Peace brother Wael,

I rarely post on here anymore, but I do occasionally read through threads and discussions in my spare time, and I do remember your old posts and your arguments. One thing I remember was your determination in convincing others of your beliefs and finding out why those of us who believed in the Quran alone did so, and it reminded me of myself once upon a time. I was an atheist determined to convince theists that they were wrong, but slowly my consistent efforts involved me in more and more research, which inevitably led me to believe in the truth whether I wanted to or not. And I believe your truth-desiring heart, with Allah's permission, led you to the truth as well.

To see you here, even with your classic username ;D, humbly admitting that you have embraced Islam has truly moved me just now. And I pray you continue to be guided. Do not be ashamed of your old posts, for they mark your growth. Many of my views have changed from my old posts on here as well, and it's humbling to know that Allah continues to guide.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Student of Allah is a "she".

Enjoy the freedom, and may Allah continue to guide the righteous.

Peace sister,

Welcome to the forums. )

So I have spent the better part of the day reading up on Qu'ran only Muslims. I agree with so much of what it says, but am terrified that I will be a kafir for walking away from hadith. How can something that so many others follow be so wrong?

I guess my answer to that could be equated with how so many Christians observe Christmas and Easter, even though the Bible never says to do it.

6116 And if you obey the majority of those on Earth they will lead you away from God's path; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.

I think you already know the truth in your heart. Continue to study and ask Allah for guidance.

May peace be with you.

Peace All,
It struck me just now that If Ramadan means the hottest period, then surely different parts of the world will be celebrating their Ramadan depending on their hottest month. What do others think?
Dawn.

Peace dawngorgeous,

If I'm not mistaken, the root R-M-D according to classical Arabic dictionaries also has the meaning that describes the Sun's position as being at the furthest from Earth (I can't find the source, but Lane's Lexicon alludes to a time "about July" - summer solstice). Along with the fact that it means something like "scorching heat" (which can be throughout the summer period), the full-moon during this time happens once a year for the northern hemisphere and once a year for the southern hemisphere, respectively. So from what I see, the only differing of times would be between the two hemispheres.

Peace.

Peace,

The artist is merely trolling the "Muslim" community. The more they react, it's like they are owning it as truth, thus making them look all the more stupid.

It's sad that this is the representation of "Islam" to the masses, but I can't help but laugh at the whole situation. I personally don't feel the need to respond, I feel the efforts are best spent facilitating guidance to any who is receiving instead. Just IMO.

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

I'm glad that you finally admitted that your translation is way off. Now the main reason why I said that 'wusta' is an adjective is because the corpus http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=238 says so. And I agree with the corpus.

Look at this example with adjectives which is similar to Al salat Al wusta

http//www.languageguide.org/arabic/grammar/adjectives.jsp

"When an adjective modifies a definite noun, the definite article is placed in front of the adjective."

the girl the pretty -

Now this example can be used to compare with al salat al wusta! - The pray The Middle.

The Pray = Definite noun
The middle = "The" is a definite article and 'middle' is an ADJECTIVE.

Middle can be a noun or an adjective depending on HOW YOU USE IT IN A SENTENCE. In this case (Sura 223 it is an adjective!

'Middle' is an adjective in Sura 2238. It does not describe the specific time of pray like al fajr and al isha (I wasn't more explanatory in my last post) since middle is not a specific time. The reason being is because the middle pray is done during active hours!

The next verse Sura 2239 is an indication to the middle pray

2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.

In terms of the grammar and arrangement of the sentence, I definitely learned that there is no need for the other "al". Thanks for showing me that. ) So either way, it appears "middle salat" or "balanced salat" can retain their adjectives.

Now, what makes "middle" an adjective for the salat? The word "middle" in itself simply means the middle as a noun, as an adjective describing it's placement it would have to describe the salat with relativity, which it doesn't (one only attaches it to a range of time because of preconceived notions there is one, but this must be indicated in the Quran first, and not from other books). Otherwise it is saying the salat must be done in the middle (way) as a description, since the sentence is a command, "Guard the contact prayers...". So therefore it is still not a sufficient adjective in my opinion, because without your preconceived notions that there is a middle prayer, which you admit is from past books, you cannot infer this salat exists with just the Quran.

This is why context of the entire Quran must be taken before calling shots on what definition to use. Here if you insist there is a "middle salat", one does not find their timing outlines or any indication that this "middle" salat is more important in order for it to not be redundant in the Quran. And when we do look at the context of all ritual salat outlines, we find

11114 You shall hold the contact prayer at both ends of the day and the near part of the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder for those who remember.

We know the Quranic edges of the day are the separations of day/night, and "wa" explains the prior points of both being towards the night side of the twilight.

1778 You shall hold the contact prayer at the setting of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.

Outlines again, two salat. Rubbing of the sun until night = isha, and fajr/dawn we know is the opposite edge of the day.

2458 Names TWO salat, and even mentions noon time without a salat, thus eliminating the point of those who believe this prayer starts at zenith/noon (not saying you do, but pointing it out anyway).

So now when we go back to the adjective of "wusta", we must decide if it's more fitting that the prayer be done best/balanced, or middle (not sure how the prayer is "middle", it's not really a working adjective in this sense and has no indication of relative placement). In light of 2239, it's obvious that it is explaining what to be done if it cannot be done properly, ie. the best/balanced way. Thus, why deny the translation that it is "best/balanced way"?

Seriously, I see it no other way. This is all the naming and timing of ritual salat. Now that you told me that you're a student of the past books, I understand your view a lot more. And yes if you have that preconceived notion in mind, you will see it as a middle prayer. But the Quran is sufficient and fully detailed, I have no choice but to look at all this, and see only 2 salat. It is consistent all the way through.

Even the congregational pray is proof of a pray other than the fajr and isha

629 O you who acknowledge, if the contact prayer is called to on the day of assembly, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.

Do you know of any group of people during Muhammad that sold goods in markets during the evening time or early dawn??? The phrase 'cease all selling' is indicative that selling wasn't done during the dawn nor evening. So both dawn and evening is eliminated as a possible 'day of assembly'

6210 Then, once the contact prayer is complete, you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, so that you may succeed.

The day of assembly is one of the contact prayers.

And story of Solomon and the Horses is proof...

3831 When, during dusk(The triliteral root ayn shn ww ) well trained horses were displayed before him.
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!"(still dusk)

Since it was still dusk he obviously missed a pray prior to the dusk contact pray.

What other proofs do you need brother. The two daily pray is theory is non-existent. There is no proof of it even in the previous scriptures.

With the congregational salat, one would have to assume business is ONLY done between fajr and isha, or that congregations are only held between for that to imply a middle salat. Obviously not true for hajj nor for general congregations. I already explained this earlier. Neither of us know what went down during Muhammad's time, so it's not fair for either of us to assume. But the commandment still extends today, and business is DEFINITELY going on before and after dawn and dusk respectively, for it to include the 2 daily salat, or a salat for any congregation as some believe.

I already went through the Solomon translation too, too many holes. "Totally dark" is a leap of judgement, and even if you force it, that would mean one believes the "middle" and dusk salats end at the same time if you believe this refers to the "middle" prayer, as salat al-isha ends at total darkness.

Honestly brother, this is going to go on forever and I am entering exam study times, hence why I reply days after lately. The way I see it is like this, if you honestly see 3 salat because of what was in past books, then you may go on and do so. I don't believe you are following your decision blindly (unlike others on this board), but I do humbly say that when the Quran as a sufficient source is considered, there is no room for a "middle" salat as far as I am concerned. There is no evidence it is "special" to not be redundant or illogical, and when ALL areas outlining timing for salat are shown together, they all clearly refer to 2 salat. With 3 salat if you argue it starts at noon, it's dismissed blatantly by the Quran, and if you believe it's just in the middle (as it appears you do), there is no indication of whether it's the middle of the day, or night, or if it's even in the middle of anything because it's not IMO a sufficient adjective.

Now I'm not cutting you off, you can respond again and maybe I'll respond again, but obviously we both have our minds set. One thing I want to ask you though is that at the end of the day, student to student, do you still think this is even talking about ritual salat? Did you read the surrounding of 2238-239? It's all about marriage and family duties, and this would stick out like a sore thumb talking about ritual salat. Take a look. And once you do, you realize you cannot guard your commitments to your family in the "middle" or do "middle commitments". We know that salat doesn't always mean ritual salat (it usually has aqimis/aqamas in front when it does). So I'm just letting that be known, and I've realized this much more surely because of this debate, hence why in the future I won't even entertain this as a ritual salat situation anymore. Not saying you have to believe that, just pointing something out since I know you are searching for knowledge as I am.

