About us: a forum for monotheists, and discussion of Islam based on The Quran

Main Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - progod

Man of Faith,

I highly agree with your sentiments. I feel that the Quran is clear enough for those who carefully study it with sound Classical Arabic and knowledge to show that one is to pray standing, bowing and prostrating and with words of praise, petitions and words from the Quran at dawn and at dusk. And that we are also to praise God at other times outside of the bowing. However, if we are truly devoted to God and to the truth and following it that is outrkey to salvation. It doesn't actually matter how we pray, if a person has done his best to understand the matter. Even if one doesn't understand the matter the Quran says in 17:36

لا تقف ما ليس لك به علم إن البصر والسمع والفؤاد كل أولئك كان عنه مسؤولا

"And do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart - about all those [one] will be questioned.'

The Quran also says in 96:9-16 that the one who forbids someone from praying (however that may be) is a false person and is sinning and must stop this.

ا رأيت الذي ينهى عبدا إذا صلى ....فإن لم ينتهي لنسفعن بالناصية ناسية كاذبة خاطئة

So we don't need to be prayer Nazis. What's more important is that we actually be able to come to a place where we all actually CAN pray as we choose. But that doesn't seem to be on anyone's mind or within anyone's wherewithal

Salaam to you all!


Yes, I understand the position but as I said before:

QuoteAs for Salawaat being referred to as a plural that is more than two, I have been of the belief that if you are going to be doing something 2 times every day for many days, it automatically can be referred to in a plural greater than 3 because it will be done in many more than just two times over one's lifetime. I see no contradiction with two prescribed daily times being referred to in a plural more than two if one is to do this every day for the rest of one's capable life. If you eat two times a day, you can still refer to those meals as one's many meals in the context of one's lifetime AS WELL as one's two daily meals.

However, this forum is for people who are convinced about 2 Salat only. So we respect your right to believe what you believe, but please do not post in this forum.

Salaam to you!

I disagree with this somewhat. It's studying the book that makes it clear. Even the Quran says that some should stay behind to study, and that Muhammad (pbuh) studied.



The complication is in figuring out what the Quran wants from us as a religion without traditionalist or anti-traditionalist bias and with a desire to understand the words and ideas given to us in the Quran in the most authentic, and logical, manner that is consistent with every command, suggestion and teaching throughout the book. This seems to be a daunting task and divisive. I think it is even more daunting when the community is so biased against traditionalists that they cannot even bear to open up the best sources available for the Arabic language, read, study, learn and understand with an eye on what words and meanings came about after the Quran and what words and meanings could have existed and been understood by Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his contemporaries the day before he received the Quran.


Anything to help my brother. I am really hoping and praying that Quranists can find some consolidation, unity and peace as a group.

Salaam to you!

Prayer being prescribed for two times during the day implies its practice every day. iqaamah means to make it constant (qaa'im) as well as to do it.

My reference for yawmul-3aroobah is lisanul-3arab. I re-read the source and i will correct something that I said previously. Ka'b ibn Lu'ayy one of the forefathers of Muhammad (pbuh) during pre-islamic times is attributed with having given yawmul-3aroobah the name yawmul-jum3ah. Lisanul-Arab says that Tha'lab says that Ka'b called yawmul-3aroobah (Friday), yawmul-jumu3ah in pre-islamic times.  As-Suhayli in his work "Land, Verdant and Pristine" says that Ka'b was the first to gather on this day but that it was not called Al-jumu'ah until the time of Islam. Ibn Mandhur then goes on to state on his own that Ka'b 'was the first to name it Al-Jumu'ah. He says that the Quraysh would gather unto him on this day and he preached to them and mentioned to them the coming of the prophet, peace be upon him. He would preach to them that he (the prophet) would be one of his children, and ordered that he be followed and that they have faith in him. The Arabic (in shaa allah) is below:

