Three Salats or five?

 With reference to my previous note “Salat a ritual or not” the never ending debate of 3 vs 5 Salats is still raging on, allow me to have a go.

The key seems to be the term "zulufann min al-layl’" in Quran 11:114. The way to arrive at an accurate meaning of the term is to find out how the operative word zulufann, a plural form with the root "zāy lām fā (ز ل ف)" is used in the Quran itself. Verses 38:25, 38:40 and 39:3 and others, all are conveying a clear meaning of nearness which is similar but yet distinct from "approaches", a commonly found translation.

So the logical question to ask and asked by many before me is near to what? The obvious answer has to be the other elements (s) in the verse besides the "night", notice the singular form it is used, are the two end points of the day. When combined with the plural form of Zulfa as in "zulufann min al-layl", it is clear that the verse is pointing to two adjacent time periods of a single night that are literally near to it, the two corresponding ends of the "day", again singular form of it is used.

It is clear from Quran 2:238 that there are more than two Salats with the use of the word "Salawaat". It is safe to assume that it is referring to a single day as opposed to Salat in general because when God refers to Salat in general then it is qualified by Al-Salat in its singular form as in Quran 2:110 for example. If one were to accept at least one meaning of the word "Wusta" as being middle then the number has to be an odd number more than 2. One of the other possible meaning of Wusta being best or best part of something contextually doesn't make sense. That much is pretty straightforward. Similarly, those who object to Al-Wusta as a name for the third Salt are unfamiliar with how the prefix “Al” is used in the Quran.

The source of confusion seems to be the fixation on the word "Wa" used in the verse Quran 11:114, immediately before the term "zulufann min al-layl". Instead of interpreting the two points in time being joined to the beginning and end of the night to establish two distinct periods during which Salat can be performed, the traditional and I would say lazy interpretation assume it to mean a third period of time that is distinct from the two endpoints of the day. The two periods being, one starting from the sunset, a very short interval of time in itself, to the near part of the night, that is the beginning of the night and the second one starting with the near part that is towards the end of the night and up to the beginning of daybreak, another very short interval of time, the sunrise.

Notice the Quran does not use the words sunset and sunrise to denote the two ends of the day in Quran 11:114. Given that the actual time it takes for the sun to dip behind the horizon at sunset and emerge from below the horizon in the morning is not enough to perform the Salat, less than two minutes at the equator and that too assuming that one is able to identify this very short interval in all weather conditions accurately. Hence, the need to define a generous enough period with one defined endpoint each to perform one's Salat without putting an undue burden on the believers is more logical, another Quranic guideline.

Once we nail down the interpretation of verse 11:114 to mean two Salats timings are mentioned and not three, the rest is Mickey Mouse stuff. Thereafter, we can arrive at only one conclusion that there are three Salats mentioned in the Quran both by name and timings. The only remaining question is whether the third Salat is at noon or in the middle of the night. Given the need for secrecy Quran 7:55 advocated by God while remembering God and one of the objectives of Salat being just that remembering God, Quran 20:14, I would go with the middle of the night possibility but this is more of an opinion. Especially given the fact that the other objective of establishing Salat is to protect oneself against acts of indecency “الفحشاء”, which arguably happens mostly in the darkness of the night.

Hence, it should not come as a surprise that the three named Salats, all suitably prefixed with “Al” are:

1- Salat Al-Fajr, the morning or dawn Salat Quran 24:58

2- Salat Al-Isha, the night Salat Quran 24:58

3- Al-Salat Al-Wusta, the middle Salat Quran 2:238 

Is the popular Salat just a ritual or not?

 There is a school of thought out there that has concluded that Salat doesn't mean a physical ritual. I am not convinced that Salat cannot mean “ritual” also. In fact, I view it as an aid. The Quran in addition to reminding us of our forgetful nature also defines the three main objectives of Salah, Dhkr (Remembrance) Quran 20:14, to seek help from God Quran 2:45 and the prevention of immorality and “evil” deeds Quran 29:45. The later verse is crucial in understanding the value and notion of Dhkr wherein both Salah and Dhkr are mentioned. Plus what needs to be recited is also clear from the verse.

Recite, what has been revealed to you of the Book and establish prayer. Indeed, prayer prevents immorality and wrongdoing, and the remembrance (Dhikr) of Allah is greater ( أَكْبَرُ). And Allah knows that which you do. Quran 29:45

Allow me to first clarify an important point. Although it is clear that Salat helps in remembrance (Dhikr) but to equate remembrance (Dhikr) with Salat is also problematic because God in Quran makes a distinction by raising the value of remembrance (Dhikr) above Salah (Speculation: It may be possible to perform Salat as pure meditation without the remembrance of God). Quran 29:45 above. Again Quran 5:91 mentions Dhkr and Salat as two distinct entities yet connected in some ways and both can be compromised with the use of intoxicants and gambling.

