3 salawaat
-
Peace,
Just finished going through a series of uses for "duluk".
One of the uses shows up as "the passing of time/wisdom from age"
If applied to 1778, this would make the translation of
"You shall hold the Salat after a time from the setting of the sun until the pitch darkness of the night; and the Quran at dawn; the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.
-
peace Layth,
Thank you for clarifying your response to my point 1. Given that al quran seems to give an example of a missed regular/timed slw, I can see where you get the idea that the middle slw needs to be specifically mentioned as its the most likely to be missed, but I dont see that as a solid point. To me, one could just as easily sleep in and miss the regular/timed slw of Fajr.
You are saying that 2238 establishes only ?middle? (wusta) as the subject matter for which 2239 is speaking.
I never said that. I implied it could be either hence the uncertainty of your view.
This is defined by both the term ?end/edge of the day? and by the word ?Fajr?. In Arabic, once the sun comes-up, then you are not able to call such a time ?Fajr? (I believe the same applies to the English word ?Dawn?).
When you say "comes-up" do you mean past the horizon OR comes-up fully past the horizon? I think you are implying the former. Please clarify.
I'm still confused about your wusta and isha timing BUT then you gave another trans. of 1778, shown below
"You shall hold the Salat after a time from the setting of the sun until the pitch darkness of the night..."
Where are you getting "after a time" from? I assume this is to allow you enough time to separate the two, i.e. wusta and isha, "after" being the key word. That is not what the sign says.
This is what Lane says about zlf and its plural. I would appreciate an analysis by those more learned than me in Arabic.
http//www.geocities.com/learnislamquran/zlf_plural.jpg
Wakas
-
Peace Ayman,
OK brother. Now nothing in what you said here is related to the change of "qibla". So do you now see that the clear reason for the change was given in 2143 and that the reason that you gave is invalid and hence retract this earlier statement of yours
"God changes the Qibla since Jerusalem is off limits (due to Roman presence)."
That 2143 is the reason for the change in Qibla is undeniable. My comments in this discussion are provided in ?good faith?.
Please explain how people would follow the orientation of a Temple or any stone building spiritually.
The same way that they would ?shift? from this focal point and follow another so as to be distinguished (2143), the same way Moses?s people shifted the Qibla to be towards their homes (1087).
What "central system" can be gained from imagining to be physically pointing one's face to any stone building?
It provides a unity and constant reminder that the system is the same that was decreed by all the prophets. It is one focal point (both physically and spiritually).
Moreover, if "qibla" had been a physical direction for "salat" as you say, then, because houses/"biyut" is plural, 1087 would be telling Moses to point their faces in random directions.
Please read carefully 1087 and see how the ?physical? Qibla is as clear as day?
Moses and his people have left their dwellings in Egypt and are on the run (being followed by Pharaoh and his army). The exodus is being done towards the direction of the sea (1090). This makes the Qibla (Restricted Temple) ahead of them. God tells Moses and his people to make their ?homes? into the Qibla during the Salat (thus letting them face the direction that the danger is coming from, and not give their backs to this direction as would have normally been done if they faced the original Qibla).
Quote
How and what this deviation was is not a subject I have studied.Brother, I suggest that you study it before making any strong conclusions about "qibla" as you are doing here.
Thanks to your questioning I have made a study of this and have found the most satisfying clarity.
As far as I am concerned, my holding a physical Qibla is a clear following of 2144. You are the one assuming that the ?masjid alharam? is a non-physical place and thus have created a dilemma for yourself unless Qibla is also made into a non-physical command.
I see the reason you are saying what you are saying, but it is your premise and not mine which needs to be proven.
So what is this Restricted Temple? Is it the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem? Or is it just the Rock?
Moreover, how did you come to the conclusion that "masjid" means Temple? Is there any evidence that "pre-quranic" Arab Jews or Pagans called their temples "masajid"? I haven't seen "temple" as a dictionary meaning, so is this a dictionary meaning? If not a dictionary meaning, then how did you reach it based on the great reading when we are clearly told that "al-masjid al-haram" IS THE TRUTH FROM OUR LORD in 2144 and 2149. How do you turn your physical direction towards the target of THE TRUTH FROM OUR LORD?
Masjid Al-Haram is a physical place which was maintained (919), where the idol worshippers were forbidden from entering/participating in (92, where fighting is discouraged (2191), where the prophet and his companions entered with heads shaven (4827) etc..
Again, I am not aware how you disregard/discard all this information and insist that the Restricted Temple is non-physical (and hence Qibla must also be non-physical).
As for 2144, THE TRUTH (emphasis yours) is the shifting towards this Qibla and not the Restricted Temple itself.
By the same token, do you interpret the "straight path" as a highway leading to Jerusalem? Why or why not?
I will disregard this comment.
Brother, this is so unlike you. You are the one who used to say that we should follow the most logical understanding. "Because I choose to" is not a logical argument and it is certainly a type of argument that I have never heard from you before.
Please logically explain the reason why you made that choice despite the fact that the clear Arabic dictionary meaning of the common noun "makkat" perfectly fits in the context of 4824.
?Chose? does not mean I am being moody and selecting Mecca as a name. I am saying that the ?choice? I have available is to look at the word as a proper name (which is what I have done) or to look at it as a verb (which is what you have done).
I ?chose? the name option because it also fit with the meaning of 4824.
?And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.? (4824)
Mecca here being the same Mecca that is in existence today (similarly the word Bakka was kept and is linked to the Bakka of Jerusalem).
You have been misinformed. Facing Jerusalem during prayers is a Jewish tradition even today, as clear here
1 Kings 844
"When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name"The Jewish Talmud also has references to facing Jerusalem.
Tosefta Brachot 316
"Those in the north face the south, those in the south face the north, those in the east face the west and those in the west face the east so that all Israel prays toward one place"Archaeological evidence confirms that synagogues from the "pre-quranic" and "post-quranic" era were roughly oriented to face Jerusalem. I am surprised that you, the one who always had interest in physical archeological evidence, do not know this. Please see, for example Avi-Yonah, M., Synagogue Architecture. In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 15, New York Macmillan, 1971.
As you can see, what you are suggesting for us to do is in fact nothing more than a Talmudic tradition.
Moreover, evaluating this evidence in light of 2145 completely negates your argument for facing Jerusalem. Or are the Jews not amongst the people of the book as mentioned in 2145?
Thank you for sharing this information, but you also forgot some Old Testament references
"Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did afortime." (Daniel 610)
Your argument using 2145 does not stand to scrutiny simply because you neglected the fact that the Qibla we are talking about and which we are commanded to face is the ?Restricted Temple? and not ?the area of Jerusalem? as you have implied.
Do the Jews accept the Restricted Temple as their Qibla?
Do the Christians?
In-fact, based on the analysis that the Restricted Temple is in the area known as the ?Temple Mount? (where the Dome of the Rock exists), you will find that neither Jews nor Christians accept this as their orientation.
In-fact, the Jews are ?forbidden? from that area by their Rabbis, while the Christians seek the mount of olives as their rallying point where they believe Jesus last prayed.
Does this sound like people following the same Qibla?
So now you are saying that verses 2142-150 apply only to "salat". We see the clear reference to a prayer direction in the Bible but not in the great reading. Can you please show me where it says that "qibla" is only related to "salat" or even where "salat" is mentioned in 2142-150?
Isn?t this what this whole back and forth discussion has been about?
Salat and Qibla are connected from the usage of 1087.
How do you face this Temple in Jerusalem? Or, more accurately, since in all likelihood it is below the horizon, how do you imagine to be facing it? Do you use the great circle method or do you use another method?
I think you are getting stuck in the details and missing the overall picture
?And to God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you turn, there is God?s presence. God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable. ? (2142)
-
Peace Wakas,
Thank you for clarifying your response to my point 1. Given that al quran seems to give an example of a missed regular/timed slw, I can see where you get the idea that the middle slw needs to be specifically mentioned as its the most likely to be missed, but I dont see that as a solid point. To me, one could just as easily sleep in and miss the regular/timed slw of Fajr.
You are correct, but for some reason I only found this time to be one in which an example of missing it was given. Perhaps when compared, this has the highest probability to be missed.
Quote
This is defined by both the term ?end/edge of the day? and by the word ?Fajr?. In Arabic, once the sun comes-up, then you are not able to call such a time ?Fajr? (I believe the same applies to the English word ?Dawn?).When you say "comes-up" do you mean past the horizon OR comes-up fully past the horizon? I think you are implying the former. Please clarify.
Comes up past the horizon.
I'm still confused about your wusta and isha timing BUT then you gave another trans. of 1778, shown below
"You shall hold the Salat after a time from the setting of the sun until the pitch darkness of the night..."
