3 salawaat

Alireza

The organization "Islamitische Bewustwording Nederland", or, Islamic Awareness of the Netherlands, does NOT recognise the new salat article of free-minds.org.

With my deepest regrets, I have to say that we have to disagree on this important issue.

Our salat article recalls 3 salawaat, like the article in the arabic section of free-minds called ris?lah ila-l umma-t ul-isl?miyyah acknowledges.

I am fluently in Arabic too, my findings are clearly 3 salawaat.

I am afraid that free-minds will choke itself in dogmatics or come to conclusions by consensus or influence from certain trends of thought.

In IBN its all purely about the text in Arabic, rationale and logics.

Dogmatics, rhetoric or wishfull thinking are irrelevant, regardless of the motives.

We decide to put an article online, not when a consensus is reached among the members, but when no one has a better argument than the writer(-s) of the article on the specific article regardless of personal views which may or may not change or adapt. (everyone is free to believe whatever he or she wants)

But foremost, the literal text of the quran and plain logics in combination with rational thinking is our guide.

Could you, people of free-minds, explain to me why the article in the arabic section still talks about 3 salawaat, while your new article acknowledges only 2?

No need to tell me why there are 2 according to you, because I think your new article does a fine job by explaining this in details. Just tell me.. why the contradiction?

IBN looks at free-minds with brotherly feelings, we have much respect for you and keep supporting you so long as your intentions are pure and good.

Just one thing... Many people have witnessed this with the 19 sectarians or the khalifists... If "Satan" deceives the sunni's or shi'i's, then why won't he try to deceive the muslims who believe in that which has been revealed?

May God guide us all to the truth about things.

Layth

Peace Alireza,

The organization "Islamitische Bewustwording Nederland", or, Islamic Awareness of the Netherlands, does NOT recognise the new salat article of free-minds.org.

With my deepest regrets, I have to say that we have to disagree on this important issue.

Our salat article recalls 3 salawaat, like the article in the arabic section of free-minds called ris?lah ila-l umma-t ul-isl?miyyah acknowledges.

I am fluently in Arabic too, my findings are clearly 3 salawaat.

The subject of Salat has fluctuated between different numbers and different methods depending on the research and sometimes interpretations (or misinterpretation).

It was good to be refreshed by reading Arabic article you mentioned. Upon reading it, I am in agreement with you that the subject is clear as day.

I have personally amended my own views and article to reflect a more correct understanding as I now see things

http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/salat.htm

Layth

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Layth,

I agree that salat is the medium between the Most High, and the Creation. But the usage of the word connection was show to be wrong to me. There is a verse that states that people sever what the God commanded to be joined/connected. There is already a word used for "connection", so I have gone with PROCESS.

Salaat is the PROCESS of communication with God, or , Learning from the Teacher.

"O Shuaib, does your process order you..." or "Does what you have learned from the God order you..."

Wakas

peace brother Layth,

Nice to see you back.

One question about the slw article you posted, how recent is it?
I am assuming it is your current view but the reason I ask is that it is significantly different from your previous view (assembly).

some observations

Your point 3 on 'functions of salat' was excellent. I just like the way you worded it.

Re wusta = middle

If that is your view, what is your opinion of the following points
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1171

11114 ---> zulafun is plural meaning proximities

339 ---> it is the verb salla and not the noun salat

do you think people should face mecca?

2 related points
I see the stand in 2238 in the metaphorical sense, e.g. "stand for justice".
Is a mental prostration acceptable or must it be physical?

As a side note, I also came across the following info about the root slw

to remain attached, to contact or to be in contact.
In a horse race when the second horse follows the first one so closely that its head always overlaps the first horse?s body that horse is called AL-MUSSALLI (i.e. the one who follows closely/remains attached).

I think it speaks volumes.

Wakas

ayman

Peace dear brother Layth,

It is great to hear from you.

It is also good to see that many people are coming closer to a similar view on "salat". I would like to add to brothers Kyle and Wakas excellent comments the following brief comment on the part of the updated article relating to "qibla" (emphasis mine)

Individuals or groups holding the Salat must conform to a unifying direction which is faced?This feature can still be witnessed in the construction of today?s temples which are designed with the place for Salat oriented in a specific direction (originally Jerusalem, then shifted to Mecca).

