Topics

Peace all,

My thoughts on rhetorical gender:

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkotlTY_voT4qgKZ70i1zHEjGxxS

(PDF file)

[Semantics]

The traditional understanding of 5:38 is that the penalty for theft is amputation of the hand.

In this post I present arguments that take a different view.

I have categorised my arguments into two categories: semantics and pragmatics.

Semantics concerns the grammatical and lexical implications of the text of the verse.

Pragmatics concerns the interpretational and cultural implications of the verse.

Finally, for the sake of a balanced assessment, I give a couple of counter-arguments to my view at the end.

Semantics

(1) The key to a firm understanding of 5:38 is to deconstruct the word أَيۡدِيَهُمَا their hands and its place in the verse, for this word reveals more than we would initially suspect. Let us first look at the traditional translation of 5:38: ?The male thief and the female thief, cut their hands as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? In Arabic, there are 5 different 3rd person pronouns depending on the number of objects and their gender. The following table gives all 5 pronouns:

http://1drv.ms/1QllyAO (Click on link to see table)

As can be seen from the table, Arabic does not distinguish the gender of pronouns in the dual number. These pronouns are suffixed to nouns and verbs. As an example, let us now suffix these pronouns to the noun كِتَاب book:

http://1drv.ms/1KwUmdE (Click on link to see table)

In 5:38, the word in question (أَيۡدِيَهُمَا their hands) has the noun in the plural and the pronoun in the dual. That is to say, the word يَد hand is used in the plural to signify 3 or more hands and the pronoun signifies 2 people. Therefore, according to the traditional understanding, we are instructed by God in this verse to cut off 3 or more hands from 2 people. This is nonsensical because the supposed command to sever the hand should be applicable to a single individual, not to two individuals at the same time; that is to say, this command can only be applicable if a man AND a woman commit theft at the same time, and is therefore not applicable if two men commit theft or if two women commit theft etc. As such, أَيۡدِى in this verse cannot be referring to hands.

(2) Furthermore, the word يَد in Arabic can refer to any part of the human arm; up to and including the shoulder joint. Therefore, it can refer to the hand from the fingertips up to the wrist, or up to the elbow, or up to the shoulder joint. Why do we not see a specification in the verse as to the point at which the thief?s hand should be severed?

(3) The word يَد in Arabic can also refer to sustenance. But it only carries the meaning of sustenance when it is in the plural, not in the singular. As such, re-interpreting the word أَيۡدِى to mean sustenance instead of hands we re-read the verse as: ?The male thief and the female thief, discontinue their sustenance as a reprimand from God. God is mighty, wise.? The sustenance to which I refer here is the sustenance provided by the state to its citizens. We read in several verses of the Quran that the giving of wealth to the needy is a paramount characteristic of the believers, and if the state were to administer this distribution, then it would be in the position to discontinue the sustenance of those who steal.

(4) The word قَطَعَ used in 5:38 can mean in Arabic one of a number of things, of which are to cut, to cut off, and to disconnect. The first meaning is used in 12:50 in which the women who were present at the gathering of Joseph?s master?s wife are reported to have cut their hands out of astonishment of Joseph?s beauty. It is reasonable to think that this cutting of theirs was not amputation, but an accidental cutting of their hands in the sense of slash or graze. The second meaning has traditionally been thought to be intended in 5:38. And finally the third meaning is expressed in 6:45 where the word is used in an expression to mean disconnected.

Pragmatics

(1) If 5:38 were meant to be interpreted as amputation of the hand, then it is anomalous in that it is the only verse in the Quran for which amputation is the punishment for a sin. Not even رِبَا or زِنَى have been given corporeal punishments as severe as theft; not to mention the greatest sin of them all: شِرۡك , which receives absolutely no corporeal punishment whatsoever. I should mention here that although 5:33 does mention a severing of the hands and feet, it is stated in the impersonal 3rd person sense and is stated as a passive statement meant to be taken as a factitive declaration, not as a command that is to be implemented by the believers.

(2) As briefly mentioned above, there is a lack of provision of specifics of the execution of the command of amputation, namely, from what point of the anatomy should the hand be amputated? why are we given specifics in 5:6 for ablution but not in something as important as amputation? why is amputation the sole punishment of theft and not of more serious crimes?

