Messages

w/salaam,

The grammar of who is being addressed in the verses can be singular, dual or plural, please check the arabic, e.g using http://corpus.quran.com

Dear Joseph, w/salaam,

Thanks for the swift reply.

You said:

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.

Your response to me implied something, and that is you expect forum members, such as myself, who point out something in your articles that they should provide a detailed evidenced article of their contrary position whilst doing so. Or if they mention something and ask your view on it, and even if they put it under "other information", it is fair for you to assume that this is their "main support" for their position!

I find the above notions completely objectionable, and in my view, a clear example of an error in judgement on your part. If you disagree, it is ok, each to their own subjectivity.

You said:

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.

And I clarified your "opinion" of my method is not true.

You said:

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.

Firstly, I am glad to hear that you know of those works and have perhaps read them. If we do not read alternative views, or works that challenge our views, then we can never truly weigh and consider the truth, and would clearly fall afoul of "confirmation bias". We should all bear this in mind.

You claim I pinned alien meanings, when I am sure you are very aware that not only Classical Arabic dictionaries but also Quran itself uses "sujud" how I understand the term (even traditional exegetes). And as for "masjid", well the jury is out on that one, but I know one thing, the problems I point out are clear for all to see. If you have understandings of 2:187 and 18:21 please link me to them, thanks.
(Reference for readers who may be unaware of what is being referred to: see sujud and masjid links)

You said:

I have till date failed to see any such evidence and neither have you provided any.

In your view, yes (assuming you read them). For others, see the links I provided.

You said:

...I find absolutely no credibility in your contentions...

I find the language you use absolutist. Personally, I would not describe your 5-a-day position in the above terms, even though I disagree with it.


And in case it was not obvious, I also appreciate your works, in fact, very much so.

Regards,
Wakas

salaam sardar,

As far as I know, all salat verses which have a timed component to them are in the singular EXCEPT 24:58. Since it does not mention the "sun" in 24:58 it can be taken to mean your morning and evening, whatever it may be.

Similarly, as far as I know, all sabih/hamd verses with timings are in the singular.

The singular address can be taken to mean the prophet, i.e. addressing him with his point of reference, not a universal address.


And as a side note, sawm/abstinence is only for those who witness the shahr (full-moon/lunar-cycle/month), thus if you do not witness it you do not abstain.

God knows best.

[near/proximal to what according to the Arabic?]

Dear Joseph, w/salaam,

Thanks for the reply.

Before I begin, please tell me where I stated the following:

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.

With respect, this is a strawman logical fallacy. I have never said what you imply in the above statement.
Whilst one may think this when reading some of my works I have actually NEVER said one meaning must fit all occurrences. Not here or other forums, not in my articles, not on facebook, and the perhaps most notable (if it indeed was my view) not in my 8000+ posts on the free-minds.org forum.

My view is that the strong preference is to have a consistent meaning for a word in the same form throughout Quran UNLESS there is a solid reason not to, e.g. based on logic.

Therefore I humbly request you correct your statement.



Why there are parts in red will be explained nearer the end. Ignore them for now:

Re: 1) I asked a simple question: near/proximal to what according to the Arabic? If your view is it means "EARLY approaches/hours from the layl"  then please state so. I request this so readers can weigh and consider for themselves.

Re: 2) it most definitely is an assumption on your part. This is fact. However, whether it is "unwarranted" or not is a judgement call so I cant comment on that. I am disappointed you did not at least clarify you are making an assumption, not only in this instance but several times in your work.
My point is simple - you have assumed one thing, and for sake of argument, I have assumed another, i.e. proximal/near parts needs a marker and thus refers to the two ends of the daytime. This is also theoretically possible. Simple. Again, the intention is to have the evidence on the table, for readers to be able to weigh and consider for themselves.

Re: 3) Since you were not clear, I will have to assume you did not use all verses that mention sbh/hmd WITH timings as referring to salat, AND that you have no system other than subjective opinion (or pre-conceived notion) when you determined which ones were referring to salat and which were not.
If true, I would cite this as a fundamental flaw in your view.

Re: 4) See opening statement of this post of mine.
You make an assumption that certain sbh/hmd can refer to the timed salat. Simple. You seemingly do not consider that other possibilities include: if God meant salat He could have used that word, or, it is an idiomatic phrase, or, it is referring to the prophet only due to it being singular, or, refers to something else etc etc.

Re: 5) and 6) thanks for clarifying.

