Free Minds

Community Needs => Salat & Zakat (The Contact & Purification) => Topic started by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 06:06:56 AM

Title: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 06:06:56 AM
Ok, this is starting off from the middle of another thread in another section.
First I will quote my post, then the rebuttal, and then post my response.


Step 1: The initial argument on the subject of prayer:



Quote
I would like to point out that the number of 5 prayers can
be very soundly supported through the Quran itself. First of all:

...Prayer indeed has been enjoined on the believers at fixed times.
4:103

This verse makes it clear that there are fixed times and therefore a fixed number
of the contact prayers, (i.e the number is not arbitrary). Then there is the verse 17:78
which broadly defines all the 5 times together:

"Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and
the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed."

Notice that the words "from" and "until" are used, which indicate that the number
of prayers must be more then 3. And since there is another verse in the
Quran which mentions a "middle prayer" (2:238) it is clear that this number must
be an odd number. So we know that it must be more then 3, and and odd number.
This is Quranic evidence for the number 5. Taken together with the unbroken practice of
Muslims over generations (unless you can prove otherwise) is proof enough that
the established number of prayers is 5.



@ Bigmo


Is this mere suspicion enough to reject the practice? As I said, you would have to provide
evidence that there was a time when the Muslims used to pray any more or less then 5 contact prayers.
Also, you will have to admit that your argument is completely based on circumstantial evidence. This is what
I meant when I said that you will have a hard time proving the number 5 is wrong. I do appreciate the detail
and effort. But you have admit that it is basically all speculation.




@ Wakas



If there is evidence within the Quran. Then the popularity becomes
supporting evidence, and not a fallacy.

Observe the following verses which were part of the list you gave.
The first two verses clearly mention bowing down and standing as
part of the contact prayer. And the last verse clearly indicates that
there is a set form and length to each prayer, as we are allowed to
shorten it during travel.

And Keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and bow down with those that bow down.
2:43

Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers, especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before Allah in a devout (frame of mind).
2.238

And when you journey in the earth there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer...
4:101


Basically, there is a lot of stuff that is not based in the Quran which you can challenge,
but the 5 contact prayers, their methods, and timings, this is not extra-Quranic. It is
a very essential obligation mentioned in the Quran.


Step 2, the Rebuttal:
I am combining the posts of Mr. Bigmo and Dr. Fazl



Quote
Not all of them are alike: of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they (hasten in emulation) in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

And there are certainly among the people of the Book those who believe in Allah in the revelation to you and in the revelation to them bowing in humility to Allah: they will not sell the signs of Allah for a miserable gain! for them is a reward with their Lord and Allah is swift in account.

16.48. Do they not look at Allah.s creation, (even) among (inanimate) things,- How their (very) shadows turn round, from the right and the left, prostrating themselves to Allah, and that in the humblest manner?

So we see that prostration is mentioned in the Koran but we see no specific standard for the salat you say. Its not whether the 5 salat are Sunnah or not its the question whether its the only way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If the acting salat is so important than the salat in action, then it is never possible. Muhammad accepted from Allah, the 50 times salat per day on his ascent to heaven to meet Allah. Only for the people's sake who will never follow the prophet Muhammad in this regard, he had to scale 50 down by heavily bargaining through nine meetings with Him reducing each time by 5 waqts. Then also Musa says the followers cannot pray so much. But muhammad was only ashamed to go to Allah again; had he done so definitely Allah would have removed the last remaining 5 waqts also. So it is not at all wrong to do away with the ritual, acting - the salat.

But one thing is definite! Muhammad would have surely followed 50 waqts every day because he had accepted the same from Allah and never bargained for reduction for himself but did so only for the fake people at large who will claim to follow him. What do the hadith followers have to say about the timings that muhammad observed daily for his 50 waqts prayer, if it is acting salat?

-----------------------------------


Point #1

Firstly, I did not say that the Quran mentions the standard, I said that the Quran says that
there is a standard. This is clear when we are told that we can shorten our
prayers when we are traveling, this implies that there is a set length to the prayer. If there
was no set length or standard, then why would God tell us we can "shorten" the prayer
? If
its length was arbitrary to begin with, this injunction would not have been necessary.

Point #2

Both of these rebuttals, do not address all the arguments made in the initial argument.
Also, once again the arguments you have made are based in circumstantial evidence.
You assume that since the methods of prayer of the Jews have been similar to Muslims in the past,
that our current methods of prayer are borrowed from them, and are not taught by the Prophet.
This is pure speculation.

Now I agree that the pattern of prayer is not as strict as the different sects claim,
but this does not mean that the method of prayer is arbitrary either. There is a general guideline
which all sects follow, e.g. The recitation of Surah Fatiah "The Opening" and the bowing down.
The number of rakats are very uniform within most schools of thought, but I am not here to
argue how many rakats you should pray. That is besides the point. The point is that there is
a fixed number of prayers, at fixed times, and there is a method that is given by the Prophet
for those prayers that should be followed.

Point #3:

There is clear evidence in the Quran that the number of prayers is more then 3, and is an odd
number
. Therefore, the number 5 is clearly supported by the overwhelming popularity of the
practice of 5 daily prayers. If you challenge this practice, then you would have to provide
evidence that there was a time in the ummah when the Muslims use to pray more or less then
5 daily prayers. So far, you have not provided any evidence to indicate this.

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Wakas on February 24, 2009, 06:22:24 AM
peace,

Thanks for starting a new thread.

Before we begin:

Have you read the past discussions in this forum on the topic of: salat timing? meaning of "sujud"? meaning of "ruku"?
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 06:49:07 AM
peace,

Thanks for starting a new thread.

Before we begin:

Have you read the past discussions in this forum on the topic of: salat timing? meaning of "sujud"? meaning of "ruku"?

Nope, but the points you have mentioned do not apply to this thread,
I think, as it is making the case that: only if there were no verses in the
Quran to indicate the number, and the existence of a format, and the
existence of fixed times, only then could we move this discussion to realms
like the meaning of the words you mentioned. Because then there would be
evidence that the suspicion on this practice is warranted. But as it stands now,
there has not even been any proof provided that this practice was ever any
different then it is today.

Therefore, since all of these things have a foundation in the Quran, the practices
that we see in the ummah become supporting evidence for the contact
prayers as they are today. Thoughts?


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Wakas on February 24, 2009, 06:58:52 AM
For sake of argument, let's ignore that for now, and get stuck in:

Quote
Notice that the words "from" and "until" are used, which indicate that the number
of prayers must be more then 3.

Explain/clarify.


Thanks.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 24, 2009, 07:00:57 AM
Nope, but the points you have mentioned do not apply to this thread,
I think, as it is making the case that: only if there were no verses in the
Quran to indicate the number, and the existence of a format, and the
existence of fixed times, only then could we move this discussion to realms
like the meaning of the words you mentioned. Because then there would be
evidence that the suspicion on this practice is warranted. But as it stands now,
there has not even been any proof provided that this practice was ever any
different then it is today.

Therefore, since all of these things have a foundation in the Quran, the practices
that we see in the ummah become supporting evidence for the contact
prayers as they are today. Thoughts?


PeAcE

All believers pray with fixed timings. Its part of the routine of life, like eating and sleeping. You are understanding fixed timing wrong. People usually pray in the mornings and evenings and some may pray at noon. Some Christians also pray before eating. Nearly all societies have fixed timings for praying as they have fixed timings for anything else in life. Believers are diligent about their prayers and know that if you keep slipping the time eventually you might abandon it. Its like charity, you always have a certaing percent you give out or else you will neglect it. So I do not see fixed timings as something related to what you are saying. The Koran does give us fixed timings and these fixed timings are typical for humans. Its another way of saying being consistent. Anyways Sunnis do not have fixed timings, only Maghrib has a certain small time frame. The verses that mention the timing of salat in the Koran says fajr and Isha, these are fixed timings and it says at the edges of the day, these are fixed timings. Some people pray before sleep, these are fixed timings. The problem is you believe these fixed timings are things that you should be given. Maybe you are not used to devicing your own. Its like exercising, those who are serious keep a routine and they stick with it.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 07:47:30 AM
Wakas + Bigmo


@ Wakas


If there were only 3 times of the contact prayers, then the words "from"
and "until" would not need to be used. As the three times are already
mentioned in that verse.


@ Bigmo

But that is not what the verse is saying. It is not saying that all believers
have their own fixed times. It is clearly saying that the times for the prayers
are themselves fixed.

Also, you have not yet provided any proof that the practice of 5 daily prayers
at their stated times was ever any different then it is today. Unless you provide
evidence for this, you do not really have a case.



PeAcE 
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on February 24, 2009, 09:02:40 AM
Peace code,

You are conveniently ignoring that the verse mentions "salaat" (singular), and not "salawaat" (plural), so the "from" and "until" mean it is the timing for one salaat and not more than one for that time period. The "from" and "until" combined with singular "salaat" actually refute the understanding of more than one salaat in that time period. I have seen this time and again that people twist the word of God based on their personal pre-conceived notions based on unverifiable hearsay and refuse to see the clear signs. This has been discussed in this forum ad nauseum so no further comments from me on this issue.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: simple on February 24, 2009, 10:07:33 AM
Salaams the cOde  :peace:,

Quote
Salaams,
              This has been discussed a number of times but i wonder if you can visualise it from a different angle but using the quran in main:

4:103
---------- verily the Salaat is on the believers enjoined at fixed time and do not be weak----------.

Name of Allah: ALMUQEET = The possessor of power.

85.
[4:85]   Man yashfaAA shafaAAatan hasanatanyakun lahu naseebun minha waman yashfaAA shafaAAatansayyi-atan yakun lahu kiflun minha wakana AllahuAAala kulli shay-in MUQEETUN من يشفع شفاعة حسنة يكن له نصيب منها ومن يشفع شفاعة سيئة يكن له كفل منها وكان الله علي كل شئ مقيتا

    Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein: And whoever recommends and helps an evil cause, shares in its burden: And Allah hath power over all things.

According to lanes(P 2571):

Muqeetun = Giving or giver of : Food/Sustenance/Keeping/Preserving/Guarding.

Mawqootan= Nourishment/Preservation/Protection  ; As is needful.

SO AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSLATION COULD WELL BE:

4:103
------------verily the Salaat is on the believers an enjoined requirement and not be weak-------------.e.t.c

God Bless.


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 24, 2009, 10:33:53 AM
Wakas + Bigmo


@ Wakas


If there were only 3 times of the contact prayers, then the words "from"
and "until" would not need to be used. As the three times are already
mentioned in that verse.


@ Bigmo

But that is not what the verse is saying. It is not saying that all believers
have their own fixed times. It is clearly saying that the times for the prayers
are themselves fixed.

Also, you have not yet provided any proof that the practice of 5 daily prayers
at their stated times was ever any different then it is today. Unless you provide
evidence for this, you do not really have a case.



PeAcE 

But the verse does not say who are to fix it and there is nowhere in the Koran where it says what those fixed times are. It says it should be at the two ends of the day etc. Plus you want me to prove how the 5 daily prayers were not the way they were. However you still have not provided that they were fixed that way. Plus you still have not explained about how the Rika'at are from the prophet. Now the Koran says that:

51.19 And in their wealth the beggar and the outcast had due share.

What is the share?


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 10:58:19 AM
@ All

Salaam everyone.... rite then:

The problem with your arguments are basic: You are the ones who are
making a claim challenging the established ritual of prayer. So the
burden of proof is on you, not everyone else. You can't just make
an objection (which you have not proven) and then expect others
to provide proof before you have presented prof for your objection.

In logic, this would be considered an Argument from Ignorance.
Here is a description of this particular error from wikipedia:

Quote
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."


The burden of proof is on you because you have raised the objection that the
established number of prayers was (at one time) something other then 5.
Until you provide this proof, as I said, you don't really have a real argument.
But for the sake of discussion lets continue:




Quote
You are conveniently ignoring that the verse mentions "salaat" (singular), and not "salawaat" (plural), so the "from" and "until" mean it is the timing for one salaat and not more than one for that time period.


You could only make that claim if verse 4:103
did not exist. Since it already makes it clear that there
are fixed times for the prayer and thus 17:78 points
out that those times are between:

1: in the Mourning and then a break...
2: then again starting from Mid Day
3: And Going on until night.. and then another break



Quote
nowhere in the Koran where it says what those fixed times are.

Of course it does not say what those exact times are
because the world is a sphere and the timings for each
section of the planet are different. You expect the Quran
to tell you that Zuhr is at 12:30pm?  :P

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 24, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
@ All

Salaam everyone.... rite then:

The problem with your arguments are basic: You are the ones who are
making a claim challenging the established ritual of prayer. So the
burden of proof is on you, not everyone else. You can't just make
an objection (which you have not proven) and then expect others
to provide proof before you have presented prof for your objection.

In logic, this would be considered an Argument from Ignorance.
Here is a description of this particular error from wikipedia:
 

The burden of proof is on you because you have raised the objection that the
established number of prayers was (at one time) something other then 5.
Until you provide this proof, as I said, you don't really have a real argument.
But for the sake of discussion lets continue:



 

You could only make that claim if verse 4:103
did not exist. Since it already makes it clear that there
are fixed times for the prayer and thus 17:78 points
out that those times are between:

1: in the Mourning and then a break...
2: then again starting from Mid Day
3: And Going on until night.. and then another break



Of course it does not say what those exact times are
because the world is a sphere and the timings for each
section of the planet are different. You expect the Quran
to tell you that Zuhr is at 12:30pm?  :P

 




PeAcE


The anology you threw is not correct. First you did not answer what is the due share to be given to the asker or beggar?

The anolgy that you brought from some encyclopeadia is not correct. This is because the Sunnah are brought to people as prophetic sunnah and Sunnis also have hadiths that explixitly says its so. So when you provide evidence then you need to show its authenticity. We are not doing anything of the sort here. We are just trying to debate the Koran.

If someone was to tell you that this car is the best car in the world, don't you think you will ask him what makes him thinks so and what is his evidence? I am not saying that it or it's not. Plus some here will have their won understanding of where these rituals come from. Its a very complex issue and unless we have archeological discoveries we really do not know. neither the Torah, Gospel or Koran tells us how to exactly pray but they all gives us guidelines. In fact the guidelines are very similar if not identical.

Now some here will give you this:

THE RITUAL PRAYER (NAMAAZ) AND MORE
Ardeshir Spencer

 I am a Zoroastrian. Dr. Shabbir?s research is quite right. Your NAMAAZ was stolen from Zoroastrianism by your Parsi Imams from Persia.


It would be appropriate if we can discuss the startling similarities between some practices of Islam and Zoroastrianism. These parallels go beyond coincident. I will endeavor to enumerate a few here:


01. Requirements of prayers: Islam enjoins its followers to pray 5 times a day and is called by the Muezzin to his prayers. These prayers are at i) Dawn  ii) Noon  iii) Afternoon  iv) Sunset  v) Night.


Zoroastrianism also enjoins prayers 5 times a day called ?Geh?. The devotee is summoned by the ringing of a bell in the AtashBehram / Agiary. These prayers are also at the same time as in Islam and their respective names are:

 Time: Islamic/ Zorastrianism

Dawn: Fajar/ Havaan

Noon: Zohar/ Rapithwan

Afternoon: Asr/ Uziren

Evening: Mazreem or Maghrib/ Aiwisuthrem

Night time: Isha or Ishan/ Ushaen.

02. Pre-requisites of Prayer: On entering the mosque and prior to commencing prayers a Muslim has to cover his head and wash his face and limbs. Similarly, a Zoroastrian on entering the Agiary will cover his head, wash his face and limbs and perform the Padyaab Kusti before commencing his prayers.

03. The Prayers: Prayers in Islam are in Arabic only, though translations/transliterations are available. The liturgy has to be conducted in Arabic only. In Zoroastrianism too, prayers have to be recited in Avesta or in Pazend only. In fact in Aveatan prayers Pazend portions have to be recited in an undertone so as not to break the seamless flow of Avestan Manthravani.

04. Sanctum Sanctorum and its veneration: The holiest spot in a Mosque is the wall facing Mecca and is called the Qiblah. In the Atashbehram/Agiary the room where the Atash Padshah is enthroned is also called the Keblaah. A Muslim will perform the Sajdah in front of the Qiblah and so also will the Zoroastrian perform the Sezdah before his Keblaah. Both involve kneeling down and touching the forehead to the ground.

 05. A Holy Month: In Islam Ramzan is the holy month in which all Muslims are required to fast in the day and only break their fast after sunset. In Zoroastrianism the month of Bahman has similiar connotations wherein all are requested to particularly abstain from flesh. Perhaps in the age of the Sassanian dynasty the month of Bahman was observed as Ramzan is now.

06. Ascent into Heaven: The hagiography of Islam assures us that Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven from Jerusalem on the mythical beast Burrrak. He crossed the 7 spheres, exchanged greetings with the patriarchs and beheld the glory of God.

 
The Dinkard tells us that at the entreaties of Asho Zarthustra Bahman Ameshaspand transcendentally elevated his consciousness to the realm of heaven wherein Asho Zarthustra looked at the reflugent majesty of God. A similiar journey was attributed to the virtuous Ardaviraf who visited hell, purgatory and heaven during his spiritual journey.

The above similarities are obvious. A more careful research would reveal more parallels. However even these points are too close to be dismissed as mere coincidences. This means Zoroastrianism has had an enormous impact on Islam which is not acknowledged. Everyone agrees Islam owes a lot to Judaism and Christianity but I feel that the scholars of Islam borrowed very heavily from Iran and this can be perhaps attributed to that shadowy figure of Dastur Dinyar (Salman Farsi). This debt is so impressive that it had to be consistently downgraded and later denied. After all if Islam is supposedly directly inspired by God it cannot be seen to be acknowledging any debt to an older faith, specially the faith of a nation which Islam has defeated. This may perhaps explain the devotion of your Persian Imams to my Faith.

07. Chinvat Bridge (The SIRAAT BRIDGE): According to ancient Persian myth, when a person dies, the soul remains by the body for three days. On the fourth, it travels to Chinvat Bridge (the Bridge of the Separator, also call Al-Sirat), accompanied by gods of protection. The bridge is ?finer than a hair and sharper than a sword? and spans a deep chasm teeming with monsters. On the other side of the bridge is the gateway to paradise.

08. Hell: Demons guard the foot of the bridge and argue with the gods over the soul?s fate. The actions of the dead person, both good and bad, are weighed, and the soul is either allowed to cross or denied access to the bridge. Spirits whose evil outweighs their good fall into the demon-infested pit to face eternal torment. In this abyss of the damned, each soul is tortured by a GHOUL that represents its sins in life. Once fallen into the gulf, no soul can escape the horrors of hell through its own power.

Zoroaster, a sixth century BC religious leader, had warned his followers of this obstacle to heaven but he promised to lead his flock safely across. The ancient manuscript Gathas (Songs of Zoroaster) explains that the Bridge of the Separator ?becomes narrow for the wicked,? whereas the holy can easily pass unharmed. (In Gathas, the fair god Rashnu is named as the judge who helps determine who is worthy of salvation and who must be damned.) All infidels (non-believers) fall into hell, which the prophet says has been created especially for the ?followers of the lie.?

The legends are sketchy but assert that Chinvat Bridge is located somewhere in the far north. It is a place of filth where the damned endure physical tortures and spiritual agony. Souls who are unsuccessful in crossing the Chinvat Bridge suffer these torments until AHRAMAN, the evil god of ZOROASTRIANISM, is destroyed by the good god Orzmahd during the LAST JUDGMENT. As this time, lost spirits are restored to the truth since ?the lie? has been eradicated, or they face final ANNIHILATION.

Notice the similarity? So you guys are actually pagan stone and sun worshippers, correct? But your Koran is pure and free from plagiarism.

 THE FIVE RITUAL ZOROASTRIAN PRAYERS

The five prayers were developed AFTER the Prophet Zoroaster.
See below some quotes on the ritual prayer ceremony:
From the book J.J. Modi: The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees. (Bombay, 1922.) Part 3.

 1. There are three grades of the Sacred Fire-(A) The Sacred Fire of the Atash Behram, (B) that of the Atash, Adaran and (C) that of the Atash Dadgah. These three have their different rituals of consecration and also different rituals for the daily prayers at the five times (gahs) of the day, when they are fed with fresh fuel. We will, at first, speak of the process of consecrating these three grades of the sacred fire. For example, he falls on his knees in his prayers; he lowers his head and bows; he raises his hands towards Heaven. All these ways or rites, which symbolize service or obedience or homage to God, are done occasionally.

The candidate is to say his prayers five times during the day. He is expected to pass his time in a religious or pious mood. The candidate [203] has, during these six days, to pass his time in prayers during the five Gahs and to observe all the observances of saying the grace at meals, etc. He is not to come in contact with any non-Zoroastrian.

 The five periods for the performance of the ceremony:

The Bui ceremony is performed five times every day. It is performed at the commencement of each of the five Gahs or periods of the day which correspond to a certain extent, with the canonical hours of the Christians.

18 These periods are the following:
 (1) Hawan. It begins from early morning when the stars begin to cease to appear, and lasts up to 12 O?Clock when the sun comes overhead. Literally, it means the time when the ceremony of pounding the Haoma is performed.
(2) Rapithwin. It runs from 12 o?clock noon to 3 p. m. Literally, it means the pith (pithwa) or the middle part of the day (ayar?).
(3) Uzerin. It runs from 3 p.m. to the time when the stars begin to appear. Literally, it means the time of the advancement of the sun.
(4) Aiwisruthrem. It runs from nightfall to midnight.
(5) Ushahin. It runs from midnight to dawn when the stars begin to cease to appear.

The priest performs the Kusti-padyab (i.e., performs ablutions and unties and puts on the Kusti again with the recital of a prayer).
The Bui ceremony in an Atash Behram: A priest who has performed the Khub ceremony, performs the Kusti-padyab at the commencement of each new Gah, i.e., the period of the day, as described above, and then recites his Farziyat, i.e., the necessary prayers, which are the Srosh-baj, the Gah according to the time of the day, and the Khwarshed and Mihr Niyayeshes during the day periods, i.e., the above named first three gahs.

During the night-periods which form the last two gahs, the Khwarshed and Mihr Niyayeshes are replaced by Srosh Yasht (Yasna 57) and Srosh Hadokht. He then goes into the sacred chamber, puts on white gloves, places some frankincense over the Sacred Fire, and then the M?chi, i.e., the six pieces of sandalwood as said above. If [234] sandalwood is not obtainable, six pieces of any other kind of clean good wood will do. The six pieces are placed over the fire from three different positions, thus:


http://www.avesta.org/ritual/rcc3.htm

As far as the old and new testament:

http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?showtopic=52214&hl=bigmo
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 11:34:45 AM
@ Bigmo


The analogy I gave is completely valid because you are not
challenging a hadith, you are challenging an established
practice. And in order to challenge the validity of an established
practice you will have to provide evidence that contradicts the
uniformity of that practice throughout its history. Everyone has
been praying 5 prayers since the time of the prophet. If you are
claiming that this is not true, then your the one who have to provide
evidence for your claim.

Also, the question you asked about the beggar is itself
answered by my question to you: Do you want the Quran
to give you a specific time to pray Zuhr? Just like you
expect the Quran to tell you to give $10 to the beggar?
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 24, 2009, 12:03:08 PM
@ Bigmo


The analogy I gave is completely valid because you are not
challenging a hadith, you are challenging an established
practice. And in order to challenge the validity of an established
practice you will have to provide evidence that contradicts the
uniformity of that practice throughout its history. Everyone has
been praying 5 prayers since the time of the prophet. If you are
claiming that this is not true, then your the one who have to provide
evidence for your claim.

Also, the question you asked about the beggar is itself
answered by my question to you: Do you want the Quran
to give you a specific time to pray Zuhr? Just like you
expect the Quran to tell you to give $10 to the beggar?


No but the Sunnah does give specific time. You still did not answer this question:

What evidence you have that God only accepts the 5 prayers with the rika'as that Muslims pray? And why is the Koran, Torah and Gospel all united in not giving specific times and specific rituals for prayers yet all speak of prostration, bowing, kneeling and praying with humility and doing so consistently? Why is it only this Sunnah which spells it like that? If it is so important how you pray why didn't the Koran inform us of that?

I don't know but  I see this argument going in circles. If you want to pray that way then do so, nobody is stopping you. But don't say that its the only way. Maybe it is from the prophet, but how do you know that its the only way to pray?

A Zoroastrian might say these prayer rituals are our Sunnah stolen by the Arabs. After all the Persians were very much involved in Islamic history. Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Tbari, Abu Dawood are all Persian speaking. So is Al Nisa'i and all these are Sunni hadith and tafsir icons.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Pseudo on February 24, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
Peace code,

Everyone has
been praying 5 prayers since the time of the prophet.

Everyone has got the inheritance verses all misunderstood/wrong; most are clueless.

The burden of prove is there are no contradictions. Pray/reflect as many times you like.


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 12:30:12 PM

But that is not what I am saying. I never said that God only accepts prayers
at those specific times, and in any specified format.
I am sure He is more generous
then my faculty essay guidelines. That is not the point.

You're the one who raised an objection that the established practice of 5 contact
prayers is dubious. All I am pointing out that you have not provided evidence for
your claim. In order to do so (and I remind you) you will have to prove an inconsistency
within the historical record of the practice of 5 regular prayers a day.


Salaam
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Wakas on February 24, 2009, 12:45:18 PM
peace bro truthseeker,

You pre-empted my follow up strike with the "salat" is singular comment.  ;D I primarily asked about his "from" and "until" statement first as it didn't make any sense to me so was intruiged by the reasoning. Of course, I realised later there was no reasoning except attempting to justify a preconceived notion.
As a side note, you may be interested to know bro Anwar (progod) brought up this point in the past, e.g. singular can represent the plural, but he never cited any examples in AQ where the single is used and the plural is meant, and was making the comment on theoretical grammar/linguistic possibilities. Of course, both you and I know AQ is precision par excellence when it comes to its word usage.


peace c0de,

I will briefly cover the points you made before ending our discussion.

Quote
The burden of proof is on you

Wrong. If someone makes a claim, they should bring the proof. If we both believe in Al Quran, this is our common ground and our criterion. If you make a claim about AQ, then bring proof. If I make a claim about AQ, I bring proof.

Traditional Muslims readily admit their ritual prayer is not in AQ, hence their favourite question of asking those who follow a Quran based islam where it is in AQ. They dont understand the assumption in their question. It is ironic to think that they have identified the problem but are oblivious to it at the same time. Reminds me of the wisdom: if someone is unaware they are in darkness they will never seek the light.


Quote
You could only make that claim if verse 4:103
did not exist. Since it already makes it clear that there
are fixed times

Firstly, it is not a claim, it is a FACT salat is singular in 17:78.
Secondly, you do realise 4:103 says "timed kitab/prescript/decree/book". It does not say times (plural), if this was what you were implying.

Quote
1: in the Mourning and then a break...
2: then again starting from Mid Day
3: And Going on until night.. and then another break



Of course it does not say what those exact times are
because the world is a sphere and the timings for each
section of the planet are different. You expect the Quran
to tell you that Zuhr is at 12:30pm?

This is a perfect example of your "reasoning" ability.


I strongly recommend reading the past discussions. I'm out.



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 24, 2009, 01:03:19 PM
But that is not what I am saying. I never said that God only accepts prayers
at those specific times, and in any specified format.
I am sure He is more generous
then my faculty essay guidelines. That is not the point.

You're the one who raised an objection that the established practice of 5 contact
prayers is dubious. All I am pointing out that you have not provided evidence for
your claim. In order to do so (and I remind you) you will have to prove an inconsistency
within the historical record of the practice of 5 regular prayers a day.


Salaam


I never said they were dubious. Some here have said that but they never have been able to prove that and often remain silent when asked a few question. Thats the whole point, we really do not know. But I tend to take my information from the Koran, Torah and Gospel and I have not see these 5 prayers. Maybe it is Sunnah and maybe its not. I know some tradition Jewish rituals also have 5 times a day prayers. So maybe and maybe not. But its not in the Torah or Gospel. The Talmud is not confirmed by the Koran and in some verses the Koran codemned its teachings and so did Jesus in the Gospel, read Mark 7. So I do not generally rely on the Talmud as I do with the Torah. Why would God leave such an information in 3 scriptures if it was that important how we pray and when?

Anyways I don't see the point of following the Koran if you think these rituals are obligatory and binding on everyone. Its contradictory to say you follow the Koran yet you ignore this:

Righteousness does not consist in whether you turn your faces towards the east or the west; what is righteous  is to believe in Allah and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and in times of war. Such as do so are people of truth. Such are the Allah-fearing. (Al-Baqara, 177)

Ask any Sunni and they will tell you without Qibla there is no Salat.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 05:23:48 PM
@ Wakas


Wakas + Bigmo


Salaam guys


@ Wakas

Quote
Firstly, it is not a claim, it is a FACT salat is singular in 17:78.

I beg to differ:

017.078
YUSUFALI: Establish regular prayers - at the sun's decline till the darkness of the night...
PICKTHAL: Establish worship at the going down of the sun until the dark of night...
SHAKIR: Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night...

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/017.qmt.html

So no, it is not singular. This should put to rest your objection.

Not only that, but consider the words of the verse, it is impossible for a single prayer
to cover the time frame mentioned. The sun starts declining right after mid-day (noon)
and the darkness of the night comes after Maghrib i.e. Isha. That covers a period of
several hours. So your claim that the verse is talking about a single prayer can not be true
in any case.


Quote
If someone makes a claim, they should bring the proof.


Exactly. You're the one making the claim that the practice of 5 established prayers
is misguided, so prove it. Was there a time when this practice was not standard?





@ Bigmo

You keep assuming I believe in things which I do not believe in. I am not a sunni.
And I am not questioning your faith. I am merely questioning the assertion that
the established practice of 5 contact prayers is misguided. You might not have
said that it was dubious, but it has been implied by others here.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 24, 2009, 05:50:19 PM
@ Wakas


Wakas + Bigmo


Salaam guys


@ Wakas

I beg to differ:

017.078
YUSUFALI: Establish regular prayers - at the sun's decline till the darkness of the night...
PICKTHAL: Establish worship at the going down of the sun until the dark of night...
SHAKIR: Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night...

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/017.qmt.html

So no, it is not singular. This should put to rest your objection.

Not only that, but consider the words of the verse, it is impossible for a single prayer
to cover the time frame mentioned. The sun starts declining right after mid-day (noon)
and the darkness of the night comes after Maghrib i.e. Isha. That covers a period of
several hours. So your claim that the verse is talking about a single prayer can not be true
in any case.



Exactly. You're the one making the claim that the practice of 5 established prayers
is misguided, so prove it. Was there a time when this practice was not standard?





@ Bigmo

You keep assuming I believe in things which I do not believe in. I am not a sunni.
And I am not questioning your faith. I am merely questioning the assertion that
the established practice of 5 contact prayers is misguided. You might not have
said that it was dubious, but it has been implied by others here.

Those who say the 5 prayers are misguided can never prove that. Following the Koran means you accept pluralism whether you like that or not.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 24, 2009, 06:32:23 PM

@ Bigmo

and I have no problem with that  :handshake:
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 24, 2009, 06:50:08 PM
All I am pointing out that you have not provided evidence for
your claim. In order to do so (and I remind you) you will have to prove an inconsistency
within the historical record of the practice of 5 regular prayers a day.


Peace C0de:

Per 3-7, believers should follow well-established meaning verses in order to know their obligated duties. Now, I know that Sunset, night, and Dawn prayers are commended in a very well-established verses. But on the other hand, Zuher and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.
 
11-114 is a well established verse:
And you shall hold the communion at the two edges of the day, during the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.
11:114   وأقم الصلوة طرفي النهار وزلفا من اليل إن الحسنت يذهبن السيءات ذلك ذكرى للذكرين

THEREFORE, 17:78 Calls for prayer AT Sunset, Night, and Dawn (after all Quranic verses will have to match with each others  :!)

Therefore, the Middle prayer that God ordered the believer to guard is the Night Prayer (2-238);
Here is a well established verses that prove That:

73:1    O you who are covered with your garments.
73:2   Stand the night except for a little.
73:3    Half of it, or a little less than that.
73:4   Or a little more, and arrange the Qur?an in its arrangement.
73:5   We will place upon you a saying which is heavy.
73:6   The time of the night is more effective and stronger in reciting (إن ناشئة اليل هي أشد وطءا وأقوم قيلا).

From the above well established verses, The night prayer is the Westa Prayer. Now can you bring me a well established verse that says Aser prayer is the prayer that is more stronger and effective than the other prayers including the night prayer?


Moreover, please note the following verse:

Qur?aan 24:58
O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty.  This is to be done in three instances-before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer.  These are three private times for you.  At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another.  Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you.  Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.

Now, please note the red colored words and the blue ones. If there is a prayer during noon, why God did not mention (in blue word section) as He did when speaking about the Dawn and night (red colored section)?

May God lead us to the truth.
Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Wakas on February 24, 2009, 07:00:27 PM
peace,

Try checking the Arabic of 17:78. If you did you would see it is "salat" (singular). FACT.

First you did not bother to read past discussion. Now it is revealed you do not even bother to check the basic Arabic!

You are obviously confused by "at the going down of the sun". The Arabic is "dulooki alshshams" and this phrase is defined as "sunset" by the Classical Arabic dictionary of Lane's Lexicon. This is further proven by cross referencing the timing of other verses discussing timing. See past discussions for detail.

Quote
You're the one making the claim that the practice of 5 established prayers
is misguided, so prove it. Was there a time when this practice was not standard?

Let me correct your inaccurate wording. If I am making any claims it would be the following:

There is no 5 daily salat timings in Al Quran.

There is no 3 daily salat timings in Al Quran.

salat meaning prayer cannot be proven in Al Quran.

Al Quran disproves salat meaning prayer.

There are no examples of any prophet/messenger/anyone performing the Traditional Muslim prayer in Al Quran.

sujud meaning physical prostration cannot be proven in Al Quran.

Al Quran disproves sujud meaning physical prostration.

ruku meaning physical bowing cannot be proven in Al Quran.

Al Quran disproves ruku meaning physical bowing.




Of course, bear in mind the above is after years of study, and if someone said the above to me at the start of my journey I would have not believed it and opted to continue to seek the truth for myself and see what happend. I recommend the same approach to you.





Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: simple on February 25, 2009, 05:20:58 AM
Salaams All,

Quote
Of course, bear in mind the above is after years of study, and if someone said the above to me at the start of my journey I would have not believed it and opted to continue to seek the truth for myself and see what happend. I recommend the same approach to you.

word for word same goes for me, and i am sure quite a few more of us here.

 :peace:
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 25, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
@ All

Salaam guys, I will combine responses to everyone, since this
forum apparently does not have a multi-quote option.


The equivalent of the word "salat" in English is worship, and there is
no plural of this word in Arabic, just as there is no plural of the word
"worship" in English. This is according to people who I have asked, if
you can provide more detail on this issue, please be my guest.

But for now, the case that verse 17:78 refers to multiple prayers stands
because the time-period mentioned in the verse covers many hours.
Observe:


Quote
You are obviously confused by "at the going down of the sun". The Arabic is "dulooki alshshams" and this phrase is defined as "sunset" by the Classical Arabic dictionary of Lane's Lexicon.

The phrase literally means the declining of the Sun, i.e. it is
in the proccess of going down (has not set already). This, by definition,
can not apply to the time of Maghrib, because by the time Maghrib
comes the Sun is not visible on the horizon. Every translation
and explanation of these words has included the time period of at least Asr
(and some have even include the time period of Zuhr, including the copy of
the Quran I have).

I do not know what dictionary you are using here, but it clearly lacks detail.
Plus its not easy to translate the entire meaning of phrases in a foreign language.
Just saying this particular phrase only applies to "sunset" is not adequate.

Quote
But on the other hand, Zuhr and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.

Here you go bro:

030.018
YUSUFALI: Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline.
PICKTHAL: Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at the sun's decline and in the noonday.
SHAKIR: And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth, and at nightfall and when you are at midday.


Quote
There is no 5 daily salat timings in Al Quran.

Did I ever say there were? What I am saying is that the 5 daily timings
for the 5 daily contact prayers are covered in the words of the Quran
which describe the time-period during which Muslims establish their prayers.
Therefore, the popularity and historical uniformity of the practice becomes
proof that this practice is (and always was) a genuine instruction of the Prophet
.




Quote
Of course, bear in mind the above is after years of study, and if someone said the above to me at the start of my journey I would have not believed it and opted to continue to seek the truth for myself and see what happend. I recommend the same approach to you.

Do you always take such a condescending attitude towards your opposition? First of all:
why are you assuming that this is the first time I have encountered these views?
Moreover, why are you implying here that I am a novice and you are some master?

Neither of us knows the level of knowledge of the other. So lets keep remarks such
as this to ourselves shall we? Thanks. (I am not too impressed that this is the type
of attitude that I am encountering here from a "moderator", on an Islamic forum no less!
this, btw, is the third time I have encountered a pointlessly patronizing post from you Wakas)

Salaam

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 25, 2009, 02:59:57 PM
@ All

Salaam guys, I will combine responses to everyone, since this
forum apparently does not have a multi-quote option.


The equivalent of the word "salat" in English is worship, and there is
no plural of this word in Arabic, just as there is no plural of the word
"worship" in English. This is according to people who I have asked, if
you can provide more detail on this issue, please be my guest.

But for now, the case that verse 17:78 refers to multiple prayers stands
because the time-period mentioned in the verse covers many hours.
Observe:


The phrase literally means the declining of the Sun, i.e. it is
in the proccess of going down (has not set already). This, by definition,
can not apply to the time of Maghrib, because by the time Maghrib
comes the Sun is not visible on the horizon. Every translation
and explanation of these words has included the time period of at least Asr
(and some have even include the time period of Zuhr, including the copy of
the Quran I have).

I do not know what dictionary you are using here, but it clearly lacks detail.
Plus its not easy to translate the entire meaning of phrases in a foreign language.
Just saying this particular phrase only applies to "sunset" is not adequate.

Here you go bro:

030.018
YUSUFALI: Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline.
PICKTHAL: Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at the sun's decline and in the noonday.
SHAKIR: And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth, and at nightfall and when you are at midday.


Did I ever say there were? What I am saying is that the 5 daily timings
for the 5 daily contact prayers are covered in the words of the Quran
which describe the time-period during which Muslims establish their prayers.
Therefore, the popularity and historical uniformity of the practice becomes
proof that this practice is (and always was) a genuine instruction of the Prophet
.




Do you always take such a condescending attitude towards your opposition? First of all:
why are you assuming that this is the first time I have encountered these views?
Moreover, why are you implying here that I am a novice and you are some master?

Neither of us knows the level of knowledge of the other. So lets keep remarks such
as this to ourselves shall we? Thanks. (I am not too impressed that this is the type
of attitude that I am encountering here from a "moderator", on an Islamic forum no less!
this, btw, is the third time I have encountered a pointlessly patronizing post from you Wakas)

Salaam



Instruction of the prophet? Wow!

So tell me is the Qibla also the prophet's instruction?
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Pseudo on February 25, 2009, 04:45:31 PM
Peace code,

The equivalent of the word "salat" in English is worship, and there is
no plural of this word in Arabic, just as there is no plural of the word
"worship" in English. This is according to people who I have asked, if
you can provide more detail on this issue, please be my guest.

But for now, the case that verse 17:78 refers to multiple prayers stands
because the time-period mentioned in the verse covers many hours.
Observe:


The phrase literally means the declining of the Sun, i.e. it is
in the proccess of going down (has not set already).

17:78 keep up As-Sal?t to the sun's nearing setting to the night's darkness, and the dawn's Quran, that the dawn's Quran is being witnessed.

This reminds me of vacationing in Mexico watching the sunset on the Pacific Ocean.

(http://www.8thelementdiving.com/images/puerto_vallarta_sunset.jpg)

Read ?Living Buddha, Living Christ? ? an easy read while on the beach. A main principle of the book was to be continuously mindful of the current moment; so many get caught up in the past and worrying about the future they let ?The Moment? pass by and forget to be thankful.

Matthew 6:34 Be not therefore anxious for the morrow, for the morrow shall be anxious for its own things

4:103 So if you accomplished As-Sal?t, so remember God standing, and sitting, and on your sides, so if you became secured, so keep up As-Sal?t, that As-Sal?t is on the believers a book appointed/scheduled/prescribed.

As-Sal?t  ? to be continuously ?mindful? even when looking at little defenseless creatures?

27:19 So he smiled wondering from its word, and he said: "My Lord, inspire me that I be grateful your blessing which you blessed on me and on my parents, and that I do righteous deeds You accept it, and enter me with Your mercy in Your worshippers the righteous.

For we too are little defenseless creatures, living on a tiny spec?

(http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/ss-images/earth-moon_fromSaturn.jpg)

Quote
This pale, blue dot (a dot of light appearing above and to the left of Saturn's bright outer rings, with enlarged view inside upper left box) is the Earth (the Moon is seen as a 'bulge' on Earth) as observed from Saturn (it's outer ice rings seen here) by the Cassini orbiter, 1.4 billion km distant. In the cold, vast, empty void of space - that dot is all we've got.

Peace


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 25, 2009, 05:03:04 PM

@ Bigmo

From whencesoever Thou startest forth, turn Thy face in the direction of the sacred Mosque;
that is indeed the truth from the Lord. And Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.

2.149


@ Psuedo

5 standard prayers and constant mindfulness are not mutually exclusive bro  ;)


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 25, 2009, 06:13:09 PM
@ All

Salaam guys, I will combine responses to everyone,


Peace:
I think you forgot to comment on mine:

Peace C0de:

Per 3-7, believers should follow well-established meaning verses in order to know their obligated duties. Now, I know that Sunset, night, and Dawn prayers are commended in a very well-established verses. But on the other hand, Zuher and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.
 
11-114 is a well established verse:
And you shall hold the communion at the two edges of the day, during the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.
11:114   وأقم الصلوة طرفي النهار وزلفا من اليل إن الحسنت يذهبن السيءات ذلك ذكرى للذكرين

THEREFORE, 17:78 Calls for prayer AT Sunset, Night, and Dawn (after all Quranic verses will have to match with each others  :!)

Therefore, the Middle prayer that God ordered the believer to guard is the Night Prayer (2-238);
Here is a well established verses that prove That:

73:1    O you who are covered with your garments.
73:2   Stand the night except for a little.
73:3    Half of it, or a little less than that.
73:4   Or a little more, and arrange the Qur?an in its arrangement.
73:5   We will place upon you a saying which is heavy.
73:6   The time of the night is more effective and stronger in reciting (إن ناشئة اليل هي أشد وطءا وأقوم قيلا).

From the above well established verses, The night prayer is the Westa Prayer. Now can you bring me a well established verse that says Aser prayer is the prayer that is more stronger and effective than the other prayers including the night prayer?


Moreover, please note the following verse:

Qur?aan 24:58
O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty.  This is to be done in three instances-before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer.  These are three private times for you.  At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another.  Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you.  Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.

Now, please note the red colored words and the blue ones. If there is a prayer during noon, why God did not mention (in blue word section) as He did when speaking about the Dawn and night (red colored section)?

May God lead us to the truth.
Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 25, 2009, 06:50:09 PM

Hey BelH,

I did comment on yours, maybe you missed it:

This was your quote:

Quote
But on the other hand, Zuhr and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.

and this was my response:

Quote
Here you go bro:

030.018
YUSUFALI: Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline.
PICKTHAL: Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at the sun's decline and in the noonday.
SHAKIR: And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth, and at nightfall and when you are at midday.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 25, 2009, 07:01:12 PM
Hey BelH,

I did comment on yours, maybe you missed it:

This was your quote:

and this was my response:


Peace Brother:

Is the verse you provided a well established verse in which Salat is called by God?
Brother, can you reread my post and see the well established verses I provided that prove that Prayers are Sunset, Dawn, and night.
If you are trying to guide me to the truth, you need to follow the rule of 3-7; all I see that you are using a non well established verses to cancel out the well established ones; and when you do that, you are having a problem in your heart, according to 3-7.
Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 25, 2009, 07:52:23 PM
Peace code:

 In the following verse, Why God did not say Noon prayer, as He said for night and Dawn, but instead He says "at Noon When You Change Your Clothes to Rest":

24:58
O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty.  This is to be done in three instances-before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer.  These are three private times for you.  At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another.  Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you.  Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.

I believe that God Means what He says, and does not forget to say words; God is the Most Effective Communicator.
God Means what He Says so we do not come in the JD and say that we could not understand His Message.

By the way, can you tell me where did you see a commandment for prayer in the verses you provided as an evidence:


030.018
YUSUFALI: Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline.
PICKTHAL: Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at the sun's decline and in the noonday.
SHAKIR: And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth, and at nightfall and when you are at midday.

Brother, you need to take God more seriously and never under estimate His ability to communicate, as Suni and Shia do.

All Glories to my Lord, And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 25, 2009, 08:16:09 PM
Quote
By the way, can you tell me where did you see a commandment for prayer in the verses you provided as an evidence:

Salam Brother BelH,

What else can you infer from this verse other then a time for prayer?

Quote
030.018
YUSUFALI: Yea, to Him be praise, in the heavens and on earth; and in the late afternoon and when the day begins to decline.
PICKTHAL: Unto Him be praise in the heavens and the earth! - and at the sun's decline and in the noonday.
SHAKIR: And to Him belongs praise in the heavens and the earth, and at nightfall and when you are at midday.

If this verse was referring to any general praise to Allah,
then why are these two specific times mentioned?


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 25, 2009, 09:02:07 PM
Salam Brother BelH,

What else can you infer from this verse other then a time for prayer?

If this verse was referring to any general praise to Allah,
then why are these two specific times mentioned?


PeAcE


Peace Brother:
What we are debating about is a serious matter; therefore, we need to use very solid verses that is clear in meaning.
In the verse you quoted, there is no command to pray, as in 11-114 and 2-228.

Second, if there is a noon prayer, why it was not mentioned in 24-58 as Dawn and Night.
Third, the middle prayer has to be the night prayer according to 7-1 to 6.

Please rethink and let me know if I'm wrong.
Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 26, 2009, 09:54:41 AM
Peace Brother:
What we are debating about is a serious matter; therefore, we need to use very solid verses that is clear in meaning.
In the verse you quoted, there is no command to pray, as in 11-114 and 2-228.

Second, if there is a noon prayer, why it was not mentioned in 24-58 as Dawn and Night.
Third, the middle prayer has to be the night prayer according to 7-1 to 6.

Please rethink and let me know if I'm wrong.
Peace


Bro I do not have any authority to tell you that you are wrong.
I can not even tell you that I am right. This is not about right or wrong,
as we are both trying to find out what Allah wants us to do.

For me, this verse clearly talks about prayer, as this is the only logical
reason for those two specific times being mentioned. God is saying that
Praise is due to Him at those two specific times. As for for why there are
two separate verse which cover all the 5 times, Allah knows best. Maybe
in the beginning there were 2 prayers, and then 3 more were added?

I do not rely on the stories of the hadith, so I do not really give the whole
Miraj stories much credibility. The whole 50 prayers idea seems a little wierd to me.
So it is possible that 5 prayers were revealed piece-meal to the Muslims. And
this would explain why two separate verses cover those 5 times.

But what I do not want to do is to question this practice solely based on a suspicion
and reject it and stop praying. Because bro, I hate the majority's understanding in
most cases as well, but before I reject the majority's opinion, I need to have a reason
to reject it. And so far, there is no other reason for me to reject this practice other
then laziness and being glad that I don't have to pray 5 times in the day. Because
there is no evidence to suggest to me why this practice is dubious.

This is why I have continually asked for any REAL evidence to suggest that there
was ever a time that 5 was not the established number of prayers in the day.
As that would really make me question the whole idea myself too.


p.s. Dude you have a wicked Avatar pic!


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on February 26, 2009, 10:47:51 AM
Peace Belh,

Sometimes you contradict yourself and it is surprising from an intellectual person like yourself. On one hand you say that the verse quoted by code does not mention "salaat", so it is not about salaat. On the other hand you quote verses that do not mention "salaat" AT ALL, and then you say they are about salaat. This can only be classified as intellectual dishonesty. 73:1-6 talk about studying the qur'aan at night. Do you mean to say that the qur'aan cannot be studied outside salaat? One can stand to read and study the qur'aan outside salaat without any preceding washing.

