Messages

Salaam Sardar,

I have a question, ( O you who believe) is addressed to which gender?  Females should be included in the congregational prayer because Maryam was asked to bow down with the bowers.

In countries ruled by Shariah, do they have two different sessions to separate the men and the women? 

Thanks

Totally agree with you sister. Even in practice in Makkah and in the haram, men and women are often seen praying next to each other.

I submitt Surah Juma alongwith the Translations for our Bros to offer their valued opinion

Please don't forget us sisters!  Saba 

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, 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

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

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

[UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR]

Thank you v. much for your response br. Joseph.







UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR

13th March 2013

This thread is now closed and a direct link to this post is now available at the dedicated Q&A page.

http://quransmessage.com/articles/q&as%20FM3.htm

Thanks.

Salam br. Joseph


I am following a potentially interesting discussion Q&A on another forum. The following question was asked by a 'Quranist' and I wanted to know what your views were on the question. Thank you as always ...Saba   

"We will therefore begin with the question: WHAT IS QURANIC GRAMMAR?"

"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

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. 

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 ......  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

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 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

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

Please Wakas, I asked a simple question. Can you provide me a simple response here please.

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