New article: salat timings as per The Quran

[Wakas]

I'm not sure why but it seems you avoid addressing any of the points I raise in the article. Let's start with the very first one:

In 2:238 The Quran makes no reference to the "salawaat" being "in a day"

This point alone is enough to critically damage your initial claim of:
"The problem comes from the verse [2:238] where the arabic word "l-ṣalawāti" (minimum 3) appears.
So, what is at minimum the third prayer ?"

[Iyyaka]

I'm not sure why but it seems you avoid addressing any of the points I raise in the article. Let's start with the very first one:


This point alone is enough to critically damage your initial claim of:
"The problem comes from the verse [2:238] where the arabic word "l-ṣalawāti" (minimum 3) appears.
So, what is at minimum the third prayer ?"

I'm not sure why but it seems you avoid addressing any of the remarks i made to you (Did you even click on the link i gave you ? i am not sure..).

You seems so convinced that you have analyzed all the options and come to the only valid conclusion that finally there is no place for a real debate.

Why the Quran needed to add the expression "in a day" ? I don't understand this argument and how it can "damage my initial claim".
The Quran tells you to observe carefully (imperative form) the prayers you have to perform ? how many different and obligatory ones are there ? 2 according to you but the word refers to 3 minimum. So, the question is quite simple: where is (at least) the third prayer in your reflection?

In addition, in the word "l-ṣalawāti" you find the lam of determination.
+
Verb (form III) - to guard
(2:238:1) ḥāfiẓū   Guard strictly   حَافِظُوا عَلَى الصَّلَوَاتِ وَالصَّلَاةِ الْوُسْطَىٰ
(6:92:22) yuḥāfiẓūna   (are) guarding   وَهُمْ عَلَىٰ صَلَاتِهِمْ يُحَافِظُونَ
(23:9:5) yuḥāfiẓūna   they guard   وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ عَلَىٰ صَلَوَاتِهِمْ يُحَافِظُونَ
(70:34:5) yuḥāfiẓūna   keep a guard وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ عَلَىٰ صَلَاتِهِمْ يُحَافِظُونَ
=> Note the difference in sentence structure and grammatical form between verse [2:238] and the other 3. In these three verses it is about evoking all the prayers of all believers, whereas in verse 238 it is about believers observing THE prescribed prayers.

[good logic]

Here is the problem that  I can see with this verse:

حٰفِظوا عَلَى الصَّلَوٰتِ وَالصَّلوٰةِ الوُسطىٰ وَقوموا لِلَّهِ قٰنِتينَ

You shall consistently  guard/look after/observe... THE SALAWAT,  and/ also/especially  THE SALAT ALWASTA and devote yourselves totally to God.

What are "THE SALAWAT"?  Why mention another" THE SALAT ALWUATA" with them?  What is the meaning of "KUMU  kANITEEN"?

The "AL" in Arabic denotes something known/specific. The prophet and believers knew exactly what to Guard/ look after...consistently,Or didn t they?

Should "in a day" be a question? Why?

One would easily argue there is no "in a day" or" in a week" or" in a year" or "in your lifetime" in the verse. So what can be the most logical? The most likely? Or has the verse got nothing to do with prayers?

The next verse will shed light on this:
فَإِن خِفتُم فَرِجالًا أَو رُكبانًا فَإِذا أَمِنتُم فَاذكُرُوا اللَّهَ كَما عَلَّمَكُم ما لَم تَكونوا تَعلَمونَ
If you fear/Under unusual circumstances, you may ( Guard/Hafidhu them - The Salawat and The Salat Al Wusta )walking or riding. Once you are safe/back to normal circumstances-, you shall commemorate God as He taught you what you never knew.
Why "Udhkuru" commemorate-?

For me both verses are most likely talking about the "connection/prayers£ subscribed .
The terms "KUMU KANETEEN" AND "UDHKURU ALLAH" used are both are also used for the Salat that Qoran prescribed to Moses before " Wa Aquimi The Salat Li Dhikri"

In my opinion Qoran is talking about guarding consistently the "daily prayers" even when busy with work and travel "daily" i.e under unusual circumstances.

