Messages

[29:45]

Salam Wakas,

There are several seemingly anomalous uses of the word Ṣalāh and its plural Ṣalawāt in the Quran: 29:45, 9:5, 11:87, 9:99, and 22:40.

In these verses, translating "Prayer" to "Ṣalāh" appears to be incompatible with the context of each verse and so it leads some to think that the meaning of "Ṣalāh" cannot be "Prayer." But what of the other 40 instances in the Quran where "Ṣalāh" is used in which the translation "Prayer" fits perfectly? Do we use the 5 anomalous instances to override the 40 normative instances? Is this a wise approach? I think it is not.

If we look carefully at the 5 verses I have listed above, we find good explanations for each of them.

29:45 — Here, we are told that the Ṣalāh "prevents" or "wards off" evil and bad things. What does the Quran say about those who perform the Ṣalāh? They are reverent (2:238), they are God-fearing (2:3), they are humble (23:2), they are believers (2:3), they are righteous (7:170), they uphold their contracts (2:177), they are patient (2:177), they are truthful (2:177), and they are those whose hearts tremble when God is mentioned (8:2). When all these characteristics are united in a single individual, and he maintains these characteristics over many years, how likely is that individual going to engage in evil and bad things? Especially since God is an ally to the believers. Remember also that Ṣalāh is "burdensome" except for the humble (2:45).

9:5 — This verse is often used to protest against the normative understanding of Ṣalāh, the argument being "How can the mushrikeen perform Ṣalāh"? This is simply a rushed conclusion and an oversight of the crucial phrase "...if they repent..." Repentance is used in the Quran for both Muslims and non-Muslims as evidenced by verses such as 5:73-74, 9:125-126, 9:74, 11:1-3, 11:50-52, and many other verses which address non-Muslims who are told to repent. Therefore, the crucial phrase in 9:5 is "...if they repent..." which is their embracing of the truth and then subsequently establishing the Ṣalāh.

11:87 — The sentence "O Shu'ayb, does your Ṣalāh order you that we leave what our fathers worship?" is a quotation from the people of Shu'ayb, it is not God speaking. God is quoting what they said. Did they know what they were witnessing when they saw Shu'ayb perform Ṣalāh? How much knowledge did they have about the Ṣalāh? Did they even witness him perform Ṣalāh or did they simply hear rumours about his performing Ṣalāh? More importantly, are we going to use the quotation of unbelievers to guide our understanding of Ṣalāh, when God has already laid out every single detail about Ṣalāh in other verses? This is an important point.

9:99 — The CA dictionaries list "seeking forgiveness and supplication" as one of the many meanings of "Ṣalāh." I take this to be the intended meaning here.

22:40 —  The CA dictionaries also list "Ṣalawāt" as meaning "Synagogues" this makes perfect sense in the context of the verse.

In view of this, I find no need to stray from the normative meaning of "Prayer."

Salam bro,

I should make it clear that I use the Arabic language without further qualification. Your approach tends to derive new meanings based on the use of a word in the Quran. Although there is merit in this approach if a word happened to be unknown or unclear, but fortunately for us the Classical Arabic language has been preserved to a large extent in various writings.

I have never taken the approach you take as it is a slippery slope and can lead every reader to deriving their own meaning for each contested word. To prove this point, you translate Ṣalāh as "bond," Sam Gerrans translates it as "duty," another writer translates it as "teaching."

"Ṣalāh" to me is "prayer" in the strongest possible terms, it cannot be anything else. To our knowledge, that is how the 6th century Arabs used the word, and that is how I understand it.

I find no need to reinvent the language. The Quran claims to be an Arabic Quran, so I just take every word for what it means in the CA lexicons.

I read your article of Tasbīḥ and it's great! Well done!

You will find that I made the same conclusions about Tasbīḥ back in 2008. That is to say, Tasbīḥ forms a part of Ṣalāh when it is ordained at the times of Ṣalāh, and it forms a part of the general remembrance of God in all other times outside the times of Ṣalāh. However, we disagree on the meaning of Tasbīḥ, to me it is simply "glorification," whereas you derive a novel meaning which I find unnecessary.

One comment I have is that you suggest the following verses may be a form of hyperbole:

19:62 ...provision in heaven morning and evening
40:46 ...exposed to fire morning and evening
25:5 ...dictated to him morning and evening

I think they would have been hyperbole if the terms used were "laylan wa-naharan," however, the terms used in these 3 verses refer to specific times of the day as used by the Arabs of the 6th century.

I created a schematic of the various times of the day as defined in the CA lexicons, however, it's in Arabic: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkotlTY_voT402cGaDI3Da_op5Bt?e=qaqlOQ

Peace Wakas,

Don't forget the other meaning of "zulaf" being "twilight periods."

This lets us translate "wa-zulafan min al-layl" as "and at twilight periods of the night."

As far as I understand, all definitions of "layl" given in Classical Arabic dictionaries begin after sunset.

So, whatever your understanding of Salah is, it must continue after sunset.

God knows best.

I have composed a simplified presentation of "A Perspective on Salah" with an introduction of why the Quran should be used to understand Salah. It's called "Is Salah in the Quran?"

Please note, the English is very basic in order to include the many non-native English speakers on this website and out there in the world.

It is a good introduction to Salah for those who charge the Quran with deficiency, and is suitable for Sunnis and curious non-Muslims alike. Please feel free to share.

My perspective on Salah has remained largely unchanged since the original post in 2008. The only thing worth noting here is that the phrase "wa-zulafan min al-layl" is validly interpreted to mean "and at twilight periods of the night."