Where are you getting "after a time" from? I assume this is to allow you enough time to separate the two, i.e. wusta and isha, "after" being the key word. That is not what the sign says.
I looked up the various meanings of ?Duluk? last night and this appeared as one of them.
Here is how the process of analyzing 1778 went
"You shall hold the Salat at the ?dhulook? of the sun until the ?ghasaq? of the night..."
If ?dhulook? is chosen to mean ?decline/rub? and ?Ghasaq? is chosen to mean ?dark/pitch/black? then a Salat time has been created which lasts for 1.5 hours (this is how long it took to get from beginning sunset to pitch dark as per my measure).
Thus, the choice of ?setting/rubbing? AND ?darkness of night? creates a problem no matter how many Salats you believe are held per day (even if you believe there are only two, then you have one for 15 minutes and the other lasting for 1.5 hours).
Therefore there was a problem. Either ?Dhulook? was wrong or ?Ghasaq? was wrong.
If the meaning of ?dhulook? was taken to be the ?rubbing? of the sun (i.e sunset/dusk) and ?ghasaq? was ?darkness of night?, then there is also the contradiction created with 3831 where the Salat ends with the sun disappearing completely and not until the darkness of the night.
Thus, after examining ?dhulook?, a dictionary meaning I found was ?the passage of time? which made some sense in light of the problems raised above.
The only alternative is that ?ghasaq? is the problem and its meaning is not ?darkness? but is ?twilight? (i.e. the time of the day which mixes with the night). This would then make 1778 be about the ?middle? and not the ?isha? Salat time.
-
peace Layth,
Perhaps when compared, this has the highest probability to be missed.
Possibly, but subjective.
Thus, the choice of ?setting/rubbing? AND ?darkness of night? creates a problem no matter how many Salats you believe are held per day (even if you believe there are only two, then you have one for 15 minutes and the other lasting for 1.5 hours).
I dont see why they have to have similar time-ranges.
then there is also the contradiction created with 3831 where the Salat ends with the sun disappearing completely and not until the darkness of the night.
Before I comment on that, I want to get the most accurate trans. of 3831-33.
Ith (when) AAurida (they were shown/displayed) AAalayhi (to him) bi (in) al (the) AAashiyyi (evening/dusk) al (the) ssaffinatu (still-standing horses) al (the) jiyadu (long-necked and beautiful).
I have seen significantly different translations of 3832. Some say he didn't neglect his remembrance/mentioning (see M. Asad for example) and some say it was the horses who became hidden or disappeared. 3833 states "bring/return them back" thus implying it was the horses that disappeared or became hidden in the barrier/veil (of night). This makes sense also but alas, I cannot scrutinise this verse in the detail I would like because of my lack of grammatical knowledge. This is what I have so far
hatta (till) tawarat* (concealed/hidden) bi (in) al (the) hijabi (veil/barrier)
*it (the sun or materialism) or they (horses)? Different translators interpret it differently.
Wakas
-
Peace dear brother Layth,
That 2143 is the reason for the change in Qibla is undeniable. My comments in this discussion are provided in ?good faith?.
Good, now this is more like the old you. So now with this proper focus let's stop speculating about the political situation 1400 years ago and read 2143 together and find out the undeniable reason for the change
- Like this we made you a balanced nation, so that you will be witnesses over the people and the messenger will be on you a witness. And we didn't allow the target that you were on except to known who follows the messenger from who rolls back on his heels and it (i.e., the previous target) was big/important except for those who The God guided and The God would not waste your faith, indeed The God is compassionate and merciful to people.
Please notice that "kanat lakabirat" in 2143 is feminine and hence it must be referring to the previous target ("al-qiblat alati kuntu 3layha"). So the sign is saying that the PREVIOUS TARGET is a big deal EXCEPT for those who The God guided. Do you agree? If so, let's continue together.
What was the previous target?
It was the existing target of the previous people of the book (the Jews). The target of the Jews was physical and it was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This can be deduced by asking Jews themselves, from the Talmud, and from the fact that the all-important target of Jews is to rebuild their Temple on THE TEMPLE MOUNT. In fact, the Temple Mount was named the Temple Mount for no reason other than that it is the location of the Jewish Temple, which they take as their "qibla". Since their Temple building was destroyed in 70AD, their physical target simply became the Temple Mount.
Thus, in summary, the previous target was a physical target and it was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is EXACTLY the same physical target that you now want us to face.
Now we are told in no uncertain terms that this previous target (i.e. the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) is a big deal (i.e., it is important) EXCEPT for those who The God guided. Now, I hope that you can understand why I see the Temple Mount as insignificant and I will never see it as important.
The same way that they would ?shift? from this focal point and follow another so as to be distinguished (2143), the same way Moses?s people shifted the Qibla to be towards their homes (1087).
You said it yourself the "shift" from this target/focal point to another was done to distinguish people. So the next question is "distinguish what?"
Its purpose is to distinguish those who follow the messenger from those who roll back on their heels. Now let's put this to the test. Let's say you have a neighbor who happens to be a strict Talmudic Jew. You both decide to build your own Temples next to your homes. Naturally, the Talmudic Jew builds his Jewish Temple following Talmudic traditions and hence builds it such that the niche is supposed to be facing the Temple Mount. You build your Temple and as per your article, you orient the niche so that it is supposed to face the Temple Mount. Now, unless you have distinct non-Jewish decorations or a sign outside the Temple warning Talmudic Jews that this is not a Talmudic Temple, some Talmudic Jews will mistake your Temple for theirs. This is for the simple reason that your "qiblat" is EXACTLY the same as theirs. So how did your "qiblat" distinguish those who follow the messenger from those who roll back on their heels? Clearly it didn't.
Let's add another element to the above scenario. Let's say that you live South of the town presently called Makkat. Now, your physical direction is EXACTLY the same as that of the Wahabis. In fact, you might as well buy one of their existing Mosques and convert it to a Temple (whatever that means) instead of going through the expense of building your own Temple.
How does your "qiblat" distinguish you from a Talmudic Jew or even from a Wahabi (if you are south of the town presently called Makkat)? Clearly, it doesn't.
It provides a unity and constant reminder that the system is the same that was decreed by all the prophets. It is one focal point (both physically and spiritually).
I totally agree that "qiblat" provides unity and is a constant reminder of the system that was decreed by all prophets.
The "qiblat" of Talmudic Jews is EXACTLY the same "qiblat" that you are proposing. So if we follow your proposed "qiblat" then we would indeed be united with them in manifest error.
Please read carefully 1087 and see how the ?physical? Qibla is as clear as day?
Moses and his people have left their dwellings in Egypt and are on the run (being followed by Pharaoh and his army). The exodus is being done towards the direction of the sea (1090). This makes the Qibla (Restricted Temple) ahead of them. God tells Moses and his people to make their ?homes? into the Qibla during the Salat (thus letting them face the direction that the danger is coming from, and not give their backs to this direction as would have normally been done if they faced the original Qibla).
Thank you for the good advice brother. I took your advice and carefully read not only 1087 as you suggested but also the whole context from 1075 to 1093. Here is what becomes clear
- There is no indication that the command in 1087 is after the exodus from Egypt. In fact, as you correctly pointed out, the exodus comes afterwards in 1090. Hence, Moussa and his brother were still in Egypt when they made their houses a "qiblat".
- The command doesn't say that one should take a "qiblat" during "salat" exclusively.
- Since 1087 talks about "biyut", which means houses, then the "qiblat"/target/destination in 1087 is a physical one.
- Since "biyut" is plural, this renders your understanding of "qiblat" as a specific physical direction invalid, because it would mean a random direction.
- "Facing the direction of danger" would actually be the opposite of what The God ordered them to do, since he clearly ordered Moses to go in the opposite direction (leave Egypt).
Thanks to your questioning I have made a study of this and have found the most satisfying clarity.
Brother, I am always glad to be of help. )
As far as I am concerned, my holding a physical Qibla is a clear following of 2144. You are the one assuming that the ?masjid alharam? is a non-physical place and thus have created a dilemma for yourself unless Qibla is also made into a non-physical command.
I see the reason you are saying what you are saying, but it is your premise and not mine which needs to be proven.
Actually, your understanding creates a dilemma. If you interpret "qibla" as a physical direction, then 1087 becomes meaningless because "biyut" is plural and hence the direction becomes random (i.e., no direction). Egypt is a big place and one house could be to the north while another could be to the south, etc.
My understanding is without any dilemmas because 2144 and 1087 are reconciled with simply the clear dictionary meaning of "target/destination", which is consistent and is exactly the same.
