Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory
-
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 -
As Salaamu Alaykum to all
Wakas engaged in a debate with Zee and hlatif in another forum addressing this subject. This is another demonstration that proves when these Progressive Muslims step on the battle ground with someone who is intellectual, they crumble. In this debate, you will witness Wakas annhilation as he attempts to defend their sectarian belief of the "3 Salaat Theory". Below is the direct link. This thread consist of 3 pages
http//www.freewebs.com/tawhiyd/wakaszeehlatifdebate.htm
In this debate some of the common arguments the Progressive Muslims use were refuted and also a lot of people in this thread has raised some questions and if you go through this thread a lot of those questions were answered.
Wakas sits here in the Progressive Muslim forum and acts like this debate does not exist.
-
Wakas engaged in a debate with Zee and hlatif in another forum addressing this subject. This is another demonstration that proves when these Progressive Muslims step on the battle ground with someone who is intellectual, they crumble. In this debate, you will witness Wakas annhilation as he attempts to defend their sectarian belief of the "3 Salaat Theory". Below is the direct link. This thread consist of 3 pages
http//www.muslimwakeup.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4180
In this debate some of the common arguments the Progressive Muslims use were refuted and also a lot of people in this thread has raised some questions and if you go through this thread a lot of those questions were answered.
Al Khidr,
Firstly, I have never called myself, as far as I'm aware, a "Progressive Muslim" (in fact, I dont even like the term). Please provide evidence if you speak the truth.
Secondly, you have an interesting interpretation of the word "annhilation". Wrong, but interesting. Hate to break it to you, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone who reads the referenced link and thinks I got "annhilated". On the contrary, at best, it ended in a stalemate. Allow me to quote brother Hussein, whom I was debating with (my comment in blue) and bolded to add emphasis
They are both assumptions (i.e. his view & my view). You cannot deligitimize the one that you do not accept, nor claim that one less likely. You do not have the proofs nor the tools that allow you that. You also were not with the prophet to be so sure. You can prefer your understanding and that is legitimate, but it is inappropriate to put down another opinion just because it does not meet your understanding.
Wakas sits here in the Progressive Muslim forum and acts like this debate does not exist.
I was unaware members had to reference all other discussions they had in other forums. I dont mind it being referenced, in fact it has some good info in it which would be helpful for others. I would also recommend forum members to read it so they can see your level of judgement by using "annhilated". I believe this will serve as a reminder for the future.
What I disliked however, was your baseless personal remarks about me. Such remarks will not be tolerated.
Consider this an informal reminder of the rules/etiquette of the forum.
Wakas
-
Salaam Wakas
Thats a new one, I always that you were a memeber of the Progress Muslim since you are a moderator, but I see that you are not.
You have said this
"What I disliked however, was your baseless personal remarks about me. Such remarks will not be tolerated.
Consider this an informal reminder of the rules/etiquette of the forum."
personally Wakas you have wasted your time here, I can care less about your informal reminder. Another thing when you said the debate ended in stalemate that is something that you conjured up. Anybody who has examine that debate can clearly see that hlatif intellectually refuted all your arguments or to be frank in the battle field you faced annhilation using those old Progressive Muslim arguments. There was no stalemate.
Salaam
-
Peace upon all,
I have been watching this 'debate' quit some time. And still i haven't seen convincing thoughts on both sides. As the debate on 1778 is a bit useless, as it says to salaat from sun up to sun down, it doesn't matter if you believe it is from the zenith or to the going down of the sun beyond the horizon, as it is not logical it refers to prayer, as it directly says to salaat all that time, so it can't refer to 3 times as it doesn't distuingish 3 times, but says do salaatd between sun up to sun down without any stops between, it says to salaat between those sun points without any stops. So to believe this verse refers to contact-prayer is in my eyes not logical. One important meaning of salaat is ignorant with these debates, that salaat also means 'following closely' as in following the Quran, which by itself says following the laws of the Quran=estabilish the laws in your surroundings.