وزعم ثعلب أَن أَوّل من سماه به كعبُ بن لؤيّ جدُّ سيدنا رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم، وكان يقال له العَرُوبةُ، وذكر السهيلي في الرَّوْض الأُنُف أَنَّ كعب بن لؤيّ أَوّلُ من جَمَّع يوم العَرُوبةِ، ولم تسمَّ العَروبةُ الجُمعة إِلا مُذ جاء الإِسلام، وهو أَوَّل من سماها الجمعة فكانت قريش تجتمِعُ إِليه في هذا اليوم فيَخْطُبُهم ويُذَكِّرُهم بمَبْعَث النبي، صلى الله عليه وسلم، ويُعلمهم أَنه من ولده ويأْمرهم باتِّبَاعِه، صلى الله عليه وسلم، والإِيمان به،

My error is that as I thought Ka'b ibn Lu'ay was being referred to as contemporary to Islam, i thought that it was actually Wahb ibn abd almanaf ibn zuhrah ibn kilaab, ibn murrah ibn ka'ab ibn lu'ay the most recent maternal grandfather of the prophet that was being talked about, but it was actually Ka'b ibn Lu'ay so I apologize for my earlier error.

Anyways, we have two contradicting statements from the scholars here. Some believe that jum'uah for friday is pre-islamic and another scholar As-suhayli believes it is post islam. I suppose I'd have to read their reasons in detail to decide which, if any, is more sound. Despite that we learn that a Friday gathering is believed to be a pre-islamic practice among the quraysh during the time of Ka'b.

Ibn Mandhur interprets a hadeeth about mu'aadh finding the people of Makkah gathering at the rock (the black stone?) seeking its shade before noon as being a gathering for prayer and that they were forbidden from doing this. He seems to want to use this to prove that this practice was a remnant of a pre-islamic Friday gathering.

Ibn Mandhur then also states that the (Arab) clans in general (lit. Al-aqwam) say that it was called al-jumu'ah during the time of Islam because people gather at the mosque.

Ibn Mandhur then says that Tha'lab also says that it was called jum'uah because the quraysh would gather unto qusay at the town center (of Makkah, i.e. the Ka'bah most likely). Al-lihyaani says Abu Ziyaad (originally Abu Bayaad) AND Abu harraj attribute the name jum'ah to being an epithet for the day after the collective passing of the days of the week before the actual day called al-jum'ah.

وفي حديث معاذ: أَنه وجد أَهل مكة يُجَمِّعُون في الحِجْر فنهاهم عن ذلك؛ يُجمِّعون أَي يصلون صلاة الجمعة وإِنما نهاهم عنه لأَنهم كانوا يَستظِلُّون بفَيْء الحِجْر قبل أَن تزول الشمس فنهاهم لتقديمهم في الوقت.
وروي عن ابن عباس، رضي الله عنهما، أَنه قال: إِنما سمي يوم الجمعة لأَنَّ الله تعالى جَمَع فيه خَلْق آدم، صلى الله على نبينا وعليه وسلم.
وقال أَقوام: إِنما سميت الجمعة في الإِسلام وذلك لاجتماعهم في المسجد.
وقال ثعلب: إِنما سمي يوم الجمعة لأَن قريشاً كانت تجتمع إِلى قُصَيّ في دارِ النَّدْوةِ. قال اللحياني: كان أَبو زياد (* كذا بياض بالأصل.) .
وأَبو الجَرّاح يقولان مضَت الجمعة بما فيها فيُوَحِّدان ويؤنّثان، وكانا يقولان: مضى السبت بما فيه ومضى الأَحد بما فيه فيُوَحِّدان ويُذَكِّران، واختلفا فيما بعد هذا، فكان أَبو زياد يقول: مضى الاثْنانِ بما فيه، ومضى الثَّلاثاء بما فيه، وكذلك الأَربعاء والخميس، قال: وكان أَبو الجراح يقول: مضى الاثنان بما فيهما، ومضى الثلاثاء بما فيهنّ، ومضى الأَرْبعاء بما فيهن، ومضى الخميس بما فيهن، فيَجْمع ويُؤنث يُخْرج ذلك مُخْرج العدد.