?We see the shifting of your face towards the sky, We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you ?You shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and WHEREVER YOU MAY BE, you shall all set yourselves towards it.? Those who have been given the Scripture know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.? (Quran 2144)

?And We inspired Moses and his brother ?Take for your people dwellings in Egypt and make your dwellings into a focal point, and hold the Salat. And give good news to the believers.?? (Quran 1087)

The sign in verse 2144 is telling us to face "al-masjid al-haram" wherever you may be. How is that physically possible?

Also, the word "biyut"/houses is plural in 1087. Hence, your understanding would not imply a "unifying direction" but a random direction. How do you reconcile 2144 with 1087?

In 1087 "qibla" means "target/destination" and the meaning is "to make your houses a target/destination". In other words, this is PHYSICAL target because "bayt"/house is a physical building. This makes perfect sense in the context of 1087-93.

In 2144-150 "qiblat" also means target/destination. Of course, one cannot constantly (wherever he may be) physically point his face to a physical target/destination. This is especially true if that physical object is below the horizon out of line of sight. Since, the physical meaning doesn't make sense, then it must be interpreted non-physically.

The two signs are reconciled because the dictionary meaning of "target/destination" is consistent. The only difference is that in one instance it is a physical "target/destination" and in the other non-physical "target/destination" and this can be easily understood from the context.

Please let me know what you think.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman.

unknownuser

Salaams,
must say ,an icredible argument for aymans point of view-and in ayat 2149 from the context it is AL kharaate OR good works and AL-HAQ ,how can a physical building be these (from the context),But if Al-masjid Alharam is a set of rules thereby actions it make sense - to me anyway.

Salaams aymaan,all.

Layth

Peace Wakas,

One question about the slw article you posted, how recent is it?
I am assuming it is your current view but the reason I ask is that it is significantly different from your previous view (assembly).

It is the most recent. I have abondoned completely the "assembly" view.

Re wusta = middle

If that is your view, what is your opinion of the following points
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1171

It is a weak argument suggesting that "wusta" is balanced. The only reason "balanced" is even used is because the original word "W A S A T" means "that which is between" (which is how "balanced" is desrived)

Even the other meaning "average" is also derived by taking the true meaning of "that which is between".

Finally, the direct comparison of "Wusta" (223 to "Awsat" (6828, 2143) overlooks the clear fact that the two words are not the same.

11114 ---> zulafun is plural meaning proximities

I do not see it as plural, but singular (see 3437, 3840, 393 for similarity)

339 ---> it is the verb salla and not the noun salat

Agree.

do you think people should face mecca?

I understand that the "temporary" Qibla of Mecca has long since been restrored to Jerusalem (The Restricted Temple). Therefore, the facing should be to Jerusalem, not Mecca.

I see the stand in 2238 in the metaphorical sense, e.g. "stand for justice".

4102 makes very clear that the Salat is being done in a "standing position". We also can derive this from the licence given in 2239 to perform Salat while walking or riding/sitting in case of worry.

Is a mental prostration acceptable or must it be physical?

According to 4102 it is a "physical" prostration which ends the Salat (this can be seen in that prostration may be skipped if their is rain (i.e. the ground is muddy) or the person is ill.

Layth

Wakas

peace Layth,

You did not mention any of my 4 points in the referenced thread about wusta.

I do not see it as plural, but singular (see 3437, 3840, 393 for similarity)

zulafun is definitely in the plural. zulfa is the singular and appears in 3437, 3840, 393.

I understand that the "temporary" Qibla of Mecca has long since been restrored to Jerusalem (The Restricted Temple). Therefore, the facing should be to Jerusalem, not Mecca.

I will wait for a reply to brother Ayman's point before discussing this further.

4102 makes very clear that the Salat is being done in a "standing position". We also can derive this from the licence given in 2239 to perform Salat while walking or riding/sitting in case of worry.

I would agree that being stationary (i.e. in one location) is the preferred. I would be hesitant to state one must be standing however.

According to 4102 it is a "physical" prostration which ends the Salat (this can be seen in that prostration may be skipped if their is rain (i.e. the ground is muddy) or the person is ill.

That is a good point about the rain. I will have to research & think about this point further.

Wakas

ayman

Peace dear brother Layth,

I understand that the "temporary" Qibla of Mecca has long since been restrored to Jerusalem (The Restricted Temple). Therefore, the facing should be to Jerusalem, not Mecca.

