My problems with Free-Minds (very long post, please read)

[ayman]

Peace Amid,

Now let?s address your next point about the mistranslation of the great reading.

3.) Mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an
There are many mistranslations and misinterpretations of the Qur'an here at Free Minds. Example of a mistranslation:

I agree that no one translates or interprets the great reading perfectly and therefore you will find mistranslations and misinterpretations with any person. However, as I will explain, the particular example that you presented doesn?t happen to be a good example and actually demonstrates a major problem with how people have traditionally interpreted the great reading.

"We place shields around their minds, to prevent them from understanding it, and deafness in their ears. And when you preach your Lord, using the Qur'an alone, they run away in aversion." [Qur'an 17:46] (Rashid Khalifa translation)
"And if you mention your Lord in the Quran alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion." [Qur'an 17:46] (Free Minds translation)
The followers of Rashid Khalifa as well as Free Minds argue that the Sunnis translated this verse incorrectly. Here are the earlier translations:
[17:46] and when you mention your Lord alone in the Quran they turn their backs in aversion. (Shakir)
[17:46] and when thou makest mention of thy Lord alone in the Qur'an, they turn their backs in aversion. (Pickthall)
[17:46] when thou dost commemorate thy Lord and Him alone in the Qur'an, they turn on their backs, fleeing (from the Truth). (Yusuf Ali)
[17:46] waitha thakarta rabbaka fee alqurani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran (Arabic)
They argue because "wahdahu" (alone) is AFTER "alqurani", therefore it means "the Qur'an alone." They support their views by citing several instances in the Qur'an where "wahdahu" is used in a certain way:
Allaha wahdahu = Allah alone 7:7
Allahu wahdahu = Allah alone 39:45
Allahu wahdahu = Allah alone 40:12
Allahi wahdahu = Allah alone 40:84
Allahi wahdahu = Allah alone 60:4
However, the reasoning behind this is incorrect, since the Arabic language is not that simple. The word "wahdahu" (Him alone) serves as the modifier/descriptive word to the word "rabbaka" (your Lord) and it doesn't modify the word ALQURANI. Arabic grammar rules can never allow this falsification. The modifier (na't, or descriptive word) needs to be in the same grammatical case as the modified noun. In order for modifier "wahdahu" to modify ALQURANI, it has to agree with it in the grammatical case, but it doesn't. Why? Because WAHDAHU is in the accusative case and ALQURANI is in the gentive case, and is governed by the preposition "fi." The word "wahdahu" must modify the word "rabbaka" (your Lord), which are both in the accusative case, as indicated by the fathah (represented by the letter A in English) on the second syllable. Therefore, this is a mistranslation not by Yusuf Ali or Pickthall, but by Rashad Khalifa and also by Free Minds.

There are two issues with your analysis. The first issue is linguistic while the other issue is logical. The fact that you neglected the logical issue in your analysis also demonstrates a major problem with how linguistics are misused to mask logical problems in sectarian interpretations.

1. The linguistic issue:

From the linguistic point of view, what you are describing in terms of case endings is what every 6th grade elementary student is taught in Arabic classes in the Middle East. This is the limit of the knowledge that Classical Arabic (CA) learners are taught for the rest of their lives. They never question this or use it for any practical purpose. What I will tell you are obvious problems with case endings that no one is taught at school. Arabic linguists may only find out about those problems after doing advanced graduate level research despite those problems being readily obvious to anyone who reads the great reading in Arabic.

The first problem is that early manuscripts of the great reading didn?t have vocalization marks. Those vocalization marks didn?t appear until the 10th century CE. So one should take those vocalization marks with a grain of salt and not blindly accept them as divinely inspired.

