QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: Adil Husain on September 28, 2012, 10:48:47 PM
-
Sometimes i feel uncomfortable before starting the prayer because of this doubt in my mind.
Why should we bow and prostrate in a specific direction which directs towards a house built up of stones/bricks?
-
Dear Adil.
Peace to you.
It would not have been difficult for God to refer to the Ka'aba as a house of stones and bricks, when a contraption that Prophet Noah built was simply referred to a thing made of planks (dhati alwahin) and nails (wadusurin) 54:13. Clearly it is not the constituent components of the Ka'aba which bears any significance to the religion of Islam whatsoever, but the purpose of directed contemplation.
We hear our Lord and we obey "...So turn your face in the direction of the sacred Mosque and wherever ye are, turn your faces in that direction" (2:144) [1] & [2]
Those that whisper into the breast of mankind only seek to cause discord and coerce our mind to focus on the insignificant and at the expense of wider purpose. Let us seek refuge in God from these voices in whatever guise they may reach us and may God help us always to remain cognizant of them. (41:36)
From my humble perspective and with respect, the doubt is misplaced and a mere distraction. Let us all remember the more important, overarching purpose of prayer, God willing.
I hope that helps,
Joseph
Related Articles:
[1] THE QIBLA CHANGE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm
[2] IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm
-
Sometimes i feel uncomfortable before starting the prayer because of this doubt in my mind.
Why should we bow and prostrate in a specific direction which directs towards a house built up of stones/bricks?
Salaams,
I asked the same question on another site. It resulted in a long thread about the word qiblah and it's actual meaning. Not sure if I can post the link here...
The Qur'an states: 2:143 We see the shifting of your face towards the heaven; We will thus
set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you: “You shall set
yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may
be, you shall all set yourselves towards it.”
But then in 2:177 it says: Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west....
I was confused...if piety is not about what direction we face, then why the directive to face the Restricted Temple in prayer?
Then it was pointed out to me that no where was the word "salaat" used in any of those ayats...
So the conversation continues... :)
-
Dear Passerby / all
Salamun Alaikum
In my humble opinion, implicit verses of the Quran are best interpreted in the light of explicit verses. I find those that interpret the Quran in reverse fashion, i.e. by ignoring explicit verses at the expense of pursuing implicit verses (3:7) cause interpretive tension which results in considerable confusion.
In my humble opinion, verses 2:144-45 makes it absolutely clear that the Quran recognised that different directions for prayer (qibla) would co-exist without compromising the need for a direction (shatra).
"...they would not follow your direction of devotion / prayer (Arabic: Qiblah); nor are you going to follow their Qiblah; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qiblah..." (2:145).
So piety is clearly not about direction but sincere devotion. Verse 2:177 simply confirms that aspect and there is no warrant for the restrictive interpretation that this statement negates a need for a qiblah.
Furthermore, some raise the possible presence of ‘intra’ differences with the Arabic phrase “'wa ma ba'duhum bitabi'in qiblata ba'din' in verse 2:145 which seems to suggest that between the People of the Book there were different Qiblahs.
Whether there were differences between Jews and Jews or Christians and Christians ('intra' differences), the Quranic text does not elucidate. However, this also cannot be ruled out.
I have discussed this aspect in a related post.
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=92.0
Another contention raised against the traditional understanding of ‘qiblah’ is with verse 10:87 and where the term ‘qiblatan’ is used in conjunction with the houses in Egypt during Prophet Moses’s mission. The contention usually rests on the faulty premise that expects God to instruct the original house of Prophet Abraham to be used as a direction of prayer and not houses in Egypt. Also it is contended that houses in Egypt could not have been used as places of worship as the verse implies when the word 'qiblatan' is used to describe them. Hence the traditional understanding of the term 'qiblah' is rejected.
There are two main problems with this contention:
- An apparent unwarranted disregard is made of the term ‘qiblah’ which not only carries the nuance of a direction of worship but more importantly, a place of worship. The term ‘shatr’ (2:144) would have sufficed if the only intended meaning was ‘direction’. Clearly with the usage of both ‘shatr’ and ‘qiblah’ in the same verse (2:144), the term 'qiblah' carries a wider meaning which is beyond mere ‘direction’ and which verse 10:87 elucidates as also a place of worship. This is often not appreciated.
- There is no warrant for the expectation of a particular designated ‘qiblah’. It is clear from the Quran that different qiblah's existed as directions for prayer or places for prayer. There is also no conclusive warrant for the assertion that the original house that Prophet Abraham built with his son was the same Ka'aba in Makkah [1]. So if different places of worship can co-exist, Makkah being one of others, there is no warrant to assume that a particular 'qiblah' was assigned for the whole of mankind for eternity. God does what He wills especially given the specific requirements of a people.
Therefore, verse 2:144 makes it clear that the sacred mosque was to be taken as not only the new direction of prayer but also the place of devotion for the new believing community. I have also argued the reinstitution of Abrahamic rites at the sacred mosque in section 8 of article [1] below.
I hope that helps God willing.
Regards,
Joseph.
Related Article:
[1] PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm
-
Peace on you ,
Dear Joseph ,
What are the benefits of facing towards a particular direction during our prayers (especially while praying alone) ?
-
Peace Adil.
The Quran does not elucidate. I personally find the common ground of purpose (including logistical benefits in congregation) and spiritual unity between believers as plausible reasons behind the physical symbolic act but I do not seek an explanation if the Quran has not deemed it necessary to impart it. As I am sure you will appreciate, Quranic silence on the matter does not negate the requirement for a qiblah especially given the explicit verses I have respectfully already shared.
God makes it clear in the Quran that he has assigned a particular direction ‘shatr’ for believers (2:144).
Regards,
Joseph.
-
Salaam Adil,
You ask a good question.
In my opinion, the traditional understanding of the "change in qiblah" verses is riddled with problems.
I am currently writing an article on it. I will link to it here in due course.
-
Not a personal comment against you br. Wakas but I am personally in general quite fed up of people highlighting in their opinion 'problems' with 'traditional understandings' yet what they offer in return is often more of a mess than the traditional understanding and does less to reconcile quranic verses with major gaping holes! But anything is passed off in the name of 'progression' these days or 'work in progress'. This is what puts me right off many quranist literature and forums which like a sister recently wrote on this forum is a 'chore' (passerby) to read! >:( I like the approach br. Joseph takes with his articles which only argues against the traditional understanding when it absolutely does not make sense overall with the Quran while always trying to offer a better alternative without making a complete mess of the Arabic language and inventing new meanings of words. My two cents! Saba
-
salaam Saba, all,
I am personally in general quite fed up of people highlighting in their opinion 'problems' with 'traditional understandings' yet what they offer in return is often more of a mess than the traditional understanding and does less to reconcile quranic verses with major gaping holes!
I agree. Personally, if I do write about an alternative, a key aim would be to have it make more sense than what I was critiquing. And of course having it make sense within the Arabic language etc. However, always proposing an alternative is not a requirement to engage in such discussion. My method can be read here:
http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html
In the article I am writing (part 3 of my series on SuJuD, about 'al masjid al haram') I will offer an alternative that fits better in my view.
However, since it might be a week or two till I finish it, God Willing, I can post what I have written on the "change of qiblah" verses, for people to ponder over if they wish:
Abbreviations:
AMAH = al masjid al haram
AQ = al quran
The following is a list of the problems regarding this traditional explanation:
1) It is entirely an interpretation based on external sources (i.e. traditions). The terms "kaabah", "mecca", "AMAH", "turn your wajh/face/consideration", "masjid" etc are NEVER discussed elsewhere in AQ involving a specific physical direction, nor is an example given of anyone performing salat in a particular direction. Some cite 4:102 but please see part 1 of this series for its analysis.
2) The word "qiblah" does not clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence, nor does the root QBL in any form.
3) All traditional commentators translate the only other occurrence of the specifc noun "qiblah" (apart from these verses) in 10:87 as "oratories / places of worship" not "prayer direction". The likely reason is that to do so would make little sense as 10:87 says "...and make your houses a qiblah...". Further, they turn it into a plural here, whilst elsewhere it is singular.
4) In addition to 2:142, the following verses also clearly imply turning to a specific direction is irrelevant, e.g. 2:115 says "for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration...", 2:177 "...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west...". Note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2:115, 2:142-150, 2:177. Some commentators explain this away by saying there was no prayer direction initially, and later this was abrogated, and so on. However, note that in terms of sequence, this same message is given prior to AND after the "change of qiblah" verses. Interestingly, some traditional commentators accept that any direction is not special, and the only thing that makes it special is God having imposed it, no other reason.
5) The verses do not say turn in the direction of the "Kaabah", but AMAH. One may ask then, what does one do once inside AMAH or next to it.
6) The verses do not say turn your wajh DURING salat, this is an inserted interpretation. In fact, it explicitly says "wherever you are" / "wherever thou start or come forth", implying no limitation, and if so, this would make it impossible to face one direction all the time.
7) Technically, it is impossible to face an object on a spheroid (i.e. earth) if you are a long distance away from it. One actually faces a random point in space, and even if one were to draw a line on the earth's surface in a direction towards the intended object being even one degree off can result in being many miles away from the object. Thus, it is actually near impossible to do, unless in close proximity to the object, so if one wishes to take this interpretation, one must accept facing one direction is symbolic only.