In 1087 because "biyut" is physical, it is a physical "destination", in other words The God is telling Moses to setup houses for his people and make these houses a destination for them. This was the first step before the exodus, which comes shortly afterwards in 1090. This is logical because when the command to leave Egypt will come shortly afterwards, you want to be prepared by having people gathered in known places and you wouldn't want to unintentionally leave people behind. Hence, you setup communal houses as a destination where people gather.
In 2144, "al-masjid al-haram" is not about the wall and roof of a physical building. It is about the following purposes that are impossible to be accomplished by a physical building
-
It is a criterion of determining those who The God guided. I am sure that hypocrites will have no qualms about pointing their faces to the Temple Mount or any place on earth if it serves their purposes. As we saw, Talmudic Jews routinely point their faces to the Temple Mount. The undisputable fact is that a physical building, no matter where it is located, cannot guide anyone or make it known who is guided and who is not.
-
It is the truth from our Lord. There is nothing inherently true or false about a building or any other physical building. It is the ideas that we have about an object or a concept that can be true or false.
-
Wherever we are (and not only during "salat") we should set up our direction towards "al-masjid al-haram".
-
Once a structure is under the horizon, it is physically impossible to be facing it. You are in TRUTH facing random regions in outer space. Moreover, because the earth is rotating, you are actually facing different regions in outer space every second of your "salat".
Hence, in 2144 "qiblat"/target/destination is non-physical because a physical interpretation leads to nonsense in the same exact way that a physical interpretation of the straight path leads to nonsense (as you know very well).
Like in 2144, in 10105 and other places, we are asked to FACE "al-din".
-
And that persist your FACE to the "deen"/obligation monotheistic and do not be from those who set up partners.
-
So persist your FACE to the "deen"/obligation monotheistic, The God's natural system that He originated people on, there is no substitute to The God's creation but most people do not know.
-
So persist your FACE to the worthy "deen"/obligation before a day made inevitable by The God comes. On that day they will be splintered.
Isn't "al-din" also described as "al-7aq"/THE TRUTH? Those commands and their similar wording is not unintentional, there is no difference between FACING "al-din" and FACING "al-masjid al-haram".
Masjid Al-Haram is a physical place which was maintained (919), where the idol worshippers were forbidden from entering/participating in (92, where fighting is discouraged (2191), where the prophet and his companions entered with heads shaven (4827) etc..
Again, I am not aware how you disregard/discard all this information and insist that the Restricted Temple is non-physical (and hence Qibla must also be non-physical).
Patience brother, I don't disregard anything in the great reading. Let's try to think about the signs in those verses. I have no problem with understanding "al-bayt al-haram" as a physical building. However, as I demonstrated above and will demonstrate again, there are many logical problems that make it impossible to understand "al-masjid al-haram" as a physical building. Let me address your points one by one
- 919
As you indicated, 919 talks about maintaining or more accurately managing "al-masjid al-haram". In Egypt, there is Al-Masjid Al-Azhar. Sheikh Tantawi is the manager of Al-Azkar. Does this mean that he manages the walls and roof of the physical building ("bayt") of Al-Azhar? When we hear of Al-Azhar issuing a Fatwa, does this mean that the walls and the roof of the building of Al-Azhar issued the Fatwa? Clearly not! A "masjid" is not a physical building but is an institution of submission/obedience and this meaning survives even today, despite all the corruptions of sectarians. Hence, it is a system of authority, exactly like government. On the other hand, "al-bayt al-haram" can be the physical building of that institution.
- 928
Again, as in the case of 919, if one understands "al-masjid al-haram" as an institution then there is no problem. For example, unless you are from the Saudi Royal family, you are not allowed to be a person with real authority (a minister) in the institution of Saudi government. In fact you will not even be allowed to come close to being a minister. However, you can probably walk into the physical building of the ministry of foreign affairs.
On the other hand, when we test your understanding of 928, it really doesn't make sense. For example, you and I consider ourselves to be from "alathina amanu" so the command in 928 is directed at us. Thus, it is our responsibility that those who have setup partners do not come near positions of authority in the institution that others like us turn to for the TRUTH. For example, you wouldn't let someone like PrinceZED even come near to being a moderator. However, I am sure that you would have no problem inviting him into the physical building of your "Temple" to hear The God's message. This is also consistent with "al-bayt al-haram" being for ALL people.
- 2191
The SAME expression used in 2191 is used in 609 to talk about "din".
- The God only forbids you from taking as protectors those who fought you in the obligation/"deen" and evicted you from your homes and they openly tried to evict you and whoever takes them as protectors, those are the unjust.
Is "din" a physical building because there can be fighting IN IT?
- 4827
The sign in 1101-2 talks about the same victory in 4827. The SAME expression used in 4827 is used to talk about "din".
1101-2. When The God's victory and the breakthrough come. And you saw the people enter The God's obligation in throngs.
Is "din" a physical building because people (heads shaven or otherwise) can ENTER IT?
What we notice is that the same EXACT terms (facing it, fighting in it, entering it) used for "al-masjid al-haram" are used for "din". It is not then surprising that both "din" and "al-masjid al-haram" are described as the TRUTH.
As for 2144, THE TRUTH (emphasis yours) is the shifting towards this Qibla and not the Restricted Temple itself.
What you are saying is that it refers to the shift (i.e. the general actions of 2144 and not anything specific in them). Firstly, this is not a valid understanding because the same expression is repeated in 2149 and 2145-149 doesn't mention anything about the shift. Moreover, here are some verses where the same EXACT expression occurs
In 226 does "inahu al-7aq" refer to the "mathal" or to generally what the verse is saying? Surely, the sign in the verse is generally saying the truth, like ALL the book does. However, clearly "inahu al-7aq" points our attention to a specific concept (the "mathal") that was mentioned previously.
In 1117, "inahu al-7aq" refers specifically to the book and NOT to any general actions.
In 2254, "inahu al-7aq" refers specifically to the book and NOT to any general actions.
2852-53, "inahu al-7aq" refers specifically to the book and NOT to any general actions.
Please notice that 2144 we hear that those who were given the book (not a compass and not a map) know that "al-masjid al-haram" is the truth. Hence, once again we see that "al-masjid al-haram" is simply the institution of authority that implements The God's truth in the book. Hence, if Al-Masjid Al-Azhar ever gives up Hadiths and implements the TRUTH in the book, it can be "al-masjid al-haram" who people turn to.
?Chose? does not mean I am being moody and selecting Mecca as a name. I am saying that the ?choice? I have available is to look at the word as a proper name (which is what I have done) or to look at it as a verb (which is what you have done).
I didn't choose it as a verb. The word "makkat" can only be either a common noun or a proper name and it can never be a verb. Any word whose meaning makes sense in the context MUST be understood as a common noun. On the other hand, proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the truth about what is being described. Hence, you are not really a "lion" and Layth is just a label. However, if I say "The "lyth" is the king of the jungle and he preys on weaker animals" then this is most likely a common noun.
The common NOUN meaning of "makkat" as "destruction/wearing down/insistence on the adversary" fits perfectly in the context of 4824.
I ?chose? the name option because it also fit with the meaning of 4824.
?And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.? (4824)
But we can only choose to look at it as a proper name if the common noun doesn't fit well in the context. In this case, the common noun fits perfectly as demonstrated below
- And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction/wearing down/insistence on the adversary, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
Mecca here being the same Mecca that is in existence today (similarly the word Bakka was kept and is linked to the Bakka of Jerusalem).
It is an indisputable fact that "post-quranic" hypocrites were in the habit of naming things to match concepts in the great reading. For example, they named the building that they built themselves Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa long after the revelation of the great reading to match the common concept of "al-masjid al-aqsa" in the great reading. The other indisputable fact is that your ONLY source for the name Makkat is those same people.
You yourself know that what they named Kaabat in Makka is not the real "kaabat", otherwise you must then give up your whole Jerusalem idea and follow the Sunnis belief in Makka.
If you are still interested in archeological physical evidence, then research Nabataean idols and find out what the stone cube whose height is slightly more than the other dimensions represents. What you will find for yourself is that this stone cube represented the Nabataean idol Dhu-Al-Shaara (Dusares). You will also find out that the pagan ritual of spinning seven times around Dhu-Al-Shaara was done to celebrate his birth.
The "post-quranic" hypocrites simply renamed their idol from Dhu-Al-Shaara to Kaaba so that they can continue their pagan practices while pretending to follow the great reading. Why do you put it past them to rename an insignificant small town where a pagan shrine survived to Makkat?
As for Bakka, it is a proper name because the common noun doesn't make sense in the context. Hence, it can be understood as a meaningless label.
Thank you for sharing this information, but you also forgot some Old Testament references
"Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did afortime." (Daniel 610)
Your argument using 2145 does not stand to scrutiny simply because you neglected the fact that the Qibla we are talking about and which we are commanded to face is the ?Restricted Temple? and not ?the area of Jerusalem? as you have implied.