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

Brother Eikon

Im going to ask you two simple questions. If you don't answer me these questions plainly then don't bother to message me again because I won't answer. By then it would be clear to me that you're desperately trying the cloak the truth without any proof.

First Question
This is your translation which you believe to be correct.

2238 BE EVER mindful of prayers, and of praying in the most excellent way; and stand before God in devout obedience.

Show me in Arabic for the verb praying (yuall&#299. If you cant find the verb then obviously your translation is WAY OFF because al salat al wusta the phrase al salat is indicative of a noun and NOT A VERB. So the phrase and of praying in the most excellent way is completely incorrect!!! It doesn't exist!

And of course the phrase salat al wusta is an adjective. Its the same thing like salat al fajr and salat al isha prayers which are descriptive of the times to carry out the prays. What I am trying to show to you is the al salat part of the phrase in FRONT OF salat al wusta. Al is not prefixed with verbs! Read here http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-

Where is the praying part in Arabic to support your argument of two daily prayers! Show it to me in Arabic! If there is not praying part to in Arabic then the two daily pray theory is completely non-existent. If your translation is flawed your entire argument is flawed. The only alternative to the translation is this one

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.

the middle contact prayer = noun

Middle = adjective.

Completely consistent with Arabic translation and not a single verb.

You missed the point of my post. What I am saying is that YES THAT TRANSLATION I USED WAS WRONG... it was wrong in an unnecessary part though, but yes I admit, there is no verb for praying in the Arabic. THIS DOES NOT DEFEAT THE ENTIRE THEORY! That is a very unreasonable way to dismiss an entire argument. The translation was poor, but I figured we were both focusing on the idea at hand with "wusta". I apologize for the confusion. I do not believe any translation to be 100%, I was merely using one that I felt illustrated the point (which was usage of "wusta&quot better. Let's stick to the Corpus Quran one for now? That's fine with me.

There is no verb, you are right! bravo After I admitted that, and even put another translation to correct my mistake, I then approached you with a point, which you ignored.

What I was trying to show you, now that we were looking at the fine details with nouns, verbs, etc., is that "wusta" must act as an adjective! Before we weren't talking this technical, so I didn't consider the verb, but even as a noun it still works.

2238 Guard (Hafithoo) the (al) contact prayers (salawati) and (wa) the (al) prayer (salati) the (al) ?balanced/best way OR middle? (wusta).

salati = NOUN

wusta = ADJECTIVE

Guard the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer. ---- Where does the other "the/al" fit? "THE middle contact prayer" is a noun, adjective not used!

Guard the contact prayers, and the contact prayer the middle. ---- Makes no sense. "Middle" not an adjective.

Guard the contact prayers, and the balanced contact prayer. ---- Where does the other "the/al" fit? "THE balanced contact prayer" is a noun, adjective not used!

Guard the contact prayers, and the contact prayer (genitive noun!) the balanced/best way. ---- "Contact prayer" is a noun, "the balanced/best way" is a working adjective to describe how to GUARD THE CONTACT PRAYERS. Thus removing redundancy, illogic, working with 2239 (if you cannot guard the contact prayers in the balanced/best way...), AND RETAINING PROPER NOUN AND ADJECTIVE USAGE! Also, is in line with how W-S-T is used as an adjective in 2143.

Unlike fajr and isha, middle is not a TIME! It is the center of something, the middle, nothing is talking about the time in this sentence, it is talking about HOW to guard the contact prayers! It is not talking about how the "middle prayer" is relative to fajr and isha. Furthermore, fajr and isha in 2458 are NOUNS, wusta is an ADJECTIVE!

Second Question how is 2143 like 2238???

Im not talking about nouns is front of adjectives ! Where did I ever say anything about that in my last post! I was taking about this simple phrase al salat al wusta ! Why bring up an example about ummatan wasaan (balanced community) ? This is nothing similar to al salat al wusta! What I am trying to show to you again is that al is not prefixed to verbs!. So this means you cannot translate 2238 as and of praying in the most excellent way. The praying part is not consistent with the translation. You are adding verbs that doesn't exist.

The two verses are similar because they both use W-S-T as ADJECTIVES! We can't be described as a middle community, it makes no sense. The Quran teaches how to use certain words by using them in other places as well.

You are mixing two separate issues, perhaps it's my fault for not being more clear. You didn't say anything about adjectives in your last post, you were talking about a verb that was there which shouldn't be. YOU WERE RIGHT! bravo Why is it so hard to see that I acknowledged things had to be shuffled to make it clear to the reader, but it wasn't literal and fixed the mistake? I know the translation was poor, but not in the IDEA. But that is not fundamental to the issue, so now that I corrected it, and put "the contact prayer" and it still works, LET US MOVE ON TO THE ISSUE!

I corrected my mistake with the verb and showed that when it's used as a noun, my point about "wusta" still stands. Now you show me how "wusta" acts as an adjective in your translation! With the usage of both "al" and in the same order.

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

No it is not a flawed statement. lol. You want to talk about flawed statements! Look at something you failed to see. This is your translation.

2238 BE EVER mindful of prayers, and of praying in the most excellent way; and stand before God in devout obedience

Transliteration Hafithoo AAala alssalawati wa alssalati alwusta waqoomoo lillahi qaniteena

How is "and of praying in the most excellent way" come from Al Salat al Wusta! Al Salat is a noun not a verb. You can't translate al salat as "praying " but as "prayer"(a noun) !!! The word "al" (which means THE) is the biggest clue that salat is a noun and not a verb!!! (al salat al wusta). In my view you can't translate al salat as "praying" a verb, but "prayer" A NOUN!

Nothing is wrong with this translation...

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God. It is consistent.

Your's is not consistent. Your translation uses verbs when you're suppose to be using nouns!!! Mines uses nouns and is consistent.

Check here if you don't believe me http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=238

You shouldn't be so quick to judge translations when your own translation has inconsistencies.

Till you can prove to me that 2238 has a verb before waalssalati alwusta then your 2238 translation is completely destroyed Your translation is using verbs that doesn't exist!

...Are you serious? This is not a point at all lol. It's not "MY" translation versus "YOUR" translation, word for word literal battle. It's the idea behind what the message is conveying. I thought we both knew this.

The translation I used, like many others, included slight variations to help explain the point away. That's why many of these "literal" translations fail and even resort to adding words themselves, because they don't always consider the context and logic and the fact that Arabic =/= English in formation of sentences. For example the Solomon one you provided before. It's not uncommon, it's to help the reader understand. I don't believe it's always the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean anything is "crushed".

From Corpus Quran, "wal-alati" is a noun, and "l-wus'" is an adjective. In English, the adjective tends to come before the noun, that's the reason why some translators input words to help clear up the understanding because they either have to switch it around from the Arabic, or try to make it work in the same order.

Guard on the prayers, and the prayer the balanced/best way... if you really want to force it that way. But Arabic works differently meaning the English has to compensate. Hence when you read the most literal translations on Corpus Quran, it doesn't always make sense. Why? Because Arabic doesn't work the same way as English! If you look at the translation you used, I could say, "The adjective came after! It should be 'the prayer the middle way!'". How do we do the prayer the middle way? The "middle prayer" is a noun because it's talking about THE middle prayer! You don't even use the adjective! The reason why translators try their best to clarify this message is because they realize how redundant and illogical "the middle prayer" would be there. I didn't think I would have to spell that out. I didn't own the translation, I was just putting it forth as a better one. And like I mentioned before, this most likely isn't even referring to contact prayers, and is referring to the commitments you hold towards your family/spouse (read entire chapter), therefore showing that you can't guard your commitments to your family in the "middle" (adjective) way.

In fact, if you want to see how the translation on Corpus Quran corners itself, W-S-T as an adjective is used in 2143

We made you a community of the middle way so that you will be like witnesses over the mankind

Kevin, do you believe we are a community of the middle way (or, "the middle community&quot? I hope not. In fact, the translation you used, uses this same W-S-T adjective to mean "balanced" for 2143, despite using it as "middle" in 2238!

2143 As such, We have made you a balanced/impartial nation so that you may be witnesses over the people, and that the messenger may be witness over you. We did not make the focal point that you came on except so that we know who follows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. It was a big deal indeed except for those whom God had guided; God was not to waste your acknowledgement. God is Kind and Compassionate over the people. ... with it's co-translator opting for just "balanced" alone in their translation, since "impartial" doesn't really make sense there either.

