Salat Article (Unorthodox View)

unknownuser

Peace Wakas, all,

Whilst I feel the underlying point of "salat" meaning link/connect is solid, what you felt should be linked/connected to was off in my opinion.

I agree with this one hundred percent as I already explained towards the end of the above post. The connection is of our nafs + rouh with/to The God.

explorer

You begin with the assumption (correctly so) that Salat is mainly accessed by people who have advanced and hence become believers...Then you examine Sura 9 and notice that the people who are being asked to repent and hold the Salat before being fought in battle/killed are actually polytheists (mushrikeen), hence your inference that Salat must be something that even mushrikeen can do, which leads you to say it is simply an oath/bond.

If you note Sura 9, the people being given an ultimatium and then being fought and killed (95) were in-fact believers at one point in the verses of the Almighty (99) and were aware enough to know who are believers and who are simply submitters (910). Hence, the group being adressed and fought is not a bunch of bandits, but rather is a groups of people who were at one point believers themselves but had rebelled and sided against the believers.

Layth

Here is the sum and substance that I gathered

91 Ultimatum is issued to the Pegans who went into treaty with you.
92 Travel freely in land for four months.
93 Allah dissolve treaty with Pegans who have violated the treaty.
94 Fulfill the agreement with those Pegans who are obeying the treaty.
95 After four months have passed, fight with Pegan violators.
96 While fighting, if they ask for your protection, place them in safe places. (they might hear the word of Allah).
97 Same as 94 Fulfill the agreement with those Pegans who are obeying the treaty.
98 Pegans used to please you with their mouth while their heart never agreed.
99 Pegans have purchased with God's revelation a small price.
910 Pegans are transgressers.
911 If pegans repent, pray, and pay zakats, they are your brothers in system.
912 If pegans violate the oath, then you are no longer bound by agreement.
913 Fight with violators.
914 Allah will punish them by your hands.

Clearly there are three groups

1- Pegan violators - fighters - (94) Believers should fight them
2- Pegan violators - asking for protection; do not want to fight -(96)- Believers should give them protection.
3- Pegan violators - now converting to Islam -(911)- They are your brothers in system. You cannot kill a muslim. Hence do not kill them.

My deductions (2 cents)

1- God is implementing punishment for violating the treaty. Kill them. No second chance.
2- There is no compulsion is religion. No one has been forced to accept Islam.
3- Converting them to Islam will provide them immunity because a muslim cannot kill a muslim. One superior law (one muslim should not kill a muslim) overrides another law (kill the violators).

The word "repent" has been used for group 3. One of the following has to be true

1- They are repenting the violation of the agreement.
2- They are repenting their apostasy.
3- In Arabic the word "repent" could be used even for those who are entering Islam the first time. (I am not sure if this is true or not)

Wakas, I know you are suggesting point 1 above.

Layth, you are suggesting point 2 above. But 98 says that "they pleased you by words, but their hearts denied". This shows that they were never believers. They were hypocrates perhaps.

I am more inclined to go with 3.

Layth

Salam,

Siki

What is your final opinion regarding Salat ul Jumma?

It is Salat min yawm alJumma (Salat at/from the time/day of gathering). I maintain it is simply an emphasis on the importanct of Salat for the believers and how they must leave all business/trade no matter how busy they are to connect.

Your latest article is definitely an improvement, May God bless you for your efforts.

By the way are you sure of the opinion that being a Momin is a higher state than being a Muslim? Because i am still confused on the issue, even after that lengthy debate between Tanveer and AB.

Thanks. The article was sparked by a discussion on why we are here. You can see this understanding here which led by default to the revised Salat article (http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/begining.htm).

On the Mumin/Muslim issue, I rely heavily on 4914 as well as the other verses that speak of Mumins as having greater tasks and needing to do more (see also 920, 4915). The distinction made in the Quran is clear and therefore the use of Mumin when speaking of certain elements such as Salat would signify such.

Explorer

Layth, you are suggesting point 2 above. But 98 says that "they pleased you by words, but their hearts denied". This shows that they were never believers. They were hypocrates perhaps.

The more I read Sura 9 the more I see it as a group of ex-believers, especially verses such as 917 which clearly speak of God`s temples and 919 which speak of the pilgrimage. Even if we say they were hypocrates, we need to remember that hypocrates were with the believers and were assumed to be part of them.

Wakas

peace Layth,

On your reference to Shoaib in 1187, it should be evident that the described purpose of Salat (linking with Spirit) is exactly what gave Shoaib his insights/information hence the people asking him if his Salat was telling him that they should do so and so (no reference to a scripture, but to a medium).

Firstly, with my understanding a scripture does not need to be cited. I would translate this occurrence as "bond".

By your interpretation of 1187 you imply that a person can receive instructions through "salat" (without the reference/need/use of a scripture) and then use this instruction to command others with respect to what they should follow, as if they have a divine mandate. I hope you can see this is potentially VERY dangerous. Whilst on the one hand in your article you try to make a distinction between following desires and following rouh/spirit, in reality the distinction is impossible. If an ordinary person came up to you and said they think you should do XYZ based on their unevidenced, unverifiable, personal experience of instructions they apparently received during their meditation, would you follow it?

As I stated in my original post, you got the basic meaning right but were off in what you thought we should "link/connect to". In my opinion, your view of 1187 is incompatible/contradictory with another example cited in your article, that of 1959.