Do the Jews accept the Restricted Temple as their Qibla?
Yes, the do. In fact the Jews do take the Temple Mount as their "qibla" EXACTLY like what you are proposing. Haven't you been following what is happening over the past few decades in Palestine? The extremist Talmudic Jews want to destroy the current sectarian structures on the Temple Mount and rebuild their Temple on it.
Do the Christians?
The Christian's "qibla" is also physical. The "pre-quranic" Christians faced east for prayer. This was also the general pagan practice, especially of communities that idolized the sun. For more information, please see Davies, J. G., Orientation. In The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, ed. J. G. Davies. Philadelphia Westminster Press, 1986.
This pagan custom together with assigning Sun-day as the holy day for Trinitarians may not be a coincidence. Emperor Constantine was known to be a pagan sun worshiper and would have influenced such decisions at the Nicene.
In-fact, based on the analysis that the Restricted Temple is in the area known as the ?Temple Mount? (where the Dome of the Rock exists), you will find that neither Jews nor Christians accept this as their orientation.
You are wrong. Talmudic Jews do take the Temple Mount as their orientation. Exactly like Sunnis take what is presently called Makkat as their orientation.
Talmudic traditions also contend that one should avoid turning his back to the Temple; thus, the rabbis argued that someone, for example, to the south or north of Jerusalem should face east or west when relieving himself! .
Compare the above Talmudic rabbinical edict to the following Hadith
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 388
Narrated Ali bin Abdullah from Sufyan from Alzuhri from Ata bin Yazid from Abu Aiyub Al-Ansari The Prophet said, "While defecating, neither face nor turn your back to the Qibla but face either east or west."In-fact, the Jews are ?forbidden? from that area by their Rabbis, while the Christians seek the mount of olives as their rallying point where they believe Jesus last prayed.
You are wrong because while the average Jew is forbidden from some of the areas of the Temple, the Rabbis are not. It is the same situation today in Makka where the average Muslim is not allowed to go inside the so-called Kaabat while the Saudi political and religious elite are allowed to. Perhaps they are afraid that people will find out that the only things inside Dhu Al-Shaara are three stone pillars. As I said, the whole area of the Temple Mount was named so for no reason other than it is where the Jewish Temple that they faced was.
Does this sound like people following the same Qibla?
Following the "qiblat" of the Temple Mount is EXACTLY the same falsehood that Talmudic Jews follow.
Isn?t this what this whole back and forth discussion has been about?
Salat and Qibla are connected from the usage of 1087.
The "qibla" is not just about "salat". 1087 doesn't say anything about "qibla" being followed exclusively at the time of "salat". 2149-150 make it clear that even while on the move, one should face "al-masjid al-haram". There is no exception to not facing it.
So this leads to THREE physical impossibilities
- One cannot EVERYWHERE face the Temple Mount.
- One cannot on the move face the Temple Mount, unless he sees it and is heading there (This is a big problem for your understanding because we know that "salat" can be done on the move).
- Once the Temple Mount is under the horizon, it is impossible to be facing it.
I think you are getting stuck in the details and missing the overall picture
?And to God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you turn, there is God?s presence. God is Encompassing, Knowledgeable. ? (2142)
Since 2115 mentions the direction/"wagh" as related to the physical directions of east and west, then it is indeed talking about a physical direction. What The God is telling us is that physically, His direction is everywhere. On the other hand, 2144 tells us that there is ONLY ONE direction to the TRUTH (in the same way that there is only one path that is straight). The same thing can be deduced from 2177.
I hope that my comments have been helpful and even though I may sound harsh sometimes, please do not take them negatively. Try to think back to the time when you first heard about Hadiths being falsehood.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace Wakas,
Before I comment on that, I want to get the most accurate trans. of 3831-33.
Ith (when) AAurida (they were shown/displayed) AAalayhi (to him) bi (in) al (the) AAashiyyi (evening/dusk) al (the) ssaffinatu (still-standing horses) al (the) jiyadu (long-necked and beautiful).
I have seen significantly different translations of 3832. Some say he didn't neglect his remembrance/mentioning (see M. Asad for example) and some say it was the horses who became hidden or disappeared. 3833 states "bring/return them back" thus implying it was the horses that disappeared or became hidden in the barrier/veil (of night). This makes sense also but alas, I cannot scrutinise this verse in the detail I would like because of my lack of grammatical knowledge. This is what I have so far
hatta (till) tawarat* (concealed/hidden) bi (in) al (the) hijabi (veil/barrier)
*it (the sun or materialism) or they (horses)? Different translators interpret it differently.
I re-read several times and discussed it...It appears to my understanding to be the sun (and not horses) that has gone way past the horizon.
I am re-examining the timing of "wusta" and "isha". I agree with your comments that there appears to be a cross over no matter which meanings are looked at between 1778 and 11114 and 2458.
If so, that would make sunset-dark to be the "isha" period only.
I am currently looking at wusta being the "middle" (literally and physically) from examining 2458 and 2328.
Will try to post my views tommorow if possible.
-
Peace,
Let's take a certain day of a certain person and see where he had been that day.
Woke up and ate breakfast at home at P1.
Walked to school at P2 (different from P1).
Went to the post office at P3 after class (different from P2, and P1).
Then went to the grocer shop at P4 (different from P1, P2, and P3).
Finally, returned home at P1.Now according to the commandment, the person should have faced the so-called Qibla at P1, P2, P3, P4 and P1. Right?
Is this a correct understanding? If not, then why? Any comments?
Anwar Azim -
Peace all..
about the word as-salawati in 2238, a translation in my local language gives the word as-salawat means "Doa for forgiveness" and not solaa(s).
He gave the same intrepetation for 999 and 9103 where "wa-salawati alrosooli" is interpreted as " Doa for forgiveness from the messengger"i know salawat have saveral meanings in the arab language, is "doa for forgiveness" such as
- "Salawatun" = blessing from 2157
- " Salawatun" = synagogeus- prayer place for the jews 2240
so can we accept the salawat for "doa for forgiveness"?
-
Peace wakas,
It took me a day or so longer than I expected )
After some extensive study, and thanks to the help of a good friend, I am presenting the case for three Salats per day as follows
- Dawn Salat (Fajr 245.
- Middle/Noon Salat (Wusta 223.
- Evening Salat (Isha 245.
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/salat_files/image001.png
?And you shall hold the Salat at {1,2} two edges during the day, and the {3} near part of the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.? (Quran 11114)
11114 marks the beginning points for the three Salats. According to 20130, we are told that the day has at least three edges (plural use ?atraaf?); 11114 refers to only two of these edges (dual use ?tarafai?), which is determined to be the first edge ?dawn? and the second edge ?noon?. As for the third Salat time, it is made in reference to the early/near part of the night (which occurs just after the third edge of the day ?dusk?).
"You shall hold the Salat until the {2} dipping of the sun; until the {3} darkness of the night; and the {1} Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed." (Quran 177
1778 marks the ending time for the three Salats with the usage of the Arabic ?li,ila? (until). The first end is given as the sun begins its decline/dipping which occurs after the noon ?edge.? The second end is give as the darkness of the night takes over which occurs after the ?near/early part of the night.? As for the dawn Salat, its end is defined by the word itself ?dawn/fajr? which occurs as night is turning into day and ends with the sun coming up over the horizon (known as morning/subuh).
Based on the above information, each Salat time will last between 10-15 minutes depending on the accuracy of judgment in one time period moving into another.
The full article can be read here http//www.free-minds.org/article/quranic/salat.htm
-
Peace be upon you Layth,
Noon time is not an edge, it only appears so in your picture because you used a triangle picture.
"You shall hold the Salat until the {2} dipping of the sun; until the {3} darkness of the night; and the {1} Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed." (Quran 177
We are told to maintain salaat FROM the dulook of the sun, UNTIL the darkness of night, why do you have UNTIL the dulook of the sun?
-
Peace Kyle,
Noon time is not an edge, it only appears so in your picture because you used a triangle picture.
Please refer to 20130 which proves that the day indeed has more than two "edges".
"You shall hold the Salat until the {2} dipping of the sun; until the {3} darkness of the night; and the {1} Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed." (Quran 177
We are told to maintain salaat FROM the dulook of the sun, UNTIL the darkness of night, why do you have UNTIL the dulook of the sun?
That is how I was looking at it as well until someone correctly pointed out that the "Li" is "until" and not "from". Thus, re-examining 1778 inthis light it becomes "until dhulook; until darkness of night".
P.S. Brother Ayman. I have not neglected your post on Qibla, only that it is a very loooong post and I am trying my best to complete the responces.