How do you explain that? Why deviate and make the adjective in 2238 "middle"?! And if you logically realize that we are NOT the "middle" nation, but the "moderate/balanced/best" nation, then that leaves 2238 as the ONLY place that utilizes W-S-T as "middle" when it comes to the adjective W-S-T! In light of all these errors that would exist in 2238, one would really have to be forcing the translation in order for "middle" to work!

I'm glad you brought these technicalities up, now it really shows that even by your acknowledging of this, it CANNOT be "middle" as an adjective in this situation! "The middle prayer" isn't a description of how the prayer is done, or you would have to do the prayer in the middle way! How do you even do that? The middle prayer is one type of prayer (the prayer done in the middle, according to you), it is a noun altogether! Where is your utilization of the adjective aspect?!

Please explain this to me!

And again there is no redundancy since the quran could be doing one of the two.

1. Placing emphasis on the "middle prayer" . Words like especially and particularly are adverbs that were probably not available at the time

or

2. Showing that the middle prayer is not a fixed prayer (since it can be done late and early afternoon) unlike the dawn and dusk prayer which is done at fixed times.

Which one is it doing? Or is it just up in the air?

1. No reason to place emphasis on it, since it's not proven to be special in any way. And there are ways to emphasize/point out certain things.

2. Dawn and dusk prayers have ranges like I outlined above. I'm not sure why you believe they are "fixed" prayers. From the rubbing of the sun on the horizon until total darkness and twilight until the sun appears, are ranges. If you believe one must pray throughout that entire time (which to me would imply fixed), then that would also mean one has to pray the entire duration from noon or "the middle" until dusk, since it would utilize the same verse.

The two daily prayer theory is now officially crushed due to bad translation! . lol. Using nouns instead of verbs is not a sin Eikon but it sure makes a whole lot of difference in an idea won't you say.lol. All I see are people twisting the Quran and translation for there own benefit. I'm not saying that you are doing that but I am 100% sure that they are others who know what they are doing is wrong and choose not to revert. I would not bother to answer the rest of your post since i have already told you countless of times that anything that is not in the Quran but in the Bible are assumptions.

As you can see the matter was made clear with a bit of common sense. I didn't expect you to take the literal over the idea behind it, but that's fine. Just a misunderstanding as far as I see it.

And now especially with the argument shown above, the Quran does not support 3 daily salat. If you still want to force the translation even with all that has been pointed out, you still face all these issues

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.

1. REDUNDANCY ERROR "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer" is redundant. All prayers were already addressed in the first portion. Nothing implies that it is within the day, it is all the prayers of a person's life.

2. ILLOGICAL ERROR "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer" is illogical. Granted the Arabic says "al-salat al-wusta", which specifies that it would mean THE middle prayer, and we know this is all the prayers in one's life, this would imply finding the middle salat of ALL your life's prayers. Doesn't make sense.

3. CONTEXT ERROR With 2239 in mind, which starts with a word along the lines of "But.." which links it to the prior verse, using the translations of "most balanced/moderate/excellent" creates a perfectly flowing and relative decree, as opposed to addressing a "middle prayer" and then simply saying what to do if you can't do it in the "most balanced/moderate/excellent way". This is as clear as day.

~4) Granted the instruction is smack-dab in the middle of a chapter about marriage and family commitments, and "aqimis/aqamas" is not in front of "salat" it is most likely that this isn't even about ritual prayer. But even then, it would say to guard your marriage/family duties in the best way, not in the "middle way". Either way, it has no place for the translation "middle".

Also, where in the Quran outlines the time for this alleged middle prayer? I've seen a few different arguments, I just want to make sure I'm aware of yours.

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

Not all of the beliefs in the Bible are corrupted. This is shown countless of times in the Quran!

If you believe that every part of the Bible is false then it is quite clear to me that you dont read the Quran carefully. How can any group of people bear witness to something they do not know???? confused

If there wasn't any truth in the Bible then why would God ask the Jews and the Christians to judge by was sent them. Doesn't this imply that the Bible has the truth in it. Common sense Eikon.

I'm not sure why you are trying to prove this to me... I never said every part of the Bible is false. ??? What I was showing you was that not every part is true, thus meaning it is corrupt, thus meaning only what is in line with the Quran is true. THUS, meaning if you can't establish something first in the Quran, using "support" from these corrupt sources is useless. In other words, according to your analogy, you are beginning to sift the flour without fixing the hole in your sifter first, and claiming that you have purely sifted flour.

FACT #1 The Jews are a group of people who had over 28 prophets and the Arabs only had one! What person in there right mind could insinuate that these people dont know the correct number of prays after so many prophets !!! It is asinine!

I don't look at it like that, like Jew prophets VS Arab prophet, therefore the quantity rules. I believe the Jews had prophets who brought the message to the Israelites which at the time was pure, but it was not guarded from corruption over time which is evident from the content in it and from documented events such as the Council of Nicea, etc.. The final revelation was to the world, and was through an Arab prophet, and Allah's message through him to the whole world was preserved. Just because the OT and NT is corrupt, doesn't mean ALL the prophets didn't know something or were wrong. The REPORTS are corrupted. If we believe the Quran is the final preserved word, we can assume ALL prophets were in line with it's teachings and things like Lot prostituting his virgin daughters to be raped by an angry mob never happened.

If I interpret 2238 to be a sign of the middle pray how I can be wrong! No one in there right mind can deny the history of the people of the book because if you do that then it implies that you don't trust God when he told Muhammad ask those who have been studying the book from before you !

You are wrong because it does not make sense in line with the Quran. What are you going to take, the Quran, or uncertain accounts of history?

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.

Brother Kevin, just read that line. Maybe inquire with a professional writer, or a professor of language. This is not my opinion, it's not a question of subjectivity... it is a FLAWED statement. There is no denying this! It is so very erroneous in so many ways! If you notice, many translators noted at least the redundancy and tried to sneak in an "especially" or "certainly" to fix that mistake. But it's not in the Arabic, nor is there any proof that this "middle prayer" is some special/different salat. When you use 'wusta' to mean 'middle', you have so many flaws existing which I outlined many times previously. When you use it's other definition, all your flaws within that sentence are gone, the context makes clear sense with the following verse, and 2458, 11114 and 1778 all come to be consistent with 2 daily salat, without any doubt of their timing. Please consider this.

482 Do they not ponder on The Quran? If it was from any other than God they would have found in it much variance/inconsistency/contradiction.

And it seems you too acknowledge that there is corruption in the OT and NT. How do YOU explain your trust in Allah when He told Muhammad to ask those who have been studying before? It's clear that it was not to determine the fine things like this, but just that it is the word from the Abrahamic God, that He communicated with us prior. There are still prophecy fulfillments and accounts of past prophets that are in line with the Quran from past books. That's the proof. But it is clear that in conjunction with verses like 548, there is some remaining truth Muhammad was to judge between, but there is some falsehood as well. Also, the Quran will be doing some superseding. This means there are changes in certain things as well.

Another small note is that the OT and NT at the time of Muhammad was quite different than the ones we look at today. Many different events have happened in regards to the ruling of these scriptures and what translations are to be used. The King James version came after many processes of change in which books and translations were thrown out and added, and is yet the dominant one today.

The only way for us to know what is correct from what is false is by the Quran. The Quran authenticates the previous scripture not the previous scripture the Quran. Think of the Quran as the sifter and the Bible the flour. Anything that is not in the Quran are assumptions of the Bible but everything else are facts!!! I see three daily prayers in the Quran and you dont. To you is your way and to me is mine. If you want to believe in a theory that has zero historical basis (based on the previous scriptures) then that is your own lost.

This is a great analogy! But like I said before, you claim your theory holds more weight because of all the history (flour) you have. But is it all valid sifted flour if it has been going through a sifter with a hole? We must fix the sifter first (make complete sense within the Quran alone first), THEN we can sift the flour (bring up whatever proof we have that is in harmony with the Quran). Just because you have all this historical proof, doesn't mean anything if it's resting on a botched translation.

Kevin, here is an example of your methodology when it is applied to another situation

In Genesis 191-8, Isaiah 1316, Zechariah 141-2, Deuteronomy 2013-14 and 2 Samuel 12 11-14 there are examples of rape being allowed/decreed. Rape tends to involve some sort of beating... either way, it's worse.