Secondly, as we will see, upon closer examination of the great reading, one can in fact observe distinct differences between CA and its language when it comes to case endings. The first difference that is immediately apparent is that there are many passages in the great reading which clearly demonstrate that it was originally meant to be recited without vocalization case endings. For example, According to CA, the start of Chapter 55 should be read as follows and this is indicated in the text using CA vocalization marks:

Alrahmanu ?alam-alqurana

Despite this well known CA rule of case endings for the nominative ?u? declination for the subject and accusative ?a? declination for the object in the sentence and the clear vocalization marks on the letters, everyone disregards this rule and ignores the vocalization marks precisely noted in the text and instead recites the passage as follows:

Alrahman ?alam-alquran

Everyone who recites the great reading routinely and intuitively disregards the vocalization marks for the case endings because its passages have a certain pleasant flowing rhyme and with the CA vocalization this feature would be lost and the great reading would sound terribly awkward and pretentious.

Before the advent of the great reading, Arabic was a purely spoken vernacular that was rarely written. Indeed, passages such as 14:4 indicate that its message is in the ?tongue? of the people of the messenger. In other words, it is in the oral vernacular language that they spoke at home and on the street.

14:4. And we have not sent any messenger except in the tongue of his people, so that he may clarify for them. But the god misguides whom he wills, and he guides whom he wills, and he is the exalted, the wise.

Practically speaking, vocalization case endings have very low functional load. So they are essentially a memorized form that serves no real purpose in a spoken vernacular. Case endings that are indicated by vocalization marks but are absent from the written text are spontaneously dropped from all Arabic varieties. The absence of vocalization case endings seems to be the default, since it naturally turns up untaught, whereas the vocalization case endings are exclusively found in the taught theoretical CA variety. Since the language of the great reading was a spoken vernacular, it was more likely to rely on intrinsic grammar as opposed to memorized forms that serve no real purpose other than making the speaker appear more learned. In fact, vocalization case endings were deemed so useless that even the formal Modern Standard Arabic has done away with them. Thus, people are perfectly capable of understanding and vocalizing MSA newspapers and books despite being devoid of vocalization marks. Similarly, early Quranic and other mundane ancient manuscripts and inscriptions are completely devoid of vocalization marks and people who read this material, even for the first time, are able to easily and fully understand it without vocalization marks.

Another major difference between CA and the language of the great reading is that even the consonantal text often shows complete disregard of case endings. Some well-known examples include passage 5:69 where sabi'un should be sabi'in according to the rules of Classical Arabic. Another is moqimin should be moqimun in 4:162 and sabirin should be sabirun in 2:177. Given the casual disregard of even the visible case endings in the consonantal text, this further confirms that the invisible vocalization case endings would not have been part of the language. People came up with some fairly desperate arguments to explain this casual disregard for CA rules. For example, some researchers have attributed this to grammatical errors or scribal errors while others have tried to find convoluted and illogical explanations for what would indeed be glaring errors according to CA grammatical standards. However, those errors are so obvious in their respective sentences that they would be unacceptable even from an elementary school student who studies CA but never uses it in real life. So if a modern eleven years old child who never spoke CA can regularly get those case endings right in the classroom then it is highly unlikely that contemporaneous scribes who actually used the language and are much more intimate with the real language of the great reading at the time would commit what would be far worse than childish mistakes over and over again. Therefore, the simplest explanation and the one likely to be the most correct is that CA doesn?t represent a true picture of the language of the great reading. Also, in CA the dual verb is a compulsory conjugation for the dual subject. The Quran often disregards the CA dual rules in passages such as 49:9, 66:4, and 22:19.

Another feature of CA which the language of the great reading deviates from is the triptote and diptote dichotomy. In the great reading, we find several examples where Classical Arabic diptotes rules are not respected. If one scans for the name of the tribe of "Thamuud", for example, it can be seen that it is diptote one time and triptote another. In fact, in the same verse (Quran 11:68) it is both but it should be a diptote according to CA rules because it is a proper name of non Arabic origin. One more thing that is noticeable upon scanning all the occurrences of ?Thamuud? is that the inconsistencies all occur in the accusative where an Alif is added to the text. On the other hand, the rule is applied uniformly in the other declinations. This would point to an artificial regularization by grammarians. They applied the rule uniformly in all declinations except the accusative because they could freely add vocalization marks but they couldn't delete the letter Alif from the consonantal text of the great reading. This raises some interesting points. Firstly, this observation is a ?smoking gun? showing that CA grammarians artificially regularized the vocalization marks of the great reading to conform to their artificial CA rules. Secondly, this would also prove that the consonantal text of the great reading is very well preserved since the vocalizers couldn?t delete or add even a single letter (Alif) to make the text match their artificial grammar rules.