Similarly 3:18 is also not about salaat.

Wusta can also mean "best/balanced" and this is the meaning of words derived from WST in almost every occurrence in al-qur'aan. If it was referring to a "middle" salaat then using it after already mentioning "salawaat" in 2:238 would be redundant and illogical. It just means to perform our salat in the best/balanced manner and does not refer to an additional salaat as used in al-qur'aan.

Salaat al-wusta has been discussed numerous times on this forum and you can search for the appropriate threads. No further comments from me to you on this issue because repeating something that has already been discussed a zillion times is also a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on February 26, 2009, 11:57:55 AM
Peace code,

You keep asking for evidence; is the qur'aanic evidence not enough for you? The qur'aan is fully detailed and NOWHERE in the qur'aan is mention of five different times of salaat in one day. God does not play tricks and games. When he talks about salaat He mentions the word "SALAAT". Praise and glorification can be done outside salaat too and when mentioned on their own do not mean salaat. If salat was meant, God would have used the word "salaat".

What is wrong with God mentioning times for His praise? Just because times are mentioned for praising does not mean that praising God refers to salaat.

The current practice of salaat contradicts many clear qur'aanic signs so it CANNOT be right in its entirety, no matter how long it has been practiced that way. The prophet COULD NOT HAVE CONTRADICTED THE QUR'AAN. Just because Christians say Jesus is the son of God and have been saying it for more than 1700 years does not mean it is the truth. Even among sectarians there is no consensus on certain aspects of salaat, including the times. So which of the sectarians is correct and why? They all claim that they have historical evidence supporting their contradictory practices!!

The sajida according to the qur'aan is TO THE CHIN, and not the forehead. Where is the historical evidence of it being to the chin? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that sajida on the forehead is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

The sunni sectarians are quiet in two of their salaats which clearly contradicts the qur'aanic order to use a moderate tone. Where is the historical evidence for always using moderate tone in all salaats? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that reciting the qur'aan quietly is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

The pre-salaat washing according to the qur'aan does not include putting water in mouth and nose. Where is the historical evidence of not putting water in mouth or nose? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that putting water in nose and mouth is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

The ruku according to the qur'aan CANNOT be the bowing position. How can one FALL bowing (38:24)? How can you contribute zakat while bowing (5:55)? It can only mean kneeling or humility according to the qur'aan. Where is the historical evidence of no bowing position in salaat? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that bowing is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

There is no mention of 3 or 4 units/rakaat of salaat in the qur'aan. Where is the historical evidence of all salaats with 1-2 units? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that 3 or 4 units is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

Salaat is for God's remembrance according to the qur'aan. Where is the historical evidence of only God's remembrance in salaat? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that remembring Muhammad and Abraham in salaat is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

There is one verse which is OBLIGATORY TO BE RECITED in salaat according to the qur'aan (17:111). No sunni sectarian to my knowledge recites that verse in their salaat. Where is the historical evidence of always reciting that verse in salaat? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that not reciting that verse is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

So why 5 times salaat when it contradicts the qur'aan? When the people messed up and fabricated other aspects of salat, could they not have fabricated this aspect too?

Those who have faith in the qur'aan do not need any historical evidence of the practice of salaat. For them the qur'aan is enough as evidence. The practice of salaat could easily have been tampered with shortly after the death of the prophet and just because it has been practiced a certain way by some people for more than 1300 years does not mean that is the right way, especially when some aspects clearly contradict the qur'aan.

Even for those who do not have faith, there is historical and non-qur'aanic evidence that the practice of salaat has been tampered with. For example, according to the shia sectarians, 3 times salat per day is ok, because they say it is ok to combine the zuhr and asar salaats and maghrib and isha salaats, thus basically condoning 3 times salaat per day. Where did that come from? Could that not be evidence that the number of salaats per day has been tampered with?

Also consider the following evidence of the sunni hadeeth:

Bukhari Vol.1, Book 10, Number 507: Narrated Ghailan: Anas bin Malik (A Sahabi) said, "I do not find (now-a-days) things as they were (practised) at the time of the Prophet." Somebody said "The prayer (is as it was)". Anas said, "Have you not done in the prayer what you have done?" Bukhari Vol.1, Book 10, Number 508: Narrated Az-Zuhri that he visited Anas bin Malik at Damascus and found him weeping and asked him why he was weeping. He replied, "I do not know anything which I used to know during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle except this prayer which is being lost (not being offered as it should be)."

The comments, "Have you not done in the prayer what you have done?", and the "Lost Prayer" indicate that something went wrong with the salaat soon after the prophet's death.

Also consider the following historical evidences (quoted from Dr. Shabbir):

Khaizran spent a fortune on her project and distributed one million gold coins and 65 million silver coins among her subjects to propagate the 'canonized' Namaaz. References are given in the next heading.

Less than 5% Muslims "perform" Namaaz and they keep announcing their prayers. No one can say or says, "I have established Salaat." Yet, most Muslims keep arguing about Namaaz.

Experiment: Call a random gathering of Muslims anywhere for Namaaz under completely unexpected circumstances. You will notice almost all of them joining the lines, most of them without Wudhu (Ablution)!

What Exactly Was NAMAAZ (Ritual Salaat): As far as I have been able to analytically search our history and Hadith, following was the probable situation in the lifetime of the exalted Prophet and Sahaba Kiraam.

? Ritual prayer or Namaaz was a small part of Aqamatis-Salaat, i.e. establishing the System that facilitates the following of Divine Commands.

? The ritual prayer was always congregational.

? Women and men both formed this congregation, women on the right side of men.

? The frequency and timing of the congregations were determined by the State as needed. It was never fixed as five times a day ritual.

? Namaaz was performed with the Imam (Central or local government official) reciting some verses from the Qur'an relevant to the situation at hand as the congregation listened to the Imam. Then the Imam would lead two units of prayers standing.

? Masjid was not a temple of worship. It was the Assembly, the School, the Municipality, the Parliament and the Government House. So, after that recitation, the leader would discuss real issues about the community, entertain questions, present bills, announce decisions of the Shura (Counsel) and the Assembly would legislate. People came up with their ideas for betterment of the society. Masjid was also the place where the leader was elected.

(Some references on the above two headings: *** Haroon Wa Baramikatil Faras by Sheikhul Ifta Salman bin Abu Qasim Baghdadi. Vol 1 pg 31-55 *** Meezan-il-Faris by Hujjatullah Abdul Qadir Ali Al-Moosvi pg 249-261 ***Takmilatil Lughatal 'Ain 'Urfa by Al-Ustaz Jalaluddin Al-Ash'ari on Imam Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad Shikoh Tabrezi vol 2 pg 3-5 *** Mujahid-al-Munafiq Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal by Abdul Muhsin bin Mullah Ali Al-Qari, pg 67-135)

Just because our faorefathers did things a certain way does not make them right. God has clearly warned us against this in the qur'aan:

2:170 And if they are told: ?Follow what God has sent down,? they say: ?No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing!? What if their fathers did not understand anything and were not guided?

31:21 And if they are told: ?Follow that which God has sent down.? They say: ?No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing.? What if the devil had been leading them to the agony of Hell?


Your excuse is the same one as made by those who came before you as mentioned in the qur'aan:

7:70 They said: ?Have you come to us to serve God alone and abandon what our fathers had served? Bring us what you promise if you are of the truthful ones!?

Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 26, 2009, 01:03:37 PM
Salaam Truthseeker

Before I begin, I would like to remind you that I am not here to justify the different
methods of prayer. I am not a Sunni, or a Shia or part of any sect. So the method
of prayer is not what is being debated here, but the 5 daily timings.



Quote
So why 5 times salaat when it contradicts the qur'aan? When the people messed up and fabricated other aspects of salat, could they not have fabricated this aspect too?

Well, sure they could have... the question is did they.
Thats like me saying the sky could have been purple a 1000 years ago.
Thats the easy part... the hard part is actually providing some evidence
historically that it was.


Quote
there is historical and non-qur'aanic evidence that the practice of salaat has been tampered with. For example, according to the shia sectarians, 3 times salat per day is ok, because they say it is ok to combine the zuhr and asar salaats and maghrib and isha salaats, thus basically condoning 3 times salaat per day. Where did that come from? Could that not be evidence that the number of salaats per day has been tampered with?

Well not really. Combination of prayers by the shia is not really proof enough
to say the whole practice is dubious. They still acknowledge the 5 stated times.



Quote
Also consider the following historical evidences (quoted from Dr. Shabbir):

Khaizran spent a fortune on her project and distributed one million gold coins and 65 million silver coins among her subjects to propagate the 'canonized' Namaaz. References are given in the next heading.

Less than 5% Muslims "perform" Namaaz and they keep announcing their prayers. No one can say or says, "I have established Salaat." Yet, most Muslims keep arguing about Namaaz.

Experiment: Call a random gathering of Muslims anywhere for Namaaz under completely unexpected circumstances. You will notice almost all of them joining the lines, most of them without Wudhu (Ablution)!

What Exactly Was NAMAAZ (Ritual Salaat): As far as I have been able to analytically search our history and Hadith, following was the probable situation in the lifetime of the exalted Prophet and Sahaba Kiraam.

? Ritual prayer or Namaaz was a small part of Aqamatis-Salaat, i.e. establishing the System that facilitates the following of Divine Commands.

? The ritual prayer was always congregational.

? Women and men both formed this congregation, women on the right side of men.

? The frequency and timing of the congregations were determined by the State as needed. It was never fixed as five times a day ritual.

? Namaaz was performed with the Imam (Central or local government official) reciting some verses from the Qur'an relevant to the situation at hand as the congregation listened to the Imam. Then the Imam would lead two units of prayers standing.

? Masjid was not a temple of worship. It was the Assembly, the School, the Municipality, the Parliament and the Government House. So, after that recitation, the leader would discuss real issues about the community, entertain questions, present bills, announce decisions of the Shura (Counsel) and the Assembly would legislate. People came up with their ideas for betterment of the society. Masjid was also the place where the leader was elected.

(Some references on the above two headings: *** Haroon Wa Baramikatil Faras by Sheikhul Ifta Salman bin Abu Qasim Baghdadi. Vol 1 pg 31-55 *** Meezan-il-Faris by Hujjatullah Abdul Qadir Ali Al-Moosvi pg 249-261 ***Takmilatil Lughatal 'Ain 'Urfa by Al-Ustaz Jalaluddin Al-Ash'ari on Imam Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad Shikoh Tabrezi vol 2 pg 3-5 *** Mujahid-al-Munafiq Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal by Abdul Muhsin bin Mullah Ali Al-Qari, pg 67-135)

Just because our faorefathers did things a certain way does not make them right. God has clearly warned us against this in the qur'aan:

2:170 And if they are told: ?Follow what God has sent down,? they say: ?No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing!? What if their fathers did not understand anything and were not guided?

31:21 And if they are told: ?Follow that which God has sent down.? They say: ?No, we will follow what we found our fathers doing.? What if the devil had been leading them to the agony of Hell?

Your excuse is the same one as made by those who came before you as mentioned in the qur'aan:

7:70 They said: ?Have you come to us to serve God alone and abandon what our fathers had served? Bring us what you promise if you are of the truthful ones!?


Okay dude, you do not have to put me in the same category as the idolaters just for questioning the
assertion that 5 daily times are dubious. Relax a little. I am not telling you that either practice is right
or wrong, and I could care less how many times you pray. I just want to know where the proof is at that
these probable practices that you have hypothesized were ever mutually exclusive to the 5 daily timings for prayer.
Maybe all of those practices which you mentioned are historically accurate, but I see no reason why they negate the
5 daily times for prayer that individuals are suppose to observe.


Quote
The ruku according to the qur'aan CANNOT be the bowing position. How can one FALL bowing (38:24)?

The words here imply that he (pbuh) fell down to prostrate himself.
So what's the problem??

038.024
YUSUFALI: (David) said: "He has undoubtedly wronged thee in demanding thy (single) ewe to be added to his (flock of) ewes: truly many are the partners (in business) who wrong each other: Not so do those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, and how few are they?"...and David gathered that We had tried him: he asked forgiveness of his Lord, fell down, bowing (in prostration), and turned (to Allah in repentance).
PICKTHAL: (David) said: He hath wronged thee in demanding thine ewe in addition to his ewes, and lo! many partners oppress one another, save such as believe and do good works, and they are few. And David guessed that We had tried him, and he sought forgiveness of his Lord, and he bowed himself and fell down prostrate and repented.
SHAKIR: He said: Surely he has been unjust to you in demanding your ewe (to add) to his own ewes; and most surely most of the partners act wrongfully towards one another, save those who believe and do good, and very few are they; and Dawood was sure that We had tried him, so he sought the protection of his Lord and he fell down bowing and turned time after time (to Him).



Quote
The sajida according to the qur'aan is TO THE CHIN, and not the forehead.

This is confusing, are you supposed to stick your chin out and touch it to the ground?
Also, could you please give me the verse number for this particular verse? thanks


Quote
The pre-salaat washing according to the qur'aan does not include putting water in mouth and nose. Where is the historical evidence of not putting water in mouth or nose? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that putting water in nose and mouth is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

I completely agree. The wudu in the Quran is not the same as the wudu in the hadith.
I do not follow the wudu practices outlined in the hadith either.


Quote
The sunni sectarians are quiet in two of their salaats which clearly contradicts the qur'aanic order to use a moderate tone. Where is the historical evidence for always using moderate tone in all salaats? So does the lack of historical evidence mean that reciting the qur'aan quietly is ok just because our forefathers did it even when it clearly contradicts the qur'aan?

I personally keep the volume of recital constant because of this verse as well.
As for the 2 silent rakats that the sunnis pray, even they keep up a quiet whisper
in them I think. They are supposed to anyway I think.


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on February 26, 2009, 02:25:43 PM
Peace code,

You asked for historical evidence against 5 times a day salaat. The qur'aan is the historical evidence but you are refusing to accept it as evidence. We cannot twist the words of God to justify our preconceived notions. God does not play word games with us. "Hamd" cannot be meant to refer to "salaat". Where God means salaat, He uses the word "salaat". Where in the qur'aan is proof of five times salat per day? If it is not there, isn't that enough as historical evidence against the current wrong practice?

It is a logical fallacy to demand a proof of a negative assertion. For example, you want historical proof that salaat was not 5 times per day. That is a logical fallacy. You can however demand proof of a positive assertion. For example, if I say that salaat is 2-3 times per day then you can demand proof of that. Your proof of 5 times per day is based on sectarian practices. My proof of 2-3 times a day is from the qur'aan, which is a historical document. Both cannot be right. It is up to you which you accept, depending on who/which you have faith/trust in: your forefathers or the qur'aan.

Quote
Well, sure they could have... the question is did they.

Of course they did, because it contradicts the qur'aan. Where in the qur'aan does it mention the five different times of salaat?

Quote
Well not really. Combination of prayers by the shia is not really proof enough
to say the whole practice is dubious. They still acknowledge the 5 stated times.

But they say that salaats can be combined and reduced to three times. That means they acknowledge minimum of three salaats a day which goes against minimum of five times. If you combine salaats to make it 3 salaats, then it is acknowledging that three salaats is the minimum requirment. If it is minimum five times, then none of them can be combined. So who is right: the shias or the sunnis, and why?

Quote
The words here imply that he (pbuh) fell down to prostrate himself.
So what's the problem??

If "kharra raakian" means he fell down to prostrate, then where is the bowing position that ALL the sectarians practice? Where does that come from?

Quote
This is confusing, are you supposed to stick your chin out and touch it to the ground?
Also, could you please give me the verse number for this particular verse? thanks

It says fall TO their chins (yakhirroona lil athqaan-17:107-109) not upon their chins (which would be yakhirroona 3alal athqaan), which implies that chins should be closest to the ground and not necessarily touching it. But nowhere we are asked to touch our forehead to the ground, or fall to our foreheads.

Quote
As for the 2 silent rakats that the sunnis pray, even they keep up a quiet whisper
in them I think.

Where do they get the "quiet whisper" from, which is a clear violation of the qur'aanic command? From their fabricated hadeeth and their erroneous sunnah of course. Similarly, the origin of the five times is the same, and is nowhere to be found in the qur'aan. So which will you follow/believe? The qur'aanic command of 2-3 salaats/day or the sectarian practice of 5 times/day?

The reason I say 2-3 times is because the qur'aan also mentions the salaat on the day of gathering (al-salaat min yawm al-jum3a-62:9), and the particular day and time of this salat in my opinion can be established by the consensus of the muslim community. So most of the days there will be 2 salaats, and on certain days there will be 3 salaats.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 26, 2009, 06:03:44 PM
Whats up TruthSeeker



Quote
It is a logical fallacy to demand a proof of a negative assertion. For example, you want historical proof that salaat was not 5 times per day. That is a logical fallacy.

Wrong, I want proof that salat was something other then 5 times a day. (more or less)
So in this way, it is not a negative assertion.  ;) Just provide proof that it was 3, or 7
or whatever. Basically, just show me some actual proof already! (lol)


Quote
You asked for historical evidence against 5 times a day salaat. The qur'aan is the historical evidence but you are refusing to accept it as evidence. We cannot twist the words of God to justify our preconceived notions. God does not play word games with us. "Hamd" cannot be meant to refer to "salaat". Where God means salaat, He uses the word "salaat". Where in the qur'aan is proof of five times salat per day? If it is not there, isn't that enough as historical evidence against the current wrong practice?

Dude I am not the one who is twisting the words of God. When God says
"To Him be Praise in the after noon" Obviously, God is telling us to
give Him praise in the afternoon. How much clearer can it get?


Quote
Of course they did, because it contradicts the qur'aan. Where in the qur'aan does it mention the five different times of salaat?

Well, maybe they did. I am open to that possibility. But you have to prove to me that
they did. And the way you do it, is to provide evidence that the practice was once different
then it is today.

Also, the TIMES for prayer and the basic rituals (facing mecca etc.) do all have a foundation
in the Quran. All the verses that are provided here cover the timings of the prayers.
Also, the rituals (bowing, prostration, recital of surah Fatiah, "seven oft repeated verses"
 all have a foundation in the Quran).

Quote
But they say that salaats can be combined and reduced to three times. That means they acknowledge minimum of three salaats a day which goes against minimum of five times. If you combine salaats to make it 3 salaats, then it is acknowledging that three salaats is the minimum requirment. If it is minimum five times, then none of them can be combined. So who is right: the shias or the sunnis, and why?

Dude they say that you can combine Zuhr and Asr and pray them together.
They do not say that Zuhr and Asr are one prayer. You are basically
using circumstantial evidence to make your case, and it won't hold.


Quote
If "kharra raakian" means he fell down to prostrate, then where is the bowing position that ALL the sectarians practice? Where does that come from?

You can't seriously base your entire argument on the absence of
details in the Quran for these actions as proof that these prayers
never existed.

The Quran tells you to worship at those times, and you can worship
however you wish, as long as it follows some basic requirements.
Just like the Quran tells you to pay zakat, but doesnt tell you how much.
Now its up to you to take care of the specifics, as long as you pay zakat rite?
The same is the case with prayer. You just have to do it, its part of the
submitting your whole self to God, and it makes perfect sense.

Quote
It says fall TO their chins (yakhirroona lil athqaan-17:107-109) not upon their chins (which would be yakhirroona 3alal athqaan), which implies that chins should be closest to the ground and not necessarily touching it. But nowhere we are asked to touch our forehead to the ground, or fall to our foreheads.

Now your just being too picky dude:

017.107
YUSUFALI: ...when it is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration,
PICKTHAL: ...when it is read unto them, fall down prostrate on their faces, adoring,
SHAKIR: ... those who are given the knowledge before it fall down on their faces, making obeisance when it is recited to them.

you need to ease up with the specifics.
How would you naturally fall down on your face
other then the standard forehead prostrating position?
You cant actually fall down on your face, as that
you break your nose!! And touching your chin...     ???
that is just weird.


Quote
Where do they get the "quiet whisper" from,

The Quran itself states that that it should be recited in a voice that is not too loud
and not to remain silent while reciting it either. Hence, the quiet whisper.


PeAcE




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 26, 2009, 07:12:19 PM
Peace

Bro I do not have any authority to tell you that you are wrong.
I can not even tell you that I am right. This is not about right or wrong,
as we are both trying to find out what Allah wants us to do.

Well said

For me, this verse clearly talks about prayer, as this is the only logical
reason for those two specific times being mentioned. God is saying that
Praise is due to Him at those two specific times. As for for why there are
two separate verse which cover all the 5 times, Allah knows best. Maybe
in the beginning there were 2 prayers, and then 3 more were added?

Brother, there is no mentioning of "Akimo Elsalat" (establish prayer) in the verse you quoted. Moreover, there is no mentioning of Aser time, but only noon and night.

I do not rely on the stories of the hadith, so I do not really give the whole
Miraj stories much credibility. The whole 50 prayers idea seems a little wierd to me.
So it is possible that 5 prayers were revealed piece-meal to the Muslims. And
this would explain why two separate verses cover those 5 times.

There are no two separate verses that Calls for establishing Noon and Aser Prayers...to the best of my understanding, and based on my strong believe that God is the most Effective communicator, I advice you to take God's words more seriously.
 
But what I do not want to do is to question this practice solely based on a suspicion
and reject it and stop praying. Because bro, I hate the majority's understanding in
most cases as well, but before I reject the majority's opinion, I need to have a reason
to reject it. And so far, there is no other reason for me to reject this practice other
then laziness and being glad that I don't have to pray 5 times in the day. Because
there is no evidence to suggest to me why this practice is dubious.

I respect your position, which I was in before; but when I found out that God wants the believers to have no doubt in His words, I decided to pull my guts and trust my Lord who knows whats in my heat when I started praying Three times a day.
 
p.s. Dude you have a wicked Avatar pic!


 :yes
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 26, 2009, 07:41:36 PM


Hey BelH,

Bro all I can say is that verse seems to me to be very clear.
I will need more well established arguments and historical evidence
to question the 5 established prayers myself. But, to each his own bro.  ;)
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: drfazl on February 26, 2009, 08:27:52 PM


Br belH
    c0de
    Truthseeker

Is it not that we understand first what salat is and defining it so important that it is convenient for us to understand the rest about the salat individually without the necessity for even a discussion?

Peace.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 26, 2009, 09:12:17 PM

Hey BelH,

Bro all I can say is that verse seems to me to be very clear.
I will need more well established arguments and historical evidence
to question the 5 established prayers myself. But, to each his own bro.  ;)

Peace:
May God lead us the the Truth.


Br belH
    c0de
    Truthseeker

Is it not that we understand first what salat is and defining it so important that it is convenient for us to understand the rest about the salat individually without the necessity for even a discussion?

Peace.

Peace:
You are right; but when someone one comes to doubt your practice of Deen, then you need to discuss in order to find if your way is right or his.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: drfazl on February 26, 2009, 09:53:55 PM

belH,

Peace:
May God lead us the the Truth.

Peace:
You are right; but when someone one comes to doubt your practice of Deen, then you need to discuss in order to find if your way is right or his.



We all practice Deen for our own good and for Allah's sake; and if such is not the same with the one who discusses? Allah says: They think that they lay you under an obligation by becoming Muslims. Say: Lay me not under obligation by your Deen : rather Allah lays you under an obligation by guiding you to the faith if you are truthful.

Peace.
.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: drfazl on February 26, 2009, 10:00:08 PM


c0de.


Hey BelH,

Bro all I can say is that verse seems to me to be very clear.
I will need more well established arguments and historical evidence
to question the 5 established prayers myself. But, to each his own bro.  ;)



All evidences are with Him alone; only arguments are with us! Allah warns us of is this: Behold! you are they who argued about that of which you had knowledge; why then do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows while you do not know.

Peace.

.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 27, 2009, 01:39:07 AM

c0de.


All evidences are with Him alone; only arguments are with us! Allah warns us of is this: Behold! you are they who argued about that of which you had knowledge; why then do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows while you do not know.

Peace.

.


Very tru
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Samia on February 27, 2009, 03:06:49 AM

p.s. Dude you have a wicked Avatar pic!


I said so, too  >:D
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 27, 2009, 01:52:38 PM

Bro I do not have any authority to tell you that you are wrong.
I can not even tell you that I am right. This is not about right or wrong,
as we are both trying to find out what Allah wants us to do.

For me, this verse clearly talks about prayer, as this is the only logical
reason for those two specific times being mentioned. God is saying that
Praise is due to Him at those two specific times. As for for why there are
two separate verse which cover all the 5 times, Allah knows best. Maybe
in the beginning there were 2 prayers, and then 3 more were added?

I do not rely on the stories of the hadith, so I do not really give the whole
Miraj stories much credibility. The whole 50 prayers idea seems a little wierd to me.
So it is possible that 5 prayers were revealed piece-meal to the Muslims. And
this would explain why two separate verses cover those 5 times.

But what I do not want to do is to question this practice solely based on a suspicion
and reject it and stop praying. Because bro, I hate the majority's understanding in
most cases as well, but before I reject the majority's opinion, I need to have a reason
to reject it. And so far, there is no other reason for me to reject this practice other
then laziness and being glad that I don't have to pray 5 times in the day. Because
there is no evidence to suggest to me why this practice is dubious.

This is why I have continually asked for any REAL evidence to suggest that there
was ever a time that 5 was not the established number of prayers in the day.
As that would really make me question the whole idea myself too.


p.s. Dude you have a wicked Avatar pic!


PeAcE


And do you want us also to prove that there are 7 tawwaf around the ka'ba but not 4, or there must be seven stones thrown at the devil but not 6? Or do you want us also to prove that we must wash our hands 3 times in wudu and not 11?

I see this argument this way:

1. Where does it say 5 times in the Koran? Why fajr should be two rika'at and not 3? Where does it say that in the koran?

1. What evidence you have that its not 5? How can you prove to me that what Sunni/Shias practice is wrong?

2. You do not have the evidence from the Koran therefore you are against the Koran and I am going to take all the verses in the Koran about the disbelievers or the hypocrites and apply them to you since they also refused to accept the Koran and its teachings.

2. You have not provided any evidence from the Koran that what the majorities of Muslims do is wrong and innaccurate therefore I am going to assume that you have a hidden agenda and that you just want to eleminate some of these obligations because you don't want to practice them.

Of course c0de is right that he can not provide any evidence from the Koran that what Muslims follow is wrong or innacurrate but at the same time there are some here who believe in only 2 prayers but believe that Zakat is 1/3 of a person's wealth or any extra money he does not need. They will then accuse c0de of following muslim tradition because he would rather pay 2.5% of his wealth because he is stingy like the rest of the Muslims.

Its not about intentions, its about some people require specific pin point evidence from the Koran. Others require a pin point Koranic reason to question tradition. There is nobody here who is superior to anybody.



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 27, 2009, 03:43:42 PM
@ Samia

well its official then, great minds think alike  ;)


@ Bigmo

bro, it is a fact is that the other side has provided ZERO evidence that the practice
of the Early Muslims was ever different regarding the times of prayer.  Everything so far has
been based on circumstantial evidence (and this also is a fact). If you consider these
suspicions to be enough for you to reject the 5 prayer times,  then that is (totally) your business.
But as far as I am concerned, there has not been any real evidence provided for this
practice to be rejected.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on February 27, 2009, 05:10:58 PM
Peace C0de,

it is a fact is that the other side has provided ZERO evidence that the practice
of the Early Muslims was ever different regarding the times of prayer.  Everything so far has
been based on circumstantial evidence (and this also is a fact). If you consider these
suspicions to be enough for you to reject the 5 prayer times,  then that is (totally) your business.
But as far as I am concerned, there has not been any real evidence provided for this
practice to be rejected.

I'm not understanding this perspective, brother. You're saying that the Qur'aan does NOT instruct us to observe salaat 5 times per day? But you're insisting that Muhammad and his followers still observed 5 prayers? In other words, they disobeyed G-d's command to observe salaat at the prescribed times?! Is this advisable? What is more important to you - following the alleged example of Muhammad, or following the commands of G-d Himself? This seems like a circular argument, and the outcome of it really doesn't matter at all. Just because the scriptures say that Moses killed an Egyptian man doesn't mean all the believers should take to the practice of randomly killing Egyptians...

Now, historically, there are plenty of citations regarding the ancient Arab muslims praying THREE times per day, and many of them later incorporated the Reform Sabian concept of praying 5 times, which was long after Muhammad had died. To justify these doctrines, they made some outrageous claims, one of which being that G-d commanded Muhammad to observe salaat 50 times per day, but somehow Muhammad argued his way down to 5...  ::) Either way, there's no historical evidence to support the idea of the people originally praying 5 times per day, just like there's no historical evidence to support the idea of the people originally facing Mekka during their salaat. These are concepts later added into the alleged sayings and actions of Muhammad, which weren't written until about 300 years after his death!

People fail to realize that the salaat was established with Abraham and the patriarchs. Their descendants were the Jews, who followed the Torah. And nowhere are the Jews or the Hebrews ever told to pray 5 times per day; all of them observed THREE daily prayers and worship observances (which was originally based on giving offerings/sacrifices three times per day. Since Muhammad followed the religion of Abraham (see 16:123), he most likely observed 3 daily prayers, not 5.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: belH on February 27, 2009, 05:51:55 PM
I said so, too  >:D
Would you like this one to be my avatar

(http://www.fredhoot.com/911pics/images/eagle.jpg)



or this one stuffed with rice :eat:

(http://pigeonwriter.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/0421pigeons0001.jpg)
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: theNabster on February 27, 2009, 06:01:23 PM
I now fully accept the argument because I scrutinized the Quran to look for anything to do with Salat.
Salat means either of commitment or ritual prayer depending on the context, but Salat as commitment
is more prevalent throughout.
The three Salats are:
Fajr Salat (before dawn)
Salat Wusta (Noon prayer - as it is right in the middle between the two)
and
Salat al Isha (Evening prayer from just after sunset to night time).
There is in my opinion an anti pagan logic for this.
The times cannot encourage someone to pray towards the sun, as for Fajr and Isha the sun is hidden,
and for Salat Wusta, at its zenith so impossible to bow to it (well at least in the middle east), even if that might be an unimportant factor, but if we look at these little pagan things like the moon and star on minarets (cult of moon god), the Kaaba (Allat Manat and Uzzat Dark Son God), the word Amen (egyptian God Amoun Ra), one wonders why the Muslims are incurring such wrath from their Creator.
God bless...
Noble
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 28, 2009, 02:07:35 AM

@ Ahmed

Bro that is not what I am saying. I am saying that all the 5 times of prayer
are mentioned in the Quran. The verses have all been quoted in this thread.
And so far no evidence has been provided that the number of salat prayers
was ever different then 5.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on February 28, 2009, 09:27:32 AM
Peace c0de,

And so far no evidence has been provided that the number of salat prayers
was ever different then 5.

Yes, there is clear proof of this. In fact, the strongest evidence is the consideration of the previous scriptures in previous generations... Since submission is called the "millat Ibraheem" (religion of Abraham), our prayers are performed in the same manner as his were. And coincidentally, the Jews are also called 'followers of Abraham'. In fact, ALL the Abrahamic systems promote prayer at three designated time periods; sectarian Muslims are the ONLY ONES who practice five, and this is solely based on the hadith and sunna texts. Both the Torah and the Injeel instruct us to uphold three.

In reality, there are three distinct periods specifically mentioned for salaat in the Qur'aan, BY NAME. They are (1) salaat al-faajr, (2) salaat al-esha, and (3) salaat al-wusta. And "coincidentally", these are the exact same prayers outlined in the Torah and Injeel... So, you think G-d added 2 more prayers but just forgot to mention/name them? G-d said that the Qur'aan is fully detailed, and He even says that nothing has been left out of it (see 6:38, 114). So, what are the names of the other 2 prayers, and where are they specifically mentioned in the Qur'aan?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on February 28, 2009, 11:18:18 AM
Peace c0de,

Yes, there is clear proof of this. In fact, the strongest evidence is the consideration of the previous scriptures in previous generations... Since submission is called the "millat Ibraheem" (religion of Abraham), our prayers are performed in the same manner as his were. And coincidentally, the Jews are also called 'followers of Abraham'. In fact, ALL the Abrahamic systems promote prayer at three designated time periods; sectarian Muslims are the ONLY ONES who practice five, and this is solely based on the hadith and sunna texts. Both the Torah and the Injeel instruct us to uphold three.

In reality, there are three distinct periods specifically mentioned for salaat in the Qur'aan, BY NAME. They are (1) salaat al-faajr, (2) salaat al-esha, and (3) salaat al-wusta. And "coincidentally", these are the exact same prayers outlined in the Torah and Injeel... So, you think G-d added 2 more prayers but just forgot to mention/name them? G-d said that the Qur'aan is fully detailed, and He even says that nothing has been left out of it (see 6:38, 114). So, what are the names of the other 2 prayers, and where are they specifically mentioned in the Qur'aan?

Peace,

Ahmad

You raised a good point. It does I admit bolster the 3 salaat time. But Judaic traditions do have an extra two to make it 5 but Torah does indicate 3 although the prophets there prayed and prostrated in all ocassions and at all times. But three are the ones mentioned specifically time wise and so does the Koran although two are crystal clear.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 28, 2009, 11:22:22 AM
@ Ahmed


Bro you don't seriously expect to base your entire argument on
the practices of the Jews and get away with it do ya? You do realize
that the 5 established prayers are like the ONLY THING that all the
sects in Islam actually agree on rite??! lol. And this is the one thing
that you all are questioning...  :confused:

So again, this only qualifies as more circumstantial evidence,
as no one has provided any proof that the early Muslims
ever prayed 3 prayers (or 2) instead of 5.


PeAcE


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on February 28, 2009, 12:42:33 PM
Peace code,

Wrong, I want proof that salat was something other then 5 times a day. (more or less)
So in this way, it is not a negative assertion.  ;) Just provide proof that it was 3, or 7
or whatever. Basically, just show me some actual proof already! (lol)

The qur'aan is not proof? It clearly mentions only 2-3 times for salat. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum in the past. You can look for the appropriate threads.

Quote
Dude I am not the one who is twisting the words of God. When God says
"To Him be Praise in the after noon" Obviously, God is telling us to
give Him praise in the afternoon. How much clearer can it get?

The word used is "hamd" meaning praise and not "salaat". You are the one who earlier said this refers to salaat, thus twisting God's word. Why can't we praise God at certain times? Just because a time is mentioned does not make "hamd"/praise same as salaat. Hamd/praise can be done outside salaat too. God does not play word games. Where He means salaat He uses the word "salaat".

Quote
Well, maybe they did. I am open to that possibility. But you have to prove to me that
they did. And the way you do it, is to provide evidence that the practice was once different
then it is today.


The qur'aan is the evidence that salaat is only 2-3 times per day. So definitely they fabricated the other times.

Quote
Also, the TIMES for prayer and the basic rituals (facing mecca etc.) do all have a foundation
in the Quran. All the verses that are provided here cover the timings of the prayers.
Also, the rituals (bowing, prostration, recital of surah Fatiah, "seven oft repeated verses"
 all have a foundation in the Quran).


You are again twisting God's words. Nowhere are we asked to face mecca in the qur'aan and nowhere is the bowing position. You know that it is a huge sin to twist God's words and to ascribe to Him what He never said right?

Yes, the qur'aan is fully detailed and it does provide the timings of only 2-3 salaat per day. No there is no bowing position according to the qur'aan and no, we are not asked to face "mecca" in the qur'aan.

Quote
Dude they say that you can combine Zuhr and Asr and pray them together.
They do not say that Zuhr and Asr are one prayer. You are basically
using circumstantial evidence to make your case, and it won't hold.

Your logic is one of the most absurd ones I have come across. How can it be two different salaats when combined into one? By the way "salaat" does not mean "prayer". There is another word used in the qur'aan for "prayer" which is "du3aa". You are again twisting God's words by saying "prayer" instead of "salaat". If you attend five one hour classes in school and they are combined to three one hour classes, are you still attending five one hour classes or are you now attending three one hour classes?

Quote
You can't seriously base your entire argument on the absence of
details in the Quran for these actions as proof that these prayers
never existed.

You don't seem to have faith/trust in the qur'aan. When the qur'aan says it is fully detailed and mentions only 2-3 times for salaat, that is proof that the other times are fabricated because THE QUR'AAN IS FULLY DETAILED as far as our guidance is concerned.

Quote
The Quran tells you to worship at those times, and you can worship
however you wish, as long as it follows some basic requirements.
Just like the Quran tells you to pay zakat, but doesnt tell you how much.
Now its up to you to take care of the specifics, as long as you pay zakat rite?
The same is the case with prayer. You just have to do it, its part of the
submitting your whole self to God, and it makes perfect sense.

Establishing salaat does not mean worshipping God .... again you are twisting God's words. All the guidelines of salaat are mentioned in the qur'aan and I agree we have to stay within those guidelines. That is why there are no five obligatory salaats because that is outside the guidelines.

Quote
Now your just being too picky dude:

017.107
YUSUFALI: ...when it is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration,
PICKTHAL: ...when it is read unto them, fall down prostrate on their faces, adoring,
SHAKIR: ... those who are given the knowledge before it fall down on their faces, making obeisance when it is recited to them.

you need to ease up with the specifics.
How would you naturally fall down on your face
other then the standard forehead prostrating position?
You cant actually fall down on your face, as that
you break your nose!! And touching your chin...     ???
that is just weird.

I am not being picky but YOU ARE TWISTING GOD'S WORDS. These translators deliberately mistranslate and twist God's words in this sign/ayat to justify their preconceived notions based on unverifiable hearsay, and by quoting them and using those mistranslations as part of your argument, you become guilty of the same crime. This is carelessness to the highest degree. How can you understand God's words if you don't do your homework and verify the correct meaning yourself first before believing in other's mistranslations? I think this is your basic flaw because of which you are unable to comprehend God's message. You are twisting God's words because of your carelessness.

ATHQAAN DOES NOT MEAN FACES BUT MEANS CHINS. Faces is "wajooh" (plural) and "wajh" (singular) as used in the qur'aan.

Quote
The Quran itself states that that it should be recited in a voice that is not too loud
and not to remain silent while reciting it either. Hence, the quiet whisper.

Here again you are twisting God's words because of your carelessness. Had you bothered to verify what 17:110 is saying, you would have found out that the word used is "takhaafat", which means speaking in a low or soft voice according to Classical Arabic dictionaries, which is the same as a "quiet whisper". God is asking us exactly NOT to do that "quiet whispering". He clearly says "do not be loud nor speak in a low/soft voice but a way in between those", which can only mean a moderate tone.

I am sorry, but I cannot continue discussion with those who are extremely careless and keep twisting God's words because there is no evidence/proof that will convince them and no one except God can guide them unless The God wishes.

3:78 And from amongst them is a group that twist their tongues with the Scripture so that you may think it is from the Scripture, while it is not from the Scripture, and they say it is from God while it is not from God, and they say about God lies while they know.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on February 28, 2009, 01:24:21 PM
Peace Nabster,

I now fully accept the argument because I scrutinized the Quran to look for anything to do with Salat.
Salat means either of commitment or ritual prayer depending on the context, but Salat as commitment
is more prevalent throughout.
The three Salats are:
Fajr Salat (before dawn)
Salat Wusta (Noon prayer - as it is right in the middle between the two)
and
Salat al Isha (Evening prayer from just after sunset to night time).
There is in my opinion an anti pagan logic for this.
The times cannot encourage someone to pray towards the sun, as for Fajr and Isha the sun is hidden,
and for Salat Wusta, at its zenith so impossible to bow to it (well at least in the middle east), even if that might be an unimportant factor, but if we look at these little pagan things like the moon and star on minarets (cult of moon god), the Kaaba (Allat Manat and Uzzat Dark Son God), the word Amen (egyptian God Amoun Ra), one wonders why the Muslims are incurring such wrath from their Creator.
God bless...
Noble

There are some logical problems with your understanding.

1. If salaat al-wusta means "middle salaat" then did God forget to tell us which one is the middle? If your inference is correct then the qur'aan is not fully detailed and God left something out of it and forgot.

2. Why is noon the middle time? Middle of the night can also be the middle time.

3. 2:238 says "guard/protect our salawaat and salaat al-wusta". Salawaat already includes ALL the salaats. Mentioning a "middle salaat" after that will be totally redundant and illogical.

If a teacher says to the student: "bring your books and the math book" would it not be redundant to say "math book", because it is already included in "your books"? If your inference is correct then God is a fool because He does not know such redundancies and does not know any logic.

4. The words derived from WST in the qur'aan mean "best/balanced" in all other occurrences. The only logical meaning of 2:238 would be to establish all our salaats in the best/balanced manner. First God tells us to guard/protect our salaats, meaning that we should strive to establish all salaats according to God's commands and guidelines, and then by saying salaat al-wusta God is telling us to establish salaat in the best/balanced manner within those guidelines.

EVERY SALAAT IS SALAAT AL-WUSTA if established sincerely according to God's commands.

You might say that "salawaat" means three or more salaats, but where in 2:238 or its context does it say that it refers to the salaats in one day? Salawaat here refers to ALL the salaats in our lifetime.

Another grammatical point is that both fajr and isha salaats have the following wording in the qur'aan:

"AL-salaat al-fajr" meaning THE dawn salaat (specific salaat)
"AL-salaat al-3isha" meaning THE dusk salaat (specific salaat)

The wording of wusta salaat is as follows:

"Salaat al-wusta" meaning best/balanced salaat (NO AL BEFORE IT).

This is a GENERAL phrase and does not refer to a specific salaat or a specific time.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on February 28, 2009, 03:46:57 PM
Peace c0de,

Bro you don't seriously expect to base your entire argument on
the practices of the Jews and get away with it do ya? You do realize
that the 5 established prayers are like the ONLY THING that all the
sects in Islam actually agree on rite??! lol. And this is the one thing
that you all are questioning...  :confused:

This is WRONG. In fact, it's necessary to note that believers of "Shia" Islaam actually believe in observing salaat THREE times per day as well, and guess what these three times are? Yep, that's right, brother: (1) morning, (2) afternoon, and (3) night. Some smaller groups of them believe in 5 daily salaat observances, but they only perform them during these three periods, therefore consolidating two prayers into one... The only groups that firmly believe in the 5 daily salaat observances are those who follow the guidance of the hadith and sunna writings ordaining them. Nothing else even mentions 5 prayers at all, and the Qur'aan clearly speaks of three distinct times...

So again, this only qualifies as more circumstantial evidence,
as no one has provided any proof that the early Muslims
ever prayed 3 prayers (or 2) instead of 5.

Where is the proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times per day? The only thing that supports this doctrine is the sunna, something that has admittedly been SEVERELY CORRUPTED, FORGED, AND (in many cases) COMPLETELY FABRICATED, especially when it came to adopting pagan rituals... The 5 daily prayers were the practice of the Zoroastrians and certain Sabian sects, not the Muslims. That's why none of the scriptures mention 5 daily prayers for any of the Abrahamic systems; instead, they all promote THREE... So, where is your proof that the ancient submitters believed in 5 daily prayers? And were these three salaat observances ordained by G-d, or were they pagan traditions inherited from their forefathers?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on February 28, 2009, 04:07:52 PM
Peace Truthseeker,

3. 2:238 says "guard/protect our salawaat and salaat al-wusta". Salawaat already includes ALL the salaats. Mentioning a "middle salaat" after that will be totally redundant and illogical.

If a teacher says to the student: "bring your books and the math book" would it not be redundant to say "math book", because it is already included in "your books"? If your inference is correct then God is a fool because He does not know such redundancies and does not know any logic.

This is an illogical argument. The Qur'aan says to guard the "salawaat wa'al-salaatu al-wusta"... There's the word "waw"/and between them, but it occurs after the plural form. Therefore, instead of mentioning a separate one, it speaks of especially observing one, namely the middle... Also, the Arabic word "salawaat" specifically refers to the plurality of salaat, meaning THREE OR MORE. So, this can't be referring to only 2 prayers; it has to be at least speaking of three. The word used to describe two salaat observances would be "salatayn", a word that doesn't occur in the Qur'aan at all... Now, some people have made the argument that the word "salawaat" is referring to all the prayers during one's lifetime, but again, in context, this is completely illogical. If it was referring to all the prayers during one's lifetime, then the especialized one ("al-salaatu al-wusta") must be referring to ONE SPECIFIC SALAAT during one's lifetime, meaning either (1) in the middle of one's life or (2) the one best/balanced salaat during one's life. Since we don't know how long our life will be, this is not a sensible concept. Therefore, "salawaat" must be referring to DAILY PRAYERS, and this means there must be at least three per day. This further illustrates that the word "wusta" in this sense is most likely meaning "middle", not balanced, best, or anything else...

Another grammatical point is that both fajr and isha salaats have the following wording in the qur'aan:

"AL-salaat al-fajr" meaning THE dawn salaat (specific salaat)
"AL-salaat al-3isha" meaning THE dusk salaat (specific salaat)

The wording of wusta salaat is as follows:

"Salaat al-wusta" meaning best/balanced salaat (NO AL BEFORE IT).

This is a GENERAL phrase and does not refer to a specific salaat or a specific time.

Ummm... Are you sure about this one, brother?

Haafithu a'alaa al-salawaat wa' al-salaat al-wusta wa qumoo lilaahi qaaniteen...

There is DEFINATELY the word "al"/the present behind "salaat al-wusta", and this is specifically referring to a distinct salaat observance. Since the word "salawaat" refers to three or more distinct times, in a plural sense, the word "wusta" would have to be referring to a time amongst these other ones... So, if there are three salaat per day ("hypothetically"), which one would be the "best"? Which one is most "balanced"? There's no way we can make this distinction. Therefore, it must mean "middle", and in right between the other two...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on February 28, 2009, 08:01:03 PM
Truthseeker + Ahmed

Salaam brothers


@ Truthseeker


Quote
Nowhere are we asked to face mecca in the qur'aan

And from whatsoever place you come forth, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque;
and surely it is the very truth from your Lord, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.

Verse 2:149



Quote
The word used is "hamd" meaning praise and not "salaat". You are the one who earlier said this refers to salaat, thus twisting God's word. Why can't we praise God at certain times? Just because a time is mentioned does not make "hamd"/praise same as salaat. Hamd/praise can be done outside salaat too. God does not play word games. Where He means salaat He uses the word "salaat".

This is an invalid argument. The act of praise is included
in the act of salat. The first words that a Muslim utters in Salat
are words of praise.

And I did not say the word salat was used, I said the
times for Zuhr and Asr are clearly mentioned in that verse
and therefore their practice has a clear foundation in the Quran.


Quote
How can it be two different salaats when combined into one?

Don't believe me? This is from a Shia source:

"The Shi'ah acknowledge the five obligatory daily prayers. However,
they frequently combine the Zuhr and 'Asr prayers by offering them
consecutively"


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:sjA2LZmfcCAJ:www.al-islam.org/nutshell/redirect.asp%3Furll%3D/nutshell/files/combine.pdf+combining+prayers+islam+Quran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

The act of combining prayers is done for convenience, and
not because they do not recognize Zuhr and Asr distinctly.


Quote
He clearly says "do not be loud nor speak in a low/soft voice but a way in between those", which can only mean a moderate tone.

----------

ATHQAAN DOES NOT MEAN FACES BUT MEANS CHINS. Faces is "wajooh" (plural) and "wajh" (singular) as used in the qur'aan.


In the first case you are right, in the second, you are wrong.
The chin is still part of the person's face so the translations for
that verse are correct.





@ Ahmed


Quote
This is WRONG. In fact, it's necessary to note that believers of "Shia" Islaam actually believe in observing salaat THREE times per day as well, and guess what these three times are? Yep, that's right, brother: (1) morning, (2) afternoon, and (3) night. Some smaller groups of them believe in 5 daily salaat observances, but they only perform them during these three periods, therefore consolidating two prayers into one... The only groups that firmly believe in the 5 daily salaat observances are those who follow the guidance of the hadith and sunna writings ordaining them. Nothing else even mentions 5 prayers at all, and the Qur'aan clearly speaks of three distinct times...


I provided a link above to a shia site which clearly stated that they
recognize Zuhr and Asr as separate prayers.


