Quran Vs Hadith :: did they reach us the same way (people and method) preservation, compilation, transmission

The common problems with 5 salat daily timings as per The Quran - Part 2
Critique and Refutation of Joseph Islam's article 'Five prayers from The Quran'

Joseph Islam's original article: [LINK]
My critique: [LINK] (9th February 2014)
Joseph Islam's response to my critique: [LINK] (30th May 2014)
Joseph Islam modifies original article as a result: [LINK] (7th June 2014)

You will likely need to read the above articles to better understand this topic. Initially I did not write a follow-up reply as I felt the errors/problems were still present and obvious. I was also cautioned by QuransMessage forum admin not to bring this up again on their forum or I may get banned. I challenged any QuransMessage forum member to debate this issue on the free-minds.org forum but no-one accepted the challenge. Recently (i.e. years later) I was asked for my reply hence this article.

Error 1)
Continues to incorrectly translate the singular "salat" as a plural in 11:114. "salat".
In his attempted explanation states: "Key and decisive Arabic terms are however considerably more pertinent to the discussion and therefore have been highlighted and often discussed further."
Note that the entire purpose of his article is to discuss how many "salat" there are, therefore "salat" is THE "key and decisive Arabic term", thus it is THE most important word to translate correctly (at least grammatically).
The reader (i.e. you) may still consider this to be a minor issue, but let us all bear in mind he has translated the singular "salat" as the plural "prayers" (and we know that in Arabic plural means 3 or more), then goes onto claim that 11:114 mentions 3 salat. That is a convenient coincidence.
In 17:78 he incorrectly translates the singular "salat" as the plural "prayers" then follows onto argue for more than one "prayer" in 17:78-79. Another convenient coincidence.

This inconsistent approach is done throughout the article.

Error 2)
Once again claims 11:114 refers to 3 salat => when it is more accurate to say it could refer to 2, 3 or more depending on how it is interpreted. Makes baseless claims such as "The mention of the third prayer in the verse is clearly separated by a conjunction 'wa' and in the context of the verse clearly refers to another prayer." and "The verse is absolutely clear that prayer is to be established at 2 ends AND another prayer which is one that approaches the night." and "...it remains a fact that this particular verse clearly recognises at least 3 prayers in a day...". Even admits the varied use of 'wa' here with regard to 11:114. In fact, he contradicts himself as sometimes he has argued "wa" clarifies or adds information to what came before [e.g. LINK] but here he confidently claims it is something separate. Perhaps he can tell us what objective means he is using to determine this "absolutely clear" "fact" status. The fact is it is entirely dependent on how one interprets the verse.
Further, the Arabic discredits his position because "zulafan" means "proximities / near parts" thus the obvious question is near to what? Thus the Arabic directly links back to what was said previously, thus it can easily be taken as a clarifying 'wa'.
And lastly, in his original article and later in his response he contradicts his position. In the original article he cites 20:130 and takes what follows the last 'wa' (i.e. "...and edges of the daytime...") as referring to Fajr and Isha even though 20:130 has already mentioned Fajr previously, according to him, thus clearly what follows 'wa' may not be a separate salat (see point 10 here). And in his response he later cites 55:68 to show how 'wa' "clarifies" and provides "additional emphasis" to what came before it and is not something separate. He can't have it both ways.

Error 3)
Once again ignores the plural "zulafan" in 11:114 and wants us to believe this plural refers to a singular additional salat. It is not possible to conclude this word can only refer to one more salat (maghrib as he claims). It will depend on how it is interpreted.

Error 4)
Once again invents his own reference point for what "zulafan" (proximities) refers to, i.e. claims "in this case, the end of the day". The ONLY reference point in the Arabic is "two edges of the day". Contradicts his own approach as he has said multiple times: "I would always prefer to take ‘EXPLICIT’ references from the Quran over 'IMPLICIT' deductions." [reference].
 