When we approach this use of salaat in 1778 it becomes more logical, as it then clearly says that we must follow the Quran/create the Divine system from sun up to sun down constantly. But this is my view, it is of course gonna be ridiculed, and we know by who .
Al-Khidr, i read your article this afternoon and i saw you still haven't corrected your mistake which arnoldyasin pointed out for you, about the 7 times of the nubians. You said that they performed 7 and 2 were optional, which is wrong as the author clearly doesn't say this at all. He says that the nubians performed 7 times, and the followers of muhammed performed 5 with 2 extra optional. So to say the nubians prayed 7 with 2 optional is wrong. I recommend you correct this
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6028.msg93214#msg93214
Also the 5 pillars is in my eyes a non-quranic label, and so to say this islam is a nutshell is wrong, as the most important part of the message of the quran, which is to defend human-rights should be after the shahada, this is why i believe the 5 pillars are a wrong label of islam in a nutshell.
As for youre articles Al-khidr, even though you have a good approach to it all. Your personal attacks to people show your are not a mature person. I don't say you have to be nice and send them flowers in your debate, but you go to the other extreme and judge people fake muslim and what all, while only God may do that. Your points would be taken much more serious if you learn to keep the personal comments out of your discussions. This is not professional, and it is non-quranic behaviour, as it resembles arrogance, even though this was not your purpose. The debate on the other forum you showed with wakas, had one interresting comment which indeed was your articles in a 'nutshell'
Salaam all,
Since I am not a Qur'an aloner, I did not feel a need to read the article. However, since you asked I read it. I would say that his strongest point is how he understood "Lidulooki Ashamsi Ila Ghasaqi Allayli" as the period of time between noon and night rather than specific time of prayer. I agree wholeheartedly with that understanding. However, there are several weaknesses in the article, at least to my taste
1- He attacks his opponents and not their ideas.
2- He ridicules others including Sunnis and what so ever.
3- He jumps around a lot. It would have been more helpful to move on in a logical manner rather than stopping every now and then and responding to the others. He could have written an article that is well circumscribed and then ended with a rebuttal to the other opinions.
4- While claiming to be Qur'an aloner, he jumped to code 19 as his proof. However, the code 19 has certain disputes about it.
5- While claiming to be a refuser of the hadeeth because they are "corrupted", he jumps and brings evidence from the Nubian culture. Now, this evidence has to be sketchy at best and with many conclusions that may not be supported by facts of archeological finds and so forth. I find this stance very hypocritical. If one wants to talk Qur'an alone, then they should leave out all things that are outside the Qur'an, including the Nubians.
6- Other Qur'an aloners will still have linguistic tools to rebut him, and in this lies the biggest problem of the Qur'an alone movement, you nearly cannot prove nor disprove a lot, especially when it comes to Salat.Take care and have a great day
Hussein
I recommend you to keep the personal comments out of your debates, as this is not about your feelings. The truth doesn't need your personal comments. I hope in time you will learn that.
Peace to all
-
As Salaamu Alaykum
You have said this
?So to believe this verse refers to contact-prayer is in my eyes not logical. One important meaning of salaat is ignorant with these debates, that salaat also means 'following closely' as in following the Quran, which by itself says following the laws of the Quran=estabilish the laws in your surroundings.?
You said, ?Salaat also means ?following closely? as in following the Qur?an, which by itself says following the laws of the Qur?an=establish the laws in your surroundings?. That?s fine if you want to bring that up, but I was addressing the common meaning and practice of Salaat, like praying 5 times a day, reciting the Faatihah etc.
You have said this
?Al-Khidr, i read your article this afternoon and i saw you still haven't corrected your mistake which arnoldyasin pointed out for you, about the 7 times of the nubians.?
I?m glad you brought that up. For your understanding, I am want to cross reference some other resources and when I make a major revision, thus I will know how to address that issue. But one thing is a fact 5 or 7 Salaat is definitely not 3.
You have said this
?When we approach this use of salaat in 1778 it becomes more logical, as it then clearly says that we must follow the Quran/create the Divine system from sun up to sun down constantly. But this is my view, it is of course gonna be ridiculed, and we know by who?
