Razi Bhai, I am not sure, to what degree you were following the discussion between myself and Br. Jawaid over last few weeks or months. I want to state clearly: I want to stay as close to verses grammatically and linguistically as possible. I want to take both tasreef and context in view to arrive at the conslusions I do or I did. I am not critiquing any present or past understanding of the verses under discussion.
You wrote: “Br. Dawood you are completely missing 53:3. …This Ayat is clearly referring to revealed words only, since those words can only be the words on which Prophet had no control – which must have been spoken without involvement of his own desire, wishes, emotions etc. All other words or talk, like his explanation about whole incident, upon which you have developed your argument, falls into “words spoken under his own desire”.
Brother, God’s words in Quran are given another description as well, i.e. Qawl. Qawl could be the saying of a person himself or a dictation word-for-word of another person/entity. Whereas Nataq is a diction, the choice and use of words and phrases and style by a person himself to describe something. Thus, Nataq cannot refer to Quranic verses. See some good lexicon, like Lughat and Lane.
Relevant to our discussion, the word “Hawa” used in 53:3 indicates: human sentiments and desires; hearing confused, humming, and singing sounds; opinions declining, or swerving, from the right way, or from the truth. Ref. Lughat and Lane.
When you and me describe an encounter, an experience, we may either recount those details faithfully without our opinions mingled and included in recounting the events or may include some or all of our opinions to describe it. We can mingle up things since we are not in the same league as prophet. But God’s messenger did not. 53:3 is simply negating the fact that prophet did not include his sentiments, desires, opinions away from truth in this speech/Nataq of his. This fact is further strengthened by verses 53:11-12:
[53:11-12]: The heart/mind did not give an untrue account (mā kadhaba l-fuādu) of what he saw/perceived. Then/so, will you dispute/argue/doubt with him what he saw/perceived?
In the above, the Arabic phrase “mā kadhaba l-fuādu” indicates clearly that prophet’s mind/heart: did not lie, did not give an untrue account or relation of a thing, did not falsify something, did not utter a falsehood, did not say what was not true, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I have only used one of these definitions, you can use any. Thus, the notion of “his desires in his Nataq-speech” is comprehensively rejected as being the source of what he saw and perceived through his faculties.
Further, in the above, prophet saw and perceived something happening. What did he see? It is obvious, he saw something described in the previous verses:
[53:6-10]: “… And he rose, while he was in the horizon - the highest, then he approached and came down, and was at a distance of two bows or nearer, thus/so, he revealed to His servant what he revealed”. [53:11-12]: The heart/mind did not give an untrue account (mā kadhaba l-fuādu) of what he saw/perceived. Then/so, will you dispute/argue/doubt with him what he saw/perceived?
Thus, prophet saw/perceived the angel Jibreel (because Jibreel is the only entity mentioned in Quran to convey Wahi to prophet), and prophet received what Jibreel revealed to him. Verses 53:5-6 are detailing that prophet was taught by this entity having strength/sturdy/hardy/power/might, and possessor of sound intellect. Thus, Jibreel is described as someone who had/has physical strength/power as well as sound intellect. The words used in 53:5-6 cannot be attributed to God.
How did people know “what he saw and perceived?” Obviously, he told them in his words/speech, nataq, about what he saw and mentally perceived. When he described this to his family and people at large, some people started disputing/arguing with him, labeling him with all kinds of labels in 53:2, etc. Thus, verses 53:2-4 are addressing these concerns.
You wrote: “Due to these paragraphs I mentioned above that you have developed your argument, based upon your assumption or speculation on the whole phenomena of “Wahi” and its impact on Exalted Prophet, instead of, on clear text of Quran.”
No, it was not because of these paragraphs, rather look at the verses above as I explained and you will see, you CANNOT come up with another explanation, if you stay close to the grammar/lexicon and the context in which these are appearing.
You wrote: “For the sake of argument, I accept your argument. But then question is why people will object on the explanation of his encounter and start labeling him, for at that time they must have heard of numerous strange and supernatural stories since their society was full of soothsayers, storytellers and fortunetellers. Therefore, it was not his explanation of his encounter, rather the “Word” itself that would have provoked those people, for those words were full of profound wisdom and truth, which were neither convenient nor in conformance to their belief system and practices.”
People today, you and me including, have heard not only vast number of strange stories but also the phenomenon of Wahi, yet what will be our reaction if someone were to describe something close to the stuff mentioned in these verses? Is just mentioning that “an angel named Jibreel visited me” not enough to be ridiculed and labeled?
Further, indeed the message had profound implications. To begin with, the concept of One God, appointing Muhammad as His prophet to all of them, telling them that he has met angel Jibreel, received wahi, would receive more revelations from God, etc. etc., was undoubtedly something they were not prepared to listen. They sensed the upcoming doom and gloom. Thus, they started to create doubt about his mental condition, his motives, etc. Quran through these verses has comprehensively dealt with their all labels of “dalala”, “Ghawa” and Mari’a = dispute and doubt to put someone down, etc.