Error 5)
Once again claims his translation of 30:18 is accurate and to back up his view cites other translations and a related word in Lane's Lexicon, NOT the actual verb in question. I thought The Quran was our criterion? EVERY occurrence of this verb form 4 in Quran means "reveal/expose". Any student of Quran can verify this themselves and then consider the credibility of his translation.  To make matters worse when discussing "wusta" in 2:238 he states " If the Quran provided absolutely no examples of 'literal' meanings of 'middle' or 'midmost, then the author may have had a point. ". In other words, if there were no other examples of usage corroborating his taken meaning then I'd have a point with regards to "wusta" but apparently not so for "tuzhr". A double standard.

Note this is the only verse he cites for the prayer "Dhuhr", meaning without this he is stuck. Another convenient coincidence?

Error 6)
Once again incorrectly translates 17:78 by inserting "prayer" with "prayer and reading".

Error 7)
Contradicts himself when discussing 50:39-40. In the original article claims "After the prostrations (adbara-sajud) here can only refer to Isha prayers" but in his response article claims "The article clearly elaborated this as a specific direction for the prophet and the term 'adbara-sajud' (Author's point 4) as a support for 'Tahajjud prayers'". Inserts "prescribed" in brackets in "(prescribed) prostrations" in 50:40 possibly to lend weight to his interpretation of it referring to what he labels voluntary "tahajjud prayers".

Error 8)
Claims 50:39-40 is for the prophet only (presumably because it uses the singular address) but inconsistently applies this approach for other verses, e.g. 17:78, 20:130, 50:39, i.e. even though they are in the singular uses them as evidence for "salat" for all.

Error 9)
Incorrectly translates and describes 20:130 twice. The word "atraf" is an Arabic plural meaning 3 or more (which he never mentions in his article). It seems he has confused the Arabic of 11:114 with 20:130.

Error 10)
Never clarifies what the PLURAL "atraf" in 20:130 could refer to (possibly because this would expose his view). As I originally stated in my critique 20:130  is a frequent cause of problems for those who advocate 5 prayers daily and his article is no different.
Subjectively chooses "hours of the night" to refer to what he labels "tahajjud prayer" when it could just as easily refer to "isha".

Error 11)
Completely misses the consequences of the grammatical point I raise in point (10) in the original article with regard to the partitive "min" in "zulafan mina al layl" which renders multiple statements of his null and void. I will shortly highlight some in case it is not clear.
Note his strawman argument against this point. In my critique I never once question that a gradual movement between night/day does not occur. My point is rather simple: according to Quran twilights are part of the night/layl, thus any statement to the contrary is false. Every verse of Quran backs this up [example reference].
Also, this grammatical point (which he did not dispute) may also impact his other article about when fasting ends.

Error 12)
Claims 17:78 is applicable to all and 17:79 is for the prophet only despite both verses using the singular address. The verb "aqimu" in 17:78 is in the singular. He has used this exact same reasoning for these verses quote "singular verb  - The reference here is to one man" [also here] thus contradicts himself.
Further, verse 17:77 uses the singular pronoun. Thus, Joseph Islam wants us to believe 17:77 is for the prophet, switches to all in 17:78 then back to the prophet only in 17:79, despite no break in address. All of these verses are in the singular address! 

Error 13)
Once again incorrectly links the masculine pronoun "hi" in 17:79 to the feminine noun "salat". An IMPOSSIBILITY according to the Arabic. This egregious error is unacceptable. Also repeats this error in his separate "tahajjud article".

Error 14)
Claims I have incorrectly translated "tahajjud" as 'remain awake' with quote "absolutely no warrant to do so" when this is a common meaning given in Lane's Lexicon, of which Joseph Islam is an avid user [reference]. Project Root List also gives this meaning, which he also uses.
On the other hand he claims this refers to the "small watches in the morning" and I have never seen a reference to morning for this word. Perhaps he can clarify so we can see who translates with "absolutely no warrant to do so".
Cites different time frames for "tahajjud prayer": "small watches in the morning" / "part/hours of the night" / "long night".