Now, when we come to this part of the infamous women-beating verse

434 ... As for those women from whom you fear disloyalty, then you shall advise them, abandon them in the bedchamber, and idriboo them; if they obey you, then do not seek a way over them; God is High, Great.

In the article on Quran434.com, the verse is thoroughly analyzed and it is without doubt that the word means something along the lines of "cite". Now I'm not sure what your views are on this, but I would assume you don't believe it means "beat". I don't know if you've read the proof on Quran434.com, but it is all dealing with the Quran only. Linguistics, context, logic.

To infer idriboo means "beat/hit/strike", goes against linguistics, context, logic. BUT, degrading women has been a part of history in the previous books for years!!! According to you, degrading women is the religion of Abraham, it's been done for years before Muhammad with OT and NT as proof! It was accepted by Lot, David and many other prophets!

Quran434.com just uses linguistics, but to degrade women uses linguistics AND history! It has SO MUCH more proof as for centuries it was being done! We must use the OT/NT to interpret "idriboo" to mean "beat/hit/strike" because it has a whole foundation of history! And "idriboo" as "cite" ignores this history, and is just a linguistic approach.

Do you see my point, brother? The marvelous attribute of the Quran is that when it was revealed, it went AGAINST so much (alleged) history! It didn't matter what was being done or not, the Quran was the latest and complete and preserved revelation from Allah the Almighty, and if anything didn't come in line with it, it was not to be upheld by a Muslim!

I understand where you are coming from. Maybe 3 salat never existed, was somehow wrongly documented or who knows what could have happened in over 1000 years. Or maybe it very much existed and it was what all prophets before Muhammad did. But the fact is that whatever Allah wants to do, He does, and has stated His laws to all of humankind in the Quran with completion and finality. If only 2 salat can be shown, then so it must be! Who knows what Allah's plan is, perhaps He changed it and is testing who follows the Quran over conjecture. In fact, many have asked on these forums, "Why didn't Allah use a better word than "idriboo" if He knew it would cause this confusion?" Or what about the verse with cutting off thieves' hands? Or why would He use "wusta" when He knows it would cause this debate? I firmly believe these are tests to see who obeys the true preserved religion of Abraham. It's not unusual for tests like this to exist.

When you use "middle" for "wusta" in 2238, UNDENIABLE FLAWS exist within the Quran, even if it is in line with all of history. This is a clear sign of a test. Who will follow conjecture and what their forefathers upheld and ignore the clear signs of the Quran?

May peace be with you.

Peace Ervin,

I'll tell you this. I once went to a "halal" meat shop to look at some meat to buy. What I saw was a blade that was used to cut a variety of different meats, and traces of blood on the outside of packages, on the counter, and on the butcher. I didn't see hairnets, a change of gloves, nor any statements outlining how the animals were treated or killed.

Do you believe this meat is halal?

Personally, I buy from companies that have public statements outlining the good treatment of animals prior to the kill, the most painless kill methods, and ones that follow sanitation guidelines put forth by national organizations. They also have farms open for the public to see the animals. I say "Bismi Allahi alrahman alraheem" before eating them, and feel it is completely halal.

May peace be with you.

Brother Ekion,

To you is your way and to me is my way. This is why I am always hesitant to participate in Salat discussions. Everyone believes that there take on Salat is the correct one. I have seen hundreds of discussions on Salat on this website. Your questions have already be answered countless of times. I believe the only practical way to settle all of our disputes is weigh the proofs; and as far as I'm concerned the "three salat prayer" theory, beats all other theories by a mile. Anyone that says otherwise is lying to themselves. It is a practice that has been done by most of the prophets (From Abraham to Jesus) before Muhammad. Abraham did it, Issac did it, Jacob did it , the Children of Israel did it, Moses did it, Mary (who was related to Zechariah a high priest in Jerusalem) did it, Jesus (who was born into a Jewish Society) did it. The proof is there. And it outweighs all other theories. As an ex-Christian I will follow what I am knowledgeable of and not something that is completely foreign to me.

Peace,

Kevin.

Peace Kevin,

I can say your issues have been answered countless times as well, as I've seen similar discussions exhausted. But we all believe what we believe for certain reasons. For me I believe that if someone is living on an island and is isolated from outside religion, and I wanted to give them the complete and preserved religion of Abraham, I would hand them a Quran and not hesitate that it would be sufficient for their salvation (in the hereafter, not on the island). No other books needed. And the Quran's sufficiency in itself is what makes the points that utilize it only much more valid than incorporating other sources containing random fragments of truth.

Your claim that prior prophets did it, is just based on the reports. You were not a witness to them doing this, you rely on the sources claiming they did this, and I've shown these sources to be corrupt and conflicting with the Quran. It's much like the hadith claiming Muhammad did certain things that we know conflict with the Quran. Nothing has protected or is protecting these sources from corruption.

In the end, to you is your system and to me is mine. It's not the biggest of issues anyway, as the main idea here is monotheism. But debating is always good to flesh out ideas and test your faith. I appreciate one who debates more than one who just merely spreads their view but doesn't participate in or welcome opposing arguments.

May peace be with you.

Peace,

This is somewhat besides the point, but that verse about Solomon actually brought to light something interesting. I actually may not accept Ayn-Shiin-Waw to mean dusk all the time. Maybe it does in that verse, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference at the moment. But I was just going through all the examples in the Quran with similar formations, and many seem a bit out of place or some are oddly paired with different words for the "morning" part and other references that too have roots with different meanings.

Interesting to note the other definitions given in dictionaries that are never utilized. It seems everyone just accepted it meant dusk, and maybe it only does. But some like "weak sighted/blind", "forsake", "withdraw" tend to shed entirely different meanings when used in some verses. I wish I knew enough Arabic and had the time to investigate all the grammar, etc.

Just throwing it out there. Never know who is reading and investigates and finds something most completely missed.

May Allah guide us all.

What is this? Telepathic communication across space and time crossing the boundaries of language and going through a thousand skewed portals at it?

Seriously.

LOL This honestly almost made me choke on my food. rotfl

May peace be with you.

Peace,

Was another thread regarding the same topic really necessary? You already started one, not long ago, that is still close to the top of the first page. And you barely participated in it.

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9603015.0

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

Brother Yousef made a good point.

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.

FACT #1 The Middle prayer is not a fixed prayer. It can be done anytime between the dawn contact prayer and the evening prayer. So Preserve the contact prayers and the middle prayer cannot be redundant since the dawn and evening prayers are fixed prayers and the middle prayer isnt.

This is also further verified when King Solomon missed a contact prayer (this is correctly implied since Solomon was so worried that he got rid of his horses!!!)

3830 To David We granted Solomon. What an excellent and obedient servant.
3831 When, during dusk, (bil-ashiyi) well trained horses were displayed before him.
(Since all the followers of the two daily prayer theory believe in a dawn and dusk prayer let us be consistent for all the roots for ayn shn ww )
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!" (It is still evening or dusk)
3833 "Send them back." He then rubbed their legs and necks. ( This verse can be used to imply that Solomon missed a contact prayer)

Hence the prayer that was missed by Solomon was a prayer before the Dusk prayer.

Again the middle prayer is NOT A FIXED PRAYER. So Sura 2238 isn't redundant. All it is saying is to Maintain the contact prayers (which are fixed prayers dawn and dusk) AND a middle prayer (which is not a fixed prayer).

The reason it not being a fixed prayer is because this prayer is in working hours of the day. (the time which we are usually preoccupied)
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.

1. I'm not sure if I entirely understand what you mean by "fixed". Do you mean like a pinpoint certain time verses a range? What makes you believe the dawn and dusk prayers aren't also assigned ranges? The words fajr (dawn) and isha (dusk) indicate the twilight times at the 2 ends of the day, which are occurrences that happen within a range of time. You don't look at a sunrise or a sunset and the sun just jumps the horizon in an instant and it's over.

When 2458, 11114 and 1778 are examined together, we see that it is clearly a range of time given for the 2 daily salat (I explained it with more detail in my first response, but I'll briefly show it again here)

2458 is simply where the names of the salat are given. Salat al-fajr, and salat al-isha. This is agreed upon by all parties that it means dawn and dusk, which obviously occur within a range of time.

11114 You shall hold the contact prayer at both ends of the day and the near part of the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder for those who remember.