My conclusions are:

1. I don't really understand Abu Ziyaad and Abu Jarrah's reasonings.
2. If the practice of a Friday gathering occurred during Ka'b's time there seems to be no evidence that it continued on.
3. Tha'lab contradicts himself somewhat by saying that it was called Jum'ah not because Ka'b named it jum'ah (as he claimed earlier) but because the Quraysh gathered unto Qusay, Ka'b's grandson.
4. Ibn Mandhur seems biased about the name and tradition being pre-islamic. He states that it was named jum'ah because Ka'b named it that, makes no note of Ka'b's slight contradiction and then assumes that the gathering of the the people of Mecca at the (black) rock before the noonday to seek shade, was a prayer when Mu'aadh's hadeeth does not mention prayer at all. Maybe he extrapolated the meaning of istadhalla as seeking refuge and not just seeking shade under the shade of the rock. In turn he takes this meaning of to seek refuge to mean praying under the shade of the rock, but that's really stretching it for me.
5. Ibn Mandhur says that the Arabs in general stated that the name al-jum'uah for Friday came after islam because of the gathering at the mosque on this day. He says that he heard this from various (Arab) clans.
6. It is also As-Suhayli's stance that the name al-jumu'ah is post-islam.

I am biased against yawmul-jumu'ah being a pre-islamic name or any sort of religious gathering on that day being any sort of pre-islamic practice. However, my bias doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that even if we take al-jumu'ah to mean friday and not its literal meaning of gathering, the Quran makes no mention of an extra prayer on this day, just that we leave off business when called to prayer on Friday (if we take it to mean Friday). Why Friday would be more special than any other day is also not made clear in the Quran, unless we take it that business was only conducted on Fridays. This is something that also does not make much sense.

For the above reasons, I think it makes more sense that the verses dealing with yawmul-jumu'ah state that we are to leave off any sort of gathering for prayer when called to prayer. To believe that in using the term yawmul-jumu'ah the Quran means a day named after a pre-islamic gathering that may have begun with Ka'b or his grandson Qusay but does not seem to have continued except perhaps among certain people in Mecca who may or may not have prayed while seeking shade under the (black) rock before noon, a practice which they were banned from engaging in, doesn't make much sense to me.

However, what is clear is that the name for Friday was yawmul-3aroobah. There is no disagreement concerning this name for Friday.

I hope I made my points clear and that my logic for my conclusions was clear. If you disagree that is fine. Please do not attack me or debate me. But if you are curious about anything I have said please feel free to ask. Thank you.

Salaam to you all!
I'm glad we've found some agreement on this guys.

Anyone want to add anything else? I wanted to start with this as a point of entry. Now that we are all pretty like minded. Any opinions on the way we face during prayer? And the concept of a rak3ah.

I'd like to point out whereas I do think we should pray towards the Ka'bah in Mecca, I don't think the quran uses the word qiblah to mean direction of prayer but rather place of prayer. It's a minor point, but I think it clarifies the verses that have to do with the way we should face during prayer, because we really don't have a reason to see qiblah as direction of prayer since not all people of the book have a direction of prayer. Seeing qiblah as place of prayer also helps clarify this idea of there having been a previous qiblah that was a test for the companions of Muhammad (pbuh), as the Quran does not specify it if we see it as direction of prayer. But it  makes perfect sense if we look at the fact that earlier in the verse there is evidence of the last prophet and his followers being banned from praying at the Ka'bah. Also the translation as facing the sky can mean that the revealers of the Quran saw how Muhammad was disturbed (taqallubul-wajh, wajh being much more than face and often used to refer to soul or self). 10:87 also provides some evidence for place of prayer being the preferred understanding of qiblah to the Arabs of Muhammad's time (pbuh(, and at least in the Quran.

The definitions of the dictionaries do not specify and the wording allows for both place and direction, but most understand direction of prayer because they let the context of 2:142-145 about facing in a direction when praying one-sidedly and very narrowly define qiblah just as direction of prayer.

A part of me is excited about the prospects of Quranist qiblahs as our particular jargon for a place of prayer in the future, just as shias have hassaniyyas and and sufis have khanqas and zawiyas. I know that sounds sectarian but if you guys don't realize that we need some consolidation as a group (and I don't mean non-stop discussion and argumentation among Quranists over the internet) that is not open to sabotage and misrepresentation by the well-meaning but ignorant as well as those who wish to stall our potential movement then we will never become a force for God and good in the world. As I'm sure you all have realized when you go to other Muslims' places of prayer you can only exist there if you keep your mouths shut. Our success relies in us becoming like the Alawites and other groups who you really wouldn't know existed except on their own terms, and who are powerful because they are so close-knit and exclusive.