In 1959 when discussing people who received divine revelation, "losing/neglecting the salat" is explicitly opposed/compared to "following desires". Thus, what is NOT following our desires? To me, the answer is obvious. Your above interpretation of 1187 is classic following of desires. If you disagree then your position (and thus your entire article) is based on a point that is simply unverifiable as it would be impossible to differentiate what was desire and what was not, without the use/need/reference of a scripture.

If you note Sura 9, the people being given an ultimatium and then being fought and killed (95) were in-fact believers at one point in the verses of the Almighty (99) and were aware enough to know who are believers and who are simply submitters (910). Hence, the group being adressed and fought is not a bunch of bandits, but rather is a groups of people who were at one point believers themselves but had rebelled and sided against the believers.

I believe once you identify the group in Sura 9 correctly (that they are ex-believers), then the seeming discrepency that arises with Salat dissapears. These people were at one point able to seek God through Salat and hence were able to reach the benefits of staying away from evil and vice. But when they rejected, they became hostile and are being told (come back to us) rather than wasting them away in battle.

99 is not evidence of them being believers previously. This can easily be determined by the context, but if you feel this phrase (ishtaraw biayati Allahi thamanan qaleelan) equates to them being believers then please see the very clear example of 216. Please read from 213-16.

Furthermore, the issue of these signs/ayatin allegedly discussing previous believers or a possible reversion/conversion has been discussed in detail in the article and the originating thread. This position is filled with critical flaws, e.g. revert or get punished (a completely foreign and contradictory concept in AQ), unexplained progressing options in 95 & 912, the grammar usage etc. All of which are discussed in the article
http//www.mypercept.co.uk/articles/disproved_traditional_salat.htm

Please reflect upon the points brought up and let me know your thoughts.

P.S. I updated your article with the latest one, but could not understand your comment about there being no link to it (I found a link clearly in the articles section).

Thanks. What I was referring to was when you click on your article (http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/salat.htm), in the left column under "Quranic Laws/Behaviour" only 2 "salat" articles show. However I now realise it may not fit there as I discuss what it is not, not what it is, so just leave it out.

Ashraf

Peace Layth and All,

Just to add some points. May Allah forgive me if I am wrong or somebody correct me ! Maybe have been highlighted before but I miss it.

Call "Allah" or "Al-Rahman" or "His Other Best Names" in the beginning or in the midst of prayer

"Say 'Call on God or call on the Almighty. Whichever it is you call on, for to Him are the best names.' And do not be too loud in making your Salat, nor too quite; but seek a path in between." (17110)

Implore your needs in your own language (Non-Arabic)

"It was then that Zachariah called on his Lord, he said 'My Lord, grant me from You a good progeny, You are the hearer of prayers.' The angels called to him whilst he was standing, Yusali (communing), in the temple enclosure 'God gives you good tidings of John, authenticating the word from God, and a master, and steadfast, and a prophet from the upright..'" (338-39)

Note Zachariah most probably not calling his Lord in Arabic in the above verse.

Regards,
Ashraf

nimnimak_11

Layth, I have read your article. Most points are impressive.

Two questions for you.

Why are you suggesting that the SALAT should end with these specific words

"And say 'Praise be to God who has not taken a son, nor does He have a partner in sovereignty, nor does He have an ally out of weakness.' And glorify Him greatly." (17111)

I like the reasoning at the beginning of your article.

Most people perform contract prayers
They also do evil deeds
God has promised that SALAT prevents evil deeds
Therefore contact prayer IS NOT EQUAL to SALAT.

You are suggesting that if we perform SALAT correctly then we will not do evil deeds.

You are suggesting that a possible correct method is to make a connection to God via SPIRIT (part of God within us) at sunset and (before) sunrise.

The regular MAGHRIB and FAJR contact prayers could fall in the domain of correct SALAT. MAGHRAB and FAJR prayers have all the components you are proposing.

So can we say that if Gods promise is true (SALAT prevents EVIL), than it is impossible to find a person who performs regular MAGHRIB and FAJR contact prayers and who also do evils deed?

I am possing this question to verify my understanding of your article. The objective is not to raise unnecessary arguments, just for the sake of it.

Thanks

Peace explorer

I do think that when one upholds Salat the way it's meant to be then one prevents himself from committing sins.

Sometimes when i try and achieve that state/feeling which i currently believe to be salat once and if i achieve it, I try to compare it with the other state/ feeling, which is just the normal usual casual feeling and i realise that the other state the Salat one is the reality.

That feeling of understanding sometimes just comes to me when i do something benefiting. However somedays i cannot achieve that state even though i try hard. Although i think that this only happens when i have done something wrong or when i haven't done something that I'm meant to do but i have noticed and am fairly sure that once i achieve balance between certain things or do that which i am supposed to do, then that feeling is much easier to reach when i try furthermore it sometimes just comes to me without me hardly trying!

When in that state, i feel as if i can't go wrong. I feel a much stronger protection from doing bad things eg get angry or turn away from something that i am meant to do.

That state is very important to me yet i cannot fully decide whether it is Salat or Zikr as written in the Quran.

syyiam

peace forumers,

something to ponder...(but in Indonesian)

http//www.kedamaian.org/sl1.html