When looking at other words which have had their meanings twisted in the Qur’anic context, we can usually get back to the true meaning by looking at extant words in modern Arabic surrounding the root. Zakaa is a good example. All the root meanings of zakaa refer to purity and sincerity. This can be verified by looking at any good dictionary. As we shall see – the Arab religion has created the un-Qur’anic tax and ascribed this to the word zakaa. The deception is relatively easy to spot since the key meanings of the word zakaa have remained intact.
Sol-laa is no different. Before we continue let me clarify why I use the word Sol-laa instead of the common term Salaat. Firstly, when we read the Reading in Arabic it is always pronounced as ‘Aqimus-Sol-laa– taa-wa-aatuz-Zakaa’ – nobody says ‘Aqimus-Salaat-taa-wa-aatuz-Zakat’. This is evident even during the call of prayer. All over the world – the person who announces the prayer will shout on top of his voice with ‘Hai-ya-‘alas-Sol-laa’ – never as ‘Hai-ya-‘alas-Salaat’. Muslims know this word is pronounced the way it is spelt in the Reading – Arabs or not.
This is only to demonstrate that – there is a difference between God’s Arabic in the Reading and the Arabic language spoken by the Arabs, and for this study I have chosen to use the former i.e. God’s Arabic
When we look up the word in a dictionary we find a word that is mispronounced by the Muslim world – Salaat – under the root S-l-w. It is worth noting that this root has no other meaning directly ascribed to it other than the ‘ritual prayer’. There is nothing else.
Whereas almost any key Qur’anic term has related terms which balance and integrate it into the waft and web of the language (and by means of which we can sense deceptions as and when they occur) this important – some would say central – Qur’anic concept has no ‘context’ in the language by which to verify the claims made for it by the Arab religionists other than the one created for it by those self-same religionists.
There are no related meanings that one can point to and say: Sol-laa must mean what such-and-such because it integrates into the language on the basis of the sense we derive from the word. This is not possible because the word simply has no semantic context in the religion of the Arabs as we know.
Now, it could be argued that the reason for this is that this word has only one meaning – unconnected to anything else in the vast and interconnected web of Arabic semantics – and that the meaning the Arab religionists ascribe to it is, in fact, the correct one. In this case, we would respond by pointing out that since the ritual prayer or Salaat (by the religionists’ own measure and admission) is not in the Reading, their own definition of it is of no special value.
The situation we find ourselves in is: there is a word – ‘Sol-laa’ – that exists in a semantic vacuum, and the leaders of the religious system say it means X based on their non-Qur’anic writings (the Hadith). Since their non-Qur’anic writings say some patently ludicrous things, and given that the religious elite promotes these non-Qur’anic sources to achieve ends which are usually advantageous only to the religious elite, a thinking person is left wondering what possible use their definition of this word can be to anyone except them.
Just to clear up the point of roots. The root of Sol-laa is S-L. It is a two-root word. They are many such words in the Reading. Examples of other two-root words found in the Reading are haq (truth, root: h-q), abu (father, root: a-b) or yad (hand, root: y-d) or Qama (the keep vigil or attentive, root: q-m).
However, knowing that the word Sol-laa does not come from S-l-w or S-l-y but from S-L it does not help us a great deal. S-L is not in the dictionary and S-l-w has only the ‘ritual prayer’ meaning ascribed to it. In the Reading S-l-w means ‘to roast’ and (S-l-y) refers to ‘fry or burn’.
The root word for S-l-w is found in 69:31 meaning ‘to roast’ not ritual prayer. It generates yaslau (4:10, 14:29, 17:18 and eight other verses). islau in 36:64 & 52:16, siliya in 19:70 spelt with S-l-alif-y. Here we must pronounce the word with the third letter ‘waw’ or ‘ya’. Therefore it is wrong to assign a third letter to the root of S-L to read as S-l-w.
To recap: Sol-laa comes from the root S-L which does not exist in modern Arabic and which defies definition by modern methods. Yet the Reading treats its meaning as self-evident. The religious elite have ascribed its own meaning to this word, a meaning which fails appallingly in certain Qur’anic contexts.
Since the Reading is the only place we know of which knows what this word means we have to look to it for the ways it uses this word and derive its meaning from the multitude of contexts. God says the Arabic in His Book is perfect. Thus, nobody should try to change its word constructions, spelling and grammatical forms.
A reading in Arabic without any crookedness therein so that they might observe. 39:28
The word Sol-laa[1] or any of the derivatives from the same root word is never used in the Reading to refer to the act of worship or the performance of a set of body movements.
Its use always refers to the act of honouring, upholding, dedicating or observing of commitments, obligations, accountabilities, responsibilities etc. by consenting person or persons when the phrase ‘aqi-mu‘ is used. Literally the word Sol-laa means to ‘commit’.