NOTE:  With 2 prayers per day one can never have 1 Salat wusta as the numbers are always even  whether per day, per week or per year.?
GOD bless .
Peace.

[Iyyaka]

The next verse will shed light on this:
فَإِن خِفتُم فَرِجالًا أَو رُكبانًا فَإِذا أَمِنتُم فَاذكُرُوا اللَّهَ كَما عَلَّمَكُم ما لَم تَكونوا تَعلَمونَ
If you fear/Under unusual circumstances, you may ( Guard/Hafidhu them - The Salawat and The Salat Al Wusta )walking or riding. Once you are safe/back to normal circumstances-, you shall commemorate God as He taught you what you never knew.
Why "Udhkuru" commemorate-?
For me both verses are most likely talking about the "connection/prayers£ subscribed .
The terms "KUMU KANETEEN" AND "UDHKURU ALLAH" used are both are also used for the Salat that Qoran prescribed to Moses before " Wa Aquimi The Salat Li Dhikri"
In my opinion Qoran is talking about guarding consistently the "daily prayers" even when busy with work and travel "daily" i.e under unusual circumstances.

Peace Good logic,

Thanks for your contribution - yes the context in [2:239] is obvious and this verse is naturally linked to the previous verse.

I add an intra-textual proof on the subject of verse 239: the expression "ʿallamakum mā takūnū taʿlamūna" is found almost identically in another verse, verse [2:151] which unambiguously deals with the common prayer performed by the prophet (pbsl).

[Fadiva]

Salam,

True. While debating one should point all the passages he doesn't agree and give proof or at least show why his understanding is different.

Just a few points and questions:

I noticed :
Salati al fajri, salati al 3ichai and wal (wa +al) salati al wusta which seems different from the others in its formulation. Fajri, 3achai but wusta. Seems like fajri and 3chai translate a period of time but not wusta (adjective).   

2.238 : where is the word "especially"? Have you read all the verses with the word wa and derive from it " And especially " ?
Why should one be more likely forget or do not a salat during the day than salat al fajri for instance?
You've mentioned because of business. But in some countries, where it's hot, one can notice that a lot of people don't open their shops or don't work until 3 or 4 p.m.

On this verse we can read salawati which seems to be a plural meaning a minimum of three and we can read
wal salati al wusta  so if we don't add a word one can understand here a minimum of 4 salats unless he proves that it it is "especially". One other can understand all the salats and the how salat should be (wusta as adjective).

And we can read: 24.58

Here one translation :
Arberry: O believers, let those your right hands own and those of you who have not reached puberty ask leave of you three times -- before the prayer of dawn, and when you put off your garments at the noon, and after the evening prayer -- three times of nakedness for you. There is no fault in you or them, apart from these, that you go about one to the other. So God makes clear to you the signs; and God is All-knowing, All-wise.

By just reading not deducing, salat of dawn, evening salat but "when you put off your garments at the noon".

Good logic said:
"Should "in a day" be a question? Why?

One would easily argue there is no "in a day" or" in a week" or" in a year" or "in your lifetime" in the verse. So what can be the most logical? The most likely? Or has the verse got nothing to do with prayers?"

Why should be "in a day" In verse 2.238 the most likely? Can you explain it?

Why should one deduce from " When you put off your garments at noon", that it is a salat while it is mentioned for dawn and dusk?

I am just pointing some things.
I am trying to be as honest as possible and not saying you're right or I'm right.
But read, reread, notice, not deduce to fast we have to read all the verses.
Question yourself. We are humans, we can mistakes.

So maybe it's better the restart and take point by point the claimimgs and give proofs he you have.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace all

So I followed the discussion between good logic and Wakas till around page 6 of this thread and wanted to say the following:

First of all, Wakas, to me, you seemed hostile towards Good logic. You asked for feedback with such passion that you offered money, then, when feedback was given, your manner of debating was not good in my opinion.