"Waaqimi alssalata tarafayialnnahari wazulafan mina allayli inna ..."
Obviously the "wa" holds the property of referring to the multiple ideas prior, so it's referring to both salats performed at both ends. Take note of the "both ends" by the way, which is dual in this case since it's referring to the 2 edges close to the night. The "near part of the night" shows that it's closer to the night, as the night has just finished/is just approaching (fajr/isha respectively). Again the night doesn't just appear like the flick of an off-switch. It happens in a range of time.

1778 You shall hold the contact prayer at the setting of the sun, until the darkness of the night; and the Quran at dawn, the Quran at dawn has been witnessed.

"Aqimi alssalatalidulooki alshshamsi ila ghasaqi allayli ..."
li = Preposition meaning "just after"
dulooki = "rubbing of"
alshamsi = "the sun" (in context this must be the apparent rubbing on the horizon as according to the Quranic edges of the day it's sunrise/sunset)
ila = "until"
ghasaqi = "darkness of"
allayli = "the night"

Both salat al-fajr and salat al-isha are given ranges to perform them in. If there were a middle prayer, by the admitting of those who abide by it, there is a range also. It would only be a very long range, but a range nonetheless. Does anyone believe one must pray the entire duration of the "middle" range? Of course not. This shows that there isn't any differentiating of the prayers, and "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer..." is still redundant and illogical. Also, there is no indication of the "middle prayer" being special, nor that the salawati are within a day (they are all the salat in a person's life), thus creating the errors I outlined in my last post. If the reasoning for singling out the prayer was in fear of missing it, wouldn't it make more sense to single out the dawn and dusk prayer since the ranges are shorter than that of the lengthy alleged middle prayer range?

With this said, where do those who abide by this middle prayer find their timing for it? If it's just in the middle of the dawn and dusk prayer, why do you choose the middle of the day? There is also a middle of the 2 salat in the night. And in fact, within the 3-salat theory community, there is a split as a group of people perform this prayer in the night instead of the day.

++

2. I haven't scrutinized this situation with Solomon as much as I'd like to, but when examining the context and logic of the verses and their words, I don't see it referring to a missed contact prayer at all. The explanation is a bit lengthy, but I'll try to outline the main reasons.

Here is the translation you used

3830 To David We granted Solomon. What an excellent and obedient servant.
3831 When, during dusk, well trained horses were displayed before him.
3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!"
3833 "Send them back." He then rubbed their legs and necks.

Here is, in my opinion, a slightly better translation (lengthy bracketed additions removed)

3830 AND UNTO DAVID We granted Solomon, how excellent a servant! Behold, he would always turn unto Us
3831 when, towards the close of day, nobly-bred, swift-footed steeds were brought before him
3832 he would say, Verily, I have come to love the love of all that is good because I bear my Sustainer in mind!" until they were hidden by the veil ,
3833 Bring them back unto me!"- and would stroke their legs and their necks.

The only reason this is attributed to a missed prayer, is because of the appearance of the "dusk" and "totally dark" in certain translations making it seem like a prayer time is being referred to. But it's quite a leap to assume so, and when seen in context, it's hard to say it's even talking about the night. Let's settle that 3831 says "dusk". That's fine, it appears to be dusk/evening or something like that anyway. What about this "totally dark" translation in 3832? We know first of all that "ghasaq" means the complete dark, and "layl" means night. None of which is apparent there. In fact, the words used there are "tawarat bialhijabi" which means "hidden in/by the veil". This is apparent in the second translation and makes sense as he says "Bring them back unto me!" - "rudduha" means "bring them back/return them" which is evident since he can now pet them once returned. Why would he say "Bring them back!"? This means they were away from him, "hidden by the veil" most likely of distance or just out of his sight. Even if one argues it's the veil of night, there is no indication he missed a prayer. In the first translation, it's not indicated what even happened to the horses to make him call for the horses to be returned. You say in regards to the first translation, "this is correctly implied since Solomon was so worried that he got rid of his horses!!!", so he got rid of them, then rubbed their legs and necks? This obviously doesn't make sense.

Even if you insist on the first translation though, nothing indicates that this was the time of some middle prayer. In light of the ranges I outlined in the above point and prior, salat al-isha is to be held just after the rubbing of the sun until the darkness of the night (lidulooki alshshamsi ila ghasaqi allayli). Note that it specifically says the DARKNESS OF THE NIGHT. Not just the night, as dusk is somewhat night, but the DARK night (when there is totally no more light) is when the range for salat al-isha ends.

Now if we look at Solomon's exclamation in the first translation

3832 He said, "I enjoyed the good of materials more than I enjoyed remembering my Lord, until it became totally dark!"

Why did he feel the need to say "totally" dark? At this total darkness, the time for salat al-isha has ended. If one believes this is referring to some middle prayer, then that would mean that the ranges overlap as both "middle" and isha prayers would have to end at the darkness of the night! This confusion obviously cannot and does not exist. Furthermore, I would find it hard to believe that if there was a middle prayer with such a long range, a God-conscious individual like Solomon hadn't thought about his salat for all those hours. It makes more sense that one would miss salat al-isha as it's a short range that ends when total darkness arrives.

But this is only if you entertain the former interpretation. I think it's now safe to say it has error in it.

The Assembly prayer is another sign in the Quran that points to a middle prayer during the working hours of the day.

629 O you who acknowledge, if the contact prayer is called to on the day of assembly, then you shall hasten towards the remembrance of God, and cease all selling. This is better for you, if you only knew.

6210 Then, once the contact prayer is complete, you shall disperse through the land and seek God's provisions, and remember God frequently, so that you may succeed.

Nothing implies a daily middle prayer at all here. This is a big topic on it's own, but here are some quick things to note

This yawmialjumuAAati means Day of THE Assembly/Congregation, as evident by the "al". What is this day that it is not just any day, but the Day of THE Assembly/Congregation? It's still up for debate as far as I am concerned, but at this point an official day in which the most Muslims assemble and congregate, is for the pilgrimage. Many also believe that it is just whenever a congregation is held.

The problem here is assuming that business is ONLY held between salat al-fajr and salat al-isha, and that's it. This is obviously not true. During the pilgrimage, business is being conducted at almost all hours, before and after dawn, as well as before and after dusk. This would lead me to believe that when the call for both salat al-fajr and salat al-isha respectively is called, business is still being conducted, and the instruction is that those doing so must hasten towards the prayers, and cease the business until it is over.

This works in line with salat al-fajr and salat al-isha, and does not imply a middle prayer. And if you take this chapter to refer to ANY time in which an official gathering is held (marriage, etc.), the same obviously still applies as not everyone just congregates between fajr and isha.

There are also other verses in the Quran that indicate a middle prayer which have already been posted on this forum topic and many others. One sign that I found out a few weeks ago was that there are only three verses in the entire Quran that says to face towards the Restricted Sanctuary (2144, 2149 and 2150) . Could this be a coincidence???

While I don't completely dismiss the numerology aspect of the Quran, I don't take it this seriously to present as proof for something that should be a lot more certain. I have seen many people use similar things to prove 2, 4, 5 salat and a plethora of other aspects and it isn't really substantial. If you stare at the clouds long enough, you'll begin to see faces and animals, etc..

Since this too will open up another can of worms, I suggest putting it aside and dealing with the tangible proofs, if you don't mind.

Basically Eikon you and the followers of the two contact prayer theory only base your arguments on Linguistics while mines and others are based on Linguistics AND the knowledge of the previous scriptures which show that the Jews have been praying three daily prayers for centuries!!! This is the religion of Abraham! This is the same religion which was taught to Isaac, Jacob and the Twelve patriarchs. Three contact prayers is not a new practice unlike the two daily pray theory that suddenly just sprout out of nowhere!!!!

In the end both opposing sides can argue about who has the correct Linguistics but in the end the question should be asked who has the MORE PROOF to support there claim. In this case, the three daily pray practice trumps all other theories.

Like I said before - quality over quantity. I don't care who has more proof, I don't see it as a point system. It's about what is quality and in line with the Quran. And in terms of linguistics, the opposing arguments are hardly even as the many errors I pointed out still exist after one realizes this alleged middle prayer is not in any way shown to be special... or to even exist.

We both agreed prior that things must be seen in light of the Quran first, and then other sources can begin to help support via interpretation, etc. So why can't we stick to the Quranic arguments for now?

The debate about the authenticity of the previous scriptures can go on forever, hence why I was trying to bring the debate down to the completely tangible aspects involving the Quran, so that it doesn't contain too many tangents.