This root word (like all roots in Arabic) forms its various functions by use of vowels, prefixes and suffixes. The short vowels “i” or “u” (9:103,108:2 and 33:56) can be added resulting in ‘Sol-lee’ or ‘Sol-luu’ without changing the underlying, fundamental meaning of the word.
The word pronounced with a short vowel ‘a’ appears in the Reading twice, in 75:31 and 96:10 respectively.
In 96:10 it appears as “ ‘Abdan Ezaa Sol-laa” which means “A servant who is committed”. The context of this verse begins from 96:8-12 with the message “Indeed to your Lord is the final return. What do you think of those who prevent a servant who commits? What if he is actually on the right path, advocating people to be observant?” The message is clear. But translators give different meanings to this word for reasons only known to them.
In 75:31 it is written as Falla-sod-daqor-wa-Sol-laa and translators insist the word Sol-laa in both verses refers to ritual prayers. Obviously when we read the context, they do not make any sense at all.
This word pronounced with different vowels or prefixes appear in other passages of the Reading, and no religionists or Arabic scholars dare translate them as ‘ritual prayers’. So the best one can say is, consistencies exist because the leaders of the Arab religion interpret this root concept in various ways. The paragraphs following will attempt to explain this particular quirk.
As mentioned, the Arabic language derives its vocabulary from the root words. Conjugations of the root word can produce new derivatives and generally, these derivatives are constructed in accordance with established vocalic moulds or patterns to which certain prefixes or suffixes are added. The Arabic verbs have two ‘voices’ – active and passive.
Derivational and inflexional forms make the Arabic language extensive. This complexity is matched by the regularity and symmentry of the form and is very logical and regular. There are almost no regular forms in the language. In addition to two tenses, perfect and imperfect, there are imperative forms, active and passive, and also energetic forms. Sol-laa or commit for example has many derivatives to form other words with the same shades of meaning like, binding, obligations, compulsion, pledge or promise etc.
Sol-laa Commit
Sol-luu Be committed
Sol-lee Binding
Mu-Sol-lan A person who is committed
Mu-Sol-leen Many people who are committed
Yu-Sol-laa They commit
Yu-Sol-lee Their commitments
Yu-Sol-luu They have committed
Ya-sil-luu Bind
Solaa-ta Commitment (singular)
Solaa-tee Commitments (dual)
Solaa-tu Commitments (Aorist)
Solaa-waa-tee Obligatorily
Solaa-waa-tun obligatory
Arabic in the Reading then, it is fair to say, is a highly developed language with a complex grammar via which it is possible to express concepts with a high level of accuracy. Unlike Latin, Old Greek, Aramic, or Sanskrit, Arabic of the Quran is a living language, spoken, written and understood by millions people around the globe. There are scholars and religionists who insist that Arabic in the Reading lacks the ability to define sense exactly because they realize – once the message of the Quran is made clear to the people all their belief and preaching will be in vain, for example they translated the word Sol-laa-ta as the mandatory Arab ritual prayers to be observed by Muslims only. But in the Quran the same word is also attributed for people of the past like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, the disbelievers, strangers and others including the animal kingdom. I will explain in the next chapter how they shuffle this word by creating absurd meanings.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Quran especially about the previous people who received God’s revelations. One such community is the Children of Israel, who agreed to uphold their commitments upon receiving God’s covenant, and we are told they violated it by distorting ‘His words’ in the scripture (2:59) to create a new religion of Judaism. We see the Arab religionists are doing exactly the same when they translate the Arabic words in the Quran to other languages. Although they have successfully introduced the manipulated meanings of many words into the translated Quran, but certainly they cannot change the original Arabic in the Quran, no matter how hard they try. God in His wisdom gave us His assurance in 15:9 that “He will preserve what He revealed”. The outcome of any attempt to change His words, the spellings, or even modifying its grammar will result the translations riddled with contradictions defying all logics.
However, the subsequent twisting of the meanings of the original Arabic in the Quran by those who would force it into a pre-prescribed shape has marred many people’s reading of the book. For instance, we read in 75:31: falaa soddaqor walaa Sol-laa. The patrons of the Arab religion say it means ‘He was not truthful and not praying’. The true meaning is ‘He was not truthful and not committed’. Let us examine this word “Sol-laa” when it is used in other passages.
For example, in 2:43 God tells us that He instructed the Children of Israel: Wa-aqimus Sol-laa-ta wa-atuz zakaa. The religionists say it means: ‘Observe the ritual prayers and pay the religious tithes’. This instruction is spoken in the present tense, and if we read the context from 2:40 to 2:43 we will realize that God reminds the Children of Israel to commit to what they have committed before – i.e to uphold the covenant and maintain the purity of its tenets. He calls them to believe in what is revealed in the Quran confirming what they have, and do not trade away God’s revelations for a cheap gain. The message is simple and straightforward. God never asked the Children of Israel to perform the ritual prayers as suggested by the religionists. As a matter of fact if we ask the Jews if they had at any time in history performed the five daily ritual prayers, they will answer in the negative. Even the Jews who received the earlier Scripture knew that five the ritual prayers were not part of the deen revealed by God. It is not in the Torah and it is also not the Reading. Our common sense can easily tells us the true meaning of this particular passage is: ‘Uphold the commitments and keep them pure’. The Children of Israel understand this instruction very well because they have committed themselves to God’s deen through the Torah long before the Quran was revealed.