The Arabic word "makkat" (or more accurately MK(t)) is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK.

Al-Mo7it lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary insisting on something, which is consistent with the standoff in 4824.

Lisan Al-3arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(T) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".

Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are (I am trying to give a literal translation) sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.

Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.

Here is a translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the word "makat"

And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of insisting on the adversary/destruction/wearing down, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "makat" un-translated I didn't. As you can see the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 4824.

Moreover, all sides of the debate on the historicity of Makkat agree that the name Makkat doesn't occur in any "pre-quranic" inscriptions.

Those promoting the historicity of Makkat are forced to bring the ONLY ONE reference by Ptolmey to an insignificant town by the name of Macoraba for the simple reason that they know very well that there is NO reference to Makkat. Surely, if anyone had ANY archeological reference to a place named Makkat prior to the revelation of the great reading they would have brought it by now and would have ended the debate.

Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, and the total absence of archeological evidence supporting that there was a "pre-quranic" town by the name of Makkat, the only logical unbiased conclusion is that "makkat" is simply a mundane common noun like thousands of others in the great reading/"quran".

We know for sure that "post-quranic" hypocrites were in the habit of renaming things long after the fact to match common concepts in the great reading. For example, even the traditional view concedes that what is currently named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa was named so long after the fact. By the same token, the evidence points to the renaming to Makkat of an insignificant town with a small pagan shrine to force a link to 4824.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman.

Layth

Peace Wakas,

This phrasing implies the middle prayer is more important than other prayers as this is already covered under "preserve the prayers", so why mention it again?
There is no other evidence in Al-Quran to suggest the middle prayer is more important than others, in fact, it seems to imply that the quran/reading at dawn is most important IF any had to be chosen.

Actually, there is.

If you analyze the settings of each Salat time, you will see that the "wusta/middle" time is the one where most trade/business/activity is taking place (fajr is when someone just woke up, esha is when they are home and it is nearly pitch dark). Thus, that a person would be pre-occupied from Salat is most probable to occur during the "wusta" time (where the sun is still out, and the air is cooler than midday)

Here is the only example of an implied Salat being missed, not by just a nornal guy, but by a prophet

"And to David We granted Solomon. What an excellent and obedient servant. When, during the end of the day, well trained horses were displayed before him. He said 'I enjoyed the good of materialism more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until the sun has completely set.' 'Send them back.' He then rubbed their legs and necks." (Quran 3830-33)

If "middle" is chosen then 2239 doesn't fit well, because it implies we are allowed to do salat on the move, if so, which one is it talking about, prayers in general or just the middle prayer?

It fits that 239 speaks for all three (especially since 238 starts with the opening "preserve the Salawat", before highlighting the middle on its own)

The middle prayer, if there is one, would be the only one without a stated time-range, the dawn & dusk salat have time-ranges. It is logical to have a time range. Please think about this concept.

The range is from when the sun declines until it has completely dissapeared from site (this is about 15-20 minutes).

Also, there is no traditional salat named wusta, indicating it was never taken to mean a specific salat. The traditional names applied to noon-time salat are Zohr & Asr.

Maghrib is the corresponding Salat as used today. The name would simply be "wusta" if we stick to the Quran (but this is no longer possible for the Sunnis/Shia because they have added 2 more times thus making it impossible to refer to maghrib as "wusta").

zulafun is definitely in the plural. zulfa is the singular and appears in 3437, 3840, 393.

I have checked this in my Arabic dictionary, Zulufan is not listed as being the plural (the plural is given as Zulfat).

I would agree that being stationary (i.e. in one location) is the preferred. I would be hesitant to state one must be standing however

Again, I refer to 4102 for evidence that they are all standing.

Layth

Layth

Peace Ayman,

Those promoting the historicity of Makkat are forced to bring the ONLY ONE reference by Ptolmey to an insignificant town by the name of Macoraba for the simple reason that they know very well that there is NO reference to Makkat. Surely, if anyone had ANY archeological reference to a place named Makkat prior to the revelation of the great reading they would have brought it by now and would have ended the debate.

Based on the context from the great reading/"quran", linguistic evidence from Arabic dictionaries, and the total absence of archeological evidence supporting that there was a "pre-quranic" town by the name of Makkat, the only logical unbiased conclusion is that "makkat" is simply a mundane common noun like thousands of others in the great reading/"quran".