In terms of history, there is also a lot of proof that 2 salats have been around since the beginning as well; Wakas and Ayman have both presented many sources on the forum. These evidences were mostly around the time of Islam spreading, and yet it was corrupted, imagine if we try to get evidence from Moses or Jesus' era, there is chance for so much more corruption to have occurred. And indeed we know about such events as the Council of Nicea. I don't believe the modern Torah and Bible are 100% infallible, therefore using them is fruitless in this debate, especially when we both agree that the Quran comes first. The original recordings have not been preserved, and therefore it is prone to being misinterpreted in many areas. Imagine if we didn't have the Arabic of our Quran and read an English verse like 1779 from a certain interpretation (And rise from thy sleep and pray during part of the night , as a free offering from thee, and thy Sustainer may well raise thee to a glorious station) in conjunction with 7626 or something - people would argue until the end of time that Quran followers must wake up in the middle of the night and do salat. But we see the original text and differentiate between salat and dua and nafil and so on. This cannot be done as surely with previous texts. In fact many who advocate 5 daily prayers find their "proof" of 5 prayers in previous books as well.

I don't believe the noble and righteous man who Allah sought to be a prophet, Lot, prostitued (Gen. 191- nor had drunken incestuous sex with his daughters (Gen. 1930-3, or that followers of Jesus can drink deadly poison and survive (Mark 1617-1, or that degrading females (the references are way too plentiful and obvious on this one - from saving their hymen blood rags for proof of virginity, to not being allowed to ask questions in church, to being the cause of all sin and thus being punished with childbirth) or that circumcision or death penalties or rape are or ever were parts of Allah's decree. Or that sprinkling your house seven times with animal blood protects it from certain plagues (Lev. 1449-52), etc. Anybody who wants to believe these atrocious things, can do so. But I would hope that you can at least see why I personally believe these are obvious additions of humankind. The prior books were corrupted until the Quran, the message for ALL HUMANKIND and not just Israelites, was sent down and the original decree was preserved.

If you claim the previous books are 100% infallible, you uphold MANY MANY things that conflict with the Quran, and therefore by your own words, are in sin. If you do not claim they are 100% infallible, then they are hardly proof and you fall susceptible to being misguided when you pick and choose, much like many of the hadithers are. Take your pick.

Either way you are welcome to believe them and take them as support for your beliefs, but they hold next to no weight in the argument in the eyes of someone who follows the Quran alone. You say just because the previous books said something all through out history, the Quran must be interpreted with that. So then should we interpret verses like 434 to mean beating wives? Why not? Degrading females has been a part of religion for centuries! Circumcision has been a part of religion for centuries! Death penalties have been a part of religion for centuries! If you endorse these, you conflict with the Quran. And you do endorse them if you uphold the modern Torah and Bible to be the complete words of Allah.

You can continue to try and prove the authenticity of these past books, but it won't really prove anything if you cannot first establish sound evidence from the Quran - and the issue is obviously still in debate. In light of 548, the Quran confirms that there is some truth in previous books, but that the Quran corrects and supersedes where there is error due to human corruption. Be open to the fact that this may very well be one of those situations.

May peace be with you.

Peace Student of Allah,

The following website explains thoroughly what you are looking for, and then some. I suggest reading all of it very carefully. It's structured to be understood quite easily.

http//www.freewebs.com/nadqur/birth.htm

If you don't want to read all of it (though I insist you do, as it explains it in light of a bigger misunderstanding most Muslims have), just CTRL + F and type "345" and read the portions related.

May Allah guide us all.

Peace Kevin,

You have a very interesting take on the Quran Alone doctrine. I have been waiting to talk about this for a long time since there are a few members on this forum who cry Quran Alone !!!, Quran Alone!!!!, and dont know what Quran Alone means.

(1) Using outside sources to derive an interpretation from the Quran is NOT a violation of the 'Quran Alone' doctrine that is taught in Quran.
The ONLY TIME when using outside sources becomes a problem is when they CONFLICT with the teachings of the Quran.

Here are two examples....

Look at the translation of Sura 962 by some translators
962 He created the human being from an embryo.

Obviously this is not classical translation of "alaqin" which means (1) blood clot; (2) hanging thing; (3) leech. But is Dr. Bucaille (the man responsible for this translation) wrong in combining the likeness of the three translations to come up with the translation of the word 'alaqin' in Sura 962 to mean embryo? No he is not wrong. But in your view Eikon he would be wrong since he used science(another source other than the Quran) to derive his interpretation.

Second Example...
What about God's constant (persistent) reminder in the Quran to investigate the signs in nature? Wouldn't to investigate the signs of nature be a source other than the Quran. Isn't Science a source other than the Quran???? Common Sense people.

Obviously the 'Quran Alone' doctrine applies only to conflicting teachings of the Quran and not sources that are in harmony with the Quran!

Thus using other sources to interpret the Quran is not a crime (sin) , but rather using sources that conflict with the Quran is.

For example...here is a conflict

The Quran says the earth is egg-shaped
7930 The land after that, He made it like an egg.

Now lets pretend that science says that the world of flat. In this case we must ignore science since it conflicts with the teachings of the Quran

lol Honestly, I'm really not sure what implications I gave to warrant this response. Obviously when I say Quran alone I'm referring to it's divine guidance and that things should be seen in light of the Quran alone first, which is what you are saying, meaning we are in agreeance.

Obviously I didn't mean it so literally like only the Quran can be used and we can't even glance at another source for clarification. See those examples you gave, after presenting the other sources in light of the Quran, nothing was conflicted! Therefore it was OK to take them in because in context and logic it made perfect sense. We just didn't see it, but this idea was what the Quran was saying all along. This doesn't mean something was ADDED to the Quran. I am saying that in this case, there is a conflict with context and logic. In fact, I don't think I know of a single person who believes outside sources shouldn't help clarify and understand the Quran. If you do, please introduce me to them. I apologize if I gave this impression, and if it needs to be said more blatantly I do believe we are allowed to take from other sources to help understand the Quran. I felt that I gave this impression when I myself used a dictionary and even presented verse 548 which shows there is truth in line with the Quran from previous holy books.

Now that it's clear that we are on the same page with that, let's put it aside as it's only external to the grand point. I'd like to address some very key things you pointed out

The ONLY TIME when using outside sources becomes a problem is when they CONFLICT with the teachings of the Quran.

Obviously the 'Quran Alone' doctrine applies only to conflicting teachings of the Quran and not sources that are in harmony with the Quran!

Thus using other sources to interpret the Quran is not a crime (sin) , but rather using sources that conflict with the Quran is.

Exactly! But in order for us to know what is in harmony with the Quran (or a term I used prior, which further illustrates I never implied we can't use other sources - "in light of the Quran&quot, don't we need to establish what is in the QURAN first? We can put other tools to use to see if interpretations can exist, and how they work in flow of the entire Quran, sure. But if the Quran itself is showing you that the interpretation from the outside source is creating conflict, then you must abandon that tool for interpretation. Right?

And this is what I've been striving so hard to do from the beginning. But what the opposition is doing is saying

"1) The definition for 'wusta' that we will pick is 'middle', 2) and in OT/past centuries there was a middle prayer, therefore 'al salat al wusta' must be translated as 'the middle prayer'!"

But we cannot discuss 2) if there is a problem with 1)! This is why I keep saying put the OT/NT aside while we discuss the Quran alone because I have evidence that 'wusta' does NOT mean 'middle' in context of 2238. And if it can be proven it does not, then that also proves OT/NT are corrupt and upholding their views on this aspect are creating conflict with believing in the Quran.

In order to know what is correct in light of the Quran, and in harmony of the Quran, and what does/does not conflict with the Quran we must discuss what is in the Quran alone before seeing what supports it. If you already uphold the supporting arguments for something that cannot be proven using the Quran, then even by your accord it is a sin. So I am asking for your proof.

Fact #1 'salat al wusta' can be translated as 'middle prayer'. The Jews (who had 30x or more prophets than the arabs!!! And are followers of the Abrahamic religion ) and the Christians prayed three daily prayers for centuries! Using this and other signs in the Quran as the cornerstone of my preferred translation is not in violation of the "Quran Alone " doctrine since "SALAT AL WUSTA" CAN BE TRANSLATED AS MIDDLE PRAYER!!!. Salat al wusta is not outside the Quran, it is in the Quran! Your argument should be focused on why I prefer the middle prayer translation and not based on the illogical interpretation of on what you think Quran Alone doctrine means!