The message of salvation is simple, believe in God and do your best to follow him in whatever way you know how and keep him supreme in your mind and heart over all things. But this organizing of those who believe in the Quran, to learn the Quran, carefully study the Quran, live by the Quran and judge by the Quran is a careful matter and is open to sabotage by disbelievers who claim to believe in God, who claim to follow our book, the disbelievers who claim to follow the Torah (both Christians and Jews) and the disbelievers who disbelieve in God and all of his revelations, and in any form of organized religion period.

All of these people are our enemies. So much so that the basic logic of comprehending any language and reading any composition has been violated in order to cause people to claim that God says and promotes things that he doesn't. People have been taking licenses with God's book by making the Arabic language some sort of divine language that defies the Classical Arabic definitions that can best be attributed to the Arabs who used that language, so that these people can fabricate lies and claim that they are truths, so that they can claim that they are righteous reformers when they are the opposite. God would never have preserved his book in Classical Arabic without also preserving Classical Arabic.  To think otherwise and to turn the language of the Quran into a language that can be changed and redefined according to the trends of the times (instead of understanding that God used a human language of the past, with particular established meanings within the confines of the way those people used their language, in such a unique way that it can be helpful and applicable in all times) is absurd and makes a mockery out of our religion, our Quran and our Lord.  It promotes the corruption of the Quran through misused creativity and fabrication, and the denial of truth and logic making truth and logic relative and making anyone's concoctions relevant truths. Through the promotion of debate which in truth means arguing by any means possible to frustrate and defeat the person you who disagrees with you.

I fully believe that we have been sabotaged, and only those willing to sacrifice and study Classical Arabic from the Classical sources with a mind on how pre-islamic Arabs would have understood the words (not the ideas) in the Quran will be able to find some guidance.

Salaam to all!


I will not debate the whole issue of bracketing a meaning. Nonetheless, I think that obtaining meanings through contextual "analysis" is a rudimentary tool that is not very sound when words can have multiple meanings. My personal opinion is that this technique is too rudimentary for a rich language like Classical Arabic, and also often cannot be depended on with the less rich languages.  In the end, even those who compile meanings for vocabulary, even natives of a language do a little bit of this for comprehension sake, but they either have years of experience (as natives) or they intentionally (as active lexicographers) compare, cite and contrast as many native sources of the language as possible which severely minimizes the scope of contextual "analysis", which is something that can quickly become more about creativity and imagination than actually trying to use and understand a word the way the natives of that language would use and understand it. This is especially the case when talking about a composition from God, where people loose sight that God is working within the context of a human language and he way the humans who spoke that language use and understand their language. But I am not debating you or deriding you for your position. So I apologize to you that I do not agree with your reasoning on how to "bracket" a meaning. I respect your diligence and care throughout this whole ordeal and journey, we might call Quranist scholarship.


Many times I think we often need to review Classical Arabic words and their meaning, even when they seem simple enough. I just looked up sub7/sabaa7 and masaa' the other day to double check the meanings, as well as fajr and 3ishaa. I reviewed Lisanul-Arab on the issue. Fajr is both night and day, in the sense that is the very end of the night and the very beginning of the morning. Sub7/saba7 or morning is the beginning half of the day. So fajr is the earliest part of sub7/sabaa7, and hence coincides with that meaning of ghaduw as early morning.

As for Salawaat being referred to as a plural that is more than two, I have been of the belief that if you are going to be doing something 2 times every day for many days, it automatically can be referred to in a plural greater than 3 because it will be done in many more than just two times over one's lifetime. I see no contradiction with two prescribed daily times being referred to in a plural more than two if one is to do this every day for the rest of one's capable life. If you eat two times a day, you can still refer to those meals as one's many meals in the context of one's lifetime AS WELL as one's two daily meals.

