were into right knowledge, mathematics, they were advanced scientist and at the same time they respected Allah?s creation and strived to be in tune with Allah and His creation, they did not tap into mysticism. That image was created by again the dominant group and their media, such as TV where they create documentaries and place the scary spooky music in the background etc. mesmerizing their viewers creating this distorted image that you cling to. I could not believe when you said this below, but then again I forgot that you are a Progressive Muslim and with that token just about anything can go just like the foolish belief of the 3 Salaat Theory
?Regarding Ankh Aton, he was one who did not understand the spiritual system and messed things up.?
You on the other hand got it backwards and you defy all the empirical evidence of the African scholars from which you claim to know, which I doubt it. The well documented FACTS are that Ankh Aton had all idols destroyed and restored the true worship of Allah (whom you call GOD http//www.freewebs.com/suprememathematics/allah.htm) who is One and Alone. I don?t think you critically read my rebuttal entitled, ?Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory?
http//www.freewebs.com/tawhiyd/3salaattheoryexposed.htm
Aknenaton (who is also referred to as Ankh Aton) described The Creator of all that exist as follows
God is great,The One,The Only. There is no other but He. He is the One, He is The Creator of all things. God is a Spirit, an invisible Spirit ? God has existed for all time, He is the sole Being. He existed when there was nothing else. He created all things ?
This concept of the Creator, Allah (before Prophet Muhammad) is perfectly described in the Holy Qur?aan because such Nuwr (Light) came from the same SOURCE (ALLAH). You have mentioned that Ra was not some sun-god and that is true, the Egyptians (Nubians) never worshiped the sun whom they called Ra. They knew that Ra was created by Allah who also created the entire universe. Ra (sun) is something physical, Ankh Aton knew that Allah was unseen, invisible, who has no beginning and is the Creator of all that existed. Ashra Kwesi has documented the fact that the Nubians (Egyptians) believed that the Creator was One, unseen, invisible, who created everything in existence in the following DVD that he produced, thus you should get a hold of them to update your knowledge of Black History
The Theft Of African History & Spiritual Concepts (Part 1 & 2)
http//gallery.bcentral.com/GID5142789P4666266-DVDs/The-Theft-of-African-History-Spiritual-Concepts-Part-I-DVD.aspxMetu Neter (falsely called Hieroglyphics) used a lot of symbolic (allegorical) language, just like Allah?s scriptures
Qur?aan 37
He revealed to you this scripture; some of its verses are decisive (literal)-consisting of straightforward verses, which are the essence of the scripture, as well as allegorical (symbolic) verses. So as for those in whose hearts is perversity, will pursue the allegorical verses to create confusion, and to seek different meanings. No one knows their true meaning except Allah and those who possess knowledge. They say, ?We believe in this, for it all comes from our Sustainer.? And none will grasp the message except men of clear understanding.Notice that Allah has said, ?So as for those in whose hearts is perversity, will pursue the allegorical verses to create confusion, and to seek different meanings.? Those people who have wicked intentions to tamper with Allah?s words seem to always want to tamper with the allegorical portions of the scriptures to deceive those who strive for truth and submit to Allah in Peace unconditionally. I notice that a lot of so-called scholars have purposely tampered with the allegorical portions of the Metu Neter to make us falsely believe that the Nubians were everything under the moon, except peaceful people in tune with the LAWS and ORDER of Allah and submitting to His will in Peace and worshipping the Creator alone.
Another verse
Qur?aan 226
Allah does not shy away from citing any kind of allegory, from the tiny mosquito and greater. Those who believed know that this is the truth from their Lord, while those who disbelieved say, ?What did Allah mean by such an allegory?? Many does He adjudge to be erring because of these (allegories) and many does He guide through them. Yet it is only the wicked whom He adjudges to be erring because of them,You said this
?I will check the info you gave on Anta Diop, I think I may have the book at home, but if not I can get it easily.?
Yes, keep checking because there is no evidence for 3 Salaat during the days of antiquity as well as in Al Qur?aan.
You have said this
?From the discussions though there does not seem to be any proof.?
Immediately this verse came to mind
Qur?aan 218
Deaf, dumb, and blind; they fail to return.You Idolfree1, also made this statement and that?s all it is, just a statement
?Salaat according to this reading is only two times, dawn and dusk. They are the times where day(consciousness) and night(subconsciousness) merge together. It is a highly symbolic message.?
Idolfree1, one thing we need to make clear is that what you have said up above is just a statement/opinion/belief, which is something different then FACT. It is fine Idolfree if that is all you want to do is make statements/opinions/beliefs as long as you understand that is all it is and that is all it will be because you cannot bring forth any evidence from the Qur?aan to prove your statement. An intelligent audience can see the difference. I have clearly proven that Qur?aan 11114 is referring to 3 Salaat which are
- Dawn (Fajr)
- Maghrib (sunset)
- Night (Isha)
The Progressive Muslim?s house is divided. You idolfree1 make the claim that there is only 2 Salaat here and Layth on the other hand can clearly see and recognize that there are 3 Salaat in Qur?aan 11114.
You have said this
?I went to your site and saw the 19 theory, so I could not read anymore. Respectfully.?