You wrote: “I will not venture into phenomena of “Wahi”. Your example of 66:3 to support your stand that God did reveal other matters besides Quran is based on literal understanding of “nabba-aniya” as “He has informed me….”. Such literal understanding of those Ayats which are not explicit commands, leads to confusion and ambiguity.”
The word “nabba’” is used four times in 66:3. First occurrence is when one of prophet’s wives “informed” the other. The second occurrence when prophet “informed” her. Third occurrence is when she responded back and asked prophet who “informed you.” To this prophet responds with the fourth occurrence of this word saying, "I was informed by the Knowing, the Acquainted." You take three occurrences literally, and then tell me to take the fourth one in some undefined allegorical fashion? Can any sane person take your suggestion seriously?
You wrote: “If ritual prayer is as essential to Deen of Allah as you claim, than any question on detail of Prayer could not be called as “unnecessary”. Asking about color of cow is unimportant and unnecessary question when command to sacrifice a cow was given, but how to pray, when to pray, what to pray cannot be bracketed under “unnecessary” question if the command is Pray 5 times day. So your reference to 5:101-102 in regard to prayer is irrelevant.”
That is exactly the point. Salat has been emphasized over and over in Quran. If it was not clear as to what it is, how to perform it, etc., we would have seen a couple or at least one question related to this aspect. You don’t find even a single question being asked and captured in Quran related to Salat. It is abundantly clear that people knew it exactly what it is, when to pray, what to say, etc., thus, they never had any need to ask questions which prophet was not in a position to answer. No guess work is needed.
You wrote: “This argument is based on convenience not on undisputed historical fact. Dr. Shabbir has written about how the institution of 5 Prayers/day was established. There is a “Druz” sect who don’t believe in “5 Prayers/day”. Also, 99% of Muslims think that institution of Friday Prayer is continuing from the day of Exalted Prophet himself and the Surah Jummah is quoted to support this belief. But fact is, many main stream good history book on Banu Uammyah would confirm that Friday Prayer as institution was established during their period. Further, today people find hard to believe that just 90 years before there used to be 4 separate jamats for each prayer in Haram Sharif. Thanks to King Abdul Aziz who abolished this practice made it only 1 Jammat for each prayer.”
In the above, who decides which are “undisputed historical facts?” What are those undisputed historical facts? Can you refer me to any such document? How do you decide what these history books contain is more authentic than what is inside the Quran? Are my analyses based on Quran or history?
All sects have deviated from Quran in some way, so it is not surprising if some elements of deviations are found in their practices. Druze sect is not even considered a sect of Muslims, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze. How does their practice become an argument for what is in Quran for Muslims?
When verses of surah Jum’ah were revealed to prophet, did he do it or not? Did companions with him do it or not? Interestingly, there is a term “nūdiya lilṣṣalati = call is made for prayer/salat” used in 62:9. Do you find in Quran, where God might have revealed what exactly should be the mode and manner of this “call for prayers”? Did prophet come up with a solution to institute such a call? Yes, indeed prophet and his companions practiced Jumma’ Salat, thinking otherwise is a grave slander against the prophet. I seek refuge from God even contemplating such ideas.
Now to 4 Jamaat for prayers. Take a random person from any of these Jamaat and ask him: did he do wudu, did he stand to pray, did he recite or Imam recite chap 1 of Quran and then some other part of quran, did he do ruku, did he sujood???? If he says, he did not do any of this, you have a case else you have no ground to stand upon. It is nowhere mentioned in Quran to recite Chap 1 in salat, yet the practice was so consistent that no Muslim from any sect does salat without reciting this chapter.
You wrote: “So any prevailing practice in itself do not justify its validity and authenticity. If prophet’s action are as preserved as you claim, then how come there are more than 105 difference in Namaz; right from timings, to Niyat, to action, to content itself.”
Fundamental elements of Salat Wudu, Qiam, Ruku, Sujood, and reading of Quran, as well as timings are intact in all these versions. Despite so many sects, is this not a remarkable fact itself that Quran-mandated elements of salat are all fully preserved? I have not gotten to the timings and more than one salat yet. In my study, none of the objections can stand unless we disregard grammar, lexicon, context, tasreef, etc.
You wrote: “Finally IMHO, to justify Namaz (ritual Prayer) under the cover of Quranic Salat is an incorrect and misleading approach which dilute the message and purpose of mighty Quran.”
I respect your IMHO. As per my “IMHO”, the ritual prayer is fully justified right from Ibrahim all the way to the exalted prophet himself and the same is fully preserved in Quran. My Quran-only Muslims have a duty and obligation to understand what the Quranic Salat is, what is its purpose, and why it has failed to achieve its purpose at present? They are misguided to misdefine and disfigure the Quranic words and terminologies to unprove the ritual salat.
May I ask you what is the “message and purpose of the Quran” in your opinion? How is this message and purpose compromised by ritual prayers?