I fully understand and appreciate your point, however, if you walk sequentially through the story of pilgramage and qibla as per the Quran then I believe it paints a difefrent picture.

Bakka (Jerusalem) is the Qibla.
Hajj would be conducted to Jerusalem.
The prophet is driven out and emigrates.
God changes the Qibla since Jerusalem is off limits (due to Roman presence)
A new focal point is decreed until the prophet and Muslims can regather their streangth.
A failed campaign against Rome is undertaken to retake Jerusalem (possibly the battle of Mu'ta)
The Qibla is re-established to Jerusalem.
Rome is defeated (this would possibly be the battle of Tabuk)

As such, I do not believe that Mecca would have had any significance before the Qibla change to be mentioned in the history books (unlike Jerusalem). As for after the prophet's death, that is a different story altogether (civil war, chaos, etc..)

ayman

Peace dear brother Layth,

Bakka (Jerusalem) is the Qibla.
Hajj would be conducted to Jerusalem.
The prophet is driven out and emigrates.
God changes the Qibla since Jerusalem is off limits (due to Roman presence)

The fact is that Jerusalem is now off limits to you and most people and yet you could build a building in Riyadh with a niche that is supposed to be facing it using the great circle or any other method. Hence, the rationale you are giving (that Jerusalem is off-limits) actually negates that "qibla" in 2144 is a physical direction of facing Jerusalem or anywhere else.

A new focal point is decreed until the prophet and Muslims can regather their strength.

One doesn't need an army or any strength for that matter to imagine to be physically facing a Temple in Jerusalem or anywhere else on earth.

A failed campaign against Rome is undertaken to retake Jerusalem (possibly the battle of Mu'ta)
The Qibla is re-established to Jerusalem.
Rome is defeated (this would possibly be the battle of Tabuk)

As such, I do not believe that Mecca would have had any significance before the Qibla change to be mentioned in the history books (unlike Jerusalem). As for after the prophet's death, that is a different story altogether (civil war, chaos, etc..)

Brother, you focused on a small part of my argument that was meant as additional evidence and you didn't address the main argument from the great reading and the Arabic language. How do you translate 4824? Please provide your translation. Do you leave the word "makkat" un-translated? If you do, then please explain why you take it as a proper name despite the fact that the clear Arabic dictionary meaning perfectly fits in the context?

Also, before the discussion goes in different directions, please reconcile 1087 and 2144 as I suggested in my prior post. Are you facing Jerusalem wherever you may be? Are you facing it now while you are reading this? There are no exceptions given in 2144.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman.

Layth

Peace Ayman,

The fact is that Jerusalem is now off limits to you and most people and yet you could build a building in Riyadh with a niche that is supposed to be facing it using the great circle or any other method. Hence, the rationale you are giving (that Jerusalem is off-limits) actually negates that "qibla" in 2144 is a physical direction of facing Jerusalem or anywhere else.

I am merely stating what the history during the prophet's time looked like as I can summerize. The change of Qibla is a matter that can only be ordained by God and that was done once with Moses and once with Mohammed.

One doesn't need an army or any strength for that matter to imagine to be physically facing a Temple in Jerusalem or anywhere else on earth.

The Qibla also happens to be the same place where the Pilgrimage is held (Masjid Al-Haram). Thus, if the prophet and his companions could not hold the pilgrimage there any more, then it would make sence why the Qibla would be changed by God until the masjid alharam is once again open to them.

Brother, you focused on a small part of my argument that was meant as additional evidence and you didn't address the main argument from the great reading and the Arabic language. How do you translate 4824? Please provide your translation. Do you leave the word "makkat" un-translated? If you do, then please explain why you take it as a proper name despite the fact that the clear Arabic dictionary meaning perfectly fits in the context?

I leave Mecca as a proper name as well as that of Bakka.

I know for a certainty that there was a Qibla change during the life of the prophet...I know for a certainty that it was a great test, except for those who believe...I know for a certainty that the Qibla was re-established to the Restricted Temple (masjid alharam).

Also, before the discussion goes in different directions, please reconcile 1087 and 2144 as I suggested in my prior post. Are you facing Jerusalem wherever you may be? Are you facing it now while you are reading this? There are no exceptions given in 2144.