Quote
Where is the proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times per day? The only thing that supports this doctrine is the sunna, something that has admittedly been SEVERELY CORRUPTED, FORGED, AND (in many cases) COMPLETELY FABRICATED, especially when it came to adopting pagan rituals... The 5 daily prayers were the practice of the Zoroastrians and certain Sabian sects, not the Muslims. That's why none of the scriptures mention 5 daily prayers for any of the Abrahamic systems; instead, they all promote THREE... So, where is your proof that the ancient submitters believed in 5 daily prayers? And were these three salaat observances ordained by G-d, or were they pagan traditions inherited from their forefathers?

Bro you are contradicting yourself. First you reject a practice
because it is mentioned in corrupted texts (sunnah) and then you
cite the previous scriptures (which are also corrupted) to support
your own argument.

The proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times a day is that
all the times are mentioned in the Quran. Plus the
complete uniformity of this belief throughout the Muslim lands.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on February 28, 2009, 09:00:04 PM
Peace c0de,

Bro you are contradicting yourself. First you reject a practice
because it is mentioned in corrupted texts (sunnah) and then you
cite the previous scriptures (which are also corrupted) to support
your own argument.

I mentioned the Torah (i.e. the Tanakh and the Mishna), and I didn't say anything regarding it being corrupted. Where did you get this idea from?! The modern Torah is NOT corrupted, it has just been mistranslated in certain aspects. Reading it in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic forms removes many of the misconceptions, especially when it comes to the Written Torah... This is not the case with the Sunna, which is fabricated and forged. You can't compare the Sunna to the Torah, the word of G-d, which is not fabricated.

The proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times a day is that
all the times are mentioned in the Quran. Plus the
complete uniformity of this belief throughout the Muslim lands.

The 5 times are NOT mentioned in the Qur'aan, which I already explained to you. The words "alsalaat" are mentioned in reference to THREE distinct times: (1) faajr, (2) esha, and (3) wusta. The other names and times of these other two prayers are not in the Qur'aan at all, and they're only mentioned in the hadith and sunna writings.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: theNabster on March 01, 2009, 08:09:17 AM
@ Truthseeker

Peace Truthseeker,

Your argument did not convince me.

I wish not to be patronising, but you have a nice nickname, so let us agree to carry on looking for the truth,
and to brotherly disagree on this matter.

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 01, 2009, 09:28:35 AM
Peace c0de,

I mentioned the Torah (i.e. the Tanakh and the Mishna), and I didn't say anything regarding it being corrupted. Where did you get this idea from?! The modern Torah is NOT corrupted, it has just been mistranslated in certain aspects. Reading it in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic forms removes many of the misconceptions, especially when it comes to the Written Torah... This is not the case with the Sunna, which is fabricated and forged. You can't compare the Sunna to the Torah, the word of G-d, which is not fabricated.

I somewhat agree with this.... church fathers considered the old testament to be highly authentic and valid way before they considered the new testament to be. There are 3 different sources for old testament(septugint...hebrew masoretic... and I forget other) different groups use different ones....like in the hebrew masoretic, the word "THE messiah" doesn't appear but in the septuagint it does..depending on what you believe will be what you choose....chritians usually choose septuagint, while jews aim for hebrew masoretic which I don't care for either really..and depending if the translator is a christian or a jew will also affect how they translate it...only thing I have problem with is why Jews kicked some parts out of the torah for bad reasons...christian bible's torah and jewish tanach doesn't have the same amount of books and chapters.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 01, 2009, 12:23:03 PM
@ Ahmed Bilal


Quote
I mentioned the Torah (i.e. the Tanakh and the Mishna), and I didn't say anything regarding it being corrupted. Where did you get this idea from?! The modern Torah is NOT corrupted, it has just been mistranslated in certain aspects. Reading it in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic forms removes many of the misconceptions, especially when it comes to the Written Torah... This is not the case with the Sunna, which is fabricated and forged. You can't compare the Sunna to the Torah, the word of G-d, which is not fabricated.

Bro the scholarly view is that the Tanakh was compiled over a thousand
years after Moses was born! Moses was alive somewhere between 1400-1200 BCE
and the Tanakh according to the academics who have studied it was compiled
200 BCE - 200 CE. That is an IMMENSE time between the revelation and the codification
of this text. So the Tanakh, can not be more reliable then the hadith in any case.
If you reject one for being inaccurate, you can not accept another to
base your argument on.


Quote
The 5 times are NOT mentioned in the Qur'aan, which I already explained to you. The words "alsalaat" are mentioned in reference to THREE distinct times: (1) faajr, (2) esha, and (3) wusta. The other names and times of these other two prayers are not in the Qur'aan at all, and they're only mentioned in the hadith and sunna writings.

When did I say the word "salat" was used with reference to the 5 times in the Quran?
I said that the 5 times themselves were clearly mentioned. Also, I said that the times for Zuhr and Asr
are mentioned along with the commandment to give praise to Allah at those times. And since the act of Salat
includes the giving of praise to God, therefore, all 5 times of the established prayers are covered in the Quran.
Which basically means that the established ritual of Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Magrib and Isha has a foundation in the Quran.
And this is why the practice of 5 daily prayers is confirmed by the uniformity of this practice throughout the Muslim lands.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 01, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
I somewhat agree with this.... church fathers considered the old testament to be highly authentic and valid way before they considered the new testament to be. There are 3 different sources for old testament(septugint...hebrew masoretic... and I forget other) different groups use different ones....like in the hebrew masoretic, the word "THE messiah" doesn't appear but in the septuagint it does..depending on what you believe will be what you choose....chritians usually choose septuagint, while jews aim for hebrew masoretic which I don't care for either really..and depending if the translator is a christian or a jew will also affect how they translate it...only thing I have problem with is why Jews kicked some parts out of the torah for bad reasons...christian bible's torah and jewish tanach doesn't have the same amount of books and chapters.

Yeah, you're right, brother... I don't really agree with everything in the Septuagint because I think many parts of it have been mistranslated, especially by the Greek and Roman Christian groups who tried to blend the Tanakh with the "New Testament". I definately prefer the Hebrew Masoretic writings. In my opinion, it's much more authentic. Plus, it's older, and many parts of the Septuagint are just translations of the Masoretic text... Regarding the Jews kicking certain books out of the Tanakh, it all depends on traditional readings. Some copies of the Tanakh contain more books than others. Plus, Christians did the same things, and they destroyed literally HUNDREDS of books that conflicted with their Trinitarian teachings and beliefs concerning the mashiach...
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 01, 2009, 12:50:07 PM
Peace c0de,

Bro the scholarly view is that the Tanakh was compiled over a thousand
years after Moses was born! Moses was alive somewhere between 1400-1200 BCE
and the Tanakh according to the academics who have studied it was compiled
200 BCE - 200 CE. That is an IMMENSE time between the revelation and the codification
of this text. So the Tanakh, can not be more reliable then the hadith in any case.
If you reject one for being inaccurate, you can not accept another to
base your argument on.

Ummm... Who said the Tanakh was written by Moses?! The Written and Oral Torah is the only book directly related to Moses' teachings. The other books were written by a series of Jewish prophets and scribes, many of who lived long after Moses was already dead... If you go anywhere in the world, the Written Torah and the Mishna are UNCHANGED after thousands of years. The people have the same text, the same letters, and everything else is completely identical. This is NOT the case with the hadith and sunna, which is completely different among different regions, different sects, and different Islaamic scholars. The Torah is NOT inaccurate, while the hadith and sunna writings ARE inaccurate.

When did I say the word "salat" was used with reference to the 5 times in the Quran?
I said that the 5 times themselves were clearly mentioned. Also, I said that the times for Zuhr and Asr
are mentioned along with the commandment to give praise to Allah at those times. And since the act of Salat
includes the giving of praise to God, therefore, all 5 times of the established prayers are covered in the Quran.
Which basically means that the established ritual of Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Magrib and Isha has a foundation in the Quran.
And this is why the practice of 5 daily prayers is confirmed by the uniformity of this practice throughout the Muslim lands.

Maybe you didn't know this, but "praise" and "salaat" are NOT the same thing. Just because praise is included in salaat observance doesn't mean the two are the same thing. We can praise G-d anytime, while salaat is to be observed at specific times... Like I said, the observance of SALAAT is only referenced at THREE TIMES in the Qur'aan, not five. Just because the majority of Islaamic nations adhere to this doesn't make it right. The majority of Muslims worldwide believe in circling the "Kaaba" seven times and kissing a black stone to worship G-d. This is something that ALL sectarian Muslims agree on, right? Does this make it part of our worship?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 01, 2009, 09:21:46 PM
@ Ahmed Bilal


Quote
Ummm... Who said the Tanakh was written by Moses?! The Written and Oral Torah is the only book directly related to Moses' teachings. The other books were written by a series of Jewish prophets and scribes, many of who lived long after Moses was already dead... If you go anywhere in the world, the Written Torah and the Mishna are UNCHANGED after thousands of years. The people have the same text, the same letters, and everything else is completely identical. This is NOT the case with the hadith and sunna, which is completely different among different regions, different sects, and different Islaamic scholars. The Torah is NOT inaccurate, while the hadith and sunna writings ARE inaccurate.

Dude how can you say that the Torah is authentic!!??? You know how many times it contradicts the Quran?
There are so many stories in the Old Testament which show the prophets committing such unimaginable sins!!!
All of these stories are retold in the Quran with the errors removed. And worst of all is the image of God presented
in the Jewish scriptures, as wiping out entire races of people almost arbitrarily, accounts which have been corrected
in the Quran. Also, the tanakh was compiled and codified in a proccess that was similar to the New Testament, in
a gathering of priests who basically picked and chose which parts make up the Tanakh today. After its codification
it might have stayed the same (like you said) but the corruption had already occurred by that time.


Quote
Maybe you didn't know this, but "praise" and "salaat" are NOT the same thing. Just because praise is included in salaat observance doesn't mean the two are the same thing. We can praise G-d anytime, while salaat is to be observed at specific times... Like I said, the observance of SALAAT is only referenced at THREE TIMES in the Qur'aan, not five. Just because the majority of Islaamic nations adhere to this doesn't make it right. The majority of Muslims worldwide believe in circling the "Kaaba" seven times and kissing a black stone to worship G-d. This is something that ALL sectarian Muslims agree on, right? Does this make it part of our worship?

I never said that Zuhr and Asr times were mentioned under the name "salat". But the description
of the act that is commanded during those times is covered by the act of Salat. We are told to
give praise to Allah during the times of Zuhr and Asr. And we do indeed give praise to God in our salat.


PeAcE




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 02, 2009, 05:59:35 PM
Peace c0de,

Dude how can you say that the Torah is authentic!!??? You know how many times it contradicts the Quran?
There are so many stories in the Old Testament which show the prophets committing such unimaginable sins!!!
All of these stories are retold in the Quran with the errors removed. And worst of all is the image of God presented
in the Jewish scriptures, as wiping out entire races of people almost arbitrarily, accounts which have been corrected
in the Quran.

Please provide some scriptural proofs regarding this claim of the Torah being corrupted... In reality, the Qur'aan says that the Torah has NOT been corrupted, and it has been preserved, just like the Qur'aan. Please point out places where the Torah contradicts the Qur'aan...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 02, 2009, 06:33:56 PM
Peace c0de,

Please provide some scriptural proofs regarding this claim of the Torah being corrupted... In reality, the Qur'aan says that the Torah has NOT been corrupted, and it has been preserved, just like the Qur'aan. Please point out places where the Torah contradicts the Qur'aan...

Peace,

Ahmad
Well quran does say the people distorted his words and attributed things that he never said, which things that they attributed to God which he never said is clearly in the torah. God didn't bash the torah/gospel that much since there was no need too, with the quran you can figure out what was change and what wasn't
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 02, 2009, 07:44:50 PM

@ Ahmed

Salaam bro



Please provide some scriptural proofs regarding this claim of the Torah being corrupted...

Here is one example from the Quran, Verse 2:102, clearly says that the the Tanakh contains fabrications
against Solomon PBUH. Referring to The Book of Kings in the Tanakh which claims that Hazrat Sulaiman PBUH
was guilty of idolatry.

The Quran also redeems the character of many other prophets who have been falsely accused of grave sins in the Tanakh...
to tell you the truth bro, some of the stuff in the tanakh... is so bad, I don't even want to repeat here.






Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 03, 2009, 05:43:58 PM
Peace c0de,

Here is one example from the Quran, Verse 2:102, clearly says that the the Tanakh contains fabrications
against Solomon PBUH. Referring to The Book of Kings in the Tanakh which claims that Hazrat Sulaiman PBUH
was guilty of idolatry.

The Quran also redeems the character of many other prophets who have been falsely accused of grave sins in the Tanakh...

Okay... This doesn't prove the Torah or Tanakh is forged at all, since the Qur'aan never says that the claim of Solomon possibly turning towards idolatry in his later life is a lie. It never mentions this at all. So, if the Tanakh says it's true, while the Qur'aan doesn't mention it at all, then how can you be sure it's not true? The same is the case with the Tanakh's portrayal of King David, claiming that he committed adultery, something that's not mentioned at all in the Qur'aan. But again, just because the Qur'aan doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, your argument on this means nothing...

to tell you the truth bro, some of the stuff in the tanakh... is so bad, I don't even want to repeat here.

Yeah, I didn't think so...  ::) I don't know of anything in the Tanakh that is so bad, it can't be mentioned in an open debate on scriptural authenticity. So, that comment is ridiculous...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 03, 2009, 06:25:34 PM
Peace c0de,

Okay... This doesn't prove the Torah or Tanakh is forged at all, since the Qur'aan never says that the claim of Solomon possibly turning towards idolatry in his later life is a lie. It never mentions this at all.


Did you actually read the verse I gave you? Here it is again:
(and keep in mind that this is not the only verse which clearly
places the charge of forgery against the Jews).

And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon.
Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved...


The words "falsely related" are referring to the story in the Book of Kings,
i.e. saying the account that Solomon PBUH disbelieved is a fabrication.


Quote
The same is the case with the Tanakh's portrayal of King David, claiming that he committed adultery, something that's not mentioned at all in the Qur'aan. But again, just because the Qur'aan doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen.


David PBUH has been mentioned with high regard in the Quran. So I am sorry
if I find the claim that he had a man murdered so he could marry his wife, ridiculous.




Quote
I don't know of anything in the Tanakh that is so bad

Then you clearly don't know the Old Testament.

"Lot, Abraham?s nephew, begat two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Genesis 19:30-35)."
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/950-does-the-bible-conflict-with-itself-in-the-matter-of-incest




PeAcE




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: raginggaijin on March 03, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
Peace be unto you, brothers and sisters,

May God guide you to the Truth.

What the Quran says about the Torah and Gospel:
Surah 2:91, 2:99, 3:2-4, 3:184, 3:84, 4:136, 5:66-68, 6:154-155, 10:37, 12:111, 18:56, 28:48-49, 29:46-47, 42:15-16 

The Torah and the Scriptures have been corrupted. We know this for Truth because God tells us so. He warns us of the corruption and to use the Quran as a verifier and confirmation of the Truth within the Scriptures.

Would anyone who is a believer; a muslim with faith in their heart, dare to bear witness to the lies and slander of the mighty Prophets who came before?

Who would claim to believe Lot slept with his daughters, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?
Who would claim Noah got drunk and was discovered naked, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?
Who would claim Solomon fell into sorcerous practices, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?
Who would claim David slept with anyone or killed because of it, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?

What Truth do you claim to believe in? The Quran or what is written in other Books that have been tarnished by carnal men who sold their soul to the deceiver?

We are told to read all God's Books, with the Quran as the verifier. The Quran abrogates previous Law, confirm and verifies Truth! Why would we fall prey to the deceiver's trap in believing this slander of our Prophets? God tells us to read the Torah and Scriptures for the Law, no? Our focus should be on serving God, not demeaning His Prophets.

Remember that the Jewish Council of Elders added to the Tanukh. What better way to reinforce the Rabbinical teachings of mysticism and kaballah than to demean the Prophets and usurp the worship of God to the jinn and iblis?

Read the Old and New Testament, just keep the Quran nearby to ascertain the Truth. If God does not speak of it, it did not occur. Or would you believe men before God?

If you read the Tanukh, are you searching for the Nebi'im? Then focus on the prophecies, ignore the porn and slander of Judaism.

Pray for guidance. God most assuredly provides.

Peace and blessings.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 03, 2009, 08:49:09 PM
Peace,

You're wrong on this issue. There is nowhere in the Qur'aan that claims that the Torah is corrupted. In fact, the exact opposite is implied throughout the scripture... The Qur'aan accuses the Jews and Christians of distorting the scriptures with their MOUTHS, and trading in G-d's revelations for manmade books. In other words, the Jews traded the Torah for the Gemarra (Talmud). They didn't corrupt the actual scriptures, they simply misinterpreted and mistranslated them. The Christians abandoned the Torah, and instead, they adhered to the teachings of Paul in the Bible canon, some of which completely contradicted the Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus. This is why the Qur'aan continually encourages Jews to observe Torah and Christians (Nazarenes) to adhere to the Injeel. Why would He tell them to adhere to a corrupted book?

If you are truthful, then please point out a passage in the Qur'aan that alleges that the Torah has been corrupted... Or are you saying about G-d what you don't know?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: raginggaijin on March 03, 2009, 09:57:04 PM
Peace,

You're wrong on this issue. There is nowhere in the Qur'aan that claims that the Torah is corrupted. In fact, the exact opposite is implied throughout the scripture... The Qur'aan accuses the Jews and Christians of distorting the scriptures with their MOUTHS, and trading in G-d's revelations for manmade books. In other words, the Jews traded the Torah for the Gemarra (Talmud). They didn't corrupt the actual scriptures, they simply misinterpreted and mistranslated them. The Christians abandoned the Torah, and instead, they adhered to the teachings of Paul in the Bible canon, some of which completely contradicted the Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus. This is why the Qur'aan continually encourages Jews to observe Torah and Christians (Nazarenes) to adhere to the Injeel. Why would He tell them to adhere to a corrupted book?

If you are truthful, then please point out a passage in the Qur'aan that alleges that the Torah has been corrupted... Or are you saying about G-d what you don't know?

Peace,

Ahmad

Ask yourself why God would tell the Christians and Jews to come to an accord to worship only God and follow the teachings of the Prophets.

Then ask yourself how Moses could write about the Promised Land when he was dead.

Peace. :)
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 03, 2009, 10:12:47 PM
Peace Raging Gaijin,

Ask yourself why God would tell the Christians and Jews to come to an accord to worship only God and follow the teachings of the Prophets.

Because the Jews strayed away from the Torah, and they traded it for the wisdom of rabbis. Even today, this is still a major problem in Judaism, especially in Orthodox Ashkenazi Judaism. In some instances, the Gemarra (Talmud) is followed in all circumstances, even if the Torah completely rejects the prescribed doctrine... The Christians strayed away from worshipping G-d alone, and they started idolizing Jesus and calling him the literal "son of G-d", a blasphemy in itself. Also, they completely rejected the guidance of the Torah, and instead, they traded G-d's scripture for the letters of Paul.

Then ask yourself how Moses could write about the Promised Land when he was dead.

In order to understand this, you have to understand that the Torah was not written by Moses; it was written by G-d Himself... When a scripture is divinely inspired, then G-d is the author of it, not the prophet. Therefore, G-d is the author of the Qur'aan, not Muhammad... G-d can write about things in every time period, because He is present and knowledgeable in all things at all times. Therefore, in the literal sense, G-d is fully capable of dictating the details of the "promised land" to Moses before he died, just like Muhammad mentioned things in the Qur'aan that didn't occur until after his death. In the prophetic writings, this is not unusual at all...

Still, I CHALLENGE anyone to provide a passage in the Qur'aan that alleges that the Torah is not preserved. If there exists one, I sure don't ever recall seeing it, and indeed, the Qur'aan says the exact opposite, saying that the Torah and Injeel are indeed preserved for the present and future generations to study and obey.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: raginggaijin on March 03, 2009, 11:25:22 PM
Peace Raging Gaijin,

Because the Jews strayed away from the Torah, and they traded it for the wisdom of rabbis. Even today, this is still a major problem in Judaism, especially in Orthodox Ashkenazi Judaism. In some instances, the Gemarra (Talmud) is followed in all circumstances, even if the Torah completely rejects the prescribed doctrine... The Christians strayed away from worshipping G-d alone, and they started idolizing Jesus and calling him the literal "son of G-d", a blasphemy in itself. Also, they completely rejected the guidance of the Torah, and instead, they traded G-d's scripture for the letters of Paul.

In order to understand this, you have to understand that the Torah was not written by Moses; it was written by G-d Himself... When a scripture is divinely inspired, then G-d is the author of it, not the prophet. Therefore, G-d is the author of the Qur'aan, not Muhammad... G-d can write about things in every time period, because He is present and knowledgeable in all things at all times. Therefore, in the literal sense, G-d is fully capable of dictating the details of the "promised land" to Moses before he died, just like Muhammad mentioned things in the Qur'aan that didn't occur until after his death. In the prophetic writings, this is not unusual at all...

Still, I CHALLENGE anyone to provide a passage in the Qur'aan that alleges that the Torah is not preserved. If there exists one, I sure don't ever recall seeing it, and indeed, the Qur'aan says the exact opposite, saying that the Torah and Injeel are indeed preserved for the present and future generations to study and obey.

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace, brother,

Good point about the 3rd person. I see the Truth in it, especially after reading specific Surahs concerning the Prophets.

Do not get me wrong: We do need to read the Torah and Scriptures because they did come from God! They are His Books. Yet as I've shown below, all are in need of the Quran for verification. You can decide why. As for me, coming from the Christian faith, I have my opinion that will be very difficult to disuade; I have seen first-hand the corruption of God's good news given to His Prophets: The Trinity Doctrine and the missing Gospel of Jesus.

Jesus never said he was God nor should he be worshipped. The Quran confirms this Truth and enabled me to discover the deception much easier than on my own. Moses is told to be given a Book as well, not just the 10 Commandments. Surah 28:43
Deuteronomy contains the same food restrictions as the Quran; one proof that it comes from God to me.

If it were uncorrupted, would it need the Quran to verify the Truth from falsehood? It doesn't just confirm, it verifies.

"He has revealed to thee the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Torah and Gospel. Aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Discrimination (Furqan). Those who disbelieve in the messages of Allah - for them is a severe chastisement. And Allah is Mighty, the Lord of retribution." Surah 3:3-4

"Again, We gave the Book to Moses to complete (Our blessings) on him who would do good, and making plain all things and a guidance and a mercy, so that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord." Surah 6:154

"And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the Book, there is not doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds." Surah 10:37

"In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it, and a distinct explanation of all things, and a guide and a mercy to al people who believe." Surah 12:111

"And We send not messengers but as givers of good news and warning, and those who disbelieve contend with falsehood to weaken thereby the Truth, and they take My messages and the warning for a mockery." Surah 18:56

It's a terrible balance at times, weighing to share all I know or hold back so I do not scare off people when I share my experiences of Al-Islam. I have been quoting God's Word from the Quran and Scripture to a Doctor who I hold in high esteem; he is a Catholic but a man who loves God. We had great fellowship with our love of God, and he took many topics I brought to heart and incorporated them into his life. Because I speak English I say God more often than Allah.
He learned today I am a muslim and the quotes came from the Quran and Scriptures, and his demenour totally changed. Makes the heart heavy, yet I have faith in God to lead who He wills. He is a great man and I can see he loves God. Insha'Allah, this will open the door for further discussion.

Or not.

This was a great study session. Thank you for the opportunity. :)

Pray for guidance for answers to all your questions. God provides. :D

Peace and blessings.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 04, 2009, 11:54:48 AM
Or are you saying about G-d what you don't know?


... again with this passive aggressiveness...  :nope:



Quote
You're wrong on this issue. There is nowhere in the Qur'aan that claims that the Torah is corrupted.

Actually, it does. The Book of Kings says that Solomon PBUH disbelieved,
and referring to the same incident the Quran says that he did NOT disbelieve
but the incident was FORGED. This is clearly stated in the verse I gave you.

And it is not talking about the Talmud either, but the Tanakh itself.



Quote
In fact, the exact opposite is implied throughout the scripture... The Qur'aan accuses the Jews and Christians of distorting the scriptures with their MOUTHS, and trading in G-d's revelations for manmade books. In other words, the Jews traded the Torah for the Gemarra (Talmud). They didn't corrupt the actual scriptures, they simply misinterpreted and mistranslated them. The Christians abandoned the Torah, and instead, they adhered to the teachings of Paul in the Bible canon, some of which completely contradicted the Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus. This is why the Qur'aan continually encourages Jews to observe Torah and Christians (Nazarenes) to adhere to the Injeel. Why would He tell them to adhere to a corrupted book?

I see your point, but you are mistaken. The Old Testament is much more authentic
then the New Testament which isn't even recognized as a proper scripture in the Quran
as the diciples were not given revelation, only Jesus PBUH was given the injeel, as far
as I know (but I am not 100% sure on this).

I also accept your point that the entire Torah was not revealed to Moses PBUH,
that was actually my mistake, and I knew that the Psalms and others were revealed
to other prophets within the Jewish community as well.

However, this does not mean that the Torah has stayed perfectly preserved like the Quran.
The Quran is clear on the issue that the Torah does indeed contain fabrications, and examples
have already been posted.


PeAcE

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 04, 2009, 05:27:14 PM
Peace Raging Gaijin,

If it were uncorrupted, would it need the Quran to verify the Truth from falsehood? It doesn't just confirm, it verifies.

The Qur'aan says that it "musaddiqan limaa bayna yadayhe" (confirms the previous scriptures), which includes verifying and authenticating them. In order for this to be the case, the previous scriptures must be accurately preserved... Now, you've raised a very good question: What's the purpose of the Qur'aan if the previous scriptures are uncorrupted?

In Christianity, the doctrines are based on manmade books and letters. None of these can accurately be called "divinely inspired", not by a long stretch. It's different, however, in Judaism. The Torah was actually authored by G-d Himself, and the knowledge and wisdom contained in the scripture is sound and reasonable... So, why the Qur'aan? Because Jewish teachings have changed, not the scriptures. Jews were condemned for trading G-d's scripture for a "cheap price", the wisdom of rabbis. That's why many of them, especially Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews, place the Gemarra (Talmud) above the Torah, which is considered the actual word of G-d Almighty! The purpose of the Qur'aan is to lead the people back to the true teachings of G-d, telling them to abandon their idols and worship G-d alone.

I do understand your perspective, and G-d is the most knowledgeable. May He guide us all to the truth and the straight path...

Peace and best wishes,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 04, 2009, 06:44:56 PM
Peace c0de,

Actually, it does. The Book of Kings says that Solomon PBUH disbelieved,
and referring to the same incident the Quran says that he did NOT disbelieve
but the incident was FORGED. This is clearly stated in the verse I gave you.

And it is not talking about the Talmud either, but the Tanakh itself.

Are you sure this is what it's talking about, the Tanakh and not the Gemarra?

In actuality, it's talking about the Gemarra, the rabbinic commentary on the scriptures. This is why it mentions people spreading sorcery throughout the land of Babylon, a reference that's not mentioned ANYWHERE AT ALL in the Tanakh. It is, however, mentioned in the Talmud, but with a different idea concerning it. Rather than basing the origination of it's spread on two people (angels/"malaykayn" or kings/"malikayn"), the Talmud references it as an entire body of people teaching this paganism, without mentioning who or what specifically started it. The Gemarra makes an implication that Solomon gave in to practicing this sorcery, leading him into idolatry, a concept that the Qur'aan blatantly rejects. But nothing about this incident is mentioned in the Tanakh at all, and the passage in the Book of Kings is talking about a completely different time and issue, alleging that Solomon gave in to paganism due to the pressure from one of his many concubines.

So, again, you're WRONG. The Qur'aan never alleges that the Torah is forged or corrupted. If it does, please provide a reference to support your claim...

The Old Testament is much more authentic
then the New Testament which isn't even recognized as a proper scripture in the Quran
as the diciples were not given revelation, only Jesus PBUH was given the injeel, as far
as I know (but I am not 100% sure on this).

I agree. The "New Testament" is a forgery, and it's not a scripture at all. None of it is divinely inspired, and nearly ever "book" originated as a letter from someone (mostly from Paul) to the newly developed Christian congregations throughout the region. None of them were intended to be used as authentic scriptures... And, of course as you mentioned, the Qur'aan speaks of the Injeel being sent down to Jesus, not written by his followers. Therefore, it's safe to presume that the Biblical canon does NOT contain the Injeel at all, at least not in it's true scriptural form...

I also accept your point that the entire Torah was not revealed to Moses PBUH,
that was actually my mistake, and I knew that the Psalms and others were revealed
to other prophets within the Jewish community as well.

What exactly do you mean when you reference the Torah? Are you speaking about the Pentateuch, or are you talking about the entire "Old Testament"? In Judaism, the Torah contains the Biblical books of (what Christians call) Genesis through Deuteronomy. The other books are split into their respective catagories, "Neviim" (Prophets) and "Ketuviim" (Writings), and these are what make up the Tanakh (or Mikra)... The Psalms are not part of the Torah, they are part of the Tanakh (i.e. in the Ketuviim).

The Quran is clear on the issue that the Torah does indeed contain fabrications, and examples
have already been posted.

Posted where? Your "proof" has been disproven... Please provide some evidence...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: raginggaijin on March 04, 2009, 09:14:50 PM
Peace Raging Gaijin,

The Qur'aan says that it "musaddiqan limaa bayna yadayhe" (confirms the previous scriptures), which includes verifying and authenticating them. In order for this to be the case, the previous scriptures must be accurately preserved... Now, you've raised a very good question: What's the purpose of the Qur'aan if the previous scriptures are uncorrupted?

In Christianity, the doctrines are based on manmade books and letters. None of these can accurately be called "divinely inspired", not by a long stretch. It's different, however, in Judaism. The Torah was actually authored by G-d Himself, and the knowledge and wisdom contained in the scripture is sound and reasonable... So, why the Qur'aan? Because Jewish teachings have changed, not the scriptures. Jews were condemned for trading G-d's scripture for a "cheap price", the wisdom of rabbis. That's why many of them, especially Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews, place the Gemarra (Talmud) above the Torah, which is considered the actual word of G-d Almighty! The purpose of the Qur'aan is to lead the people back to the true teachings of G-d, telling them to abandon their idols and worship G-d alone.

I do understand your perspective, and G-d is the most knowledgeable. May He guide us all to the truth and the straight path...

Peace and best wishes,

Ahmad
Peace be unto you, Ahmad,

I appreciate this insight. I am unfamiliar with the Jewish faith, coming from Christianity to Al-Islam. This is helpful in my studies and I will pray for guidance.

If I were to do a video series on the corruption of the Jewish faith, would you be a resource I could possibly tap into? I am currently working on a series on Church doctrine corruption and Islam, and hope to finish them in the next couple of months, insha'Allah. This would wrap up the series completely.

Peace and blessings.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 04, 2009, 09:15:40 PM

Are you sure this is what it's talking about, the Tanakh and not the Gemarra?


Actually bro, it is very clear that it is the Tanakh which is being talked about, examine these verses:


the wives of Solomon PBUH "turned away his heart after other gods" 1 Kings 11:4

And later on:

"The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD's command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen."



This passage in the Book of Kings is charging Solomon with heresy and God
punishing his entire kingdom. But the Quran clearly contradicts this and
calls this a fabrication. Not only does God redeem his character, but also the
reputation of his entire kingdom and his rule which is maligned in the Tanakh:

"And they followed what the devils fabricated against the Kingdom of Solomon.
And Solomon disbelieved not, but the devils disbelieved
..."

The Quran 2:102


It is made clear in the Quran that God did NOT reject Solomon PBUH
and God did not "tear away" the Kingdom from Solomon, and these
are fabrications against the Kingdom of Solomon. This prophet of God
is mentioned many times in the Quran and nowhere is Allah displeased
with him. The same is the story with other prophets who have been
maligned in the Tanakh, but find redemption through the Quran.
The Quran must always be given priority when looking at previous
scriptures brother.


PeAcE


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 05, 2009, 12:27:52 AM
... again with this passive aggressiveness...  :nope:



Actually, it does. The Book of Kings says that Solomon PBUH disbelieved,
and referring to the same incident the Quran says that he did NOT disbelieve
but the incident was FORGED. This is clearly stated in the verse I gave you.

And it is not talking about the Talmud either, but the Tanakh itself.



I see your point, but you are mistaken. The Old Testament is much more authentic
then the New Testament which isn't even recognized as a proper scripture in the Quran
as the diciples were not given revelation, only Jesus PBUH was given the injeel, as far
as I know (but I am not 100% sure on this).

I also accept your point that the entire Torah was not revealed to Moses PBUH,
that was actually my mistake, and I knew that the Psalms and others were revealed
to other prophets within the Jewish community as well.

However, this does not mean that the Torah has stayed perfectly preserved like the Quran.
The Quran is clear on the issue that the Torah does indeed contain fabrications, and examples
have already been posted.


PeAcE



The Torah in the Koran is talking about the Old Testament, it includes many Books including the Psalms and Books from the days of Abraham and onward. It spans several centuries. The Old Testament is a library of Books. It is not be understood the way the Koran does but it is a Book of guidance and light. Also I do not see what this big deal about Paul is? The Koran was concerned with the Divinity of Jesus, Paul has nothing to do with that. The Gospel does not preach the Divinity of Jesus and the Old Testament also does not teach that.

THE QURAN CONFIRMS: TODAY'S BIBLE IS UNCHANGED

By A. Ibrahim

Muslims and Christians believe in the infallibility of the original Biblical manuscripts. But many adherents of Islam think that today's Bible has undergone substantial changes with regard to its early manuscripts and their translated versions. However, the Quran does not support this claim unanimously! In fact it makes it clear that the Bible, known as the Torah and the Injil, was found reliable in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h) time, the sixth century. To prove that the twentieth century Bible is still authentic it only has to be compared with a copy from the sixth century.

All quotations are taken from "The Meaning of the Holy Quran" translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali and published by Armana Corporation, U.S.A., 1989.

Because of a lack of space it has not always been possible to print whole verses. The reader is encouraged to look up the references and their contexts in either the Quran or the Bible.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE QURAN ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLE

1.)

And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that) was before thee... (Surah 10, Jonah, verse 94)
"Those who have been reading the book from before thee" are Jews and Christians who read the Torah and the Injil (Gospel)! If they were reading corrupted holy books, their minds would have been influenced by many misconceptions. It would therefore make no sense for Allah to command those who are in doubt to ask Jews and Christians who allegedly were mislead by changed Scriptures! In order to follow the mandate in this verse it is absolutely necessary to believe that the Scriptures before Islam are uncorrupted!

Here the question may be asked: "Are what is known as the Torah and the Injil in Muhammad's (p.b.u.h.) time identical with today's Bible that contains the Old and the New Testament?" Regarding the Injil an affirming answer has already been given in "The History of the Quran and the Injil." The Old Testament too is identical with the Torah as seen from the following reasoning:

The Hebrew word "Torah" means literally "law", "instruction". It refers to the revelations given to Moses. "The term was often applied to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:40) as a whole; and as the importance of the Prophets and Writings grew, it was sometimes used to describe them all as divinely revealed instructions and traditions." ("Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions" by Rosemary Goring, Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 1995)

Evidence from the Bible

Sometimes when the law is spoken of in the Injil, the New Testament, it is used in the all including sense. In Romans 3 Paul quotes verses from the book of Psalms and from the Prophets but then he concludes in verse 19 with, "what the law (Torah) says..." (See also 1 Cor. 14:21)

Jesus himself referred to the Psalms as "the law (Torah)" in John 10:34. Another example is found in John 12:34 where the Jews speak of verses from Psalms 89:36, Isaiah 9:7, and Daniel 7:14 as "the law (Torah)".

In the Quran too the meaning of "Torah" where all 39 books of the Old Testament are included is used. This becomes clear when one looks at the evidence found in the Quran, and in history:

Evidence from the Quran:

Several verses in the Quran bear witness to the truth that the Torah was unchanged at the time of Jesus.

In Surah 19, Maryam, verse 12, Yahya, who lived at the time of Jesus was told "to take hold of the Book, (the Torah)."

Surah 3, Ali'Imran, verse 48 tells us that Jesus was also taught in the Torah.

Numerous verses, such as Surah 34, Saba, verse 31, Surah 35, Fatir, verse 31, attest to the truth that the Torah was uncorrupted in the time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in the sixth century A.D. The Arabic phrase "bain yadaihi" which is used in these references to the Torah literally means "between his hands". Dr. W. Campbell writes in his book "The Quran and the Bible in the light of history and science", (Middle East Resources, 1994, page 37) "...usually it is an idiom for "in his presence", or "in his power", or "in his possession," or "at his disposal..."(see also Surah 34, Saba', verse 12)

In the Quran some Jewish contemporaries of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) are called "those who guide and do justice in the light of truth," besides many others whose reputation was not so favorable in the sixth century. (Surah 7, Al Araf, verse 159, see also Surah 5, Al Ma'idah, verse 66) The very fact that they were commended so highly shows that they were in possession of the uncorrupted Torah. History tells us what was part of it.

Evidence from history

Like in the case of the Injil, the New Testament, the formation of an official list (canon) of the books that were part of it took a considerable time. When finally an official list was approved it was done so in defense against a growing number of heretical writings. The official list merely confirmed what had been accepted by the Jews centuries before. Then it was unnecessary because there was a common agreement as to which writings were part of the Torah.

After giving nine solid reasons for an early formation of the canon of the Old Testament, the authors of "An Introduction to the new Testament" (by D. Carson, D.J. Moo, L. Morris, Apollos, 1992, pages 491-92) conclude saying, "It appears, then, that there is adequate evidence to support the view that there was a (closed) canon of Scripture to serve as a model in the formation of the New Testament canon. Even if this point be disputed, there is entirely convincing evidence that the Torah (here meaning the Pentateuch) and the Prophets were viewed as closed collections by the first century A.D."

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary (by F.F.Bruce, 1980, IVP, Leicester) concludes an extensive research by saying that the whole Hebrew Bible canon as we know it today existed around 200 B.C.

2.)

All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say,"Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth." (Surah 3, Al-i-'Imran, verse 93)
In this specific incident the Jews are asked to bring their own Law, the Torah. They are commanded by God to study it in order to find the right answer to a particular question. Maududi, the renowned Islamic scholar, said, that it addressed the difference between Muslims and Jews in regard to eating the meat of camels, hares and coneys. In opposition to Islam, Judaism prohibits the eating of them according to today's Torah (Deuteronomy 14:7). "But, the open challenge of the Quran to them to bring the Torah in proof thereof shows that the commandments referred to above did not exist in the Torah at that time and were inserted afterwards; otherwise the Jews would have at once accepted the challenge of the Quran and presented the commandments thereof." (See, "The meaning of the Quran", Vol. I, 12th Edition 1992, by S. Abdul Maududi, Islamic Publications (Pvt) LTD., Pakistan, comment on Surah 6, Al-Anam, verse 145, (hereafter referred to as "Maududi")

This view is problematic because it ignores the fact that today's English translations of the Torah, such as the N.I.V., are based on the Masoretic text the standard edition of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was prepared by Jewish scholars, called Masoretes, mainly from 500 to the 950 A.D. They introduced vowel points into the consonantal (consonants only) Hebrew text. They also studied each letter, word and phrase and wrote marginal notes commenting on proper grammar and spelling. (See, "The World Book Encyclopedia", Volume 2, 1982, U.S.A., page 222b

Furthermore the translators compared it with a number of other sources still in existence today, the most important of which are:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Hebrew at about 100 B.C., discovered in the late 1940's and early 1950's in Palestine. "Among the fragments discovered are complete copies or parts of every Old Testament book except Esther, and the variations in the text after a thousand years of copying are minimal." (See, "Answers to Tough Questions", by Josh Mc Dowell and Don Stewart, 1980, U.S.A.)

The Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, at about 250 B.C.

The Syriac Peshitta, a translation of the whole Bible into the common language of certain parts of Syria, from either the first or second century A.D.

The Vulgate, the entire Bible translated into Latin at about 400 A.D.

In none of the above sources is Deuteronomy 14:7, the verse under consideration, missing! Looking at all the evidence one can impossibly say that it was missing in the prophet of Islam's time and only later inserted into the text!

Rest of the article here:

http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/bible.htm
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 05, 2009, 05:20:08 AM
@ Bigmo

The admissibility of their laws is not an admission of their perfection.

Another example: According to Psalm 136, Pharaoh was drowned with his army
in the Red Sea. But according to the Quran Pharaoh was spared to be made
an example of for all to see. And today, his mummified body rests in a museum.
This is further proof that the Tanakh contains errors, while the Quran is perfect.

More conclusive proof from the Quran:

...Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say,
"This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith.
2:78-79


"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say,
"This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price.
Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."

4:46



PeAcE



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 05, 2009, 08:29:11 AM
Peace everyone,

I made a mistake in my earlier post. It is actually the other way around.

The wordings used for dawn and dusk salaats are as follows (24:58):

Salaat al-fajr (salaat of dawn - NO AL BEFORE SALAAT)
Salaat al-3isha (salaat of dusk - NO AL BEFORE SALAAT)

This phrase without AL has been used for the timed salaats.

The wording used in 2:238 is as follows:

AL-salaat al-wusta (THE BEST/BALANCED SALAAT)

This wusta in this phrase is an adjective due to the wording and describes salaat.

As everyone can see, the wordings used are different for the timed salaats and al-salaat al-wusta, so the latter CANNOT BE REFERRING TO A SEPARATE TIMED SALAAT. This is grammatically UNARGUABLE.

Secondly, if AL-salaat al-wusta refers to a middle salaat then

WHICH SALAAT IS THE MIDDLE SALAAT ACCORDING TO THE QUR'AAN?

God forgot to mention that right? The qur'aan is incomplete and not fully detailed right? Because of this people are arguing and divided in two groups; one says the middle is noon and the other says the middle is middle of night.  :brickwall:

IS THE MIDDLE NOON OR NIGHT AND WHY?

Again God forgot and the qur'aan is not fully detailed right?

Thirdly, in 2:238, salawaat already covers all the salaats and then mentioning a separate timed salaat is redundant.

Again God is a fool and does not know redundancies right?

Salawaat refers to ALL the salaats in one's lifetime, and EACH OF THOSE SALAATS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE BEST/BALANCED MANNER. That is what 2:238 is telling us and this does not cause any redundancies.

Quote from: AB
The words "alsalaat" are mentioned in reference to THREE distinct times: (1) faajr, (2) esha, and (3) wusta.

WRONG !!

There is no AL before salaat al-fajr and salaat al-isha. Please see above.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 05, 2009, 11:08:49 AM
Peace c0de,

"And they followed what the devils fabricated against the Kingdom of Solomon.
And Solomon disbelieved not, but the devils disbelieved
..."

The Quran 2:102

C'mon, bro - mistranslations are only making your argument weaker... The Qur'aanic passage doesn't say anything about fabrications, and it doesn't say that this was directed towards the Jews. The actual passage speaks about the devils RECITING certain things in Solomon's kingdom, which the people adhered to but Solomon rejected. What were these "devils" reciting? The rest of the verse makes it clear that it's talking about teachings of sorcery that started spreading throughout the land. This concept is NOT MENTIONED in the Tanakh at all, and you're completely wrong. These are talking about two completely different events at two completely different times... Once again, you STILL haven't pointed out anything in the Qur'aan that alleges that the Torah was corrupted. Until you do so, you have no proof for your outrageous claim...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 05, 2009, 11:13:10 AM
Peace everyone,

I would like to draw the attention of the readers to the continued manipulation of the word of God and twisting it intentionally by someone on this thread.

This person is putting forth the argument that al-masjid al-haram means "sacred" mosque, and then implying that it is in mecca as used in the qur'aan.

HOW CAN HARAM BE TRANSLATED AS SACRED? Is that not twisting God's words?

The word for sacred is "moqaddas". Haram means "inviolable" or "restricted".

Secondly, God did mention the word "makkah" in the qur'aan once, in context of a war. NOWHERE did He say that al-masjid al-haraam is in a place by the name of Makkah.

There is ZERO evidence of the existence of a mosque by the name of al-masjid al-haraam in a place by the name of Makkah. Even if we go by the fabricated sectarian historical documents, there was no mosque by the name of al-masjid al-haraam in Makkah around the so called Kaaba when the prophet allegedly migrated from there. He did not allegedly come back to Makkah until after Makkah was conquered and only then he could have built any kind of mosque there but the order for changing the qiblah came before that, so how could he have faced some non-existent mosque in Makkah when that order came?

The FACT is that NOWHERE in the qur'aan does God say that al-masjid al-haraam is in a place by the name of Makkah. Al-masjid al-haraam means "the inviolable institution of obedience" as used in the qur'aan and cannot mean a physical building as used in the qur'aan. The qur'aan DIRECTLY tells us that al-masjid al-haraam is "THE TRUTH FROM OUR LORD". We are supposed to face the truth from our Lord wherever we are; that is make obedience of God as our target/goal/qiblah wherever we are. Also, the people of the book know al-masjid al-haraam just like their own children. The Jews and the Christians never knew a so called "restricted temple" in Makkah. This has been discussed on this forum ad nauseum before.

2:144 We see the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you: ?You shall set yourself towards the inviolable institution of obedience; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it.? Those who have been given the Scripture know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.

2:149 And from wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable institution of obedience: it is the truth from your Lord; and God is not unaware of what you do.

Here, grammatically, "it" refers to "al-masjid al-haraam".

2:146 Those to whom We have given the Scripture know it as they know their own children; and a group of them hides the truth while they know.

Firstly, there is no mention of salaat in the context of the al-masjid al-haraam being the qiblah verses. So facing al-masjid al-haraam is not ONLY during salaat.

Secondly, if it is a physical building, then how can we face it WHEREVER WE ARE or WHEREVER WE GO OUT as per the following:

2:144 We see the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you: ?You shall set yourself towards the inviolable institution of obedience; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it.? Those who have been given the Scripture know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
2:149 And from wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable institution of obedience: it is the truth from your Lord; and God is not unaware of what you do.
2:150 And wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable institution of obedience. And wherever you may be you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no room for debate with you, except those of them who are wicked. You shall not fear them, but fear Me; so that I may complete My blessings upon you and that you may be guided.


Suppose you are driving North towards Canada from USA, you are not facing a physical building by the name of al-masjid al-haraam, so you are disobeying God, right? You are supposed to face it WHEREVER YOU ARE and WHEREVER YOU GO OUT.

Suppose you are sitting in front of your computer at home or in front of TV in USA facing North, you are not facing a physical building by the name of al-masjid al-haraam, so you are disobeying God, right? You are supposed to face it WHEREVER YOU ARE and WHEREVER YOU GO OUT.

INFACT, WE ARE TOLD THAT GOD IS EVERYWHERE, SO IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER WE TURN EAST OR WEST. SO PHYSICAL DIRECTION IS NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL:

2:115 And to God belongs the east and the west, so wherever you turn, there is God?s presence. God is Encompassing,

2:177 Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west,............................

An excellent relevant post about Makkah:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597942.0

The other thing I would like to draw the readers attention to is another case of manipulating and twisting God's words. Someone here earlier said that athqaan means face because chins are part of face  :wow

HOW MUCH MORE CAN SOMEONE TWIST AND MANIPULATE THE WORDS OF GOD?

Using the same logic, athqaan can also mean legs, or arms, or chest, because chins are part of the body which includes all those.

UNBELIEVABLE. HOW LOW CAN PEOPLE STOOP TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND THEIR FOREFATHERS PRACTICES OVER THE WORD OF THE GOD?
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 05, 2009, 01:47:45 PM
Ahmed + Truthseeker


@ Ahmed

Salaam bro

and it doesn't say that this was directed towards the Jews. The actual passage speaks about the devils RECITING certain things in Solomon's kingdom, which the people adhered to but Solomon rejected.


The actual act which Solomon PBUH is accused of in the Book of Kings is heresy and disbelief.
And the Quranic verse which redeems Solomon PBUH exactly counters this very claim. Your argument
that they are two separate incidents is only an assertion, and an illogical one. Why would God redeem
Solomon PBUH in the Quran if he was a heretic? Does that make sense to you?