Re: 7) I will have to conclude, therefore, that you have no explanation as to why the time periods differ in length.

Re: 8 ) it most definitely is an assumption on your part. This is fact. However, whether it is "unwarranted" or not is a judgement call so I cant comment on that. I am disappointed you did not at least clarify you are making an assumption, not only in this instance but several times in your work.
And as for "confirmation bias" I could say the same thing about your work, i.e. pre-conceived notion of it being 5 daily.

Re: 9) Interestingly you claim "nuance rejection" even when I openly said "Only the last verse it could be said that physical "middle" fits best. I have very little problem it meaning "midst/middle" here.
My contention was very simple: majority usage of the word means middle in a figurative manner thus in terms of probability as to the meaning in 2:238, it is more likely middle in a figurative manner. This is fact. Whether it is true or not is another matter.
Once again, you make an assumption and opt for literal middle as the meaning. What underpins your assumption is "confirmation bias" which ironically you accuse me of.

Re: 10) in other words, it could be said, your choosing of verses to cite shows subjectivity and "confirmation bias".

Re: 11) Thanks for clarifying you do not have an explanation as to why it has apparently been singled out.
This is not a case of "confirmation bias" on my part as I was referring to YOUR view and asking further about it.

Re: 12) Thanks for clarifying it is an inference/assumption on your part as to which salat or salawat 2:239 refers to. Nothing wrong with an inference/assumption, as long as it is clearly pointed out for readers to weigh and consider.

Re: 13) Thanks for clarifying it is an interpretation on your part. Again, for me it is all about putting the evidence on the table so readers can weigh and consider for themselves. You do not mention this in your article - perhaps you should.

Re: 14) Thanks for clarifying. As I'm sure you know Classical Arabic dictionaries are, in part, based on Traditional Islamic sources such as Traditional Hadith.

Re: 15) Yes, I have assumed one thing - you have assumed another. Simple.
There is nothing conclusive but in terms of weighing the evidence 6:53 and 6:54 both continue from 6:52 with "wa", and in 6:54 it refers to "those who believe" (i.e. mumineen), and in 18:29 it seems to refer to a mix of people: those who believe/reject. It is hard to say.
Interestingly you say "Even if we accept that these verses are referring to 'salat' which the verse does not confirm" - when same could be said for your use of hmd/sbh verses.

You said:

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

It is not my main support. We were discussing YOUR article, so it is not necessary for me to cite my evidence for my view. I find this comment of yours rash and unfair.

My article, albeit a brief one, can be read here: http://mypercept.co.uk/articles/slw.htm
However it does not discuss the timings in detail, as this was not its intention. The timing information is the result of many discussions on free-minds, the better ones have been linked to here in a compilation thread for easier reading: http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598319.0 (see reply #3)
It may be easier for you to simply state what problems, if any, you find in such a view. If memory serves me correctly, I recall very few, but certainly, in my view, nowhere near the scale of problems in the 3 or 5 view.

Re: academics
I'm not sure how you define "academics" or if this forum is primarily populated by such "academics", but I do not have such a distinction when discussing Quran with others. All I prefer is discussion based on evidence/reason whoever it is with. All forums, if large enough, have a mix of good/bad people with regards to this point. I'd be the first to state free-minds forum has its share of those who speak nonsense, but unfortunately I only have a say in the forum rules I do not decide them unilaterally.

I have linked to this site many times. I link to wherever is relevant. Usually, the intention is not to advertise but I can see how that impression might be given.

Thanks for the welcome to the forum.

###

In somewhat of a summary, I have highlighted in red the issues with your view, for easier reference.

Readers are free to weigh and consider the evidence for themselves.

salaam all,

Please see part 13 here:
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part1

By far, the best explanation in my view.

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.

[1)]

Dear Joseph, w/salaam,

Thanks for the quick reply.

To make things clearer, I have numbered the points. All quotes are from what you wrote.


1) re: 11:114, please clarify "near/proximal" to what according to the Arabic? And if your answer could be classed as an "unwarranted assumption" on your part?
Note my use of "could" implying at least theoretically.


2)

In this case it is used in conjunction with 'layl' which is a reference to the Maghrib prayer.

Could this be classed as an "unwarranted assumption" on your part?


3) re: hmd/sbh, I said: "...one must equate them in all verses mentioning times..."

Why 'must' one equate them in all verses? I feel this is an unwarranted assumption with no Quranic or linguistic authority.