8 ) Note how 2:141 clearly implies the past is the past, but according to the traditional understanding the verses which follow are about resuming the qiblah of Abraham et al. Seems a mixed message.
9) The reason given for the apparent change in qiblah is "not will be for the people against you debate", and "that I may complete My favour upon you and so that you may be guided". The traditional commentators try to explain these away using traditions, see Al Jalalayn (altafsir.com), ibn Kathir (qtafsir.com), Asad (quranix.net). Interestingly, traditional Islamic history shows that their relations with the Jewish tribes of Medina only worsened after this point - potentially contradicting the reasoning offered in AQ.
10) 2:145 says "...nor will they follow each other's qiblah..." - a much missed point is the fact that the traditional understanding of "qiblah" as "prayer direction" requires the people of the book to have a minimum of TWO different "qiblah" or "prayer directions" in order to make sense logically, i.e. Jews pray one direction, Christians pray another. I did not find a commentator who explained this away. It is possible they did not realise this. However, there is apparently some evidence to suggest early Christians prayed facing east, and Jews faced Jerusalem, thus satisfying the two-minimum criteria. To me the context of this suggests people can have many qiblah, even their own individual qiblah, i.e. more than two.
11) If these verses were revealed in Medina, as alleged, then the direction of Jerusalem from there is clearly north-west, not west.
12) If facing the cuboid called "Kaabah" pleased the messenger, as implied in 2:144, then it should be noted it was full of idols at the time, as even accepted in traditional sources. They allege that since it was the first house dedicated to worship, built by Abraham, this was more important than the fact it was filled with idols and a pagan symbol, hence "pleased".
13) IF the cuboid called "Kaabah" was also the qiblah of Abraham, as agreed upon by traditionalists, then it should be noted prophets Moses and Jesus (who came after Abraham) were NEVER recorded, in any source, as visiting it nor facing it during prayer. This would be extremely unusual. Thus, the explanation sometimes given is that Jerusalem was the legitimate qiblah for Moses/Jesus, and then the original qiblah (i.e. cuboid called Kaabah) was restored with the final revelation, i.e. Quran. This requires us to believe for some reason God changed it, then restored it, and now seemingly assigns blame to the people of the book for not accepting this change. Can we really blame them for not changing, as this explanation is tantamount to God being the source of confusion, which is unacceptable in my view. Further, it is implied in 2:146 that some of the people of the kitab/book know that this change is the truth, implying in their own scriptures somewhere this qiblah is mentioned or that their qiblah will be superseded by a future messenger etc - if so, where is this information? Perhaps further research needs to be done in this area.
14) AMAH as a building likely did not exist at the time, as admitted by traditional sources, and refers to the area/site (see Encyclopaedia of Quran, volume 3, p77). How this was delineated is anyone's guess. Please note some commentators regard AMAH as Mecca in some verses, e.g. 9:28.
15) As is clear from the last part of 2:144, the only requirement for knowing the true "qiblah" is to be given the decree/scripture from our Lord. There is no requirement to have a compass or to consult a geographical map to know the true "qiblah" from our Lord.
16) IF the Jerusalem qiblah was appointed by God, then indirectly implies the messenger was dissatisfied with such a qiblah when 2:144 says "...We see thy face/consideration shifting in the sky..." and "...that will please thee...", i.e. was the messenger dissatisfied with a command from God?
17) The use of masculine suffix pronoun "hu/it" in these verses is somewhat problematic, as IF "it" refers to AMAH as a physical building then it seems odd (e.g. they recognise it/AMAH as they recognise their sons). Tafsir Al Jalalayn states the "it" in 2:146 refers to Muhammad, Ibn Kathir says it could be Muhammad or Kaabah but unfortunately for him the latter is a feminine noun so it cannot be that. Perhaps Ibn Kathir meant AMAH. Some translators imply the "it" refers to the qiblah but again, this is a feminine noun (see the use of feminine "ha/it" in 2:143 for confirmation of this). For me, the variance is telling. It should be strongly noted that in AQ Abraham is never said to have built AMAH, nor is it explicitly mentioned in his presence, thus for the people of the writ/decree to link this to Abraham and recognise AMAH as the truth is somewhat difficult.
Unfortunately, it is not possible to state with certainty what the masculine pronoun "hu" refers to, but in my humble opinion, the flow and logic of the verses suggest it=AMAH, especially considering the usage of "it is the truth from your Lord" in 2:144, 2:147 and 2:149.
18) 2:145 would imply that if the messenger were to follow their qiblah after these revelations then he would be a wrongdoer and following their desires, yet he was apparently following it previously. Is there a precedent for this in AQ, i.e. doing X is allowed then a future revelation clearly changes doing X to desires/wrongdoing? Not to my knowledge.
19) The expression "turn + wajh", is used in 6:79 and rendered as "I shall turn my face to the One who created the heavens and the earth..." but explained as "making his religion and works sincere" (e.g. Ibn Kathir), likely because this was prior to the alleged building of the cuboid called "Kaaba", thus to render it as a physical direction when such a place did not exist would be problematic for Traditionalists, yet they take this same phrase to mean physical directional command here. Also see "wajh" in 'Verbal Idioms of Quran' by Mustansir Mir. This shows that this phrase does have a link to mindset/sincerity/intention/approach/etc even in traditional sources. The phrase is also used in 28:22 (albeit "turn" is verb form 5 not 2) and likely denotes an actual physical turning of one's face, but uses the Arabic word "tilq'aa" for "towards" not "shatra (in the direction)" like these verses. Perhaps "til'qaa" is more appropriate for a physical turning towards, also see 7:47. It is somewhat peculiar "shatra" is used, rather than the more common "ila/to" for example, IF it did mean a physical face turning towards/to something.
As a side note, also recall how in part 2 it was shown the phrase "aqim wajh" had no link to a physical face or directional command.
20) IF it was a reference to turning towards another direction in prayer, then to me, it seems odd that in 2:142 it states the foolish (al sufahau) will ask "what has turned them from..." when this seems like a reasonable question to ask. Think about it, if you were there as an observer, and a group prayed towards X then Y for about 18 months (as the traditional story goes) then back to X again, wouldn't you ask "why" also? If so, you are of the foolish ones according to the traditional understanding.
It is fairly thorough. Feel free to share your thoughts on it.
-
Salam Wakas, Thanks
Your opening sentence struck me as a major problem which I find is the approach typical of Quranists. You say "It is entirely an interpretation based on external sources (i.e. traditions)"
. Why is something a problem just because it is traditional???? Can traditionalists not be right about anything or any aspect of the language they have passed onto us?
Then you say "The terms "kaabah", "mecca", "AMAH", "turn your wajh/face/consideration", "masjid" etc are NEVER discussed elsewhere in AQ involving a specific physical direction,"
Why does it need to be? Are you saying that the Quran needs to provide a dictionary of its own words? Wasn't the Quran revealed to people who already spoke the Arabic language?
What is a lexicon? Is it not a traditional source of interpretation? Saba
-
w/salaam Saba,
Thanks for the feedback, but I hope you read past the first point!
And as to your question: nowhere did I state nor imply what you seem to imply with your questions. However, with regard to the gist of your objections, if an understanding cannot be understood on its own, i.e. using Quran (and by "using Quran" I also mean its guidance with regards to method/verification/etc) then this is problematic.
Further, if such an understanding requires finessing of word meanings, its grammar, no supporting Quranic evidence of any kind for any of its key terms, suspension of logic, awkward application etc then it is almost certainly a wrong understanding.
Analysis is simply a matter of putting evidence on the table, so to speak, then weighing it up. That is my aim. You may think some things do not matter, or are a "major problem", others might disagree with you, hence I prefer to point it out and put it on the table for all to see. If you, or others, disagree, each to their own.
Of course, if you, or anyone, has answers to the points, feel free to put it on the table.
-
Salaam br. Wakas. Surely what is put on the table must be worth it for someone to pay any attention to it and spend time on it. But you must accept that credibility can be lost in the first few paragraphs when major claims are made which seem like they have been used as the basis of the whole analysis.
You said:
And as to your question: nowhere did I state nor imply what you seem to imply with your questions. However, with regard to the gist of your objections, if an understanding cannot be understood on its own, i.e. using Quran (and by "using Quran" I also mean its guidance with regards to method/verification/etc) then this is problematic.
I simply don't agree with this if I understand your point correctly. The Quran is not a dictionary nor does it expect to be understood on its own. First ...the Quran was given to a people who knew the language and expected them to understand the words clearly. It did not invent a new language. It seems you are expecting the Quran to provide you meanings of words. Also there are many stories in the Quran that seem to suggest that the people knew the backgrounds of them. So how can the Quran simply be understood on its own without any external source explaining the meaning of the language?
So unless I can resolve this issue with you have presented on the 'table' with your help, I simply cannot give your analysis any further thought.
However I look forward to your explanations. Saba
-
w/salaam,
Once again, let me repeat, nowhere did I state nor imply what your questions seem to imply. I guess I will have to be more clear:
It seems you are expecting the Quran to provide you meanings of words.
Wrong. I do not expect such a thing. Nowhere have I ever said such a thing. What I do expect however is for a chosen meaning of a word, e.g. "sujud=prostration" to fit into the Quran occurrences and if it does not fit sometimes then there should be a sound reason for it, not an arbitrary reason such as "my view of word X does not work here, thus word X means something else here".