Quote
The Qur'aanic passage doesn't say anything about fabrications,

I have now provided you with 3 verses which use exactly that word: forged/fabricated.
And not with their "mouths" either, as you claimed earlier, but their hands i.e. written scripture,
and not "oral commentaries".



@ Ahmed


Quote
HOW CAN HARAM BE TRANSLATED AS SACRED? Is that not twisting God's words?

The word for sacred is "moqaddas". Haram means "inviolable" or "restricted".


Actually, all of these words you used, are synonyms of each other.
Here is a thesaurus. Scroll down:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/sacred?qsrc=2890


Quote
An excellent relevant post about Makkah:

http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597942.0

The "Quran alone" movement along with these Christian arguments that
the "valley of Bacca" mentioned in the Bible is not referring to Mecca, (and
that Abraham PBUH never travelled to Mecca) is falsified by historical records:
even the orientalist William Muir cites Diodorus Siculus (1st century Greek historian):
"there is in this country a temple greatly revered by the Arabs" (Life of Mahomet).


Their entire argument is founded on the claim that Mecca only gained religious
importance after the 7th century BCE. But this is not true. Mecca was known as
a spiritual center well before the Prophet PBUH was born, and since time immemorial.
i.e. this is the place referred to in numerous places in the Quran such as 2:125
where the command to pray is explicitly connected with the "place of Abraham"
and God calls this His own house, and ordains it for a place of pilgrimage.

There is absolutley no evidence that the "Quran Alone" movement has provided (ever) that the early
Muslims, during the time of Muhammed PBUH, ever faced any other direction other then Mecca while praying
once the verse proclaiming its importance was revealed. Therefore, their entire argument is based on speculation.

Just as a side note, in the Quran Abraham PBUH asked God that "Bakkah" become a city of peace.
Now interestingly enough, Jeruselum actually translates into "city of peace" but in reality, Jeruselum
has always been a city of blood, and continues to be a focal point of war even today (as it always was).
While Mecca has always been a peaceful, "sacred/restricted" place, and it continues to be completely
peaceful today. Even when it is controlled by the crazy wahhabis.


Quote
NOWHERE did He say that al-masjid al-haraam is in a place by the name of Makkah.

Actually the Kabbah at Mecca is referred to by several names, but all of them refer to
the same place. The fact is that everyone already knows the Kabbah is Masjid al-Haram.


Quote
Salawaat refers to ALL the salaats in one's lifetime, and EACH OF THOSE SALAATS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE BEST/BALANCED MANNER. That is what 2:238 is telling us and this does not cause any redundancies..

There is a major contradiction in your argument. If God telling us to establish all our prayers in
the best manner, then this implies that a manner/method exists and must be followed, which
also implies that salat is not some abstract idealic concept but has a form and a method.

All of this still does not refute the evidence for the 5 separate times mentioned in the Quran
which cover the 5 established prayer timings today. And as for the argument that different
words are used for different times, I would remind you that the Quran uses many different
words to refer to the same things many times. God himself is called by different names
in the Quran, this doesn't mean that the Quran is talking about different gods!
The same
is true for the salat and the Kabbah which have both been called in the Quran multiple times
using different words.

Quote
Someone here earlier said that athqaan means face because chins are part of face 


Wrong. Now you are the one who is twisting my words.
I only said that the translations of the Quran which have
translated the verse using the word "face" are technically
accurate, because the chin is part of the face. I never said
the word chin=face.


PeAcE


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: raginggaijin on March 05, 2009, 04:27:04 PM
Peace be unto you, brothers and sisters,

Peace be unto you, truthseeker11,

I believe this is from my recent post under the 'Sacred Mosque/Farthest Mosque'. If so, please take this to that forum so others may see the Surahs and enjoin in prayer and study as they seek guidance from God. This will be the last time I respond to this in this thread. As well, I do not appreciate the side-ways attack given in a totally different thread. I have not treated anyone in a rude or malicious manner to my knowledge (except the pedophiles and I won't rescind it.) We are brothers and sisters seeking God. Please act accordingly. If I am making assumptions, please accept my humble apologies.

Yet I do have to ask: Why is your reaction so violent to this declaration?

Let me be clear. I am just a man who worships God and only God. I am striving to follow the righteous path. I am not some pure-hearted soul who is being visited by Gabriel or any other manifestation of the unseen. I am only doing as I am directed in the Quran: Praying to and worshipping God daily, studying the Quran daily, and doing good deeds (as best I can). I killed my television set and spend that time instead in the pages of the Quran. Best time investment yet.

"The Safa and the Marwah are truly among the signs of Allah; so whoever makes a pilgrimage to the House or pays a visit (to it), there is no blame on him if he goes round them. And whoever does good spontaneously - surely Allah is Bountiful in rewarding, Knowing." Surah 2:158

God is All Knowing, Omniscient, the Creator and Lord of the worlds. In God all things are possible. God sent the Quran as a guidance for man, not as a tool to confuse and deceive. Surah 4:26

"The majority of those who believe in God do not do so without committing idol worship." Surah 12:106

It is a warning most here heed, which is why for many of us, facing an object in prayer is abhorrent.

Again, I only post what my belief is based off of patient prayer and study. No man or woman should take what I say for Truth until they too have prayed to God for guidance and sought the Truth in the Quran for themselves. You can also see how I have progressed down this path and admitted I was wrong in previous posts concerning not facing Masjid Al-Haram. If I have erred, I have complete and utter faith God will chastise me and show me the Truth in the Quran, and I will ask for forgiveness and ensure everyone here knows my error. Surah 4:17
It is complete, the only guidance, and easy to read and remember if you believe. Surah 3:73, 4:87, 39:23, 41:44, 45:6. 54:17,22,32,40, 77:50

Insincere readers are diverted from the meaning of the Quran:
7:146, 17:45, 18:57, 41:44

The above Surahs are why I must patiently pray and study the Quran daily, while doing the good deeds God requires of us. If I do not believe with all my heart, all my soul, all my strength, all my mind, I will not find the Truth. I must change my life to suit God, not my own desires. I do not want to face the Fire. Contrary to Christian belief, it is not a brief incident. Surah 2:79-80

Muhammad's duty is clear.
?The duty of the Messenger is only to deliver (the message). And Allah knows what you do openly and what you hide.? Surah 5:99

God tells the believers 3 times to face Masjid Al-Haram. Surah 2:144, 149, 150.
God tells the believers 3 times this is truth from Him, so be not of the doubters. Surah 2:144, 147, 149

This is one of the hardest tests from our Lord for a reason. It places our complete and utter faith in God and God alone. Not men, only God.

Bear witness: As Muhammad feared the punishment of Judgement in disobeying his Lord, so too do I fear disobeying my Lord, God. Surah 10:15
I came this close [] to the Fire as a Christian. After being guided to the Quran, I would be a madman or a fool to turn on my heel and disobey God.  :&

We are also warned that a party surely conceal the truth while they know. Surah 2:146

We are told to share what we know, and not hide it. Surah 2:42

As well, we are told in no uncertain terms what happens if we are lying or conceal what the Book reveals. Surah 2:174-176

Masjid Al-Haram is named, as is Masjid Al-Aqsa. The Sacred House is Al-Kabah. If the Kaaba was the First House, was it not a qiblah? Surah 2:125
Surah 22:25-33,36,73 5:95,97, 2:125,127,142-150, 3:96, 14:37, 7:28,31,73, 9:1,17,19-22,28, 17:1,81, 34:49, 105:1

To say Masjid Al-Haram did not exist in Muhammad's time would beg to ask why God told Muhammad to keep the idolators away 'after this year of theirs'. Surah 9:28
More on this in Surahs 9:17-19, 28-29.

If God, in His All Knowing, Omniscient nature, put in Masjid Al-Haram in the Quran, and that structure stands today, why would I doubt the truth from my Lord?
Especially if it is now partially covering the small mountains of Safa and Marwa.
Especially if the Kaaba is contained within.

If I am a believer, who am I going to believe? God or man? Easy answer. :)

God gives me proof in the Quran.

Abraham and Ishmael were not Jew or Christian, they were muslims. I can find no Surah that lends credence to Muhammad facing Masjid Al-Aqsa. If there is anyone who knows the Surah, then please share.  :eat:

Until then, the only resource concerning the Kaabah as current qiblah is tradition of man and hadith. I reject them outright when presented with the Truth from my Lord in the Quran. Surah 2:170

It was this warning that started my path to God out of the Christian faith. Mark 7:5-8, Mat. 15:3, Mark 7:13, Col. 2:8, Gal. 4:3, John 7:17, Titus 1:9, Rom. 8:14-16

Before anyone says I am quoting corruption, please read Surah 4:136.

God restates this warning of traditions/additions in the Quran as well. 2:175, 2:99, 3:24, 3:78, 4:42, 5:104, 6:38, 6:159, 6:21-24, 6:114-116, 8:24, 10:36, 16:105, 17:73-77, 18:27, 18:56, 28:65-66, 31:6, 34:44, 43:22-24, 45:6, 52:34, 68:44, 69:44-46, 66:50

As I have to rebuild my faith from Christianity to Al-Islam, I cannot fall prey to the traditions and doctrines of man again. Especially after God tells me (us) the Quran is the purest Book to guide us. And as it has taken 2 years to get where I am now, I see every reason to patiently continue in study and prayer. God is Bountiful. Allahu Akbar!

This test requires we not only pray for guidance yet also earnestly search the Quran for the Truth on this matter. God is not heedless of what we do. And I will restate: God is the best guidance and praise Him for giving us the Quran! Surah 3:73, 4:87, 39:23, 41:44, 45:6. 54:17,22,32,40, 56:75-81, 77:50

"O you who believe, seek assistance through patience and prayer; surely Allah is with the patient." Surah 2:153 (Surah 2:45)

"And We indeed have revealed to thee clear messages, and none disbelieve in them except the transgressors." Surah 2:99

If you pray the ritual salat, afterwards take some time to pray in earnest request for the Truth. Talk to God. Ask Him to guide you. He doesn't need us, we need Him.

Pray. 2:153
Read. 96:1

Peace and blessings.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 05, 2009, 04:55:55 PM
@ Bigmo

The admissibility of their laws is not an admission of their perfection.

Another example: According to Psalm 136, Pharaoh was drowned with his army
in the Red Sea. But according to the Quran Pharaoh was spared to be made
an example of for all to see. And today, his mummified body rests in a museum.
This is further proof that the Tanakh contains errors, while the Quran is perfect.

More conclusive proof from the Quran:

...Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say,
"This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith.
2:78-79


"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say,
"This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price.
Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."

4:46



PeAcE





The Torah is not structured like the Koran. It is a library of scriptures spanning centuries and not a revelation brought down on one man word by word for a period of 20 years. Its not just a theological book, its stories, biographies, narratives, eye witness accounts, a history of a people, and revelations brought down on numerous prophets. Its unique in its own way as the Koran is unique in its own way.

The verses you quoted are not to be interpreted as you imply. I have dealt with it before and gave you a link before.

"Muslims who follow Sunni/Shia Islam say these verses are concerning the originals. But these scriptures have not changed since the days of the prophet. In fact they are the way they are today long before the prophet. So what scriptures was the Koran talking about other than the current Bible? They then point to this verse as evidence of the corruption and tampering of the previous scriptures(ie the Bible).

2.79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This is then used to support the tampering of the scriptures. However upon close examination, I see they failed to look at the verse before it and after it.

2.78 And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

So the Koran is saying those poeple were making things up but never said the Book itself has been tampered since those people never knew the book and the follow up verses brings light to a religious scripture followed by the Judaic faith thats not the Old Testament.

2.80 And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from God, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of God what ye do not know?"

This is not in the Torah but its refering to the Talmud. The supposed "oral" traditions the Rabbis say was passed down to them. The Talmud are the collections of the traditions of the so called Pharisees talked about in the Gospel who were fierce opponents of Jesus the Messiah."   

http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html

As far as the other verse you quoted I am not sure where you got that translation:

46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.

It has nothing to do with what you are saying. You can't read the OT the way you read the Koran but then again the Koran makes it up with difficulty of interpretation. It balances out. One is filled with information but are a collection of Books while the other is the exact words of God revealed to Muhammad but very consice and compact leaving room for vagueness and ambiguity. Its part of God's plan.

28.48. But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!"

49. Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

Its crystal clear. Notice the Koran tells the prophet to say " which is a better guide", that includes the OT. Those who continue to believe the Koran says otherwise I place in the same category as those who believe the Earth is flat.



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: raginggaijin on March 05, 2009, 05:44:23 PM

49. Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are truthful!"

Its crystal clear. Those who continue to believe the Koran says otherwise I place in the same category as those who believe the Earth is flat.


Peace be unto you, brother,

With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect. (Holy Qur'an 16:45)

Well stated, brother Bigmo. Or as I would say in my early days of FPS video games: Well played, sir! Well played!

May you continue to be guided by God.

Peace and blessings.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 05, 2009, 05:50:43 PM
Peace c0de,

The actual act which Solomon PBUH is accused of in the Book of Kings is heresy and disbelief.
And the Quranic verse which redeems Solomon PBUH exactly counters this very claim. Your argument
that they are two separate incidents is only an assertion, and an illogical one. Why would God redeem
Solomon PBUH in the Quran if he was a heretic? Does that make sense to you?

C'mon, brother, this is starting to get ridiculous... Where in the Torah is Solomon said to have turned to sorcery?! That's what the Qur'aanic passage is talking about. It's not talking about idolatry in the form of worshipping false gods, it's talking about 2 people spreading sorcery and magic throughout the land. This is NOT mentioned in the Torah at all, or in the Tanakh at all. You're going to need a lot more proof than "it says he was heretic" - that doesn't mean these two accounts are the same at all!

I have now provided you with 3 verses which use exactly that word: forged/fabricated.
And not with their "mouths" either, as you claimed earlier, but their hands i.e. written scripture,
and not "oral commentaries".

Really?! Where is the word "forged" (or fabricated) used in that Qur'aanic passage (not including the mistranslation you posted)? It doesn't appear in the Arabic reading at all... If it's there, please point it out. Which word in that verse means "forged/fabricated"?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 06, 2009, 05:30:29 AM
Bigmo + Ahmed

Salaam brothers



@ Bigmo,

Psalm 136 is not part of the Talmud, it is part of the Tanakh.
So is the Book of Kings. Both of them contain obvious errors
which contradict the Quran. And these are just two examples
off the top of my head.



@ Ahmed

Quote
Which word in that verse means "forged/fabricated"?

Explain to me how the following two verses can be interpreted in any other way
then an accusation of forgery/fabrication:

...Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say,
"This is from Allah,"
that they may purchase a small gain therewith. 2:78-79

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say,
"This is from Allah,"
in order to exchange it for a small price.
Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
4:46


Quote
C'mon, brother, this is starting to get ridiculous... Where in the Torah is Solomon said to have turned to sorcery?! That's what the Qur'aanic passage is talking about. It's not talking about idolatry in the form of worshipping false gods, it's talking about 2 people spreading sorcery and magic throughout the land. This is NOT mentioned in the Torah at all, or in the Tanakh at all. You're going to need a lot more proof than "it says he was heretic" - that doesn't mean these two accounts are the same at all!

Actually, the Book of Kings accuses Solomon of disbelief via having his heart turned away from God.
And that is exactly what the Quranic verse redeems him against. So the charges of the Tanakh are
falsified wholesale. It does not even matter if they were separate incidents or not. It is
clearly written in the Quran that Solomon PBUH did not disbelieve PERIOD. If he indeed was a heretic like
the Book of Kings implies, (at any point in his life, especially later on) then why would the Quran
redeem him at all?
Let alone against any specific stories in the talmud? It wouldn't make any sense.


PeAcE

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 06, 2009, 06:13:04 AM
Bigmo + Ahmed

Salaam brothers



@ Bigmo,

Psalm 136 is not part of the Talmud, it is part of the Tanakh.
So is the Book of Kings. Both of them contain obvious errors
which contradict the Quran. And these are just two examples
off the top of my head.



@ Ahmed

Explain to me how the following two verses can be interpreted in any other way
then an accusation of forgery/fabrication:

...Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say,
"This is from Allah,"
that they may purchase a small gain therewith. 2:78-79

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say,
"This is from Allah,"
in order to exchange it for a small price.
Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
4:46


Actually, the Book of Kings accuses Solomon of disbelief via having his heart turned away from God.
And that is exactly what the Quranic verse redeems him against. So the charges of the Tanakh are
falsified wholesale. It does not even matter if they were separate incidents or not. It is
clearly written in the Quran that Solomon PBUH did not disbelieve PERIOD. If he indeed was a heretic like
the Book of Kings implies, (at any point in his life, especially later on) then why would the Quran
redeem him at all?
Let alone against any specific stories in the talmud? It wouldn't make any sense.


PeAcE



The verse reads like this:

4.46. Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.

The other verse you quote is not verse 2-78-79, its only 2-79

Verse 2-78 is:

2.78 And there are among them illiterates(umiyeen), who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

Umiyeen is not linguistic illiterate but illiterate about the scriptures. Its not saying the Book itself has been tampered but perhaps some attempt was made by some. You must look at all the verses in the Koran regarding this subject and not made judgement based on how you intepret a single verse especially if it goes against the rest of the Koran concerning this matter. The Koran says:

3.93. All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."

Also:

3.78. There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!

Lets look at the context of verse 2-79 since its the only verse people can misunderstand:

Behold! when they meet the men of Faith, they say: "We believe": But when they meet each other in private, they say: "Shall you tell them what Allah hath revealed to you, that they may engage you in argument about it before your Lord?"- Do ye not understand (their aim)? Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of Allah what ye do not know?" (2:76-80)

So in anyways the verses are talking about people during Muhammad's time who wanted to show the Talmud as authentic teachings of the Torah. The fire would not touch us is a Talmudic quote. Also the verse says they were trying to deceive Muhammad by telling him this is the teachings of the Torah when its not. They did not want to argue with him regarding the authenticity of the Talmud. The Koran says:

Sura 10) 94  If you are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto you, question those who have been reading the Book (Scriptures)from before you: the Truth has indeed come to you from your Lord: so be in no wise of those who are in doubt

(Sura 3) 93   Say (to Israel): Bring the Tawrat and study it if you are men of truth. If any after this invent a lie and attribute it to Allah they are indeed unjust wrong-doers

So it seems some people around him from the Jews tried to deceive him, thus the verse:

2.78 And there are among them illiterates(umiyeen), who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

2.79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

The Book itself was with those who have knowledge of it and not these Umiyeen, they are just a bunch of neocons playing propaganda. The Book itself was with the Rabbis. The Koran says ask those who read the scriptures before you, meaning the men of knowledge.

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 06, 2009, 07:14:30 AM
@ Bigmo


You do realize that my argument is not just based on those verses right?
So the article which you are providing is irrelevant at this point bro.
Refer to my previous response for specifics.

PeAcE

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 06, 2009, 10:18:44 PM
@ Bigmo


You do realize that my argument is not just based on those verses right?
So the article which you are providing is irrelevant at this point bro.
Refer to my previous response for specifics.

PeAcE



Don't worry C0de, you are not the only one who can't stomach the previous scriptures. Not by a long shot. You're in good company here.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 07, 2009, 12:43:42 AM
Don't worry C0de, you are not the only one who can't stomach the previous scriptures. Not by a long shot. You're in good company here.

You'd be surprised at what I can stomach... But this isn't about that. It is about what the Quran says vs. the Tanakh.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 07, 2009, 02:56:21 AM
You'd be surprised at what I can stomach... But this isn't about that. It is about what the Quran says vs. the Tanakh.

Amen brother. I just fired 2 ballistic missiles on the Jews. They are trying to dodge it but they will most probably hit. One about Pharaoh and the other about divorce.

1) The Pharaoh Dilemma

Gen 14:2   That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

Exd 6:11   Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Gen 12:17   And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

Gen 41:14   Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh.

Exd 3:11   And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

NO COMMENT.

2) The Divorce Loophole

 We all know that adultery means sleeping with a married woman and it is a great offense due to mixing of seeds. Suppose we have a married couple. They had intercourse and on the next day, they decided a divorce. In the Torah, the divorce is completed by the man giving her a divorce paper and sending her away. Now this women can marry another man in the same day. This is adultery as mixing of seeds took place! Now in the Quran, a divorce is a countdown, once the count is over(days with no intercourse), her womb is clear of your seed, then the divorce is complete.

Peace,

Rami

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 07, 2009, 11:01:12 AM

@ Rami


Dude, thanks for that useful intell. There are so many of these "loopholes"
in Judaism because of their shaky scriptures, its even kinda funny.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 07, 2009, 11:39:50 AM
Amen brother. I just fired 2 ballistic missiles on the Jews. They are trying to dodge it but they will most probably hit. One about Pharaoh and the other about divorce.

1) The Pharaoh Dilemma

Gen 14:2   That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

Exd 6:11   Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Gen 12:17   And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

Gen 41:14   Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh.

Exd 3:11   And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

NO COMMENT.

2) The Divorce Loophole

 We all know that adultery means sleeping with a married woman and it is a great offense due to mixing of seeds. Suppose we have a married couple. They had intercourse and on the next day, they decided a divorce. In the Torah, the divorce is completed by the man giving her a divorce paper and sending her away. Now this women can marry another man in the same day. This is adultery as mixing of seeds took place! Now in the Quran, a divorce is a countdown, once the count is over(days with no intercourse), her womb is clear of your seed, then the divorce is complete.

Peace,

Rami



There are many prophets in the Torah. Which prophetic traditions are you relying on from the Torah when you say divorce should be so and so.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 07, 2009, 12:41:39 PM
Peace Rami,

Amen brother. I just fired 2 ballistic missiles on the Jews. They are trying to dodge it but they will most probably hit. One about Pharaoh and the other about divorce.

Ummm... Okay...

1) The Pharaoh Dilemma

Gen 14:2   That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

Exd 6:11   Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Gen 12:17   And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

Gen 41:14   Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he shaved, and changed his raiment, and came in unto Pharaoh.

Exd 3:11   And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

NO COMMENT.

 :rotfl: I'm sure there's no comment on this. What does this have to do with anything?! They don't contradict eachother or the whole of the book, since the two examples are listed as being HUNDREDS OF YEARS APART. They don't have anything to do with eachother... NEXT...  ::)

2) The Divorce Loophole

 We all know that adultery means sleeping with a married woman and it is a great offense due to mixing of seeds. Suppose we have a married couple. They had intercourse and on the next day, they decided a divorce. In the Torah, the divorce is completed by the man giving her a divorce paper and sending her away. Now this women can marry another man in the same day. This is adultery as mixing of seeds took place! Now in the Quran, a divorce is a countdown, once the count is over(days with no intercourse), her womb is clear of your seed, then the divorce is complete.

You've obviously misunderstood the Torah... According to the Torah, the punishment for adultery is DEATH, not divorce. It doesn't mention anything about the 'mixing of seeds'. The Qur'aan details many of these prohibitions because of prevalent unchastity throughout the region among the Arabs. The Arabs were regarded by G-d Himself as the worst of rejectors and disbelievers (see 9:90, 97). The Jews, however, were instructed to maintain chastity from their youth and throughout their lives, and they were considered people of G-d. Therefore, because of differing cultures and practices, there were separate stipulations and time periods placed on the people... Again, this doesn't prove anything regarding the alleged corruption of the Torah, nor does it prove that the Torah itself contains inconsistencies or fabrications...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 07, 2009, 04:30:35 PM
Again, this doesn't prove anything regarding the alleged corruption of the Torah, nor does it prove that the Torah itself contains inconsistencies or fabrications...

Actually bro, this had already been proven before.
Whether you admit it or not, is another story.


PeAcE

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 07, 2009, 06:32:48 PM
Peace c0de,

Actually bro, this had already been proven before.
Whether you admit it or not, is another story.

Okay... You keep saying that it has already been PROVEN that the Torah is corrupted, and you even claim that the Qur'aan says this as well. What I'm asking is: WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS?! The Qur'aan never comes out and says that the previous scriptures were forged, which is why the Qur'aan CONFIRMS them, not overrides them. The Jews are STILL expected to follow the Torah, and Nazarenes are STILL expected to follow the Injeel. There is no discrepancy in this at all... So, if the Torah has already been "proven" to be false and fabricated, then please state some proof from the Qur'aan. Point out a passage in the Qur'aan where it speaks of the "fabricated Torah" or anything like that. Point out a passage in the Qur'aan where it speaks of rabbis, priests, or governing officials literally changing (or fabricating) the words of G-d within the scripture, which G-d Himself admittedly sent down to the prophets of Israel. If you can't do this, then you haven't proven anything...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 07, 2009, 06:56:49 PM
Peace c0de,

Okay... You keep saying that it has already been PROVEN that the Torah is corrupted, and you even claim that the Qur'aan says this as well. What I'm asking is: WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS?! The Qur'aan never comes out and says that the previous scriptures were forged, which is why the Qur'aan CONFIRMS them, not overrides them. The Jews are STILL expected to follow the Torah, and Nazarenes are STILL expected to follow the Injeel. There is no discrepancy in this at all... So, if the Torah has already been "proven" to be false and fabricated, then please state some proof from the Qur'aan. Point out a passage in the Qur'aan where it speaks of the "fabricated Torah" or anything like that. Point out a passage in the Qur'aan where it speaks of rabbis, priests, or governing officials literally changing (or fabricating) the words of G-d within the scripture, which G-d Himself admittedly sent down to the prophets of Israel. If you can't do this, then you haven't proven anything...

Peace,

Ahmad

It seems you are just repeating objections which have already been nullified.
But if you feel it ok to repeat, then I shall to:


Quote
An admissibility of its laws is not an admission of its perfection.

plus

Quote
Psalm 136 is not part of the Talmud, it is part of the Tanakh.
So is the Book of Kings. Both of them contain obvious errors
which contradict the Quran. And these are just two examples
off the top of my head.

and also:

Quote
@ Ahmed

Explain to me how the following two verses can be interpreted in any other way
then an accusation of forgery/fabrication:

...Therefore woe be unto them who write the Scripture with their hands and then say,
"This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. 2:79

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say,
"This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price.
Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn."
4:46


Actually, the Book of Kings accuses Solomon of disbelief via having his heart turned away from God.
And that is exactly what the Quranic verse redeems him against. So the charges of the Tanakh are
falsified wholesale. It does not even matter if they were separate incidents or not. It is
clearly written in the Quran that Solomon PBUH did not disbelieve PERIOD. If he indeed was a heretic like
the Book of Kings implies, (at any point in his life, especially later on) then why would the Quran
redeem him at all? Let alone against any specific stories in the talmud? It wouldn't make any sense.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 08, 2009, 12:31:15 AM
Peace c0de,

It seems you are just repeating objections which have already been nullified.

And, like I've already stated several times, you haven't proven anything. Neither the Book of Kings or the Psalms are part of the Torah. So, if these contain errors, then what does this have to do with the sureness of the Torah itself? NOTHING... Also, you placed "quotation marks" around the word scripture, while we know in the Qur'aan, these markings are not there. So, how do you know the people were writing false "scripture"? And how do you know this was referring to the Torah? For all we know, this could be referring to the scribes writing 9:128, 129 into the Qur'aan after Muhammad's death! There's no proof that any scribes literally wrote ANYTHING into the Torah scrolls themselves, and this is why they found it necessary to write extensive commentaries on the scriptures in the form of the Talmud.

Regarding the story of Solomon, this point has no relevance at all. The scriptures are talking about two completely different time periods and incidents, not the same one. While the Qur'aan gives a more "righteous and infallible" view of the prophets (in many instances), the Torah gives deeper insight into their righteous and wicked behaviors. This is why Jews adamantly refuse to acknowledge the infallibility of any Jewish prophets. This is different from the Qur'aan, especially considering the fact that many sectarian Muslims view the prophets as "perfect" and "sinless", a concept that is totally foreign in the Torah and Jewish history... Sure, the Qur'aan doesn't mention the transgression of Solomon. Big deal! It also doesn't mention the issue concerning David and Bathsheba. It doesn't mention the exodus and destruction of Jerusalem. It doesn't give the details regarding Jonas and his attempt to run away from G-d. It doesn't give insight regarding Elijah and Elisha, information that is of specific importance in Jewish history. In fact, it doesn't even relate which of Abraham's sons was placed on the altar (i.e. Ishmael or Isaac). It doesn't annotate the lineage of the mashiach, and it doesn't even give any details regarding the role of the mashiach at all. So, you're telling me that, just because these things, people, and incidents are directly mentioned in the Qur'aan, they never happened or existed?!

The Qur'aan leaves out a lot of details because (1) it's shorter than the Torah and (2) from a Gentile perspective, a lot of the information and insight about the prophets' lives is irrelevant and unnecessary. The Qur'aan only gives the "basics", and it doesn't elaborate on issues that wouldn't pertain to the people at hand. While a main focus of the Tanakh is to provide an indepth history of the Jewish nation (i.e. Bani Israel), this is not a focus of the Qur'aan, which is why the Qur'aan leaves out much of this information. Since most of the recipients of the Qur'aan were NON-Jews, elaborate information relating to Jewish history is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to the Gentiles. That's why the only prophet clearly chastised by G-d in the Qur'aan by is MUHAMMAD himself, not any of the other Jewish prophets. The error of Jonas is also mentioned (since he also preached to Gentiles), but he's quickly forgiven by G-d on the basis of his prayer from in the "darkness" of the fish. The other prophets appear nearly infallible...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 08, 2009, 02:49:19 AM
Quote
:rotfl: I'm sure there's no comment on this. What does this have to do with anything?! They don't contradict eachother or the whole of the book, since the two examples are listed as being HUNDREDS OF YEARS APART. They don't have anything to do with eachother... NEXT...  ::)

Simple. The authors of the Torah had no name for the King of Egypt except for Pharaoh. Thats heresy. All the Jews I asked never responded because they know it is true. It is like saying that the King of Israel was David then David then David! or saying that Melchizedek is a title for the King of Salem.

Quote
You've obviously misunderstood the Torah... According to the Torah, the punishment for adultery is DEATH, not divorce. It doesn't mention anything about the 'mixing of seeds'. The Qur'aan details many of these prohibitions because of prevalent unchastity throughout the region among the Arabs. The Arabs were regarded by G-d Himself as the worst of rejectors and disbelievers (see 9:90, 97). The Jews, however, were instructed to maintain chastity from their youth and throughout their lives, and they were considered people of G-d. Therefore, because of differing cultures and practices, there were separate stipulations and time periods placed on the people... Again, this doesn't prove anything regarding the alleged corruption of the Torah, nor does it prove that the Torah itself contains inconsistencies or fabrications...

Wrong, actually the Rabbis knew this so they engineered a waiting period of 3 months speculated from the Genesis account.

Peace,

Rami




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 08, 2009, 03:52:37 AM
Another one on the house....

Exd 7:12   For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

20:65   They said: “O Moses, either you cast down or we will be the first to cast down.”
20:66   He said: “No, you cast down.” So their ropes and staffs appeared from their magic as if they were moving.

Mutually exclusive. The authors of Torah say Aaron is one who threw the rod and they believe in dark demonic powers creating things. In the Quran, the magicians rods appears to be like snakes but they can't be because the Spirit belongs to God. And Moses is the thrower.

Peace,

Rami
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 08, 2009, 06:42:17 AM
@ Ahmed


Quote
Neither the Book of Kings or the Psalms are part of the Torah.

Actually, as you will see soon, the Torah itself contains errors in the form of contradictions with the Quran as well.
But first, let me remind you that I never said that the Book of Kings and the Psalms were part of the Torah, I said
they were part of the Tanakh, which you were earlier claiming as being without errors.... remember?

First you said that only the Talmud contained errors, and the Tanakh was error free. Now you are (half) admitting
that the Tanakh AND talmud contain errors, but are still claiming that the Torah is error free... but you are still wrong.
Observe:

Quote
So, if these contain errors, then what does this have to do with the sureness of the Torah itself?

The Torah also contradicts the Quran, (in several places) and therefore it is automatically imperfect.
Just one example is the book of Exodus (2:15-22) versus the story in the Quran of
Moses PBUH fleeing from Egypt (Sura 28:23-28). In Exodus, there were 7 women,
all daughters of the same man. In the Quran, there are 2 daughters
.

In Exodus, the agreement between the father and Moses PBUH is also absent, but
what is most interesting is that a similar agreement is mentioned in Genesis, but
this time the Prophet Jacob PBUH is mentioned. (Genesis 29:1-30). This discrepancy
fits in perfectly with the Quranic criticism of the Jews:

"Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places and say:
We have heard and we disobey..."

The Quran Chapter 4: Verse 46

The Jews and the Christians charge the Quran with being imperfect because of these
contradictions with the Torah. But we know that the version of events in the Quran
is perfect, while the Torah is not
.


Quote
Regarding the story of Solomon, this point has no relevance at all. The scriptures are talking about two completely different time periods and incidents, not the same one. While the Qur'aan gives a more "righteous and infallible" view of the prophets (in many instances), the Torah gives deeper insight into their righteous and wicked behaviors.

The Qur'aan leaves out a lot of details because (1) it's shorter than the Torah and (2) from a Gentile perspective, a lot of the information and insight about the prophets' lives is irrelevant and unnecessary. The Qur'aan only gives the "basics", and it doesn't elaborate on issues that wouldn't pertain to the people at hand. While a main focus of the Tanakh is to provide an indepth history of the Jewish nation (i.e. Bani Israel), this is not a focus of the Qur'aan, which is why the Qur'aan leaves out much of this information. Since most of the recipients of the Qur'aan were NON-Jews, elaborate information relating to Jewish history is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to the Gentiles. That's why the only prophet clearly chastised by G-d in the Qur'aan by is MUHAMMAD himself, not any of the other Jewish prophets. The error of Jonas is also mentioned (since he also preached to Gentiles), but he's quickly forgiven by G-d on the basis of his prayer from in the "darkness" of the fish. The other prophets appear nearly infallible...

This is a major contradiction. The Quran and the Torah/Tanakh can not be equally correct because they both contradict
each other. We are not talking about details, we are talking about contradictions. So you have to decide which version you consider
more accurate. Solomon PBUH could not have been a heretic because he is redeemed and spoken of highly in the Quran. There were not
7 daughters, but 2. You either accept the supremacy of the Jewish scriptures, or the Quran. You can NOT claim that they are both equally
accurate.


PeAcE


p.s. Rami has also provided you with further errors in the Torah itself.
All of which contradict the versions of the events in the Quran.

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 08, 2009, 08:46:23 AM
Peace,

All these contradictions are benign. Now lets look at a very dangerous one! One that can literally destroy the world!

Deu 23:20   Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

4:161 And for their taking of usury, while they were told not to do so, and for their consuming people’s money unjustly. We have prepared for the disbelievers amongst them a painful retribution.
2:278   O you who believe, be aware of God and give up what is left from usury, if you are truly believers.
2:279   And if you will not do this, then take notice of a war from God and His messenger; but if you repent, then you will have back your principal money, you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.

Muslims and Jews are destined to fight each other. The Jewish Forces that want to control the world via the usurious banking system are codenamed the NWO. While the opposing force that rejects usury are called the 'Terrorists' :D. Fasten your seatbelt and prepare yourself for some unpretty fireworks.

Peace??

Rami


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 08, 2009, 10:20:04 AM

The Jews don't really have anything to do with control of the NWO dude...
They are being played like everyone else. The banking elite don't really have
a religion... (unless you consider unadulterated materialism a "religion" (I do)).

And Muslims and Jews are not destined to fight each other... The Israelis
and the Arabs are destined to fight each other... according to the dictates
of the 1922 settlement created by the imperial powers... The coming wars
have nothing to do with religion
... just wanted to make that clear.

There are no "good" sides here. The Muslims today are just as much part of
the system as anyone else.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 08, 2009, 11:32:19 AM
Peace Rami,

Simple. The authors of the Torah had no name for the King of Egypt except for Pharaoh. Thats heresy. All the Jews I asked never responded because they know it is true. It is like saying that the King of Israel was David then David then David! or saying that Melchizedek is a title for the King of Salem.

Ummm... Okay, what does this prove? Because the Torah doesn't mention the name of the Pharaoh, this makes the complete account fabricated? You've gotta be kidding me, man... This is not "heresy" at all, and it's just a lack of information. The Qur'aan doesn't mention the Pharaoh's name either, nor does it mention Melchizedek at all. Pharaoh wasn't used as a name in the Torah, it's a title. Therefore, there's a pharaoh. After he dies, his successor becomes... ANOTHER PHARAOH, and then another one. The title of "pharaoh" is NEVER used anywhere as a name, it's used as a title...

Wrong, actually the Rabbis knew this so they engineered a waiting period of 3 months speculated from the Genesis account.

This is another addition added into the Gemarra and placed in the Rabbinical Talmud. It doesn't appear in the Torah...

Another one on the house....

Exd 7:12   For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

20:65   They said: ?O Moses, either you cast down or we will be the first to cast down.?
20:66   He said: ?No, you cast down.? So their ropes and staffs appeared from their magic as if they were moving.

Mutually exclusive. The authors of Torah say Aaron is one who threw the rod and they believe in dark demonic powers creating things. In the Quran, the magicians rods appears to be like snakes but they can't be because the Spirit belongs to God. And Moses is the thrower.

This must be a joke... In the Biblical account, Moses is the thrower, and nothing says that Aaron threw down the rod. It simply says that the rod originally belonged to Aaron, and it was passed along to Moses... The aspect of the rods "transforming" into (or appearing to be) serpents is not a contradiction at all. The Qur'aan says the same thing. It just emphasizes that their rods were still RODS, not actual serpents, regardless of what they looked like. The account it the same in both books...

All these contradictions are benign. Now lets look at a very dangerous one! One that can literally destroy the world!

Deu 23:20   Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

4:161 And for their taking of usury, while they were told not to do so, and for their consuming people?s money unjustly. We have prepared for the disbelievers amongst them a painful retribution.
2:278   O you who believe, be aware of God and give up what is left from usury, if you are truly believers.
2:279   And if you will not do this, then take notice of a war from God and His messenger; but if you repent, then you will have back your principal money, you will not be wronged nor will you wrong.

This is not a contradiction. The Jews were condemned for usury against their own people, which is emphasized in the Qur'aan. This is why the Qur'aan encourages them to 'GIVE UP' their usury towards the Gentiles, since these previously were not forbidden... I don't know what your view of the "NWO" and the end of the world is, but it sounds like it's built on a political conspiracy theory, most of which are completely absurd and illogical.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 08, 2009, 11:47:55 AM

The Qur'aan leaves out a lot of details because (1) it's shorter than the Torah and (2) from a Gentile perspective, a lot of the information and insight about the prophets' lives is irrelevant and unnecessary. The Qur'aan only gives the "basics", and it doesn't elaborate on issues that wouldn't pertain to the people at hand. While a main focus of the Tanakh is to provide an indepth history of the Jewish nation (i.e. Bani Israel), this is not a focus of the Qur'aan, which is why the Qur'aan leaves out much of this information. Since most of the recipients of the Qur'aan were NON-Jews, elaborate information relating to Jewish history is irrelevant if it doesn't apply to the Gentiles. That's why the only prophet clearly chastised by G-d in the Qur'aan by is MUHAMMAD himself, not any of the other Jewish prophets. The error of Jonas is also mentioned (since he also preached to Gentiles), but he's quickly forgiven by G-d on the basis of his prayer from in the "darkness" of the fish. The other prophets appear nearly infallible...

Peace,

Ahmad
I mostly agree quran leaves out a lot of information because it was only sent to restore the true message. If the quran doesn't say otherwise, we must believe the torah. Quran is from a GOD perspective not a gentile :). Solomon isn't appeared infallible, He got so addicted with horses he missed his prayer time.

Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 08, 2009, 11:49:41 AM


The Jews and the Christians charge the Quran with being imperfect because of these
contradictions with the Torah. But we know that the version of events in the Quran
is perfect, while the Torah is not
.



Which is why we must read the torah ALONG with the quran
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 08, 2009, 12:09:36 PM
Quote
Ummm... Okay, what does this prove? Because the Torah doesn't mention the name of the Pharaoh, this makes the complete account fabricated? You've gotta be kidding me, man... This is not "heresy" at all, and it's just a lack of information. The Qur'aan doesn't mention the Pharaoh's name either, nor does it mention Melchizedek at all. Pharaoh wasn't used as a name in the Torah, it's a title. Therefore, there's a pharaoh. After he dies, his successor becomes... ANOTHER PHARAOH, and then another one. The title of "pharaoh" is NEVER used anywhere as a name, it's used as a title...

It seems that you don't understand what I am talking about at all. There is no such thing as 'a' Pharaoh or 'the' Pharaoh. I am not talking about archaeology either. Pharaoh is used in both scriptures as a proper noun like Michael, Arbaham, Moses etc. If Pharaoh is a title, it should say THE Pharaoh or the Pharaoh of Egypt. Check out this

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H6547

They admit it is used nakedly as a proper noun. Need I say more?

Quote
This is another addition added into the Gemarra and placed in the Rabbinical Talmud. It doesn't appear in the Torah...

Which means the loophole is official. Thank you.

Quote
This must be a joke... In the Biblical account, Moses is the thrower, and nothing says that Aaron threw down the rod. It simply says that the rod originally belonged to Aaron, and it was passed along to Moses... The aspect of the rods "transforming" into (or appearing to be) serpents is not a contradiction at all. The Qur'aan says the same thing. It just emphasizes that their rods were still RODS, not actual serpents, regardless of what they looked like. The account it the same in both books...

You are kidding. Right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyNjL9vUXB4&NR=1

Quote
This is not a contradiction. The Jews were condemned for usury against their own people, which is emphasized in the Qur'aan. This is why the Qur'aan encourages them to 'GIVE UP' their usury towards the Gentiles, since these previously were not forbidden... I don't know what your view of the "NWO" and the end of the world is, but it sounds like it's built on a political conspiracy theory, most of which are completely absurd and illogical.

The Quran orders the people of Mohammed to give up usury. So now the Quran is changing the Torah and commanding the Jews not to charge interest on the gentiles. the Jews ofcourse won't comply as per Torah. So we have war, theoritically speaking. I know there is no such thing as NWO, it is just a war on resources. Oil and water. It is not really about religion. But the Islamic economic system is threatening to Western capitalistic economies. It won't be pretty later on. It is not a conspiracy at all, it is simply Real Politik. The struggle for monoply and power will never end.

Peace,

Rami
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 08, 2009, 01:08:04 PM
Peace RT,

I mostly agree quran leaves out a lot of information because it was only sent to restore the true message. If the quran doesn't say otherwise, we must believe the torah. Quran is from a GOD perspective not a gentile :). Solomon isn't appeared infallible, He got so addicted with horses he missed his prayer time.

I agree with you, and I didn't mean to imply that the Qur'aan is from a Gentile perspective. I meant to say the main targeted audience of the Qur'aan were non-Jews... And I forgot to mention that detail about Solomon neglecting the salaat obervance because he was preoccupied with horses. Thanks for bringing this up...

Which is why we must read the torah ALONG with the quran

I completely agree.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: farida on March 08, 2009, 02:14:39 PM
But the Islamic economic system is threatening to Western capitalistic economies. It won't be pretty later on. It is not a conspiracy at all, it is simply Real Politik. The struggle for monoply and power will never end.

Peace,

Rami

Salaam
Exactly; this is what I too always believed that the Islamic way of life would simply demolish Modern Capitalism, wihich is based on continious consupmtion, making money out of desires and a banking system to keep eveyone constantly in debt so the most important concern of a man would be not to lose his mortgaged house, which in turn make people conformist.
 :peace:
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 08, 2009, 03:34:10 PM
The Torah discusses the prohibition against taking interest in many places: Exodus 22:24; Leviticus 25:36-37; and Deuteronomy 23:20-21. (See also Ezekiel 18:8-17; 22:12; Psalms 15:5; and Proverbs 28:8). Here is the biggest problem people have here. They do not understand that the Torah is not just Moses's teachings. It spans several centuries. It is refered to as the Torah because thats what people call it. There are also many scriptures not included in the Biblical collections of today but were in the past and many of the items there are included in the Koran. Catholic Bible also have scriptures not found in King James. The dead sea scroll also contained scriptures the Bible collectors did not compile for various reasons including their desire to have a chronological order of the scriptures.
Watch the documentary "banned from the Bible" in video google. They will show you verses in the Koran confirming material in the so called banned scriptures and give some reasons why some of these scriptures were not included in the Bible collection. Also the Ethopian Church included some scriptures not found in King James as it was not accepted. Banned in the Bible gives good undertsanding of the logic used in Bible collection and inclusion and many of the time it was due to convenience. But one thing Christians unanimously did was to only debate earlier written scriptures and they all refused the oral traditions, unlike Judaism or Islam which took the oral traditions and then abrogated the written scriptures due to their desire to manufacture a legal framework.

Anyways the view of usury of Ahmad Subhi Mansour is very similar to the Torah quote. Riba is to be done in business transactions and not personal lives and should be done to those who can afford it and not those who are desperate and seek loan not to run an enterprise or project but because they are desperate. Another worlds usury should not be exploitative.

The previous scriptures must be read with an undertsanding of its structure and historic lay out. The Koran deals with some issues that could only be understood in some cases by 7th century Medina realities since that is the time period it came down. And you can easily see that when you read some passages of the Koran. The Torah and the other scriptures in the OT spans literally hundreds and hundreds of years including many prophets and their teachings.

Even the Book of Jeremiah differs as to what Jeremiah preached in Jerusalem and what he preached in Babylon because the situations now differed. Does not the Koran also talk about different issues in Mecca and Medina?

No the opening paragraph I got from a Jewish website, but I did not include the whole material, you know why? Here is how it actually reads:

The Torah discusses the prohibition against taking interest in many places: Exodus 22:24; Leviticus 25:36-37; and Deuteronomy 23:20-21. (See also Ezekiel 18:8-17; 22:12; Psalms 15:5; and Proverbs 28:8).

As is the case with most laws of the Torah, to gain a full understanding of the laws of ribit (usury) it is necessary to study the topic as it is explained on the Oral Law. The laws of ribit are discussed at length in the Code of Jewish Law, Yoreh De'ah 159-177. As is the case with most laws of the Torah, to gain a full understanding of the laws of ribit (usury) it is necessary to study the topic as it is explained on the Oral Law

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/256,328/Can-I-find-the-laws-of-usury-in-the-Old-Testament.html

And that my friend is Sunni/Shia Islam in action.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 09, 2009, 03:03:33 AM
Peace all,

Read the following verses and you will know that most of the OT is written by the Babylonians priests and the adversaries of Solomon.

2:101   And when a messenger came to them from God, authenticating what was with them, a group of those who had already received the scripture placed God’s scripture behind their backs as if they did not know.
2:102   And they followed what the devils(adversaries) recited regarding Solomon’s kingship. Solomon did not reject, but it was the devils that rejected by teaching people magic, and teaching them what was sent down on the two angels in Babylon, Haroot and Maroot. They did not teach anyone until they would say: “We are a test, so do not lose faith!” Thus they teach what can separate between a person and his mate; but they cannot harm anyone except by God’s permission. And they learn what harms them and does not benefit them, and they have known that he who purchases such has no place in the Hereafter. Miserable indeed is what they purchased with their souls if only they knew!

Bingo, Solomon DID NOT reject. The adversaries of Solomon would want to paint that Solomon rejected as painted in the OT.

Peace,

Rami

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 09, 2009, 06:05:45 AM



@ RT + Bigmo + Ahmed

Salaam Brothers , this is a collective response to all.

Which is why we must read the torah ALONG with the quran

I never said that Muslims should not acquire knowledge of the Torah. But we should never
give the accounts in the Torah MORE PRIORITY then the Quran. There are 2 reasons for this.
One of them is historical (academic), and the other is religious (from the Muslim perspective):

1) The Torah (five books, of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) whose author
the Jews say (I checked) was Moses (pbuh) himself, is academically analyzed to have been compiled in the
Persian period (500-300 BCE) which means that it was compiled something like a 1000 years after
the death of its author. (look it up yourself, don't take my word for it). While the Quran was written
under the supervision of the Prophet and codified within the same generation.

2) There has also been irrefutable proof provided that the version of events in the Torah
contradicts the Quran
. Which proves (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that the two scriptures can not
simultaneously be the direct word of God, and one of them is more accurate then the other. And since we
Muslims are obligated to believe in the Quran's supremacy, we must believe in the version of events in the Quran,
as basic article of faith. And therefore, everything in the Torah+Tanakh+Talmud which goes against the Quran
must be rejected immediately as a fabrication.

