Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory
-
see Zainab, some people find my horse manure funny. P
Birds of a feather flock together ..
-
Salaam Arnold
I think you are obsessed or overly identiflying with brother Khidr because Arnold lets say that he made an human error and said 5 or 100 Salaat the point is there is no such thing of a 3 Salaat. The Nubians did not practice 3 Salaat. Like brother Khidr said 5, 7 Salaat is not 3. We see numbers higher than 3 and that history of the Nubians is before hadith history. Zainab said the 3 Salaat was floored and what I see is people like you still trying to keep the door cracked for 3. we all know the history of Islaam here and that history points to 5 Salaat not 3. you are taking this subject matter in circles we want the facts here 3 or 5 that is what a lot of people is looking for. I do not know what more you need to see becuase khidr rebuttal was thorough in covering 5 Salaat in Qur'aan
Peace,
-
Who 1believe in the Unknown and 2fulfil their devotional obligations(salaat), and 3spend in charity of what We have given them;
-
4Who believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed to those before you, and are 5certain of the Hereafter.
-
They have found the guidance of their Lord and will be successful.
-
Surely the believers and the Jews, Nazareans and the Sabians, 6whoever believes in God and the 7Last Day, and 8whosoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret.
Ok, now you give me the verses that show the sunni pillars are Islam in a nutshell, show me that those 5 are the bases of Islam, that those 5 things are a summary of 80% of the Quranic message......
Secondly, i only discussed the part of the article which i could discuss for now. I showed Islamic history, the EARLIEST sources, although unreliable as any historical source, talk about 3 times being before 5. And that the author he quoted on the Nubians only shows 4 things that are part of the sunni pillars, not 5. Also Khidr's comment on the Nubian salaat timing was wrong as they prayed 7 times. So all of these claims he can remove from his article. Only the arabic remains. All his 'side-proof' is wrong.
That was my only comment. You think i wanna disprove 5 times, which is wrong. I only commented on that the historical proofs he showed were wrong, nothing more. It was not my purpose to prove 3 at all. This is what you think, but if you read carefully, you see i only show his extra proof is wrong.
I'm not for or against 5 times, as i still need to see that discussion between Khidr and others. So you open your eyes. You filled it in yourself of what my purpose was. I'm awaiting the debate on the verses...
Peace
Peace,
You are obsessed with just answering. I clearly say i'm not against or for 5, or against or for 3. I still am awaiting the debate just like you. 7 is also not 5, so this is not proving anything in his article. And prostration can be seen everywhere on earth. So again for the 10th time, i destroyed his historical proof using his type of expression. Not to disprove 5, but that those arguments are useless. ONLY the arabic is left, which we are waiting for to see debated. So stop being so obsessed with answering blindly. Phoenix summed it up enough. Now let's await the debate.
-
-
peace Zainab,
what .. ?
-
Salaam Arnold
No you have not destroyed nothin. You said everyone around the world prostrated. Khidr did not say that the Nubians were only ones and he spoke on that in this thread. Brothere Khidr even highlighted how Ahmed in his DVD talked about how his people believed in Tawhiyd. This is how you are debating? You are going in circles and I can tell that you are a 3 salaat Muslim because you are saying things that don't make any since. Like the history, the history points to 5 Salaat not 3. The quran speaks of 5 salaat. You are debating issues or points that are not there. He floored the 3 Salaat and the majority of his arguments are in the Qur'an.
-
Peace,
Did i ever doubted tawheed? Tawheed is also found everywhere on earth. Doesn't proof 5 times. Everywhere on earth people prostrate, doesn't prove 5 times. Only the arabic verse can prove 5 times. Not history. You again keep babling about promoting 3. You just want to stay blind. If the debate turns out 5, it is 5. But his history proofs still will be wrong. You don't want to see ha? The 'historical proofs' don't prove 5 or 3. That is why they are useless for the debate. He himself started to give the historical proofs as evidence at the beginning of this thread. ONLY the Quranic proof in his article can be used for the argument.
-
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...
-
Salaam Layth,
It is plausible that it would occur around noon (when people are still trading), and hence they are told to leave the trading and carry-out the Salat. It would not support the 5 Salat time primarily because you would be hard pressed to find the verses that speak of the timings and then relate it to the Salat names/descriptiuons (i.e. the names and the timings should work together, not be independant of one another).
Thanks for the answer and yes, I agree with your last sentence.