If I am not mistaken it sounds like you are saying that this verse 1778 means to follow Qur?aan/create the Divine system from sun up to sun down constantly. I want to know where are you getting this part from ?to follow Qur?aan?? I would like to leave you with this link addressing 1778 and more
http//www.freewebs.com/suprememathematics/grabbingforstraws.htm
Also the debate that Wakas had on 1778 with Zee and hlatif clearly proved that it represented the ranges of Salaat that I highlighted in that link
We have another die hard
?Also the 5 pillars is in my eyes a non-quranic label, and so to say this islam is a nutshell is wrong, as the most important part of the message of the quran, which is to defend human-rights should be after the shahada, this is why i believe the 5 pillars are a wrong label of islam in a nutshell.?
What you are presenting here are your opinions and that is cool and I have no problems with that but until you can provide a verse from Al Qur?aan to prove that using the 5 Pillars Of Faith to explain Islaam in a nutshell is a violation of Al Qur?aan, then you do not have an argument to stand on. You just have your opinion and every one is entitled to their opinion. However I?m not really moved by dogmatic opinions that stem from sectarian notions.
Your opinion again about my approach is only your opinion. However there are many who have rallied and supported my strong stand against falsehood. I call a spade a spade and can back it up and I can careless if you like it or not. Some may use that ask the smoke screen. But again you may not like it but the real question is can you refute my arguments in my article, that the real question.
One of the quotes that you highlighted in your post, which I?m sure you stand by
?While claiming to be a refuser of the hadeeth because they are "corrupted", he jumps and brings evidence from the Nubian culture. Now, this evidence has to be sketchy at best and with many conclusions that may not be supported by facts of archeological finds and so forth. I find this stance very hypocritical. If one wants to talk Qur'an alone, then they should leave out all things that are outside the Qur'an, including the Nubians.?
Another thing I do not know why the proponents of hadiyth always insinuate that a person who follow Qur?aan alone should not read and examine information out side the Qur?aan such as the Nubian History and more. That right there does not make any sense. We will never limit our growth to knowledge to only reading Al Qur?aan. Allah says His signs are also in the Universe. The whole world is here for us to study and examine. That is totally different from some Sunni who not just reads hadiyth but apply hadiyth as part of the Deen when Allah clearly has condemned hadiyth by name. The negative thoughts that you hold with me going into African History is only a smoke screen that many racist holds who hate the fact of one tapping into the that knowledge base but we are not moved by that. For some reason the world has swept (African History/The African Presence and contributions to the world) under the carpet. That element of my article was well received by many and we can care less about what you feel about that. Racism exist in Christianity and in Islaam (even though the Qur?aan do not support racism). But I am a free man and a free Muslim and I am not the one who submits to ignorant suggestions of leaving information like that out when it was very much practical. That history predates hadiyth and many racist in Islaam re-wrote the history of Islaam and wrote the Black man?s role out of it and white-washed everything. This even went to the point of White Arab Supremist writing hadiyth that state Muhammad is white. Insha Allah I will deal with those false satanic innovations in the future to come to expose the racism and the false hadiyth portraying Muhammad as a white man.
Brain1, you wrote an emotional post but the facts remain is this, you nor any body has refuted the arguments that Allah authorized 5 Salaat in Al Qur?aan. That?s the real issue at hand and what you feel about my approach is just your bias opinion, which has been concluded here.
Brain1 which side do you stand on 5 or 3 Salaat?
Salaam
Peace upon all,
I have been watching this 'debate' quit some time. And still i haven't seen convincing thoughts on both sides. As the debate on 1778 is a bit useless, as it says to salaat from sun up to sun down, it doesn't matter if you believe it is from the zenith or to the going down of the sun beyond the horizon, as it is not logical it refers to prayer, as it directly says to salaat all that time, so it can't refer to 3 times as it doesn't distuingish 3 times, but says do salaatd between sun up to sun down without any stops between, it says to salaat between those sun points without any stops. So to believe this verse refers to contact-prayer is in my eyes not logical. One important meaning of salaat is ignorant with these debates, that salaat also means 'following closely' as in following the Quran, which by itself says following the laws of the Quran=estabilish the laws in your surroundings.