-
Peace Ayman,
- Like this we made you a balanced nation, so that you will be witnesses over the people and the messenger will be on you a witness. And we didn't allow the target that you were on except to known who follows the messenger from who rolls back on his heels and it (i.e., the previous target) was big/important except for those who The God guided and The God would not waste your faith, indeed The God is compassionate and merciful to people.
Please notice that "kanat lakabirat" in 2143 is feminine and hence it must be referring to the previous target ("al-qiblat alati kuntu 3layha"). So the sign is saying that the PREVIOUS TARGET is a big deal EXCEPT for those who The God guided. Do you agree? If so, let's continue together.
I agree that in 2143 the reference of the ?big deal? is to the ?target they were upon,? but I disagree with your analysis for you have skipped a very important verse which shows that the target ?they were on? at this point and which is being referred to as a ?big deal? was the 2nd Qibla (not the 1st)
?The foolish from amongst the people will Say ?What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on?? Say ?To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.? (Quran 2142)
The prophet and his followers have already made the shift away from the ?original? Qibla, hence the people commenting ?what made them change??.
Thus when 2143 is read in this light, it confirms that the Qibla they ?were on? and which was a ?test? is in fact the 2nd Qibla.
What was the previous target?
It was the existing target of the previous people of the book (the Jews). The target of the Jews was physical and it was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This can be deduced by asking Jews themselves, from the Talmud, and from the fact that the all-important target of Jews is to rebuild their Temple on THE TEMPLE MOUNT. In fact, the Temple Mount was named the Temple Mount for no reason other than that it is the location of the Jewish Temple, which they take as their "qibla". Since their Temple building was destroyed in 70AD, their physical target simply became the Temple Mount.
Thus, in summary, the previous target was a physical target and it was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is EXACTLY the same physical target that you now want us to face.
- Your analysis misses 2142 and thus confuses the sequence of Qibla change.
- The Jews have not faced the ?Temple Mount? since before our Prophet?s time. They face Jerusalem, I agree, but they are forbidden from the Temple area making your findings that we share the same Qibla to be incorrect.
Now we are told in no uncertain terms that this previous target (i.e. the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) is a big deal (i.e., it is important) EXCEPT for those who The God guided. Now, I hope that you can understand why I see the Temple Mount as insignificant and I will never see it as important.
You are free to your views, however these views are in error. The ?big deal? was for the Prophet to suddenly shift away from the historic Qibla of all the prophets and establish a ?new? Qibla. Those who believe in God understand that He is everywhere and thus were not phased by this change, while those who maintain tradition and conformity were clearly shaken.
You said it yourself the "shift" from this target/focal point to another was done to distinguish people. So the next question is "distinguish what?"
Its purpose is to distinguish those who follow the messenger from those who roll back on their heels. Now let's put this to the test. Let's say you have a neighbor who happens to be a strict Talmudic Jew. You both decide to build your own Temples next to your homes. Naturally, the Talmudic Jew builds his Jewish Temple following Talmudic traditions and hence builds it such that the niche is supposed to be facing the Temple Mount. You build your Temple and as per your article, you orient the niche so that it is supposed to face the Temple Mount. Now, unless you have distinct non-Jewish decorations or a sign outside the Temple warning Talmudic Jews that this is not a Talmudic Temple, some Talmudic Jews will mistake your Temple for theirs. This is for the simple reason that your "qiblat" is EXACTLY the same as theirs. So how did your "qiblat" distinguish those who follow the messenger from those who roll back on their heels? Clearly it didn't.
Your whole scenario is built on a wrong premise in making the ?test? to be the 1st Qibla, when it was in-fact the 2nd that they were being tested through.
Let's add another element to the above scenario. Let's say that you live South of the town presently called Makkat. Now, your physical direction is EXACTLY the same as that of the Wahabis. In fact, you might as well buy one of their existing Mosques and convert it to a Temple (whatever that means) instead of going through the expense of building your own Temple.
How does your "qiblat" distinguish you from a Talmudic Jew or even from a Wahabi (if you are south of the town presently called Makkat)? Clearly, it doesn't.
It distinguishes me that I ?know? I am facing that which God commanded me to, rather than what you refer to as a ?general look? that may appear to be the same (like saying that the Jews also face Jerusalem, when in-fact the command is to face the Restricted Temple).
The "qiblat" of Talmudic Jews is EXACTLY the same "qiblat" that you are proposing. So if we follow your proposed "qiblat" then we would indeed be united with them in manifest error.
Disagree.
Jerusalem = Jerusalem
Restricted Temple = Restricted Temple
Jerusalem Restricted TempleThank you for the good advice brother. I took your advice and carefully read not only 1087 as you suggested but also the whole context from 1075 to 1093. Here is what becomes clear
- There is no indication that the command in 1087 is after the exodus from Egypt. In fact, as you correctly pointed out, the exodus comes afterwards in 1090. Hence, Moussa and his brother were still in Egypt when they made their houses a "qiblat".
- The command doesn't say that one should take a "qiblat" during "salat" exclusively.
- Since 1087 talks about "biyut", which means houses, then the "qiblat"/target/destination in 1087 is a physical one.
- Since "biyut" is plural, this renders your understanding of "qiblat" as a specific physical direction invalid, because it would mean a random direction.
- "Facing the direction of danger" would actually be the opposite of what The God ordered them to do, since he clearly ordered Moses to go in the opposite direction (leave Egypt).
Disagree.
- The exodus does not ?begin? with the crossing of the sea, but begins with Moses and his people ?leaving? their town 1085 (logical).
- Qibla and Salat in 1087 show a clear correlation.
- Yes, Qibla is a physical destination.
- They are on the move away from Pharaoh and their town, thus their ?houses? become one direction and not several direction (you have also contradicted yourself by the previous statement that 1087 is a ?physical? direction).
- They are performing Salat, which under normal circumstances is done in a standing and stationery position. Hence the extra precaution of facing towards the direction where Pharaoh would be coming from becomes clear.
Actually, your understanding creates a dilemma. If you interpret "qibla" as a physical direction, then 1087 becomes meaningless because "biyut" is plural and hence the direction becomes random (i.e., no direction). Egypt is a big place and one house could be to the north while another could be to the south, etc.
All houses in a town would be in the same direction if you have left the town.
My understanding is without any dilemmas because 2144 and 1087 are reconciled with simply the clear dictionary meaning of "target/destination", which is consistent and is exactly the same.
In 1087 because "biyut" is physical, it is a physical "destination", in other words The God is telling Moses to setup houses for his people and make these houses a destination for them. This was the first step before the exodus, which comes shortly afterwards in 1090. This is logical because when the command to leave Egypt will come shortly afterwards, you want to be prepared by having people gathered in known places and you wouldn't want to unintentionally leave people behind. Hence, you setup communal houses as a destination where people gather.
As I pointed out in my previous post, I see the root cause for your interpretations to be the refusal to see Masjid Haram as a ?physical? place. I.e. where you see ?homes? to be physical, you accepted that Qibla is ?physical?, but because of your view against Masjid Haram being physical, you try to force Qibla to be non-physical.
Also, I have mentioned that the ?exodus? would begin with the moment they leave their towns (and not simply when they cross the sea).
Finally, I have noted that in the beginning of your post, you opted to go for the ?Qibla is physical? understanding to explain to me how the ?test? was to face the same direction as the Jews?According to what you have just claimed above about Qibla being non-physical (except you said about ?homes?) your views seem to be clearly inconsistent.
In 2144, "al-masjid al-haram" is not about the wall and roof of a physical building. It is about the following purposes that are impossible to be accomplished by a physical building
- It is a criterion of determining those who The God guided. I am sure that hypocrites will have no qualms about pointing their faces to the Temple Mount or any place on earth if it serves their purposes. As we saw, Talmudic Jews routinely point their faces to the Temple Mount. The undisputable fact is that a physical building, no matter where it is located, cannot guide anyone or make it known who is guided and who is not.
This is covered early on in the post to show that the ?test? was not facing the Masjid Al-Haram, but to face away from it.
- It is the truth from our Lord. There is nothing inherently true or false about a building or any other physical building. It is the ideas that we have about an object or a concept that can be true or false.
It is the ?same? system as was taught to all the prophets beginning with Abraham?hence it is ?truth?.
- Wherever we are (and not only during "salat") we should set up our direction towards "al-masjid al-haram".
I am surprised you still insist on not differentiating between ?wherever? and ?whenever?.
If the Qibla is related to Salat (as per 1087), then when the Qibla is required to be faced is only when the Salat is being held (3 times/day). Hence ?wherever? you are you would face the Qibla, and not ?whenever? you are.
