The Prayer Issue Revived

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

There is a difference between using rational arguments to support the material justifying the ritual, and using rationality to justify the ritual itself. If you can't sense this subtle distinction, it is not my fault. But your argument is crippled because you can't seem to manage this.

JK- If you have extra ordinary evidence in support of GOD commanding those rituals then I would say ok but no such evidence has been provided. In order to do so you need to show that the statements in the Quran unambiguously point to rituals and if youve read the independent articles written by various freeminders they all came to the exact opposite conclusion.

The difference is that I rely on evidence to support my views. While you rely on semantics... that is how I know your view is wrong.

JK- As i pointed out many times you rely on faulty evidence. I rely on the powerful evidence of independent research of the Quran leading to the opposite conclusion of your claims. If that is semantics then everything is semantics. As for the secular historical claims you brought up regarding mecca etc im watching the debate as it goes on.

Yea... everything which doesnt support your argument is "biased"... rite 

JK- Lets ask a large body of secular people whether finding in a religious document that people at a certain time performed the very rituals of the religion of the document is not totally biased. It is so obvious.

Yea, I know: the Quran does contain all the important details regarding divine injunctions. The 5 times, bowing, standing, Surah fatiah.. The hadith does not add any of this (thats the point). It doesnt add any divine injunctions in this regard.

JK- Ok so according to you we dnt need to perform certain no of rakats then. So it should be ok then to prostrate bow etc a random no of times correct?

I am majoring in History and Pol Sci, doesnt make me a "historian". But like I said, you dont need to be a "historian" to deal with Mr. Ayman's argument. You could have done it yourself had you tried, and not taken his word for it.

PeAcE

JK- Well we'll see in the end if Ayman's arguemnts get defeated ot not. GOD Bless!

[ayman]

Peace C0de,

This is the most desperate argument yet:

I have no need to be desperate... because your argument is completely self-defeating. You made such an effort to show us that all of these alternative locations you have provided were "well documented" at the time of Diodorus... Yet you fail to realize that this very same argument defeats your own purpose. Because if they were so "well documented" then why did this Greek Historian not mention this mysterious location by name? Why did he not say that it was located in Sabeaen Territory? Or the Northern areas which the Greeks were familliar with? Why did he give its location as between these two areas and did not actually name the place? Percisely because Mecca is not well documented, while these other places are. And its invisibility actually destroys your argument, because it is itself proof of it. Since the account from Greek history mentions a shrine that was revered by all Arabs, without actually giving its location, or giving it a name.

Diodorus was not talking about a town. He was talking about a temple. His informer didn't tell him the temple's name or he didn't think that it was important for his purposes. At the time of Diodorus, this was not an exact science like it is today and Diodorus didn't mention many things, far more than what he mentioned. Diodorus couldn't go to Google maps like you LOL. The burden of proof is on you to bring positive proof of Mecca not on me to prove a negative. The reason that you keep hanging on to this straw of a vague mention of a temple by Diodorus is that you have NOTHING. If you had anything even remotely referring to Mecca then we wouldn't be having this debate. Your entire faith in Mecca and blindly doing crazy rituals is based on such flimsy straw. There is really nothing more to discuss unless you can bring positive proof and not fallaciously ask for negative proof.

Peace,

Ayman

[truthseeker11]

Peace everyone,

"BETWEEN" DOES NOT MEAN EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE.

Between Thamudites and Sabeans could be anywhere in between those two.

If I say "I spent between 15 and 20 dollars" I could be referring to any amount between those two. It won't mean exactly 17.5 dollars.

[c0de]

Jonny + Ayman + Truthseeker

Salaam ppl

@ Jonny

If you have extra ordinary evidence in support of GOD commanding those rituals then I would say ok but no such evidence has been provided.

It was provided, and dismissed by you, on almost hilarious grounds.

As i pointed out many times you rely on faulty evidence.

Actually, you rely on ZERO evidence.