When we approach this use of salaat in 1778 it becomes more logical, as it then clearly says that we must follow the Quran/create the Divine system from sun up to sun down constantly. But this is my view, it is of course gonna be ridiculed, and we know by who ).
Al-Khidr, i read your article this afternoon and i saw you still haven't corrected your mistake which arnoldyasin pointed out for you, about the 7 times of the nubians. You said that they performed 7 and 2 were optional, which is wrong as the author clearly doesn't say this at all. He says that the nubians performed 7 times, and the followers of muhammed performed 5 with 2 extra optional. So to say the nubians prayed 7 with 2 optional is wrong. I recommend you correct this
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6028.msg93214#msg93214
Also the 5 pillars is in my eyes a non-quranic label, and so to say this islam is a nutshell is wrong, as the most important part of the message of the quran, which is to defend human-rights should be after the shahada, this is why i believe the 5 pillars are a wrong label of islam in a nutshell.
As for youre articles Al-khidr, even though you have a good approach to it all. Your personal attacks to people show your are not a mature person. I don't say you have to be nice and send them flowers in your debate, but you go to the other extreme and judge people fake muslim and what all, while only God may do that. Your points would be taken much more serious if you learn to keep the personal comments out of your discussions. This is not professional, and it is non-quranic behaviour, as it resembles arrogance, even though this was not your purpose. The debate on the other forum you showed with wakas, had one interresting comment which indeed was your articles in a 'nutshell'
Salaam all,
Since I am not a Qur'an aloner, I did not feel a need to read the article. However, since you asked I read it. I would say that his strongest point is how he understood "Lidulooki Ashamsi Ila Ghasaqi Allayli" as the period of time between noon and night rather than specific time of prayer. I agree wholeheartedly with that understanding. However, there are several weaknesses in the article, at least to my taste
1- He attacks his opponents and not their ideas.
2- He ridicules others including Sunnis and what so ever.
3- He jumps around a lot. It would have been more helpful to move on in a logical manner rather than stopping every now and then and responding to the others. He could have written an article that is well circumscribed and then ended with a rebuttal to the other opinions.
4- While claiming to be Qur'an aloner, he jumped to code 19 as his proof. However, the code 19 has certain disputes about it.
5- While claiming to be a refuser of the hadeeth because they are "corrupted", he jumps and brings evidence from the Nubian culture. Now, this evidence has to be sketchy at best and with many conclusions that may not be supported by facts of archeological finds and so forth. I find this stance very hypocritical. If one wants to talk Qur'an alone, then they should leave out all things that are outside the Qur'an, including the Nubians.
6- Other Qur'an aloners will still have linguistic tools to rebut him, and in this lies the biggest problem of the Qur'an alone movement, you nearly cannot prove nor disprove a lot, especially when it comes to Salat.Take care and have a great day
Hussein
I recommend you to keep the personal comments out of your debates, as this is not about your feelings. The truth doesn't need your personal comments. I hope in time you will learn that.
Peace to all
-
Peace,
My post is full of emotion? You are blind, so blind. Your articles are so full with emotions, you have to swim through them before you reach any Quranic arguments.
I hope you correct your claim there as the author clearly doesn't mention 7 with 2 optional. And as others has pointed out, 7 is also not 5. To say it is more close to 7 is ignorant. When will your eyes open and see that the nubians are not any use in the times-debate. It is not a crime to study history. But you include your struggle for the true history of Africa ,which has indeed been mistreated, in an article which has nothing to do with it.
I see by your response you still need to grow up. You say i call a spade a spade, i say, let that spade be spade. the truth doesn't need your quotes. But like i said, it will take time.
As for 3 or 5, it is not of your business. You act like Bush, you are with us or against us....
Peace bro, i hope you will learn in time
-
Al Khidr,
Another thing when you said the debate ended in stalemate that is something that you conjured up.