So how can the Quran simply be understood on its own without any external source explaining the meaning of the language?
Once again, I have never said such a thing, nor implied it. In fact, I have repeatedly said to the contrary. It seems you did not care to read the link I gave you: http://www.quran434.com/study-method.html
29:20, 3:137, 3:190-191, 45:3-4 - knowledge of archaeology/biology/physics/history/sciences/philosophy etc will all help to better understand it.
One can use any external source to understand Quran, e.g. classical arabic dictionaries, even Traditional Hadith, but one cannot use them to outrank Quran or in a way that goes against its principles/guidance/criteria regarding how to understand it etc. The Quran is the ultimate criterion.
The alternative to the above linked approach is an arbitrary one, i.e. you think a word means X here, but it can mean Y there, Z there etc - you have absolutely no way of determining if you are selecting meanings based on whim/desire or sound reason/evidence, and are not using a method that is systematic/robust/falsifiable. Such a method to me is unacceptable, and not the precision/logic par excellence I have experienced with Quran. Let us assume the author of Quran is God, is God not a master of relaying guidance to us in a way that is precise, verifiable, logical, coherent etc? Yes/No.
Whatever answer one chooses will determine how they approach Quran.
-
Salam br. Wakas. Thank you for your response. So I have a simple question for you. What is the meaning of 'qiblah' in your opinion? It is a simple question. Thanks Saba
-
Salaam Wakas and all,
Read your article, you raise good questions that I am not qualified to answer. I agree with you that those who are not located in Arabia should not need a compass to determine the direction. Since I can never determine my location, I always take refuge in God's ayah 2:115 and hope He accepts what I'm saying is a reflection of my heart.
shatra almasjidi alharami What does shatra mean? Does it mean a piece of or a major component of something?
-
Salaam Wakas and all,
Read your article, you raise good questions that I am not qualified to answer. I agree with you that those who are not located in Arabia should not need a compass to determine the direction. Since I can never determine my location, I always take refuge in God's ayah 2:115 and hope He accepts what I'm saying is a reflection of my heart.
shatra almasjidi alharami What does shatra mean? Does it mean a piece of or a major component of something?
Peace Hope,
'Shatr' is a well known Arabic word which in this context means direction or in the direction of something. I have briefly discussed the term in my post above.
I hope that helps, God willing.
My perspectives on the Qibla change are below:
THE QIBLA CHANGE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm
Regards,
Joseph.
-
Brother Wakas,
Peace to you.
I have noted your recent posts on this forum which also link to various other sites. May I respectfully and kindly ask you to remain vigilant of 2(f) and 2(j) of the forum policy.
For the benefit of other readers on this forum, as you and I very well know, we have discussed matters in detail on various topics. For anyone who is interested to see the outcome, a simple search can yield the appropriate threads. (Please search with keyword "wakas"). Our discussions on other platforms have also been captured on this forum for the benefit of readers. (please search with keyword "waqas")
Our discussions have often been involved as you very well know and my difference with your methodology and approach has often been respectfully expressed.
Therefore with respect, I personally will not be able to subject your work to any scrutiny as not only do I respectfully feel there will be limited mileage in doing so as I fundamentally disagree with your approach in certain areas which of course we have already discussed at times, but also due to my very limited time given my ever increasing workload and commitments.
So regretfully, given our differences in approach and my limited time, may I respectfully decline any further comments to your perspectives. I trust you will respect my prerogative.
I know some questions have already been asked of you and I trust that you all continue to engage in fruitful discussions.
I will try to spend time as much time as I can afford with any questions that are asked of me personally, God willing.
Peace to you and / all.
With utmost respect,
Joseph.
-
Salaam br. Joseph,
Thank you for the link you provided- though I had read it previously it must have never registered without the context of current discussion. Per 3:95, the Prophet was asked to follow the millata ibraheema haneefa, so his uneasiness facing Jerusalem is very logical.
2:126 and 14:35 mention land of safety meaning land free of idolatry, dedicated to the One worthy of worship?
-
Dear Hope,
Peace to you.
I have a quick question before I part with a detailed response for yours. Are you familiar with my humble perspective of the holy sanctuaries and the reinstitution of Abrahamic rites at the Sacred Mosque in the article below?
PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm
If not, it may provide a backdrop of my perspective with the Qibla change (especially section -8-).
Regards,
Joseph.
-
salaam/peace/shalom
The alternative to the above linked approach is an arbitrary one, i.e. you think a word means X here, but it can mean Y there, Z there etc - you have absolutely no way of determining if you are selecting meanings based on whim/desire or sound reason/evidence, and are not using a method that is systematic/robust/falsifiable.
That is why we need to understand the Arabic language first and realize that one word in Arabic can have different meanings in different usages and contexts.
Such a method to me is unacceptable, and not the precision/logic par excellence I have experienced with Quran. Let us assume the author of Quran is God, is God not a master of relaying guidance to us in a way that is precise, verifiable, logical, coherent etc? Yes/No.
It is probably because you don't understand Arabic as a spoken language. The Quran basically spoke to the Arabic people with words that were used by them. So knowledge of the language is a first. The Quran don't teach you the language. This for me - highlights the basic flaw in your Qur'anic approach brother.
-
Peace,
Thank you for pointing me to your extensive study on Mecca and Baka.
Reinstitution becomes a test of faith in the new religion.
-
salaam dunster,
You seem to miss the point I am making and have made.
I have no problem whatsoever in that an Arabic word can have a different meaning in another occurrence etc. What I am saying is that there should be a reason for it, whether it be logic, idiom etc. IF a person has no reason other than "my view of word X does not fit there, thus it can mean Y" then such a method makes it impossible to determine the role of whim/desire in that person's choice.
Do you agree/disagree? If you disagree, please tell us how we can guard against whim/desire in such a method? This question is also open to anyone.
-
Brother Joseph,
w/salaam,
Thanks for letting me know. Alas, we are all students with limited time.
Those who listen to what is being said, then follow the best of it.
These are the ones God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.
[Al Quran, 39:18]
-
salaam saba,
I hope you have read my articles. In part 3 I discuss the meaning of "qiblah" in more detail but I can give you my findings in brief. In order of likelihood:
1) focal-point - focus/centre of interest or activity
2) direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
3) point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
4) counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action
-
Dear Passerby / all
Salamun Alaikum
In my humble opinion, implicit verses of the Quran are best interpreted in the light of explicit verses. I find those that interpret the Quran in reverse fashion, i.e. by ignoring explicit verses at the expense of pursuing implicit verses (3:7) cause interpretive tension which results in considerable confusion.
In my humble opinion, verses 2:144-45 makes it absolutely clear that the Quran recognised that different directions for prayer (qibla) would co-exist without compromising the need for a direction (shatra).
"...they would not follow your direction of devotion / prayer (Arabic: Qiblah); nor are you going to follow their Qiblah; nor indeed will they follow each other's Qiblah..." (2:145).
So piety is clearly not about direction but sincere devotion. Verse 2:177 simply confirms that aspect and there is no warrant for the restrictive interpretation that this statement negates a need for a qiblah.
Furthermore, some raise the possible presence of ‘intra’ differences with the Arabic phrase “'wa ma ba'duhum bitabi'in qiblata ba'din' in verse 2:145 which seems to suggest that between the People of the Book there were different Qiblahs.
Whether there were differences between Jews and Jews or Christians and Christians ('intra' differences), the Quranic text does not elucidate. However, this also cannot be ruled out.
I have discussed this aspect in a related post.
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=92.0
Another contention raised against the traditional understanding of ‘qiblah’ is with verse 10:87 and where the term ‘qiblatan’ is used in conjunction with the houses in Egypt during Prophet Moses’s mission. The contention usually rests on the faulty premise that expects God to instruct the original house of Prophet Abraham to be used as a direction of prayer and not houses in Egypt. Also it is contended that houses in Egypt could not have been used as places of worship as the verse implies when the word 'qiblatan' is used to describe them. Hence the traditional understanding of the term 'qiblah' is rejected.
There are two main problems with this contention:
- An apparent unwarranted disregard is made of the term ‘qiblah’ which not only carries the nuance of a direction of worship but more importantly, a place of worship. The term ‘shatr’ (2:144) would have sufficed if the only intended meaning was ‘direction’. Clearly with the usage of both ‘shatr’ and ‘qiblah’ in the same verse (2:144), the term 'qiblah' carries a wider meaning which is beyond mere ‘direction’ and which verse 10:87 elucidates as also a place of worship. This is often not appreciated.
- There is no warrant for the expectation of a particular designated ‘qiblah’. It is clear from the Quran that different qiblah's existed as directions for prayer or places for prayer. There is also no conclusive warrant for the assertion that the original house that Prophet Abraham built with his son was the same Ka'aba in Makkah [1]. So if different places of worship can co-exist, Makkah being one of others, there is no warrant to assume that a particular 'qiblah' was assigned for the whole of mankind for eternity. God does what He wills especially given the specific requirements of a people.
Therefore, verse 2:144 makes it clear that the sacred mosque was to be taken as not only the new direction of prayer but also the place of devotion for the new believing community. I have also argued the reinstitution of Abrahamic rites at the sacred mosque in section 8 of article [1] below.
I hope that helps God willing.