Lets ask a large body of secular people whether finding in a religious document that people at a certain time performed the very rituals of the religion of the document is not totally biased. It is so obvious.

Yes do that. Please go and ask your "secular" scholars whether the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents are not.

Ok so according to you we dnt need to perform certain no of rakats then. So it should be ok then to prostrate bow etc a random no of times correct?

Sure, if you reject the hadith totally, do whatever you like. What do I care?



@ Ayman

So I am "desperate" now am I? (lol) I am not the one who was putting forward Tabuk, and Dumat al-Jundal as valid options. Anyone with a map can see these places are almost next to the area of Palestine. Why even mention Sabeaen territory in connection with these sites?  And how about calling the border of Yemen "central Arabia" (lol). And lets not forget that you brought up Dedan/Al Ula, which was a site already well known to the Greeks: http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4040/lihyan.htm (21st footnote) So thats out as well, because if Dedan was the location, then Diodorus would have just called it by name. But what is most important is that this also cripples your argument for Tayma, because these locations are next to each other. Why didn't Diodorus just call these locations by name if they were what he meant? Because they weren't! Mecca at the time was not as important as these sites and was more obscure. It had no great dynasty associated with either the Northern Nabeanites or the Souther Sabeaens. This is why he did not mention it by name.

All of these locations you picked have been dismissed. You can choose to cling to them if you wish.

Diodorus was not talking about a town. He was talking about a temple. His informer didn't tell him the temple's name or he didn't think that it was important for his purposes.

Then why didnt he say this temple was located in any one of those cities? Why did he bother giving such a general description? If that temple was located in any of those WELL DOCUMENTED sites (which you yourself have proven, thank you) why did he not just call those sites by name? And also, he was talking about a temple that was revered by all Arabs, and not specifically one group of Arabs. This temple was not an ordinary temple, like those present in "every other arab town" (as you stated).

The burden of proof is on you to bring positive proof of Mecca not on me to prove a negative.

I have provided proof. While all you have provided is attempts to discredit that proof with a long list of invalid examples.

The reason that you keep hanging on to this straw of a vague mention of a temple by Diodorus is that you have NOTHING. If you had anything even remotely referring to Mecca then we wouldn't be having this debate. Your entire faith in Mecca and blindly doing crazy rituals is based on such flimsy straw. There is really nothing more to discuss unless you can bring positive proof and not fallaciously ask for negative proof.

Yea, thats right... there was a big conspiracy and everyone decided to make the Mecca the focal point of worship... And all Muslims who bow to Mecca are pagan idiots... (lol) While you of course, are the enlightened prophet who has discovered the truth.

Have fun with your delusions.


@ truthseeker

It imples that the location is in the middle. That is the only reason for using the word "between". Otherwise you can easily say it was closer to such and such a point. Mecca is smack in the middle of the two points listed by Diodorus. Much more so then any of these other locations provided by Ayman (which are invalid anyway for other reasons).



PeAcE

[almarh0m]

Salamun alaykum

Code

Could you please provide Qur'anic evidence as to Kabbah as " The Revered " Temple and Mecca is the Location ?

As far as I know , there is nothing in the Qur'an that says that any Prophets/Messengers were ever sent there , on the contrary

34:44 ( Qur'an Surah 34:44 ) indicates that there was no Warner/Prophet/Messenger ever sent there prior to The Messenger whose

name was Ahmad . Unles you subscribe to the theory that 'Masjidil Haraam' was a physical building , if you do please provide us

with Qur'anic evidence of its existence at the time of the Qur'an revelation and immediately after .

Thank you

Peace

[thegod]

almarh0m-As far as I know , there is nothing in the Qur'an that says that any Prophets/Messengers were ever sent there

I have to say that's pretty insightful -- "nothing in the Qur'an that says that any Prophets/Messengers were ever sent there;" where is this "there"?



ma'a salaam.

God bless all.

al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

Jonny + Ayman + Truthseeker

Salaam ppl

@ Jonny

It was provided, and dismissed by you, on almost hilarious grounds.