- Once a structure is under the horizon, it is physically impossible to be facing it. You are in TRUTH facing random regions in outer space. Moreover, because the earth is rotating, you are actually facing different regions in outer space every second of your "salat".
This ?laser? technique can only be viable if our Salat somehow does not serve its purpose unless we are ?lock-on? to specific GPS coordinates! Salat, if done properly, works no matter where you face (because God is everywhere). Hence a Qibla provides unity in purpose as well as direction (we are all one nation) and is not a magic trigger for anything to happen.
Hence, in 2144 "qiblat"/target/destination is non-physical because a physical interpretation leads to nonsense in the same exact way that a physical interpretation of the straight path leads to nonsense (as you know very well).
You are again forcing different meanings to Qibla (one time you say it is physical 2143, then spiritual 2144, then physical 1087). Masjid Haram can be a ?physical? destination because it would offer all the aspects of unity associated with the ?truth? (your god is One god?).
Like in 2144, in 10105 and other places, we are asked to FACE "al-din".
-
And that persist your FACE to the "deen"/obligation monotheistic and do not be from those who set up partners.
-
So persist your FACE to the "deen"/obligation monotheistic, The God's natural system that He originated people on, there is no substitute to The God's creation but most people do not know.
-
So persist your FACE to the worthy "deen"/obligation before a day made inevitable by The God comes. On that day they will be splintered.
Isn't "al-din" also described as "al-7aq"/THE TRUTH? Those commands and their similar wording is not unintentional, there is no difference between FACING "al-din" and FACING "al-masjid al-haram".
None of the verses you mention speak of Qibla (which by your admission was a ?physical? destination in at least two places).
Patience brother, I don't disregard anything in the great reading. Let's try to think about the signs in those verses. I have no problem with understanding "al-bayt al-haram" as a physical building. However, as I demonstrated above and will demonstrate again, there are many logical problems that make it impossible to understand "al-masjid al-haram" as a physical building. Let me address your points one by one
- 919
As you indicated, 919 talks about maintaining or more accurately managing "al-masjid al-haram". In Egypt, there is Al-Masjid Al-Azhar. Sheikh Tantawi is the manager of Al-Azkar. Does this mean that he manages the walls and roof of the physical building ("bayt") of Al-Azhar? When we hear of Al-Azhar issuing a Fatwa, does this mean that the walls and the roof of the building of Al-Azhar issued the Fatwa? Clearly not! A "masjid" is not a physical building but is an institution of submission/obedience and this meaning survives even today, despite all the corruptions of sectarians. Hence, it is a system of authority, exactly like government. On the other hand, "al-bayt al-haram" can be the physical building of that institution.
Not only does 919 use the word ?Amara? which is to renovate/build/construct/maintain, but it also uses the very physical description of ?watering the pilgrims?. Thus, to make 919 non-physical you would also need to make the ?watering of the pilgrims? to be metaphoric or symbolic!
- 928
Again, as in the case of 919, if one understands "al-masjid al-haram" as an institution then there is no problem. For example, unless you are from the Saudi Royal family, you are not allowed to be a person with real authority (a minister) in the institution of Saudi government. In fact you will not even be allowed to come close to being a minister. However, you can probably walk into the physical building of the ministry of foreign affairs.
On the other hand, when we test your understanding of 928, it really doesn't make sense. For example, you and I consider ourselves to be from "alathina amanu" so the command in 928 is directed at us. Thus, it is our responsibility that those who have setup partners do not come near positions of authority in the institution that others like us turn to for the TRUTH. For example, you wouldn't let someone like PrinceZED even come near to being a moderator. However, I am sure that you would have no problem inviting him into the physical building of your "Temple" to hear The God's message. This is also consistent with "al-bayt al-haram" being for ALL people.
That the Masjid Al-Haram functions as both a temple and a place for authority is perfectly sensible. In your example of Al-Azhar you made such reference to it being a physical place, but also a place of fatwa and authority.
- 2191
The SAME expression used in 2191 is used in 609 to talk about "din".
- The God only forbids you from taking as protectors those who fought you in the obligation/"deen" and evicted you from your homes and they openly tried to evict you and whoever takes them as protectors, those are the unjust.
Is "din" a physical building because there can be fighting IN IT?
The wording is not even close. 2191 says ?those who fight you AT/NEAR the Masjid Alharam?, while 609 says ?those who fight you IN the system?. If anything this adds more support to 2191.
- 4827
The sign in 1101-2 talks about the same victory in 4827. The SAME expression used in 4827 is used to talk about "din".
1101-2. When The God's victory and the breakthrough come. And you saw the people enter The God's obligation in throngs.
Is "din" a physical building because people (heads shaven or otherwise) can ENTER IT?
What we notice is that the same EXACT terms (facing it, fighting in it, entering it) used for "al-masjid al-haram" are used for "din". It is not then surprising that both "din" and "al-masjid al-haram" are described as the TRUTH.
That the Masjid Al-Haram is also the ?truth? is in no doubt (2144). As for your comparison between 4827, and 1101-2, you have conveniently skipped over the clear ?physical? aspect to 4827 of having their heads ?shaved?.
What you are saying is that it refers to the shift (i.e. the general actions of 2144 and not anything specific in them). Firstly, this is not a valid understanding because the same expression is repeated in 2149 and 2145-149 doesn't mention anything about the shift. Moreover, here are some verses where the same EXACT expression occurs
Didn?t you say that the ?shift? was physical according to 2143? Now it is no longer physical?!
In 226 does "inahu al-7aq" refer to the "mathal" or to generally what the verse is saying? Surely, the sign in the verse is generally saying the truth, like ALL the book does. However, clearly "inahu al-7aq" points our attention to a specific concept (the "mathal") that was mentioned previously.
In 1117, "inahu al-7aq" refers specifically to the book and NOT to any general actions.
In 2254, "inahu al-7aq" refers specifically to the book and NOT to any general actions.
2852-53, "inahu al-7aq" refers specifically to the book and NOT to any general actions.
Please notice that 2144 we hear that those who were given the book (not a compass and not a map) know that "al-masjid al-haram" is the truth. Hence, once again we see that "al-masjid al-haram" is simply the institution of authority that implements The God's truth in the book. Hence, if Al-Masjid Al-Azhar ever gives up Hadiths and implements the TRUTH in the book, it can be "al-masjid al-haram" who people turn to.
The sequence of changes beginning from 2142 (and not 2143) shows why the Masjid Al-Haram is recognized as the ?truth? by those who received the scripture (it is the same system that all the prophets taught).
I didn't choose it as a verb. The word "makkat" can only be either a common noun or a proper name and it can never be a verb. Any word whose meaning makes sense in the context MUST be understood as a common noun. On the other hand, proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the truth about what is being described. Hence, you are not really a "lion" and Layth is just a label. However, if I say "The "lyth" is the king of the jungle and he preys on weaker animals" then this is most likely a common noun.
The common NOUN meaning of "makkat" as "destruction/wearing down/insistence on the adversary" fits perfectly in the context of 4824.
But we can only choose to look at it as a proper name if the common noun doesn't fit well in the context. In this case, the common noun fits perfectly as demonstrated below
- And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction/wearing down/insistence on the adversary, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
I do not see why this is such a ?big issue? for you? If the ?choice? between a noun and a name exists, then why try to force one over the other?
I agree that 4824 can work as a noun, but it also works as a name.
It is an indisputable fact that "post-quranic" hypocrites were in the habit of naming things to match concepts in the great reading. For example, they named the building that they built themselves Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa long after the revelation of the great reading to match the common concept of "al-masjid al-aqsa" in the great reading. The other indisputable fact is that your ONLY source for the name Makkat is those same people.
You yourself know that what they named Kaabat in Makka is not the real "kaabat", otherwise you must then give up your whole Jerusalem idea and follow the Sunnis belief in Makka.
If you are still interested in archeological physical evidence, then research Nabataean idols and find out what the stone cube whose height is slightly more than the other dimensions represents. What you will find for yourself is that this stone cube represented the Nabataean idol Dhu-Al-Shaara (Dusares). You will also find out that the pagan ritual of spinning seven times around Dhu-Al-Shaara was done to celebrate his birth.
The "post-quranic" hypocrites simply renamed their idol from Dhu-Al-Shaara to Kaaba so that they can continue their pagan practices while pretending to follow the great reading. Why do you put it past them to rename an insignificant small town where a pagan shrine survived to Makkat?
As for Bakka, it is a proper name because the common noun doesn't make sense in the context. Hence, it can be understood as a meaningless label.
OK, I see your argument in this point. I will reflect upon this and tell you if I make any changes.
Do the Jews accept the Restricted Temple as their Qibla?