(3) The after-effects of amputation will quite likely create more problems than it was meant to solve. The thief concerned will undoubtedly suffer emotional distress at the loss of his/her hand and this will give way to mental disorders such as depression and anxiety in view of their place in society. They will effectively be marked out among the population in which they live on account of being identified as a thief. And of course, not having a hand, their mobility will be affected. Are these factors that are deserving of theft? Furthermore, how is the thief to be redeemed in society with an amputated hand in light of the verse following 5:38 which states that God forgives those thieves who repent?

(4) Sunni Islam lays down conditional rules for the execution of the command of amputation in 5:38, as: 1) people living in a community must not be living in a state of poverty which might increase their likelihood of theft, if this is not the case, then amputation cannot take place 2) the thief must be a repeating offender 3) the item stolen must be of a given value 4) the thief must be a sane adult with no history of insanity. All these conditional requirements are admirable, for they hinder the execution of amputation. However, we, as a people who use the Quran only as a guide in life, cannot rely on extra-Quranic sources for the implementation or interpretation of religious guidance. And it is the idea itself of having amputation as a punishment for theft that should be analysed for its merits and faults. I argue the latter to be prevailing.

Counter-arguments

(1) In Classical Arabic, it is permissible for the plural to be used in place of the dual when appended to a pronoun. Example, it is permissible to use the plural أَيۡدِى in reference to the dual يَدَانِ as it is considered a liberality in usage. Another example is found in the Quran in 66:4 where we read قُلُوبُكُمَا where قَلۡبُكُمَا would have otherwise been used. This means that the argument given above about the incomprehension of the plurality of the noun being prefixed to a dual pronoun is invalid only on the grounds that the Author intended أَيۡدِيهُمَا to be an instance of liberality in usage.

(2) A similar argument can be levelled against the interpretation of the word أَيۡدِى as sustenance as that levelled against its interpretation as hands in terms of the lack of the provision of specification of the duration during which the thief?s sustenance should be suspended.

[Brothers and sisters, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for words.]

Peace,

As humans, we are unique amongst earthly creatures in our capacity to speak. The formulation of statements from a number of independent sounds proceeding from our mouths to express an idea conceived in the mind can only be described as miraculous.

These sounds are expressed by humans in reference to objects, or ideas, or events. These sounds only acquire meaning by the repetitive appellation of those sounds to the same objects, or ideas, or events.

We call these sounds ?words.?

A listener will have to hear these words in use by people enough times, and in as many different situations, from which he can derive a firm idea of their meaning. I say ?listener,? because language proceeds primarily from speech, secondarily from writing.

In human history, dictionaries are a relatively modern invention, which list the entire set of words that constitute any given language. They are particularly useful to foreign students of a given language if they haven?t had any first-hand experience with the people of that language. Indeed, their use, along with the rules of grammar, is a prerequisite for the correct understanding of that language.

In the science of linguistics, ?words? are usually referred to as ?signifiers,? and ?meanings? are usually referred to as ?significations.?

Now comes my question, upon being presented with a text whose signifiers are, for the most part, unknown to the reader, would it behove that reader, in the objective pursuit of truth, to employ significations in the understanding of that text as were employed by those people who authored that text?

Or, would it behove that reader to forge significations of those signifiers as accords with his own personal fancies in order to acquire the intended significations of those people who authored that text?

I would argue the prior to be behoving.

The very fact that you, the reader, are reading this post and understanding it, is proof enough of my argument. The fact that you, the reader, are not seeking to invent new meanings for these words that I am using to write this post, proves that we must understand language as it exists at the time of its currency.

Brothers and sisters, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for words.

I have heard the arguments that zinā does not mean fornication, and that nisā? does not mean women, and that salāh does not mean prayer. These arguments, in my view, are invalid. I will say the following about these arguments:

1. I accept that the meanings of words are liable to mutate. That is a most natural phenomenon of human speech, undoubtedly. However, we must use the Quran?s Arabic, from the Quran's time, to understand the Quran, not any other dialect or language. Example: at one point in history, the signifier ?man? referred to any human being, male, or female. Later, around 1000 years ago, it became exclusive to males.