Just like you conjured up that I got "annhilated"?
I reiterate for other forum members
I would also recommend forum members to read it so they can see your level of judgement by using "annhilated". I believe this will serve as a reminder for the future.
peace.
-
Salaam
There are people out here who manipulate Allah's words and those people do not need to be patted on the back.
some people complain that they do not like Khidr's style or approach but what I do not see is those same people who believe in 3 Salaat refuting brother Al Khidr's research. I think that point within itself says a lot.
on a personal note I see the wisdom behind men like Al Khidr who stretegicaly break down the opponent and also the doctrine they uphold. I have seen a lot of great scholars use the same strategy or technique and there is nothing wrong with it. Some people just need to get over it and focus on refuting his research if they can and not worry about his approach.
Brother Al Khidr you have done a great job and there are a lot of people who respect your approach. I know a lot of people who have seen your research proving that there is 5 Salaat and they all loved it and also how you came your opponents. If some people don't like it then its a personal problem.
And I also reviewed the debate Wakas had and your right brother Al Khidr he got annhilated.
-
As Salaamu Alaykum brain1
You are so hypocritical because you complain about my approach with my opponents and try to indicate that I should not say this or that and look at your words here
?You are blind, so blind?
Look at the selection of words that you used; look at your language. How can I respect your comments about me in my approach to my opponents when you do not lead by example. At least I am not hypocritical, thus people do respect directness and consistency. I will not complain to some one?s approach and how they use language and then turn around and use the same level of language. That?s why I keep doing what I am doing. Some people just hide behind the emotions and say they do not like my approach when in actuality the real reason is because the foundation of their belief was skillfully removed.
You miss understood what I meant when I said that I want to cross reference with some sources. Note the sources was plural and it was not just his book. But again what we do not see is 3 Salaat at all and that is the real point.
Brain1 (or no brainer) said
?You act like Bush, you are with us or against us....?
Now that right there is childish. I laughed to see you equate me with Bush. There are people who will say just about anything to avoid the real question at hand. Did Allah authorize 5 or 3 Salaat. Well I presented my research, if you stand on the 3 Salaat, then refute my arguments because I can care less about the image or approach that you think I should follow. And also about this statement of yours, ?You act like Bush, you are with us or against us?? remember ?no brainer?, we did not pick this fight; We did not start this issue first. It was the proponents of the ?3 Salaat Theory? who started this by attacking the 5 Salaat positon. We had to endure their attacks, their articles, their websites, their forums attacking the 5 Salaat position, so we Muslims got tired of it and we done something about it. We are not the aggressors here but now that we have stood up the proponents of the ?3 Salaat Theory? they are acquiescing and getting emotional and crying saying that I or we should not say these things. Its funny to see now the tides are on the other side. So on this issue we are standing up and we are coming strong. I have mentioned on my website where my rebuttal ?Exposing The 3 Salaat? exist that we are ready for battle. It is the duty of Muslims to represent and spread True or Pure Islaam. And we do not exercise control and try to tell someone how they should speak or deliver truth or approach matters because truth is going to dominate regardless and that is how you handle or settle your differences. We believe in using the sword of intellect, which is symbolic for the mind to resolve our differences.
I have asked you what position do you stand on 5 or 3 Salaat and this is what you have said
?As for 3 or 5, it is not of your business?
Now if any one wants to raise the question about someone being childish or immature or operating on emotions, you need to develop self-awareness. Why would you say ?it is not your business?, have your emotion raised to the point to where you are taking this personal and especially when you personally do not know me or know who I am. We all are hear for the truth and you respond by saying ?it is not your business? and at the same time you are trying to tell me what a scholar should be.