It is not a matter of the Torah being more detailed at all, that has nothing to do with it. Remember, Solomon PBUH was a Muslim
before he was a Semite
. Therefore, the Muslims have more of a right to the Judaic prophets then the Jews themselves. This is why
the Quran redeems their image, as the Jews maligned their own prophets through adding fabrications in their scriptures. So
Solomon pbuh was not a heretic, David pbuh was not a murderer, Noah pbuh was not a drunk, and Lot pbuh did not commit incest!
(Do you see a pattern here?) These events are not conveniently ignored by God in the Quran because the Torah is allegedly more
detailed. They are ignored because they DID NOT OCCUR, and instead the Jews are charged with fabricating these things against
their prophets, and this is why the Quran retells the stories of these prophets and their work, to redeem them.

This is why the arguments which have been based in the Torah are not valid in an Islamic discussion
because the Torah can not be used as a foundation for any Islamic argument. We know for a fact that the Torah
is no more authentic then the hadith (historically speaking). In fact it is less authentic, because there are books
of the hadith (like the Muwatta, of Imaam Maliki) which were compiled only 150 years after the Prophet, while the
Torah was compiled a 1000 years after Moses (pbuh). So if you want to have an Islamic discussion without the hadith,
(because the hadith is unauthentic) then you must also, by the same argument, disregard other inauthentic
texts such as the Torah. As much as I hate this saying, it is applicable: "you can't have your cake and eat it too"


PeAcE

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 09, 2009, 09:32:18 AM
Is the Bible unknown to the Qur'an?
 

When Christians use the testimony of the Qur'an in support of the Bible's integrity, some Muslims argue that the Qur'an does not relate to present day versions of the Torah and the Gospel. They say that the "Scriptures", which Christians and Jews had at the time of Muhammad (571 - 632 CE), were different from those available today. That the Jews of Muhammad's day were reading a different Torah, something which was "certainly not identical", "nor resembled anything like the Old Testament" which contains the reports, stories and myths of groups of people gone by. Similarly the Injil (Gospel) was "not at all identical with the New Testament or even the four gospels" available to us today (Izzat Khan and Abu Abdullah, Divine Revelations, The Muslims and the Bibles: A Clarification, pp. 4-6).

It is stated that when the Qur'an talks about a single book known as the Gospel (as given to Jesus) and a single book as given to Moses (known as the Torah) that they were not the four gospels as we find them in the New Testament nor the first five books of the Old Testament known today as the Torah. To conclude the matter, such Muslims add that even the title "Bible" for the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians is foreign to the Qur'an.

The word 'Bible'
Any good dictionary will explain that the word Bible is derived from the Greek word biblia (neuter plural), which means "books". As the collections of Jewish and Christian texts came increasingly to be considered as one unit, the term in Latin began to be understood as feminine singular, denoting "The Book". The same word has come through to Modern English in words like bibliography. So when the title Bible, the book, was used, it denoted a collection of writings or books of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.

It is indeed true that the title "Bible" is not used in the Qur'an nor does it contain the proper title, "Bible" for the scriptures of the Jews and Christians but has identified it as "Kitab" (the Book) by calling the followers as "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the Book. Although, the Qur'an has borrowed many foreign terms and names like Tawrat, Furqan, Injil, Isa and Musa etc.; and Arabized them into its text, when it came to using the word Bible, it used its own Arabic words derived from Hebrew and Aramaic, thus calling the Jews and Christians "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the book, and referring to their scripture not only as "the book", Kitab, but also listing the parts of it as the Tawrah, Zaboor, Injil and Sahaif (Torah, Psalms, the Gospel(s) and the books of the prophets respectively).

Therefore the notion that the Qur'an does not mention the Bible is simply wrong. It will be like saying that the Qur'an does not mention "God". The Muslim listener will refer to many verses where Arabic words like "Allah" or "Rab" are mentioned. If those words stand for God in the Qur'an then it should not be difficult to recognise that the words Ahlal Kitab stands for Jews and Christians and their Kitab stands for their scriptures - the Bible - in the contexts as referred to them in the Qur'an.

Torah and the Injil
Some Muslim writers contend that the original Pentateuch and the original Gospel have disappeared and became extinct from the world. For example, the late Rahmatullah, whose writings are still prominent among Muslim readers, expanded this claim by asserting, "We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and that they were not changed until later." He added further by claiming that, "The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qur'an and so they are not, as such, acceptable to the Muslims."(Rahmatullah, Izharul Haqq, Part III, p.30-31)

Similarly, Yusuf Ali, whose translation and commentary is popular among Muslims in the West, claims that "the Injil (Greek, Evangel = Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels ..." (Yusaf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p.292, (Saudi Arabian Edition, p.334)

Christians believe there is indeed one Injil, brought by Jesus, the Christ. The word Injil in Arabic is a transliteration of the Greek Evangelion as Yusaf Ali has rightly mentioned in his statement. The Greek word Evangelion means "happy message" or "good news". Distinguished Muslim commentators like Baidhawi and Zamakshari openly admit that Injil is not an Arabic word but is derived from the Syriac and/or Greek word Evangel - the Gospel, the good news. Taking this as true, one should look no further than among those who have been using this term for their scriptures in Muhammad's time and even before then. When we look at the documentary evidences available to us even before Muhammad, it can be concluded that a long time before Islam started, these titles were used for the collection of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as available today.

If the Gospel and the Torah spoken of by the Qur?an are not the same as the Old and the New Testament (known also as the Injil and Tawrat among millions of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Turkish speaking Christians) and did not exist in the same form as in Muhammad's time, then what was the Qur'an referring to? Why did the Qur'an require Christians and Jews to accept the Old and New Testament of Muhammad's time? Why did the Qur'an tell the Jews and Christians to follow their scriptures if they were not yet in existence or were only available in corrupted versions? If a Muslim is to believe in the integrity of the Qur'an then he has also to believe that in Muhammad's time the scriptures of the Jews and Christians existed and that the Qur'an certified their message by saying that they contained guidance and light (Surah 5:47,49). If somehow the author of the Qur'an was doubtful of the integrity of the previous scriptures, why does it ask both Jews and Christians to follow them in their decisions?

Some Muslims assume that the Qur'an only confirmed and testified to the "original autographs" of the Torah and the Gospel, although the evidence within the Qur'an itself testifies that it was referring to that which was actually available, there and then, to the Jews and Christians. For example, to confirm and uphold their scriptures, the Qur'an uses the following words: musadiqalima mahum (confirming what is with them), musadiqalima bainah yadih (confirming that which is between their hands) and musadiqalima makum (confirming that which is with them) (Surah 2:41,89; 3:3, 4:47; 5:48; 35:31 and so on).

In the light of the available evidence of manuscripts (both incomplete and whole), it can be said with certainty that the Old and the New Testaments of Muhammad's time were exactly the same as available today. Today's Bible translations are based on existing manuscripts that go back even hundreds of years before Muhammad's day. Hence the logic of the Qur'anic verses immediately is that the Injil and Torah as mentioned in the Qur'an are the same as those available to us today in the New Testament and Old Testament of the Bible.

In Judaism, there is a book called "the Pentateuch" or "the five books of Moses" which are identical to those in the Bible. These books contain the major part of the Jewish law and are known as the Tawrat/Torah/Law. However, Jews often use the same term to describe the whole collection of books, which Christians call the Old Testament. It is interesting to read in a tradition of Islam that the Torah read by the Jews of Madina also included the book of Isaiah, which indicates that the Qur'an was referring to the whole collection of the Jewish scriptures with the word Torah and not just what was revealed to Moses. (See, for example, the Islamic tradition transmitted by Bukhari, Darimi and is available in Mishkat al, Masabih, Vol. II, p. 1232).

http://www.itl.org.uk/topics/kitab.html

Christians already know this. Don't you think its odd that Christians would rely on these verses more than a Koranist, of all people, would? Or is it that some people believe they understand better than the Koran. The verses in the Koran about the authenticity and legitimacy of the previous scriptures are clear cut without any room for spin. You would never win an argument using the Koran to prove otherwise. The Koran made sure of that. As a Koranist i understand the significance of that because unless something is absolutely crucial the Koran would allow for different interpretations. But it left no room for that when it came regarding the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

These are God's scriptures so why would He not defend them in the Koran? And He did so like no other subject I can think of in the Koran. There is no literature on Earth that defends the Jewish and Christian scriptures like the Koran.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 09, 2009, 10:00:58 AM

@ Bigmo

Salaam bro

As a Koranist i understand the significance of that because unless something is absolutely crucial the Koran would allow for different interpretations.

It seems that you have already made up your mind and are not willing to consider the evidence which contradicts your views.
This would explain why you have ignored all the evidence which contradicts your argument. I provided you with clear passages
from the Torah and the Tanakh which contradict the Quran. But you have completely side-stepped their existence and continue
to copy paste articles which are irrelevant at this point.

Technically, you lost this debate when you refused to respond to the objections in the previous pages.


Quote
There is no literature on Earth that defends the Jewish and Christian scriptures like the Koran.

It is actually the other way around... There is no other text on earth which condemns the Jewish
and Christian narratives more, and does it with such sheer effectiveness.


PeAcE




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 12, 2009, 09:50:52 AM
Peace everyone,

The twisting/manipulating of the word of God and ascribing to God what He has not said continues  :nope:

NOWHERE in al-qur'aan does God say that al-masjid al-haraam is the same as kaaba or bayt al-haraam; in fact according to al-qur'aan they are two distinct things. In fact, al-masjid al-haraam is forbidden for the mushrikeen/idolaters, whereas kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam is for entire mankind:

?The first house established for the people is the one in Bakk?a, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds. In it are clear signs: the situation of Abraham. And whoever enters it will be secure. And God is owed from mankind hajj of the house, whoever can make a path to it. And whoever rejects, then God has no need of the worlds.? (Quran 3:96-97)

?And call out to mankind with the hajj, they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure.? (Quran 22:27)

9:28 O you who believe, those who have set up partners are impure, so let them not approach al-masjid al-haraam after this year of theirs; and if you fear poverty, then God will enrich you from His blessings if He wills. God is Knowledgeable, Wise.

This clearly shows that they are two distinct things. Kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam is open for entire mankind (which includes idolaters); al-masjid al-haraam is forbidden for the idolaters; how can they be the same? In fact, if al-masjid al-haraam surrounds kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam then it will make no sense because it will lead to an impossible situation. How can idolaters enter kaaba (because it is for entire mankind), when they cannot even approach al-masjid al-haraam?

In addition to that, kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam cannot be the one that is in Makkah. Firstly, according to al-qur'aan, it is clearly mentioned in relation to Bakkah (3:96) and not Makkah. The word makkah is also mentioned in the qur'aan but in the context of war. So bakkah cannot be makkah unless God is a fool and cannot spell properly. Secondly, according to 3:96-97, maqam Ibraheem is IN it, whereas in Makkah it is OUTSIDE it. Thirdly, according to 3:96-97, anyone can ENTER it, whereas in Makkah hardly anyone is allowed to ENTER it. Fourthly, lot of pagan rituals are going on in Makkah, including circling 7 times, kissing the black stone and venerating it etc., whereas 22:26 clearly tells us that no partners are set up with God at the bayt.

No further comments from me on this issue as this has been discussed on this forum already in great detail and ad nauseum in the past.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 12, 2009, 11:41:59 AM
Salam

Peace everyone,

The twisting/manipulating of the word of God and ascribing to God what He has not said continues 

I would be careful with making such dangerous accusations against fellow Muslims. You have no more authority then anyone else, and therefore, you can not claim that the opposition is guilty of manipulating God's meanings and you yourself are innocent of this. so please refrain from issuing such fatwas, thank you.


Quote
NOWHERE in al-qur'aan does God say that al-masjid al-haraam is the same as kaaba or bayt al-haraam; in fact according to al-qur'aan they are two distinct things. In fact, al-masjid al-haraam is forbidden for the mushrikeen/idolaters, whereas kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam is for entire mankind:

Wrong. It is forbidden for anyone to worship anyone other then God in that place. So the idolaters are not allowed to worship their idols there. But the house itself is open to all who want to worship the one true God.

Quote
This clearly shows that they are two distinct things. Kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam is open for entire mankind (which includes idolaters); al-masjid al-haraam is forbidden for the idolaters; how can they be the same? In fact, if al-masjid al-haraam surrounds kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam then it will make no sense because it will lead to an impossible situation. How can idolaters enter kaaba (because it is for entire mankind), when they cannot even approach al-masjid al-haraam?

see above.

Quote
In addition to that, kaaba/al-bayt al-haraam cannot be the one that is in Makkah. Firstly, according to al-qur'aan, it is clearly mentioned in relation to Bakkah (3:96) and not Makkah. The word makkah is also mentioned in the qur'aan but in the context of war.


Your argument is invalid because many things have been used with multiple names in the Quran. Hell and Heaven have been called by different names too. It does not mean there are more then one Heaven and one Hell. God has 99 names, it does not mean there are 99 gods.


Quote
So bakkah cannot be makkah unless God is a fool and cannot spell properly

I advise you to modify your tone: God can not be a "fool" under any circumstance.


Quote
Secondly, according to 3:96-97, maqam Ibraheem is IN it, whereas in Makkah it is OUTSIDE it.

Wrong, read it again. It is talking about the same place.

003.096
YUSUFALI: The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings:
003.097
YUSUFALI: In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures.


Quote
Thirdly, according to 3:96-97, anyone can ENTER it, whereas in Makkah hardly anyone is allowed to ENTER it.


Blame that on the wahhabi authorities.


Quote
Fourthly, lot of pagan rituals are going on in Makkah, including circling 7 times, kissing the black stone and venerating it etc., whereas 22:26 clearly tells us that no partners are set up with God at the bayt.

You can not prove that those rituals are pagan. I can easily claim that the pagans themselves copied those rituals from ancient antiquity, from the time of Abraham (pbuh) himself.


Quote
No further comments from me on this issue as this has been discussed on this forum already in great detail and ad nauseum in the past.

Do as you wish, just remember that you have failed to answer multiple points in the previous pages of this thread as well.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 12, 2009, 06:01:01 PM
Peace c0de,

There is no other text on earth which condemns the Jewish
and Christian narratives more, and does it with such sheer effectiveness.

Is this serious?! You still haven't pointed out one passage in the Qur'aan where G-d condemns the previous scriptures; in fact, He does the exact opposite. He instructs the Jews to continue to observe the laws of the Torah. So, why would G-d instruct the Jewish "submitters"/muslims to live according to condemned writings? There's nowhere in the Qur'aan that says that the Torah has been corrupted, and there's definately nowhere in the scriptures where the Torah is "condemned". This is blasphemy...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: thegod on March 12, 2009, 09:06:07 PM
c0de-I advise you to modify your tone: God can not be a "fool" under any circumstance.

sub'haana Allaah

Quote
5:64 The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.

sub'haana Allaah



ma'a salaam.

God bless all.

al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 13, 2009, 04:51:10 AM
Peace c0de,

Is this serious?! You still haven't pointed out one passage in the Qur'aan where G-d condemns the previous scriptures; in fact, He does the exact opposite. He instructs the Jews to continue to observe the laws of the Torah. So, why would G-d instruct the Jewish "submitters"/muslims to live according to condemned writings? There's nowhere in the Qur'aan that says that the Torah has been corrupted, and there's definately nowhere in the scriptures where the Torah is "condemned". This is blasphemy...

Peace,

Ahmad

Peace,

2:102   And they followed what the devils recited regarding Solomon’s kingship. Solomon did not reject, but it was the devils that rejected by teaching people magic, and teaching them what was sent down on the two angels in Babylon, Haroot and Maroot. They did not teach anyone until they would say: “We are a test, so do not lose faith!” Thus they teach what can separate between a person and his mate; but they cannot harm anyone except by God’s permission. And they learn what harms them and does not benefit them, and they have known that he who purchases such has no place in the Hereafter. Miserable indeed is what they purchased with their souls if only they knew!

What did the adversaries recited that the Jews are following?? What is this Magic that Jews follow? I am not saying it is the Torah but what is it?

5:41   O messenger, do not be saddened by those who increase in disbelief from among those who said: “We believe” with their mouths while their hearts did not believe. And from among the Jews, there are those who listened to lies; they listened to people who never came to you; they distort the words from their context, and they say: “If you are given this, then take it, but if you are given anything different, then beware!” And whoever God wants to test, then you will not possess anything for him against God. These are the ones whose hearts God did not want to cleanse; in this world they will have humiliation, and in the Hereafter they will have a great retribution.

What are these lies? and Who are these people that the Jews are listening to but never came to Mohammed??? are they the Babylonians? If not, then who??

“If you are given this, then take it, but if you are given anything different, then beware!” - is that not what the Torah says!

5:42   They listen to lies, and consume money illicitly. If they come to you, then you may judge between them or turn away from them; and if you turn away from them then they cannot harm you in the least; and if you judge then judge between them with justice. God loves those who are just.

What are these lies?? Plus consuming money illicitly is allowed in the Torah as long as these people are not Jews.

5:43   And how can they make you their judge when they have the Torah, in which is God’s judgment; then they turn away after that. Those are not believers.

What is the Torah the Quran is refering to??

7:157   “Those who follow the Gentile messenger prophet whom they find written for them in the Torah and the Injeel; he orders them to goodness, and deters them from evil, and he makes lawful for them the good things, and he forbids for them the evil, and he removes their burden and the shackles that are upon them. So those who believe in him, and support him, and help him persevere, and follow the light that was sent down with him; these are the successful.”

Is that Deut. 18:18. Jews think otherwise as Mohammed is not an Israelite or is he?

9:111   God has purchased from the believers their very lives and their wealth, that they will have Paradise; they fight in the cause of God so they kill and are killed; a promise that is true upon Him in the Torah and the Injeel and the Qur’an. And whoever fulfills this vow with God, then have good news of the pledge which you are concluded with. Such is the supreme success.

OK. This promise of Paradise is not there. Or is Paradise the Messianic era and the Kingdom of God? It could be. Can the Jewish Messiah be God Himself as in the Quran God is the King of the Day of Judgement. Can this be the Day of the Lord's anger the Tanakh is referring to.

48:29   Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves. You see them kneeling and prostrating, they seek God's blessings and approval. Their distinction is in their faces, as a result of prostrating. Such is their example in the Torah. And their example in the Injeel is like a plant which shoots out and becomes strong and thick and it stands straight on its trunk, pleasing to the farmers. That He may enrage the rejecters with them. God promises those among them who believe and do good works a forgiveness and a great reward.

These examples are not there. If they are, please post them.

Peace,

Rami
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 13, 2009, 07:16:11 AM
Peace c0de,

Is this serious?! You still haven't pointed out one passage in the Qur'aan where G-d condemns the previous scriptures; in fact, He does the exact opposite. He instructs the Jews to continue to observe the laws of the Torah. So, why would G-d instruct the Jewish "submitters"/muslims to live according to condemned writings? There's nowhere in the Qur'aan that says that the Torah has been corrupted, and there's definately nowhere in the scriptures where the Torah is "condemned". This is blasphemy...

Peace,

Ahmad


Salaam Bro,

Please stop accusing the opposition of blasphemy. Ad hominems do not help your arguments, they only weaken them. Myself and others here have repeatedly pointed out contradictions in the Torah and the Quran. You yourself have admitted mistakes in the Talmud and Tanakh already. And all of this taken together proves that all those verses in the Quran which accuse the Jews of forgery, and the previous scriptures of being corrupted apply not just to the NT, Tanakh and the Talmud, but also to the Torah as inconsistencies within it have been proven with the Quran.

Your second argument that the Quran advises the Jews and Christians to follow previous scriptures does not prove their perfection. In fact, it is better explained by saying that if they followed their scriptures they would come to see the perfection of the Quran and be led to the truth (i.e. Islam).



PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 18, 2009, 02:43:03 AM
Peace bro "Ahmed Bilal",
Just wanted to throw in one qs if you dont mind. You say that the modern "Torah" weve found is authentic. Is Genesis part of the real Torah? Now i ask you WHICH BOOKS IN THE CURRENT BIBLE AND HOW MANY VERSES FROM EACH ARE PART OF THAT TORAH for surely there are contras with natural observations in the very first few verses of genesis:
Genesis 1:2-12
Quote
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Now how come theres light before the sun is created?

Quote
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Day and night created BEFORE THE SUN? idnt this ridiculous since we know that the sun and rotation of the earth is what makes night and day?

Quote
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

JK- Again evening and morning without the sun?

Quote
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The earth wasnt first water but a very hot and dry planet.

Quote
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Again all this WITHOUT THE SUN. And the phrase "and the evening and the morning" inplies a literal 24 hr day which again is totally false as we know the formation of the earth took billions of years and for life on it to form too.

Quote
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

AHA but the previous verfses were already talking about the earth having night and day i.e. LIGHT so is the sun an extra light?

Quote
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

So the sunn moon and stars were all made in 24hrs as we experience today without the sun even being there and they were all made AFTER the earth and vegetation having already soung on it??? !!

Quote
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Whales were created before beasts of the earth cattle etc. This is also false. Whales are mammals. and they evolved from land dwelling mammals.

Quote
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Also man is not created in the image of GOD. The Quran clearly states in 112 that theres nothing like unto Him and surprisingly this same Biblical statement is also found in the hadith BUT NEVER IN THE QURAN. Wonder why that is? The Bible shodulve stated that mankind is made in the image of apes. That wldve been accurate and acceptable since those creatures came before humans and wer not as similar to any other species on this planet as we r to apes. So even if you reject the concept of us sharing a common ancestor with apes, for which there is now evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, you must accept that GOD used them as prototypes for creating men and not portraying His own image by cerating us. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 18, 2009, 03:03:18 AM
Peace "Ahmed Bilal" and all,

You are right the Quran doesnt say the Torah is corrupted BECAUSE THE TRUE TORAH ISNT. HOWVER THE TRUE TORAH HAS NOT BEEN DISCOVERED YET EITHER. On the other hand just because people claim books x,y,z belong to the Torah does not make it so does it? I can say suras wilayet and nurain belong to the Quran. I can even attach them to my copy of the Quran and sell it out to a bunch of gullible ppl in the world. Do you get my point? Certain people claiming something to be Torah or Pslms or Quran does not make it so. NOW what the Quran does state is that people made up things and claimed them be from GOD whilst trhey were not. This is excactly what happened. People for example claim Gen 1:2-30 to be the Torah i.e. GOD's scripture BUT IT IS NOT. Torah and GOD's Word are not mutually exlusive so when people can claim x,y,z to be GOD's statement whilst in actuality it is not it logically follow that they can claim that x,y,z is part of the Torah or Psamls or even Quran whilst actually it isnt. Get the point? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 19, 2009, 08:08:04 AM
Peace "Jonny_K",

You have raised some very good points, and G-d willing, I'll do my best to answer them sufficiently. The bring up some important questions relating to the Qur'aan and the Torah. For starters, if the "True Torah" has not been discovered, then why does G-d instruct the Jews, even in the Qur'aan, to continue following the path of the Torah? He said that the righteous Jews (i.e. Jewish submitters) are those who follow the true guidance of G-d's revelations, revealed through the Torah. This wouldn't make any sense if the Jews were not in possession of the "True Torah"...

Now, in my opinion, the Book of Genesis (or "Bereishith") is definately part of the Torah. It doesn't appear contrary to nature or Qur'aan; many people just don't understand it's doctrines, especially without examining the true teachings of Torah and Judaism... For example, you mentioned the concept of light appearing before the sun was formed. This is not contrary at all. Rather, it shows that there was (and probably still is) another source of light besides the sun. Since G-d is in total control of the universe, He is able to manipulate other factors to contribute to His creation, if He wills. Also, we know this isn't referring to a literal 24-hour day, since our concept of a "day" is based solar movement. So, the "day" mentioned is referring to a longer period of time, most likely the same way the Qur'aan alludes to the 6-day creation period... After the cooling of the planet, G-d formed the water bodies. This is completely consistent with the Qur'aan, since directly after the bodies of water are formed, Bereishith mentions the production of plants, just as the Qur'aan mentions that all living creatures were formed from water... There's no proof that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals, and it's very plausible that they were formed before cattle and other land animals.

Now, regarding the human creation in the "image" of G-d, this is not a blasphemous or idolatrous statement. Many people just don't understand the underlying concept of it... We know that G-d has no physical makeup, and there is nothing comparable to Him. Also, nobody has seen the face of G-d, so that statement appears to be illogical, since we can see humans. However, this is not what the scripture is saying. The Hebrew word used is "tzelem" (image), which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, not a physical image. The word for a physical image ("to'ar") is not used in this passage, even though it is used in other parts of the Torah to refer to the physical image of something or someone. Also, the word used for likeness is "demut", which refers to the nature of a thing or person, not a physical likeness... Jewish rabbis insist that G-d has no physical form, and we are like G-d in the sense that we have the ability to think and discern, able to perceive things, with our intellect, without the use of our physical senses.

I understand what you mean by others adding portions into the scriptures, be they the Psalms, the Torah, or the Qur'aan. However, I don't think these are actualities (except maybe the Psalms). The Torah is the same everywhere, no matter what group of Jews you meet. The Qur'aan is the same, even though I do believe that it's reasonably plausible that scribes wrote the 2 "false" verses into the Qur'aan after Muhammad's death (i.e. 9:128, 129), based on mathematical composition. But this would also imply that G-d has protected His books through patterns and consistency, something that should fit both the Qur'aan and the Torah... So, yes, I definately believe Genesis ("Bereishith") is part of the original, true Torah, and it is very consistent with nature and the Qur'aan.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 19, 2009, 08:35:22 AM
Peace "Ahmed Bilal",

Quote
Peace "Jonny_K",

You have raised some very good points, and G-d willing, I'll do my best to answer them sufficiently. The bring up some important questions relating to the Qur'aan and the Torah. For starters, if the "True Torah" has not been discovered, then why does G-d instruct the Jews, even in the Qur'aan, to continue following the path of the Torah? He said that the righteous Jews (i.e. Jewish submitters) are those who follow the true guidance of G-d's revelations, revealed through the Torah. This wouldn't make any sense if the Jews were not in possession of the "True Torah"...

JK- When GOD says Jews in the Quran it depends on the context whether Hes referring to the righteous or unrighteous ones. Thats pt one. 2ndly the righteous Jews may at the time of the revelation of the Quran and even some today posess knowledge of the true Torah through whatever mechanism there maybe. 3rdly it is possible that the true Torah was available at the time of rev of the Quran but then got lost and today only a few elite know about it and they don't wanna reveal it because they fear it would show the Quran is the truth which theyd like to undermine by all means. This has infact been my mother's hypothesis all along.

Quote
Now, in my opinion, the Book of Genesis (or "Bereishith") is definately part of the Torah. It doesn't appear contrary to nature or Qur'aan; many people just don't understand it's doctrines, especially without examining the true teachings of Torah and Judaism... For example, you mentioned the concept of light appearing before the sun was formed. This is not contrary at all. Rather, it shows that there was (and probably still is) another source of light besides the sun. Since G-d is in total control of the universe, He is able to manipulate other factors to contribute to His creation, if He wills.

JK- If this is so then GOD mustve put signs in nature which indicate the same but the opposite is the case. So it's scripture vs natural observation. If a scripture conflicts with natural obervation then how would we know that it's GOD's scripture in the first place? This is a serious flaw and many religious people ignore this entirely. Therefore the argument GOD can do anything is absurd for it doesnt allow us to know what is from GOD and what isnt anymore.

Quote
Also, we know this isn't referring to a literal 24-hour day, since our concept of a "day" is based solar movement. So, the "day" mentioned is referring to a longer period of time, most likely the same way the Qur'aan alludes to the 6-day creation period...

JK- But genesis adds the phrase "and it was evening and morning. the xth day". This phrase indicates there passing one evening before the next day so i ask what is this even based on before there was the sun? It is entirely senseless. Also if by "day" in genesis can be meant millions of years then how did plants survive millions of years without the sun?

Quote
After the cooling of the planet, G-d formed the water bodies. This is completely consistent with the Qur'aan, since directly after the bodies of water are formed, Bereishith mentions the production of plants, just as the Qur'aan mentions that all living creatures were formed from water... There's no proof that whales evolved from land-dwelling mammals, and it's very plausible that they were formed before cattle and other land animals.

JK- Theres hell lot of prove that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals infact as much as there is for the big bang. Please read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1
See again now the OT is in conflict with natural observations.

Quote
Now, regarding the human creation in the "image" of G-d, this is not a blasphemous or idolatrous statement. Many people just don't understand the underlying concept of it... We know that G-d has no physical makeup, and there is nothing comparable to Him. Also, nobody has seen the face of G-d, so that statement appears to be illogical, since we can see humans. However, this is not what the scripture is saying. The Hebrew word used is "tzelem" (image), which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, not a physical image. The word for a physical image ("to'ar") is not used in this passage, even though it is used in other parts of the Torah to refer to the physical image of something or someone. Also, the word used for likeness is "demut", which refers to the nature of a thing or person, not a physical likeness... Jewish rabbis insist that G-d has no physical form, and we are like G-d in the sense that we have the ability to think and discern, able to perceive things, with our intellect, without the use of our physical senses.

JK- Ok so lets say it means the essence or nature of a thing. Are we of the same essence or nature as GOD? In other words aree we in any way more closely related to GOD than to apes? The answer is again NO. Even our attitudes, amotions and behaviour show similarities with apes. We have a more evolved brain yes but we still use the same basic insitinctive signs as apes do and also show simlar behavioural patterns when wer jealous, angry etc.

Quote
I understand what you mean by others adding portions into the scriptures, be they the Psalms, the Torah, or the Qur'aan. However, I don't think these are actualities (except maybe the Psalms). The Torah is the same everywhere, no matter what group of Jews you meet. The Qur'aan is the same, even though I do believe that it's reasonably plausible that scribes wrote the 2 "false" verses into the Qur'aan after Muhammad's death (i.e. 9:128, 129), based on mathematical composition. But this would also imply that G-d has protected His books through patterns and consistency, something that should fit both the Qur'aan and the Torah... So, yes, I definately believe Genesis ("Bereishith") is part of the original, true Torah, and it is very consistent with nature and the Qur'aan.

Peace,

Ahmad

JK- YES here i agree. There is most probably a mathemtical pattern in the Torah as well but ive only yet seen gen 1:1 fall under that and no other verse. So it yet remains to be discovered. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 19, 2009, 08:37:50 AM
Peace again "Bilal Ahmed",
I almost forgot if by "day" in genesis can be meant millions of years then how did plants survive millions of years without the sun? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 19, 2009, 08:54:48 AM
Peace again "Bilal Ahmed",
Btw i didnt even go into much detail of every contradiction in Genesis. If you want to i can bring up alot more and see if you can explain all of them away. To put it simply in Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite. So if Genesis be true then all dating methods used from enormous amounts of independent reserach all over the world must have been used wrongly and the convergence of all their results independetly must have also been one great coincidnce. In other words GOD, GOD forbid, has placed signs in nature which show the opposite of what He supposedly states in is Scripure. Do you sense the sburdity now? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 20, 2009, 07:00:37 AM
JK- Theres hell lot of prove that whales evolved from land dwelling mammals infact as much as there is for the big bang. Please read up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Cetaceans
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1
See again now the OT is in conflict with natural observations.


I didn't even thing about that. Evolution via natural selection is a fact that only those who believe in the accuracy of the OT challenge.

 :peace:
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 20, 2009, 07:30:50 AM
Peace "code",


I didn't even thing about that. Evolution via natural selection is a fact that only those who believe in the accuracy of the OT challenge.

 :peace:

JK- Exactly and hence it is totally biased and cannot be accepted by anyone outside the circle of that particular belief system. This is infact the most obvious reasons why creationism is so ridiculous. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: thegod on March 20, 2009, 08:23:55 AM

ahmad bilal-Where is the proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times per day?

I believe a section of ismaili's have a system of three prayers; I think they call it dua, rather than salaat or namaaz.

I remember a hadith which states that the prophet initially prayed twice a day. Maybe that was before the hadith wherein the prophet allegedly seals the 5 salaat deal.


ma'a salaam.

God bless all.

al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 20, 2009, 01:40:14 PM
Peace c0de,

Sorry, bro. I didn't even notice this post by you, so it's a little late...

Please stop accusing the opposition of blasphemy.

I never accused you of blasphemy. I said that alleging that G-d condemned the same scripture that He sent down is blasphemy. This is claiming that G-d works against Himself...

Myself and others here have repeatedly pointed out contradictions in the Torah and the Quran. You yourself have admitted mistakes in the Talmud and Tanakh already. And all of this taken together proves that all those verses in the Quran which accuse the Jews of forgery, and the previous scriptures of being corrupted apply not just to the NT, Tanakh and the Talmud, but also to the Torah as inconsistencies within it have been proven with the Quran.

This is absolutely false. There are no contradictions in the Torah, people have just misinterpreted the passages of the Torah. It's no different than people alleging that the Qur'aan contains contradictions and inconsistencies. Your claim that the Talmud and Tanakh contain mistakes is NOT proof that there are errors in the Torah, period.

Your second argument that the Quran advises the Jews and Christians to follow previous scriptures does not prove their perfection. In fact, it is better explained by saying that if they followed their scriptures they would come to see the perfection of the Quran and be led to the truth (i.e. Islam).

So, G-d is telling them to follow some "fabricated" scriptures, and it will lead them to the truthful message of the Qur'aan? Does this honestly make sense to you?! If the Torah is forged and fabricated, then it would completely conflict with the Qur'aan, and this would only push away those who actually follow the previous scriptures...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 20, 2009, 02:12:36 PM
Peace Jonny_K,

JK- When GOD says Jews in the Quran it depends on the context whether Hes referring to the righteous or unrighteous ones. Thats pt one. 2ndly the righteous Jews may at the time of the revelation of the Quran and even some today posess knowledge of the true Torah through whatever mechanism there maybe. 3rdly it is possible that the true Torah was available at the time of rev of the Quran but then got lost and today only a few elite know about it and they don't wanna reveal it because they fear it would show the Quran is the truth which theyd like to undermine by all means. This has infact been my mother's hypothesis all along.

C'mon, bro. How likely is this? The Torah that is in circulation is the same Torah that was in circulation thousands of years ago, and this has been historically confirmed many times, both by Jewish rabbis and by and historians... So, what exactly is the "true Torah" you're talking about? You're correct that it depends on the context whether the Qur'aan is talking about righteous or unrighteous Jews. However, in most cases, the ones called unrighteous are those who take partners beside G-d. The same goes for unrighteous Muslims throughout the world, even mentioned in the Qur'aan.

JK- If this is so then GOD mustve put signs in nature which indicate the same but the opposite is the case. So it's scripture vs natural observation. If a scripture conflicts with natural obervation then how would we know that it's GOD's scripture in the first place? This is a serious flaw and many religious people ignore this entirely. Therefore the argument GOD can do anything is absurd for it doesnt allow us to know what is from GOD and what isnt anymore.

The Torah is in harmony with the Qur'aan, and the Qur'aan admittedly confirms the Torah. So, alleging that one is fabricated is alleging that BOTH are fabricated. They don't conflict with natural observation; you only don't understand the principles outlined in the Torah, and this is why you feel they contradict. Also, throughout history, as stated in Torah and Qur'aan, G-d has done many things that seem to conflict with nature. Does this make the scriptures false?

JK- But genesis adds the phrase "and it was evening and morning. the xth day". This phrase indicates there passing one evening before the next day so i ask what is this even based on before there was the sun? It is entirely senseless. Also if by "day" in genesis can be meant millions of years then how did plants survive millions of years without the sun?

First of all, how do you know this was before the sun? Secondly, if (hypothetically) it was before the sun, then why is it impossible for another primary light and heat source sustain the plants until the formation of the sun? And this also brings up the same issue in the Qur'aan, which also uses the same description of the universal creation in "six days". So, do you believe the Qur'aan was falsified to fit the Torah? Why do many people consider it "false" in the Torah but "true" in the Qur'aan, even though they say the same thing?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 21, 2009, 01:23:32 AM
Peace bro "AB",

Peace Jonny_K,

C'mon, bro. How likely is this? The Torah that is in circulation is the same Torah that was in circulation thousands of years ago, and this has been historically confirmed many times, both by Jewish rabbis and by and historians... So, what exactly is the "true Torah" you're talking about? You're correct that it depends on the context whether the Qur'aan is talking about righteous or unrighteous Jews. However, in most cases, the ones called unrighteous are those who take partners beside G-d. The same goes for unrighteous Muslims throughout the world, even mentioned in the Qur'aan.

JK- IMHO Very likely. Many Jews are still very proud of their religion and those would be biased in that regard just as any other religion thus making it appear as if their Holy Book is still with them. Ive seen you accept 9:128&129 are not part of the Quran whilst the sunni/shia poudly claim that theyve the true Quran with them. I told you i know of no statement other than Gen 1:1 which has been mathematically confirmed in the OT so you should accept that the complete Torah has by long not been uncovered. And not only those who directly claim to take parnters besides GOD are the unrighteous. It also incldues the rejectors of GOD's signs when they come to them as many Jews rejected the Message when it came to them.

Quote
The Torah is in harmony with the Qur'aan, and the Qur'aan admittedly confirms the Torah. So, alleging that one is fabricated is alleging that BOTH are fabricated. They don't conflict with natural observation; you only don't understand the principles outlined in the Torah, and this is why you feel they contradict. Also, throughout history, as stated in Torah and Qur'aan, G-d has done many things that seem to conflict with nature. Does this make the scriptures false?

JK- The Quran will no doubt be confirming the real Torah once it's uncovered. As for the OT it doesnt. For example the OT mentions the seventh day on which GOD allegedly rested in the creation account. This is nowehere to be found confirmed in the Quran despite it being a crucial day in the OT. The Quran only mentions six days and it doesnt add the statment "and it was evening and it was morning" to suggest some nonsolar light source. So once again the Quran does not confirm the current OT.
NOW tell me if there are things in the Quran or Torah which are in conflict with indeodent natural observations THEN HOW CAN WE KNOW THAT THEYR GOD'S SCRIPTURES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Quote
First of all, how do you know this was before the sun? Secondly, if (hypothetically) it was before the sun, then why is it impossible for another primary light and heat source sustain the plants until the formation of the sun? And this also brings up the same issue in the Qur'aan, which also uses the same description of the universal creation in "six days". So, do you believe the Qur'aan was falsified to fit the Torah? Why do many people consider it "false" in the Torah but "true" in the Qur'aan, even though they say the same thing?

Peace,

Ahmad

JK- First of all the Bible states that the sun was created on the fouth day and plants on the 3rd. 2ndly we know this doesnt make sense via independent study of the cosmos which states that the sun was always the source of light for the earth. Again the Quran does not assert such and so does not confirm this "Torah" statement. The only way to justify this would be to say there was a supernatural source of light but how can we ever know if that is true or not and hence how can we ever know that that statement claiming it to be so is from GOD? Do you see the flaw in logic here? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 21, 2009, 01:44:41 AM
Peace again bro "AB",
I just wanted to add that contradictions not only include contradictions of two or more statements within scripture BUT also contradictions with observed natural phenomenom by people from all over the world independent of each other and coming to the same conclsuions. So if such observations lead us to conclude something different than what is found in nature through such independent observations, then we cannot accept such a scriptre as being from GOD by any means other than relying on hearsay of a certain biased grp of ppl who insist their ancestors had contact with GOD. This is infact how religion operates and why it is so absurd. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 21, 2009, 05:40:46 AM

@ Ahmed Bilal

Bro, how can you expect to carry on a debate while you have ignored all the evidence against your case? Numerous inconsistencies between the Quran and the Torah have been provided for you in this thread. Please flip through the previous pages of this thread and notice the details in the stories of the Torah versus the details of the SAME stories in the Quran. You failed to respond to them completely. Also, your argument that Torah has been confirmed by the Quran has already been answered ("admission of its laws is not admission of its perfection").

Brother Jonny K has already provided you with some great arguments which I agree with. Also, remember in the Quran it is stated that the previous scriptures contained the name of our Prophet as "Ahmed"... where is this name now? Obviously, it has mysteriously disappeared... Which means their scriptures have been tampered with. Only the Quran is perfect brother Ahmed, you should accept this fact.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 21, 2009, 06:49:04 AM
Peace "c0de",
You're a Quran Alone Muslim who accepts the five daily ritual salat theory. However i have some serious problems with that theory which i'd like you to address. First why did GOD not mention the various stages to be poerformed in ritual salat as a reminder as He did in so many other cases? It wouldnt even have made the Quran alot longer. Secondly why are there even so many variances in the various acts in salat amongst various sects? So how can we make out the true acts within the salat e.g. are we to raise both hands like in takbeer(rafai yadain) every time we enter the state of bowing or prostartion or not? Thirdly what sense does it make to face a physical Qiblah on a spherical planet? Fourthly why when the Quran states "wherever you maybe turn your faces towards Masjidul HAraam" it NEVER includes the phrase "during salat" but merely "WHEREVER"? There are more problems but id like you to address these first. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 21, 2009, 07:35:06 AM

@ Jonny K

I am not a "Quran only" Muslim. I accept the Quran's supremacy and do not accept any hadith which contradict the letter or spirit of the Quran. But I do not reject all hadith just because they are hadith. But this discussion has nothing to do with the hadith. It has to do with the Quranic support for the 5 timings of prayer. As for your objections, I think I have already addressed most of them, but I will oblige.

Quote
First why did GOD not mention the various stages to be poerformed in ritual salat as a reminder as He did in so many other cases?

Maybe because the stages aren't all that important. Different Muslims pray in different ways.

Quote
Secondly why are there even so many variances in the various acts in salat amongst various sects?

See above.

Quote
Thirdly what sense does it make to face a physical Qiblah on a spherical planet?

What "sense" does it make to pray at all?

Quote
why when the Quran states "wherever you maybe turn your faces towards Masjidul HAraam" it NEVER includes the phrase "during salat" but merely "WHEREVER"

The metaphorical meaning of this verse is not mutually exclusive with the secondary version related to salat. Besides, I am not here to defend the various rituals of prayer, but the 5 times.



PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 21, 2009, 08:47:10 AM
Peace "c0de",

@ Jonny K

I am not a "Quran only" Muslim. I accept the Quran's supremacy and do not accept any hadith which contradict the letter or spirit of the Quran. But I do not reject all hadith just because they are hadith.

JK- Ofcourse some hadith mayb rieght just as in any book, histotical or otherwise, there are true and false statemnts BUT what i meant is that you don't accept any hadith besides Quran as Divine inspiration meant for all generations to come. This is what technically makes one a Quran Alone Muslim. So say if a hadith states that it's ok to drink camel urine as medicine or dip a fly in a vessel once it falls in there coz one if it's wing has the disease and the other the cure, this does not contradict the Quran as such YET it would contradict nature. Thus the not contradicting Quran argument is faulty logic.

Quote
But this discussion has nothing to do with the hadith. It has to do with the Quranic support for the 5 timings of prayer. As for your objections, I think I have already addressed most of them, but I will oblige.

Maybe because the stages aren't all that important. Different Muslims pray in different ways.

JK- This is mere speculation. How can you justify this statement since the stages are ultimately what supposedly make up the salat? I can then argue why not ALWAYS combine isha and maghrib and zuhr and asr as shia do. Ismailis dont even offer salat in the traditional way at all.

Quote
What "sense" does it make to pray at all?

The metaphorical meaning of this verse is not mutually exclusive with the secondary version related to salat. Besides, I am not here to defend the various rituals of prayer, but the 5 times.

PeAcE

JK- Lets quote the verses:

2:149 Wherever you go, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. This is the truth from your Lord. GOD is never unaware of anything you all do.
2:150 Wherever you go, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid; wherever you might be, you shall turn your faces towards it. Thus, the people will have no argument against you, except the transgressors among them. Do not fear them, and fear Me instead. I will then perfect My blessings upon you, that you may be guided.

2:150 again repeats whats in 2:149 and yet NO MENTION OF SALAT here at all. How can you connect salat to Masjidul Haram. Also "Qiblah" just means "direcrtion" and not "prayer direction" unless "salat" is sepcifically mentioned along with it.

Also as i said most of the shia only pray three times so your unity argument based on the times breaks down there. Moreover are you ok if people just offered salat bowing and prostraing random no of times in their five daily salat? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 21, 2009, 09:12:51 AM
Peace "c0de",
I forgot to address this qs of yours.

Quote
What "sense" does it make to pray at all?

JK- Prayer if done with focus on GOD Alone can induce positive thoughts which allow one to be more rational and it is known that self suggestion can even lead to positive and negative PHYSICAL effects on human health. If so prayer to GOD Alone could have alot of physical benefits including ones immune system via self suggestion. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 21, 2009, 11:56:56 AM

@ Jonny K


Salaam bro. Again, most of the points you have raised have already been answered, but I will answer you out of courtesy.

Quote
Also as i said most of the shia only pray three times so your unity argument based on the times breaks down there.

This objection has already been nullified. Shia combine prayers, but they recognize the 5 distinct times. There is a difference.

Quote
2:149 Wherever you go, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid. This is the truth from your Lord. GOD is never unaware of anything you all do.
2:150 Wherever you go, you shall turn your face towards the Sacred Masjid; wherever you might be, you shall turn your faces towards it. Thus, the people will have no argument against you, except the transgressors among them. Do not fear them, and fear Me instead. I will then perfect My blessings upon you, that you may be guided.

2:150 again repeats whats in 2:149 and yet NO MENTION OF SALAT here at all. How can you connect salat to Masjidul Haram. Also "Qiblah" just means "direcrtion" and not "prayer direction" unless "salat" is sepcifically mentioned along with it.

Not that this issue is that important anyway, as what matters most is the intention. Even if we are facing mecca in our prayers, but our intention is diverted away from God, what good is facing Mecca? But since you are challenging a well-established ritual without any actual historical evidence, I will indulge you.

2.142
The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.

This verse (contained in the same passage from which you quoted) supports the idea that there is also a non-metaphorical meaning behind the word "Qibla" as it is obviously speaking of an actual event. And recorded history connects this to the incident that took place in Medinah when the Prophet turned his face (during prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca. Now you can argue about the authenticity of the history all you want, but remember that your case is incomplete unless you provide historical evidence to the contrary.

What you are suggesting, that this one ritual which is present across time and space among the Muslim lands is false, but you are doing this without providing any evidence at all. Instead, you have semantics. "Qibla" means direction one turns his face towards (true). But this does not mean this word has no religious significance. Yes, Masjib al-Haram also has a metaphorical significance symbolizing the unity of a spiritual purpose that Muslims are supposed to strive towards. But your argument that the metaphor and the ritual are mutually exclusive is unfounded. Just because the word salat is not used in the passage itself does not necessitate the rejection of the ritual because we have historical evidence that it is the salaat ritual which this passage is referring to (Bukhari 2:29).

That said, if you feel that you do not want to face Mecca during your prayers, that is totally fine with me, as that is between you and your God. But for anyone to claim that this ritual that most Muslims practice is pagan in nature (as some here have), is a little ridiculous. Especially considering that the pagans themselves never bowed to the Kabbah itself but to the idols present therein.

Quote
BUT what i meant is that you don't accept any hadith besides Quran as Divine inspiration meant for all generations to come. This is what technically makes one a Quran Alone Muslim. So say if a hadith states that it's ok to drink camel urine as medicine or dip a fly in a vessel once it falls in there coz one if it's wing has the disease and the other the cure, this does not contradict the Quran as such YET it would contradict nature. Thus the not contradicting Quran argument is faulty logic.

I know. This is why I reject any hadith which contradicts my reason as well. But the hadith in Buhkari which links to the above argument does not go against reason at all, in fact makes things much clearer. So I accept it.

Quote
JK- This is mere speculation. How can you justify this statement since the stages are ultimately what supposedly make up the salat?


The general guideline of the stages is present in the Quran. All Muslim sects follow these guidelines. Bowing, Standing and the "7 oft repeated verses"

Quote
I can then argue why not ALWAYS combine isha and maghrib and zuhr and asr as shia do.

Go ahead and combine them, that is between you and your God. Just don't tell me that my 5 prayer timings are a pagan ritual. Because I can easily claim that since you can't provide any evidence that the official number was 4, 2, 3, or 7, then my #5 is validated by the uniformity of this practice across Muslim lands.