2. I also accept that the Quran uses old words in new ways to introduce new concepts, or perhaps to modify existing concepts; but this can only occur to such an extent that the new concept can still relate to its original signification. Example: ?shirk? originally meant ?apportionment.? However, the Quran uses it in such a way that it can lead us to understand the signification as ?polytheism/idolisation.?

Naturally, all the above is just as applicable to syntax.

I truly apologise and seek pardon for the blatant rudimentary nature of my statements about language and its use, but the arguments that are in circulation in this forum, and, sadly, among other Quranists, with regard to the forgery of significations, are also invalid on such a rudimentary level.

For stress, we are not at liberty to invent meanings for Classical Arabic words to understand the Quran.

Use of the preposition "7attaa" in 2:221 implies that a male cannot contract a marriage with a mushrikah until she believes, and that a female cannot be contracted in marriage to a mushrik until he believes.

Note the key word: "until."

This implies that a relationship within Quranic confines can be formed with any person of any ideology, however, no contracting of marriage can take place until the mushrik, or mushrikah believes.

If this understanding is correct, then it bears advantages and disadvantages.

The advantage is that we, as a very small God alone community, don't need to be restricted in our choice of companion; we can choose partners from any walk of life so long as we don't finalise the marriage before the mushrik, or mushrikah believes.

The disadvantage is that if we get involved with someone who, after much discussion and debate, refuses to believe, then the marriage cannot take place and this ultimately leads to a great deal of heartache for both parties. Thus, time is wasted and emotions are bruised.

I would like to make 2 further points. The first is that the implications of the use of "7attaa" can be seen as an intentional introduction of flexibility on The Author's part; flexibility, that is, for the believers. The second is that when 2 people are in love, it can be argued that the hearts or minds are more liable to be in a state of acceptability, and as such, the belief in God alone is less likely to be rejected as the mushrik, or mushrikah, will empathise more with the truth on account of their partner.

Any thoughts?

Peace,

It's funny how politicians come running and groveling to the public at this time of the year.  The burden of governmental responsibility should be deemed so great as to be dreaded, not competed for.  In my view, this is indicative of a perverse political culture, or at least one which has lost its way. 

How can 3 major blocks in the House of Commons represent the diversity of 60 million people?  Can the British public be divided into 3 parts according to political allegiances?  Or does each person have their own take on policies and affairs?  Such a gross partitioning of the makeup of government can only lead, in my view, to gross misrepresentation.

Thus, in order for any given party to appeal to the massive ideological diversity of millions of people, we see the kind of manipulation from politicians for which they have become notoriously known.

Example, if an MP belonging to a major (or even minor) party is asked about something which the public have different opinions about, the MP will have to give an answer which does not address the question but is phrased such that his or her true position is not known for fear of losing popularity.

To be a politician is to be all things to all men, and I deem it likely - unfortunately - that a major concern of most MPs is the delight of being in power, whether or not they are faithful to their constituents has been seen to be of lesser concern, and so they vie for power.

Which is why I see very little point in voting for any of the major (or even minor) parties on May 6 because our desires and grievances will invariably be diluted by the time it reaches the Commons. 

That's why I encourage my family and friends to vote for independents, because they are wholly accountable to the people who elected them to power, and they are not subject to party Whips or superiors.  Independents are free to speak their minds, and free to vote with their consciences.  They won't be nearly as manipulative and disloyal as other MPs because they're beneath the people's feet, not floating far above them enjoying the security of a majority seat in Parliament.

Vote independent on May 6th.

Real deep poetry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYSl5JVyYhs&feature=player_embedded#

Peace,

This is a call to any chemists or physicists among us.

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone would care to shed light on the following:

In a molecule of methane, the carbon atom has four hybridised sp³ atomic orbitals, each of which overlap with the four 1s hydrogen atomic orbitals.  That much is clear.  However, I am curious as to the locality of the two 1s carbon electrons.  What "space" do they occupy?  What "shape" is their cloud?  And how do the four sp³ orbitals affect their behaviour?