Some have put forward the argument that Salat is referred to as a system of governance. For me, if that was the case then in over eighty repetitions of the word in the Quran, God would have mentioned it at least once. No doubt Salat can lead to establishing what is being claimed but to restrict its meaning exclusively to mean just that is a stretch. It is also important to note that when God wants us to establish the system, the Deen, He says just that "establish the Deen" (أقيموا الدين) Quran 42:13.

Besides if we were to take Salat as a system then are we to establish three systems? Al-Fajr, Al-Isha and Al-Wusta, and how are they different? Some advocate the notion of personal development, this makes more sense but doesn’t negate the fact that a ritualistic meditation is a proven tool towards it.

There is one school that proposes that Salat is a gathering to discuss matters of Deen but Quran 62:9-10 specifically deals with the Salat performed in a congregation. Hence that clearly shoots down that particular notion.

Coming back to the issue of ritual, In Quran 2:43 it says " bow with those who bow" a ritual act. And in other verses the standing bowing (form can be different) and supplication is mentioned together in the same verses Quran 22:26 and 2:125, clearly pointing to a ritual. God also warns us against empty rituals Quran 2:177 hence an implied nonempty ritual can be deduced from it. If we were to understand the standing bowing and supplication as a ritual, it does not contradict any of the verses where Salat means other than ritual because in context those verses are self-explanatory, like Quran 14:37. But if we were to assume that Salat could not mean ritual then we are left with a lot of verses that have to be explained away in a manner that either border on contradiction or crosses into it. A Quranic impossibility.

I do understand why some are proposing the non-ritual version of Salah and the practice of mindless rituals needs to be called out. At the same time, sensible and mindful rituals still have a place in one's personal development. I am not sure how much of a role it can play in the development of a community when done collectively but since there are some indications for doing it in the Quran one has to check oneself before second-guessing God, so to speak. The thing to note here is that even when done in the same time and space by a group there is no indication that it should be done as a group or lead by a prayer leader. Quran 4:102 is mentioned to justify the leading of the prayer but the words used in the verse doesn’t support the “leading” in the traditional sense. In fact, those who are done with their prayer move behind the Prophet of God.

In any case, the mention of Circumambulation in Quran 2:125 along with standing, bowing, and prostration firmly points to physical acts. There is some discussion of the word for prostration being the adjective qualifying bowing but then there is Quran 3:43 where they are separated by an “and” after reversing the order of occurrence. In either case, it is still a physical act. Although there is no indication of stringing them together but the way I see it is consistent with God's mercy of not making it too rigid. This gives us the flexibility to do it in a manner that suits the need of each one of us.

The notion that standing bowing prostration doesn't mean all those things because their use in some verses points to a different context is strange. If we were to reverse this logic and make those different contexts as the baseline then standing should not mean standing anywhere in the Quran. Similarly, if we were to change the definition of a Mosque to mean other than a physical structure then we have to do the same with monasteries and churches and synagogues. Quran 22:40

Following closely is another alternative presented without a clear explanation. Following closely what? Establishing Deen is a separate endeavor. And how do you "establish" following closely? Grammatically it doesn't make sense. Logically it clashes with the primary meaning of (أَقَامُوا) which has the connotation of standing still or setting something which is the opposite of following or motion. Furthermore, why doesn't following closely include giving zakat? Quoting Quran 9:5 is another where they try to unsuccessfully equate it with killing because the Salat and Zakat apply to those who have been captured. It has more to do with their condition of release. Here it should make sense that worship, in their own way, that is submission, and agreeing to become part of the tax system would show their willingness to give up waging war on the community of Muslims.

And why and how must one follow closely in three different ways? 1- Salat Al-Fajr, the morning or dawn Salat Quran 24:58 2- Salat Al-Isha, the night Salat Quran 24:58 3- Al-Salat Al-Wusta, the middle Salat Quran 2:238 Furthermore, mindful meditation is a proven method of self-improvement which leads to a better moral character. It fulfills the other two objectives of Salat as well, remembrance of God and asking God for help. Following closely doesn't in a direct way do that and doesn't necessarily restrict itself to preventing immorality only.

Moreover, the command to wash before Salah and not to perform Salat when intoxicated again points to a very physical activity or at least, an activity with physical elements in it. The other thing that gives license to having a ritual is demonstrated in the simulation of washing when one doesn't have access to water.