I read Good logic's posts and yours and I think he was more justified than you (not just in the manner of debating (I reckon I would have retaliated to some of your sarcasm), but also in what was being said with regards to duluk al-shams). I did not see him necessarily pushing for something firm regarding salat overall in what I would describe as an oppressive manner, whereas I think this was true of you. He highlighted one thing that was pretty clear:

Duluk al shams is when the sun begins to decline (if you are going to take duluk to mean decline that is). This is clear. There is no need to try and force additionals after you take duluk to mean decline. By this I mean there is no need to argue that this is specifically in reference to sunset. To my interpretation of you, you were only doing this to try and make it fit with your idea of what Salat is (not just the timing of salat, but salat itself). Whereas good logic was just highlighting something that is clear (duluk al shams cannot be taken to mean sunset without bias being involved).

[Wakas]

peace n11,

Thanks for your take but I cannot take your main point seriously, quote:
"Duluk al shams is when the sun begins to decline (if you are going to take duluk to mean decline that is). This is clear."

Anyone who looks at the classical Arabic meanings can easily see this is obviously not the case. At most one can say it can theoretically mean what you said.

http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

= Dal-Lam-Kaf = rubbing, squeezing, pressing, decline, sinking, become red, set, incline downwards from the meridian (sun). The phrase "duluk-as-shams" defined as "sunset" / setting of the sun / the sun became high, by Lane.


Quote: "Whereas good logic was just highlighting something that is clear (duluk al shams cannot be taken to mean sunset without bias being involved)."

Just like bias is involved in any other chosen meaning (since it's only used once). I'm the one who pointed this out so you're in agreement with me. I came up with a simple way to minimise bias, i.e. slot in whatever understanding/options there are and see what happens with each one. Unfortunately simplicity is not often appreciated.

[nimnimak_11]

Peace Wakas

It's good to hear from you and engage you in conversation again.

Anyone who looks at the classical Arabic meanings can easily see this is obviously not the case. At most one can say it can theoretically mean what you said.

You are right. What I was trying to convey was that if we take duluk to mean "decline", then we should take it to refer to when the sun begins to decline (which begins at noon). If we take it to mean sunset, then we have ignored all the previous points of the decline of the sun (which feels incomplete or inconsistent to me).

Just like bias is involved in any other chosen meaning (since it's only used once).

Ok, but good logic's bias was of one layer, whereas I felt yours was two-fold. By this I mean a meaning had to be chosen and discussed regarding the word "duluk". Both you and good logic seemed to agree to focus on "decline". Good logic did not project anything extra. I think it was an excessive stretch to assert that the decline of the sun mentioned in 17:78 is only in reference to sunset. This is where you asked for each other for proof of who was right, whereas I think the burden of proof was exclusively on you (because good logic was being consistent with the meaning "decline" without over-stretching. You were over-stretching and thus needed to prove that this over-stretching was justified). Again, you had both agreed on the "decline" aspect of duluk.

I'm the one who pointed this out so you're in agreement with me. I came up with a simple way to minimise bias, i.e. slot in whatever understanding/options there are and see what happens with each one. Unfortunately simplicity is not often appreciated.

I agree that we should slot in whatever understanding/option there are and then choose whichever's most sincere to God/Good/Truth.

Simplicity is good, and I think we have to recognise that one possible reason the Quran is not clear to us at times, is because our sincerity to God is not clear/pure/unbiased/consistent for us to be worthy of such clarity. To me, we're all in a race to see who is least evil/unfair in relation to God/Truth/Goodness.

In our attempts to obtain truth/understanding from God, if we overstep, we may deprive ourselves of the correct understanding, and then end up upholding an incorrect understanding (incorrect in that we feel/think it insincere to God but uphold it anyway) which could either deprive of us of greater goods, or worse, bring us hardship. The right effect (genuine awe of existing in Existence/God) has to fall into place. It requires that we truly depend on the Godliness/Perfection/Goodness of God. We must appreciate Mercy and treat the Merciful as Merciful. Some seek to take advantage of this (Satan) and seem to try to force God's Hand (the jews in relation to Christ). Some can conceive of mercy greater than the one they attribute to God, yet they treat God as not possessing that kind of mercy. I really think that we are in a race to see who is least evil in relation to the wholly innocent of evil, and wholly good/generous/merciful.