So all this confirms that one should take vocalization marks with a grain of salt and not blindly accept them as divinely inspired, especially when they contradict logic as we will see below.

2. The logical issue:

The logical analysis requires that we examine the great reading as a whole, while keeping in mind that it is a logically accurate book with no inconsistencies.

Verse 17:46 reads:

"...wa itha thakart rabak fil quran wahdah..."
"...when you remembered your lord in the quran alone..."

There is a simple and glaring fact:

There are many others that are remembered or mentioned in the great reading. For example, we are reminded of Dawood in 38:17, the brother of 3ad in 46:21, fighting in 47:20, the people of Nuh in 7:69, and of Ismail, Alyasaa, and Tha Elkifl in 38:48. We are also reminded of the god?s signs in 18:57 and 32:22, and many others.

Accordingly, the statement that ?our lord alone is remembered in the great reading? is logically false. If one agrees that the great reading is a logically accurate book with no inconsistencies then "Wa7DaH" in 17:46 has to refer to the great reading and not to our lord.

To further confirm this finding, let's examine all the other verses where the word "Wa7DaH" occurs (7:70, 39:45, 40:12, 40:84, and 60:4). What we will see is that except for verse 17:46, all the other verses use the noun "allah" (the god) when they talk about the god alone, as opposed to the noun "lord" ("rab"). The noun ?rab? is used to describe others in the great reading (for example, see 12:41-42). In fact, the same exact word "rabbak" is mentioned in the great reading to denote the lord of Youssef's jail mate in Chapter 12 and not our Lord. So, once again, we clearly see that the expression "our lord alone is remembered in the great reading" is logically false.

The logical analysis is conclusive and confirms that "alone" definitely refers to the great reading.

3. Empirical verification:

This is another point that I would like to add. It is empirically verifiable that remembering our lord in the great reading alone is a problem for the idolaters and we can easily see 17:46 in action. For example, many of the Sunnis who take their dead scholars and saints as partners and idolize and kiss black stones will sit and listen to you for hours reciting the great reading and they will even say and chant that the god doesn't have a partner. However, the minute you tell them to remember their lord in the great reading alone and not in the books of their partners such as Bukhari, they will start being averse and run from you exactly as described in 17:46.

Now an example of a misinterpretation:
"And when God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!" (Qur'an 39:45)
This verse is often interpreted by Free Minds to be talking about Sunnis, Shias, etc., underlining the words "God Alone." But they do not underline the most important part of the verse: "those who do not believe in the hereafter." The verse in clearly talks about those who don't believe in the afterlife (the hereafter). It is their hearts that shrink. As far as I know, Sunnis believe in the hereafter, therefore this verse cannot apply to them.

Do Sunnis believe in the real hereafter or in an imaginary hereafter where whoever can do a high wire circus act on the ?sirat? can enter heaven and where eventually the prophet will put all of them in heaven, etc... ? Their circus that they believe in is certainly not the real hereafter talked about in the great reading. Indeed they believe in an imaginary hereafter and disbelieve in the real hereafter.

Next, I will deal with the last remaining point.

Peace,

Ayman

[progressive1993]

Peace Amid,

Re: Salat

2:157 To these will be salawat from their Lord and a mercy; they are the guided ones.

Does God send his "prayers" to us?

9:103. Take from their money a charity to cleanse them and purify them with it, and bond (salli) unto them. Your bond (salat) is a tranquility for them, and the god is hearer, knowledgeable.

I recommend this and this.  Other points were already adressed by Ayman.

The timed bond (salat) (see 4:103) is to be carried out by the "mumineen" (those who trust/have assurance) at 2 times per day - dawn and dusk.