In my view, we are allowed to look for more in-depth meaning in the verses of the Quran but not at the expense of what I term the default meaning of words, not necessarily taken from dictionaries written centuries later. Allow me to once again quote Mustansir Mir, Professor of Islamic Studies at Youngstown State University, who more eloquently argues for a multi-layered approach. He writes,

“From a linguistic standpoint, it is quite possible for a word, phrase or statement to have more than one layer of meaning, such that one layer would make sense to one audience in one age and another layer of meaning would, without negating the first, be meaningful to another audience in a subsequent age.”

Just repeating from my previous post, so yes one is free to use different meanings associated with certain words but we must do so only in a manner that does not contradict a chosen meaning in another verse. If we were to exclusively assign Salat the meaning of establishing of a system then we will have a tough time explaining away the numerous resulting contradiction in its (Salat as a word) use elsewhere in the Quran. Hence, in my opinion, Salat has definite ritualistic elements in it but must be done in a manner that is mindful, includes the remembrance of God and leads to a better understanding of the revealed words of God. And then this:

Indeed, [I] I Am Allah. (There is) no god but I, so worship Me and establish the prayer for My remembrance. Quran 20:14

If there was still some doubt as to what is Salah or what is its main objective out of the three stated in the Quran then the above verse puts it all to rest. Salat as a “system” doesn’t fly. Deen is the system.

If we were ignore the resulting contradictions from keep running to the root words, one can make anything mean anything in the Quranic Arabic. The resulting “new old” Arabic will have but a token semblance to the classical Arabic, let alone the colloquial Arabic. Where almost nothing means what an Arabic speaker will find in the text of the Quran. Case in point is Quran 2:125 where in one short verse standing doesn’t mean standing, circumbulation doesn’t mean circumambulation, bowing doesn’t mean bowing, prostration doesn’t mean prostration and Salat doesn’t mean Salat.

Yes, there has been attempts to distort certain words/notions in the Quran. But most of them are isolated words taken out of context. Furthermore they can be easily identified and corrected. The real issue has to do with these mass wholesale distortions, why did God declared that Quran’s message will be protected and preserved? Granted God’s powers are unlimited but God makes it a point that the Quran is in clear Arabic and not a jigsaw puzzle that must be put together in every verse. If so then that in itself will be a contradiction.

Allow me to add a note to my note :) Looking for Salah in the Hadith is like trying to weigh the scale with the produce or measure a watch with time.

"Who are you?" "Are you better than scholars?"

I and other non-scholars are often confronted with "who are you" and "do you know more than the scholars?" retorts. So how one must respond? Personally, I am more bemused than offended. Of course, there is always the possibility that I failed to take into account certain facts or missed important arguments but then that holds true for everybody. Anyway, I thought I will share a short post on it.

For starters, my standard response is, I am an individual Muslim that's who I am, who was gifted a soul by my Maker and I was raised above Angels and Jinns and then I was gifted with the Quran through the Prophet of God. The very Quran that is by God's own assertion the "the best Hadith and "the best Tafsir" and preserved by God Himself for all times to come. It is this same Quran that found me and ordered me to use my brains to understand it and the sole responsibility of understanding the Quran was put squarely on my shoulders. In it I was guaranteed salvation by God as long as I believed in Him, the Last Day and do good deeds. All the rest is a bonus.I will be standing in front of my Maker alone on the Day of Judgmental. No scholar or Sheikh will be of any help to me on that day. Given their track record that has resulted in a horrendously divided Ummah, no thank you, I will pass.

Furthermore, the reason I am confident of my interpretations being correct is because they are not only logical and consistent with rational thought and in line with others who have chosen a similar path but most important I have surrendered to the notion of God being my teacher of the Quran. Before surrendering to the God of the Universe, I have personally verified that Quran is the actual word of God and I am convinced that the verses of the Quran are in an already explained state as claimed by God in the Quran. I have also taken to heart God's assertion that Quran is free of contradictions and free of abrogations, as one would expect from a Divine message. 

Anybody is welcome to argue against my position with facts and sound arguments. What I will not entertain is the mere citing of alternative interpretations. And if one must cite alternative interpretations then arguments presented in those alternative interpretations will have to be defended with other than an Appeal to Authority. If one can do that then I am always open to learning from their understanding. One needs to be convinced that the individuals claiming a position has thoroughly familiarized themselves with the issue at hand and hence worth exploring further. If not, then I have this to say, those who keep pimping scholars are a strange breed. They want to follow scholars because they claim they themselves are not qualified to interpret the Quran and/or even the "explanation" of the Quran. Even though they are not scholars by their own admission and yet they miraculously become experts on which scholar to follow.

One can understand why the foot soldiers of the various illegal and for-profit sects would pimp their scholars but what exactly is the excuse for the rest of them?