The same can be asked of an O₂ molecule.  What effect do the higher energy level electrons have on the lower energy level electrons?  Do they restrict their "movement"?  Do they confine them to a specific "space"?

The reason I ask this is because all the atomic/molecular models that I have seen depict the carbon, in a molecule of methane, as having four sp³ hybridised orbitals without accounting for the inner two 1s electrons.

I have already posted this query in a chemistry forum, but I thought I would post it here too.

I would greatly appreciate any help on this.

Peace all,

A very interesting program was aired this Ramadan on a satellite TV station called MBC.

It's about Japanese culture; how they run their schools, public offices, public services, public transport, their work ethic, their strong sense of family values, social equality, the importance they put on working for the greater good, their technological advancement, etc etc.

Very interesting, check it out.

It's all in Arabic though.

http://shahed.mbc.net/mediamanager/?ee_category=15438

Peace,

With the recent revelations about MPs expenses, more and more people are losing trust and confidence in MPs.  These revelations have served only to strengthen the mostly negative sentiments that people already have about politicians, as well as making them disillusioned with our current system of representation.

Democracy has become a mere ?tag? in the nomenclature of many governments, that?s because the people are not truly represented in government.  The real problem at the heart of British politics is the party system.  When the leadership of each party adopts a position on any given issue, it coerces its MPs to support its position and vote in favour of such a position to have it passed in the Commons.

Party Whips are charged with the responsibility of keeping MPs in check and ensuring that they adopt the government?s position, MPs usually cave in to this coercion even when such a position isn?t supported by the majority of his/her constituents.  Is this representation?

If MPs were not subject to this type of coercion, they would be at liberty to represent their constituents to the fullest, and as such, they would be more expressive.  MPs who are not aligned to any party are known as Independents, and they are not subject to a party hierarchy.  They are directly elected by their local community, thus they are wholly accountable to their constituents and are therefore much more effective in representation.

However, the current system of party representation is proving itself ineffective.

Who was there to represent the one million people who took to the streets of London in February 2003 in protest of the impending invasion of Iraq?  A survey conducted by YouGov (et al.) in the first quarter of 2003, indicated (from the sample questioned) that the majority of the British electorate were not in favour of an invasion (it also indicated that they would only have been in favour had the UK and US governments received legitimacy from the UN ? which they didn?t). 

If the UK was a functioning democracy, the motion passed on the 18th March 2003 ? which stated that the government ?should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction? ? would not have been voted through.  This motion committed thousands of British military personnel to an illegal invasion of Iraq.  Were the UK a functioning democracy, it would not have been sanctioned by the British people, and thus it would not have seen the light of day, and consequently, we would not have allied ourselves with the US administration on an illegal and immoral war, of which the Iraqi people are the worst affected, with one estimate ranging between 700,000-1,000,000 violent deaths since March 2003, not to mention the thousands of coalition lives lost.

Also, in regard to Palestinians - who are living in some of the most horrible, humiliating, and harsh conditions experienced by any people in the world - are being subject to the most abhorrent crimes which the state of Israel commits through building illegal settlements, indiscriminate targeting and detention of civilians, firing missiles into very heavily populated civilian areas, preventing the entry of emergency aid in the most desperate of times, hindering the flow of people across borders who are trying to make a living, and so on. These crimes are not met with the type of vociferous force by the US and UK governments that is used against, say, Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Iran.  Their assent is not a result of indifference or apathy, instead, it is born of mutual interests between the ruling elite of this country, the ruling elite of the US, and the state of Israel.

These are but a few examples of how the political classes in many "democratic" governments continually fail to represent the people who elected them to power.

Misrepresentation doesn?t only concern international affairs, but domestic ones too.  With independent MPs, the voices of the people would be heard with much less dilution and interference, this is because their representative would be free and unbound from the domineering nature of party politics to convey the grievances and desires of his/her constituents from a firm platform in the Commons.  Issues from street crime, education, the NHS, police patrols, council tax, to major issues like invasions of sovereign states, European integration, the allocation of development funds to Third World countries, etc. ? we as a people will have more say in these issues only if our representatives were free to do just that; represent.