JK- Hadith is extra ordinary evidence that GOD commanded ritual salat? A certain interpretation of the Quran, which has been refuted by indendent free minders here, is your evidence that GOD commanded ritual prayer? COMMON!

Actually, you rely on ZERO evidence.

JK- No i rely on the evidence provided by independent researchers like bro ayman and use logic and reason WHEREAS YOU rely on totally biased evidence and the secula evidence your providing is being e dbunked by ayman OR perhaps in the end your arguments will turn out to debunk his, well see.

Yes do that. Please go and ask your "secular" scholars whether the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents are not.

JK- I forgot to add "in mentioning that the people following those hadith performed a certain set of rituals". This the point. Since hadith are of religious nature the religious groups couldve easily written about certain rituals to be performed in them, especially the pagans at that time, thus duping people into believng this is what GOD wants in the Quran. 

Sure, if you reject the hadith totally, do whatever you like. What do I care?

JK- No im asking you whether YOU consider the no of rakats, sujood and rukus mentioned in the hadith to be coming from GOD? That is my qs. GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace again "c0de"

You write to ayman:

Yea, thats right... there was a big conspiracy and everyone decided to make the Mecca the focal point of worship... And all Muslims who bow to Mecca are pagan idiots... (lol) While you of course, are the enlightened prophet who has discovered the truth.

JK- Have the Christians not been duped by their elite into believing the trinity? Are they not still being duped on a daily basis. And ofcurse i beleive that GOD sees the intentions so He wont punish the ones whor still facing or circulating the "kaaba" thinking this is what GOD wants until theyr provided with rational arguments which they push to the side just because it makes them feel uncomfortable. This is the point. Ayman has provided evideince that circulating the kaaba is a pagan ritual. They used to to it and they somhow succeeded in making the muslims think that these are Divine instructions. GOD Bless!

[c0de]

@ All

Salam guys, before I begin I would like to apologize for my somewhat aggressive tone of late. I would rather not sound like a cyber bully, and I have been regretting some of the pointed personal remarks I have made so far and I assure you that I will mend my ways, inshAllah. 


On the Mecca + Prayer issue:

Honestly, there is so much obvious evidence that Mecca is Masjid al-Haram, that it is a wonder how some here have objections against it. Before I explain the case of 34:44 (which can be easily understood), take a look at the characteristics of the "first house appointed for worship" mentioned in the Quran singles out Mecca. As the alternative (Jeruselum) does not fit the description of a peaceful sacred place because it is a historical fact that Jerusalem has always been a focal point of warfare and bloodshed, a city which God Himself has repeatedly destroyed. Compare Jerusalem with the description of this place: "The first House (of worship) established for mankind was that at Bakkah: full of blessing and of guidance for all the worlds. In it are Signs Manifest; The Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security." ( 3: 96-97) Which inhabitants would you say are more secure? The inhabitants of Mecca, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem?

Also, the idea that just because the word "becca" is different then "mecca" means they refer to separate locations is invalid considering that many things in the Quran have been called by different names. Ahmed, equals Muhammad (pbuh), after all. Another obvious example are the many different names of God Himself in the Quran, it doesnt mean that there is more then one God. Heaven and Hell have been called by different names as well, it doesnt mean there are different heavens and multiple hells.

Now, about the actual pilgrimage. The argument that the act of going around the Kabbah is a pagan ritual, is a very old argument which was used by the critics of Islam, mainly the Christian critics. There are two main problems with this approach. #1: It assumes that the act of going around was not borrowed by the pagans from the Abrahamic practice. We already know that this was the house set up by Abraham and the ritual was established well in antiquity: "And then we assigned to Abraham the place of the House, saying , do not set up ought with me, and purify My House for those who make the circuit, and who stand to pray and who bow and prostrate themselves. And proclaim among men, the Hajj?? (22:26-27) #2: If you accept different translations of the word "tawaf" and say this does not actually mean "going around", well, all you are really doing is basing your entire argument on semantics. The fact that the word has multiple meanings can not be used to say those meanings are mutually exclusive (because obviously they are not). And the meaning "going around" is supported by historical evidence, while the other meaning, while still valid, does not override the first meaning. And the fact remains that the historical practice and evidence contradicts the argument.