11:114 You shall uphold the bond (salat) at the two edges of the day (tarafay al nahar), that are at the near parts/proximities/adjacent parts (zulufan) of the night (min al layl). Good deeds that create balance in the society remove the ill effects of bad deeds. This is a reminder to those who take heed.

17:78 You shall uphold the bond at the setting of the sun (li duluk al shamsi), until the darkness of the night (illa ghasaq al layl); and the reading of dawn (quran al fajr), the reading at dawn (quran al fajr) has been witnessed.

These two verses are adressed to the messenger and are therefore, to my understanding so far, not applicable for us. You may want to ask Wakas who is researching about this.

The following verse adresses the "mumineen" (those who have trust/assurance):

24:58 O you who have assurance/trust, let those who are committed to you by oath and have not yet attained puberty request your permission regarding three times: Before the bond of dawn (salat al fajr), and when you take off your attire from the heat of the noon, and after the bond of dusk (salat al isha). These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

It is important to note that "salat/salawat/etc" are general terms used for general things that do not mean "prayer". The timed "salat"/bond includes reading from the reading/quran. Read the link that I have referenced earlier on.


Re: Quran alone

17:45 When you read the reading (quran), We place between you and those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter an invisible barrier.

17:46 We place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the reading alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

17:46 WajaAAalna AAala quloobihimakinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-ithathakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran.

"rabbaka" = your Lord
"fee" = in
"al quran" = the reading
"wahdahu" = alone

Therefore, and if you don't object to these translations:

"rabbaka fee al quran wahdahu" = your Lord in the reading alone
One does not even need Arabic skills to understand this (I dont speak Arabic, for example).

Please note that those who have a covering over their hearts and deafness in their ears will not acknowledge this, and cannot understand this.

6:112 We have permitted the enemies of every prophet, human and invisible devils, to inspire in each other fancy words in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications. [Hadith is satanic inspiration]

6:113 That is so the minds of those who do not have assurance with the Hereafter will listen to it, and they will accept it, and they will take of it what they will. [It is a very common thing under Hadith-followers to accept some Hadith and reject some, just like you.]

6:114 "Shall I seek other than God as a judge when He has sent down to you this book fully detailed?" Those to whom We have given the book know it is sent down from your Lord with truth; so do not be of those who have doubt.

6:115 The word of your Lord has been completed with truth and justice; there is no changing His words. He is the Hearer, the Knower.

6:116 If you obey the majority of those on earth they will lead you away from God#s path; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.

You are disobeying God if you pick and choose Hadith that "do not contradict the Quran". The reading/quran is fully detailed and we are to use it alone, without any sources beside it.


Re: Night journey and al masjid al aqsa:

17:1 Exalted is the One (God) who took His servant by night from "al masjid al haram" to the "al masjid al aqsa", which We had blessed around, so that We may show him of Our signs. Indeed, He (God) is the Hearer, the Seer.

First of all, you need to know what "al masjid al haram" is:

2:144 We have seen the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a target ("qibla") that will be pleasing to you, "You shall set yourself towards 'al masjid al haram'"; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the book know it is the truth from their Lord. God is not oblivious of what you do.

Note: we are to face "al masjid al haram" WHEREVER we are - not just during "salat".

2:145 Even if you come to those who have been given the book with every sign, they will not follow your target, nor will you follow their target, nor will some of them even follow each other's target. If you were to follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you would be one of the wicked.

"Qibla" here again refers to target/goal, not a focal point during salat. Note that it says "nor will some of them follow each other's target". Is their any evidence that the people of the book are facing various different directions for their prayers? How is it that they know that the target/goal towards "al masjid al haram" is the truth from their Lord? Do they know that phyiscally facing a building called "Al Masjid Al Haram" during their ritual prayers is the truth from their Lord?

2:146 Those to whom We have given the book know it as they know their own children, and a group of them hides the truth while they know.

2:147 The truth is from your Lord; so do not be one of those who doubt.

2:148 To each is a direction that he will take, so you shall race towards good deeds. Wherever you may be. God will bring you all together. God is capable of all things.

This verse makes it clear that we are to race towards good deeds.

2:149 From wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards "al masjid al haram"; it is the truth from your Lord; and God is not oblivious of what you do.