A general election might not be happening any time soon, but the EU elections for MEPs on the 4th June is our first chance to make a real change by voting for independent candidates who will take this struggle on to the European arena.

Vote for independent MPs who think with Free Minds, so that we, the people, live under a functioning democracy.

Visit the following website to find out who is standing in your region as an independent, www.juryteam.org


Usamah

Peace,

To anyone wishing to get familiar with thought and reasoning, as well as formal logic, I would strongly recommend Logic: Theoretical & Applied (D.L. Evans & W.S. Gamertsfelder, 1937).

Concise, effective, and very powerful. 

Only problem is, it was published over 70 years ago, so as you can imagine, it isn't widely available.  Best place to check is at a major library or even a national library.  I found it in my university library, so any students out there can check their uni library.

Does anyone else watch lamasaat bayaaniyyah?

It comes on Shaariqah TV twice a week.  If you don't have Arabic TV, then do a search for لمسات بيانية on google video.

Check it out, it's interesting.

Peace all,

Dr Subhi's book entitled "The Quran: Enough as a Source of Islamic Legislation" is now available in English.  It can be downloaded from the link below.

The book is well structured and makes some very strong points. 

It makes for a very good read, I highly recommend it.


http://rapidshare.com/files/223930800/The_Quran_-_Enough_as_a_Source_of_Islamic_Legislation.html

Peace,

I came across an interesting article a few years ago whose author seemingly managed to derive the speed of light from a given Quranic verse.  I?ve lost the link to the web page, so I?ve reproduced the article here; I?ve contracted it for the sake of brevity.

Now, I?m no mathematician, in fact, my knowledge of maths is elemental.  So perhaps any mathematicians out there could review the formulae and correct any mistakes.  It should be noted that the author of the article makes a fair number of assumptions, the applicability and validity of which will be left for the reader to think through.

As I understand it, the theory hinges on the assumption that ?one thousand years of your reckoning? is to be understood in terms of the lunar year.  Then, put simply, the author, to find the speed of the unknown (i.e. ?the affair?), uses the distance of 12,000 revolutions of the moon about the earth, then divides this by the sum of seconds in one sidereal day, which gives the same speed as that of light traveling in a vacuum.

The author bases his theory on the following verse:

?[God] rules the affair from the heavens to the earth.  Then [this affair] travels to Him, in one day where the measure is one thousand years of your reckoning.? (32:5)

He then infers the following:

?Your reckoning? refers to the Arabic calendar, i.e., the lunar calendar, which is sidereal.

Now, ?one thousand years? = 12,000 months.

So, this ?affair? travels so fast that it crosses in one sidereal day a distance in space equivalent to that of 12,000 revolutions of the moon about the earth (i.e. 12,000 sidereal months).

So,
   Distance traveled in one (sidereal) day = 12,000 revolutions of the moon around the earth;

So,
   Ct = 12000 L
C = speed of affair;
t = a sidereal day;
L = distance covered by moon in one (sidereal) month;

So,
To determine the velocity of the moon (and therefore the distance covered in a month);
V = 2 Pi * R / T
This is the formula to determine the angular velocity of an object, using;
R = radius of earth-moon system (384264);
T = sidereal lunar month (655.71986);

So,
   V = (2*3.1416)*384264/655.71986 = 3682.07km/hr
This velocity is commonly acknowledged.

Since the presence of the sun changes the geometrical properties of space and time, we must screen out its gravitational effect on the earth-moon system.

So,
The angle traveled by the earth-moon system in a month, equals;
   ? = month * angle / year
       = 27.321661 * 360 / 365.25636
   = 26.92848

So,
   L = V cos ? T
Which is the velocity component  (V? = V cos ?);

Deducing, Ct = 12000L;
We get,
Ct = 12000 V cos ?T

So;
   C = 12000 V cos ? T/t

Giving;
   C = 12000 * 3682.07 * 0.89157 * 655.71986 / 86164.0906
       = 299792.5 km/s

[li]

Peace,

What follows is my understanding of salaah based on the following verses:

1.   20:14
2.   38:31-32
3.   20:130
4.   17:78-79
5.   17:110
6.   2:238-239
7.   48:9
8.   19:11
9.   11:114
10.   3:39
11.   2:144 and 2:149/150
12.   50:39-40
13.   4:102
14.   3:17
15.   51:18
16.   4:43 and 5:6
17.   24:58
18.   30:18
19.   4:103

I?ll explain my understanding of each verse:

1)   20:14;
     a.   Salaah is remembrance of God.

