Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!zahle.wpi.edu!shari From: zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman) Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam Subject: Re: Ahadith dilemma: # of prayers/day Message-ID: <1991Jun7.133134.590@wpi.WPI.EDU> Date: 7 Jun 91 13:31:34 GMT References: <1991May31.073332.11425@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News) Organization: U of Chicago Lines: 105 Approved: shari@zahle.wpi.edu Originator: shari@zahle.wpi.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: zahle.wpi.edu In article <1991May31.073332.11425@nntp-server.caltech.edu> paul@lane.cc.ukans.edu writes: >My previous posting detailed prayer times as featured in the Qur'an. >The Qur'an nowhere mentions the 'asr prayer, but mentions prayers at >times other than the "traditional five". > >Looking into Sahih Muslim (for those with the Siddiqi translation see >volume 1, pages 342-344) one sees Chapter 249, entitled >"PERMISSIBILITY OF COMBINING TWO PRAYERS ON A JOURNEY" in which the >sunset and 'isha prayers are combined in some verses and the noon and >afternoon prayers are combine in other verses in that chapter. > >The next chapter is entitled "COMBINATION OF PRAYERS WHEN ONE IS >RESIDENT" in which the first verse states > >"Ibn 'Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) >observed the noon and afternoon prayers together, and the sunset and >'Isha prayers together without being in a state of fear or in a state >of journey." > >The next verse is a bit more explicit: > >"Ibn 'Abbas reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) >observed the noon and afternoon prayers together in Medina without >being in a state of fear or in a state of journey. (Abu Zubair said: I >asked Sa'id [one of the narrators] why he did that. He said: I asked >Ibn 'Abbas as you have asked me, and he replied that he [the Holy >Prophet] wanted that no one among his Ummah should be put to >[unnecessary] hardship.)" > >In Sahih al Bukhari, book 58, "The Merits of the Ansar" (Volume 5 in >Kazi Publications 9 volume bilingual version) is Chapter 41, entitled >"Al'Miraj" ("The Ascent of the Prophet" or "The Night Journey"). > >The end of the long hadith is as follows (from Muhammad Asad's _Sahih >al Bukhari, The Early Years of Islam_, p. 193 > >(Muhammad (PBUH) was addressing Moses (PBUH) after Moses had yet again >asked the Prophet to return to God and beg for fewer prayers than >5/day, when at the beginning the command was 50:) > >"I answered: I have begged so much of my Sustainer that I feel >ashamed. But I am content now, and I shall submit [to God's will]. - >And when I left, I heard a voice: I have confirmed My injunction, and >have lightened the burden of My worshippers!" > >So some ahadith say 5 prayers/day and some say 3/day is OK. Yet the >Qur'an says nothing about fixed prayer times. > >How does one solve this dilemma? There are two dilemmas being referred to here: (1) internal consistency of the hadiths; (2) the relation of the hadiths which suggest three and five to the Quran which seems to tell us nothing. Problem (1) does not seem like a problem to me. The hadiths which suggest "three" aren't really speaking of three prayers at all. I don't think we have to go beyond the words of the hadiths themselves to see thatthese hadiths speak of *combining* two sets of prayers (zuhr-asr, and maghrib- isha): and one can only *combine* things which *do* exist distinctly. Thus, the hadiths of "three prayers" are not really hadiths of three prayers: they are hadiths which still speak of *five* prayers but tell us how it is possible to combine them so that you may pray these five prayers in a manner that you are praying them at three times of the day. Problem (2) is somewhat more real, I think. The issue is one of how we are to understand the Quran. My understanding of the Quran is that the *reason* it was revealed bit by bit and not all at once (like some previous scriptures) was: so that the Prophet may explain ------------------------------- the ayas (statements) of the Quran to us. ---------------------------------------- If this is the case, then the correct understanding of the Quran *HAS* to be in conjunction with reference to the Prophet's understanding of them. Otherwise, the whole business of having the Prophet there is irrelevant. If we are to read the words of the Quran and decide what it means simply with reference to the Arabic language, then IN ACTUAL PRACTICE, our exegesis proceeds without any reference to the Prophet-- it IS as if the Prophet never existed and the Quran just "dropped" out of the sky on to us. Those who hold to the importance of the role of the Prophet in understanding the Quran will bring a hundred examples of things which Muslims have been doing for centuries (from the earliest times) which are not detailed in the Quran--details about almost every ritual (Hajj, zakah. fasting, what cause one's wudu (ablutions) to be invalidated) are missing from the Quran. What is known as Islam today would be very different if it were not that the actions and sayings of the prophet are taken as explicating the Quran and fixing its meanings (when there are a number of alternate possible meaning available). Indeed the lexical meaning of salah contains NO indication of prayersas Muslims have understood them from the first century onwards.... So where do we get the Prophet's understanding of the Quran? >From his life--recorded inthe hadith. This is whythe hadith is so essential. This, the question of the authority of hadith (as oppposed to its authenticity) is something I shall, insha Allah, get to sometime relatively soon. But I thought I would respond at least to the "internal inconsistencies of hadith" issue which was brought up. (BTW, in my opinion, there are much better examples of what look like inconsistencies than this ones...but let's save that for another day..)