Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I only desired to weigh the evidence in favour of a 2 prayer system as a possible alternative as opposed to my argument for 5, so I do not feel my request was unwarranted, rash or unfair. Your criticism is therefore unwarranted.
It was clearly my opinion which should be clear for anyone reading my quote "I find ..." Therefore, I find no reason to correct my statement as it a personal opinion.
An example of this is your fantastic and unwarranted understanding of 'sujud' and 'masjid' to which you seem to pin alien meanings when you can't appreciate simple nuances of the language and where you have trouble reconciling verses. I only mention this as I find that you bring the same limitations in your analysis technique and faulty premises that you oft form to this discussion.
I have till date failed to see any such evidence and neither have you provided any.
...I find absolutely no credibility in your contentions...
With respect Wakas, I find that your methodology is fundamentally flawed because you attempt or 'expect' to 'fit' one meaning of a word in all contexts with a view to harmonise them.
If this is your main support for two prayers, then in my opinion, the foundation for your position of 'two prayers' for believers is with respect, completely flawed
idriboohu bi baAAdiha = cite /point out him with some of it (the murder)
[2:73]
The above is commonly translated as "strike him (the murdered person) with part of it (the heifer/cow)" taken from the previous verses. The traditional commentators say this act brought the murdered person back to life and he identified his murderers in this case. However, this understanding becomes extremely weak when all the evidence is taken into account, which we will now analyse, beginning with an accurate translation according to the Arabic:
M=masculine, F=feminine, P=plural, S=singular
And when you (M,P) killed a soul (F,S), then you (M,P) accused each other in it (F,S), and God shall bring out what you (M,P) were hiding/concealing. [2:72]
So We said: "idriboo him (M,S) with some of it (F,S)." Like this God revives the dead (P) and He makes you realise His signs/revelations, maybe you reason/comprehend. [2:73]
Please read M.Asad's notes on the above:
Muhammad Asad - End Note 57 (2:73)
The phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha can be literally translated as "strike him [or "it"] with something of her [or "it"]" -and this possibility has given rise to the fanciful assertion by many commentators that the children of Israel were commanded to strike the corpse of the murdered man with some of the flesh of the sacrificed cow, whereupon he was miraculously restored to life and pointed out his murderer! Neither the Qur'an, nor any saying of the Prophet, nor even the Bible offers the slightest warrant for this highly imaginative explanation, which must, therefore, be rejected-quite apart from the fact that the pronoun hu in idribuhu has a masculine gender, while the noun nafs (here translated as "human being") is feminine in gender: from which it follows that the imperative idribuhu cannot possibly refer to nafs. On the other hand, the verb daraba (lit., "he struck") is very often used in a figurative or metonymic sense, as, for instance, in the expression daraba fi 'l-ard ("he journeyed on earth"), or daraba 'sh-shay' bi'sh-shay' ("he mixed one thing with another thing"), or daraba mathal ("he coined a similitude" or "propounded a parable" or "gave an illustration"), or `ala darb wahid ("similarly applied" or "in the same manner"), or duribat `alayhim adh-dhillah ("humiliation was imposed on them" or "applied to them"), and so forth. Taking all this into account, I am of the opinion that the imperative idribuhu occurring in the above Qur'anic passage must be translated as "apply it" or "this" (referring, in this context, to the principle of communal responsibility). As for the feminine pronoun ha in ba'diha ("some of it"), it must necessarily relate to the nearest preceding feminine noun-that is, to the nafs that has been murdered, or the act of murder itself about which (fiha) the community disagreed. Thus, the phrase idribuhu bi-ba'diha may be suitably rendered as "apply this [principle] to some of those [cases of unresolved murder]": for it is obvious that the principle of communal responsibility for murder by a person or persons unknown can be applied only to some and not to all such cases.
Muhammad Asad - End Note 58 (2:73)
Lit., "God gives life to the dead and shows you His messages" (i.e., He shows His will by means of such messages or ordinances). The figurative expression "He gives life to the dead" denotes the saving of lives, and is analogous to that in 5:32 . In this context it refers to the prevention of bloodshed and the killing of innocent persons (Manar I, 351), be it through individual acts of revenge, or in result of an erroneous judicial process based on no more than vague suspicion and possibly misleading circumstantial evidence.
Additional notes:
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) killed the soul/person.
Three or more people (i.e. masculine plural) were concealing (i.e. it was them who did it, as confirmed by the start of 2:72).
The part in red cannot refer to showing them how God resurrects the dead to simply show God can do it, as suggested by some commentators, as this is nowhere in context, would not require a murdered person, and would go against the example of Abraham, see 2:260 (in which Abraham taught birds to incline to him and then called them from afar and they returned to him, i.e. their master). Not to mention that this would be a strange way for God to show how He does it, as it involved using partners to do the task.
"the dead" (al mawta) is plural thus weakening the common/traditional interpretation further, as it is not in this manner God revives the dead elsewhere in The Quran.
The part in blue must fulfil the goal: God will bring out what they were concealing - further compounded by linking use of "fa/so" between 2:72 and 2:73.