2)   38:31-32;
     a.   In 38:31 God says that the horses were brought before Solomon at al-3ashiyy.  The dictionary lists two meanings for this word:
          i.   The time from sunset onwards, and,
          ii.   The time at the end of the day when the sun nears the horizon.
             We can verify which one is correct by reading the following verse where Solomon says ???I enjoyed the material things more than I enjoyed worshiping my Lord, until the sun was gone.?  Thus, the horses were brought to him before the setting of the sun, thus, al-3ashiyy, in 38:32, means, I believe, the time at the end of the day when the sun approaches the horizon.
     b.   I am inclined to think that what Solomon meant by ?dhikru rabbi?, in 38:32, was salaah.  Because, if we were to think about it, one can remember God at any time, however, Solomon said that he missed remembering God as if he missed a specific allocated time to remember God.

3)   20:130;
     a.   Tasbeeh is done at the following times;
          i.   Before sunrise
          ii.   Before sunset
          iii.?aanaa? al-layl
          iv.atraaf an-nahaar     
     b.   Regarding ?aanaa? al-layl and atraaf an-nahaar, I understand it like this:
          i.   They are either used together as a phrase to mean ?all day and all night.?
          ii.   Or they both carry separate meanings, in which case I understand it like this:
               1.   ?aanaa? al-layl means parts/hours of the night.
               2.   atraaf an-nahaar means the edges of the day.
     c.   atraaf is a plural signifying three or more, but there are only two edges in the day, i.e. the start of the day and its end.  Only if we insert a third period in the day to conform with the plurality of atraaf, then it makes sense to me.  I would place this third period at mid-day as per my understanding of 2:238 (see below).  However, if ?aanaa? al-layl means parts/hours of the night, then I understand this to mean tahajjud (see 17:79 below).  I reckon the last alternative is to say that ?aanaa? al-layl wa atraaf an-nahaar signify all day and all night, so God is telling us to remember Him and glorify Him constantly.  It is also important not to ignore the preposition min in the verse, ?wa min ?aanaa? al-layl?, which means, ?and [glorify Him] in parts of the night.?

4)   17:78-79;
     a.   We are told to establish salaah from duluk al-shams to ghasaq al-layl:
          i.   duluk al-shams: this has two meanings;
               1.   the time when the sun approaches the horizon, and
               2.   the time when the sun begins to decline at mid-day.
          ii.   ghasaq al-layl: this has two meanings;
               1.   the darkness of the beginning of night, and
               2.   the dead of night, when there is absolutely no sunlight in the sky, (which corresponds to Astronomical Twilight End).
     b.   Now, if duluk al-shams means the sun?s decline at mid-day, then ? as I see it ? one has to perform salaah, according to 17:78, from mid-day to night-time continuously!  This doesn?t seem right, which is why I believe duluk al-shams is the time when the sun approaches the horizon, this is supported by the lesson God taught us about Solomon in verses 38:31-32.
     c.   ghasaq al-layl, as I understand it, is either the beginning of night when there is a little light in the sky (corresponding to somewhere in between Civil and Nautical Twilight End), or, the point at which there is no light at all (ATE).
     d.   It is very important to note here that the verse says ??aqim al-salaah li duluk al-shams ?ilaa ghasaq al-layl?, i.e. ?establish salaah from the decline of the sun to night-time?.  Thus, one uses the entire period to perform salaah.  God didn?t say ?establish salaah in between the decline of the sun and night-time.?
     e.   We are told to establish the practice of reading Quran at dawn.
     f.   Reading/studying Quran at night is superfluous, this is mentioned in verse 17:79, ?wa min al-layl fa tahajjad bi hi naafilatan laka?:
          i.   tahajjad; to stay up at night,
          ii.   naafilah; something which is done for extra credit, which isn?t compulsory.
I believe ?bi hi? refers to the Quran.  Therefore, I understand it like this: ?and stay up at night studying/reading the Quran as a bonus for yourself.?