Wherever does not mean 'whenever.' I think it is perfectly clear that you would face the Qibla 'wherever' you may be, but not 'whenever' that is.

Layth

Wakas

peace brother Layth,

I dont understand your response to my point 1.
To say that 2239 speaks of all three is a precarious assumption.
I am somewhat confused by your time-ranges for all three. I think this is what you're saying

Fajr - one end of daylight (how long is this salat, do you have a time-range, if so, where do you get it from?)

Wusta - when the sun begins to decline past the horizon until it disappears

Isha - by your own translation it seems you have ended up with a salat time (Wusta) crossing another salat time (Isha)

You shall hold the Salat at the waning* of the sun, until the darkness of the night...

dulook = rubbing/setting

To explain this, you would be forced to translate 'dulook-as-shams' as 'sunset' (which is fair enough from Lane) but in doing so, will make the following point in your article invalid

Middle Salat is being done as the person is ending his/her workday, and is therefore most likely to perform this Salat in a group with work colleagues or associates ? Quran 3830-33, 629 (thus giving the middle Salat a ?community? setting).
Evening Salat is being done as the person has reached home, and is therefore most likely to perform this Salat with spouse, children, and dependants ? Quran 20132 (thus giving the evening Salat a ?family? setting).

Simply because when Wusta salat ends, Isha salat begins immediately after, thus its unlikely (impossible?) someone can reach home once beginning the Wusta salat with work colleagues/associates.

Re zulafun/zulfa

I re-checked Lane and he discusses how opinions differ on what is the plural of zulfa BUT he states zulaf(un) and zulfat can be the plural BUT seems to imply/state zulaf(un) is the preferred or more correct plural form. I think this can be cleared up by scrutinising the zlf in 11114 and seeing if it follows the expected grammatical form IF it was singular. Unfortunately, this is out my depth at the moment.

Wakas

zenje

Salaam all,

My problem with facing the qibla (Jerusalem), is - how does one do that? Let's say that I live in the U.S. and and whatever directional instruments I may require, I have. Let's also remember the world being round, or oval, whichever you wish. Explain.

Thanks

Tay

Peace All,

What do you make of this from QXP

7023 ----- MUSALLEEN are those who always follow the Divine System.
7024 ----- And in whose wealth and possessions is a known right.
7025 ----- For him who asks for help, and for him who is deprived.
7026 ----- (And Musalleen are) those who have conviction in the Day of Judgment. And hence, in the Law of Recompense.
7027 ----- And those who are fearful of their Lord?s Law of Requital.
7028 ----- (They know that) Verily, their Lord?s Law of Requital makes no exceptions, so that none can feel secure.
7029 ----- Those men and women who preserve their chastity.
7030 ----- They have intimate relations only with their spouses ? that is, those who are rightfully theirs through wedlock. For such relationship they are free of blame. (?Aw? = Or = That is = And. 235-7).
7031 But anyone who seeks beyond this, those are the transgressors.
7032 ----- (And Musalleen are those) who guard their trusts and duties assigned to them, and their pledges, as a shepherd guards his flock.
7033 ----- And those who are truthful in witness and stand by their testimony.
7034 ----- And those who consolidate and protect the Divine System.

Isn't this what salat is all about?
Why do we need to face any point on the planet?
Is Allah not omnipresent?

Peace,
Tay

ayman

Peace brother Layth,

I am merely stating what the history during the prophet's time looked like as I can summerize. The change of Qibla is a matter that can only be ordained by God and that was done once with Moses and once with Mohammed.

History is the subjective point of view of the historian. Your view that "God changes the Qibla since Jerusalem is off limits (due to Roman presence)" has no support in the great reading. Nothing in 2142-150 talks about the Romans or "al-masjid al-haram" being "off limits" as the reason for the change. In fact, the real reason of the change is quite clearly stated in 2143.

But let's not jump too much ahead of ourselves. What is your understanding of the meaning of "qiblat"/target/destination? How do you reconcile 1087 with 2144 in light of that understanding?

The Qibla also happens to be the same place where the Pilgrimage is held (Masjid Al-Haram). Thus, if the prophet and his companions could not hold the pilgrimage there any more, then it would make sence why the Qibla would be changed by God until the masjid alharam is once again open to them.

There are many people, including yourself, who cannot hold the pilgrimage to Jerusalem so what "qibla" do you face?