In 6:162, the Prophet and those who consented themselves to God are encouraged to remind themselves of their obligation as servants of God: In-naa Sol-laa-ti wa-nusuki wamaa yahya wamamamati lilahi robil a’lameen. This means: My commitments and my sacrifices and my life and my death are for God the Lord of the Universe. The religionists twist their tongue and say this verse means, ‘My ritual prayers and my sacrifices and my life and my death are for God the Lord of the Universe’.
Among the previous people who use the word Sol-laa in the Reading are the people of Shuaib. At 11:87 they say, ‘Ya-shu-’aib aa-Sol-laa-tu-ka…..’ which means, ‘O Shuaib, does your commitment…?’. But in the Arab religion they say the people of Shuaib said, ‘O Shuaib, does your ritual prayer..…..?’, even though the context of this passage says that Shuaib was calling his people not to cheat but to trade equitably among themselves.
The history of Jesus in the Reading is another clear example. Jesus mentions the word Sol-laa as an infant. In 19:23 we are told that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and he spoke to his mother soon after the pangs surprised her. The religionists ridiculously claim that Jesus performed the ritual prayer and paid the alms tax from the day he was born. At 19:31 whilst in his mother’s arms Jesus says, “I was enjoined with the commitments maintain it pure for as long as I live” (‘Wa-asoy-na bi-Sol-laa-ti wa zakaa-ti ma dumtum hai-yan’) which clearly implies that he will uphold his obligation diligently in reforming the Children of Israel.
Different words were used in various languages during over the centuries of prophets calling people to uphold their commitments or obligations. In the language of the Last Prophet it is called Sol-laa (or its derivatives). Abraham, the people of Midyan, the Children of Israel and Jesus were non-Arabs, but the Reading quotes interaction with them on the basis of an equivalent word in their own language to Sol-laa. In 21:73, for example, God instructs Isaac and Jacob with the same word, ‘wa-iqama-Sol-laa-ti-wa-ie-ta-zakaa-ti[2]’ which means: uphold your commitments and keep them pure after their father Abraham.
None of the prophets before Muhammad were talking about ritual prayers when they uttered the equivalent of Sol-laa in their own language. Therefore, the word Sol-laa or its derivatives cannot be translated to mean ritual prayers. To think otherwise is to err on a very large scale contextually. The word Sol-laa and its derivatives appear in many verses in the Reading. Modern Arab ‘translations’ will have us believe that there are many different meanings for the same word in different verses.
This ambiguity has generated much confusion. As a result, the word Sol-laa revolves around the ritualistic prayer performed according to a timetable accompanied by ritualistic physical movements. It is presumptuous to think that God would enjoin on us something quite so mundane.
The priests of the Arab religion will ask: So how can we pray if we depend on the Qur’an alone? This is absolutely beside the point. Was there ever any question that we should need more than the Reading?
Many religions around the world have in common the fact that their priests have the right to question their followers but the followers do not have the right to question the priests on religious matters.
If we ask the Christian priest why they say Jesus is God whereas the Bible says he was serving God who created him, the Christian priest will jump. Similarly, if we ask the priests of the Arab religion why they pray ritually five times a day when it is not specified in the Reading, they will likewise find themselves on the back foot.
This amounts to the beginning of an acknowledgement by the priests of the Arab religion (soon to be remedied by the use of other ‘authentic’ sources) that there is no ritual prayer in the Reading. The truth is their ritual prayer was not revealed to the Last Prophet in God’s prescribed way of life. We know because we read the Reading. Sol-laa as it appears in the Reading simply implies a person’s commitment to observe his or her obligations as prescribed in the Reading. Nowhere does the Reading state that humans must perform any ritual prayer to God. This is a fact that Muslims need to bear in mind.
[1] This word is erroneously pronounced as ‘Salaat’ by the followers of the Arab religion although the consonant of the root word is Sod Lam is found in 96:10 and 75:31, which is pronounced as ‘Sol-laa’. Muslims who are shackled by their religious masters are shocked when I used the word ‘Sol-laa’ instead of ‘Salaat’.
[2] Although this word is to be pronounced as zakaa the Arabs twist the meaning and also the pronunciation and call it zakat. For Sol-laa they say Salaat and for zakaa they say zakaat (misconstrued in both cases) Please see chapter six.
Filed under: Islam | Tagged: Hadith, salaat, sol-laa, zakaa | 27 Comments »
Mental Bondage In The Name Of God 