Rashid sb, you say -“We will end up with
another failed attempt like Turkey tried for 18 years”. Allow me to say that it
failed not for the reason that you seem to suggest, but the fact that 14
centuries of Arab/Arabic reverence implanted in the system could not be removed
in mere 18 years or even 180 years. Turkish danishwar Fatheullah Gulen may be
able to elaborate.
You seem to miss the obvious point that
while there may be millions who will support offering prayer in a local
language, these are not from among the worshipers which is why the experiment
failed in Turkey and will fail anywhere. Why are those who will not offer the ritual prayers come
what may, bent upon changing those who do? Why don’t they mind their own
Everyone remembers Allah, sitting standing, lying etc but this is
not the ritual prayer. What is Salat or Prayer? It is performed facing Kabaa (2:149 and 150),
celebrating “Allah´s praises in the manner Allah has taught you, which ye knew
not before” (2:239). Congregational prayer is implied in most verses “bow down
with those who bow down in worship.” Obligatory prayers are to be performed at
stated time (4:103). The prayer timings for regular prayers which are
obligatory are contained in verses 2:238 (Asr), 11:114 (fajr, maghrib, isha),
17:78 (Zuhar +), 24:58 (fajr and Isha), 50:39 (fajr, asr, isha). Wudhu need to be performed in the manner described in verse
5:6 or Tayamum in 4:43.
Naseer Saheb, your fixation with “5 times a day” of
worship/namaz, glued to the Arabic language as prayers has me
in knots., in spite of your concession - “From a
religious/theological point of view, there can be no objection
if you offer your ritual prayer in another language”.
believe that it is the reverence to a language-Arabic, that has,
thanks to the religious industry, made the followers of ad deen
into monastic worshippers. It has played Iblees's agency to the
hilt when he ordered them : pukhta tar kardo mijaaje khaankahi may
isay; as the poet said.
know and I know that there are scholars/Daanishwar among us who
would argue that there are … … three, five, six and yes, even
seven times namaz in a day.
rang a lady friend teacher once at 10am. She did not pick up the
phone then but rang few minutes later with an apology – “I was
praying”, she said. What! namaz at 10am? “Don't you know that
there is a mid morning namaz of duhaa?” she chided me – a person
of twice her age, in holier than thou voice and proceeded to recite
a 'Rasullah's hadis', the details of which I will spare you.
reminded her that in the same hadis book the 'concerned and worried'
Rasul ran to and fro, nine times to the “throne room” to have 45
namaz reduced from 50 given to him as a gift to his people by God.
Thus he came back with only 5 a day; and that people like her have
added two more – that of midnight and mid morning! Lo! Since then
I have found 2 more!
what number makes a person “a devout Muslim” even if praying in
I worship many times a day standing, sitting and lying down
3-190 without the physical calisthenics of namaz in Arabic. My old
body does not let me forget my Maker for the aches and pains it goes
am afraid we will get into the language wrangle of “dihkar”,
salaat and “ibadah” in Arabic, which I have no
idea of. I am struggling to work out the recent fad of Arabic
standard reply of “al hamdullillah” really means when I
ask somebody in English “how are you” or in Urdu “keysey ho”? How does one reply when one is NOT well?
"I don't know' is the reply!
say -“We will end up with another failed attempt like Turkey tried
for 18 years”. Allow me to say that it failed not for the reason
that you seem to suggest, but the fact that 14 centuries of
Arab/Arabic reverence implanted in the system could not be removed
in mere 18 years or even 180 years. Turkish danishwar Fatheullah
Gulen may be able to elaborate.
is an example of linguistic wrangling and shows – ehle-Danish
ney buhot soch kay ulzhayee hai.
اللَّـهَ وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّـهَ
بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ” “keep
Allah and know well that Allah knows everything” (2:231)
to you and other scholars and danishwar of Arabic language “wattaqu
=and keep fearing. But for me who has no idea of Arabic, it is not
so. Deducing from many translations and hundreds of al-rehman al
raheem in Quran, it is not “fear” that God wants attributed
to Himself. The word for fear in there is “khof” eg 2-38. For
me, I go with a like minded poet who said- 'bandaa hun' jaantaahun'
tu bandaa nawaz hai'.
اللَّـهَ عَلِيمٌ بِذَاتِ الصُّدُورِ”
knows well what lies within the hearts.” (3:119)
He knows well what is in my heart then what does it matter in what
language I store it there as He knows every language, as you believe
also say - 'Our primary goal should be to learn Arabic so as to
understand the Quran in its original text'. Are you then
saying that the 'scholars – the Danishwar/A'lim' who have
translated the Arabic Quran none of them understand Arabic as you do, and
hence the differences therein? It must be then a case of
“zubaane-yaare-man Turki, man Turki nami daanum”!!
No, Mr Naseer Ahmad, that is not the
right question to ask as the topic is specifically the 'language'. The question
should be - “Is God monolingual and understands only Arabic?”
“...for the masses who pray it is worship and it is they who decide what is acceptable and what is not. ”
lies the essence of the argument. I'baada
has become prayer/worship because it is an Arabic word and the Arabic
language is the essential medium of the ritual of puja, liturgy of
the religion for them and of course employment for the pesh imam.
the masses were to be educated to fathom Aamanu
their own languages, God's worship/I'baada
may become something very different ritual and mosques would become service centers.
“The Arabs are the most stupid people
on earth”. My 'Better-half' said recently when discussing the
current affairs relating to Saudi Arabia, that is its wars, the
Royals and the flight of young women from there, etc. etc.
Are they really the most stupid people
For the last thirteen fourteen
centuries they have hoodwinked the so called Believers of Quran to
do exactly the opposite to what the Book says on the back of the fact
that the Messenger Muhammad was born an Arab, in their country and
that the Book is in Arabic, their language and so setup an enterprise
so profitable that even if the oil runs out, they are assured of
continuous comfortable life in the longest foreseeable future.
The most astonishing aspect of this
entrepreneurship is converting the Muslims into giving stones and
rocks Quranic reverence, placed, exclusively in the city that has
always had been an idol worshiping temple city!
Astonishing it is because it is also
propagated in the name of a Messenger Ibrahim, an ICONOCLAST to the
boot and who had never even in history visited the place to give them
Refer to Quran:
2-151-- Bakara: (Addressing
Muhammad)...and teaches you the Book and the wisdom WHICH YOU DID
NOT KNOW .
32-3-- Sajadah: Or do they say: he has
forged it? Nay it is the truth from your Lord that you MAY WARN A
PEOPLE TO WHOM NO WARNER HAS COME BEFORE YOU AND THAT THEY MAY WALK
34-44-- Saba: And WE have not given
them a Book which they read nor did WE SEND TO THEM BEFORE YOU A
35-42-- Faatir: And they swore by God
their strongest oaths, that, if a warner came to them they would be
better guided than any of the nations. But when a warner came to them
it increased them in greater aversion.
36-6– Ya Seen: That you (Muhammad)
may WARN A PEOPLE WHOSE FOREFATHERS WERE NOT WARNED so they are
42-52-- Shura: And thus WE revealed to
you an inspired Book by our command. YOU DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE BOOK
WAS NOR WHAT FAITH WAS, …
62-2: Almost same as 2-151-- Juma'
NO, they are are not stupid. They are
the most cunning, sly and clever people to lead Muslims of the whole
world, for so long by the nose and not for li-tushteru bihi
thamanan qalilaa either, but for billions and billions of
dollars. It is their Believers therefore who are the most stupid
Yes it is time to go local.