Quote
Prayer if done with focus on GOD Alone can induce positive thoughts which allow one to be more rational and it is known that self suggestion can even lead to positive and negative PHYSICAL effects on human health. If so prayer to GOD Alone could have alot of physical benefits including ones immune system via self suggestion. GOD Bless!

But you do not have to pray to God to derive such benefits. Meditation will work just as well. The fact is that there is "rational" reason for praying to God, is there? This is why faith, by definition, is not "rational", that is why, it is "faith".

Quote
Moreover are you ok if people just offered salat bowing and prostraing random no of times in their five daily salat?

Who am I to judge their practices? I myself have many beliefs which are contradictory to the mainstream, and most of the time I am actually arguing with Sunnis about their stated beliefs which (in my opinion) contradict the Quran... However, my ritual (of praying the way I do, and 5 times a day) does not contradict the Quran. That is the reason why I have no reason to question this established practice.



PeAcE


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 21, 2009, 05:48:08 PM
Peace bro "AB",

JK- IMHO Very likely. Many Jews are still very proud of their religion and those would be biased in that regard just as any other religion thus making it appear as if their Holy Book is still with them. Ive seen you accept 9:128&129 are not part of the Quran whilst the sunni/shia poudly claim that theyve the true Quran with them. I told you i know of no statement other than Gen 1:1 which has been mathematically confirmed in the OT so you should accept that the complete Torah has by long not been uncovered. And not only those who directly claim to take parnters besides GOD are the unrighteous. It also incldues the rejectors of GOD's signs when they come to them as many Jews rejected the Message when it came to them.

JK- The Quran will no doubt be confirming the real Torah once it's uncovered. As for the OT it doesnt. For example the OT mentions the seventh day on which GOD allegedly rested in the creation account. This is nowehere to be found confirmed in the Quran despite it being a crucial day in the OT. The Quran only mentions six days and it doesnt add the statment "and it was evening and it was morning" to suggest some nonsolar light source. So once again the Quran does not confirm the current OT.
NOW tell me if there are things in the Quran or Torah which are in conflict with indeodent natural observations THEN HOW CAN WE KNOW THAT THEYR GOD'S SCRIPTURES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

JK- First of all the Bible states that the sun was created on the fouth day and plants on the 3rd. 2ndly we know this doesnt make sense via independent study of the cosmos which states that the sun was always the source of light for the earth. Again the Quran does not assert such and so does not confirm this "Torah" statement. The only way to justify this would be to say there was a supernatural source of light but how can we ever know if that is true or not and hence how can we ever know that that statement claiming it to be so is from GOD? Do you see the flaw in logic here? GOD Bless!

Maybe the seventh day is the Koranic equivalent of "then He settled on the throne". The problem is there seems to be a debate about the origins of OT. I think this is a weak argument. The real argument is how we interpret "confirmed". Does the Koran confirms the whole OT? Or the core theme and message is what Koran confirms and not every nittyy gritty detail? Or is everything the Koran confirmed is what is contained in the Koran itself about the OT? Maybe its a combination of the second and third.

Questioning origins of the OT and trying to establish an argument that what the Koran was talking about is not the scriptures we have today but some other scriptures that either has vanished or were corrupted after the Koran is simply not supported by the facts. Anyone who sees the verses of the Koran about the previous scriptures can know that its talking about the scriptures around today. But how we interpret confirmed is what i think we should be discussing.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 03:58:14 AM
Peace "c0de",


@ Jonny K


Salaam bro. Again, most of the points you have raised have already been answered, but I will answer you out of courtesy.

JK- Thnx.

Quote
This objection has already been nullified. Shia combine prayers, but they recognize the 5 distinct times. There is a difference.

JK- No they recognize five prayers but not necessarily five times. Thats why they pray five prayers in three times.

Quote
Not that this issue is that important anyway, as what matters most is the intention. Even if we are facing mecca in our prayers, but our intention is diverted away from God, what good is facing Mecca? But since you are challenging a well-established ritual without any actual historical evidence, I will indulge you.

JK- Wait right here? WELL ESTABLISHED RITUAL??? Nothing is well established UNLESS IT'S PROVEN. We dont have to prove prayers are 2,3,5 or anything else. YOU and the sunnis/shias have to prove to the rest of the world that their rituals are well founded and they cacnt. It's just like most Christians accept the divinity of Jesus. If you were amongst them youd be saying the exact same thing. many amogst the Quran Alone ppl deny 5 daily ritual salat based on logic and reason.

Quote
2.142
The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?" Say: To Allah belong both east and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight.

This verse (contained in the same passage from which you quoted) supports the idea that there is also a non-metaphorical meaning behind the word "Qibla" as it is obviously speaking of an actual event. And recorded history connects this to the incident that took place in Medinah when the Prophet turned his face (during prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca. Now you can argue about the authenticity of the history all you want, but remember that your case is incomplete unless you provide historical evidence to the contrary.

JK- NO it doesnt. It can very well mean a mental direction i.e. people were turned away fom the correct path of GOD's system. This is infact what Ayman has been explaining very extensively and others too. In this regard i consider their arguments very reasonable. A physical Qiblah on a spherical planet makes no sense whatsoever. And the whole story of prophet Muhammad ever even being in a city named Mecca is questionable. It looks like you didnt even read the following articles:
http://www.free-minds.org/ayman
http://www.free-minds.org/petra


Quote
What you are suggesting, that this one ritual which is present across time and space among the Muslim lands is false, but you are doing this without providing any evidence at all. Instead, you have semantics. "Qibla" means direction one turns his face towards (true). But this does not mean this word has no religious significance. Yes, Masjib al-Haram also has a metaphorical significance symbolizing the unity of a spiritual purpose that Muslims are supposed to strive towards. But your argument that the metaphor and the ritual are mutually exclusive is unfounded. Just because the word salat is not used in the passage itself does not necessitate the rejection of the ritual because we have historical evidence that it is the salaat ritual which this passage is referring to (Bukhari 2:29).

JK- Your quoting from Bukhari the same which states tht if a fly falls in your drinking vessel dip it in completely for n one of its wings is the disease and in the other the cure. How in GOD's name can you trust that scripture? And there has always been Quran Alone people like Ayman and others who consider themselves Muslims and dont aagree with ritual prayer interpretation at all. Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, a famous Quran Alone Muslim, for example did not understand salat as any ritual prayer whatsoever and he was right because it doesnt make any sense if you study it deeply.

Quote
That said, if you feel that you do not want to face Mecca during your prayers, that is totally fine with me, as that is between you and your God. But for anyone to claim that this ritual that most Muslims practice is pagan in nature (as some here have), is a little ridiculous. Especially considering that the pagans themselves never bowed to the Kabbah itself but to the idols present therein.

JK- Whether it is pagan in nature or not is a totally seprate issue. I dont say it is pagan in nature and that doesnt even concern me. Im saying it's not what GOD REQUIRES OF US. If someone wants to pray ritually, go ahead. I myself pray 3 times a day bowing and prostrating random no of times and not intentionally towards mecca.

Quote
I know. This is why I reject any hadith which contradicts my reason as well. But the hadith in Buhkari which links to the above argument does not go against reason at all, in fact makes things much clearer. So I accept it.

JK- THAT IS YOUR OPINION. In my opinion and that of many others the prayer related hadith are causing even more confusement than the others. Without those hadith people would never deduce ritual prayer. Think about it. If a book which does not even get the basics in biology right how can it be right on something as specific as prayer? You need to get out of this indoctrination.
 
Quote
The general guideline of the stages is present in the Quran. All Muslim sects follow these guidelines. Bowing, Standing and the "7 oft repeated verses"

JK- Even if you take bowing and prostraing literally, like i still do, you could use any random no of such and not stick to a no mentioned in hadith. Thats my point.

Quote
Go ahead and combine them, that is between you and your God. Just don't tell me that my 5 prayer timings are a pagan ritual. Because I can easily claim that since you can't provide any evidence that the official number was 4, 2, 3, or 7, then my #5 is validated by the uniformity of this practice across Muslim lands.

JK- I told you i dont know whether it's a pagan ritual and that is totally irrelvant to me. Im only saying GOD did not command 5 daily prayers. If anyone wants to he/she can pray 5,10 or even 100 times but if he says GOD has made it a must then i have a big problem with thar.

Quote
But you do not have to pray to God to derive such benefits. Meditation will work just as well. The fact is that there is "rational" reason for praying to God, is there? This is why faith, by definition, is not "rational", that is why, it is "faith".

JK- I believe focussing on one GOD has the most benefits. At least that is from my personal standpoint. In that way it reminds me that all the laws in the universe come from One Being and i need to respect them all. GOD Himself states in the Quran that He doesnt need our prayer so wer in need of it or do you disagree?

Quote
Who am I to judge their practices? I myself have many beliefs which are contradictory to the mainstream, and most of the time I am actually arguing with Sunnis about their stated beliefs which (in my opinion) contradict the Quran... However, my ritual (of praying the way I do, and 5 times a day) does not contradict the Quran. That is the reason why I have no reason to question this established practice.
PeAcE

JK- Well i beleive that making 5 prayers a Divine isnpired must is what contradicts the Quran. Otherwise you can pray as many times as you like. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 04:08:17 AM
Peace "bigmo",

Maybe the seventh day is the Koranic equivalent of "then He settled on the throne". The problem is there seems to be a debate about the origins of OT. I think this is a weak argument. The real argument is how we interpret "confirmed". Does the Koran confirms the whole OT? Or the core theme and message is what Koran confirms and not every nittyy gritty detail? Or is everything the Koran confirmed is what is contained in the Koran itself about the OT? Maybe its a combination of the second and third.

JK- This is a very far fetched claim. Was it too difficult to add the phrase "and on the 7th day" leaving absolutely no doubt. And "establishing Himself on the throne" does not equal "and he rested". The Quran confirms the true Gospel of Jesus , the true Psalms and also the true Torah and all of them are yet to be discovered.

Quote
Questioning origins of the OT and trying to establish an argument that what the Koran was talking about is not the scriptures we have today but some other scriptures that either has vanished or were corrupted after the Koran is simply not supported by the facts. Anyone who sees the verses of the Koran about the previous scriptures can know that its talking about the scriptures around today. But how we interpret confirmed is what i think we should be discussing.

JK- OH but it is supported by the facts. Do you have the dead sea scrolls in your hands? No. And even then theyr claimed to be different from the current OT:
I quote from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls
Quote
Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed, with the whole series, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, running to thirty-nine volumes in total. Many of the scrolls are now housed in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. According to The Oxford Companion to Archeology, "The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 A.D."

So the facts support that although the dead sea scrolls have been uncovered the elite is hiding crucial info from the public from them. Moreover if we compare the current OT texts with independent natural observations alot of it doesnt agree as ive clearly pointed out. This is not the case with the Quran. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 22, 2009, 05:45:34 AM
Salaam brother JK


JK- No they recognize five prayers but not necessarily five times. Thats why they pray five prayers in three times.

I am pretty sure they do, a link has been provided to a shi'ite website, flip through the pages.

Quote
JK- Your quoting from Bukhari the same which states tht if a fly falls in your drinking vessel dip it in completely for n one of its wings is the disease and in the other the cure. How in GOD's name can you trust that scripture? And there has always been Quran Alone people like Ayman and others who consider themselves Muslims and dont aagree with ritual prayer interpretation at all. Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, a famous Quran Alone Muslim, for example did not understand salat as any ritual prayer whatsoever and he was right because it doesnt make any sense if you study it deeply.

You have already admitted that all books contain errors (except the Quran of course). So there is no reason to reject all the hadiths contained in Bukhari, as it is also a valuable historical document. Btw, just because some "Quran aloners" believe in something, doesn't mean anything to me since I do not carry any such label.

Quote
JK- Wait right here? WELL ESTABLISHED RITUAL??? Nothing is well established UNLESS IT'S PROVEN. We dont have to prove prayers are 2,3,5 or anything else. YOU and the sunnis/shias have to prove to the rest of the world that their rituals are well founded and they cacnt. It's just like most Christians accept the divinity of Jesus. If you were amongst them youd be saying the exact same thing. many amogst the Quran Alone ppl deny 5 daily ritual salat based on logic and reason.

Do not forget that "Logic" and "reason" are subjective as well. This is why I asked for historical evidence for your claims. I did provide you with hadiths from Bukhari. If you have something more authentic which provides an alternative explanation for the events outlined in that verse of the Quran, please bring it forth and we shall examine it together.

Quote
JK- NO it doesnt. It can very well mean a mental direction i.e. people were turned away fom the correct path of GOD's system. This is infact what Ayman has been explaining very extensively and others too. In this regard i consider their arguments very reasonable. A physical Qiblah on a spherical planet makes no sense whatsoever. And the whole story of prophet Muhammad ever even being in a city named Mecca is questionable. It looks like you didnt even read the following articles:
http://www.free-minds.org/ayman
http://www.free-minds.org/petra

I already said that my definition of "Qibla" includes the one you are presenting. What I stated however, both of our definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Quote
Im saying it's not what GOD REQUIRES OF US. If someone wants to pray ritually, go ahead. I myself pray 3 times a day bowing and prostrating random no of times and not intentionally towards mecca.

Good for you. And I am not questioning your beliefs nor your understanding. This thread is a reply for people who question mine.

Quote
JK- THAT IS YOUR OPINION. In my opinion and that of many others the prayer related hadith are causing even more confusement than the others. Without those hadith people would never deduce ritual prayer. Think about it. If a book which does not even get the basics in biology right how can it be right on something as specific as prayer? You need to get out of this indoctrination.

Please stop referring to my mindset as "indoctrination" because that implies perfection on your part. Everyone is indoctrinated by something, there is no objective thinking, man is not capable of it. No need to get on our high horses brother...  ;)
 
Quote
JK- Even if you take bowing and prostraing literally, like i still do, you could use any random no of such and not stick to a no mentioned in hadith. Thats my point.

I didn't use the hadith to learn how to pray, I used the practice of the Muslims I see around me as a guide. If you feel you need no such guidance and are free to worship in your own way, that is between you and your God brother.

Quote
Im only saying GOD did not command 5 daily prayers. If anyone wants to he/she can pray 5,10 or even 100 times but if he says GOD has made it a must then i have a big problem with thar.

You only have a problem with that because you believe that God has commanded 3 prayers. Well, my belief is supported by the 5 times mentioned in the Quran, your belief is supported by 3 times mentioned specifically by the name "salat". I take the two other times mentioned with the words "give praise to Him" also as meaning salat, because in my salat, I give praise to Allah during those times.

At the end of the day, you base your argument on semantics, and I have the well established practice which is uniform across time and space (unless proven otherwise). But I still am not telling you that you are wrong, all I am saying is that my ritual is well supported, and am asking for any historical evidence which contradicts it. I am genuinely interested in any real evidence, but so far no one has actually presented anything.

Quote
JK- I believe focussing on one GOD has the most benefits. At least that is from my personal standpoint. In that way it reminds me that all the laws in the universe come from One Being and i need to respect them all. GOD Himself states in the Quran that He doesnt need our prayer so wer in need of it or do you disagree?

I agree that it has the most benefits. But that is a belief which is based not in reason, but in faith. This is why I called into question your argument in which you questioned "what sense does it make to face mecca?" because you are trying to apply reason to something which is fundamentally beyond rationality: Faith.

You can argue that it is not part of faith to face mecca, but you can't bring rationality into such arguments. We are not talking about shariah here.

Quote
Well i beleive that making 5 prayers a Divine isnpired must is what contradicts the Quran. Otherwise you can pray as many times as you like. GOD Bless!

I understand your point and I believe that as long as both of our intentions are to worship God, we both should be fine (inshAllah)


 :peace:
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 06:40:34 AM
Peace "c0de",

Salaam brother JK

I am pretty sure they do, a link has been provided to a shi'ite website, flip through the pages.

JK- They recognize five prayers but NOT five distinct times. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salat#The_five_daily_prayers
Quote
6According to Shia Muslims, 'Asr prayer and 'Ishaa prayer have no set times but are performed from mid-day...

Quote
You have already admitted that all books contain errors (except the Quran of course). So there is no reason to reject all the hadiths contained in Bukhari, as it is also a valuable historical document. Btw, just because some "Quran aloners" believe in something, doesn't mean anything to me since I do not carry any such label.

JK- Hadith are not even always a historical valuable document. For that independent archaeological evidenec would be necessary. None such has been found in favor of five daily salat. Hadith often portrays Muhammad as an aggressive, merciless and paedohile person which i think we can agree he was not.

Quote
Do not forget that "Logic" and "reason" are subjective as well. This is why I asked for historical evidence for your claims. I did provide you with hadiths from Bukhari. If you have something more authentic which provides an alternative explanation for the events outlined in that verse of the Quran, please bring it forth and we shall examine it together.

JK- No theyr not subjective. If the five prayer theory were to be so significant than independent researchers from all over the world wouldve found something in them which they dont find in rituals from other religions. Again this is not the case. Infac five times prayer being necessitated makes life difficult since working people can at best pray three times regularly. Quran makes religion easy, hadith five daily prayer make it difficult.

Quote
I already said that my definition of "Qibla" includes the one you are presenting. What I stated however, both of our definitions are not mutually exclusive.

JK- The other definition does NOT MAKE SENSE especially on a spehrical earth.

Quote
Good for you. And I am not questioning your beliefs nor your understanding. This thread is a reply for people who question mine.

JK- If you consider those prayers a must for every beleiver then as i said ive a problem with that.

Quote
Please stop referring to my mindset as "indoctrination" because that implies perfection on your part. Everyone is indoctrinated by something, there is no objective thinking, man is not capable of it. No need to get on our high horses brother...  ;)

JK- The problem is i used to be a radical practing sunni, going to mosque regularly and praying five times daily. Then  realized gradually that these ritual prayers dont make sense. So i was there already. It wldve been different shld ive never been there.
 
Quote
I didn't use the hadith to learn how to pray, I used the practice of the Muslims I see around me as a guide. If you feel you need no such guidance and are free to worship in your own way, that is between you and your God brother.

JK- Someone born among Christians can argue the same when asked why he accepted the trinity. The Quran warns us not to follow the ways of our forefathers and here it clearly appears that we were doing exactly that. This was one remnant ritual even i had difficulty to let go.

Quote
You only have a problem with that because you believe that God has commanded 3 prayers. Well, my belief is supported by the 5 times mentioned in the Quran, your belief is supported by 3 times mentioned specifically by the name "salat". I take the two other times mentioned with the words "give praise to Him" also as meaning salat, because in my salat, I give praise to Allah during those times.

JK- Can you point out the exact verses and indicate whoch prayer it refers to? then we can discuss that. If it were as you say shia wouldnt have claimed tht asr and isha have no set times.

Quote
At the end of the day, you base your argument on semantics, and I have the well established practice which is uniform across time and space (unless proven otherwise). But I still am not telling you that you are wrong, all I am saying is that my ritual is well supported, and am asking for any historical evidence which contradicts it. I am genuinely interested in any real evidence, but so far no one has actually presented anything.

JK- Uniformity amongst sunni/shia/ahmediyya. Ismaelis dont pactice 5 times ritual salat neither do the "pervaizis" who are actually Quran Alone Muslims too. You still dont see the flaw in your argument either. You should not ask for evidence contradicting your people's practices. Rather you should ask for evidence SUPPORTING your folks practices. Thats how it goes. Otherwise everyone can be content with the practices of the society they were born in. I already gave you an example of Christianity. They say th exact same thing that theres uniformity amongst Chritians about the trinity. And the hindus have their own "uniformity" claims and so do most other religions. none of these makes it true.

Quote
I agree that it has the most benefits. But that is a belief which is based not in reason, but in faith. This is why I called into question your argument in which you questioned "what sense does it make to face mecca?" because you are trying to apply reason to something which is fundamentally beyond rationality: Faith.

JK- Blind faith is not supported by the Quran at all. I dont just have faith that mental prayer will help me. I have very rational arguments as to why this is so and ive explained part of it. Ofcourse my theory can be challenged and in that case ill have to adjust myself accordingly depending on who has the stronger arguments. Thats how it goes not dogma.

Quote
You can argue that it is not part of faith to face mecca, but you can't bring rationality into such arguments. We are not talking about shariah here.

JK- OFCOURSE I CAN. Beacuse if i cant that all religions can claim truth. Whats so special about ours? Dont you see that this makes absolutely no sense?

Quote
I understand your point and I believe that as long as both of our intentions are to worship God, we both should be fine (inshAllah)


 :peace:


JK- That is fine but still you beleive that all beleivers should pray 5 times ritually and im challenging that position. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 22, 2009, 08:00:13 AM
Salaam JK


JK- They recognize five prayers but NOT five distinct times. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salat#The_five_daily_prayers

The link you provided doesn't make your case clear.

Quote
JK- Hadith are not even always a historical valuable document. For that independent archaeological evidenec would be necessary. None such has been found in favor of five daily salat. Hadith often portrays Muhammad as an aggressive, merciless and paedohile person which i think we can agree he was not.

Once again, I never said hadith is a perfect document. I said it was a valuable historical document. And this is true, even if it has been corrupted (which we both agree it has). As for the hadith on which I base my case on, I already explained that it does not seem to contradict my reason, nor do I have any reason to reject it. And since the hadith is by definition also a historical document, I therefore have historical proof for my argument.

Quote
JK- No theyr not subjective.


Reason is by definition subjective (and therefore flawed). Refer to Imannuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Quote
If the five prayer theory were to be so significant than independent researchers from all over the world wouldve found something in them which they dont find in rituals from other religions. Again this is not the case. Infac five times prayer being necessitated makes life difficult since working people can at best pray three times regularly. Quran makes religion easy, hadith five daily prayer make it difficult.

Your reasoning here is completely subjective. I personally find the hardest prayers to be fajr, and this prayer is included in the 3 prayer model as well. There are others who find Fajr and Isha both to be the hardest prayers. In any case, the point of the salat is not to make your life easy, it is to worship God, so that He will make your life easy, if He so chooses.

Quote
The other definition does NOT MAKE SENSE especially on a spehrical earth.

Anyone who can operate a compass and has a basic understanding of land navigation and geometry should have no problem making "sense" of direction.

Quote
JK- If you consider those prayers a must for every beleiver then as i said ive a problem with that.

And you are free to state your problem in the form of an argument.

Quote
JK- The problem is i used to be a radical practing sunni, going to mosque regularly and praying five times daily. Then  realized gradually that these ritual prayers dont make sense. So i was there already. It wldve been different shld ive never been there.

I also went through such a stage in my life. I used was affiliated with a militant-jihadi proxy of the wahhabis at one time.
 
Quote
Someone born among Christians can argue the same when asked why he accepted the trinity. The Quran warns us not to follow the ways of our forefathers and here it clearly appears that we were doing exactly that. This was one remnant ritual even i had difficulty to let go.

You have not proved that the ritual I am following is un-Islamic. So please, refrain from attributing verses that were meant for the idolaters to your fellow Muslims... That is a very evil characteristic of the Wahhabis and other radicals. There is even a hadith warning Muslims from engaging in such low-handed tactics.

Quote
Can you point out the exact verses and indicate whoch prayer it refers to? then we can discuss that. If it were as you say shia wouldnt have claimed tht asr and isha have no set times.

Please flip through the pages of this thread. All the verses have been quoted. And Shia, as I said, do not claim what you are claiming. They claim that those prayers can be combined. I advise you to ask a shia yourself about this to gain certainty.

Quote
JK- Uniformity amongst sunni/shia/ahmediyya. Ismaelis dont pactice 5 times ritual salat neither do the "pervaizis" who are actually Quran Alone Muslims too. You still dont see the flaw in your argument either. You should not ask for evidence contradicting your people's practices. Rather you should ask for evidence SUPPORTING your folks practices. Thats how it goes. Otherwise everyone can be content with the practices of the society they were born in. I already gave you an example of Christianity. They say th exact same thing that theres uniformity amongst Chritians about the trinity. And the hindus have their own "uniformity" claims and so do most other religions. none of these makes it true.

Your understanding of their rituals is flawed. They combine prayers, but they do not say there are only 3. (and btw, Ismaelis are shias themselves) and the Quran aloners don't count because it is their understanding is a recent phenomenon (unless you can provide historical proof which justifies their ritual as having some foundation in the practice of the early Muslims).

Quote
JK- Blind faith is not supported by the Quran at all. I dont just have faith that mental prayer will help me. I have very rational arguments as to why this is so and ive explained part of it. Ofcourse my theory can be challenged and in that case ill have to adjust myself accordingly depending on who has the stronger arguments. Thats how it goes not dogma.

You clearly are not familiar with the philosophical limitations of rationality. I already suggested a monumental book which was a landmark in philosophic development above. I advise you to read it. Also, true faith is ALWAYS blind, by definition. I realized this myself only recently.

Quote
JK- OFCOURSE I CAN. Beacuse if i cant that all religions can claim truth. Whats so special about ours? Dont you see that this makes absolutely no sense?

It makes perfect sense (ironically enough). And this is why all religions do claim to hold the "truth". Nothing you can say will ever convince them, because they are not functioning on logic and reason. An atheist is an atheist not because his belief is based in reason but because it is based in a blind faith. Just like the you. You only think that your belief is based in reason (just like the atheist) but in reality you (and I) and everyone is totally blind (on paper). Only God knows who sees, and who does not see.

As for your arguments rationalizing your belief in God, remember that all of your "proof" is subjective in the eyes of an atheist. Because only once you make that "leap of faith" (refer to Kierkegaard) that there is a God, are you shown "proof" of His existence. And only after God's grace has been bestowed upon you do you "see" the "signs" of His creation, in the heavens, and in yourself. But an atheist will always argue that you only "see" these "signs" because you want to see them.  Both of you, in reality are inside a Cave (refer to Plato, Republic) and both of you see the world through your respective paradigms. But you can never convince anyone that your system of belief is better via reason and rationality. Because as much as we would like to believe that our understanding is based fundamentally on reason and rationality, reason itself has been proven (by Kant) to be subjective.

In the end, God is the One who grants wisdom, we do not earn it via "rational" philosophical inquiry. How many times are we reminded in the Quran that guidance is up to God alone?


Quote
That is fine but still you beleive that all beleivers should pray 5 times ritually and im challenging that position.

Challenge all you want brother, just bring some historical evidence for your arguments. Semantics will only get you so far..  ;)


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 22, 2009, 09:00:40 AM
Peace "bigmo",

JK- This is a very far fetched claim. Was it too difficult to add the phrase "and on the 7th day" leaving absolutely no doubt. And "establishing Himself on the throne" does not equal "and he rested". The Quran confirms the true Gospel of Jesus , the true Psalms and also the true Torah and all of them are yet to be discovered.

JK- OH but it is supported by the facts. Do you have the dead sea scrolls in your hands? No. And even then theyr claimed to be different from the current OT:
I quote from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls
So the facts support that although the dead sea scrolls have been uncovered the elite is hiding crucial info from the public from them. Moreover if we compare the current OT texts with independent natural observations alot of it doesnt agree as ive clearly pointed out. This is not the case with the Quran. GOD Bless!


We don't agree on many things regrading the Koran and a similar argument can be said that the Koran could have ended these arguments by leaving no doubt but it didn't. One of the jobs of judgement day is the settling of our differences. But the Koran says we should not let those differences turn to seperation and sects. The Koran warns us not to allow differences(ikhtilaf) lead us to(tafriqa and shia'a) seperation and sects. Like the Sunni/Shia sects did or the protestant and catholics sects did.

Many of us come from Sunni/Shia background where we are not trained to handle differences. The issues the Koran feels are crucial it left no doubt(Jesus is not God) while the issue it did not feel is crucial(crucifixion) it left room for interpretation. Its part of the Hikma(wisdom) of the Koran.

3.102. O ye who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam.

103. And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah.s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

104. Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.

105. Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty,-
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 09:42:26 AM
Peace "c0de",
BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THIS PLZ GO HERE http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597936.msg196341#msg196341

Salaam JK

The link you provided doesn't make your case clear.

JK- How does the shia not recognizing any fixed times for asr and isha not make my case clear? It shows the whole concept is flawed and those people just tried to reconcile with the hadith to get five prayers in total at three times.

Quote
Once again, I never said hadith is a perfect document. I said it was a valuable historical document. And this is true, even if it has been corrupted (which we both agree it has). As for the hadith on which I base my case on, I already explained that it does not seem to contradict my reason, nor do I have any reason to reject it. And since the hadith is by definition also a historical document, I therefore have historical proof for my argument.

JK- And i say 1) hadith is not even a valid historical document because it is full of bias e.g. portrays Muhammad as a violent man and a pedohile and 2) how can a historical document be used to derive Divine injunctions moreso when GOD has already revealed a perfectly preserved Book? That just doesnt make any sense.
 
Quote
Reason is by definition subjective (and therefore flawed). Refer to Imannuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Your reasoning here is completely subjective. I personally find the hardest prayers to be fajr, and this prayer is included in the 3 prayer model as well. There are others who find Fajr and Isha both to be the hardest prayers. In any case, the point of the salat is not to make your life easy, it is to worship God, so that He will make your life easy, if He so chooses.

JK- Even in the west most people get up before sunrise because work begins at 8 and most of them prefer to take a shower and eat breakfast properly so it isnt a problem at all except for the relatively small %age who dont have work. HOWEVER im always ready to reaqson and as i said if you can bring up convincing arguments that even those are difficult then we might have to consier the whole salat=prayer issue as infact many have done on this foroum inc. Ayman who doesnt beleive salat means prayer at all. According to 9:5 at least hes got a strong point there since it makes no sense to force people, even prisoners of war, to perform ritual prayer BUT to a COMMITMENT.

Quote
Anyone who can operate a compass and has a basic understanding of land navigation and geometry should have no problem making "sense" of direction.

JK- On a spherical body you cannot face any object as soon as it disappears beyond the horizon. If you by a great twist which is not even mentioned in hadith say that the travel direction is what counts then, then there's always TWO ways you can reach the "kaaba". So now youd be forced to make a second assumption on your own i.e. take the shortest distance AND YET on a spherical planet thered be a point right opposite to the "kaaba" where EVERY direction would EQUALLY reach the "kaaba". At least at that point all arguments break down. Do you think GOD didnt know this and would issue such an absurd command? I dont think so.

Quote
And you are free to state your problem in the form of an argument.

JK- And so are you. Thats what we ought to do.

Quote
I also went through such a stage in my life. I used was affiliated with a militant-jihadi proxy of the wahhabis at one time.

JK- Yes and when i first became Quran Alone i too still upheld vehemently the five daily salat. But then i realized i couldnt really defend my position against the sunnis. They were calling me a hypocrite since all the rituals were derived from hadith AND THEY WERE RIGHT. Now i dont face such problems any more. As i said it happens step by step gradually.

Quote

You have not proved that the ritual I am following is un-Islamic. So please, refrain from attributing verses that were meant for the idolaters to your fellow Muslims... That is a very evil characteristic of the Wahhabis and other radicals. There is even a hadith warning Muslims from engaging in such low-handed tactics.

JK- How many times do i have to repeat I dont need to prove a -ve. It's like a santa beleiver asking me to prove to him that Santa doesnt exist. Cant be done. The one who makes a +ve claim has to bring the proof. You havnt proven to me by any means that 5 daily salat is what GOD wants. 2ndly I've stated so many points which make ritual prayer as coming from GOD absurd to say the least. To say it is after these arguments have been presented to one is almost like, GOD forbid, mocking GOD.

Quote
Please flip through the pages of this thread. All the verses have been quoted. And Shia, as I said, do not claim what you are claiming. They claim that those prayers can be combined. I advise you to ask a shia yourself about this to gain certainty.

JK- What is important is that shia claim that asr and isha prayers DO NOT HAVE ANY FIXED TIMES. That was my point.

Quote
Your understanding of their rituals is flawed. They combine prayers, but they do not say there are only 3. (and btw, Ismaelis are shias themselves) and the Quran aloners don't count because it is their understanding is a recent phenomenon (unless you can provide historical proof which justifies their ritual as having some foundation in the practice of the early Muslims).

JK- How do you know there wernt Quran Aloners like GA Pervaiz as a suppressed minority in the past? This is another silly argument. I can only repeat whatever is claimed in hadith as coming from GOD, be it apparently contradictory to the Quran or not, is not from GOD. If that were so then this would mean GOD actually did reveal part of His revelations unprotected in books other than the Quran for all generations. BUT this doesnt make sense. Why not include them in His protected book to save people from confusion? How do you justify that?

Quote
You clearly are not familiar with the philosophical limitations of rationality. I already suggested a monumental book which was a landmark in philosophic development above. I advise you to read it. Also, true faith is ALWAYS blind, by definition. I realized this myself only recently.

JK- If true faith is blind and not gained by studies by differnet people all voer the world independently coming to the same conclusions THEN we might just as well accerpt Jesus as God in our hearts. Infact many people have blindly done so. So tell me how come your right and theyr wrong? You havnt answered that.

Quote
It makes perfect sense (ironically enough). And this is why all religions do claim to hold the "truth". Nothing you can say will ever convince them, because they are not functioning on logic and reason. An atheist is an atheist not because his belief is based in reason but because it is based in a blind faith. Just like the you. You only think that your belief is based in reason (just like the atheist) but in reality you (and I) and everyone is totally blind (on paper). Only God knows who sees, and who does not see.

JK- Ok so then how do you know youve got the rght religion. Thats exactly my point. You just proved it. So did i get this correect then nothign i say would ever convince you either? As for myself IVE CHNAGED MY VIEWS MANY TIMES ON THIS VERY FORUM. Check this out:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13378.0

Quote
As for your arguments rationalizing your belief in God, remember that all of your "proof" is subjective in the eyes of an atheist. Because only once you make that "leap of faith" (refer to Kierkegaard) that there is a God, are you shown "proof" of His existence. And only after God's grace has been bestowed upon you do you "see" the "signs" of His creation, in the heavens, and in yourself. But an atheist will always argue that you only "see" these "signs" because you want to see them.  Both of you, in reality are inside a Cave (refer to Plato, Republic) and both of you see the world through your respective paradigms. But you can never convince anyone that your system of belief is better via reason and rationality. Because as much as we would like to believe that our understanding is based fundamentally on reason and rationality, reason itself has been proven (by Kant) to be subjective.

JK- I've discussed the proof of GOD many times on this forum too. Check this out:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597339.msg193016#msg193016 onwards
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13489.0 onwards
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13489.0 onwards

Quote
In the end, God is the One who grants wisdom, we do not earn it via "rational" philosophical inquiry. How many times are we reminded in the Quran that guidance is up to God alone?

JK- GOD has given us our brain and our senses and He wants us to use them as per 17:36.

Quote
Challenge all you want brother, just bring some historical evidence for your arguments. Semantics will only get you so far..  ;)

PeAcE


JK- Now i have and hopefully youve gone through it. Hadith is not valid history. Independent nonbiased people would laugh at such an argument. Hadith is utterly biased in favor of religious zeolots. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 09:47:17 AM
Peace "bigmo",

We don't agree on many things regrading the Koran and a similar argument can be said that the Koran could have ended these arguments by leaving no doubt but it didn't. One of the jobs of judgement day is the settling of our differences. But the Koran says we should not let those differences turn to seperation and sects. The Koran warns us not to allow differences(ikhtilaf) lead us to(tafriqa and shia'a) seperation and sects. Like the Sunni/Shia sects did or the protestant and catholics sects did.

JK- Im not dividing anyone of us into sects here. All im doing is putting forward my arguements. You can put forwasrd yours and at the end of the day people will decide for themslves which makes more sense or one of us will change his views accordingly. It's tht simple.

Quote
Many of us come from Sunni/Shia background where we are not trained to handle differences. The issues the Koran feels are crucial it left no doubt(Jesus is not God) while the issue it did not feel is crucial(crucifixion) it left room for interpretation. Its part of the Hikma(wisdom) of the Koran.

JK- Last but not least everything is interpretation. Only somethings are more clear than others and even that is relative depending on the person whos reading a certain statement.

Quote
3.102. O ye who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam.

103. And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah.s favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth Allah make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.

104. Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity.

105. Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful penalty,-


JK- As i said im not here to cause division but everyone must put forward their arguments and maybe one day we'll all agree BUT ONE THING I CAN SAY FOR SURE. No Quran Aloner is going to kill another or start a physical fight just because we cannot agree on certain interpretations on it. Even in science sceinstists disagree all the time on many issues related to a aprticular theory about it's specifics but theyd never kill each other over it like so many religions have done and still do. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 09:56:05 AM
Peace again "c0de",
Regarding your awaited historical and archaelogical evidence first you should read this(NOTE: The only thing I dont agree with in this article is the conclusion at the bottom regarding the initials whom i consider part of the wonderful numerical structure in the Quran based on no. 19):
http://www.free-minds.org/language

Here now are some good articles using the Quran to provide evidence that salat<>ritual prayer and infact not even necessarily prayer. All of them arrived at their conclusions independently. This is what brings us closer to the truth. Here they are:
http://www.free-minds.org/salat
http://www.free-minds.org/salat-Hamed
http://www.free-minds.org/understanding-salat
http://www.free-minds.org/salat_anon

GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 22, 2009, 10:37:16 AM
Peace Bigmo,

Maybe the seventh day is the Koranic equivalent of "then He settled on the throne". The problem is there seems to be a debate about the origins of OT. I think this is a weak argument. The real argument is how we interpret "confirmed". Does the Koran confirms the whole OT? Or the core theme and message is what Koran confirms and not every nittyy gritty detail? Or is everything the Koran confirmed is what is contained in the Koran itself about the OT? Maybe its a combination of the second and third.

Questioning origins of the OT and trying to establish an argument that what the Koran was talking about is not the scriptures we have today but some other scriptures that either has vanished or were corrupted after the Koran is simply not supported by the facts. Anyone who sees the verses of the Koran about the previous scriptures can know that its talking about the scriptures around today. But how we interpret confirmed is what i think we should be discussing.

I agree with you on this, bro... For G-d to send down the Torah, allow it to be corrupted, and then tell the Jews to adhere to it is completely illogical. The modern Muslims stand strongly on the concept of Qur'aanic preservation, and the Qur'aan claims that G-d will preserve it because it is the word of the Creator. That should instantly ring some alarms. If the Torah has become corrupted, even though it's the message of G-d, then what could make you think the Qur'aan is preserved? This doesn't add up. The Qur'aan emphasizes that G-d preserves His scriptures, and this includes the Torah and Injeel, not just the Qur'aan...

Regarding the concept of G-d preserving the entire "old testament" (Tanakh), it depends on the interpretation of the reader. Some people, including some Jews, consider the entire the Tanakh to be the "Written Torah". However, this is rare, especially among Jewish people, and the Torah is usually considered to contain only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The rest of the Tanakh (Prophets and Writings) are viewed as books that simply confirm and support the Torah. Interestingly, this is the same description given regarding the Injeel - it simply confirms and authenticates the Torah... The Qur'aan repeatedly emphasizes the fact that G-d sent down the Torah to the Jews, but it doesn't specify the preservation of the rest of the Hebrew Bible. In fact, the Qur'aan differentiates between the Torah and the rest of the Tanakh; the Torah and the Psalms are mentioned separately in the Qur'aan. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the Hebrew Bible wasn't considered part of the Torah that was sent down, and this concept depends on the interpretation of the reader...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 22, 2009, 11:15:09 AM
Peace bro "AB",

Peace Bigmo,

I agree with you on this, bro... For G-d to send down the Torah, allow it to be corrupted, and then tell the Jews to adhere to it is completely illogical. The modern Muslims stand strongly on the concept of Qur'aanic preservation, and the Qur'aan claims that G-d will preserve it because it is the word of the Creator. That should instantly ring some alarms. If the Torah has become corrupted, even though it's the message of G-d, then what could make you think the Qur'aan is preserved? This doesn't add up. The Qur'aan emphasizes that G-d preserves His scriptures, and this includes the Torah and Injeel, not just the Qur'aan...

JK- Theres archaelogical evidence for the oldest copies of the Quran being similar to the one today. On the other hand as ive shown some of the death sea scrolls were radical different.
I quote from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls
Quote
Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed, with the whole series, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, running to thirty-nine volumes in total. Many of the scrolls are now housed in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. According to The Oxford Companion to Archeology, "The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around 100 A.D."
Thats pt one. Second point is back when the Quran was revealed those particular Jews knew the true Torah and compared the Quran with it. Even today the religious elite amongst the Jews might be hiding away much of the dead sea scrolls because the truth could be socking to the OT readers.
 LAST BUT NOT LEAST ive shown you how the OT has glaring contradictions with natural obervations which the Quran lacks and youve still not answered my question. How can we determine whether a scripture is from GOD in the first place if a statment in there is in contradiction with natural observations made via independent reserach? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 22, 2009, 12:36:51 PM

Salaam JK


Peace "c0de",
BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THIS PLZ GO HERE http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597936.msg196341#msg196341

Why do people here keep referring to articles from this website to support their arguments? It would be like me making my own website and providing it as a scholarly source to back up my own statements.

Quote
JK- How many times do i have to repeat I dont need to prove a -ve. It's like a santa beleiver asking me to prove to him that Santa doesnt exist. Cant be done. The one who makes a +ve claim has to bring the proof. You havnt proven to me by any means that 5 daily salat is what GOD wants. 2ndly I've stated so many points which make ritual prayer as coming from GOD absurd to say the least. To say it is after these arguments have been presented to one is almost like, GOD forbid, mocking GOD.

No, that is not what I am asking. I am not asking you to prove something doesnt exist. I am asking you to prove that something (a practice) did exist: Your claiming that 3 prayers were the established ritual of the early Muslims. So you need to provide historical proof of this. Do you have any historical proof at all that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times a day?


Quote
How does the shia not recognizing any fixed times for asr and isha not make my case clear? It shows the whole concept is flawed and those people just tried to reconcile with the hadith to get five prayers in total at three times.

But the source you provided (the wiki article) doesnt say the Shia do not recognize 5 distinct prayers. And I have provided a link from a shia website in this thread which clearly says that shias recognize the 5 prayers as DISTINCT prayers with DISTINCT timings. The only difference is that they combine prayers into 3 timings (not always, but are allowed to do this for the sake of convenience).

Quote
JK- And i say 1) hadith is not even a valid historical document because it is full of bias e.g. portrays Muhammad as a violent man and a pedohile and 2) how can a historical document be used to derive Divine injunctions moreso when GOD has already revealed a perfectly preserved Book? That just doesnt make any sense.

It doesn't matter if you don't accept it as a valid historical document, because it is. It is not perfect, but it is a historical document nonetheless. Besides, I already asked you to provide your own source material which provides proof that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times.
 
Quote
JK- Even in the west most people get up before sunrise because work begins at 8 and most of them prefer to take a shower and eat breakfast properly so it isnt a problem at all except for the relatively small %age who dont have work. HOWEVER im always ready to reaqson and as i said if you can bring up convincing arguments that even those are difficult then we might have to consier the whole salat=prayer issue as infact many have done on this foroum inc. Ayman who doesnt beleive salat means prayer at all. According to 9:5 at least hes got a strong point there since it makes no sense to force people, even prisoners of war, to perform ritual prayer BUT to a COMMITMENT.


As I said, it is subjective. And if you want to question the meaning of Salat, go ahead. Just bring some actual evidence to prove that your interpretation was the same as the practice of the early Muslims.

Quote
JK- On a spherical body you cannot face any object as soon as it disappears beyond the horizon.

Yes, you can, if you convert the sphere into a grid.


 
Quote
If you by a great twist which is not even mentioned in hadith say that the travel direction is what counts then, then there's always TWO ways you can reach the "kaaba". So now youd be forced to make a second assumption on your own i.e. take the shortest distance AND YET on a spherical planet thered be a point right opposite to the "kaaba" where EVERY direction would EQUALLY reach the "kaaba". At least at that point all arguments break down. Do you think GOD didnt know this and would issue such an absurd command? I dont think so.

Wrong, there is always a shortest path between any two points on a sphere. And in some cases, there are two "shortest paths", and if you find yourself on that point of the grid, then just face any one of them you like. (common sense).

Quote
JK- Yes and when i first became Quran Alone i too still upheld vehemently the five daily salat. But then i realized i couldnt really defend my position against the sunnis. They were calling me a hypocrite since all the rituals were derived from hadith AND THEY WERE RIGHT. Now i dont face such problems any more. As i said it happens step by step gradually.

I personally do not require, nor want, any such labels associated with my beliefs. I am a Muslim, that is all I care to be.

Quote
JK- How do you know there wernt Quran Aloners like GA Pervaiz as a suppressed minority in the past?


Now you are asking me to disprove Santa.... You are now guilty of a hypocritical fallacy.

Quote
I can only repeat whatever is claimed in hadith as coming from GOD, be it apparently contradictory to the Quran or not, is not from GOD. If that were so then this would mean GOD actually did reveal part of His revelations unprotected in books other than the Quran for all generations. BUT this doesnt make sense. Why not include them in His protected book to save people from confusion? How do you justify that?

The 5 prayer ritual does not contradict the Quran in the slightest. Refer to the previous pages for the nullification of this claim.

Quote
JK- If true faith is blind and not gained by studies by differnet people all voer the world independently coming to the same conclusions THEN we might just as well accerpt Jesus as God in our hearts. Infact many people have blindly done so. So tell me how come your right and theyr wrong? You havnt answered that.

You completely missed the point of my response. You can not prove your faith to me, and I can not prove mine to you. You think you can, but I advise you to go and talk to an atheist...

Quote
JK- Ok so then how do you know youve got the rght religion. Thats exactly my point. You just proved it. So did i get this correect then nothign i say would ever convince you either? As for myself IVE CHNAGED MY VIEWS MANY TIMES ON THIS VERY FORUM. Check this out:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13378.0

You are seeing things in my posts which aren't there, a perfect example of subjective reasoning.

Quote
JK- I've discussed the proof of GOD many times on this forum too. Check this out:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597339.msg193016#msg193016 onwards
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13489.0 onwards
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13489.0 onwards

So have I, on other forums. Guess what, no atheist ever got converted... How many atheists have you converted?

Quote
JK- GOD has given us our brain and our senses and He wants us to use them as per 17:36.

Did you also notice that God has said that He controls the hearing and the sight? So those who are blind to faith, are blind because God has not granted them sight.

Quote
JK- Now i have and hopefully youve gone through it. Hadith is not valid history. Independent nonbiased people would laugh at such an argument. Hadith is utterly biased in favor of religious zeolots. GOD Bless!

Independent "nonbiased" (there is no such thing) scholars accept the hadith manuscripts as historical documents. They of course know they are not 100% accurate as the sunnis claim, but they still recognize them as containing accurate information.

I once again ask you to provide proof for your arguments. If you do not accept the hadith, then go ahead and provide any other historical document which proves that there was a time when the early Muslims used to pray 3 times a day.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 23, 2009, 03:05:08 AM
Peace "c0de",


Salaam JK


Why do people here keep referring to articles from this website to support their arguments? It would be like me making my own website and providing it as a scholarly source to back up my own statements.

JK- You should LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEREWITH REFERENCES. So what do you make of all those REFERENCED archaological findings in "aymans" article? Arnt they extremely telling? They made up the whole "jahilliyapoertry" nonsense as well as associating common nouns in the Quran with names. You can clearly see that theres no evidence of there ever being a city called mecca or a builfing called kaaba archaeologically. Can you dispute that?

Quote
No, that is not what I am asking. I am not asking you to prove something doesnt exist. I am asking you to prove that something (a practice) did exist: Your claiming that 3 prayers were the established ritual of the early Muslims. So you need to provide historical proof of this. Do you have any historical proof at all that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times a day?

JK- No im not claiming that 3 daily salat were an established "muslim" ritual. It could be but im beginning to sense that the whole salat=prayer argument doesnt make any sense after all and theres archaological evidence which supports that.

Quote
But the source you provided (the wiki article) doesnt say the Shia do not recognize 5 distinct prayers. And I have provided a link from a shia website in this thread which clearly says that shias recognize the 5 prayers as DISTINCT prayers with DISTINCT timings. The only difference is that they combine prayers into 3 timings (not always, but are allowed to do this for the sake of convenience).