So, history aside, I am left with either 2 or 3 times. If wustha is the one at sunset, and isha is in the evening, then I don't see a big problem whether 2 or 3 times. Because I used to start doing my salat during sunset until the evening (when it's totally dark). Do you think this is a kind of combining those 2 times (wustha and isha)?
=adley=
-
Salam all,
I think we should start by defining what SALAT is , and then estabilisht wheather two, three, five and even seven. I said this because brother Al Khidr in his rebuttal "Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory" translated Salat as prayer, which is contrary to what most/some of FM members believe.
Let's first define what it is and how is it to be done and then move to how many times and when. Maybe brotehr Al Khidr has some good arguments to believe that SALAT is prayer? Don't get me wrong I am not saying it is not.
I think once we define what it is and how it is to be done then we find out how many times a day or leave it to the muslims' to uphold as many salats as one wants. I know there is nowhere in Quran that one finds a verse that clearly says somethng like this "uphold three/five salats a day". And if the Quran is easy to remember and is not obscure then why it is so hard to find how many salats a day we are to uphold?
In the translation of the the message (56) Quran by PM God says O you who believe, if you rise to make the (SALAT) bond, then wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; Why did not God say RISE AND UPHOLD THE SALAT, but instead He said IF YOU RISE, leaving the possibility of not rising for I know for sure that sometimes we may fail to rise and especially the people of dessert back then did not have an alarm to wake them up at the desired time.
I don't speak Arabic and thus cannot verify wheather it was translated correclty and I believe it was. I hope someone versed well in Arabic can address this.God bless
FJ -
Peace FJ
I agree. First we must define SALAT definitively in regards to what we are to do during the times mentioned in the quran. I wish we could stay on track in this thread. It really is a very interesting debate and very much needed! It's frustrating to see it go off track so many times and so easily. I'm not pointing fingers at any one person in particular. I think it's a collective thing, but let's just try to keep the discussion going with one point at a time so as not to add confusion.
Peace all
-
Peace,
I myself believe salaat doesn't have one fixed meaning in the Quran, it is not a title. It depends on the context. Salaat also means following closely, as in following the Quran. It has multiple depths to it. So i agree that a verse like 1778 can be confusion as it looks like it's saying to keep the salaat from sun up to sun down. So does this mean to keep the contact/bond from sun up to sun down, or to follow the Quran and to imply it's laws from sun up to down? I believe it is the last. As for the idea of going off-topic. We are discussing his article here. So all of his article must be discussed. One part has been discussed now, and the debate on the arabic still hasn't started.
-
Peace Bro Arnold
So does this mean to keep the contact/bond from sun up to sun down, or to follow the Quran and to imply it's laws from sun up to down? I believe it is the last.
So far, this makes the most sense to me. Since the word Salat is in it's singular form, it would either mean the two choices you mentioned. Unless there is some way the singular can function as a plural as well -I'm not too sure, we'll have to investigate that further. But if in fact, salat is a singular form, your inference would sound more logical.
As for the idea of going off-topic. We are discussing his article here. So all of his article must be discussed. One part has been discussed now, and the debate on the arabic still hasn't started.
I agree. I don't think you or anyone else who mentioned the history in Bro Al Khidr's article was necessarily going off the topic of his article (i also discussed it in a post if i remember correctly). However, I guess being selfish, I would really love it if we stuck to the topic of Salat as per al-quran D
Looking forward to hearing more from you all about the verses in the quran
Peace all
-
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...
But Layth, the Nubians were BLACK! brickwall
peace
-
Salaam Arnold
You miss the point like always "The 'historical proofs' don't prove 5 or 3. That is why they are useless for the debate."
it was clear from Brother Al Khidr that he used that information to prove that Islaam was present there. People do not want to acknowledge that history. Read his rebuttal carefully it was to prove that Islaam existed back then in Africa. The world has denied Africa and what Africans have done. I remember u said the Nubians could not have built the pyramids then you were called on the spot light and you switched and said it was some Africans or something like that before them. The one's before them was the same race as the Nubians, they were the same genetic race. So Arnold i see you twisting facts and you are arguing things about Brother Khidr that don't exist. What the historical proofs have done was to remove the 3 Salaat, which it has. So if the history said 5 or 7 or10 or what ever it does not show 3.
Yes you are right Arnold it needs to be proven in the Qur'aan. You have highlighted that and Brother Al Khidr has done that remember the majority of his rebuttal was Qur'aan. Arnold what are you not seeing? What do you need to know for you to see 5 Salaat and not 3?
-
Salaam FJ
Do you like the new translation of bond for salaat?