I based it on my own logic and being consistent. Can you tell us what method you used to determine which verses with hmd/sbh with timings you took as referring to salat and which you did not? So we can determine what "Quranic or linguistic authority" you used in doing so. Thanks.


4)

Both 'hmd' and 'sbh' can encompass the salat the prayer.

Could this be classed as an "unwarranted assumption" on your part?


5) Can you clarify if the time periods stated at the start of your article are also your own view of the time periods, i.e.

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

Personally, I'd prefer to have your timings with verses used to determine this in brackets, for quicker reference, at the end of your article.


6) And can you clarify if, according to you, some salat have defined delimited time periods and others do not?


7) And are they roughly equal in length of time? If not, why?


8 )

Even if 'wusta' is an adjective, the phrase 'salat-al-wusta' clearly refers to a definite known period.

Could the above be classed as an "unwarranted assumption" of yours?
The fact remains Quran does not state "al salat al wusta" in the same form as "salat al fajr/isha", when it could have easily done so. The former is a description, the latter a specific. If we assume the author of Quran is not random/haphazard in placing of words then there is a reason for this.


9)

The best inference from the word is a reference to the 'middle' which would imply the middle prayer.

No it is not. At best, subjective. Here are the occurrences in Quran:

And as such, We have made you a wasatan nation... [2:143]

God will not hold you for your unintentional oaths, but He will hold you for what oaths you have made binding; its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor from the awsati of what you feed your family... [5:89]

The awsatu among them said: "If only you had glorified!" [68:28]

Penetrating to the wasat together. [100:5]

Only the last verse it could be said that physical "middle" fits best. The majority are "middle" in an allegorical/figurative manner, as can be seen from Classical Arabic dictionaries also. Thus, in terms of probability, "wasat" in 2:238 more likely refers to the allegorical/figurative meaning - do you agree/disagree?


10) In your article, why do you only cite one other occurrence of this word (e.g. 100:5), neglecting others?


11)

The absence of the reason why it has been singled out is not sufficient warrant to contest its existence.

Can we therefore conclude you do not have an explanation of why it is apparently singled out? Do you not find this odd?


12) Can you also tell us how you determine if it the salat wusta only that can be done on the move in case of fear (see 2:239) or others also, and how you determine that - and if your answer could be classed as an "unwarranted assumption" of yours?


13) Further, in your article you have translated the "wa/and" in 2:238 as "especially" - is this an oversight, or, only your interpretation not a translation? Please clarify.


14)

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.

My mentioning other sources was simply as additional information of interest, as this may not commonly be known, e.g. very very few people know that according to tradition it was only two daily salat prior to the "isra & miraj" story.


15)  You did not comment on "Examples of a twice daily seemingly in Quran itself: 6:52-53, 18:27-28.". Please do so.


Please take your time in responding, no rush.

I hope this discussion will help students of Quran weigh and consider the information regarding this issue better. For me, it is all about "putting evidence on the table" so to speak, as once this is done, people can then weigh and consider it.

As a side note, for background information, I have discussed this issue with many people with different views on the free-minds.org/forum if you/others wish to research further.

[Shakir]

salaam all,

Some translate this verse to mean birds were cut up and brought back alive, whilst others translate it as birds were trained/tamed and returned back to Abraham. In my view, the latter is the most likely translation based on the evidence.

Shakir And when Ibrahim said: My Lord! show me how Thou givest life to the dead, He said: What! and do you not believe? He said: Yes, but that my heart may be at ease. He said: Then take four of the birds, then train them to follow you, then place on every mountain a part of them, then call them, they will come to you flying; and know that Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Further reading:
http://aaiil.org/text/articles/bash/referencebirdsquran.shtml

[UPDATE BY QM FORUM MODERATOR]

I also recommend reading all posts in this thread:
http://www.salaatforum.com/index.php?id=325








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.

Please also see:
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/muhammad-married-young-girl.htm

Salaam Joseph, all,

I strongly recommend reading the following work: www.Quran434.com

In addition to the above:
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/women-confined-to-houses.htm

salaam,

I agree, and in addition to the above:

http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/husband-divorce-wife-immediately.htm

http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/two-female-witnesses-one-male.htm

http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/women-less-share-inheritance-males.htm

Taken from:
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htm

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).

I agree, and in addition to the above:
http://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/concubines-sex-slaves.htm
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/islam-quran-abolish-slavery.htm

Please also see:
http://misconceptions-about-islam.com/dress-code-women-veil.htm

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.