Regards,
Joseph.
Related Article:
[1] PROPHET ABRAHAM'S (pbuh) ORIGINAL SANCTUARY - AT MAKKAH (MECCA) OR BAKKAH (BACA)?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/makkah%20bakkah%20FM3.htm
Salaam Joseph,
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't believe that God would turn away devout, sincere worship simply because one is not facing the exact direction of something. In my opinion, we limit God with our thinking and interpretations. Who are we to say that He will not accept a prayer for such and such reason, even if it has been clarified to us? How often do we see "And God is Most Merciful, Compassionate" in the Qur'an?
-
salaam saba,
I hope you have read my articles. In part 3 I discuss the meaning of "qiblah" in more detail but I can give you my findings in brief. In order of likelihood:
1) focal-point - focus/centre of interest or activity
2) direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
3) point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
4) counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action
Salam br. Wakas - I note that you remove any mention of a relationship with prayer or the act of devotion ...prayer.
Why can't qiblah mean a focal-point - focus/ centre of prayer ...like the traditional explanation? From what I have read of your notes so far, it seems to me you just don't want to associate either qiblah / sujood / masjid with prayer or an act of devotion to God?
Can I ask without intending to be disrespectful, do you have a problem with prayer or devotion to God or any of these terms having relationships with prayer? :-\ Saba
-
What I am saying is that there should be a reason for it, whether it be logic, idiom etc.
peace bro wakas
I don't think that's right. When we write or speak in a certain language we don't ask the logic / reason behind why a word is used the way it is in different situations. Those that speak the language just know how those meanings are used in different situations.
For example in English, 'charge' has many meanings. I would know that I can use it as follows:
An electrical charge
Charge like a bull
A payment charge
Take charge of a situation
Being charged with a crime
However, what you are suggesting is similar to someone who doesn't know English and to come along and question the logic behind why 'charge' has been used in different ways and then question the logic. If you don't know the language, you ain't gonna have a clue. And using just dictionaries ain't going to be much benefit either.
That is why knowledge of the language is important. If you don't know the language thoroughly ...properly enough, then breaking up the words to see which one 'slots best' is only going to be based on personal desire / whims etc of the person who doesn't know the language.
This is where I really don't agree with your method bro. The risk here is that people start making up new meanings to words. Sorry but I sense something really ain't right here.
-
peace Duster,
Thank you, very well said. Tendency of assigning a single meaning to key words in Quran study-groups has been going on for over 10 years that I'm aware of. It was argued that if meanings change in different contexts, it would be too difficult for those who do not speak the language; majority does not know Arabic.
I remember one individual claiming to fast every July since it was the hottest month. July was his Ramadan.
My generation was awakened by Rashad Khalifa. It was so painful for me when I realized the 19 phenomena was miscalculated. I felt so betrayed. Yet bless his soul, his views were instrumental for me to get into the religion. Before I did not even know the existence of "hadith" I thought everything I knew about the religion was from the Quran. Brother Joseph was talking about the innocence of the children. My thinking was like a child but I was not a child.
So, in a way I understand where they are coming from; they don't want to be duped again. The pendulum needs to stay hanging down instead of oscillating from one extreme to another.
Genie was out of the bag
-
salaam saba,
Can I ask without intending to be disrespectful, do you have a problem with prayer or devotion to God...
No. For example "duaa" clearly means petition/call/pray (often to God) in Quran.
...or any of these terms having relationships with prayer?
I only have a problem if there is no evidence for such.
Perhaps you should ask yourself if you have a problem with those terms meaning other than is traditionally understood.
-
Perhaps you should ask yourself if you have a problem with those terms meaning other than is traditionally understood.
Salaam Wakas, I think it is for you to provide evidence that the traditional meaning of an Arabic word is wrong. That a word as has been traditionally understood by the Arabs is just is plain wrong or the Quran didn't intend it that way. As many people have already said, the Quran doesn't intend to define words. So without meaning to sound disrespectful, I find your evidence severely lacking. Each to their own I suppose. Saba
-
salaam dunster,
As I said, if there is a reason for it, then that is different.
And using just dictionaries ain't going to be much benefit either.
I can only assume you are making a general statement here, and not about my method, as I do not use "just dictionaries".
You did not answer my question to you about how to determine the role of whim/desire in such a person's choice. No matter, let me ask some further questions:
In a "living language" (i.e. one still spoken e.g. Arabic) can meanings of words change? Yes/No.
Is Al Quran the earliest extant work of Classical Arabic prose that we have in our possession today?
If you answer "yes" to both of the above, then clearly for believers in Quran, it is of paramount importance to determine how Al Quran uses its words. Once we recognise this, it is simply a matter of putting the evidence on the table and weighing the evidence for potential word choices.
Lastly, you may, apparently, disagree with my method, but my method is far more than what you imply it to be, so it would be more correct to say you disagree with a part of my method. Reflect.
-
salaam Saba,
I find your evidence severely lacking.
Is that why you are silent with regards to an evidence-based rebuttal?
Not to worry, I have discussed many understandings with many people on many forums, and if I have learnt many things, one of which is sometimes "a silence speaks louder than words".
-
Salaam Wakas, I don't mean any disrespect but I don't think silence means someone is convinced by anyone's argument. Some people just may not see the point on arguing with someone they think won't listen or they find someone's argument not worth it. However, me ...... ;D I have some more q's if that's ok. Not being satisfied with number 1 of your points, I will now move to number 2 of your point.
2) The word "qiblah" does not clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence, nor does the root QBL in any form.
How can you prove 'clearly' that in verses 2.142-145 does not mean prayer direction? when Arabic dictionaries say that one of the meaning is prayer direction and it can clearly fit in these verses?
Thanks. Saba
-
Salaam Wakas, I don't mean any disrespect but I don't think silence means someone is convinced by anyone's argument. Some people just may not see the point on arguing with someone they think won't listen or they find someone's argument not worth it. However, me ...... ;D I have some more q's if that's ok. Not being satisfied with number 1 of your points, I will now move to number 2 of your point.
2) The word "qiblah" does not clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence, nor does the root QBL in any form.
How can you prove 'clearly' that in verses 2.142-145 does not mean prayer direction? when Arabic dictionaries say that one of the meaning is prayer direction and it can clearly fit in these verses?
Thanks. Saba
Dear Saba,
Peace to you.
Is there any particular reason why you are choosing to ask your questions piecemeal?
QM Forum Moderator
-
Dear Moderator - Salaam. Sorry, I just find it easier to go through point by point if I have questions otherwise I find some responses get lost, especially when there are so many points being made by someone. I really hope that is OK. 8) ;D
-
salaam dunster,
As I said, if there is a reason for it, then that is different.
And using just dictionaries ain't going to be much benefit either.
I can only assume you are making a general statement here, and not about my method, as I do not use "just dictionaries".
You did not answer my question to you about how to determine the role of whim/desire in such a person's choice. No matter, let me ask some further questions:
In a "living language" (i.e. one still spoken e.g. Arabic) can meanings of words change? Yes/No.
Is Al Quran the earliest extant work of Classical Arabic prose that we have in our possession today?
If you answer "yes" to both of the above, then clearly for believers in Quran, it is of paramount importance to determine how Al Quran uses its words. Once we recognise this, it is simply a matter of putting the evidence on the table and weighing the evidence for potential word choices.
Lastly, you may, apparently, disagree with my method, but my method is far more than what you imply it to be, so it would be more correct to say you disagree with a part of my method. Reflect.
Peace bro wakas,
Please see my answers to your questions >>>
If someone doesn't know the Arabic language, then it will only be whim / desire how they interpret the Quran. I have seen many groups do this and come up with all sorts of meanings. They all feel that their meanings slot best.
Yes, meanings of words do change in a living language, but they are usually properly documented or known. The problem arises when new meanings are given to words that Arabs have long used which don't have much trace in that context. How 1000 years of Arabs missed a particular understanding when it their language beats me. Not convincing and I am 'reflecting'. Yes - I disagree with your method.
I am not sure that the 'al Quran' is simply prose as does have some rhythmical structure to it. That at least is clear to anyone listening to it in Arabic.
-
salam dunster,
Thanks for acknowledging words can change in a living language.
If you do not wish to call it "prose" then let's simply call it a "text", i.e. something of substance, a few tens of pages at least. This should allow you to answer the question I asked.
And lastly you said:
"...but they are usually properly documented or known. The problem arises when new meanings are given to words that Arabs have long used which don't have much trace in that context. How 1000 years of Arabs missed a particular understanding when it their language beats me."
I can only assume that once again you are making a general statement which has no relevance to me as I cant recall having given a meaning to a word that has no basis in a Classical Arabic text, e.g. Classical Arabic dictionary, and/or based on its grammatical word form. If you do find such an example from me, let me know.
-
salam saba,
I said:
2) The word "qiblah" does not clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence, nor does the root QBL in any form.
You said:
How can you prove 'clearly' that in verses 2.142-145 does not mean prayer direction?
I did not say I could "prove clearly" that it does not mean "prayer direction". I said it does not clearly mean that in any AQ occurrence. If you know of such an occurrence let me know.
You said:
when Arabic dictionaries say that one of the meaning is prayer direction and it can clearly fit in these verses?