Your research techniques does not surprise me and it shows in your responses that you provide in the plethora of threads that you comment on. Any knowledgeable person who truly research reads all information even if they do not believe in it or disagree with it. How can you grow if your approach is one sided or limited? Personally I believe my rebuttal to A. Muhamad entitled, ?Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory? disturbed your sectarian belief that you are fighting tooth and nails to cling on to. When a superior form a knowledge comes on the scene that shatters a belief that one holds on to, they become disturbed, they feel insecure, they feel threaten, they don?t like it, but that EMOTION does nothing but mentally enslave us. Idolfree1, let go free your mind. We are supposed to seek knowledge from where ever it falls and except TRUTH and reject FALSEHOOD. I would not have been able to write my research if I would have used your pseudo research techniques and read part of A. Muhammad?s article to ascertain the truth. I had to dissect his entire article and also dissected other information that is falsely promoting this unfounded and baseless ?3 Salaat Theory?. And the people can see the difference.
You have said this
?Lastly, salaat is not described as prayer in this reading, the word Du'a is prayer, so this whole atempt to tie it into prayer has no foundation.?
This is typical coming from one who accepts the word ?bond? for the translation of ?Salaat?. When one translate Salaat as ?Prayer, Contact Prayer, Worship?, it does not posses the connotation of du?aa. And ?Prayer, Contact Prayer, Worship? is so much more, clearer for the reader then the mutilated Progressive Muslims millennium translation of ?bond? for Salaat. But this is just some of your babble to duck and dodge the real issue of Salaat that we have been debating over in this thread.
Salaam
Peace be upon you Al Khidr,
I forgot about this thread.
Regarding Ankh Aton, he was one who did not understand the spiritual system and messed things up. The Khamitans did not serve many Gods, there is only one God "Nebertcher" meaning "Lord of All". All other concepts where just ATTRIBUTES, just like this reading. For example, "RA" is not some sun God, it is the Solar Force which manifests in the human as the Life Force (Chi/Kundalini/Ruh). Ankh Aton tried to put all the attributes of "Nebertcher" under the worship of "RA".
I will check the info you gave on Anta Diop, I think I may have the book at home, but if not I can get it easily.
From the discussions though there does not seem to be any proof.
Salaat according to this reading is only two times, dawn and dusk. They are the times where day(consciousness) and night(subconsciousness) merge together. It is a highly symbolic message.
I went to your site and saw the 19 theory, so I could not read anymore. Respectfully.
Lastly, salaat is not described as prayer in this reading, the word Du'a is prayer, so this whole atempt to tie it into prayer has no foundation.
-
-
Dear Khidr,
It has been a long time since I last researched this. I argued the point that you showed me with Omar Edibat's post. To check his integrity I'm going to have to a look in the library. So it might be a little bit. Hopefully I'll get to you by monday after I do my research and double check. What he is saying about zulfa seems correct, as a prepostion. However, what he is saying about zulfatun and zulafun I doubt. The root zalafa means 'to approach, to advance towards or to go near.' I have that in the dictionary I have here. Zulfatun can be the information noun of zalafa, like ghurfat, ghuraf and gharafa.(in the Quran ghurfah, is a sip, and not a room). So let me have a look at that, but I'm sure Omar is wrong about this. I like your thoroughness and intellectual integrity. I could tell by your honest that your Karma wasn't going to be so good. I'm starting to get some negatives too. Who made up all that stuff anyway.
As for the Egypt subject, how did they get the idea that Ankh-Aton worshipped the sun then? Or did they use the sun to represent God, like in Bible God is called 'The father'? I like Black History talk, especially when it comes to Egypt and Nubia. But then there's always the question, that if they are not at the top anymore there had to be a fall in their adherence to the truth. I have a hunch about you. I think you are going to add something priceless to all this. And I know that its for a good reason that you called yourself Khidr. If you want to fill me in, PM me. I'd like to be filled in.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Salaam progod
Please help me understand more clearly what you meant here
"I like your thoroughness and intellectual integrity. I could tell by your honest that your Karma wasn't going to be so good. I'm starting to get some negatives too. Who made up all that stuff anyway."
I do not want to make any mistake and misinterpret what you are trying to express here especially about the karma part and how you are getting some negatives too?
Also when you said "who made up all that stuff anyway" are you talking about who made up the "3 Salaat" that some Progressive Muslims go by? If I may ask where do you stand on the 5 or 3 Salaat position?
Salaam
Dear Khidr,
It has been a long time since I last researched this. I argued the point that you showed me with Omar Edibat's post. To check his integrity I'm going to have to a look in the library. So it might be a little bit. Hopefully I'll get to you by monday after I do my research and double check. What he is saying about zulfa seems correct, as a prepostion. However, what he is saying about zulfatun and zulafun I doubt. The root zalafa means 'to approach, to advance towards or to go near.' I have that in the dictionary I have here. Zulfatun can be the information noun of zalafa, like ghurfat, ghuraf and gharafa.(in the Quran ghurfah, is a sip, and not a room). So let me have a look at that, but I'm sure Omar is wrong about this. I like your thoroughness and intellectual integrity. I could tell by your honest that your Karma wasn't going to be so good. I'm starting to get some negatives too. Who made up all that stuff anyway.
As for the Egypt subject, how did they get the idea that Ankh-Aton worshipped the sun then? Or did they use the sun to represent God, like in Bible God is called 'The father'? I like Black History talk, especially when it comes to Egypt and Nubia. But then there's always the question, that if they are not at the top anymore there had to be a fall in their adherence to the truth. I have a hunch about you. I think you are going to add something priceless to all this. And I know that its for a good reason that you called yourself Khidr. If you want to fill me in, PM me. I'd like to be filled in.
Godbless,
Anwar