JK- Isnt it strange that they acknoledge two prayers dont have fixed timings? What sense does it make for GOD to order two such prayers which dont even have defined timings whilst the Quran clearly states that salat is to be made at "fixed times".

Quote
It doesn't matter if you don't accept it as a valid historical document, because it is. It is not perfect, but it is a historical document nonetheless. Besides, I already asked you to provide your own source material which provides proof that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times.

JK- Ive provided proof that the whole salat=prayer is bunk.
 
Quote
As I said, it is subjective. And if you want to question the meaning of Salat, go ahead. Just bring some actual evidence to prove that your interpretation was the same as the practice of the early Muslims.

JK- As i said ive provided evidence now.

Quote
Yes, you can, if you convert the sphere into a grid.

JK- So what about the point opposite the claimed focal point where all directions lead to the same , thus all unity breaking down? You didnt address that.


Quote

Wrong, there is always a shortest path between any two points on a sphere. And in some cases, there are two "shortest paths", and if you find yourself on that point of the grid, then just face any one of them you like. (common sense).

JK- This is exactly the prob. If we could face anywhere we like then what sense does it make for GOD to order to face a certain physical location in the 1st place. MOREOVER your now using COMMON SENSE in salat whilst you yourself said that there can be no use of rationality in this regard. Youve just contradicted yourself.

Quote
I personally do not require, nor want, any such labels associated with my beliefs. I am a Muslim, that is all I care to be.

JK- Fair enough.
 
Quote
Now you are asking me to disprove Santa.... You are now guilty of a hypocritical fallacy.

JK- No i was clarifying my point with an example since you were asking me to prove a -ve namely that "muslims" didnt always pray 5 times.

Quote
The 5 prayer ritual does not contradict the Quran in the slightest. Refer to the previous pages for the nullification of this claim.

JK- If you bothered to read any of the articles i posted you would have known that there are so many verses where salat cannot mean prayer by any possible stretch. Please read those articles and if you find a flaw bring it here so we can discuss it.

Quote
You completely missed the point of my response. You can not prove your faith to me, and I can not prove mine to you. You think you can, but I advise you to go and talk to an atheist...

JK- I can provide evidence for my understandings and you can for yours. Then it's upto people to decide which makes more sense and either we both will stay the same or Ill accedpt your views or you mine.

Quote
You are seeing things in my posts which aren't there, a perfect example of subjective reasoning.

JK- I was making clear to you that without independent natural observations converging to the same conclusions we cannot know what is closer to the truth. Thus taking your arguments i said every religion can claim to be right and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote
So have I, on other forums. Guess what, no atheist ever got converted... How many atheists have you converted?

JK- I havnt disucssed these issues with atheists alot and many dont come to free minds or studfy the Quran at all. We can access the Quranic verses in question right here.

Quote
Did you also notice that God has said that He controls the hearing and the sight? So those who are blind to faith, are blind because God has not granted them sight.

JK- Yes but that is when one is deliberately unwilling to beleive. However i dont beleive your willingly rejecting anything or are you? neither am i.

Quote
Independent "nonbiased" (there is no such thing) scholars accept the hadith manuscripts as historical documents. They of course know they are not 100% accurate as the sunnis claim, but they still recognize them as containing accurate information.

JK- I kindly ask you to gain read "aymans" article and see if you still find the hadith acceptable as historical documents.

Quote
I once again ask you to provide proof for your arguments. If you do not accept the hadith, then go ahead and provide any other historical document which proves that there was a time when the early Muslims used to pray 3 times a day.


PeAcE


JK- I can only repeat ive provided evidence that salat<>ritual prayer at all. Now please go through those articles. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 23, 2009, 04:17:10 AM
You should LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEREWITH REFERENCES. So what do you make of all those REFERENCED archaological findings in "aymans" article? Arnt they extremely telling? They made up the whole "jahilliyapoertry" nonsense as well as associating common nouns in the Quran with names. You can clearly see that theres no evidence of there ever being a city called mecca or a builfing called kaaba archaeologically. Can you dispute that?

I think you have misunderstood the word "archeological". I took a quick look at those links and all I saw were more semantics.

Quote
No im not claiming that 3 daily salat were an established "muslim" ritual. It could be but im beginning to sense that the whole salat=prayer argument doesnt make any sense after all and theres archaological evidence which supports that.

"Archaeology" is a term which is usually (in popular usage) applied to things which have been excavated. I don't know what tombs your scholars have been excavating for their proofs here.

Quote
Isnt it strange that they acknoledge two prayers dont have fixed timings? What sense does it make for GOD to order two such prayers which dont even have defined timings whilst the Quran clearly states that salat is to be made at "fixed times".

Once again, I advise you to actually talk to a shia about this. They recognize 5 distinct times (as they recognize 5 distinct prayers). They just combine prayers because of convenience.

Quote
JK- Ive provided proof that the whole salat=prayer is bunk.

You have provided semantics, and uncertainties. "proof" would be historical evidence that the early Muslims used to "pray" randomly.
 
Quote
JK- As i said ive provided evidence now.

No, what you have done is change your argument. And you have even LESS proof for this new argument then you did for your first.

Quote
JK- So what about the point opposite the claimed focal point where all directions lead to the same , thus all unity breaking down? You didnt address that.

(that is funny)

Tell me, when a passenger aircraft takes off from JFK and lands at Heathrow, how does it land on the runway? According to your argument, it will keep going on forever because the direction goes on forever. I will tell you how it lands, because it is not making the direction of Heathrow as its destination, but the runway at Heathrow is the destination of the plane. When it reaches its destination, it has accomplished its goal, so it does not keep going in a circle forever. Common sense dictates that when you face an object on the grid, you make that object your objective, not the direction of the object itself. We are not worshiping the direction of Mecca, we are making the Kaabah a focal point for worship.


Quote
JK- This is exactly the prob. If we could face anywhere we like then what sense does it make for GOD to order to face a certain physical location in the 1st place. MOREOVER your now using COMMON SENSE in salat whilst you yourself said that there can be no use of rationality in this regard. Youve just contradicted yourself.

Ok, first of all, you have misunderstood my response. I did not say you could face anywhere you like. Please read what I said again. And secondly, I have not contradicted myself because I have not used my common sense in making Mecca the focal point of my worship. I did not come up with this idea myself.


Quote
JK- No i was clarifying my point with an example since you were asking me to prove a -ve namely that "muslims" didnt always pray 5 times.

No, that does not absolve you of a hypocritical fallacy. Because in order to support your point the example you gave was the same fallacy which you earlier accused (wrongly) me of giving you. (i.e. Argument from ignorance)

Quote
JK- If you bothered to read any of the articles i posted you would have known that there are so many verses where salat cannot mean prayer by any possible stretch. Please read those articles and if you find a flaw bring it here so we can discuss it.

I looked through those articles and I am telling you that they are just semantics. Because even the articles themselves state CLEARLY in the beginning that the word salat has "different" meanings. (i.e. multiple meanings, i.e. those meanings are not mutually exclusive). So even if their alternative meanings are valid, (which they probably are) it still does not mean that salat does not have ritual significance.

"For those who take guidance from 'al quran' ('the reading') alone, different views have emerged about the word "salat"."
http://www.free-minds.org/salat_anon

Quote
JK- I can provide evidence for my understandings and you can for yours. Then it's upto people to decide which makes more sense and either we both will stay the same or Ill accedpt your views or you mine.

You have completely contradicted yourself here. If beliefs were based in "reason" and rationality then everyone would be following the same principles because we would all arrive at the same conclusion! Tell me, why was it that the Prophet PBUH only had around 60 followers for the first 16 years of his preaching!? You think that his arguments (the Quran) lacked any "reason"?? The fact is that God decides whose heart is allowed to be opened to faith and who remains rejected... It has nothing to do with reason and rationality.

Quote
JK- I was making clear to you that without independent natural observations converging to the same conclusions we cannot know what is closer to the truth. Thus taking your arguments i said every religion can claim to be right and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Exactly! Thank you for supporting my point. The fact is that every religion DOES claim to be right, and this DOES NOT make any sense whatsoever. Does it?

Quote
JK- I havnt disucssed these issues with atheists alot and many dont come to free minds or studfy the Quran at all. We can access the Quranic verses in question right here.

Well I have. Take a look at this thread from another forum. I invite you come and join if you want:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/proof-of-god-9794.html

Keep in mind my views have changed somewhat since I made this post, as that was actually my first post on that forum last year. But I want you to notice the debate between me and the chief atheist there in the first few pages. Notice that even when his arguments were completely defeated (which happened numerous times on that forum actually) that one person in particular never gave up his position. He was banned several times, and is still on the forum today with a different name.

Quote
JK- Yes but that is when one is deliberately unwilling to beleive. However i dont beleive your willingly rejecting anything or are you? neither am i.

Consider this: Can someone choose to reject guidance if God wills that person to be guided? Of course not. That is the point, it is not up to us to accept or reject anything, it is up to God who allows us to accept, or forbids us from accepting.

Quote
JK- I kindly ask you to gain read "aymans" article and see if you still find the hadith acceptable as historical documents.

I am already aware of the inadequacies of the hadith manuscripts. But I am also aware of their value as historical documents. All historical documents are flawed (except the Quran). If we were to rely on a perfect criteria, history as a field of study would end.

Quote
JK- I can only repeat ive provided evidence that salat<>ritual prayer at all. Now please go through those articles. GOD Bless!

Then you have exchanged your weak argument, for an even weaker one.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Wakas on March 23, 2009, 04:44:13 AM
peace jk, all,

To save you some time debating with "c0de", I strongly recommend reading the first two pages of this thread. It was proven he/she makes statements without reading past discussions or bothering to check the basic Arabic.

Thus, the chances of fruitful discussion about AQ with a person like this are almost zero.



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Raj-ah on March 23, 2009, 08:11:05 AM
Salaam JK

Mr. CoDe has some unanswered questions

As you are claiming the prayers are not five so the burden of proof is on You? You should provide a historical or an otherwise proof for your claim.

When you keep on bringing the articles of ayman or others from this very site, that makes your case weak, because this is the very site which has put forward this claim.

Mr. Wakas; we donot know about the past of "CoDe" but at least in debate he is scoring well.
 
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 23, 2009, 08:27:33 AM

Wakas + Rajah


@ Wakas

The only valid objection which you made which was the plural of the word "salat". But even then I provided you with an argument against this. You did not provide any other point which has not already been answered. Remember that you were the one who left the discussion after issuing insulting comments, not I. And you have returned again in the same unsavory fashion. I remind you again that you are a moderator here and need to tone it down for the sake of the credibility of this entire website.


@ Rajah


First of all, thank you for the compliment.  :peace: Second of all, anyone who claims that the prayers are 3, has to provide the proof (that is the argument from my side). I have discussed this issue with JK via MSN, and I find the entire premise of rejecting the hadith as a valid historical document to be simply bad scholarship. Also, I was not the one who brought articles from this site, they were quoted to me as "evidence" from members here.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Wakas on March 23, 2009, 10:10:18 AM
Mr. Wakas; we donot know about the past of "CoDe" but at least in debate he is scoring well.

On the contrary, past discussion is valid as what is "past". Of course, I am using the dictionary definition of "past", you are free to use your own definition.

Quote from: c0de
The only valid objection which you made which was the plural of the word "salat". But even then I provided you with an argument against this. You did not provide any other point which has not already been answered. Remember that you were the one who left the discussion after issuing insulting comments, not I. And you have returned again in the same unsavory fashion. I remind you again that you are a moderator here and need to tone it down for the sake of the credibility of this entire website.

Can you reference these so-called "insulting comments"?

As I said, a simple look at the first two pages of this thread should suffice for the reader.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 23, 2009, 11:55:54 AM
On the contrary, past discussion is valid as what is "past". Of course, I am using the dictionary definition of "past", you are free to use your own definition.

If you feel any points of the previous discussion invalidate my arguments here, please post them on this thread.

Quote

Can you reference these so-called "insulting comments"?

This is from your last post:

"Thus, the chances of fruitful discussion about AQ with a person like this are almost zero."


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: progressive1993 on March 23, 2009, 12:21:14 PM
@ c0de:

Selam. Although the Ismailis are Shia, they do 3x Duas per day. They don't practive 5x Salaat per day.

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 23, 2009, 01:38:11 PM
@ Progressive

Salaam bro,

The reason for 3 prayers is stated as thus:

Quote
"Nizari Ismai'lis reason that it is up to the Imām of the time to designate the style and form of prayer,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili#Salah

Therefore their practice can not be used to support the idea that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times.

Also, there are even branches of Ismailis which practice 5 prayers:
"In contrast, the Mustaali (Bohra) branch of Ismailism has kept five prayers and their style is generally closely related to Twelver groups." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili#Salah

This quote also serves to prove that the Shias believe in 5 distinct prayers.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Raj-ah on March 23, 2009, 03:05:19 PM
Firstly: Salaam brother coDe; In my post I was asking JK to answer your unanswered questions. I know it is he who has brought forward the claim thus burden of proof lies with him.

Secondly: you must not be dishearted by Mr. Wakas's comments as his signature says:

Quote
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11.

Thirdly: It is very much true that almost all sects of Shia believe in 5 times prayers, it is only the timing issue and that too is not compulsory.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 24, 2009, 03:56:02 AM

@ Raj-ah

Thanx for the clarifications bro  :sun:

And I will apologize to Wakas for letting my delicate sensibilities take offense so easily  ;)


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 04:33:16 AM
Peace "rajah",

The bruden of proof is not on the ones who dont acceot rituals which is a secular standpoint. Your not born with the knowledge of rituals and no one comes to that conclusion independently. The burdern of proof is thus on the ones claiming there are a specific set of rituals ordained by GOD. Your argument is just like the Christians saying since atheist brought up the issue that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is ridiculous theyr the ones who shld proide proof that this wasnt so. Do you see the flaw? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 24, 2009, 04:37:49 AM
Peace "rajah",

The bruden of proof is not on the ones who dont acceot rituals which is a secular standpoint. Your not born with the knowledge of rituals and no one comes to that conclusion independently. The burdern of proof is thus on the ones claiming there are a specific set of rituals ordained by GOD. Your argument is just like the Christians saying since atheist brought up the issue that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is ridiculous theyr the ones who sld proide proof. Do you see the flaw? GOD Bless!

Not exactly. The 5 prayer ritual is an established practice already which is itself proof of it. Also, since all the times are listed in the Quran, and the hadith confirms this (as it is a valid historical document whether you accept it as one or not), it does have proof.

However, the alternative position which challenges this and says that there were 3 prayers, or no prayers, has not brought any historical evidence to corroborate their claims and show that the Early Muslims prayed 3 prayers instead of 5, or any number greater or less then 5 contact prayers. All you have right now is conjecture, semantics and speculation.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 04:52:54 AM
Peace "c0de",

Not exactly. The 5 prayer ritual is an established practice already which is itself proof of it. Also, since all the times are listed in the Quran, and the hadith confirms this (as it is a valid historical document whether you accept it as one or not), it does have proof.

JK- According to your argument the claim that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is an established claim too. Dont you see how flawed your pt is? Infact more people around the world beleive that Jesus died on the cross for their sins than those who claim 5 daily prayers are from GOD.

Quote
However, the alternative position which challenges this and says that there were 3 prayers, or no prayers, has not brought any historical evidence to corroborate their claims and show that the Early Muslims prayed 3 prayers instead of 5, or any number greater or less then 5 contact prayers. All you have right now is conjecture, semantics and speculation.


PeAcE

JK- From the Quran alone you can unambiguously claim 3 prayers at best. And im even questioning tht. Ritual prayer doesnt make any sense whatsoever and bro ayman can provide you with more evidence than ive already presented that those were pagan rituals. But even if he couldnt it still wouldnt prove your 5 daily salat being from GOD in any way. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 24, 2009, 05:05:48 AM
Peace "c0de",

JK- According to your argument the claim that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is an established claim too. Dont you see how flawed your pt is? Infact more people around the world beleive that Jesus died on the cross for their sins than those who claim 5 daily prayers are from GOD.

You think my point is flawed because you have not yet understood it. I never claimed that the hadith manuscripts were perfect. I claimed that they are valid historical documents (which they are). They do constitute as evidence. This is why I accept the evidence which supports my view, and reject anything which goes against the Quran and my own reason. I have that privilege. While you do not, because you do not accept the hadith at all... which basically limits your resources. You have placed these constraints on yourself, so deal with the consequences.

Quote
JK- From the Quran alone you can unambiguously claim 3 prayers at best. And im even questioning tht. Ritual prayer doesnt make any sense whatsoever and bro ayman can provide you with more evidence than ive already presented that those were pagan rituals. But even if he couldnt it still wouldnt prove your 5 daily salat being from GOD in any way. GOD Bless!

Nothing you have said has stood up to my objections on this thread, nor on our MSN chat. If you feel this Ayman can resurrect your position, please feel free to ask him to post his arguments on this thread.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 05:15:42 AM
Peace "c0de",

You think my point is flawed because you have not yet understood it. I never claimed that the hadith manuscripts were perfect. I claimed that they are valid historical documents (which they are). They do constitute as evidence. This is why I accept the evidence which supports my view, and reject anything which goes against the Quran and my own reason. I have that privilege. While you do not, because you do not accept the hadith at all... which basically limits your resources. You have placed these constraints on yourself, so deal with the consequences.

JK- You ignored my Christian example entirely. If GOD wanted us to follow rituals why put the details between imperfect scriptures? i think u said at tht pt "it's not coz of hadith but wht muslims have been practicng all along" but where did u get this tht muslims were practicng this all along? "from the hadith" so its a cear circular argument.

Quote
Nothing you have said has stood up to my objections on this thread, nor on our MSN chat. If you feel this Ayman can resurrect your position, please feel free to ask him to post his arguments on this thread.

PeAcE


JK- I guess that is for ppl to decide. I can make the same claim for you. Infact youve not proided any other evidence for your claim aept hadith whilst ayman has provided PHYSICAL inscriptins independent of hadith,this being secular, making his pt and his pts make much more sense to. So whos got the more powerful arguments? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 24, 2009, 05:29:54 AM
Peace "c0de",

JK- You ignored my Christian example entirely. If GOD wanted us to follow rituals why put the details between imperfect scriptures? i think u said at tht pt "it's not coz of hadith but wht muslims have been practicng all along" but where did u get this tht muslims were practicng this all along? "from the hadith" so its a cear circular argument.

Your Christian example is no example at all because it doesnt help you. Their view is more valid then yours because it is based in at least some evidence. While all you have is semantics. As for your second argument, you are just repeating things which have already been answered on this thread before. I am not defending the details of any ritual, I am defending the established 5 prayer ritual which has a foundation in the Quran. The details which are present in the secondary scriptures are not important to my argument.

Quote
JK- I guess that is for ppl to decide. I can make the same claim for you. Infact youve not proided any other evidence for your claim aept hadith whilst ayman has provided PHYSICAL inscriptins independent of hadith,this being secular, making his pt and his pts make much more sense to. So whos got the more powerful arguments? GOD Bless!

No you cant make the same claim to me. And I also provided a Greek Historical document which pre-dates the Quran which destroys the idea that Mecca was not a spiritual center before our Prophet. You have totally failed to respond to that as of yet.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 08:47:58 AM
Peace "c0de",

Your Christian example is no example at all because it doesnt help you. Their view is more valid then yours because it is based in at least some evidence. While all you have is semantics. As for your second argument, you are just repeating things which have already been answered on this thread before. I am not defending the details of any ritual, I am defending the established 5 prayer ritual which has a foundation in the Quran. The details which are present in the secondary scriptures are not important to my argument.

JK- Christians are in the same boat as you are. IM NOT MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM. I dont accept GOD commands rituals unless someone brings evidence. That is the point your not getting. Secondly there IS actually evidence to the contrary from inscriptions as bro ayman has provided and he will go into more detail with you. BUT even if those were not present YET YOU, NOT WE, would require a positive evidence for GOD commanding rituals.

Quote
No you cant make the same claim to me. And I also provided a Greek Historical document which pre-dates the Quran which destroys the idea that Mecca was not a spiritual center before our Prophet. You have totally failed to respond to that as of yet.

PeAcE


JK- Does it actually mention the name "mecca"? Just a description of an area and arguing that that is what the Quran implies by mecca doesnt make any sense whatsoever moreso when the root menaings of that word have nothing to do with a proper noun. Again you can debte this further with bro ayman. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 09:08:15 AM
Peace "c0de",
I noticed you saying:

Quote
The equivalent of the word "salat" in English is worship, and there is
no plural of this word in Arabic,

JK- This is WRONG. The plural of the word "salat" is "salaWAT" and it is there in the Quran itself:
Y.Ali 2:238 Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers(AS-SALAWAAT), especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before God in a devout (frame of mind).
GOD Bless!

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 24, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
@ Jonny K

I have since that post come to know of the plural is Salwaat, thank you anyway though.

Quote
JK- Christians are in the same boat as you are. IM NOT MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM. I dont accept GOD commands rituals unless someone brings evidence. That is the point your not getting. Secondly there IS actually evidence to the contrary from inscriptions as bro ayman has provided and he will go into more detail with you. BUT even if those were not present YET YOU, NOT WE, would require a positive evidence for GOD commanding rituals.


We have evidence, you just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your view. I can't help such issues.

Quote
Does it actually mention the name "mecca"? Just a description of an area and arguing that that is what the Quran implies by mecca doesnt make any sense whatsoever moreso when the root menaings of that word have nothing to do with a proper noun. Again you can debte this further with bro ayman. GOD Bless!

If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck... chances are its a duck. All the descriptions that are present in the Greek Historical record point to Mecca, and only Mecca fits the description used in the account.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 10:04:45 AM
Peace "c0de",

@ Jonny K

I have since that post come to know of the plural is Salwaat, thank you anyway though.

JK- Your welcome. So at that point did something click in your mind and you started questioning your views on ahat salat is at all?
 
Quote
We have evidence, you just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your view. I can't help such issues.

JK- You dont have evidence. Hadith is not evidence because it is A BIASED RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT ESPECIALLY WHERE RLEIGIOUS ISSUES ARE CONCERNED WHICH BASICALLY INCLUDES RITUALS. This is obvious because the dominant religious grp always wants their type of rituals to be passed on and suppresses all others. Wed require secular evidence and the one which bro Ayman provided shows there were no rituals involved at all.

Quote
If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck... chances are its a duck. All the descriptions that are present in the Greek Historical record point to Mecca, and only Mecca fits the description used in the account.
PeAcE

JK- This discussion ill leave btw u and ayman and then we'll see who presents the better evidence for his claim. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 24, 2009, 03:27:43 PM
Peace "c0de",

JK- Your welcome. So at that point did something click in your mind and you started questioning your views on ahat salat is at all?

If you read my response to Wakas, I already explained that even if the word had a plural, it wouldnt be enough. This was before I even knew the word had a plural.


Quote
JK- You dont have evidence. Hadith is not evidence because it is A BIASED RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT ESPECIALLY WHERE RLEIGIOUS ISSUES ARE CONCERNED WHICH BASICALLY INCLUDES RITUALS. This is obvious because the dominant religious grp always wants their type of rituals to be passed on and suppresses all others. Wed require secular evidence and the one which bro Ayman provided shows there were no rituals involved at all.

(lol) ... there you go denying evidence which doesnt fit your views again... The hadith is a historical document whether you believe it or not. It doesnt really matter what you say at this point anyway, since you have provided no counter evidence to support your point. All you have done is call into question the hadith, and based your entire view on the discrepancies in the hadith... but you have not actually provided any actual evidence to support your own case besides semantics and speculation. At the end of the day, this is a fact bro: You have nothing more then semantics.

Quote
JK- This discussion ill leave btw u and ayman and then we'll see who presents the better evidence for his claim. GOD Bless!

If you hold such faith in this guy's views, then you should be able to defend them yourself.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 24, 2009, 06:37:14 PM
Peace "c0de",


If you read my response to Wakas, I already explained that even if the word had a plural, it wouldnt be enough. This was before I even knew the word had a plural.

JK- Ok.

Quote
(lol) ... there you go denying evidence which doesnt fit your views again... The hadith is a historical document whether you believe it or not. It doesnt really matter what you say at this point anyway, since you have provided no counter evidence to support your point. All you have done is call into question the hadith, and based your entire view on the discrepancies in the hadith... but you have not actually provided any actual evidence to support your own case besides semantics and speculation. At the end of the day, this is a fact bro: You have nothing more then semantics.

JK- Quran can be c14 dated almost 1400 years back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur%27an#Oldest_copy_known_today
Do hadith scriptures date that much back? Find me hadith dating back even 1300 yrs to have some credibility. BESIDES one non Divine document alone cannot provide all correct info ABOUT ANY ISSUE especially if it's rituals inside relgious texts biased towards them.

Quote
If you hold such faith in this guy's views, then you should be able to defend them yourself.


PeAcE

JK- No because he knows more of the details regarding the arhcaelogical findings he provided which i already pointed out but aparently you dont give them much credit so hed be best clarifying that to you. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 24, 2009, 10:35:36 PM
Peace C0de, JK, everyone,

even the orientalist William Muir cites Diodorus Siculus (1st century Greek historian):
"there is in this country a temple greatly revered by the Arabs" (Life of Mahomet).

Their entire argument is founded on the claim that Mecca only gained religious
importance after the 7th century BCE. But this is not true. Mecca was known as
a spiritual center well before the Prophet PBUH was born, and since time immemorial.

Diodorus Siculus gives the location as somewhere between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. When one takes Diodorus comments not in isolation and without preconceptions, then this would be the magnificent and extremely revered temple at Tayma that was famous all over the ancient world and is well documented in the archeological record. It could also be the important and highly revered temple at Dumat al-Jundal that is also talked about extensively in the archeological record. Mecca is never mentioned by Diodorus Siculus or ANYONE prior to the 8th century CE. On the other hand, all sorts of towns in Arabia, even insignificant ones were mentioned and described many times by name in the archeological record. This is an indisputable fact that was already discussed on this forum and elsewhere numerous times.

C0de, all this is well established and it is besides the point anyway. What is the purpose of your emotional attachment to Mecca? Why can't you just build a stone cube on your street, stick a black stone in its corner in a vagina-shaped enclosure facing the winter sunrise, and spin around it seven times and kiss it while wearing nothing but a towel? Why would doing those crazy things suddenly be OK in Mecca but not on your street? Does the air in Mecca make them rational?

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 25, 2009, 05:26:52 AM
Jonny + Ayman

Salaam brothers


@ Jonny

Quote
JK- Quran can be c14 dated almost 1400 years back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur%27an#Oldest_copy_known_today
Do hadith scriptures date that much back? Find me hadith dating back even 1300 yrs to have some credibility. BESIDES one non Divine document alone cannot provide all correct info ABOUT ANY ISSUE especially if it's rituals inside relgious texts biased towards them.

Did I say the hadith were as valid as the Quran? But the 5 prayer ritual doesn't contradict the Quran, does it? This why the hadith which talk about the 5 prayers, AND the historical practice of this ritual confirm it.

Quote
No because he knows more of the details regarding the arhcaelogical findings he provided which i already pointed out but aparently you dont give them much credit so hed be best clarifying that to you. GOD Bless!

Check below for the errors in his findings



@ Ayman

You will see below that both of the alternative locations you have pointed to are non-starters for you:

Quote
Diodorus Siculus gives the location as somewhere between the Thamudites and the Sabeans.

Yes, here is a map highlighting that region:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Hijaz.png)


The Thamudites were located in the Northern Hejaz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meda%27in_Saleh And the Sabaeans were way down South, near the Coast. I have another map of their location which I have provided below. Now, remember that the account says the location of this temple lies "between" this region.

Quote
then this would be the magnificent and extremely revered temple at Tayma that was famous all over the ancient world and is well documented in the archeological record.

Two major problems with this hypothesis.

#1: This town was always more important to the Babylonians and the Jews then the Arabs. Here is the wiki page of the history of this town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma Do you see any reference to any ancient Arab temple?  While the Greek account clearly says that the temple it is talking about is an Arab temple.

#2: Look at the location Tayma: (zoom out)

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tayma&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B2GGGL_enCA206CA206&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

This location is Northwards and towards the East of Medinah, 400km away. It is hardly even in the Hejaz as it is on the border of the Nefd Desert. So it is not "between the Thamudites and the Sabeans." is it? As the Sabeans are located here:

(http://www.toddmiller.com/maps/Arabia/Arabia.gif)

All the way down the Western Coast near Yemen.



Quote
It could also be the important and highly revered temple at Dumat al-Jundal that is also talked about extensively in the archeological record.

This is not even an option for you as it is located in this province:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Saudi_Arabia_-_Al_Jawf_province_locator.png)

"Dumat al-Jundal (Arabic: دومة الجندل‎), is a ruined ancient city located in North Western Saudi Arabia in the Al Jawf province."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumat_Al-Jandal

Not even close to the Thamudites, let alone the Sabaeans. So no point in even discussing this option.


Quote
Mecca is never mentioned by Diodorus Siculus or ANYONE prior to the 8th century CE.

Yes it is. Mecca is the only location which fits this Greek description. You have no alternatives at this point.


Quote
C0de, all this is well established and it is besides the point anyway. What is the purpose of your emotional attachment to Mecca? Why can't you just build a stone cube on your street, stick a black stone in its corner in a vagina-shaped enclosure facing the winter sunrise, and spin around it seven times and kiss it while wearing nothing but a towel? Why would doing those crazy things suddenly be OK in Mecca but not on your street? Does the air in Mecca make them rational?

(lol) ... this rhetorical paragraph might have been really effective... if it was preceded by a valid argument.  ;)



PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 25, 2009, 08:02:33 AM
Peace "c0de",

Jonny + Ayman

Salaam brothers


@ Jonny

Did I say the hadith were as valid as the Quran? But the 5 prayer ritual doesn't contradict the Quran, does it? This why the hadith which talk about the 5 prayers, AND the historical practice of this ritual confirm it.

JK- The fly hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? The command to keep the beard and trim the mustache in hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? Why do you take one issue, rituals, and make it more important than other commands in hadith which also dont contradict the Quran? Dont you see the flaw even now?

Quote
Check below for the errors in his findings

JK- Ok ill see as the debate goes on. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 25, 2009, 08:51:23 AM
Peace "c0de",

The fly hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? The command to keep the beard and trim the mustache in hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? Why do you take one issue, rituals, and make it more important than other commands in hadith which also dont contradict the Quran? Dont you see the flaw even now?


It seems someone has a bad case of repeatidis (lol). Tell me bro, why do you keep repeating objections which have already been answered? What did I tell you the last time you raised this same objection? I take any hadith which does not contradict the Quran OR my own reason to be valid. Why? Because the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents (whether you like it or not). Only the Quran is perfect, if you started rejecting all historical documents which weren't 100% authentic or didnt have errors, there would be no way to study history! So if you want to base your argument on something, bring historical proof. You reject all the hadith? Then bring something else which proves that the Early Muslims thought that the prayers were just metaphorical, or that they only prayed 3 times in the day. But your problems dont end there. Because even if you brought such evidence (which you dont have) it would still have to be weighed against all the hadiths which contradict it, and unless you somehow prove that each and every single one of those ahadith is inauthentic, your case will still be weaker then the alternative.  But that is besides the point anyway, because for now you have no case, because you have no evidence anyway.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 25, 2009, 09:45:13 AM
Peace "c0de",

It seems someone has a bad case of repeatidis (lol).

JK- I gave another example of beard this time so no it's an extension to further make my point.

Quote
Tell me bro, why do you keep repeating objections which have already been answered? What did I tell you the last time you raised this same objection? I take any hadith which does not contradict the Quran OR my own reason to be valid.

JK- OK BRO then most secular people's REASON would immediately tell them that rituals make the least sense even less than keeping the beard which could at least serve as an attraction for females if shaped right as many do today. Rituals have absolutely ZERO secular value. People only get into those because of their reliigous dogma. Dont you see this?

Quote
Why? Because the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents (whether you like it or not). Only the Quran is perfect, if you started rejecting all historical documents which weren't 100% authentic or didnt have errors, there would be no way to study history!

JK- You may use the hadith to get the appx dates of how old people were and other secular activities. That i can still accept but NEVER regarding any Divine instructions. HOW many times do i have to make tht clear?

Quote
So if you want to base your argument on something, bring historical proof. You reject all the hadith?

JK- I reject all hadith AS BEIN DIVINE. I clearly stated that the events in some hadith are almost inevitably going to be true but how do you know which if you only look in hadith? See my point?

Quote
Then bring something else which proves that the Early Muslims thought that the prayers were just metaphorical, or that they only prayed 3 times in the day.[/b] But your problems dont end there.

JK- I told you with religious rituals hadith would be the most unreliable biased document to refer to. Secular inscriptions presented by ayman refute the rituals. AND EVEN IF most "muslims" prayed five times a day doesnt mean that they got the command of GOD right. The majority of Chrisans too beleived in the trinity.

Quote
Because even if you brought such evidence (which you dont have) it would still have to be weighed against all the hadiths which contradict it, and unless you somehow prove that each and every single one of those ahadith is inauthentic, your case will still be weaker then the alternative.  But that is besides the point anyway, because for now you have no case, because you have no evidence anyway.

PeAcE

JK- BRO it is inevitable that some hadith are going to be right. The pts to note are 1) how can we know which ones are right and which are wrong from the hadith itself 2) no hadith can be authentic in regards to additional Divine instructions for all times that are not mentioned in the Quran because why then didnt GOD put them in the Quran in the 1st palce. Got it? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Bigmo on March 25, 2009, 10:22:13 AM
It seems someone has a bad case of repeatidis (lol). Tell me bro, why do you keep repeating objections which have already been answered? What did I tell you the last time you raised this same objection? I take any hadith which does not contradict the Quran OR my own reason to be valid. Why? Because the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents (whether you like it or not). Only the Quran is perfect, if you started rejecting all historical documents which weren't 100% authentic or didnt have errors, there would be no way to study history! So if you want to base your argument on something, bring historical proof. You reject all the hadith? Then bring something else which proves that the Early Muslims thought that the prayers were just metaphorical, or that they only prayed 3 times in the day. But your problems dont end there. Because even if you brought such evidence (which you dont have) it would still have to be weighed against all the hadiths which contradict it, and unless you somehow prove that each and every single one of those ahadith is inauthentic, your case will still be weaker then the alternative.  But that is besides the point anyway, because for now you have no case, because you have no evidence anyway.

PeAcE

Some people here reject all hadiths. Others reject only those they think contradict the Koran. Some reject anything outside the Koran whatever it is. Some like me take the Koran with the previous scriptures. Some like you take the Koran and some of the hadith but not the previous scriptures. Everybody has his angle. Why do you insist your method is correct and others are wrong? These debates get nowhere. Some here pray 5 times, some pray 3 and some two and some believe prayers is not physical but spiritual. Some pray like Sunnis do but not 5, others pray very differently even if they pray 5. To each is his own. There is no one way to pray. There is no evidence to support one side from the other. Some people act like there is but there really isn't. This has been discussed here so many times but everyone reached different conclusions. But there is a pattern we can detect and that is everyone is trying to understand the Koran and understand history. The Koran is not always easy to understand and interpret and history about Muhammad is non existent except bits here and bits there and the rest is all sectarian.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 25, 2009, 12:36:55 PM
Jonny + Bigmo

Salaam brothers

@ Jonny

Peace "c0de",
 
JK- I gave another example of beard this time so no it's an extension to further make my point.

lol, are you serious? How does giving another example of the same type "further your point" when that entire argument has already been parried?

Quote
JK- OK BRO then most secular people's REASON would immediately tell them that rituals make the least sense even less than keeping the beard which could at least serve as an attraction for females if shaped right as many do today. Rituals have absolutely ZERO secular value. People only get into those because of their reliigous dogma. Dont you see this?

Completely invalid reasoning. There are so many rituals in the Quran which are TOTALLY illogical."logic" has nothing to do with it. Look at this verse from the Quran, see how many actions we are told to do which make no sense "rationally" speaking:

[2:196]* You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and`Umrah for GOD. If you are prevented, you shall send an offering, and do not resume cutting your hair until your offering has reached its destination. If you are ill, or suffering a head injury (and you must cut your hair), you shall expiate by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship. During the normal Hajj, if you break the state of Ihraam (sanctity) between `Umrah and Hajj, you shall expiate by offering an animal sacrifice. If you cannot afford it, you shall fast three days during Hajj and seven when you return home - this completes ten - provided you do not live at the Sacred Masjid. You shall observe GOD, and know that GOD is strict in enforcing retribution.

Faith is not about "reason and rationality".... this is why it is Faith.

Quote
JK- BRO it is inevitable that some hadith are going to be right. The pts to note are 1) how can we know which ones are right and which are wrong from the hadith itself 2) no hadith can be authentic in regards to additional Divine instructions for all times that are not mentioned in the Quran because why then didnt GOD put them in the Quran in the 1st palce. Got it? GOD Bless!

Exactly! The Quran already mentions the divine injunction to pray (all 5 times are listed). The hadith are only adding details. They are not adding divine injunctions.

Quote
JK- You may use the hadith to get the appx dates of how old people were and other secular activities. That i can still accept but NEVER regarding any Divine instructions. HOW many times do i have to make tht clear?

Do whatever you want... I dont care what your personal beliefs are and what you accept or reject. But this isnt about your personal beliefs, this is a DEBATE! And you cant win a debate by ignoring evidence.

Quote
JK- I reject all hadith AS BEIN DIVINE. I clearly stated that the events in some hadith are almost inevitably going to be true but how do you know which if you only look in hadith? See my point?

Your point has already been addressed... you are just repeating yourself.

Quote
JK- I told you with religious rituals hadith would be the most unreliable biased document to refer to. Secular inscriptions presented by ayman refute the rituals. AND EVEN IF most "muslims" prayed five times a day doesnt mean that they got the command of GOD right. The majority of Chrisans too beleived in the trinity.

repetition... (its getting boring now dude)



@ Bigmo


I am not the one who is attacking other people's beliefs. I am defending my beliefs against accusations of paganism. Please keep that in mind.



PeAcE



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Raj-ah on March 25, 2009, 06:52:38 PM
Salaam,

Dear J-K; your calling upon ayman on almost your every second post in this particular debate has said it all. Arguments of cOde are much stronger then yours.

Regarding your not taking Ahadith or any other Historical document as an evidence in support of 5 prayers when in contrast your have failed to bring up a single one in your support is not understandable.

Ayman?s theory is like a half boiled egg. No documentary support. He builds his whole edifice on calligraphy & inscriptions, which are lame without historical proofs. Prayers and practical prayers have been established in Jews the Bible talks about it, it talks about Kibla being a physical place and not metaphorical place. So this Kibla thing being physical is not invented by Arabs as protrayed by ayman.

The earliest dated ḥijāzī inscription was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
So therefore there was a person by the name of Umar who ruled the Arab at that time and not all these stories are fabricated as you and your friend ayman think.

Ayman?s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 25, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
Peace C0de, everyone,

Two major problems with this hypothesis.
#1: This town was always more important to the Babylonians and the Jews then the Arabs. Here is the wiki page of the history of this town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma Do you see any reference to any ancient Arab temple?  While the Greek account clearly says that the temple it is talking about is an Arab temple.

There was no such thing as Babylonians at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Babylonia ceased to exist almost 400 years earlier. The Arab Lihyanite Kingdom took it over from the fifth to the third century BC. At the time of Diodorus Siculus it was under the dominion of the Arab Nabataeans. So it was very much Arab!

This is the problem with ?Wiki archeologists?. You take information in isolation without looking at the big picture and how each piece fits with everything else we know.

#2: Look at the location Tayma: (zoom out)
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tayma&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B2GGGL_enCA206CA206&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
This location is Northwards and towards the East of Medinah, 400km away. It is hardly even in the Hejaz as it is on the border of the Nefd Desert. So it is not "between the Thamudites and the Sabeans." is it? As the Sabeans are located here:
All the way down the Western Coast near Yemen.

There was no such thing as the present region named Hejaz at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. So it being in or outside Hejaz is irrelevant. Even the map that you provided shows that the region presently named Hejaz had a different border in 1916-1923.

Also, you might want to get your eyes checked because the Google map of Tayma actually shows that it is indeed located between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. In fact, here is your map with the Google map of the location of Tayma superimposed on it and, as everyone can see, it is located exactly between the regions where the Thamudites and the Sabeans lived:

(http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/4666/arabiathasabgoogle.jpg)

This is not even an option for you as it is located in this province:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Saudi_Arabia_-_Al_Jawf_province_locator.png)
"Dumat al-Jundal (Arabic: دومة الجندل‎), is a ruined ancient city located in North Western Saudi Arabia in the Al Jawf province."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumat_Al-Jandal
Not even close to the Thamudites, let alone the Sabaeans. So no point in even discussing this option.

This is just your myopic point of view. Again, when superimposing the maps that you provided yourself, it is apparent that it is very close to the Thamudites. This is especially true given the fact that after the destruction of Thamud and by the time of Diodorus Siculus the tribes referred to as Thamudites were scattered all over north western and north Arabia and were not residing specifically in a certain town such as Hegra (Madian Saleh).

Yes it is. Mecca is the only location which fits this Greek description. You have no alternatives at this point.

Almost every town in ancient Arabia had a temple and the more important the town and the better it was situated on trade routes, the more important was its temple. It is the law of supply and demand. In fact, alleged Mecca is not even an alternative since it is completely absent from the archeological records and only appears on the scene in the 8th century CE.

Another alternative of the many available is Tabuk, which also had a temple. Around the same time as Diodorus Siculus, a Nabataean temple foundation text dated to 166 BC from Rawafa refers to a Thamudic tribal confederation operating under Roman control.

Another alternative is Al-Hegr/Madiyan which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Another alternative is Dedan which is located just south of Al-Hegr/Madiyan and which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Yet another alternative further south and closer to Sabaa is Qaryat-al-faw which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.

(lol) ... this rhetorical paragraph might have been really effective... if it was preceded by a valid argument.  ;)

The rituals are independent of the location. Doing a crazy ritual in Mecca doesn?t somehow make it logical. You really have no logical grounds to stand on with respect to the pagan rituals going on in Mecca and this is why you evade the issue. To borrow your analogy, ?if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck? or ?if it spins seven times around a stone cube like a pagan and kisses and reveres a black stone in a vagina-shaped enclosure like a pagan, and wears newborn-style wraps like a pagan, then it must be a pagan?.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 25, 2009, 07:30:40 PM
Peace "c0de",

Jonny + Bigmo

Salaam brothers

@ Jonny

lol, are you serious? How does giving another example of the same type "further your point" when that entire argument has already been parried?

JK- No it hasnt since the rituals are ultimately derived from hadith too. This point is not escapable.

Quote
Completely invalid reasoning. There are so many rituals in the Quran which are TOTALLY illogical."logic" has nothing to do with it. Look at this verse from the Quran, see how many actions we are told to do which make no sense "rationally" speaking:

[2:196]* You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and`Umrah for GOD. If you are prevented, you shall send an offering, and do not resume cutting your hair until your offering has reached its destination. If you are ill, or suffering a head injury (and you must cut your hair), you shall expiate by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship. During the normal Hajj, if you break the state of Ihraam (sanctity) between `Umrah and Hajj, you shall expiate by offering an animal sacrifice. If you cannot afford it, you shall fast three days during Hajj and seven when you return home - this completes ten - provided you do not live at the Sacred Masjid. You shall observe GOD, and know that GOD is strict in enforcing retribution.

Faith is not about "reason and rationality".... this is why it is Faith.

JK- NOW suddenly it's not about reason but yet you insisted that when somehting contradicts either the Quran or REASON, YES YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, then you wont accept it. So why are you playing the faith card here? If this interpretaion of the Quran contradicts reason you should rethink whether there isnt a more rational understanding of the verses WHICH IS EXACTLY what is the case. The above translation i a sunni translation. The verse can be translated entirely different so that thres no rituals at all.

Quote
Exactly! The Quran already mentions the divine injunction to pray (all 5 times are listed). The hadith are only adding details. They are not adding divine injunctions.

JK- ADDING DETAILS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know thoose added details are from GOD which are not in Quran? This is where it gets absurd

Quote
Do whatever you want... I dont care what your personal beliefs are and what you accept or reject. But this isnt about your personal beliefs, this is a DEBATE! And you cant win a debate by ignoring evidence.

JK- For the last time if you dont see the bias for considering the very religious document of the religion/sect which supports 5 daily salat to "prove" people prayed 5 times a day back then then i really cannot help you.

Quote
Your point has already been addressed... you are just repeating yourself.

repetition... (its getting boring now dude)

JK- I can say the same for you since your not actually addressing these points of mine but talking around them. As i said if you dont see the flaw of looking at non religious documents in order to get the details about what rituals people actually performed back in time your on the wrong track BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS DOC WANTS TO PORTRY PPL AS GOOD "BELEIVERS". Get it? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 25, 2009, 07:42:14 PM
Peace "rajah",

Salaam,

Dear J-K; your calling upon ayman on almost your every second post in this particular debate has said it all. Arguments of cOde are much stronger then yours.

JK- No his arguments are not stronger BUT I LACK SECULAR HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THIS AREA AND BRO AYMAN KNOWS IT. So only he could explain this well. If I did try to explain the historical points against a historian, as c0de clims he is, i could be making a significant no of false statements which although logically pointing to how nonsensible rituals are, could be used against me with a twist of emotion. On the other hand ayman, since hes the author of those articles and hes been reaearching the history for years, it is him whol answer the points pertaining to history and i myself will answer pertaining to reason and logic.

Quote
Regarding your not taking Ahadith or any other Historical document as an evidence in support of 5 prayers when in contrast your have failed to bring up a single one in your support is not understandable.

JK- Ive brought up a lot of evidence in support of mine. Ive explained with reason and logic why rituals dont make any sense at all and that those quranic verses dont imply rituals.

Quote
Ayman?s theory is like a half boiled egg. No documentary support. He builds his whole edifice on calligraphy & inscriptions, which are lame without historical proofs.

JK- ARE YOU SERIOUS? Secular calligraphy and inscriptions dont count as historical proof BUT HADITH DO???! It cant get any more absurd than that can it?

Quote
Prayers and practical prayers have been established in Jews the Bible talks about it, it talks about Kibla being a physical place and not metaphorical place. So this Kibla thing being physical is not invented by Arabs as protrayed by ayman.

JK- If this is true it would only show that once again the sunni/shia "muslims" took one Jewish/Christian concept and made it their own just like they did with circumcision, eve being made crooked out of the the rib of adam, dogma, death penalty for apostates as in the OT, NON of which are to be found in the Quran. So why wouldnt they adopt the physical "qiblah" conecpt too? This only makes my case stronger.

Quote
The earliest dated ḥijāzī inscription was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
So therefore there was a person by the name of Umar who ruled the Arab at that time and not all these stories are fabricated as you and your friend ayman think.

JK- I never said that all stories in hadith are fabricated but those pertaining to rituals most certainly are and ayman has provided evidece for that.

Quote
Ayman?s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.


JK- Oh common. Real Muslims dont unite because of rituals. Scientists are amongst the most peaceful groups. Yes they disagree many times over the details BUT they never kill each other because one of the scientist "apostates" from a certain theory. People have this tendency tp adopt nonsensible rituals because they think it unites them while i doesnt. Understanding the Quran with reason and logic is what should unite us here. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: thegod on March 25, 2009, 09:38:00 PM
raj-ah-Ayman’s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.

To be fair to him, it is not his theory; many years back some non-muslims fancied that muhammad would be better-off somewhere in the north of arabia.

Quote
Crone finds that Muhammad's career took place not in Mecca but hundreds of kilometers to the north.

Years later, they no longer subscribe to it for want of acceptable evidence. Then, yes, it doesn't help that it's a failed theory. :-)


ma'a salaam.

God bless all.

al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 26, 2009, 05:18:25 AM
Ayman + Jonny

@ Ayman



Quote
There was no such thing as Babylonians at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Babylonia ceased to exist almost 400 years earlier. The Arab Lihyanite Kingdom took it over from the fifth to the third century BC. At the time of Diodorus Siculus it was under the dominion of the Arab Nabataeans. So it was very much Arab!