I leave Mecca as a proper name as well as that of Bakka.

This doesn't answer the question.

Brother, either your extended absence from the forum has made you a little rusty or I am not being clear and in this case I apologize and I repeat the question more clearly

Please explain why you take "makka" as a proper name despite the fact that the clear Arabic dictionary meaning perfectly fits in the context of 4824?

I know for a certainty that there was a Qibla change during the life of the prophet...I know for a certainty that it was a great test, except for those who believe...I know for a certainty that the Qibla was re-established to the Restricted Temple (masjid alharam).

But you don't seem to know for certain what "qibla" means. Hence, you are not able to answer my repeated question about reconciling 1087 and 2144.

Wherever does not mean 'whenever.' I think it is perfectly clear that you would face the Qibla 'wherever' you may be, but not 'whenever' that is.

Of course, wherever means "everywhere". In other words, logically it means "in all places". Is the place where you are sitting at your desk reading this post not "a place"? Since you are at a place that is part of "wherever/all places", are you facing the Temple as you understand the command or are you facing the computer screen?

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman.

ayman

Peace dear brother Zein,

My problem with facing the qibla (Jerusalem), is - how does one do that? Let's say that I live in the U.S. and and whatever directional instruments I may require, I have. Let's also remember the world being round, or oval, whichever you wish. Explain.

You are right brother. The indisputable fact is that because of the earth being spherical and rotating, once a structure is under the horizon, it is impossible to be facing it. Those who imagine that they are facing a Temple or a Shrine are actually facing completely random regions in outer space.

Another fact is that those who take "qiblat" in 2144 as a physical target will never follow each other's "qiblat"/target. Physically, even a small difference in angle is translated into a huge difference in distance when projected over large distances, so even people standing right next to each other and physically facing in the same direction are actually facing different random regions in outer space. Indeed, the sign in 2145 speaks the truth

And indeed if you gave every sign to those who were given the book, they will not follow your target and you are not going to follow their target and they will not follow each other's target, and if you follow their fantasies after what came to you from the knowledge, you would then be from the unjust.

Also, as a result of the earth's rotation, even the same person is facing a different physical direction every second and that is the truth. It is almost as if the signs in the earth, like the sign in 2144, were designed to make it impossible for anyone to logically claim that "qibla" in 2144 is a physical direction.

The "hu" in "inahu" in 2144 refers back to "al-masjid al-haram" and we clearly hear what "al-masjid al-haram" is.

We could see the rolling of your direction in the sky so we will turn you to a target that shall please you. So turn your direction towards the institution of hearing and obeying the forbidden and wherever you were so turn your directions towards it. And those who were given the book indeed know that IT IS THE TRUTH FROM THEIR LORD and The God is not unaware of what they do.

"al-masjid al-haram" IS THE TRUTH FROM THEIR LORD.

This is repeated in no uncertain terms in 2149.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman.

salgan

peace all

why face a certain direction physicaly and what are the benifits from this ?

How many people face mecca has this facing changed any thing in there life ?has this made them better people ?

why is the middle east so important to God ?

why did God only send prophets to the middle east why not europe ,the americas asia africa if God did why are they not mentioned .what is so important about the middle east.

whats so special with Quranic Arabic ?Even the people on this forum who study this day and night cant seem to understand it or even agree on things.

what chance have the rest who language is not arabic and have to rely on translations and dictioneries got. do we not deserve as humans to have something in our own mother tounges or does God not think we are not worthy as we are not from the middle east .

peace saleem

asdfjk

Peace all

it seems to me that the facing the qibla issue is only a problem if you are super-pedantic about angles and lines of sight.

The truth is that human vision does not function along a single straight line but encompasses more terrain the further one is from the target. This is why we can see stars that are thousands of lightyears apart in a single glance. Allah instructs us in 2144

".......shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it.

the form of words is instructive - "set yourself towards" or "turn thy face in the direction of.." (YusufAli) - these seem to me to be general injunctions about looking in a certain direction not about checking for degree accurate alignments over thousands of miles.

I equally think this holds true for the argument that you cant face something which is over the horizon. Bro Zein - we don't have laser beams coming from our eyes. The view that you cant face towards something you cannot see seems to deny our human capacity of spatial projection and cognition - something the Almighty has made sure we develop from early infancy.

salaams

asdfjk