One thing I am hearing is how people are getting tired of people responding with personal opinions and not really dissecting the arguments at hand and presenting substance to the subject matter. The real issue is not my approach or style but the real issue at hand is can you refute my research that is if you stand on the 3 Salaat position. Us Muslims who follow 5 Salaat had to endure all the attacks and literature writing by proponents of the ?3 Salaat Theory? and now one of the children of the slaves deciding to put an end to it and I came hard and now they (the proponents of the 3 Salaat Theory) are licking their wombs and crying but not dealing with the subject matter head on. No one is moved by emotions, we all are moved by facts and so far the proponents of the ?3 Salaat Theory? have not and cannot bring forth any sound evidence from Al Qur?aan. This is a triumph for TRUTH and a triumph for the proponents who believe in Pure Islaam and not sectarian notions such as the ?3 Salaat Theory?. Can anyone in here tell me who invented this ?3 Salaat Theory? because it was not the shia, some of them not all observe 5 Salaat in three periods, so they still observe 5 Salaat and not 3.
Salaam
-
Salaam Alaikum no_shirk ..
you've got great perception that enables you to catch exactly what people wanna hide ;D
and that analogy of bush was superb!
-
As Salaamu Alaykum to all brothers and sisters
I'm finally back. Below is the link to my rebuttal to Tanvweer post in response to my rebuttal "Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory"
http//www.freewebs.com/suprememathematics/grabbingforstraws.htm
Salaam
Wa'Salaam brother al-Khidr
Again, this link is brilliant. I've saved it for sending it around to everyone in my mailing list, like I did with the previous one. I am sure it will be just as greatly appreciated by them as your original article on this topic.The 'warriors' have run out of steam. It's now "all quiet on the western front"
Keep up the great work al-Khidr bravo and no, this isn't cheerleading, it's an honest statement.
BTW .. I'll send you the info I gathered on Yuksel from my Turkish friend.
Peace to all
-
you said
"Your articles are so full with emotions"
Correction my article, "Exposing The 3 Salaat Theory" was based on passion, which is something different then emotions.
Salaam
Yes .. there's a huge difference between emotion and passion. It's quite simple to discern yet some are unable to do so. Actually this is a common blunder out here. My committment to my cause has also been construed as "being emotional" in the past.
peace
-
One thing I am hearing is how people are getting tired of people responding with personal opinions and not really dissecting the arguments at hand and presenting substance to the subject matter. The real issue is not my approach or style but the real issue at hand is can you refute my research that is if you stand on the 3 Salaat position. Us Muslims who follow 5 Salaat had to endure all the attacks and literature writing by proponents of the ?3 Salaat Theory? and now one of the children of the slaves deciding to put an end to it and I came hard and now they (the proponents of the 3 Salaat Theory) are licking their wombs and crying but not dealing with the subject matter head on. No one is moved by emotions, we all are moved by facts and so far the proponents of the ?3 Salaat Theory? have not and cannot bring forth any sound evidence from Al Qur?aan. This is a triumph for TRUTH and a triumph for the proponents who believe in Pure Islaam and not sectarian notions such as the ?3 Salaat Theory?. Can anyone in here tell me who invented this ?3 Salaat Theory? because it was not the shia, some of them not all observe 5 Salaat in three periods, so they still observe 5 Salaat and not 3.
and what about the evidence Layth and Tanveermd posted?
-
peace
Also, Al Khidr, it seems like you're only defending the 5 salat thing because the ancient africans used to pray 5 times a day.
It would be nice if you would leave the race issues out of this. Just because a person says that 5 prayers isn't mentioned in the Quran doesn't mean they are racist.
And, in your articles, you attack the people more than you attack their arguments. You treat everyone who doesn't agree with you like they are liars and hypocrites and are trying to mislead others.
Let me make it clear to you that no one here is doing that. We are trying to gain a better understanding of the Quran. If the hadith have corrupted most things in the Quran, why not the concept of salat. That's why we need to revisit everything and get a better understanding if we can.
So no matter where we end up (whether with 5 or 3 or 2), we will know that that is the correct understanding.It would also be nice if you stop treating yourself as "the warrior of truth" and others as "dirty lying kafirs." Please drop the "I am right and everyone else is wrong" attitude, because people don't like it. And if people don't like it, they don't read anything you post. So you're left talking to the walls.
And, again, I think we need to figure out what SALAT is before we go into what times are given. I disagree with you that Salat=worship or prayer.