I also do not believe in a special Friday prayer given the fact that Friday was referred to as Al-3aroobah by the pre-islamic Arabs and those who lived at the same time of the prophet Muhammad. Most Arabs were pre-islamic during the prophet Muhammad's life and used a language that was pre-islamic and not full of islamic terminologies. This also applies to the Quran. So if the Quran were promoting a special Friday prayer it would have said Salaatul-3aroobah or Salaatu yawmil-3aroobah. Hence, I believe that the Quran is telling us to leave off social and other gatherings for the prayer that we have been called to do 2 times a day.


If you disagree, that's fine. I'm just doing my best to make my belief and its logic clear. Please do not debate me. Just give your beliefs and your reasons. Hopefully, you can find some worth in my posts and I can in yours.

One more thing, although I disagree with 3 prayers and some of the specifics of rukoo3 as a necessary position with one's hands on the knees, the following is a site that I agree with a lot about how to pray:

Also here is a good chart on the specifics of the "when" of two daily times of Salaat:

Salaam to you all!
The following are my beliefs on 2 prescribed times of Salaat in the Quran, as well as Salaat itself.  These are my beliefs on the subject. I have not expounded upon the islamic idea of a rak'ah, what this really means, if it should be taken as a traditional "unit" of movement during prayer and how many of those "units" i agree or disagree with, or whether I agree with the concept itself.  I have also not touched upon all the verses that are pertinent to what we can and should say during prayer, nor have I touched on recitation of the Quran during prayer. i am also not using this article to make counter points against those who believe in more prescribed times or in no prescribed time for prayer. So don't think I'm being remiss, I just wanted to deal with the basic idea of Salaat and how many prescribed times there are (btw I believe standing at night outside of dawn and dusk and praying/meditating is an encouraged form of prayer but not prescribed). Please do not attack me if you feel that I missed something or even if you totally disagree with my reasonings and the verses I use for my reasonings. I am not here to debate, but to state how I see things so far, hopefully give good support for it and for you to do the same. Ask sincere questions, please. But do not try to challenge or debate me. I believe this to be negative behavior. So here is the main debut, as I promised:

Salaam to you all,

As you all have seen on the website ( I believe that the Quran only promotes 2 mandatory Salaat a day, which are mentioned by name Salaatul-fajr (salaat of dawn) and Salaatul-eshaa (salaat of the evening).

I use Salaat here instead of prayer because I know that the Muslim mind associates Salaat with bowing, which is correct in that we have been told to bow when we pray in the Quran.

Salaat is first defined in Lisanul-Arab as bowing down in worship (ar-rukoo3 wa as-sujood). The words rukoo3 and sujood are generally synonymous, and they both mean to bow down, usually in homage (i3dhaam). Lisanul-Arab gives the term Sujood a primary meaning of bowing with one's forehead to the ground and then expounds upon how the word can mean 'homage' as well as 'humility' and 'submissiveness.' Mu'jam Al-faadh Al-Quran primarily speaks to its meaning of inclining into a low position physically and being in a low station in life or rank. It also expounds on how the term sujood was used for how being in a state of lowliness in station or rank is done in relation to God and in worshiping God. It says that in its sense of physical position and state of being it is used for people, animals and immobile objects. Lisanul-Arab also made reference to the inclining tree, and the drooping eye, as being referred to as saajid, i.e. making sujood.

Rukoo3 takes on a connotation of bowing down in worship to only God, and not to idols. Lisanul-Arab tells us that the pre-Islamic Arabs called someone who did not worship idols but who only worshipped Allah, raaki3, whose form is exactly the same as the one used for whoever bows down, rukoo3 is said to be bowing down with knees to the ground or otherwise. Mu3jam Al-faadh Al-Qur'aan also gives its meaning of humility and lowliness in worship and not in worship.

The words used in Arabic for humility in order to describe rukoo3 and sujood are tataamun, tadhallul, khudoo3 and tawaadu3. These words are not only the opposite of arrogance but they are the opposite of any sort of sense of grandeur, superiority, highness, loftiness or power.

In the end, both words mean to bow down physically and mentally and rukoo3 is inclusive of both the movement of bowing and even prostration itself.