5)   17:110;
     a.   One?s tone of voice should not be too loud in salaah nor should it be too low, rather, it should be in between, ?wa la tajhar bi salaatika wa la tukhaafit bi haa?.
          i.   jahara has two meanings which fit this context:
               1.   to announce, or,
               2.   to raise one?s voice.
          ii.   khaafata has only one meaning in this context:
               1.   to lower one?s voice.
Khaafata has the exclusive meaning of to lower one?s voice; I couldn?t find a meaning of khaafata which means to make private or, secret.  Thus, I believe 17:110 refers to the tone of one?s voice in salaah.

6)   2:238-239;
     a.   If one can assume that the plural salawaat is used to refer to the frequency of salaah in one day, then there are definitely at least three salaahs a day, because the plural salawaat is used in verse 238.
     b.   I understand wustaa as being used as a preposition, specifically, in the temporal sense.  Thus, I assume al-salaah al-wustaa is in the middle of the day.  Wustaa is a feminine comparative adjective which means the middle most, thus it must be in ?the middle? of the two other salaahs.  So, in my opinion, it?s either in the middle of the night, or, in the middle of the day, and I assume it?s at mid-day.
     c.   I understand the verb qaama as to stand.  So, one should be standing in salaah as per ??wa-quumuu lillaahi qaaniteen.?
     d.   In a state of fear, one can perform salaah while on the move, whether walking, driving, or, riding.  This lends weight to the idea that salaah is primarily remembrance and commemoration of God, and not a prescribed set of actions; verse 20:14 supports this.

7)   48:9;
     a.   Tasbeeh is done at the following times;
          i.   al-bukrah; this has two meanings:
               1.   the beginning of the day after sun rise, or,
               2.   the time between first light and sun rise.
          ii.   al-?aseel;
               1.   the time between 3asr and al-3ashiy.

   19:11;
     a.   Tasbeeh is done at the following times;
          i.   al-bukrah: this has two meanings (see above)
          ii.   al-3ashiy:
               1.   the time at the end of the day when the sun nears the horizon.

9)   11:114;
     a.   We are told to establish salaah at both edges/ends of the day.
     b.   ?wa zulafan min al-layl?: zulaf is the plural of zulfah; it has the following meanings:
          i.   a degree
          i.   a level
          iii.closeness
          iv.a part of the night
          v.   the first part of the night
          vi.the hours in which night and day meet
          The latter four significations seem to fit the context of the verse, so ?zulafan min al-layl? can mean one of the following:
               1.   close to the night (at the end of the day, just before the sun sets)
               2.   parts of the night
               3.   the first part of the night (before CTE or NTE)
               4.   the hours in which night and day meet
          Numbers 1, 3, and 4 involve the same times, more or less.  Number 2 would mean that one should perform salaah during parts of the night.  However, the meaning is clear to me, because most of the meanings of zulaf speak about the hours when night merges into day and vice versa.

10)   3:39;
     a.   I understand the verb qaama in this verse as to stand.  So, one should be standing in salaah.

11)   2:144, and 2:149-150;
     a.   If qiblah means the direction one faces in salaah, then the instruction to face al-masjid al-haraam occurs in these verses. 
     b.   The fact that the instruction ?fa walli wajhaka shatr al-masjid al-haraam? occurs (in the 2nd person singular) three times within a space of six verses is, in my opinion, uncanny.  This fact is not to be ignored.

12)   50:39-40;
     a.   Tasbeeh is done at the following times;
          i.   before sunrise
          ii.   before sunset
          iii.at night
          iv.after sujuud

13)   4:102;
     a.   Salaah involves sujuud.

14)   3:17;
     a.   One can choose to seek forgiveness before dawn.

15)   51:18;
     a.   One can choose to seek forgiveness before dawn.

16)   4:43 and 5:6;
     a.   Purification for salaah.