Yes, the do. In fact the Jews do take the Temple Mount as their "qibla" EXACTLY like what you are proposing. Haven't you been following what is happening over the past few decades in Palestine? The extremist Talmudic Jews want to destroy the current sectarian structures on the Temple Mount and rebuild their Temple on it.
Brother, I do not know why you insist on a point which is not valid! The Jews DO NOT take the Temple Mount as their Qibla (they have not done so for nearly 2,000 years since the Roman destruction of their Temple). The Jews take the area of Jerusalem in general, and the wailing wall in particular to currently be their facing.
When the extremists rebuild the Temple and make it their Qibla, then let us debate this point.
Do the Christians?
The Christian's "qibla" is also physical. The "pre-quranic" Christians faced east for prayer. This was also the general pagan practice, especially of communities that idolized the sun. For more information, please see Davies, J. G., Orientation. In The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, ed. J. G. Davies. Philadelphia Westminster Press, 1986.
This pagan custom together with assigning Sun-day as the holy day for Trinitarians may not be a coincidence. Emperor Constantine was known to be a pagan sun worshiper and would have influenced such decisions at the Nicene.
Good, that proves that they did not take the Masjid AlHaram as their Qibla (which conforms with what God tells us).
You are wrong. Talmudic Jews do take the Temple Mount as their orientation. Exactly like Sunnis take what is presently called Makkat as their orientation.
Talmudic traditions also contend that one should avoid turning his back to the Temple; thus, the rabbis argued that someone, for example, to the south or north of Jerusalem should face east or west when relieving himself! .
The ?key? in your argument is Jerusalem and not the Temple Mount. I have read many of the Jewish teachings and the vast majority FORBID orienting to the Temple Mount until the Temple is re-built.
That there would be someone who goes against the flow and claims an orientation to the Temple Mount is possible, but does not negate from the vast majority who do not do so.
You are wrong because while the average Jew is forbidden from some of the areas of the Temple, the Rabbis are not. It is the same situation today in Makka where the average Muslim is not allowed to go inside the so-called Kaabat while the Saudi political and religious elite are allowed to. Perhaps they are afraid that people will find out that the only things inside Dhu Al-Shaara are three stone pillars. As I said, the whole area of the Temple Mount was named so for no reason other than it is where the Jewish Temple that they faced was.
Following the "qiblat" of the Temple Mount is EXACTLY the same falsehood that Talmudic Jews follow.
You have answered your own question.
The "qibla" is not just about "salat". 1087 doesn't say anything about "qibla" being followed exclusively at the time of "salat". 2149-150 make it clear that even while on the move, one should face "al-masjid al-haram". There is no exception to not facing it.
So this leads to THREE physical impossibilities
- One cannot EVERYWHERE face the Temple Mount.
- One cannot on the move face the Temple Mount, unless he sees it and is heading there (This is a big problem for your understanding because we know that "salat" can be done on the move).
- Once the Temple Mount is under the horizon, it is impossible to be facing it.
All your points above have been addressed.
Since 2115 mentions the direction/"wagh" as related to the physical directions of east and west, then it is indeed talking about a physical direction. What The God is telling us is that physically, His direction is everywhere. On the other hand, 2144 tells us that there is ONLY ONE direction to the TRUTH (in the same way that there is only one path that is straight). The same thing can be deduced from 2177.
Yes, God is physically everywhere, which is why I am surprised you keep pulling the ?below the horizon? argument regarding Qibla. As for the true Masjid Al-Haram, it is the truth?This is the same system that was incorporated by Abraham and the prophets after.
I hope that my comments have been helpful and even though I may sound harsh sometimes, please do not take them negatively. Try to think back to the time when you first heard about Hadiths being falsehood.
I have no problem with arguments getting heated?I do however plead that we stick to short posts as postings like this one took something close to half a day to be able to respond to (thank God it?s the weekend here!).
-
Peace brother Layth,
Here is what you said (emphasis mine)
I agree that in 2143 the reference of the ?big deal? is to the ?target they were upon,? but I disagree with your analysis for you have skipped a very important verse which shows that the target ?they were on? at this point and which is being referred to as a ?big deal? was the 2nd Qibla (not the 1st)
?The foolish from amongst the people will Say ?What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on?? Say ?To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.? (Quran 2142)
The prophet and his followers have already made the shift away from the ?original? Qibla, hence the people commenting ?what made them change??.
Thus when 2143 is read in this light, it confirms that the Qibla they ?were on? and which was a ?test? is in fact the 2nd Qibla.
As you thoughtfully suggested, I will keep this short and sweet . Here are the facts
- Notice how you admit that 2143 talks about the "qibla" they ?were on? EXACTLY like 2142 talks about the "qibla" they ?were on?. Hence, those are the SAME "qibla" they ?were on? and it is NOT the 2nd "qibla" that will still come in 2144.
- Since this "qibla" they ?were on? is related to the physical directions of east and west in 2142, then the "qibla" they ?were on? in 2142 and 2143 is a physical target/"qibla".
In conclusion, 2142-143 talks about abandoning, or as your translation said "turning away from" (NOT switching/changing to a new one) the "qibla" they ?were on? and the only information given about it is that it was a physical "qibla". This "abandonment" is a test. Those who fail the test will see the physical "qibla" they ?were on? as a big deal.
Let's agree on this first before I address your remaining points.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace be upon you,
Are we told to maintain salaat for only one day? Or are we to maintain it MANY DAYS?
I think if we consider, as in the verse where we are told to guard the salaat(3 or more), salaat(singular) wusta,...
It implies that over the course of our lives, we are expected to maintain more than three salaat.
-
Peace Ayman,
I found your explanation of what I said to be extremely confusing...
Here is what I am saying regarding 2142-144
2142 The foolish of the "people" will say "what made them change their Qibla?"
This confirms that there was/is a Qibla and there was also a change causing the "foolish from the people" to question why it happened.
Note that the people were not questioning the original Qibla, but they only questioned when the change happened.
2143 Gives the answer by stating that the Qibla they were made to be on (i.e. the 2nd Qibla) "Kunta 3layha" was done to test those who follow the messenger from those who turn on their heels.
2144 Comforts the messenger's distress from being turned away from the original Qibla and informs him that from henceforth they may all turn towards the Masjid Alharam.
-
Peace brother Layth,
Thank you for your explanation. I can now see why you are confused.
I found your explanation of what I said to be extremely confusing...
Brother, you are confusing yourself by changing what 2142 is saying as clearly demonstrated below
Here is what I am saying regarding 2142-144
2142 The foolish of the "people" will say "what made them change their Qibla?"
Compare the above to your earlier more correct translation below
?The foolish from amongst the people will Say ?What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on?? Say ?To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.? (Quran 2142)
Why did you change "turn away" to "change"? You are confusing yourself.
In simply "turn away" there is no implication of having a new "qibla", it is simply rejecting the existing "qibla". On the other hand, "change" implies changing from the qibla-1 to a new qibla-2.
This confirms that there was/is a Qibla and there was also a change causing the "foolish from the people" to question why it happened.
Indeed, there was a "qibla" that we KNOW was PHYSICAL because of the reference to the EAST and the WEST in 2142. Let's call it qibla-1. At this stage (2142-143), there is no "change". There is only TURNING AWAY from qibla-1. In other words, there is rejection of qibla-1.
In 2142 the messenger had already turned away from qibla-1 and people can SEE that he turned away (again confirming that 2142-143 are talking about a physical "qibla").
Hence, the TEST in 2143 is about the TURNING AWAY from qibla-1. The ONLY information we know for sure about qibla-1 is that it was PHYSICAL.
Note that the people were not questioning the original Qibla, but they only questioned when the change happened.
Yes, they didn't question the PHYSICAL qibla-1. They questioned why the turn away from the PHYSICAL qibla-1. As clear, this is about the rejection of PHYSICAL qibla-1 NOT about "the change" to another "qibla".
2143 Gives the answer by stating that the Qibla they were made to be on (i.e. the 2nd Qibla) "Kunta 3layha" was done to test those who follow the messenger from those who turn on their heels.
As you imply, the only way that your interpretation would work is if "alati kanu 3alayha" refers to qibla-1 in 2142 and then suddenly "alati kunta 3alayha" refers to qibla-2 in 2143. Hence, once again, it is not surprising that you feel confused.
How did you get to the second qibla-2 when it is not even mentioned until 2144?
The plural expression "alati kanu 3alayha" used in 2142 by the people who questioned the turning away from qibla-1 is the same singular expression "alati kunta 3alayha" used in 2143 to address the prophet. Hence, it must still be talking about qibla-1.
Moreover, the past tense of "alati kunta 3alayha" clearly points to the previous qibla-1 since it is the past "qibla" that he WAS on.
The other indisputable fact is that qibla-2 is not even mentioned until afterwards in 2144.