I did not make a reference to Classical Arabic dictionaries in the statement of mine you quoted. "clearly fit" is not the same as "clearly mean". One could fit several meanings into those verses but showing it clearly means one over the other, is a different matter. If you have such evidence let me know.
Perhaps I could have been a bit clearer in my statement, and change it to:
"The word "qiblah", and its root (QBL), cannot be shown to clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence.
-
"The word "qiblah", and its root (QBL), cannot be shown to clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence.
Salaam Wakas, ....And this brings me to my problem with your method.
You said:
""The word "qiblah", and its root (QBL), cannot be shown to clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence"
With this statement you are showing me that you are expecting the Quran to define meanings for you. Otherwise what is the point of the statement you make?? Why should the Quran clearly show you the meaning of any word. The Quran was revealed in Arabic, a language that existed before revelation. The Arabic language should be known. The Quran only used a pre-existing language and not define it. Saba
-
salaam,
http://www.moonsighting.com/qibla.html
this why I stated that I cannot locate my direction. It is too confusing for me. I have two compasses at home yet I cannot determine if they are pointing to the correct direction.
-
w/salaam saba,
With this statement you are showing me that you are expecting the Quran to define meanings for you. Otherwise what is the point of the statement you make?? Why should the Quran clearly show you the meaning of any word. The Quran was revealed in Arabic, a language that existed before revelation. The Arabic language should be known. The Quran only used a pre-existing language and not define it. Saba
Again, that is not what I am doing. I have a preference for putting the evidence on the table and weighing each option. Naturally, if you disagree with an aspect of my method you will not give much weight to a particular option. That is up to you.
You, and others, seem to be under the impression that those who passed down the language to us, or told us about Islam etc are infallible, because you seem to assume what they tell us about a word meaning in Quran is 100% truth. No need to question it.
Perhaps you should consider what they say about words such as "hijab", "zakat", "hadith", "sunna", "hikma" and many others. Is all that they tell us the truth?
As I said, if you, or others, have an evidence-based rebuttal to what I wrote, feel free to write one up. Until then, peace.
-
You, and others, seem to be under the impression that those who passed down the language to us, or told us about Islam etc are infallible, because you seem to assume what they tell us about a word meaning in Quran is 100% truth. No need to question it.
Salaam Wakas, No one is saying anyone is infallible and I certainly am not making such sweeping generalizations. Arabic is a spoken language and has been at least since the Quran was revealed. ....People have debated meanings of certain words. but that does not mean that the whole Arabic language is untrustworthy that has been passed to us. You seem to be under the impression that just because people are infallible that the language and their meaning that they have given us is not trustworthy.
I personally think it is no use to spend any time on your method or works because you simply are not providing any evidence for your method or prove that the Arabic is so unreliable that has been passed to us that we need a new method.
I feel you do expect a lot from your readers. Just because you put 50 pages on the table, does not mean it merits someone to provide you a rebuttal.
So until you provide evidence for what has been asked of you - peace to you too. Saba
-
Wakas said, "The word "qiblah", and its root (QBL), cannot be shown to clearly mean "prayer direction" in any AQ occurrence.
ق ب ل = Qaf-Ba-Lam = to accept/admit/receive/agree, meet anyone, to face/encounter someone/something, advance/approach, correspond, counteract/compare/requite/compensate, the front part (12:26), accept with approval, show favor. Lane
qiblah n.f. 2:142, 2:143, 2:144, 2:145, 2:145, 2:145, 10:87
The foolish will ask, What has made them turn away from their direction of prayer which they used to face? Say, The East and the West belong to God. He guides whom He pleases to the right path.
"What has turned them away from the focal point that they were on"
What has turned them from the direction they were facing in the Prayer?"
"What made the Muslims change their Qiblah, the direction to which they turn at prayer?"
´What has made them turn round from the direction they used to face?´
"What has turned them from the direction they were facing in the Prayer?
`What has made these (Muslims) turn from their (first) Qiblah (- the direction they were facing in their Prayer, the holy place of worship at Jerusalem) to which they conformed (so far)?
"What has turned them from their Qiblah (direction, focus, goal), to which they were used?"
"What has turned them from the Center of Devotion (Jerusalem) which people formerly observed?
“How come they were praying towards Jerusalem and now suddenly they changed their direction towards Mecca?
"What turned them away from their (prayer) direction ,which they were on it?"
qib'latihimu their direction of prayer
Center of Devotion is similar to pray.
Focal point, focus, goal to what? Brother Wakas, I really want to understand you whether I agree with you or not. Which meanings listed above do you think it will serve the Qiblah meaning better?
-
salaam Hope,
I already gave a reply to that, see above.
salaam saba,
I hope you have read my articles. In part 3 I discuss the meaning of "qiblah" in more detail but I can give you my findings in brief. In order of likelihood:
1) focal-point - focus/centre of interest or activity
2) direction - general aim or purpose; a general way in which someone/something is developing
3) point-of-approach - a way in which to approaching something
4) counteraction - to oppose and mitigate the effects of by contrary action
-
Salaam,
I think it is one of the traditions that God allows it to continue as a symbol of devotion. We can see that in the Bible, too. I do not know of any commandment to face Jerusalem either but it is a human need to seek the Unseen. People knew the idols that they carved were not the gods; only a symbol of them.
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 aforetime.
It is just like the name Allah. It is allowed to continue because Quran's focus is not the Named but the relationship between the Named and the man.
-
Salaam Wakas,
Your recent posts have been removed.
As I mentioned before, please can you answer or contribute directly on the board without giving links to lengthy articles. I note there is no author mentioned on the analysis you have shared so I am assuming this is your work. Please note forum policy 2 (f) and 2 (j) as has already been mentioned.
This forum should not be used as an advertising platform. It is better that you provide your conclusions first clearly. Then if need be, an appropriate link to back it up with reference to the author or the analysis.
This will make it easier and clear for the readers to know exactly where you stand and what point you are trying to make. Readers can then respond appropriately.
Thanks.
-
w/salaam TS,
Is the admin of the forum yourself or Brother Joseph or QM Moderator - or are you all one and the same person? Please clarify.
You claim "advertisement" yet my post was on topic AND I was asked by fellow forum members to back-up what I said and clarify.
It is better that you provide your conclusions first clearly. Then if need be, an appropriate link to back it up with reference to the author or the analysis.
Which is what I did. In any case...
If I have understood you correctly, you wish me to state my conclusions first then present evidence later? Sounds a bit like putting the cart before the horse if you ask me, but if this is how you do things here, let me know and I shall.
-
Salaam Wakas,
There are several different administrators on this forum of which I am one.
All I am stating is that you give your opinion or an explanation of what you think about a topic within the thread. If after that somebody requests that you go into more detail, then by all means you can provide them a link, rather than giving a link in the first instance.
This way, everybody will be clear about your position without having to click on links in order to understand your views. Please also make sure that your explanations are succinct.
The reason I say advertising is because you mainly provide links to your own work without informing the board clearly that you are the author.
Thanks.
-
salaam all,
My understanding is as follows:
The Quranic evidence weighs the evidence in favour of SuJuD meaning "to submit/honour/pay respect".
"masjid" meaning "time of SJD"
"al masjid al haram" meaning "the inviolable time of SJD" (i.e. the term referring to the time-period/event of the inviolable months).
This understanding provides a logical, coherent and practical answer throughout, and helps answer some of the most difficult questions in Quran exegesis (e.g. 17:1, 2:142-150).
Notes:
For SJD above you can substitute from "submission", "paying respect", "honour", i.e. any of the SuJuD meanings above.
By "inviolable months" I am referring to "al ashhur al hurum" mentioned in Quran.
If you require evidence and clarification for the above, please state so here and I will provide it, and if you wish to discuss such an understanding in detail I can create a new thread.
-
Salaam Wakas
In verse 48:29 it says "The mark of them is on their faces from the traces of prostration (sjd). Given your definition which I note does not include physical prostration, how do these marks appear? Saba
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/48/29/default.htm
-
Salaam Wakas,
I would request for the final time that you respond within the thread when a question is put to you. If the moderators deem it appropriate, a new thread will be made for topics by them. I do not approve of you creating other threads in response to questions that are asked of you.
If this continues, you will be removed from this forum.
Thanks
-
Peace Wakas,
From a personal perspective, your presence on this forum is very welcomed. However, please can I kindly ask that you respect the moderators requests and that of this forum and provide direct responses to questions on the thread. I appreciate that this approach may be different to what you are used to on the forums you moderate, but as you will no doubt appreciate, each board / forum assesses its own best approach.
I have also asked the moderators to 'run a tight ship', a consistent, disciplined and effective approach regardless of the vast theological perspectives that may be presented or what they may refer to themselves as (Parwaizi, Astaana, 19ers, Submitters, Quranists, Quran-aloners, Reformists, traditional Sunni, Shia and all the various sectarian divides in-between)
Of course, I would not want the quality of this forum to in any way denegrate, reflect the poor posts or lack of decorum that is at times present on other boards. I would like this forum to represent seasoned, well argued, academic, evidence based perspectives which I am sure you will concur with too. It is always about quality over quantity of posts / content.
As you will know, there is already a plethora of misinformation abound. I seek not to add to it by allowing this forum to become a repository for a quagmire of thoughts in flux. Hence my focus, and I trust you will respect my outlook on this matter.