This verse again emphasizes that we are to set ourselves towards "al masjid al haram" WHEREVER we are - not just during "salat".

2:150 Wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards "al masjid al haram". Wherever you may be, you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no room for debate with you, except those of them who are wicked. You shall not fear them, but fear Me so that I may complete My blessings upon you and that you may be guided.

The fact is that "al masjid al haram" means "the inviolable institution of submision/obedience".
It is not a physical building - it is about obedience to God and his laws. I am sure that Ayman will elaborate on this.

"Al masjid al aqsa" = the utmost/farthest institution of submission/obedience

It is very simple: "al masjid al aqsa" is in heaven/with God. Muhammad (the one who, I think, is adressed in 17:1) was taken (spiritually, of course,) from the inviolable instuition of submission/obediece to the farthest/utmost institution of submission/obeidience, which has the most submission/obedience to God.

Peace

[Amid]

17:45 When you read the reading (quran), We place between you and those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter an invisible barrier.

17:46 We place shields over their hearts, that they should not understand it, and deafness in their ears. And if you mention your Lord in the reading alone, they run away turning their backs in aversion.

17:46 WajaAAalna AAala quloobihimakinnatan an yafqahoohu wafee athanihim waqran wa-ithathakarta rabbaka fee alqur-ani wahdahu wallaw AAala adbarihim nufooran.

"rabbaka" = your Lord
"fee" = in
"al quran" = the reading
"wahdahu" = alone

Therefore, and if you don't object to these translations:

"rabbaka fee al quran wahdahu" = your Lord in the reading alone
One does not even need Arabic skills to understand this (I dont speak Arabic, for example).

Why do I see a pattern of people completely ignoring what I say? I clearly stated this has nothing to do with the order the words are in. This is Arabic, not English. Here is what I wrote:

The word "wahdahu" (Him alone) serves as the modifier/descriptive word to the word "rabbaka" (your Lord) and it doesn't modify the word ALQURANI. Arabic grammar rules can never allow this falsification. The modifier (na't, or descriptive word) needs to be in the same grammatical case as the modified noun. In order for modifier "wahdahu" to modify ALQURANI, it has to agree with it in the grammatical case, but it doesn't. Why? Because WAHDAHU is in the accusative case and ALQURANI is in the gentive case, and is governed by the preposition "fi." The word "wahdahu" must modify the word "rabbaka" (your Lord), which are both in the accusative case, as indicated by the fathah (represented by the letter A in English) on the second syllable. Therefore, this is a mistranslation not by Yusuf Ali or Pickthall, but by Rashad Khalifa and also by Free Minds.

I will respond to your other material later.

[Amid]

9:103. Take from their money a charity to cleanse them and purify them with it, and bond (salli) unto them. Your bond (salat) is a tranquility for them, and the god is hearer, knowledgeable.

I recommend this and this.  Other points were already adressed by Ayman.

The timed bond (salat) (see 4:103) is to be carried out by the "mumineen" (those who trust/have assurance) at 2 times per day - dawn and dusk.

11:114 You shall uphold the bond (salat) at the two edges of the day (tarafay al nahar), that are at the near parts/proximities/adjacent parts (zulufan) of the night (min al layl). Good deeds that create balance in the society remove the ill effects of bad deeds. This is a reminder to those who take heed.

17:78 You shall uphold the bond at the setting of the sun (li duluk al shamsi), until the darkness of the night (illa ghasaq al layl); and the reading of dawn (quran al fajr), the reading at dawn (quran al fajr) has been witnessed.

These two verses are adressed to the messenger and are therefore, to my understanding so far, not applicable for us. You may want to ask Wakas who is researching about this.

The following verse adresses the "mumineen" (those who have trust/assurance):

24:58 O you who have assurance/trust, let those who are committed to you by oath and have not yet attained puberty request your permission regarding three times: Before the bond of dawn (salat al fajr), and when you take off your attire from the heat of the noon, and after the bond of dusk (salat al isha). These are three private times for you. Other than these times, it is not wrong for you or them to intermingle with one another. God thus clarifies the revelations for you. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

It is important to note that "salat/salawat/etc" are general terms used for general things that do not mean "prayer". The timed "salat"/bond includes reading from the reading/quran. Read the link that I have referenced earlier on.