My argument is that 'salat al wusta' in CONTEXT of 2238 DOES NOT MEAN "MIDDLE PRAYER". From the very beginning. It's not a matter of which you prefer or why, it's a matter of one translation making sense and one being totally erroneous. I'm not trying to interpret what the Quran alone doctrine means, the conversation took a giant tangent because of the inclusion of the OT/NT and all I was saying was that we must establish FACTS using the Quran alone first, which you pretty much just agreed with in your post. So let us do that. Using the Quran, in 2238, 'salat al wusta' DOES NOT MEAN MIDDLE PRAYER and I have proved this multiple times in this thread, and not once were the arguments countered let alone mentioned.

"Quran Alone " simply means to follow the teachings(religious, scientific etc) that are not in conflict with the Quran. Using outside sources like Science, the Bible,Mathematics, and the Hadiths is not a crime!!!The sin lies when you use them when they conflict with the Quran! 95% of what is taught in the Hadiths and Sunna are in direct confliction with the Quran since Muhammad was banned from teaching any other teaching other than the Quran!!! Do you see where I coming from Eikon? You and others have to reevaluate your definition of the "Quran Alone" doctrine since it doesn't make any sense at all.

Exactly, and translating 'wusta' as 'middle' (in 223 is in conflict with the Quran! Therefore upholding that view, especially because of what OT/NT say, is not Quran alone.

I see where you are coming from, and I know that anything in agreeance with the Quran is true, and anything that is not, is false and a sin to uphold. 2238 does NOT refer to a middle prayer (I have provided the evidence countless times), therefore upholding the 3 prayers because of the influence of other books is a sin!

Regarding the evidence that you seek for the middle prayer in the Quran I will not bother to get in argument with you on this since you have already been shown the evidence of them on other forum topics but chose not to acknowledge them. So why give my typing fingers the extra burden???

Well, one can say the same for you as well. But I won't, because the discussion is here and now and we are knee-deep in it, and if one feels so strongly about their opinion they should be able to convey it especially if it's something that should be so apparent. So would it really be that hard to present some evidence for something that should be so clear? This is what this entire discussion should have been about from the very beginning.

Listen, put aside EVERYTHING for a moment that we talked about. We have discussed the authenticity of the OT/NT, the meaning behind the "Quran alone doctrine", etc. and pretty much everything but the key points at hand. This will help cut the burden down for you as well.

The entire point was, in 2238-2239, the translation that utilizes the English word "middle" for the Arabic "wusta" is WRONG. I have pointed out the MANY reasons, all of which were ignored from the beginning. I will "burden" my fingers and present them once again in hopes that you can repay me the favor. ALL I WANT IS PROOF THAT 'wusta' TRANSLATED AS 'middle' IN THESE VERSES MAKES SENSE IN HARMONY WITH THE QURAN! We agree that the Quran takes superiority and that all issues must agree with it to be true. I am showing you that if the Quran does NOT support a middle prayer, upholding any source that says there is a 'middle prayer' is wrong and is a sin, by even your own accord.

Once again, the translation I have a problem with

2238 Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer, and stand devoutly for God.
2239 But if you are in a state of worry, then you may do so while walking or riding. If you become secure, then remember God as He has taught you what you did not know.

1. REDUNDANCY ERROR "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer" is redundant. All prayers were already addressed in the first portion. Nothing implies that it is within the day, it is all the prayers of a person's life.

2. ILLOGICAL ERROR "Preserve the contact prayers, and the middle contact prayer" is illogical. Granted the Arabic says "al-salat al-wusta", which specifies that it would mean THE middle prayer, and we know this is all the prayers in one's life, this would imply finding the middle salat of ALL your life's prayers. Doesn't make sense.

3. CONTEXT ERROR With 2239 in mind, which starts with a word along the lines of "But.." which links it to the prior verse, using the translations of "most balanced/moderate/excellent" creates a perfectly flowing and relative decree, as opposed to addressing a "middle prayer" and then simply saying what to do if you can't do it in the "most balanced/moderate/excellent way". This is as clear as day.

~4) Granted the instruction is smack-dab in the middle of a chapter about marriage and family commitments, and "aqimis/aqamas" is not in front of "salat" it is most likely that this isn't even about ritual prayer. But even then, it would say to guard your marriage/family duties in the best way, not in the "middle way". Either way, it has no place for the translation "middle".

Now if you input the OTHER definition

2238 BE EVER mindful of prayers, and of praying in the most excellent way; and stand before God in devout obedience.
2239 But if you are in danger, walking or riding; and when you are again secure, bear God in mind - since it is He who taught you what you did not previously know.

Wa-la! ALL THE ERRORS ARE GONE! And we know for sure this definition of 'wusta' is used in other areas of the Quran. Also, the other verses outlining ritual salat, 2458, 11114, and 1778 all support only 2 daily salat. I've outlined proof of this before.

Put aside everything else for now, prove to me how 'wusta' can mean 'middle', in this situation, after this evidence. That is all you have to do, and it will prove most of your supporting points true as well since they would now be in harmony with the Quran. If you cannot prove this, you are upholding something that is not in harmony with the Quran and are therefore in sin, by your own accord.

That's all. This is all anyone opposing in this thread so far had to do from the very beginning, and this is what I showed in my first response to this thread.

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

For the second time read these verses SLOWLY

370 O people of the book, why do you reject God's signs while you are bearing witness?
371 O people of the book, why do you dress the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?

447 O you who have received the book(Jews and the Christians), acknowledge what We have sent down authenticating what is with you, before We cast down faces and turn them on their backs or curse them as the people of the Sabbath were cursed. God's will is always done.

Doesn't the above verse imply that the Jews and Christians are more knowledgeable in the Scripture than those you are new to the teachings of the Quran???Read it again several times and maybe you'll see my point

1094 If you are in doubt regarding what We have sent down to you, then ask those who have been studying the book from before you. The truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.

If the Jews and the Christians are not aware of the truth then why would God say "ask those who have been studying the book from before you " ??? ???

I've read the verses carefully, in context, and I do not disagree with them. The People of the Book will see the truth. But it's referring to the truth about the Abrahamic God and that the Quran is from Him, not every fine detail, as even you yourself said that there are changes regarding salat, zakat, etc.

In light of 548, there are portions of truth remaining in the previous books, however the Quran was presented to correct any differences, hence why it says the religion is completed with it. Moses and Jesus were for Israel/the lost sheep of Israel, and Muhammad was to bring the message to the whole world. Even Jesus says this.

But honestly, this argument regarding the authenticity of previous books can go on forever. It's pretty much why Jews and Christians and Muslims exist in separate denominations anyway. So let us put that aspect to rest regarding this matter, and perhaps we can debate about it in it's appropriate section another time.

And this idea about me not being a Quran alone muslim stems from what ....my translating the verse 'salat al wusta' as middle prayer!? The reason why I believe that it is a correct translation is because I KNOW THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES! This is not a new religion but an old one. The same that was practiced by Abraham, Moses and Jesus( who was a JEW if didn't know!!!!) Three daily prays is not a new practice. Where have I strayed from the Quran??? It is you who lacks knowledge. Ask a Jew or Christian how many prays are taught in the previous scriptures and 95% (if not all ) will tell you that they're three, so how am I straying if I translate 'salat al wusta' as middle prayer? rotfl Hmmm, maybe 'wusta' only means 'balanced'...... What a basless argument!

This is what it boils down to. You and I both claim to believe in the Quran. The Quran claims to be fully detailed and sufficient regarding the religion of Abraham.

Correct?

Therefore, all I'm asking is for those who believe in the 3 daily salat to present their evidence using the Quran alone, which is sufficient as far as we are concerned. Brother youssef4342 listed some points with the Quran and a few regarding the OT. I rebutted against the arguments presented, all the ones regarding the grammar and logic of the Quran were conveniently disregarded, and any hint of a 3 daily salat from non-Quranic sources were clung to. So far from your points it seems to just be what the previous books say, and that therefore 'wusta' should hold the definition which would put it in line with the previous books, disregarding any errors it might cause within the Quran.

What else am I to make of this? I'm not debating to try to be right and just call your arguments "baseless" without showing sufficient evidence. I've gone through all the reasons as to why I don't believe there are 3 daily salat and they are undeniable at this point. If there are any valid points in opposition, I want to hear them as I would like to know the truth.