The expression "God revives the dead" may also mean God revives the spiritually dead, i.e. them who were in the wrong (see the clear examples of 6:122, 27:80, 30:50-52, 8:24), thus, this seems the most likely interpretation in my opinion. Although, M.Asad's is also possible.
The previous stories in this chapter are separated by "ith / when / إذ", and are all self-contained lessons. The story of the cow is independent of the story before it and the one following it: that of the murdered soul.
The only masculine in the context [2:72-73] are those who committed the murder and thereafter accused each other, hiding the truth. The only feminine in the context is the murdered soul, and the act of murder in which they accused each other in (i.e. this is the closest preceding feminine to ببعضها / bibadiha).
Thus, applying the most likely option, we have: "idriboo him (i.e. each one accused) with some of it (the murder)".
All we need now is to consider "idriboo" to see if there is a meaning that fits. Lane's Lexicon states that DRB on its own can mean "to point or make a sign", i.e. point out or indicate. When we re-read the context of 2:72-73, it becomes obvious the perpetrators were accusing each other (i.e. pointing the finger at each other, so to speak) to conceal the truth that they did it, so God was to bring forth what they were concealing: so We said "point out him with some of it (the murder)". The only ones doing the pointing/accusing were the guilty. Thus, whomever of them (i.e. of the ones accused) was pointed out by the others also accused was assigned some part/responsibility of the murder. In this way, they could not escape what they had done, and indeed, God exposed them and brought out what they were concealing. The end result was that they took collective responsibility, each of him a part. Sharing of a sin/crime if a group were responsible is mentioned elsewhere in The Quran, e.g. 24:11.
Further, other Classical Arabic meanings of DRB can also be used, such as: cite, propound, indicate, assign, put/show forth.
Interestingly, in the tafsir of "al-Jalalayn" (see altafsir.com) it says the revived murdered soul pointed out his murderers. Ironically, this comes close to the truth; possibly indicating a remnant of the true understanding of this verse still remained, and likely became superficial/superstitious over time.
As a side note, for an understanding of "ddaara'atum", see Lane's Lexicon. In it, it specifically states the translation we have used. By deduction, we can work out it does indeed mean "you accused each other". The whole phrase literally means "you averted/repelled/pushed away each other". What are they averting/repelling/pushing away? The Quran tells us, it is "feeha = in it". Thus, the only possibility is they are literally pushing away in the dead body (highly unlikely), OR, they are pushing away in the murder, and logically, the latter can only mean they were pushing away the accusation or the sole responsibility for it. This is further proven by what follows, when it says they were concealing/hiding. Thus, one simply needs to ask: what can they (the ones who did it) possibly be concealing by repelling each other in the murder? The translation option then becomes obvious.
To conclude, the understanding presented here fits the grammar, the Arabic, Classical Arabic meanings, logic, cross-referencing the subject of murder, specifically, that there is life in al qisas/equivalence (the law of just recompense) for those who use their intellect, 2:179, and provides us with a self-contained explanation.
In this case it is used in conjunction with 'layl' which is a reference to the Maghrib prayer.
Why 'must' one equate them in all verses? I feel this is an unwarranted assumption with no Quranic or linguistic authority.
Both 'hmd' and 'sbh' can encompass the salat the prayer.
Fajr Morning prayers just before sunrise
Dhuhr Noonday prayers (after the sun begins to decline from its zenith)
Asr Prayers before sunset but after Dhuhr prayers
Maghrib Prayers just after sunset
Isha Night prayer
Even if 'wusta' is an adjective, the phrase 'salat-al-wusta' clearly refers to a definite known period.
The best inference from the word is a reference to the 'middle' which would imply the middle prayer.
The absence of the reason why it has been singled out is not sufficient warrant to contest its existence.
With regards your admission of secondary sources to support your Quranic position, this is unacceptable. This is a Quran based discussion and the admission of secondary sources as the ones you cite is respectfully, unwarranted.In your article, you used Lane's Lexicon - can you clarify if this is your primary source or a secondary source? If the latter, please clarify/correct your above statement.
The word "khumur" is used in 24:31 and can be the plural of "khimaar" or "khimirr", and can mean any cover made of cloth or headcover, according to Classical Arabic dictionaries and Traditional Ahadith/Narrations (see Ibn Kathir tafsir).
Additional notes for Arabic readers:
The word "khumur" is used in 24:31 and can be the plural of "khimaar" or "khimirr", and can mean any cover made of cloth or headcover, according to Classical Arabic dictionaries and Traditional Ahadith/Narrations (see Ibn Kathir tafsir). Please note the Arabic preposition "bi" meaning "with" in "bikhumurihinna", which means they are to cover their chests with their "khumur/covers/headcovers". The usage of preposition "bi" is different to the preposition "min" as used in 33:59 "min jalabeebihinna" which means to use a part of their "jilbab/outer-garment" in the modification suggested, i.e. not all of it has to be lowered or drawn near, just part of it. In 24:31 if God intended that part of it (e.g. headcover) stays on the head and part of it be used to cover the bosom, it would have been more appropriate to use "min khumurhinna". Furthermore, the word "yadribna" as used in 24:31 has no connotation of lengthening or lowering in any other occurrence, unlike "yudneena" in 33:59 which does, thus would have been more appropriate to use.