You simply don't want to accept it for what it actually is. Of course Salat is a bond between you and your Lord. General terms? LOL... They do not mean prayer because prayer is supplication, dua, when you ASK FOR SOMETHING TO BE GIVEN TO YOU. Salaat is something different. It is a bond between you and God, a connection. You don't ask for things in Salaat, instead you praise God and worship him on a regular basis at specific times. That's the reason it's not called prayer. If you don't want to worship him ritually that is your choice, but you show no reason how the Qur'an shows the prescribed Salaat as being anything other than a ritual. Let me mention something very important now...

As you all know there are many hadith collections:

Sahih Bukhari
Sahih Muslim
Imam Malik (Al-Muwatta)
Sunan Abu Dawud
Sunan al-Sughra
Sunan al-Tirmidhi
Sunan Ibn Majah
Sunan al-Darimi
Ibn Ishaq
Al-Tabari
etc.

Sahih Bukhari contains 7275 hadeeth.
Sahih Muslim contains 9200 hadeeth.
Al-Sughra contains 5270 hadeeth.
Abu Dawud contains 4800 hadeeth.
Al-Muwatta contains 1720 hadeeth.
Ibn Majah contains over 4000 hadeeth.

Not counting al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Ishaq, Al-Dirimi, and Al-Tabari, we have over 32265 hadiths total contained in six different collections. Again, that is excluding Tirmidhi, Ishaq, Dirimi, and Tabari. Now, how should I put this to you...

Are you honestly telling me that you believe every single hadith that mentions Salaat as a worship/ritual prayer is corrupt? I mean, do you really believe that? If yes, what is your reasoning behind that? I'd love to hear it! How did these corrupters (whoever they are) manage to remove the real Salaat from every single narration related to it, and for what purpose did they change it to be a worship/ritual prayer instead of whatever it may be?

In over 32265 narrations, not ONE SINGLE HADITH shows Salaat as being something else than worship/ritual prayer. Not a single one. This means nothing to you? In over 32265 narrations, every hadith that brings up Salaat as a ritual prayer is false, corrupt, and an innovation which has nothing to do with the real Salaat??  

Even in the Bible there is truth in it, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. So many different authors, different sources, different gospels, yet you can find some truth in it, something which is compatible with the Qur'an and it's teachings. Now...

If what you're saying is true, that Salaat is not a worship/ritual prayer, then surely in over 32265 narrations you would be able to find ONE SINGLE NARRATION that even remotely IMPLIES that the Salaat is something other than worship/ritual prayer.

But you cannot. You can't produce even one narration. Yet you're telling me that in over 32265 narrations, every single Hadith which describes that Salaat as a worship/ritual prayer is false and can't be trusted.

With all due respect, that to me, is crazy. I see no logic behind that whatsoever. It is irrational, period. It is no different to me than the Sunnis who say every single Sahih Hadith is accurate. Think about it very carefully. It makes no sense.

It is very simple: "al masjid al aqsa" is in heaven/with God. Muhammad (the one who, I think, is adressed in 17:1) was taken (spiritually, of course,) from the inviolable instuition of submission/obediece to the farthest/utmost institution of submission/obeidience, which has the most submission/obedience to God.

What are the prohibited months based solely on the Qur'an alone?

[Cushan]

The only thing I'd like to add by way of a response is this. The Islamic world hasn't really lent itself to moderation, or made itself a safe place for renewed consideration of Islamic precepts. Just because you might disagree with something you might read on a liberal forum (even if the statement in question is ridiculous) it shouldn't poison the whole concept of free discussion. If you think the argument that Salaat means prayer is so strong (as I do), then contribute to the debate. If you think the debate is beneath discussion, then abstain. Things like simply taking for granted that if someone doesn't write SAW or PBUH after the name of prophet means they are being deliberately disrespectful is the kind of rigid dogmatic assumption people come here to escape. Instead, offer an explanation as to why you feel it's necessary.