Nonetheless, the word Salaat is not static and has other meanings like 'any plea or supplication', 'asking for forgiveness' and 'to bestow blessings (rahmah)' along with some other meanings.

For our purposes we will be dealing with Salaat as the ritual of bowing down to God, and I will show verses that confirm this meaning and the 2 prescribed times for this sort of prayer.

Taking into mind the concept given to us in 3:7 we should be referring any unclear verse to a clear verse and preferably accepting the meaning of the unclear verse that coincides with the much clearer verse. This is the meaning behind the concise verses being called Ummul-kitaab.

Umm in Arabic is a reference to both the origin (asl) of something and the support or pillar (3imad) of something. It is also a place of meeting or a place of entry or joining. It is also a reference point for all things associated with it, the point where things come together (al-mujtama3). Umm comes from amma which is synonymous with qasada, i.e. to head towards. Every city is an Umm (point of reference or central destination) for the villages that surround it. just as these concise verses are to be reference points for our understanding of anything that is not very clear in the Quran. These concise verses should be coloring our readings of verses with similar topics but different wording.

So with that in mind 24:58 with its clear reference to dawn prayer and evening prayer with absolutely no reference to a noon prayer, despite mentioning the noonday heat, should be coloring the way we view other verses that have to do with prayer.

Before i proceed we should all understand that fajr is the beginning of daylight (nahaar) but is also still at night. Lisanul-Arab tells us that fajr is the light of the morning that is the redness of the sun during the blackness of night. So technically night does not stop until there is no more darkness, that is until the sun's light fills the entire sky. So twilight is both daytime and night time at once.

Also Ishaa' is evening. And evening is the first part of night when the sun sets. Despite popular Muslim usage, the first definition Lisanul-Arab gives us for Ishaa' is " it is the first darkness of night. It is said that: it is from the prayer of sunset (maghrib) until complete darkness." So do not be confused by the mistaken belief of most Muslims that ishaa' is night after twilight, because they have come to call their night prayer ishaa', This common mistake is similar to how we commonly call night, 'evening' despite the fact that evening is not 'night' but rather when night falls at and around sunset.

25:64 says that we stand and bow for our lord at night. This refers to our standing and bowing at dawn and dusk, which in Arabic are considered both night and day, since they are the ends of daytime and the beginning (dusk) and end (dawn) of night time.

You will find that all of the verses that promote Salaat converge on these two times.

The other passages that mention prayer or praising God during specific times are very important. And the next passage that I will address is 50:39-40. However before I do this I must deal with an issue of of major importance in how we read the Quran.

Many of us are used to reading the term qabl as before in the sense of time only, as this is the only way it is used in Modern Standard Arabic and Arabic dialects and it is the most common way that it is used in Classical Arabic. However, in Qaamus Al-Muheet I recently had a long time suspicion of mine confirmed.

Qabl like 'before' in English can also be used in a spatial sense as well. As in "I stand here before you" as opposed to 'I was standing here before you got here."

God willing the Arabic will show, but here it is:

قَبْلُ (القاموس المحيط)
قَبْلُ: نَقيضُ بعدَ.
وآتِيكَ من قَبْلُ وقَبْلُ، مَبْنِيَّتَنِ على الضم،
وقَبْلاً وقَبْلٌ، مُنَوَّنَتَيْنِ،
وقَبْلَ، على الفتح.
والقُبْلُ، بضمٍّ وبضمتينِ: نَقيضُ الدُّبُرِ،
و~ من الجَبلِ: سَفْحُه،
و~ من الزَّمَن: أوَّلُهُ.
وإذا أُقْبِلُ قُبْلَكَ، بالضم: أقْصِدُ قَصْدَكَ.

The third line translates as follows:

"I am coming to you in front of you/ahead of you" (it states that you can use both 'min qablu' or just 'qablu' after 'i am coming to you). The meaning here can only be 'before' or 'qablu' in the spatial sense of 'in front of you' or 'ahead of you' or facing you, as the action is in present tense. The next two lines go on to say how you can also use 'qablan' , 'qablun' and 'qabla.' The sixth line then explains 'al-qablu', qablun and by default the forms previously mentioned and says that it is the opposite of ad-dubur which means 'behind.' so qabl means before your face or in your presence, before you eyes, etc. Line seven says that 'qablun' or 'alqablu' as it refers to a mountain is the face of the mountain. Line 8 says that as it concerns time, it is what comes first or was earlier.

