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 TheQuran - 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 canverify
this themselvesand 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"[alsohere]
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 Listalso 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 theassumptions,
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.
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]