On a separate note, my apologies to all those that are still awaiting responses to their questions. I am endeavouring hard to respond to the queries that are asked of me. God willing, I shall get to your questions asked on this forum too. May I only kindly ask, that you if could please ensure that your questions are well founded after some deliberation on your own part as the time I can afford to answering questions can be very limited. Therefore at times, I may appear to be selective in response based on the popularity of the questions that I generally receive.
With utmost respect,
Joseph.
PS: Thanks Truthseeker (and others) for your assistance on the board.
-
w/salaam TS,
The reason for the new thread was simple. This thread is about "Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?" and I was asked a question on marks on one's face from sujud. Now, whilst I'm sure one can link the two, to me, it is off-topic.
I am a member of several forums and moderate some, and to me, it is disrespectful to derail another's thread and discuss something off-topic. It seems you do not mind this in this instance.
As per your forum rules:
(l) Links to external websites must be relevant to the topic. Where they are deemed to be inappropriate, they will be removed.
-
w/salaam Joseph,
As I'm sure you are aware, I too have a preference for quality over quantity. And I'm sure you are also aware I have spent much time/effort/money in improving the standard of quality when it comes to Quran study, via StudyQuran.org and other projects etc.
You may have asked your moderators to run a tight ship but in this instance let's be clear, we are talking about the creation of a new dedicated thread to discuss something in detail, on something that is not the original topic of this thread. Hardly worthy of a threat to ban such a member.
As you will know, there is already a plethora of misinformation abound. I seek not to add to it by allowing this forum to become a repository for a quagmire of thoughts in flux. Hence my focus, and I trust you will respect my outlook on this matter.
I hope you are making a general statement only, and not one specific to me. Anyone who has read my thousands of posts on Quran topics, read my articles etc will know that I am very careful in what I write, and it is rare to find the content unevidenced by way of Quran and/or reason. And lastly, I am open to discussion on anything I have written, in fact, I welcome it. As I like to say "I'd rather be corrected in this life than the next".
Regards,
Wakas
-
Salaam Wakas,
I have made clear to you how the moderators would like the format to run. Respectfully, if you cannot keep to the format, then your posts will be deleted.
To reiterate:
Step 1: Respond directly within the thread stating your views clearly.
Step 2: Only if a further request is made by a member for you to provide detailed evidence of your stance, then feel free to provide a link.
The question Saba asked you was directly related to your post. I do not see anything disrespectful. Please respond within the thread in future.
I have reposted the relevant part of your response to Saba's question in order to keep the discussion within the thread.
Thanks
Salaam Wakas
In verse 48:29 it says "The mark of them is on their faces from the traces of prostration (sjd). Given your definition which I note does not include physical prostration, how do these marks appear? Saba
w/salaam,
Good question.
Please see part 1: http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-of-SuJuD-from-Quran.html
48:29 Muhammad is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are stern against the concealers/rejecters/ingrates, but merciful between themselves. You see them inclining/humbling and SuJaD, seeking bounty from God and pleasure/approval. Their distinction is in their faces/attentions/considerations/wills/purposes, from the trace/teaching/influence of the SuJuD. Such is their example in the Torah. And their example in the Injeel is like a seed/crop which sends forth its shoot then strengthened it then becomes thick then stands upon its stem, pleasing to the sowers. That He may enrage the rejecters/concealers with them. God promises those who believe and do good works a forgiveness and a great reward.
It is interesting to note the preposition "fi" (in) not "ala" (on), making it "their distinction/mark is IN their faces/wills/purposes/considerations". Minority usage of "fi" can mean on/at however.
The word "athar" (root: Alif-Tha-Ra) basically means "that which is left behind from something" hence its meanings such as trace/mark/impression/teaching/influence and is not necessarily a physical thing, see 5:46, 18:6, 20:96, 30:50.
The word "seema" (root: Siin-Waw-Miim) means an identifying feature (e.g. could be the way someone looks or acts) see 2:273, 7:46, 7:48, 47:30, 55:41. Perhaps the majority of people would not have a trace of prostration on their face from physically prostrating in prayer for example, even if it was done many times per day, so this understanding, whilst superficially plausible, actually falls short. Some translators, e.g. Asad, do not take it to mean a physical mark on one's face.
It should be noted that "inclining and SJD" seems to relate to "seeking bounty from God and pleasure/approval" whose other occurrences relate to worldly benefits/provisions.
It should be noted that in the prior context, 48:25, it clearly implies some believers were unknown/unrecognisable, which makes it even more unlikely it is referring to a physical mark on one's face.
The "them" refers to the believers undergoing such growth. It may also imply that actualising oneself under the guidance of God's system leads to self-growth and benefits. There is an implication that the act of SJD can function as a catalyst to such growth, as it leaves an impression/influence upon such a person, thus the demeanor stems from that act/mindset, and results in fruitful growth and reward, and this is the message encapsulated in the example at the end. To achieve such effective growth, one's will/consideration/purpose/attention should be traceable back to the act of SJD.
-
w/salaam saba,
In verse 48:29 it says "The mark of them is on their faces from the traces of prostration (sjd). Given your definition which I note does not include physical prostration, how do these marks appear? Saba
Good question. See TS' post above. However, the latter part of that post is missing, which also covers the question, shown below:
Source (http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html)
48:24 And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in midst/interior (of) crowding/MaKKah, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.
48:25 They are those who concealed/rejected and hindered you from/concerning* al maSJD al haram, and prevented the offering/gift from reaching its permitted/lawful place. And if not for believing men and believing women whom you did not know, that you may trample them so would befall you from them sin without knowledge, that God may admit in His mercy whomever He wills. If they had been apart** surely We would then have punished those who concealed/rejected among them with a painful retribution.
48:26 When those who concealed/rejected had put in their hearts disdain, the disdain of the ignorance, then God sent down His tranquility upon His messenger and upon the believers, and made them adhere to the word of righteousness/God-consciousness, and they were more deserving of it and worthy of it. And God is fully aware of all things.
48:27 Certainly, God has confirmed His messenger's vision*** with truth/reality, surely you (plural) will enter al masjid al haram, if God wills, securing/trusting, unburdening/relieving your chiefs/representatives****, and restraining/relinquishing not fearing. So, He knew what you did not know, and He made besides that a victory near/close.
48:28 He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance and the system/obligation of truth, so that it would expose all other systems. And God is sufficient as a witness.
*Arabic: AAani is a preposition and can mean: from, of, for, about, concerning.
**implies they are all mixed together. One possible meaning of MKK is "crowding" hence the rendition above (Ref: one, two, three). Could also be a reference to 8:33.
*** Arabic: 'al ruya' (dream/vision), see analysis of 17:1-7 and 17:60
**** see discussion of 2:196 above. Many translators interpolate "hair" and imply the "wa/and" which follows means "or" to make their rendition fit better.
48:25 implies both believing men and women were present and out in public and were unknown to the believers addressed. Note the possible link between this and the utilisation of AMAH in 2:148-150 in bringing you all together and completing of God's favour.
"not fearing" likely implies that it is possible to enter AMAH fearing, and perhaps previously the believers did so. See in conjunction with 2:114.
As a side note, 48:25 clearly implies that it would not be possible to identify believers amongst the people, thus interpretations of 48:29 that imply a physical mark upon believer's faces (from prostrating) is highly unlikely.
-
Dear Wakas,
Peace.
I hope you are making a general statement only, and not one specific to me.
Of course :) The context of the previous 2 paragraphs should have made it clear that my comment was only intended to be general. Nothing personal at all and I also feel that you would agree with its general sentiment.
And lastly, I am open to discussion on anything I have written, in fact, I welcome it. As I like to say "I'd rather be corrected in this life than the next".
I admire the sentiment, however 'generally', I have seen many make similar statements, but when counter evidence / stronger evidence is presented, it is often rebuked out of hand to defend a peddled bias theology. I am sure you must have seen this for yourself in many academic discussions that you are / been part of.
God willing, let us all work together respecting each other's boundaries for the pursuance of knowledge.
Thanks to all who are / have participated in the discussions thus far. :)
Regards,
Joseph.
-
Salaam Wakas, You said ......
The word "athar" (root: Alif-Tha-Ra) basically means "that which is left behind from something" hence its meanings such as trace/mark/impression/teaching/influence and is not necessarily a physical thing, see 5:46, 18:6, 20:96, 30:50.
A trace is left due to SJD - Athar also means physical mark, trace, 40:21, 40:82, 20:84. So what clear 'evidence' do you have that the mark here CANNOT be due to a physical prostration? Thanks Saba
-
Peace Saba,
One more sister: 30:9
-
w/salaam saba,
Athar also means physical mark, trace, 40:21, 40:82, 20:84. So what clear 'evidence' do you have that the mark here CANNOT be due to a physical prostration? Thanks Saba
Firstly, I am not disputing it can mean physical mark/trace, as is clear from what I wrote:
"The word "athar" (root: Alif-Tha-Ra) basically means "that which is left behind from something" hence its meanings such as trace/mark/impression/teaching/influence and is not necessarily a physical thing, see 5:46, 18:6, 20:96, 30:50."
And with regards to what "clear evidence" I have. Other than what I already posted, none.
You seem to neglect the other things I mentioned however. So, allow me to ask you:
1) Can "athar" mean a non-physical/literal mark in Quran? Yes/No.