Futher down we find:
وقد قَبَلَتْ، كنَصر، قَبْلاً وقُبولاً، بالضم والفتح

Here qabl is the verbal noun of qabala and is synonymous with qubool. Qabala al-yawmu or qablul-yawmi would mean 'the coming of the day.' qabla tuloo3i shamsi wa qablal-ghuroob can mean 'at the coming of the sun's rising and at the coming of its setting. Or as we saw earlier, 'upon the sun's rising and upon its setting.'

I have alluded to 50:39 here, which we will see again below.

There are some verses that tell us to praise God that directly relate to Salaat. And there are others that are commands to praise God outside of Salaat. 50:39-40 will clear all of this up.

50:39 "So be patient, [O Muhammad], over what they say and exalt with praise for your Lord UPON the rising of the sun and UPON its setting..."

I have allowed 24:58 to color my understanding of qabl in the above verse so that these times of praise coincide with the times of Salaat already established in clearly established 24:58 and confirmed throughout the Quran as the Salaat we are to make at the ends of the daylight, during the night.

50:40 then tells us: "..., at night. And exalt him after prostration."

The Quran does not delineate or separate ideas by verse. Sentences will often be spread over more than one verse. So do not let the fact that these are two separate verses allow you to think that they must be two separate ideas. Take a look at 50:24-50:26 for a cursory proof of this. And next time you read through the Quran read it with an eye out for sentences and ideas that are not limited to any particular one verse. You will quickly spot many of them.

With that said the ", at night' refers to the 'upon the rising of the sun and its setting' and clarifies that these are the two times of night that were are to be praising God and this coincides with the two prescribed prayers.

Then the verse says 'And exalt him after prostration.' This tells us that we are to praise God not just while in salaat or prayer. This has opened up our understanding of praising and now we need not think that praising God necessitates us being in the act of Salaat, i.e. bowing and prostration. So we know we are to be praising God within the confines of Salaat and outside of Salaat.

With that said, any mention of times of praise or glorification mentioned outside of the two prescribed prayer times are calls for us to praise God outside of the confines Salaat.

I hope I have answered any questions and doubts. Please feel free to ask if something is not clear to you or is bothering you about this stance.

Peace to you all!

Read more:

To clarify my perspective, I do not use the Quran to define Classical Arabic words although I know that Quranic contexts can be used as ONE source of evidence for a certain meaning. I use Classical Lexicons and occasionally modern comprehensive dictionaries as a help, and I am not against using hadeeth as linguistic evidence as long as the meanings do not contradict the logic of a pre-quranic understanding of a Classical Arabic word. I must admit that this does require knowing a little history to make such a decision; i.e. Christian and Jews being present in Arabia and surrounding lands having an affect on their words that deal with theology. In addition to pagan religions also being highly developed religious systems, in addition to some of the quran's admission to pagan gods, previous Arabian prophets and an entrenched concept of Allah even among pagan Arabs, i.e. Arabic speakers. However, the Classical Lexicons have the final say for me as they are the true attempt to give us the meanings that the Arabs actually used. I will admit however, that if you don't know what you are looking for or how to look you may wrong try to default them to the status of hadeeths, but even that would be a broad and over-reaching judgement on hadeeths as invalid and worthless writings that all belong in the same category. Quranists often forget that the Quran is a hadeeth. Merely mentioning this really ruffles feathers because it is a valid argument that Sunnis use, that Quranists have not been wise enough to study, research and make educated conclusions about.

In addition to that when dealing with Quranic contexts I try to eliminate Modern or post-quranic theological meanings and not use them unless they still can be proof of a pre-quranic understanding of Classical Arabic words. So I apologize to those of you who want me to use the Quran to define words through the use of the Quranic context. I do not find this methodology logical or intellectually honest. I've seen contextual definitions lead to abuse over and over again, on top of it being an unsound method, which has only served as evidence for me with the stance I take on it.

Salaam to all, once again!