Hence, this test has NOTHING to do with qibla-2. It has EVERYTHING to do with the turning away from qibla-1.
2144 Comforts the messenger's distress from being turned away from the original Qibla and informs him that from henceforth they may all turn towards the Masjid Alharam.
The messenger was not distressed, he was unsatisfied. Hence, The God tells him that he will turn him towards a "qibla" that will satisfy him ("tarDaha"). This means that he was unsatisfied with qibla-1.
Why was the messenger NOT satisfied (not "radi") with qibla-1? Is it its location? We are NEVER told where qibla-1 was. This means that it doesn't matter WHERE qibla-1 was. The only thing that matters is what we are told. The ONLY thing we are told about qibla-1 is that it is PHYSICAL through the reference to the PHYSICAL directions of EAST and WEST. Hence, the messenger was not satisfied because it was a PHYSICAL "qibla".
To make it short, please notice how you now switch back again and change "change" to "turn away". Again, I can see why you said that you are confused. Confusion can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing depending on what we do about it. It is a good thing if it causes us to throw our existing interpretation and make a fresh start to reach a less confusing and more logical understanding.
I hope my explanation is less confusing now. If it is not, please let me know and I will be glad to clarify further.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman.
-
Peace Ayman,
Thank you for your explanation. I can now see why you are confused.
You have used the word ?confused? 8 times?Let us not make it the subject of this discussion.
2142 The foolish of the "people" will say "what made them change their Qibla?"
Compare the above to your earlier more correct translation below
Layth wrote
?The foolish from amongst the people will Say ?What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on?? Say ?To God is the east and the west, He guides whomsoever He wishes to a straight path.? (Quran 2142)Why did you change "turn away" to "change"? You are confusing yourself.
?Change? and ?turn-away? imply the same meaning. But if you want to stick with one word then let us stay with ?turn away?.
In simply "turn away" there is no implication of having a new "qibla", it is simply rejecting the existing "qibla". On the other hand, "change" implies changing from the qibla-1 to a new qibla-2.
Do not use the word ?rejecting? for the original Qibla which is totally misleading?They turned away from point-1 (the original Qibla) to point-2.
Indeed, there was a "qibla" that we KNOW was PHYSICAL because of the reference to the EAST and the WEST in 2142. Let's call it qibla-1. At this stage (2142-143), there is no "change". There is only TURNING AWAY from qibla-1. In other words, there is rejection of qibla-1.
When you ?turn-away? from something, then you have inadvertently turned towards something else (even if you do not wish to call that something a Qibla). Also, there is no ?rejection? as you imply, but simply a ?turning away? (let us not place conjecture in this discussion).
In 2142 the messenger had already turned away from qibla-1 and people can SEE that he turned away (again confirming that 2142-143 are talking about a physical "qibla").
I agree with you on 2142, but let us not get ahead of ourselves concerning 2143.
Hence, the TEST in 2143 is about the TURNING AWAY from qibla-1. The ONLY information we know for sure about qibla-1 is that it was PHYSICAL.
Disagree.
2143 is stating ?And We did not make the focal point that you were on except to know who follows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. It was a great thing indeed except for those whom God had guided?.
What was the ?great thing?? That they were on the original Qibla as you imply? Or that they shifted away from it to a new direction?
2142 confirms that it was the latter by telling us that the foolish from the people were going to say ?why did they change?? Not ?why are they on a Qibla!?
Yes, they didn't question the PHYSICAL qibla-1. They questioned why the turn away from the PHYSICAL qibla-1. As clear, this is about the rejection of PHYSICAL qibla-1 NOT about "the change" to another "qibla".
Not to state the obvious, but when you ?turn away? from something, then you have inadvertently ?turned towards? something else. Thus for you to say that the first direction was ?physical? and the 2nd direction was ?non-physical? is challenging the realms of physics.
Let me restate ?If you are saying that the turning away was PHYSICAL, then you have by default also accepted that the place they turned towards was PHYSICAL?.
As you imply, the only way that your interpretation would work is if "alati kanu 3alayha" refers to qibla-1 in 2142 and then suddenly "alati kunta 3alayha" refers to qibla-2 in 2143. Hence, once again, it is not surprising that you feel confused.
How did you get to the second qibla-2 when it is not even mentioned until 2144?
Here is how I got the Qibla sequence
- According to 2142, the believers were already facing a Qibla.
- According to 2142, there was going to be a change away from the Qibla which would spark comments ?why did they turn-away??.
- According to 2143, God gives the answer to the question of 2142 (why the change?) by saying that the Qibla that they going to be ?made to be on? was to ?test? and that it was a ?great deal? except for those who believed.
Between 2142 and 2143 there has been ?1? Qibla alteration which was done to test the followers of the prophet and which the people were questioning why it was done (i.e. Qibla 1 and the turning away which creates Qibla 2).
In 2144 we see that another change (the final change) occurred in God setting the Qibla to the Masjid Al-Haram (hence there were a total of 2 alterations to the Qibla direction and not 1).
Qibla-1 (x direction ? likely to be towards Jerusalem)
Qibla-2 (away from Qibla-1)
Qibla-3 (Masjid Al-Haram)The plural expression "alati kanu 3alayha" used in 2142 by the people who questioned the turning away from qibla-1 is the same singular expression "alati kunta 3alayha" used in 2143 to address the prophet. Hence, it must still be talking about qibla-1.
Moreover, the past tense of "alati kunta 3alayha" clearly points to the previous qibla-1 since it is the past "qibla" that he WAS on.
Your assumption is not valid simply because in 2143 the God is providing the answer to the question arising from 2142 ?why did they change??. Furthermore, ?alati kunta aliayha? is qualified as the 2nd Qibla for being described as a ?big deal? except for the believers. The original Qibla was not the ?test? but the turning away from it was.
As for the ?past tense?, though this may be the general rule, there are exceptions where the use of ?kuntum? denotes present tense as in ?if you ARE in doubt / in KUNTUM fi rayb? (223), ?You ARE the best nation / KUNTUM khaira umatin? (3110), ?leave aside usuary if you ARE beliebvers / zaru ma baqi min alriba in KUNTUM mumineen (227. ?God IS merciful towards you / KANA Allah bikum raheema? (429)
The other indisputable fact is that qibla-2 is not even mentioned until afterwards in 2144.
Qibla-2 has already been established when they ?turned-away? from Qibla-1. Thus, if I am not facing ?1?, then I am forced to face ?2? (irrespective of what 2 may be).
Hence, this test has NOTHING to do with qibla-2. It has EVERYTHING to do with the turning away from qibla-1.
The logic of this is very simple?
Qibla-1 is where the are facing to start withQibla-2 is established by default when they are commanded to turn away from Qibla-1Qibla-3 is established as the Masjid Al-Haram.
The messenger was not distressed, he was unsatisfied. Hence, The God tells him that he will turn him towards a "qibla" that will satisfy him ("tarDaha"). This means that he was unsatisfied with qibla-1.
Your finding is incorrect because you fail to acknowledge the creation of a Qibla-2 when they ?turned-away?.
Why was the messenger NOT satisfied (not "radi") with qibla-1? Is it its location? We are NEVER told where qibla-1 was. This means that it doesn't matter WHERE qibla-1 was. The only thing that matters is what we are told. The ONLY thing we are told about qibla-1 is that it is PHYSICAL through the reference to the PHYSICAL directions of EAST and WEST. Hence, the messenger was not satisfied because it was a PHYSICAL "qibla".
He was not satisfied after he ?turned away? (which makes it Qibla-2, not 1).
As for Qibla-1 not being known, you were very detailed in your previous post on how they were facing Jerusalem?Now you seem to not be so sure.
I will quote you
What was the previous target?
It was the existing target of the previous people of the book (the Jews). The target of the Jews was physical and it was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This can be deduced by asking Jews themselves, from the Talmud, and from the fact that the all-important target of Jews is to rebuild their Temple on THE TEMPLE MOUNT. In fact, the Temple Mount was named the Temple Mount for no reason other than that it is the location of the Jewish Temple, which they take as their "qibla". Since their Temple building was destroyed in 70AD, their physical target simply became the Temple Mount.
Thus, in summary, the previous target was a physical target and it was the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is EXACTLY the same physical target that you now want us to face.
As for the messenger being ?not satisfied? due to the Qibla being ?physical?, then you are grossly mistaken as the move away from Qibla-1 is also ?physical?.
To make it short, please notice how you now switch back again and change "change" to "turn away". Again, I can see why you said that you are confused. Confusion can be a good thing or it can be a bad thing depending on what we do about it. It is a good thing if it causes us to throw our existing interpretation and make a fresh start to reach a less confusing and more logical understanding.
No comment?