2) Do all people who perform the traditional prayer multiple times per day have a physical mark on their forehead? Yes/No.
3) If you answer "no" to Q2 above, can you estimate a % who do, in your opinion. I personally think <5% but let me know what you think.
4) 48:29 says "fee their wajh" - what is the most common translation of "fee" in Quran? Is it "in" or "on"?
5) Does "wajh" always mean the physical "face" in Quran?
6) Does the word "sima" always mean physical mark / identifying feature?
7) 48:25 clearly states fellow believers were unknown/unrecognisable - how do you reconcile this with believers having a mark upon their forehead, if that is your view?
Thanks.
-
Salam Wakas,
So you have no real evidence more than what you have shared. OK thanks.
I don't see why you are trying to respond to a question with questions. It is your methods & claims under examination not mine. You are making the claims, so you will need to back them up.
However, for whatever its worth, I do have relatives with marks on their forehead due to prostration. I even know of someone who has a mark on the right side of his nose that has been caused by prostration.
You put something on the 'table' and opened it up for examination. You have shown me what you have.
Thanks, that is all I needed.
Salam. Saba
-
salaam Wakas,
4) 48:29 says "fee their wajh" - what is the most common translation of "fee" in Quran? Is it "in" or "on"?
I would understand this verse as they do sajda so much that it reflects on their face as humility and piety.
48:25 clearly states fellow believers were unknown/unrecognisable - how do you reconcile this with believers having a mark upon their forehead, if that is your view?
Yes, prophet did not recognize them just like he does not who were mushriq in his time. Some Meccans had accepted Islam without his knowledge. Only God knows who is a sincere believer. Some prostrate because they submit, others prostrate because of deep conviction.
-
w/salaam saba,
Thanks for your response. Actually, the common claim is that it is a physical mark (which you seem to agree with). I posted an alternative to the common claim. Ideally, the evidence is put on the table for each option, then weighed. If you prefer not to answer my questions, thats is your choice.
w/salaam hope,
Thanks for your input. The only thing I would correct you on is that it is the plural "you" that is used in 48:25, i.e. YOU (plural) did not recognise fellow believers, not only the prophet.
-
"masjid" meaning "time of SJD"
"al masjid al haram" meaning "the inviolable time of SJD" (i.e. the term referring to the time-period/event of the inviolable months).
Salaam all .....
For the benefit of other readers on this forum who are not familiar with 'Quranist' methodology, please see post below on another forum where Wakas's interpretation of masjid al - haram is under critique. I understand that Wakas is one of the admins on this forum and has the largest number of posts.
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.60
Also see post where Wakas's method is under examination by another Quranist
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=601.msg2105#new
......Saba
-
In one of the Quranic translaions Sister Saba has given folloeing is the translation which gives reference to the Taurah & Injeel.Can some one narrate the substance of these Please? ThanksControversial, deprecated, or status undetermined works
Bijan Moeinian Mohammad, the Messenger of God, and his believing followers are hard on the disbelievers and merciful among themselves. You will find them always worshipping their Lord by humbling themselves in bowing down and falling in prostration seeking God’s blessing and approval. They have the distinctive mark of prostration [the halo] on their faces as explained in Torah [Deuteronomy, 33:2-3 and other verses which unfortunately is lost!] and in the (original) Gospel [part of it in Mathew, 13:31-they have been likened to plants that grow taller and stronger and please the farmers; thus enraging the disbelievers. God promises forgiveness and a good reward to those who believe and do good deeds.
-
Salaam Sardar... i think enough is said on this topic already, what clarifications do you still want??? Can't you make up your mind with the evidence that is given already??? Please read the Qur'an for yourself.... in my view its pretty clear where these marks have come from and they are from prostration. Nothing that a Quranist may say will convince me otherwise because I see no proof. Also it was my thinking you already believe in prayers, sujud etc etc ..so why are you repeatedly asking these questions? Saba
-
Salam Saba I was telling that Sujda is in Bible also as somebody wrote. I am 100 per cent in favor of Mark of Sajda on Muslims forehead. Thanks
-
I am lazy to go through all the pages 8)
What are your final thoughts to the Topic,should we pray to one direction whereas it is quoted that he is the Lord of the east and west, but in another vers i read something with where ever you go out of it turn your face to the House,in words like this.
regards
-
Dear Deliverance,
As-salam alaykum
As simply as possible and from my humble perspective of the Quran, the direction stipulated for believers is towards the Ka'aba in Makkah.
Regards,
Joseph
REFERENCES:
[1] THE QIBLA CHANGE
http://quransmessage.com/articles/qibla%20FM3.htm
[2] IS MAKKAH THE ORIGINAL LOCATION FOR THE MASJID AL-HARAM?
http://quransmessage.com/articles/original%20sanctuary%20FM3.htm
-
Salam Joseph,
Your Articles are plausible but why does the Quran quoted that he is the Lord of the east and west?And you find a passage where you are allowed to pray while you are riding a horse or while you are walking,its hard to stay in direction when you are moving constantly.
And as a Message for all mankind a prayer direction to a place in Arabia makes a Preference of a People/Nation over the rest of mankind.
I don´t want to start a debate with you i just have doubts about the qibla to a certain place instead i appreciate a direction which has a universal message (East/West).
-
Dear Deliverance,
Wa alaikum assalam
You asked a simple question, thus I kindly answered. You are now asking me to clarify which I am happy to do.
The fact that God is not bound by a particular direction (55:17) [1] does not mean that specific directions of prayer were not prescribed for certain practicing communities. In my humble view, this point of God not being present in any one direction is unnecessarily laboured by many that call themselves Quran-only or Quranists without any warrant whatsoever. In some cases, I find them making use of God’s omnipresence as an erroneous decision not to pray at all. This is absolutely unwarranted from a Quran's perspective.
The point of verses such as 55:17 and 2:177 is not that believers can pray randomly in any direction. Verse 2:177 for example, simply implies that righteousness is more than mere worship in any particular direction (whether it is the believers or those of the People of the Book). Righteousness is about correct beliefs. It is about caring for the wayfarer, giving charity, to fulfil covenants, treaties, setting slaves free and all good actions. This is made absolutely clear in the verse.
002:177
It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East or the West but righteousness (is he) who believes in God and the Last Day, and the Angels and the Book and the Prophets and gives wealth despite of his love for it to those of near relatives and the orphans and the needy and of the wayfarer and those who ask and in freeing the slaves and who establish the prayer and give zakah and those who fulfill their covenant when they make it and those who are patient in suffering and hardship and time of stress. Those are the ones who are true and those are the righteous.”
As far as praying whilst travelling is concerned, this has a context and the context is 'fear'. [2] If the time for prayer arrives and one is in a state of danger, distress or fear, one is allowed to shorten their prayer (4:101). That is all.
004.101
“And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer if you fear (Arabic: Khif'tum) that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy.
However these verses make it clear that this is only a temporary measure and one is to re-establish normal acts of worship in normal circumstances.
004.103
"When you have performed the act of worship, remember God, standing, sitting and reclining. And when you are in safety / secure (Arabic: it'manantum), then establish prayer. Indeed, the prayer at fixed times has been enjoined on the believers"
002.238-239
“Attend constantly to prayers and to the middle prayer and stand up truly obedient to God. But if you are in danger, then (say your prayers) on foot or on horseback; and when you are secure, then remember God, as. He has taught you what you did not know” [3]
Finally, as to your comment highlighted in brown italics below:
"And as a Message for all mankind a prayer direction to a place in Arabia makes a Preference of a People/Nation over the rest of mankind."
In my humble view, there is absolutely no warrant for this in the Quran. Rather, God clearly states in the Quran that He has prescribed a law and an open way for different followers of faith whether they are believers or the People of the Book.
005.048 (part)
"...To each among you have We prescribed a law (Arabic: Shir-atan) and an open way (Arabic: waminhajan). If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He has given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute”
I hope this clarifies the matter, God willing
Joseph
REFERENCES:
[1] TIME, SPACE & DIVINE PRESENCE
http://quransmessage.com/charts%20and%20illustrations/time%20and%20space/timespace%20FM2.htm
[2] SHORTENING OF PRAYERS
http://quransmessage.com/articles/shortening%20of%20prayers%20FM3.htm
[3] PRAY AS WE HAVE TAUGHT YOU HOW TO PRAY - USING VERSE 2.239 AS SUPPORT FOR A FIXED FORM OF PRAYER
http://quransmessage.com/articles/pray%20as%20we%20have%20taught%20you%20how%20to%20pray%20-%20using%20a%20verse%20to%20support%20a%20fixed%20form%20of%20prayer%20FM3.htm
-
Salam Joseph,
Yes,this clarifies my question i am satisfied with it,thanks
best regards
-
salaam,
...should we pray to one direction whereas it is quoted that he is the Lord of the east and west, but in another vers i read something with where ever you go out of it turn your face to the House,in words like this.
It doesn't say "turn your face to the house". For reference, the verses are as follows:
...for God is the east and the west so wherever you turn so there is God's wajh/presence/consideration..." [2:115]
... Say: "To God is the east and the west, He guides whomever He wishes to a straight/establishing path." [2:142]
"...it is not righteousness that you turn your wujuh/faces/considerations towards/qibala the east and the west..." [2:177]
You will note the similar words used "turn/walla", "wherever/ayna", "wajh/face/consideration", and these messages (the only ones of their kind) are only found in chapter 2, and the only times verb form 2 of "turn" is used in chapter 2 are 2:115, 2:142-150, 2:177. Note that in terms of sequence, this same message is given prior to AND after the alleged "change of prayer direction" verses.