Anyone who looks through this entire thread can see for the 2 daily salat, there are dictionary definitions, there are several examples of where MAJOR errors occur if 'wusta' is translated as 'middle', there is evidence from other areas in the Quran where 'wusta' is 'most balanced/moderate'...

So far the only argument for 3 daily salat presented is that the Quran says there is truth in the previous books, and the previous books say 3 daily salat. The Quran isn't an index for other books. It must sufficiently explain itself. If one cannot prove there are 3 daily salat using the Quran alone, then they must 1) Admit there is great contradiction in the entire religion if they believe all the holy books to be infallible (and not only with salat, with countless other matters as well), 2) Perhaps just realize that it was once 3 and it's now 2, if you believe the previous books are infallible, or 3) Realize that the Quran supersedes and corrects the previous books, which it claims to in 548, therefore meaning there are corruptions in the previous books.

But whether one wants to believe in the previous books or not, is a different issue. Either way, the Quran should be able to explain itself on it's own if we believe in it and believe it is sufficient. Please provide proof of 3 daily salat using the Quran alone if you would like to convince followers of the Quran that it is so. Otherwise, to you is your system, and to me is mine.

May peace be with you.

Peace youssef4342,

Peace everyone!
May the lord God resolve our disputes!
I have to mention about Solomon's example! This is because i was going to cite it long before this topic but i thought it meant that he missed the evening prayer, i wasn't sure.
If this indeed is speaking about the middle prayer, then 2238 would really mean
"Guard the prayers; especially the middle prayer..."
(Can anyone find an example where God repeats the words, as in 2238 with salat?)

Also another note, about the previous scriptures, is that God tells us to believe in them, (not neccesarily follow them, because to "each his own" laws/commandments), you cannot believe in something that you deem as corrupt!. God never states that the Torah is corrupted, nor the previous books, instead he states that Jews have "twisted" the words.
The only Jewish book i Know that "TWISTS" the words of God is the "Talmud", which consists of the "sayings" and "Traditions" (Mishna/Gemarrah) (*Mirroring the Hadith & Sunna of the Mohammedans (evidence of Devils system/Scheming?).
*Jesus Warned of these Laws of the traditions of the rabbis because they Went against God's laws, yet the religious chiefs held them as "Divinely inspired". God later affirms of these Jews' Idol worship when he stated that they took their Rabbis/religious leaders as lords beside God in the Quran.
(God even commandeded the Children of Israel to not Add/subtract anything from the law, but they did!)
(There is however, a minority of Jews today who only follow the Tanakh/Hebrew bible, called the Karaites , who follow the Torah by explaining it in context)

So do you believe that Allah once ordered stoning to death, burning at the stake, circumcision, rape, etc. for all Muslims?

On one hand you say that the religion has been the same since the start, then on the other you say that the OT is still... to be honest I don't even know... preserved? True?

548 And unto thee have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee. Unto every one of you have We appointed a law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community but in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.

If you believe the OT is 100% preserved and true, then you are in GREAT contradiction with the Quran. I really hope I don't have to show you all of the contradictions...

If you do not believe it is 100% true, then you are merely picking what you like/what you think is in line with the Quran, therefore falling into the possibility of being misguided and also undermining Allah's claim that the Quran is sufficient and fully detailed. This is much like what the hadithists are doing.

It's really only one or the other. Here I have used the Quran alone to prove my belief, and majority of the points were simply overlooked because of your attachment to the OT.

It's up to you. Read my response to KDC501 as well. You will never see the truth if you keep associating other words with the sufficient and fully detailed Quran!

May peace be with you.

Peace Kevin,

Sura 2238 Can has also been translated as

2238 You shall consistently observe the Contact Prayers, especially the middle prayer (salat al wusta) , and devote yourselves totally to GOD.

1. Can you show me the word/phrase in Arabic meaning something along the lines of "especially"?
2. This still does not solve the problem I explained earlier about locating this "middle contact prayer" in all the prayers of your life.
3. Furthermore, as Jafar pointed out, it is most likely that this verse is not even referring to salat, therefore "middle" wouldn't make sense in 2 instances. But for now even if we entertain that it is prayer, it still doesn't work in light of the evidence presented.

Regrading the rest of your post I won't bother to argue with you since this topic and this verse has been argued many times on this forum. Personally I believe those who follow 2 daily pray and 5 daily pray or none at all are ALL misguided and are not aware of previous scripture and history. Again it is not uncommon for there to be a middle prayer since this is well established prayer in history for thousands of year long before the Quran even existed!!!

So then you mean to say that the Quran is not fully detailed and sufficient because it relies on external sources outlining the history of the religion?

And those who use the Quran alone to prove that there are only 2 daily salat, are misguided because we do not associate other corrupt books with Allah's preserved Quran?

Please reconsider if you are firm in your belief as a Quran-alone Muslim.

What sort of question is this??? How long have you been reading the Quran brother??? Don't you know that this is the religion of Abraham??? The Salat, Zakat, fasting (with a few minor changes) is roughly the SAME religion that has been in practiced for hundreds of years! I see a middle pray in 2238 because I know it has to exist because I read the Bible and I know that it is common pray among the Jews and Christians long before the 21st Century 2 daily pray theory dreamt to exist!!!
Also the causally way God mentions the pray in the Quran doesn't bother me at all because it is not a foreign practice that suddenly came into existence(unlike the two daily theory) but it is a KNOWN practice since the pyramids. So why should I or anyone else (among the students of the Bible) see otherwise????

I may not have been reading the Quran as long as you, or many others, however I am a firm believer in quality over quantity. You can read the Quran 1000 times and still not see what it is saying if you constantly associate other fallible sources claiming divine guidance with Allah's complete divine Quran.

Let me ask you something. If someone comes up to you and says, "I want to learn about the religion of Abraham!". Where will you point them? Is the Quran not sufficient? The Quran is the religion of Abraham is it's most complete and fully detailed way! Why bring up the corrupted books that have faulty translation and clear corruption/contradiction in trying to explain it. The Quran is fully detailed. Do you not believe this?

Basically, you are saying that the past corrupt books have been saying 3 contact prayers, therefore you must use this to influence any bit of the Quran that MAY have a possibility of leaning towards that explanation. Not to mention ignore clear proof that it is only 2 daily salat when using the Quran alone.

Why don't you also argue that we must degrade females? The OT and NT have degradation of females and it has been done all throughout history as well, and verse 434 in Quran has some type of twisted possibility in meaning "beat women" in it's translation, therefore, since we've been degrading females all throughout history, let's influence the Quran's translation to continue degrading women! See the faulty logic? The whole point of the Quran was to CORRECT the mistakes of the previous people (verse provided below), and to uplift humankind.

The Quran warns us against using preconceived notions and following the steps of our forefathers, yet here you are admitting that you do this.

How many times did God say that People of Book know the truth???

...

Conclusion If the truth isn't in the Torah and the Injeel (The Bible) then why would God ask them to judge with there books if they isn't any truth in them? ??? And yes the Bible contains contradictions but "under the false parts of the Bible" there is the truth. The Truth is there.

I'm not sure what you meant with that last sentence regarding "under the false parts of the Bible". I also don't understand how you can admit there are contradictions in it, yet still feel it is important enough to use in influencing what the Quran should mean. This is the exact same problem hadithists have.

Though the OT and NT are corrupted, if one reads it with an open mind, they will still come to find that there is 1 God, and a hereafter. This is the biggest truth, and most important, and is still apparent in previous books. Therefore, those who follow it can still be Muslims. They can still be monotheists. Though of course they don't have the best guidance in it.

This doesn't mean that every single thing in the previous books is true. The only way you can know what is true in it, is to compare it to what is said in the Quran. Any thing that contradicts or cannot be proven in light of the Quran is false, anything that is true, is already in the complete and fully detailed Quran. Therefore, it eliminates any need to judge with these previous books at all.

548 And unto thee have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee. Unto every one of you have We appointed a law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community but in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.

Here I am using the Quran alone and showing the many points of how it is only 2 daily salat, and majority of the points are being ignored and instead others are arguing against because of what the corrupt OT and NT say. Unless one decides to opt for the Quran alone and realize that there is no point in associating other corrupt books with Allah's preserved text, then this discussion will be fruitless.

May peace be with you.

Peace Roshan,

I'm assuming you've read http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9188.0 ?

You may want to read the portion outlining the difference between the 'count' and the 'number' of full moons a bit more carefully. )

May peace be with you.