Thanks for the level-headed criticism, by the way.

[san]

Peace.

Putting each topic on its own thread is better still.

"Undoubtedly Allah and His Angels send blessings on the Prophet. O' you who believe! Send upon Him Blessings and salute Him with all respect." (The Qur'an 33:56)

Are you blind?   I even went into a detailed analysis of a Qur'anic verse which was mis-translated, and that is only one example among many. Here it is for you again, and the explanation:

...

I wonder how you could have missed that much text?  

That's not what i asked regarding this matter (and by this i meant your point #2, where you said "fact check") which you have not included on your first post.

Do you feel attacked by my comment? I'm not blind and i did not miss the text you unnecessarily repeat. And I originally intend to discuss things with you. Thank you for your attitude.

I never said it is free from error. However "doing salaat" is different than "doing good deeds and calling it salaat." The only Salaat which is has real errors is Salaat which contradicts the Qur'an. That's why my next thread will explain how I do it and the reasoning behind it.

Agreed. That needs clarifying.

Nonsense. The majority of posters on Free Minds do not believe Salaat is a ritual prayer. Some do, but most do not. Therefore I am right when I say "the views of Free Minds." Just read some of the posts in the Salaat section of the forum.

Mate, you've registered on Free-Minds and you posted all these. I'm not going to even ask you the hard-fact (i.e., statistical evidence), but please consider this: the views of Free Minds are plural. Majority does not equal all. Your thread here is one example. If you just said "some views of Free Minds" that would have clarified the matter, don't you understand my point--a literal point?

And i'm still doing physical Salaat myself btw and i have my own reason to do it, just as you have your own reason. You'll see that everyone else here would be fine with us doing physical Salaat. It's best to take the best of words.


Good luck with your call.

Peace.

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace to all,

This is a very good thread, at least it has the potential to be... 

I agree, to a degree, with Amid. The hadiyths can be considered MOSTLY fabricated, exaggerated, illogical, unreasonable, contradictory, etc. However, one thing ALL the hadiyths agree on is the concept of Salaat being a form of ritual worship of Allah, which includes reading from the Qur'aan. Nobody can find ONE SINGLE HADIYTH that describes Salaat as anything other than that. We have to consider the fact that the MAJORITY of the hadiyths can be viewed as false. But ALL of them?! That's just unreasonable. The hadiyths do provide information regarding historical accounts and practical application of the scripture; even though I disregard them, they can't really ALL be fabricated. There must be a portion of them that can be considered accurate, even if that's only 1% of them. It's unreasonable to conclude that ALL of them are false and satanic...

Peace,

Ahmad

[SarahY]

It is highly improbable, because of the fact that no single narration/hadith in history describes Salaat as anything OTHER than worship/ritual prayer. If 95% showed Salaat to be a ritual prayer and 5% showed something else, I would say there's a chance it's an innovation although even then the probability would be very low. However we have 100% of every single source of hadeeth showing Salaat as a ritual prayer and nothing else. If it is an innovation, surely among hundreds and even thousands of narrations you should be able to find one single hadith that even slightly implies Salaat is something other than prayer.

So you?re logic is if a hadith about a concept doesn?t contradict another hadith about the same concept it must be true?

In that case show us your evidence of how salat must be performed as per all 100% hadith agreeing with each other stating how salat should be.

[herbman]

@Amid

Salam, Peace,


So for you Allah swt has forgoten to tell us how to do the ritual salat in The Reading and "historians" (hadhitist) filled the gap to help upcoming generation?

By the way please answer this easy question: what is the date of the oldest hadith book?

best regards

[herbman]

a possible answer....
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LaV-IGZ8VKIC&pg=PA476&lpg=PA476&dq=oldest+dated+hadith+book&source=bl&ots=OlDdqg11av&sig=MQpIQW1CaU_C3_3_2QajOfeBhSs&hl=en&ei=8twDS7L1OMegjAfQ5Z2oAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=oldest%20dated%20hadith%20book&f=false

Peace