-
Dear Br. Wakas,
Peace be upon you,
With a view not to rekindle a debate pertaining the relevant terminologies under discussion given the divergence in the fundamental methodologies of approach as I already acknowledged between us in an earlier thread [1], but in an effort to respond to your alleged issues with my understanding of 48:29 as claimed there [1] as well as recently noted here[2]and here[3], kindly briefly see my comments below.
‘Athar’ as ‘an effect/ impression/ mark/ trace’ could be physical (18:64, 40:21) as well as non-physical (30:50, 46:4). As for that ‘athar’ resultant from prostrations (sujud) impressing a 'feature of identity' - ‘siimahum’ (48:29), a general Qur'anic acknowledgement of the ‘impressions’ (athar) on faces (forehead) of those who do prostrate (as-sajidina) does not negate the fact that some believers who perform the prostrations (as-sajidina) do not bear them distinctly. This does not also therefore mean that for one to distinguish believers from non-believers, they can simply go on making out the ‘sijdah’ marks on ‘foreheads.’ Rather, the verse simply acknowledges a general ‘sujud’ impression on ‘faces’ of the ‘as-sajidina’ (26:219) much like the way it does acknowledge a general ‘intense lust’ (as-shahawati) for ‘women’ implanted within ‘man’ (3:14). This does not however similarly preclude the fact that some people are not given much into the yearnings of ‘women’ but into other illicit intimacies and typical adornments/ love.
On the other hand, the Arabic particle ‘fi’ as used in the Qur’an many a times denotes ‘inclusion’ or ‘inbeing’ either in relation to place or time as well as tropically (2:176, 179). See verses 30:3-4 in relation to time. Specifically, see verses 2:203 and 36:55 with the implication ‘during.’ However, this does not preclude the fact that it has been used to denote other aspects like ‘in respect of’/ ‘concerning’/ ‘about’ (2:139, 176) or ‘denoting concomitance’ (7:38, 46:16) as well as ‘denoting comparison’ (9:38). Furthermore, as relates to our case, it has also been used prepositionally to denote ‘superiority’ i.e, in the sense of the preposition ‘‘ala’ - ‘on’ (20:71) as well as in sync. with preposition ‘ilaa’ - ‘to/ over’ (14:9) and preposition ‘min’ - ‘of/ among’ (27:12). See the referenced link [4] below.
Thus, from my humble perspective, I would not bet appropriateness of the flavor with which ‘fi’ has been employed in 48:29 upon its ‘majority’ meaning in the Qur’an. Rather, other aspects like context and syntax would collectively dictate the nuance. See a thread [5] below in which the following comments of mine appear in response to a typical contention over another Qur’anic verse (9:28).
“He expects the ‘qaraba’ imperative verb of 9:28 to be structured in a similar manner to those in the other instances due to an arbitrary majority 2nd person plural occurrence of the verb ‘qaraba’ in those 11 sample Qur'anic instances cited, and which would assumedly be an odd/minor occurrence. In my opinion, this is unwarranted.” [6]
Therefore, much similar to 20:71, and arguably also 67:16-17, ‘fi’ in 48:29 can be noted to have been employed to simply mean ‘on’ as in ‘their marks are on their faces from the effects of prostration’ - ‘siimahum fi wujuhihim min athari as-sujudi.’
Further to that, the term ‘sima’ as a noun and as employed within the Qur’anic narratives would basically refer to ‘a feature of identity’ (2:273, 4:46, 4:48, 47:30, 55:41) which is similarly the rendering as with verse 48:29. In this case, it is as a result of ‘impressions’ (athar) from ‘prostrations’ (sujud). As for the contention brought forth against such an understanding of 48:29 allegedly in relation to 48:25, in my humble opinion, what lies at the crux of such a faulty contention is the lack of it to appreciate the overall concept of a ‘muumin’ (believer) which the Qur’an wholly portrays and which God in this verse refers. This is especially if we also consider that even the Prophet (pbuh) could not make out true ‘believers’ (muuminin) from the ‘hypocrites’ (4:142) in his congregation. One could also argue against the impracticality of the Muslims setting out on a mission to identify each of the individuals among their enemies at the Valley of Makkah - ‘bathwni makkata’ (48:24) to allegedly make out their fellow brethren in faith and belief (iman) by use of a simple ‘bare forehead’ impression which is otherwise generally a ‘mark’ (feature) of ones who merely ‘prostrate’ and not necessarily true ‘believers’ (muuminin).
In summary therefore, I find the contentions you raise against the understanding of ‘sima’ as 'a physical feature of identity' in the form of marks (athar) of ‘physical’ prostrations (sujud) on ‘foreheads’ (wujuuh) in 48:29 as a result of your own theological approach to verse 48:29 to be, respectfully, academically wanting.
Hopefully that clarifies my position.
Regards,
Athman.
REFERENCES:
[1]. Prayer
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2762.msg14161#msg14161
[2]. Best explanation i saw about salaat, ever.
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2684.msg13791#msg13791
[3]. Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=571.45
[4]. LANE. E.W, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 6, Page 2466-2467
[5]. The difference between 2nd person plural and 3rd person plural is arbitrary?
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2513.0
[6]. Ibid
-
Sometimes i feel uncomfortable before starting the prayer because of this doubt in my mind.
Why should we bow and prostrate in a specific direction which directs towards a house built up of stones/bricks?
How i understand it is that prayer means to read the Quran and that we should yield and submit to Hes Message and face the Sacred Temple in Mecca through our whole life.
Facing here means that everything we learn form the Quran must first be implemented in Mecca at the Sacred Temple.
Such as feeding the poor through the sacrifices people can make at the Sacred Temple, the people who work in the Temple should then distribute the food because they know that place the best.
-
peace Athman,
....... theological approach to verse 48:29 to be, respectfully, academically wanting.
Thanks for the reply. To clarify, the preposition "fee" occurs many times in Quran (well over a thousand) and you cited one wherein you think it means "on" (20:71). Of course there may be more as I do not expect you (or others) to study every occurrence.
I found your use of "academically wanting" interesting because the gist of your post was "it could still mean X despite the issues you raise" (I never said it couldn't) and you never pointed out any clear errors or logical fallacies etc. Such an approach seems sound to me. "to me" being the key phrase, as it is my subjective opinion, as is yours with regard to what is "academically wanting".
As I've said many times I prefer evidence on the table so it can be weighed, so thanks for presenting yours. Readers can make up their own minds.
-
Dear Br. Wakas,
Peace to you too,
Kindly see my responses to your italicized comments below.
“To clarify, the preposition "fee" occurs many times in Quran (well over a thousand)”
I sincerely do find your ‘clarification’ here to rather be redundant. This is in fact what was firstly noted in my introductory address to the said particle above, “...the Arabic particle ‘fi’ as used in the Qur’an many a times...”
“...and you cited one wherein...”
My address to the said particle still stands as can be viewed above and one has the chance to see if your claim stands true to what is noted in my response.
“...you think it means "on" (20:71)...”
It is one thing one to ‘think’ exclusively on their own about something and another for one to argue citing a supporting reference [1] which in turn references earlier lexicographers that attest to different usages of a particle including the particular one under contention. Kindly see the link cited.
“Of course there may be more as I do not expect you (or others) to study every occurrence.”
You are right. After all, it is the arguments presented in defense of a particular understanding that matter in this case and not an exhaustive list.
"it could still mean X despite the issues you raise"
I respect your prerogative to extract whatever understanding you happen to from my response, which could of course not necessarily be what I actually claimed. However, I trust that my replies were clear and specific to your claimed ‘issues,’ and more importantly relevant.
“(I never said it couldn't)”
This is rather a patently dismissive remark especially as contrasted to the fact that the alleged ‘issues’ have been re-cited by you in at least 3 threads on this forum and arguably whenever the traditional understanding of 48:29 is presented, or when a related topic ensues. Such reiterations would have been redundant in the first place if you do admit that the traditional understanding stands 'in its own respect.' In fact, even this response of mine would have been unnecessary.
“...and you never pointed out any clear errors or logical fallacies etc...”
I would not find it necessary to cite such ‘issues’ if my intention was basically to respond to your claimed ‘issues’ which I did. The key areas of your alleged contentions have been addressed and the inadequacy of your expectations pointed out of which I collectively find to be ‘academically wanting.’
“...as is yours with regard to what is "academically wanting".”
I think it can easily be proven otherwise via an apt response/ rebuttal to the comments made if one sincerely deems such a remark disagreeable.
“As I've said many times I prefer evidence on the table so it can be weighed, so thanks for presenting yours.”
Though I acknowledge your general sentiment here, it must be remembered that in this case, I was simply addressing your alleged ‘issues’ as claimed here [2]. This is however not an exhaustive analysis of verse 48:29 nor the related topic [3] among others. It is also not yet a criticism of your own approach and understanding of the verse nor the related topics.
Regards,
Athman.
REFERENCES:
[1]. LANE. E.W, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 6, Page 2466-2467
[2]. Prayer
http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2762.msg14161#msg14161
[3]. Ibid