17)   24:58;
     a.   The times and names of two salaahs confirmed: salat al-fajr and salat al-3ishaa?:
          i.   al-fajr      :    first light (i.e. when the sun begins to light the sky)
          ii.   al-3ishaa?:   the time at the end of the day when the sun declines (please note, as I see it, 3ishaa? and 3ashiyy mean the same thing)

18)   30:18;
     a.   Praise is to God at al-3ashiyy and at al-zuhr;
          i.   al-3ashiy    : the time at the end of the day when the sun declines
          ii.   al-zuhr       : mid-day
     b.   I cannot use this verse to prove that al-salah al-wusta is at mid-day, however, seeing that it was used together with another salaah time (al-3ashiyy), and also based on my interpretation of 2:238, I use this verse to support my case, but it doesn?t prove it.

19)   4:103;
     a.   Salaah has been prescribed at specific times.


Conclusions:

I?ve split my conclusions into four parts:

     1.   What is salaah?

Salaah is remembering God.

     2.   Number of salaahs:

There are at least three salaahs because God uses the plural salawaat.

     3.   Times of salaahs:

I am almost certain of the times of two salaahs, that is, salaat al-fajr and salaat al-3ishaa?.  As I see it, salat al-fajr starts at first light (i.e. when the sun?s light begins to light the sky), and ends after sunrise at the beginning of the day, this takes between one, and one and a half hours.  Salaat al-3ishaa? starts at the end of the day before sunset, and ends when there is no or little light in the sky from the sun, this also takes approximately between one and one and a half hours (depending on geographical location as well as time of year).  Now, because the Quran uses the plural salawaat (which I believe refers to the frequency of salaahs in one day), there must be at least one more salaah.  I base this third salaah partly on assumption and partly on evidence.  Based on the way I have interpreted 2:238 and 30:18 (in points 6 and 18), I believe this third salah is in the middle of the day, i.e. al-zuhr, however, I could not find the duration of this salaah in the Quran.  Perhaps, as with the other two salaahs, one can assume a duration of one hour.

     4.   Method and content of salaahs:

Method:
One should be standing and facing al-masjid al-haraam.

Content:
Salaah definitely involves saying things (see 4:43).  What are these things?

We read many times in the Quran God giving the instruction (in the 2nd person singular) to commemorate Him (tasbeeh) almost always at the times of the setting of the sun and its rising (see points 3, 7, 8, and 12).  These times happen to be the same times of salaah, i.e., the twilight periods.  This, to me, is more than a coincidence.  Naturally, one is therefore inclined to believe that the chief aspect of salaah is tasbeeh, or, commemoration of God.

Moreover, 24:41 mentions salaah and tasbeeh synonymously.

Along with tasbeeh, the following aspects may be considered: one can remember the things that God has done for us, and the things that He has given us, and give thanks to Him.  One can reflect.  One can ask for forgiveness.  One can read from the Quran; note, reading the Quran at dawn is definitely a part of salaat al-fajr as per 17:78.  Please note, I cannot prove that any of these things are a part of salaah (except reading the Quran at dawn).  Nevertheless, they seem praiseworthy to me, plus, the Quran does give instructions to do these things, but they are not mentioned with salaah. 

All these things are to be done with a moderate tone of voice.

Sujuud is definitely a part of salaah (see point 13), but no specific pattern has been given.

Most importantly, we must show reverence (khushuu3) in salaah.  I guess this is the foundation of salaah: that one?s heart should be at peace, and be reverent of God.  During salaah one must remember that we are going to be resurrected and brought before God (2:45-46).  We must show qunuut, i.e., humbleness (2:238).

Salaah is, after all, a mental activity not a physical one, so I reckon the condition of the heart is very important, it?s important that the heart be sound.

Achieving this state of mental peace and reverence of God doesn?t happen within five minutes, which is why I see much wisdom in salaah being between one and one and a half hours long, ?alaa bi dhikrillaahi tatma?inn al-quluub.

This is my understanding of salaah.

Please remember 17:36.

Peace,

I have noticed in Free Minds? Quran translation, in verse 89:28, mardiyy has been translated as content.  I understand mardiyy to be the passive verbal adjective of the verb radiya 3an (albeit used without the preposition), and should therefore be understood as contented with as opposed to content.

What are your thoughts?