The simplified presentation: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkotlTY_voT402ZM1b6GuNkX4mmZ?e=MoxDgh

The original 2008 paper: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkotlTY_voT402VJHzyLj6lYZjfC?e=V0XGe3

Jazak Allah Khayr Layth!

May Allah reward you!

Peace Rilum,

If you don't read Arabic, there are many English-Arabic dictionaries online which you can access for free.

Most notably, Lane's Lexicon at http://www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/lane/ and Al-Maany at https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/

Enjoy!

Peace all,

The construction إِلۡ يَاسِين is highly irregular.

The prefix إِلۡ is not likely to be the definite article (the) because the definite article never occurs with a Kasra in Arabic.

The suffix يَاسِين is peculiar in that it phonetically spells out the first verse of chapter 36, whether this has any bearing on the meaning I cannot say.

My suspicion is that Il Yāsīn is a variation of the spelling of Ilyās, albeit non-Arabicized, whereas, Ilyās has been Arabicized.

The most likely explanation, in my view, is the one presented by Mazhar, in that it is a phonetical 'mimicking' of the original non-Arabic name.

Bear in mind that two other Readings (Nāfi' and Ibn 'Āmir) report the construction as آلِ يَاسِين meaning the family of Yāsīn.

God knows best.

I make the perfectly reasonable assumption that نَمۡلَة in 27:18 refers to a species in the Formicidae family, i.e. the humble ant.

It is certain that ants communicate using sounds, vibrations, and pheromones. The exact nature of this communication, and its meaning is as yet unknown. Although, it is safe to assume that ants communicate for survival purposes, such as indicating to other ants the location of food, communicating their position in the hierarchy, communicating potential dangers from predators, communicating that they are in need of help, etc. These communications are not unique to ants, they can also be found among bees and birds.

What is important to bear in mind is that the entire lexicon of the ant vocabulary has not yet been decoded. There is still much to learn.

Consider the blackbird. It is not yet known by ornithologists why blackbirds burst into song at the two edges of the day and throughout the two twilights. Consider the sounds it produces. Consider how it chirrups, and chirps, and tweets, and sings. Consider how it produces approximately seven or eight distinct songs every minute. And most importantly, consider how the blackbird has never produced two songs that are the same: each song that the blackbird produces is utterly unique and there has never been a recording of a blackbird singing the same song twice. Consider the magnitude of imaginative capability required to achieve such a feat and ask yourself if you are content with the explanation of random genetic aberrations.

Consider how we know very little, and resign yourself to the Grandest Designer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmpEWlmgRxQ

"...and not a thing [exists] except that it glorifies in His praise"

Hi Ed,

I would say that uncivil behaviour and tyrannical beliefs are not at all unique to this forum, they are found in all walks of life.

Although the spirit of the Quran is such that it exhorts the values of patience and liberality, there are those who read the verses relating to said values but the message of those verses does not register in their minds.

As far as I can see, there are two main factors that contribute to uncivil behaviour and the expression of tyrannical beliefs:

• Dogmatism. This is the natural product of ignorance; it is the absolute self-assurance in one's mind that there cannot be another version of the truth to that which one currently holds in one's mind. This absolute self-assurance can only come about, as far as I can see, from the poverty of knowledge.
• Egocentrism. This is an ongoing battle within all of our selves; it is not restricted only to the ignorant, but can also overcome the learned. With that said, uncivil behaviour and tyrannical beliefs are only made worse, in my opinion, when egocentrism is married to a mind impoverished of knowledge.

With all that being said, I strongly believe that there are two imperatives of responsible debate, which I have previously mentioned a few times on this forum:

• Decorum. The adherence to universally accepted behavioural parameters among strangers (which is what we are) is a given. Notwithstanding this, each one of us has the freedom to insult each other, however, be advised that this will do nothing to strengthen your argument and will probably diminish your respectability in the eyes of others.
• Rationale. How can a truth be validated but for the presentation of proof in support of the proposition? And how can the reader arrive to said truth but for the exposition of the course in which one's logic does run? Again, notwithstanding this, you can express an opinion all day long, however, those whose minds operate on the basis of sound rationale will pay you no heed and, alas, your words are air.

If neither decorum nor rationale are acknowledged as imperative operators in the objective pursuit of truth, then two implications arise:

• The first is that debate cannot continue if propositions are readily imposed as objective truths with no care for reason or for evidence.
• The second is that it will be incumbent upon the protagonist, in my view, to desist for his own sake; perchance he alienates those to whom he so eagerly appeals, on account of his unrefined language and his unseemly disposition.

As regards the moderation of posts, if the posts do not contravene the forum rules, then the author reserves the right to free expression. If the posts are in contravention, then, in theory, they should be moderated.

Forum Rules: https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8177.0

Peace all,

I second everything huruf said in his/her last post.

I am strongly of the belief that the meaning of the text of the Arabic Quran can be rendered into many languages perfectly.

I use the word perfectly very intentionally for two reasons: one is epistemological and the other is linguistic. I will not expound them here because I feel it would be beyond the remit of this thread.

However, the literary aspects of the Quran would almost certainly be lost in translation without affecting the meaning, such as rhyme, rhythm, register, metre, phoneme association, etc.

As regards Asad's translation of 70:29-30, there is a grammatical possibility that أَوۡ in this verse bears the meaning of And, however, in all cases where multiple meanings for one word are possible, one's only guide is the context of the clause, or proposition, or sentence, or passage, etc.

I personally lean towards Or not And. However, to explain my reasoning for my interpretation, I would have to expound the subject of مَا مَلَكَت أَيۡمَانُكُمۡ , which is, again, beyond the remit of this thread.