Error 15)
It is clear he considers a timed-sbh verse to refer to a timed salat (presumably because he thinks the times coincide) but when it comes to "quran al fajr" in 17:78 he states this as separate from "salat" in both his original and updated article. Thus, in his inconsistent view a timed-sbh equates to a timed salat, but a timed-reading does not. Perhaps he can tell us what objective means he is using to determine this.

 
Summary with refutation:

According to Joseph Islam:
two ends/edges of the day = fajr (dawn / morning twilight), and, isha (no light night / dark)
zulafan/proximities from the night = maghrib (which comes before isha)

1) note the disparity: one end of the day is morning twilight, but the other end of the day is NOT evening twilight
2) he claims Isha is due at one end of the day BUT he classes this time as having no light (layl), thus by his own admission it is not day. Thus in his understanding an edge of the day is dark night. Do you know anyone who classes dark night as an edge of the day?
3) the plural "zulafan" is taken as a singular salat
4) we have already proven evening twilight is a part of the night which contradicts the above (i.e. he does not class Maghrib as part of the night)
5) invents his own reference point not in the Arabic (i.e. latter end of the day) for zulafan/proximities


And then we have 20:130. Using Joseph Islam's reasoning we have:
before the rising of the sun = Fajr
before its setting = Asr
from hours of the night = tahajjud
3 or more sides/ends of the day = Fajr + Isha + ? (+? etc)


Note from his updated article the reference to Fajr and Isha being the sides/ends of the day in 20:130 has been removed after it was pointed out that "atraf" is actually an Arabic plural meaning 3 or more.
In the original and updated article he states Fajr and Isha are the two sides/ends of the day mentioned in 11:114 with the dual "tarafay".
This leaves "atraf" with at least one side/end to assign for salat in 20:130. In his response he is  vague and says "atraf" refers to "other prayers".
Why does he not specify? Well, since 20:130 has already mentioned Asr (according to him) this only leaves "Dhuhr" but since this is not a side/end of the day it cannot be Dhuhr. The only option left is to claim "atraf" in 20:130 ignores Dhuhr and redundantly refers to certain salat again (e.g. Fajr and Isha) and add another salat to conform to the plural "atraf", e.g. Maghrib. The problem will be he has already classed Maghrib from 11:114 as "proximities from the night" i.e. it is part of the night NOT day. Again, note that Isha, according to him, is dark night, thus cannot realistically be considered an edge of the day, and nowhere does he state it must be done in the earliest part of the night.
Note his inconsistency, the plural "zulafan" in 11:114 refers to a singular salat whilst the plural "atraf" in 20:130 refers to more than one.


Thus the assumptions, errors, contradictions and inconsistencies in his 5 prayers from Quran article provide sufficient evidence to state it simply does not work (or at the very least requires further clarifications and corrections).



Please note that the above highlighted problems may not be the only ones. It is hoped that this article will allow readers to weigh and consider information more accurately. The reader is recommended to re-read and reflect upon the findings of this work. All feedback is welcome, especially corrections. Thanks.

Further reading:
Please also see this article which provides more evidence that the timed-salat for the mumineen is a minimum of twice daily: the meaning of SaBiH from The Quran


Tools/Resources/Books used:
www.StudyQuran.org
Project Root List - Quran concordance, grammar and dictionary
Quranic Arabic Corpus

Study Method

Other articles: mypercept.co.uk/articles/


This work would not have been possible without the many people who have contributed to this topic, and without the resources now available to anyone wishing to study The Quran in detail. For these stepping stones, I am indebted and truly thankful.

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:

This work reflects my findings and personal understanding, as of March 15th 2020. Seeking knowledge is a continual process and I will try to improve my understanding of the signs within 'the reading' (al quran) and out with it, unless The God wills otherwise. All information is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should always seek knowledge and verify for themselves when possible: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11.

And do not follow what you have no knowledge of; surely the hearing, the sight and the heart, all of these, shall be questioned about that. [17:36]