-
Salaam Arnold
Salaam,
You miss the point like always "The 'historical proofs' don't prove 5 or 3. That is why they are useless for the debate."
it was clear from Brother Al Khidr that he used that information to prove that Islaam was present there. People do not want to acknowledge that history. Read his rebuttal carefully it was to prove that Islaam existed back then in Africa.
God says it excisted all around the world. Did he doubt the Quran then?
The world has denied Africa and what Africans have done.
Yes, and this one of the biggest crimes they are still contuining today, but this is seperate from the 5-times debate.
I remember u said the Nubians could not have built the pyramids then you were called on the spot light and you switched and said it was some Africans or something like that before them.
I wasn't called on the spot and i didn't switch. I said in my first post that they didn't build it, their ancestors did it. The sphinx is at least 10.000 years old. Also the pyramids show to be around that age. The Nubians were heirs of their ancestors. It is funny how you twist things in your mind. What did you think then what i meant? That white people build it? Read kiddo, read... The pyramids are to old to be build be the Nubians. So only their ancestors could have build them. And which colour did these ancestors have, it starts with a B....? And no it isn't blue....
The one's before them was the same race as the Nubians, they were the same genetic race.
Read.. This is what i said in my posts...Are you that blind?
So Arnold i see you twisting facts and you are arguing things about Brother Khidr that don't exist.
What am i twisting? I still don't get you...Proof my arguments are wrong instead of just say things like this...
What the historical proofs have done was to remove the 3 Salaat, which it has. So if the history said 5 or 7 or10 or what ever it does not show 3.
And again it is also not 5. 7 times is not 5. So the Nubians are no proof at all for the timings.
Yes you are right Arnold it needs to be proven in the Qur'aan. You have highlighted that and Brother Al Khidr has done that remember the majority of his rebuttal was Qur'aan. Arnold what are you not seeing? What do you need to know for you to see 5 Salaat and not 3?
I'm responsible for what i believe(1736). I need to see a good debate between the people about 5 or 3. You cannot 'demand' me believing something, just as i cannot demand it from you. But please, i don't want people to be annoyed that we keep babbling. So let's stop this. Let's respect other forum members, and myself am tired of this too.
-
Peace,
I just came across an excellent interpretation of aya 20130, posted by Sister Omeiza. By breaking down the arabic word TARAF, she has successfully proven that there are 3 times during the day that God is referring to in this specific verse. That would still leave room for the night salat and the salat before dawn.
Here is the link to her post.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5971.msg92259#msg92259
Peace All
-
Salaam FJ
Do you like the new translation of bond for salaat?
Since SALAT does not have one fixed meaning, which could be used in all the verses then I suggest to leave it as it is SALAT and provide a footnote of the meaning of the word. Most people today think that Salat is a prayer. Brother Wakas provided enough evidence that it does not mean a prayer. All those that tried to explain what it is (committment, prayer, learning-connection, oration) gave good evidence to prove what they claimed. Brother Damon in one of the threads said why can't it be all of them. This is what he said
Salaam all,
I know I had written somewhere on this forum a looooong time ago that I was quite satisfied with my understanding of Salaa' and I feel no need to discuss it any more.
Well......
We have many different understandings of salaa' based on mainly two things
1). Different backgrounds, dispositions and understandings of the believers.
2). The many different contexts in which the word salaa' is used in the qur'an.
It appears to me that there are Three dominant understandings/interpretations of salaa'....
1). Commitments
2). Prayer
3). Quran Session.
My question is...Why Not All Three??!!
All three are something that is done at anytime throughout one's day but can and should be done more intimately and with more discipline and focus at certain parts of the day.
There is more to this view of mine than I have time to express at this particular time because I am on the go. GOD Willing, I'll come back to this thread when I return home later this evening.
Salaam,
Damon.And, I like his idea.
God bless
FJ -
Peace ProGod
With all due respect, I think that idea is flawed. Here, in aya 11114 we notice there are three different times mentioned.
11114] And establish regular prayers at the two ends of the day and at the approaches of the night for those things that are good remove those that are evil be that the word of remembrance to those who remember (their Lord)
Read thru Bro Al Khidr's article, he breaks that aya down quite thoroughly.
So from this aya we can conclude that there are at least 3 salawat.
Sister Omeiza's post clarifies aya 20130, which brings the total to 3 salawat during the daytime hours + one at night according to aya 11114 + one at dawn according to aya 5249 (also mentioning the night one again).
Would anyone disagree with that? If so, why?
ThanksPeace All