I hope I have not written in excess Wakas. But I like sharing things about God that I think are good to share.

[Wakas]

peace n11,

No you never wrote in excess, it's all good.

The primary signification of DLK is rub/squeeze/press. I doubt you will find much disagreement on this but it doesn't matter if there is disagreement or not, what matters is out of the available options what is the result of each. Put all the options on the table and let's see which stands up to scrutiny.

I put my take out there for all to inspect and bring a clear error/flaw/contradiction/etc and as you can see in this thread nothing of significance was brought. I think the most that could be said was "X could theoretically mean something else" (this is a non-point), "I misinterpreted your article" (ok, so I added a few words to clarify it), "you haven't proven X means that" (nice but irrelevant to the complete picture working or not), "there is another phrase in Quran which could mean that (unproven implication being that this means nothing else can mean the same in Quran)" etc. These are not what I (and hope you) call clear error/flaw/contradiction. They are what I commonly term "fluff".

[jkhan]

Peace...
I am extremely sorry, you don't respond as it deserve...
If you think ORDER OF REVELATION  is not verifiable then at least you could have pointed out flaw in it... It's OK.. I won't compel you to take it... If you take... That's the end of your two salat conviction....

My inner instinct says keep away from this topic, but something is propelling me go tell the people those who would reflect... So dear Waqas.. These replies not gonna make any sense... But let people decide what is right...

So.. Whatever God guided me with,  I submit to people..

My point is to those who reflect ...

If Waqas say 17:78 is Salat Al Isha and if the timing for it.. That is to say..from sun set darkness of night... Ponder... Then what is the meaning of 11:114 ... For what reason...
11:114 is referring Two Ends of Nahar...  So one of the Salat is Isha... The other one is Fajr...

Anyone tell me with common sense...
*** If God explained Isha Salat with extra verse 17:78 by explaining its timing,  why skipped the timing of Fajr by extra verse?
What is the time of Fajr??

So we have to trace the time of Fajr by 11:114 ONLY?  WHY..
IF  we can trace the time of Fajr by merely the verse of 11:114 then why can't we trace the timing of Isha which is the one of the TWO Ends..

What logic in it folks..?

So God thought that people will not be able trace the timing of 11:114 of the timing of Isha so HE should explain with additional verse.. What a nonsensical way that is?

So how's the way of finding timing of Fajr self? 

Impossible my dear fellow brothers and sisters.. That's not the way of God...

Can anyone tell what is the timing of Fajr without the verse of 11:114?  No Right.. Coz 11:114 is very manifest... So if one salat is manifest why other end is unclear? Further 17:78 and 11:114 doesn't even look identical.. You know why?  11:114 is "zulafan minal  layl" while  17:78 is "Ila ghashakal aL lail"

Are these identical my dear fellow believers ? May be for Waqas... Not for me... God doesn't need to confuse people.. And He explained so simply without ambiguity.. But you took it and conventional people took it upside down..

But for waqas "ila ghashak AL Lail" and "zulafan minal AL lail" are identical..

To say Yes.. You have to be out of your mind...

Hope it benefits for those who reflect..

So isn't 11:114 enough for both the salat, if the same verse merely is enough for Fajr Salat?

Peace all my believing brothers and sisters..

Since N11 has dug this topic again,  let me pose the same Question answered by anyone who take salat as two..

11:114 gives two timing of salat Fajr and isha.. (thoss who claim only two salat God prescribed, do agree with this verse)
If 11:114 explains completly the timing of Fajr and if 11:114 is enough to understand the timing of Fajr Salat, then big Question is why 11:114 is NOT enough to understand timing of Salat Isha?
Why salat isha needs to be explained by another verse 17:78 so people take dulak to meridian OR sunset..what a dilemma ?
Does God think people would understand One End Of Nahar(day) easily and the other End is tough so He might remind them with another additional verse 17:78?

Can anyone take my challenging question and reply with logic if you pray two times only so that I also be satisfied why you pray two times..