As for the 34:44, remember the words Abraham PBUH used to describe the valley in which he left his wife Hajra (ra)? That description indicates that there were no people there or it was an empty abandoned area ("a valley unproductive of fruit"). Whatever the state of Mecca at that time, it was no "center" of anything back then. What is clear (and what we know for sure) is that since that time, until the arrival of the Prophet PBUH no messengers came to the Ishmaelites (Arabs). And also remember that while Ishmael PBUH himself was there, he had no real mission to reform the people (that we know of). This is why the statement that no messengers had been sent to the people (Arabs) remains true. Abraham PBUH and Ishmael PBUH were told to lay the foundations for the future. That was their real mission in Mecca, and that future was fulfilled in our Prophet PBUH.

Lastly, the idea that Masjid al-Haram is only a metaphor is negated by the fact that this entire argument assumes that a metaphorical meanings and a practical meaning are mutually exclusive when there is no basis for this assumption. It is very possible (and I believe it is true) that masjid-al-haram signifies devotion to God in general. However, this does not mean that the ritual significance of this direction is negated. There is ZERO evidence provided by the opposition that has shown that there was any time in history where the Muslims took any other direction, other then Mecca (since the command to face Mecca was handed down) to pray to. All the objections against these claims have been answered. while no actual evidence for 3 prayers, or any other random number, or that the Muslims considered prayer only in metaphorical terms, has been provided.

At the end of the day, all the opposition has done is challenge a well-established ritual without bringing any counter evidence.


@ Jonny

Have the Christians not been duped by their elite into believing the trinity?

And so have the Muslims been "duped" into believing that Jesus PBUH is sitting in heaven and will return to earth. But you are assuming that you haven't been "duped" as well into believing the arguments that you believe. Everyone here including myself could be "duped", but that isn't the point. The point is when you make a claim, you have to justify it with a reasonable argument, which includes valid evidence. I have given you many occasions to present any piece of evidence to support your claims. I continue to do so. Please provide any historical evidence to back up your views. You keep denying the hadith as valid evidence (which it is) without actually bringing any counter evidence yourself to disprove the hadith. You just say "it is biased"... well, everything is "biased". It doesnt mean everything is, by default, invalid. You also applied rationality to religious rituals, when religion is irrational by nature. You denied clear rituals present in the Quran with the claim that alternative translations can be provided. When no alternative explanations can provide "rational" explanations for religion or religious rituals.

Hadith is extra ordinary evidence that GOD commanded ritual salat? A certain interpretation of the Quran, which has been refuted by indendent free minders here, is your evidence that GOD commanded ritual prayer? COMMON!

See above. Most of your responses on this issue have been answered in the previous paragraphs.

No im asking you whether YOU consider the no of rakats, sujood and rukus mentioned in the hadith to be coming from GOD? That is my qs. GOD Bless!

If those details in the hadith do not contradict the Quran (contain Faitiah, prostrating, standing) then its ok to follow them, if you wish. After all, there is nothing unreasonable about it.



PeAcE

[Ahmad Bilal]

Peace "c0de",

The Qur'aan says:

He decreed for you the same system decreed for Noah, and what We inspired to you, and what We decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. You must uphold this one system, and do not divide it. (42:13)

Nothing that was given to any of the other prophets ever required them to circle a shrine in Makka, throw stones at "the devil", kiss a black rock, pray 5 times per day, or do any of these other rituals recorded in the hadiths, many of which directly conflict with the Qur'aan... Saying that these concepts were "new" when they were given to Muhammad is saying that G-d decreed for him (and us) a different system than what He decreed for His other worshippers, and that conflicts with the scripture...

Peace,

Ahmad