Digging a deeper grave for your point here bro:

Did you know that Diodorus Siculus chronicled and the Nabataeans??? He was very aware of their activities and their settlements. So if this mysterious shrine was a Nabataean artifact and located at Tayma, he would have said that it was a Nabataean artifact, and would have specified its location. But he did NOT. Because it was not located in a place that was familiar to him. And this location, and this tribe which you are suggesting was VERY familiar to him:

Proof

"Classical references to the Nabataeans begin with Diodorus Siculus; they suggest that the Nabataeans' trade routes and the origins of their goods were regarded as trade secrets, and disguised in tales that should have strained outsiders' credulity. Diodorus described them as a strong tribe of some 10,000 warriors, pre-eminent among the nomads of Arabia, eschewing agriculture, fixed houses, and the use of wine, but adding to pastoral pursuits a profitable trade with the seaports in frankincense and myrrh and spices from Arabia Felix (today's Yemen), as well as a trade with Egypt in bitumen from the Dead Sea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans



Quote
There was no such thing as the present region named Hejaz at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. So it being in or outside Hejaz is irrelevant. Even the map that you provided shows that the region presently named Hejaz had a different border in 1916-1923.

Also, you might want to get your eyes checked because the Google map of Tayma actually shows that it is indeed located between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. In fact, here is your map with the Google map of the location of Tayma superimposed on it and, as everyone can see, it is located exactly between the regions where the Thamudites and the Sabeans lived:

#1: I know the "hejaz" was actually named at that time, I provided the map because it closely correlates to that area

#2: Thank you for superimposing the two maps and helping MY POINT! It is even more clear now that the point specified at Taymya is not "between" the Thamudites and the Sabaeans. It is much too Northwards almost in Nabatean territory.


Quote
This is just your myopic point of view. Again, when superimposing the maps that you provided yourself, it is apparent that it is very close to the Thamudites. This is especially true given the fact that after the destruction of Thamud and by the time of Diodorus Siculus the tribes referred to as Thamudites were scattered all over north western and north Arabia and were not residing specifically in a certain town such as Hegra (Madian Saleh).

LOL !!! The description said it was BETWEEEN the Natateaens and the Sabeaens. Not in the Thamudite Kingdom! Only Mecca fits that description, and none of the two locations you provided suffice. You have destroyed your own argument...


Quote
Almost every town in ancient Arabia had a temple and the more important the town and the better it was situated on trade routes, the more important was its temple. It is the law of supply and demand. In fact, alleged Mecca is not even an alternative since it is completely absent from the archeological records and only appears on the scene in the 8th century CE.

Another alternative of the many available is Tabuk, which also had a temple. Around the same time as Diodorus Siculus, a Nabataean temple foundation text dated to 166 BC from Rawafa refers to a Thamudic tribal confederation operating under Roman control.

Another alternative is Al-Hegr/Madiyan which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Another alternative is Dedan which is located just south of Al-Hegr/Madiyan and which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

Yet another alternative further south and closer to Sabaa is Qaryat-al-faw which is also very well documented in the archeological record.

So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.


Not a single one of these alternatives fits the bill:

Tabuk: Out of the question. Look at the location: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tabuk,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png

Mada'in Saleh: Was actually inhabbited by the Thamudites! Again, this location is much too North anyway, so it wasn't between them and the Sabeaens.

"Dedan": I suppose you mean Al-Ula (as Dedan in biblical language is a general term for Arabia). Well, this location is also near Tayma, so another non-starter. Also, this entire area was well known to the Greeks and they would have mentioned it, and its people by name.

Qaryat-al-faw: This tribe was actually part of the "Sabaean Kingdom of Ma'rib (central Yemen)", and hence inside their territory. Again, not an option for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindites Also, as you can see, their Kingdom flourished much later then the 1st century (3 centuries later in fact).


Quote
So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.

Actually, the very fact that Mecca was "invisible" confirms its identity in the Greek records. Because if they had known about this town, and if it was part of the major Kingdoms of the Area (the Nabeatens, or the Sabeaens) then the Greek Historian would have named it specifically. All the towns you have mentioned, are either in the North (Nabeatean territory), or the South (Sabeaen territory). Only Mecca falls right in between, and hence fits the description perfectly.


Quote
The rituals are independent of the location. Doing a crazy ritual in Mecca doesn?t somehow make it logical. You really have no logical grounds to stand on with respect to the pagan rituals going on in Mecca and this is why you evade the issue. To borrow your analogy, ?if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck? or ?if it spins seven times around a stone cube like a pagan and kisses and reveres a black stone in a vagina-shaped enclosure like a pagan, and wears newborn-style wraps like a pagan, then it must be a pagan?.

Before you use your "logic" to attack religious rituals (which are illogical to begin with), I suggest you try to apply it to your argument.




@ Jonny


Quote
No it hasnt since the rituals are ultimately derived from hadith too. This point is not escapable.

lol, you just don't get it do you?


Quote
NOW suddenly it's not about reason but yet you insisted that when somehting contradicts either the Quran or REASON, YES YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, then you wont accept it. So why are you playing the faith card here? If this interpretaion of the Quran contradicts reason you should rethink whether there isnt a more rational understanding of the verses WHICH IS EXACTLY what is the case. The above translation i a sunni translation. The verse can be translated entirely different so that thres no rituals at all.

err... yea. Your supposed to apply reason to rational things (like arguments)... not to irrational things (like religious rituals)...  ::)
and as for your "alternative" translations... have fun convincing anyone with semantics.  ;)


Quote
JK- ADDING DETAILS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know thoose added details are from GOD which are not in Quran? This is where it gets absurd

Adding details (i.e. method) is not the problem if the ritual is itself mentioned in the Quran.

Quote
JK- For the last time if you dont see the bias for considering the very religious document of the religion/sect which supports 5 daily salat to "prove" people prayed 5 times a day back then then i really cannot help you.

  :D bro that "religious document" is ALSO a historical document. Whether you like it or not.

Quote
I can say the same for you since your not actually addressing these points of mine but talking around them. As i said if you dont see the flaw of looking at non religious documents in order to get the details about what rituals people actually performed back in time your on the wrong track BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS DOC WANTS TO PORTRY PPL AS GOOD "BELEIVERS". Get it? GOD Bless!

... when you actually come up with an alternative historical document... let me know. Cuz this is getting quite boring.


PeAcE


p.s. ... where did I claim I was a "historian" again? You dont need to be a "historian" to see glaring errors in someone's argument. Maybe if you weren't placing so much hope and faith in the wrong people, you will see that yourself.




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 26, 2009, 06:14:50 AM
Peace "c0de",

Quote

lol, you just don't get it do you?

JK-  ???

Quote
err... yea. Your supposed to apply reason to rational things (like arguments)... not to irrational things (like religious rituals)...  ::)
and as for your "alternative" translations... have fun convincing anyone with semantics.  ;)

JK- Yeah and the rational arguments do not support rituals. Your admitting rituals are not about rationality and at the same time you claim to use rational arguments to support the rituals. your creating an oxymoron here.
Another question I'd ask is that if rituals are illogical and irrational THEN WHY WOULD GOD command us to perform them? Obviously GOD is in no need of us performing rituals so they should have an extra ordinary benfit for us. But if theyr not rational then it means they dont so it's just plain nonsense to claim GOD commands rituals.

Quote
Adding details (i.e. method) is not the problem if the ritual is itself mentioned in the Quran.

JK- But this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know those "details" are Divinely inspired and if so why didnt GOD just put them in the Quran to leave no ambiguity? This is what your not getting apparently.

Quote
  :D bro that "religious document" is ALSO a historical document. Whether you like it or not.

JK- Not usable in favor of ritual details becuase in that aspect itd be extrmely biased and other sources would be required. It seems you just dont get it do you?

Quote
... when you actually come up with an alternative historical document... let me know. Cuz this is getting quite boring.

JK- The Quran should contain all relevant details regarding Divine injunctions. As for birth dates of certain people, sure regarding that aspect you can trust hadith somewhat. I see no motive here why the religious folks would lie except in cetain specific cases. Place of birth of the Prophet would be biased too in the hadith though because of strong motive to promote some city as being holy. Get it?

Quote
p.s. ... where did I claim I was a "historian" again? You dont need to be a "historian" to see glaring errors in someone's argument. Maybe if you weren't placing so much hope and faith in the wrong people, you will see that yourself.

JK- You told me that you had a major in history. From that i assumed it. GOD Bless!


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 26, 2009, 07:07:40 AM
JK- Yeah and the rational arguments do not support rituals. Your admitting rituals are not about rationality and at the same time you claim to use rational arguments to support the rituals. your creating an oxymoron here.
Another question I'd ask is that if rituals are illogical and irrational THEN WHY WOULD GOD command us to perform them? Obviously GOD is in no need of us performing rituals so they should have an extra ordinary benfit for us. But if theyr not rational then it means they dont so it's just plain nonsense to claim GOD commands rituals.

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.

Quote
JK- But this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know those "details" are Divinely inspired and if so why didnt GOD just put them in the Quran to leave no ambiguity? This is what your not getting apparently.

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.

Quote
JK- Not usable in favor of ritual details becuase in that aspect itd be extrmely biased and other sources would be required. It seems you just dont get it do you?

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

Quote
JK- The Quran should contain all relevant details regarding Divine injunctions. As for birth dates of certain people, sure regarding that aspect you can trust hadith somewhat. I see no motive here why the religious folks would lie except in cetain specific cases. Place of birth of the Prophet would be biased too in the hadith though because of strong motive to promote some city as being holy. Get it?

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.

Quote
JK- You told me that you had a major in history. From that i assumed it. GOD Bless!

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
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 26, 2009, 10:47:51 AM
Peace C0de, everyone,

Did you know that Diodorus Siculus chronicled and the Nabataeans??? He was very aware of their activities and their settlements. So if this mysterious shrine was a Nabataean artifact and located at Tayma, he would have said that it was a Nabataean artifact, and would have specified its location. But he did NOT. Because it was not located in a place that was familiar to him. And this location, and this tribe which you are suggesting was VERY familiar to him:
Proof
"Classical references to the Nabataeans begin with Diodorus Siculus; they suggest that the Nabataeans' trade routes and the origins of their goods were regarded as trade secrets, and disguised in tales that should have strained outsiders' credulity. Diodorus described them as a strong tribe of some 10,000 warriors, pre-eminent among the nomads of Arabia, eschewing agriculture, fixed houses, and the use of wine, but adding to pastoral pursuits a profitable trade with the seaports in frankincense and myrrh and spices from Arabia Felix (today's Yemen), as well as a trade with Egypt in bitumen from the Dead Sea."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans

I see that you are not talking about Babylonians anymore LOL. Well at least you learned something new today.

I also see that are still pathetically trying to become the miracle archeologist who will somehow save his crazy pagan rituals by copying and pasting from Wiki :).

The Nabataean kingdom wasn?t actually in Tayma but was north of Tyama (just look at your sorry map). The main inhabitants of Tayma were not the Nabataeans but were Arab tribes (and Jews) who at the time acted as proxies for the Nabataeans.

#1: I know the "hejaz" was actually named at that time, I provided the map because it closely correlates to that area
#2: Thank you for superimposing the two maps and helping MY POINT! It is even more clear now that the point specified at Taymya is not "between" the Thamudites and the Sabaeans. It is much too Northwards almost in Nabatean territory.

Get your eyes checked.

LOL !!! The description said it was BETWEEEN the Natateaens and the Sabeaens. Not in the Thamudite Kingdom! Only Mecca fits that description, and none of the two locations you provided suffice. You have destroyed your own argument...

You seem to ignore that after their destruction, the Thamudites were scattered over a large area, as far north as the Negev.

Not a single one of these alternatives fits the bill:
Tabuk: Out of the question. Look at the location: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tabuk,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png
Mada'in Saleh: Was actually inhabbited by the Thamudites! Again, this location is much too North anyway, so it wasn't between them and the Sabeaens.
"Dedan": I suppose you mean Al-Ula (as Dedan in biblical language is a general term for Arabia). Well, this location is also near Tayma, so another non-starter. Also, this entire area was well known to the Greeks and they would have mentioned it, and its people by name.

Any of those towns fit much better than a NON-EXISTENT town. Tabuk fits very well and had a temple that seemed to have peaked in importance around the time of Diodorus. As for Al-hegr, the term Thamudites referred not to its inhabitants but to nomads who roamed north Arabia. Remember that the inhabitants of the town of Saleh were destroyed. Dedan fits very well too and by the way it is near of El-hegr (just south of it), not near Tayma, further evidence that you need to get your eyes checked.

Qaryat-al-faw: This tribe was actually part of the "Sabaean Kingdom of Ma'rib (central Yemen)", and hence inside their territory. Again, not an option for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindites Also, as you can see, their Kingdom flourished much later then the 1st century (3 centuries later in fact).

You can?t even read from the very Wiki link that you provided. Qaryat-al-faw is not a tribe, it is a town! There is no Wiki article on Qaryat-al-faw so no wonder you are confused. LOL

Qaryat-al-faw in central Arabia was firmly Arab and inhabited by Arab tribes (even the link that you provided confirms this). In fact, the earliest pure Old Arabic inscription is from Qaryat-al-faw. Interestingly, this inscription dates from the time of Diodorus. So it was inhabited by Arabs during his time.

Actually, the very fact that Mecca was "invisible" confirms its identity in the Greek records. Because if they had known about this town, and if it was part of the major Kingdoms of the Area (the Nabeatens, or the Sabeaens) then the Greek Historian would have named it specifically. All the towns you have mentioned, are either in the North (Nabeatean territory), or the South (Sabeaen territory). Only Mecca falls right in between, and hence fits the description perfectly.

You are obviously desperately looking for any straw to hang on to. You are doing this because you KNOW VERY WELL that Mecca is never even remotely mentioned. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever heard of Mecca or visited it. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever spun seven times around a cube and kissed and revered a black stone WHILE THE PAGAN WORSHIPPERS OF ALLAT CERTAINLY DID.

Before you use your "logic" to attack religious rituals (which are illogical to begin with), I suggest you try to apply it to your argument.

The craziness of those pagan rituals is independent of location. Pagan is as pagan does. You keep evading the issue because you know that your pagan rituals are indefensible. Frankly speaking, I don?t care about the location and I wouldn?t mind supporting Mecca even if it was built in the 8th century CE had it been a place where no partners are setup with the god.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 26, 2009, 11:30:29 AM

I see that you are not talking about Babylonians anymore LOL. Well at least you learned something new today.

I gave you the history of the city, I never said that the Babylonians existed in the 1st century. I ignored to mention it the last time because it was irrelevant to the argument as you had mistaken the referrence I made the first time. But if you want to persue it, please show me where I said the Babylonians were around by 1st century.

Quote
I also see that are still pathetically trying to become the miracle archeologist who will somehow save his crazy pagan rituals by copying and pasting from Wiki :).


Your frustrations are showing... nice. Keep it up  ;)

Quote
The Nabataean kingdom wasn?t actually in Tayma but was north of Tyama (just look at your sorry map). The main inhabitants of Tayma were not the Nabataeans but were Arab tribes (and Jews) who at the time acted as proxies for the Nabataeans.


Point Being: The area was well known to the Greek historian at 1st century. Plus, no great "arab" shrine mentioned, as the city was most likely dominated by arab >jews<

Quote
Get your eyes checked.

I would suggest the same to you, but it wouldnt help. You will go to any length to disprove the obvious.

Quote
You seem to ignore that after their destruction, the Thamudites were scattered over a large area, as far north as the Negev.

and that proves your point?

Quote
Any of those towns fit much better than a NON-EXISTENT town. Tabuk fits very well and had a temple that seemed to have peaked in importance around the time of Diodorus. As for Al-hegr, the term Thamudites referred not to its inhabitants but to nomads who roamed north Arabia. Remember that the inhabitants of the town of Saleh were destroyed. Dedan fits very well too and by the way it is near of El-hegr (just south of it), not near Tayma, further evidence that you need to get your eyes checked.

None of these towns fit. You have not dealt with the objections in the previous post. Instead, all you have done is "evaded the issue"


Quote
You can?t even read from the very Wiki link that you provided. Qaryat-al-faw is not a tribe, it is a town! There is no Wiki article on Qaryat-al-faw so no wonder you are confused. LOL

I was obviously talking about the tribe AT this location. A little trigger happy, are we?

Quote
Qaryat-al-faw in central Arabia


"central" arabia, now is it? (lol). How is the border of Yemen, "central" arabia?

Quote
In fact, the earliest pure Old Arabic inscription is from Qaryat-al-faw. Interestingly, this inscription dates from the time of Diodorus. So it was inhabited by Arabs during his time.

And they were also part of the Sabeaen territory... so I am sorry, not "between" the two locations, but part of the Sabeaens.

Quote
You are obviously desperately looking for any straw to hang on to. You are doing this because you KNOW VERY WELL that Mecca is never even remotely mentioned. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever heard of Mecca or visited it. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever spun seven times around a cube and kissed and revered a black stone WHILE THE PAGAN WORSHIPPERS OF ALLAT CERTAINLY DID.

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.

Quote
The craziness of those pagan rituals is independent of location.Pagan is as pagan does. You keep evading the issue because you know that your pagan rituals are indefensible. Frankly speaking, I don?t care about the location and I wouldn?t mind supporting Mecca even if it was built in the 8th century CE had it been a place where no partners are setup with the god.


 :whatever:



PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 26, 2009, 12:06:22 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 26, 2009, 12:07:47 PM
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
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 26, 2009, 12:53:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 26, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
Jonny + Ayman + Truthseeker

Salaam ppl

@ Jonny

Quote
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.

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

Actually, you rely on ZERO evidence.
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).

 
Quote
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.

Quote
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



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: almarh0m on March 26, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
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
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: thegod on March 26, 2009, 11:17:00 PM

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
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 27, 2009, 12:16:57 AM
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 27, 2009, 12:25:40 AM
Peace again "c0de"

You write to ayman:
Quote
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!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 27, 2009, 04:09:11 AM
@ 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.  :peace:


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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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





Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 27, 2009, 05:55:16 AM
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
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 27, 2009, 06:32:49 AM

Salaam bro

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

The fact that the details of Judaism and Islam are different, does not mean that the "system" is different. The system (monotheism) is the same. Also, you are ignoring all the things which the Jews have to do which the Muslims are exempt from (keeping the sabbath, eating seafood, and a whole long list of other restrictions placed on the Jews). This is proof that the details are not what is being referred to in this verse which you quoted.

PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 27, 2009, 10:06:47 AM
Peace everyone,

Let's assume for argument sake that al-masjid al-haraam is a physical building which encircles the Kaaba in Makkah (which it is not because many qur'aanic verses will then be contradicted as already discussed many times on this forum and these contradictions have NEVER been answered by Mr. code). The qiblah/target/focal point is clearly al-masjid al-haraam according to the qur'aan, and NOT kaaba or al-bayt al-haraam. So how can people make Kaaba their focal point during salaat while being inside the physical building of al-masjid al-haraam? Is that not a CLEAR violation of the qur'aan?

If al-masjid al-haraam is a physical building then when one is inside that physical building then the qiblah/focal point would be ANY direction. That is an indisputable physical and mathematical fact. However, when all face Kaaba while being inside al-masjid al-haraam and stand in circular lines around Kaaba while being inside al-masjid al-haraam, then they are making Kaaba their qiblah/focal point which would clearly violate the qur'aanic commandment to make ONLY al-masjid al-haraam their qiblah/focal point.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 27, 2009, 10:13:56 AM
Peace everyone,

Firstly, it is an indisputable fact that "between" two points does not mean EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE.

Secondly, If one calculates the point in the middle of where it says Nabateans and Sabeans in Mr. codes map, that point would fall north of Jeddah.

Both ways the argument of Mr. code is COMPLETELY defeated.

No further comments from me on this particular issue.
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: truthseeker11 on March 27, 2009, 10:29:17 AM
Peace everyone,

Quote
The system (monotheism) is the same.

Circling a cuboidal building 7 times, dressing the cuboidal building in black cloth, kissing a black stone, having a vulva shaped enclosure on the side of the building precisely facing the sunrise in winter solstice etc. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONOTHEISM and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PAGANISM/SETTING UP PARTNERS WITH THE GOD.

Preventing mushrikeen from visiting Kaaba (remember hajj is for entire mankind?), not allowing people to enter Kaaba, riots breaking out between sunnis and shias in Makkah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_massacre_of_Iranian_pilgrims)
CLEARLY VIOLATE THE QUR'AANIC COMMANDMENTS AND EQUIVALENT TO SETTING UP PARTNERS WITH GOD (manmade commandments and violating the peace and security, instead of following God's commandments).

The location of Kaaba is clearly given as where no partners are set up with The God (22:26)
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 27, 2009, 10:49:13 AM

Quote
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?
I'm sorry where in that verse did you draw the conclusion that abraham went to mecca or that the station was in mecca? The kaaba cannot be the "station of abraham" due to not all of mankind is even permitted to enter it....You do realize non muslims is off limits to the kaaba.

Quote
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.
Actually your referring to titles of GOD, GOD does not have a "name", he has titles. It's obvious becca isn't same as mecca because GOD would have said Mecca if he meant mecca, let's be serious. If you are going to florida, will you tell me your going to europe and expect me to know that you mean your going to florida? Theres nothing in the quran that can draw a connection that will give you the idea becca means mecca, this is sunni reasoning with their hadith. Actually there is no archeological reference that have shown mecca was once called "becca", if so please show it

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 27, 2009, 11:25:20 AM
Peace "c0de",

Quote
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.

JK- But this is exactly the point. There are alternative interpretations of the Quran which show it doesnt even talk about rituals in the verses sunnis/shias like to point out they do. The evidence that they dont lies in the fact that people independently using the root meaning of arabic terms in a classical arabic lexicon plus taking into account context and grammar WITHIN THE QURAN came up with. This is the highest possibnle evidence there can be to understand the Quran. Then there is Ayman presenting historical evidence here and ill see how the debate goes.

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

JK- Let the people on the forum decide whos points make more sense. Even Ayman came to the conclusion that you are asking us to prove a -ve. Remember when i told you that in our chat?

Quote
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.

JK- Even if you understand "salat" as ritual prayer and "sujood" and "Rukoo" as physical prostration, for which verses cn be shown that they dont actually but that aside, the Quran does NOT say how many times to do those in each "salat". SO do you beleive that someone who calls him/herself muslim, prays five times a day BUT prstartes and bows a random no of times is not doing anything against your faith or could potentially get the same reward from GOD? Also do you beleive that GOD inspired the format 24434 rakats with all its no of rukoos and sujood? GOD Bless!


Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 27, 2009, 11:38:37 AM
Peace "c0de",

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

JK- Which scientific community has well established that the Quranic verses talking about salat,zakat,hajj, masjidul haram, kaaba refer to part of the ritualistic features as currently accepted by the majority of "Muslims"? The answer is NONE. On the other hand independent reserachers from all over includeing "truthseeker", "ayman", "aalmakto", myself and others have clearly provided evidence both fromt the Quran and historically that these rituals are pagan in origin and that the Quranic terms associated with them mean something else. Just because a certain majority of people in the past associated certain Quranic terms with certain meanings does NOT make them correct. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 27, 2009, 03:58:56 PM
Peace "c0de",

The fact that the details of Judaism and Islam are different, does not mean that the "system" is different. The system (monotheism) is the same. Also, you are ignoring all the things which the Jews have to do which the Muslims are exempt from (keeping the sabbath, eating seafood, and a whole long list of other restrictions placed on the Jews). This is proof that the details are not what is being referred to in this verse which you quoted.

The system is the same, and this INCLUDES monotheism (tawheed). However, our system includes much more than simply "monotheism". If all we needed to do was be monotheists, then what's the purpose of the Qur'aan or the Torah? They'd simply say, "Be monotheists." That would pretty much sum up everything, wouldn't it?

The scriptures tell us to follow the same system ("deen") given to the other prophets, which definately includes monotheism. However, later, we are instructed to follow the religion of Abraham ("millatu Ibraheem"), and this emphasizes the fact that we must be more than monotheists. We have to follow certain rites and rituals in our worship of G-d. This same system was taught to the Jews through the Torah, Tanakh, and Injeel...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 28, 2009, 08:21:48 AM
Peace C0de,

So I am "desperate" now am I? (lol)

Yes.

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? 


"Between" A and B doesn't mean precisely in the middle, especially if points A and B are vaguely defined.

And how about calling the border of Yemen "central Arabia" (lol).

Show where I say anything about the border of Yemen. Qaryat Al-Faw is in Central Arabia and not in Yemen or on the border. But of course since you are starting from a certain preconception and working backwards to desperetly justify it, then you can make the border as thick as a few hundered kilometers. Therefore there is no point in arguing with you on geography.

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.

Because Diodorus was talking about a temple and not a town. As I said, he didn't mention many things, far more than what he mentioned. His accounts are very fragmentary. I also see that you still didn't get your eyes checked because Dedan is next to Hegra (just south of it) not Tayma.

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

As I said, he wasn't talking about the cities but about a temple. The temple sometimes was not even located in the city. For example, the temple of Tabuk was located far from the town to the south. Many of Diodorus accounts are general descriptions. In fact, he never went to Arabia.

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).

Pagan temples rise and fall in importance over time. Since this temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus then it must be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time. For example, the Tabuk temple seems to have peaked in importance around that time as the Nabatean inscription that I earlier referred to implies.

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

Your proof that Mecca existed because it was not mentioned by Diodorus is ridiculous. Even if what you are saying was remotely possible then there were many small towns in Central Arabia not mentioned by Diodorus or well known by the Greeks and whose any of their temples could have peaked in importance during Diodorus's time. The only reason that you see this as proof is that you are starting from a preconception about Mecca and working backwards to desperetly justify it.

Yea, thats right... there was a big conspiracy and everyone decided to make the Mecca the focal point of worship... 

No need for conspiracy. It is human nature. All previous nations reverted to their misguided ways after the death of their prophet. To claim that Arabs are somehow wiser than all other nations is nothing but arrogant denial.

And all Muslims who bow to Mecca are pagan idiots... (lol)

Yes.

While you of course, are the enlightened prophet who has discovered the truth.
Have fun with your delusions.

Peace.

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 28, 2009, 11:09:54 AM

Salaam Brothers! I hope you are all doing well


Instead of answering the posts in chronological order, I will refer to Ayman's argument first as our discussion began before the secondary debate started. But all of your concerns are addressed in this single post.  :)



@ Ayman


Before I begin answering your objections I will like to add to your troubles: I noticed that your argument is mostly based on the single point that Diodorus does not mention Mecca by name. Well, I will simply give you an account of Mecca being mentioned by name. I am sure you are already aware that the name "Kaaba" comes from the word "muka'ab" meaning "cube". And I am sure you are also aware that historians have uncovered a reference to Mecca as being mentioned by Ptolemy as "Macoraba" in the 2nd century AD (so only a century after Diodorus, but still much earlier then the arrival of the Prophet).

Your entire argument though (as pointed out by another member, earlier in this thread) is based on objections raised by Patricia Cone and Michael Cook. Both of these anti-Islamic Orientalists have floated the idea that this reference by Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca at all. And this is what you will invariably build your case on. But before you do, I will point out to you that Patricia Cone's views have been summarily dismissed by the scholarly community. Here are some quotes referring to their arguments:

R. B. Sergeant states that "[Crone and Cook's thesis]? is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ?leg pull?, pure ?spoof?." Sergeant, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1981, p. 210

"[their theories have] been almost universally rejected" David Waines, Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous." van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, Sep 8 1978, p. 998

And in case you are wondering, it took very little effort to uncover this dirt on Cone and Cook... apparently, they are somewhat of a joke in scholarly circles studying in this field. Their anti-Islamic agenda is so obvious that it would be very amusing if you actually try to defend their thesis or by linking your own views with theirs.

Now, moving on to your previous post:

Quote
"Between" A and B doesn't mean precisely in the middle, especially if points A and B are vaguely defined.

Tabuk and Dummat-al-Jandal are not "between" the two points listed by Diodorus, by any stretch of the imagination. Sabeaen territory is not "generally defined" it is located all the way down by Yemen.

Quote
Show where I say anything about the border of Yemen. Qaryat Al-Faw is in Central Arabia

No, at best it is in South-Central Arabia. But stretching the directions will not help in this case anyway because this location was actually part of Sabeaen territory, so (again) obviously not in "between" Sabeaen and Nabeanites, if it is part of one of them is it?

Quote
Because Diodorus was talking about a temple and not a town. As I said, he didn't mention many things, far more than what he mentioned. His accounts are very fragmentary.

--

As I said, he wasn't talking about the cities but about a temple. The temple sometimes was not even located in the city. For example, the temple of Tabuk was located far from the town to the south. Many of Diodorus accounts are general descriptions. In fact, he never went to Arabia.
 

Do you realize that you have just cemented my case and destroyed your own? By arguing that the location of the temple mentioned by Diodorus was (according to you) not located inside a "well documented city" you have carelessly abandoned Tayma as a possible site (because the temple in Tayma was inside the city). And this was your most promising candidate because of its central location! Much more so then Tabuk which, as stated above, is not even close to being anywhere "in between". Don't feel too bad though, because Tayma's hope was already lost anyway, as it was so "well documented" and still, somehow not mentioned by name...

Thanks again.

Quote
I also see that you still didn't get your eyes checked because Dedan is next to Hegra (just south of it) not Tayma.

Dedan (Al-Ula) is only 40 miles South-West of Tayma... (and spare me the dramatics, thank you).

Quote
Pagan temples rise and fall in importance over time. Since this temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus then it must be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time.

Circumstantial speculation...

Quote
Your proof that Mecca existed because it was not mentioned by Diodorus is ridiculous. Even if what you are saying was remotely possible then there were many small towns in Central Arabia not mentioned by Diodorus or well known by the Greeks and whose any of their temples could have peaked in importance during Diodorus's time. The only reason that you see this as proof is that you are starting from a preconception about Mecca and working backwards to desperetly justify it.

Oh don't worry about that bro... a direct reference to Mecca has already been provided. The Diodorus account just cements the case, as none of the alternatives you provided fit the bill.

Quote
No need for conspiracy. It is human nature. All previous nations reverted to their misguided ways after the death of their prophet. To claim that Arabs are somehow wiser than all other nations is nothing but arrogant denial.

I am well aware of the Weberian thesis you are presenting and I recognize its accuracy. The Muslims are misguided, but this doesnt help you make a case for this particular point.



@ Truthseeker
 
Before we begin, examine this verse: "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day..." 9.019

Does this sound like a metaphorical place to you? Would you be able to "maintain" a metaphor? Or provide "drinks" to pilgrims circling a metaphor?

Quote
Let's assume for argument sake that al-masjid al-haraam is a physical building which encircles the Kaaba in Makkah (which it is not because many qur'aanic verses will then be contradicted as already discussed many times on this forum and these contradictions have NEVER been answered by Mr. code).


Excuse me, but when did I refuse to answer anything by you (or anyone)? Let me remind you Mr. Truthseeker, you left the discussion numerous times, abandoning your own arguments in this very thread. You still have issues pending in the previous pages of this thread. I suggest that you scroll through the pages and see all of your objections have been answered (and refuted) and start with defending those first.

Quote
However, when all face Kaaba while being inside al-masjid al-haraam and stand in circular lines around Kaaba while being inside al-masjid al-haraam, then they are making Kaaba their qiblah/focal point which would clearly violate the qur'aanic commandment to make ONLY al-masjid al-haraam their qiblah/focal point.

"Allah has made the Kaaba, the sacred house... " 5.097

This puts an end to your distinctions.

Quote
If al-masjid al-haraam is a physical building then when one is inside that physical building then the qiblah/focal point would be ANY direction. That is an indisputable physical and mathematical fact.

No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah, as it is itself the actual "Sacred House" set up by Abraham PBUH.

Quote
Circling a cuboidal building 7 times, dressing the cuboidal building in black cloth, kissing a black stone, having a vulva shaped enclosure on the side of the building precisely facing the sunrise in winter solstice etc. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONOTHEISM and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PAGANISM/SETTING UP PARTNERS WITH THE GOD.

Has any Muslim ever actually prayed to the black stone? No. So it is not idolatry. And circling the Kabah is a ritual started since the time of Abraham PBUH. So I could very easily claim that the pagans were imitating an ancient practice commanded by God. Also, accusing your fellow Muslims of pagan idolatry is inadvisable. I warned you about making such careless comments before.

Quote
Preventing mushrikeen from visiting Kaaba (remember hajj is for entire mankind?), not allowing people to enter Kaaba, riots breaking out between sunnis and shias in Makkah

Wrong. The hajj is not for the "entire mankind". It is for those who want to worship God alone, as that was the reason for its creation:

Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). 2.125

And when taken together this with this verse: "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque..." 9.028

It becomes clear that the limitation was placed on the pagans specifically (those who pray to others besides Allah). Everyone who wants to worship Allah is still allowed to visit the Kabbah by God. The additional restrictions and actions of the wahhabi authorities can not be used as a case to support your argument because that is an argument against the wahhabis themselves.



@ Real Truth

Quote
I'm sorry where in that verse did you draw the conclusion that abraham went to mecca or that the station was in mecca? The kaaba cannot be the "station of abraham" due to not all of mankind is even permitted to enter it....You do realize non muslims is off limits to the kaaba.

See above brother. The house was clearly set up for the worship of God alone. Why would God tell Abraham PBUH to set up a house for the worship of idols? Or those who would worship idols?

Quote
Actually your referring to titles of GOD, GOD does not have a "name", he has titles.

Bro, the words "title" and "name" are synonyms of each other:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/title?r=76


@ Jonny


Quote
There are alternative interpretations of the Quran which show it doesnt even talk about rituals

Bro, whatever definition of the words: "cut your hair" may be, at the end of the day, the command is to "cut your hair"... And therefore, this action is irrational.

Quote
Even Ayman came to the conclusion that you are asking us to prove a -ve.

Seems you are paying attention only to what he is saying.

Quote
SO do you beleive that someone who calls him/herself muslim, prays five times a day BUT prstartes and bows a random no of times is not doing anything against your faith or could potentially get the same reward from GOD?

How would I know? But even more importantly, why should I care?

Quote
Also do you beleive that GOD inspired the format 24434 rakats with all its no of rukoos and sujood?

I have no reason to suspect this practice, as you have not provided any evidence to support any other format.

Quote
Which scientific community has well established that the Quranic verses talking about salat,zakat,hajj, masjidul haram, kaaba refer to part of the ritualistic features as currently accepted by the majority of "Muslims"? The answer is NONE

"scientific community" ??? Why would a "scientific community" be interested in such a discussion?
Bro I asked you, which credible historian would deny that the the hadith are valid pieces of historical evidence? You have not yet answered this question.


Quote
On the other hand independent reserachers from all over includeing "truthseeker", "ayman", "aalmakto", myself and others have clearly provided evidence both fromt the Quran and historically that these rituals are pagan in origin

No, you all have presented invalid arguments and semantics.



@ Ahmed Bilal


Quote
The system is the same, and this INCLUDES monotheism (tawheed). However, our system includes much more than simply "monotheism".

Actually, the Jews have many more (and much more complex) commandments then us. According to your argument, should we all start keeping the Sabbath?

Quote
The scriptures tell us to follow the same system ("deen") given to the other prophets, which definately includes monotheism. However, later, we are instructed to follow the religion of Abraham ("millatu Ibraheem"), and this emphasizes the fact that we must be more than monotheists. We have to follow certain rites and rituals in our worship of G-d. This same system was taught to the Jews through the Torah, Tanakh, and Injeel...

err... this doesn't actually answer the objection to your argument bud.  :confused:



PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: progressive1993 on March 28, 2009, 04:09:59 PM
@ c0de

The "from" and the "until" in 17:78 state the time frame in which the "Isha" prayer is to be prayed. The "liduluki shamsi" means the rubbing (at the horizon) of the sun, or simply the the setting the sun. It does not mean "from when the sun has passed its zenith". it simply says from "liduluki shamsi" until "gasaki layl"(darkness of the night). The Quranic isha prayer is frm the end of sunset when the sun is "rubbing" against the earth until darkness at night. for more info check out my post on the topic "my opionion/response on 3 salaat" (or smthn like that).


Wakas + Bigmo


@ Wakas


If there were only 3 times of the contact prayers, then the words "from"
and "until" would not need to be used. As the three times are already
mentioned in that verse.


@ Bigmo

But that is not what the verse is saying. It is not saying that all believers
have their own fixed times. It is clearly saying that the times for the prayers
are themselves fixed.

Also, you have not yet provided any proof that the practice of 5 daily prayers
at their stated times was ever any different then it is today. Unless you provide
evidence for this, you do not really have a case.



PeAcE 
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 01:00:31 AM
Peace "c0de",

Quote
Bro, whatever definition of the words: "cut your hair" may be, at the end of the day, the command is to "cut your hair"... And therefore, this action is irrational.

JK- I havnt figured out the exact meaning of that phrase and hence will not be hasty to claim that is what it means. It could mean many things besides this and needs to be analysed carefully. That is excatly my point. If an injuction is irrational it cannot be Divine.

Quote
Seems you are paying attention only to what he is saying.

JK- No im reading both sides and it did appear so to me. He pointed out that there were many small "invisible" temples back then and it doesnt necessarily lead back to what today is called "kaaba". You need to be prejudiced to beleive that otherwise the area IN BETWEEN is huge. So now your claim is that we should show it is NOT the kaaba what is meant to be in between that area thus asking us to prove a -ve once more.

Quote
How would I know? But even more importantly, why should I care?

JK- If not the second part you should at least be able to answer whether this would go against YOUR OWN FAITH or what what YOU THINK the salat should be like. So i ask you onc more Do YOU think that someone who prays five times a day bowing and prostaring a random no of times though is not doing anything wrong IYO?

Quote
I have no reason to suspect this practice, as you have not provided any evidence to support any other format.

JK- Again your asking for a -ve. How do you know GOD inspired 24434 in the first place? OR do you accept that some of GOD's inspirations indeed are in present in hadith which have been left out of the Quran?

Quote
"scientific community" ??? Why would a "scientific community" be interested in such a discussion?
Bro I asked you, which credible historian would deny that the the hadith are valid pieces of historical evidence? You have not yet answered this question.

JK- Historians ARE part of the scientific community as long as they use the scientific method to analyse historical artifiacts and writings. 2ndly i didnt say all of hadith were unreliable as history. If you go back i clearly pointed out that the dates of birth of certain people and even Muhammad could potentially be correct as i can see no motive for such to be played with. HOWEVER whatever those same hadth mention in regard to rituals is very likely to be biased in favor of the pagans living at that time. Infact if you analyse the hadith it contains much of the same nonsense found in the OT Bible as well e.g. circumcision for males, stoning for adulteers, killing of homosexuals apostates NONE of which are found in the Quran. Same would go for this five time salat 24434 rakat ritual adapted from pagan religions.

Quote
No, you all have presented invalid arguments and semantics.

JK- Oh have i? Well i guess thats for the people to judge whor reading our posts. GOD Bless!



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 29, 2009, 01:08:21 AM
Peace "c0de",

Actually, the Jews have many more (and much more complex) commandments then us. According to your argument, should we all start keeping the Sabbath?

What commandments in the Torah conflict with the teachings in the Qur'aan? And where in the Qur'aan are we instructed NOT to keep the shabbat?

err... this doesn't actually answer the objection to your argument bud.  :confused:

Actually, my argument is very sound. According to the Torah, the Jews also learn the religion of Abraham. And based on the Qur'aan, this includes religious rituals, such as prayer. So, this means that, based on the scriptures, the prayers of the Jews (in the Torah) and Muslims (in the Qur'aan) should be the same, or at least very similar...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 02:19:16 AM
Peace bro "AB",

Peace "c0de",

What commandments in the Torah conflict with the teachings in the Qur'aan? And where in the Qur'aan are we instructed NOT to keep the shabbat?

JK- I your talking about the real Torah which the Jewish elites probably hiding then ofcourse NO commandments would conflict with the Quran although the Quran states that some commandments were ONLY LOCALLY for certain people at a certain time. The sabbath is one such:
[16:124]  The Sabbath was decreed only for those who ended up disputing it (Jews & Christians). Your Lord is the One who will judge them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disputes.

As for the false "torah" we as common people have access to only today there are alot of conflicts especially the supposed order of GOD to kill apostates is extremely dangerous and as ive explained before will only lead people to kill themslves over ever small differences particularly in the time back then when modern ways of acquiring evidence were lacking.

Quote
Actually, my argument is very sound. According to the Torah, the Jews also learn the religion of Abraham. And based on the Qur'aan, this includes religious rituals, such as prayer. So, this means that, based on the scriptures, the prayers of the Jews (in the Torah) and Muslims (in the Qur'aan) should be the same, or at least very similar...

Peace,

Ahmad

JK- That COULD BE a valid argument however i myself am finding less and less reason to accept salat meaning rituals prayers at all. The Quranic verses pointed out by various freeminders have clearly shown in their respective contexts that salat means comittment and not ritual prayer. Plus if ayman succeeds in this debate IMU then it would only confirm this thesis even more for myself and many others here as well. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 29, 2009, 05:13:51 AM
Progressive + Ahmed + Jonny

Salaam all

@ Progressive

Quote
The "from" and the "until" in 17:78 state the time frame in which the "Isha" prayer is to be prayed. The "liduluki shamsi" means the rubbing (at the horizon) of the sun, or simply the the setting the sun. It does not mean "from when the sun has passed its zenith". it simply says from "liduluki shamsi" until "gasaki layl"(darkness of the night). The Quranic isha prayer is frm the end of sunset when the sun is "rubbing" against the earth until darkness at night. for more info check out my post on the topic "my opionion/response on 3 salaat" (or smthn like that).

Thanks for that bro. I tried looking for your thread, it is not in the first few pages of this section of the forum and didn't see it.  ???





@ Jonny

Quote
I havnt figured out the exact meaning of that phrase and hence will not be hasty to claim that is what it means. It could mean many things besides this and needs to be analysed carefully. That is excatly my point. If an injuction is irrational it cannot be Divine.

Bro, do me a favor: I ask you (sincerely) to please go and talk to any philosophy professor at any local university. Just make an appointment with him and go and ask him if religious injunctions can be considered "rational". And then ask him if religion itself can be defended via rationality. Do that and come back and tell me what you learned.

Quote
So now your claim is that we should show it is NOT the kaaba what is meant to be in between that area thus asking us to prove a -ve once more.

Again, a misconception and a misreading. I asked him to prove any location other then Mecca as fulfilling the requirements of Diodorus. That is not asking to prove a negative assertion. Besides, we already know through Ptolemy that it was Mecca, as he mentions it by name.

Quote
Do YOU think that someone who prays five times a day bowing and prostaring a random no of times though is not doing anything wrong IYO?

okay... what part of "I dont care" do you not understand bro? It is between that person and his God. I have to worry about doing what I think is right. This is why I dont care to argue over the details. You want me to answer a question which I consider of no importance.

Quote
Again your asking for a -ve. How do you know GOD inspired 24434 in the first place? OR do you accept that some of GOD's inspirations indeed are in present in hadith which have been left out of the Quran?

Actually, you are just claiming that I am asking for a negative assertion, because you hope that this will allow you an excuse not to answer my objection  or provide evidence for your own view. I asked you to prove any other format you want. That is not asking you to prove a negative, but the exact opposite. The fact that you dont have any evidence, do you?

Quote
Historians ARE part of the scientific community


And what credible Historian do you know who would say hadith do not qualify as historical documents?

Quote
HOWEVER whatever those same hadth mention in regard to rituals is very likely to be biased in favor of the pagans living at that time.


Circumstantial evidence. You are speculating, just like Ayman.

Quote
Infact if you analyse the hadith it contains much of the same nonsense found in the OT Bible as well e.g. circumcision for males, stoning for adulteers, killing of homosexuals apostates NONE of which are found in the Quran.


Whatever contradicts the Quran is not part of Islam. There are hadiths that directly contradict the Quran. But even those are still historical evidence. We only reject them because our faith is in the superiority of the Quran, not because they are not historical documents. That is the point.

Quote
Same would go for this five time salat 24434 rakat ritual adapted from pagan religions.

No, this ritual does not contradict the Quran. So you can not apply that criticism here. Your assertion that this is a pagan ritual is unfounded and based in an orientalist anti-islamic rhetorical argument that has been used by bigots against Islam. Keep that in mind.

Quote
Oh have i? Well i guess thats for the people to judge whor reading our posts

 ::) Just go and make that appointment with a Philosophy professor. And while you are at it, make an appointment with a professor in the history or theology department as well. It is obvious you will not listen to me, maybe you will listen to others who will tell you to your face your errors.





@ Ahmed

Quote
What commandments in the Torah conflict with the teachings in the Qur'aan? And where in the Qur'aan are we instructed NOT to keep the shabbat?

wait... So you actually keep the "shabbat"?  :o lol

Quote
Actually, my argument is very sound.

Bro, your argument was shattered long ago when you failed to defend all the inconsistencies between the Torah and the Quranic accounts of the same stories. You failed to respond to any of those objections and instead retreated from the discussion. If you want to prove your case, I suggest you start by first answering those objections. You already know where to find them.




PeAcE









Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 29, 2009, 08:27:04 AM
Peace Jonny_K,

JK- I your talking about the real Torah which the Jewish elites probably hiding then ofcourse NO commandments would conflict with the Quran although the Quran states that some commandments were ONLY LOCALLY for certain people at a certain time. The sabbath is one such:
[16:124]  The Sabbath was decreed only for those who ended up disputing it (Jews & Christians). Your Lord is the One who will judge them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disputes.

The Qur'aan never says that the shabbat was decreed "only" for the Jews and Christians. In fact, here's what the passage actually says:

But the Shabbat was placed on those who disputed in it, and indeed your L-rd judges between them, on the day of judgement, in what they were disputing. (16:124)

That passage is immediately followed by this:

Call to the way of your L-rd with wisdom and good advice, and dispute with them with which is best, that your L-rd He is more knowledgeable of who strayed from His way. And He is more knowledgeable of the guided. (16:125)

Now, this tells us that there are people who dispute concerning the shabbat. However, it does NOT say that this is referring to the Jews and Christians. In fact, directly afterwards, we are told to call/invite others to the path of G-d through disputing, the same thing warranted in 16:124. So, obviously, we are supposed to dispute with others concerning the shabbat, in hopes of leading them to the true path. The passage directly before that one (16:123) tells us to follow the religion of Abraham, which, based on the context of the verse that follows it, obviously includes adhering to the shabbat... Also, the followers of Torah don't dispute on WHETHER OR NOT THEY MUST OBSERVE SHABBAT. They dispute regarding it's transgression; some of them have very tough rules concerning it, while others are very lax in their observance of it. This is the only dispute concerning the shabbat among the Jews, not it's actual observance. In fact, observance of the shabbat is part of the "ten commandments", which represent the most important of the Jewish laws. There's no question concerning this...

As for the false "torah" we as common people have access to only today there are alot of conflicts especially the supposed order of GOD to kill apostates is extremely dangerous and as ive explained before will only lead people to kill themslves over ever small differences particularly in the time back then when modern ways of acquiring evidence were lacking.

When did G-d order the Jews to kill all apostates?! Even Jewish scholars agree with many of these passages being allegorical, meaning they must remove apostates from Jewish communities and societies... How many modern Jewish communities have you heard of that murder apostates? NONE. How many modern Islaamic communities murder apostates? PLENTY.

JK- That COULD BE a valid argument however i myself am finding less and less reason to accept salat meaning rituals prayers at all. The Quranic verses pointed out by various freeminders have clearly shown in their respective contexts that salat means comittment and not ritual prayer. Plus if ayman succeeds in this debate IMU then it would only confirm this thesis even more for myself and many others here as well.

Okay, perhaps this is true. The word "salaat" could, based on the context of certain passages, refer to commitments. However, this would imply that we're supposed to "keep" the same commitments that the Jews preserve, such as monotheism, prayer, purity, charity, and even "circumcision" (which the Qur'aan doesn't even mention at all)... Also, if this was the "only" meaning for salaat, then what is the morning commitment, or the evening commitment? What is the night commitment? This meaning for "salaat" wouldn't fit in these contexts. And if we fuse this with preceding commitments (concerning the Jews and Nazarenes), their commitment includes morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. So, either way, we'd be led to the same conclusion...

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 09:23:15 AM
Peace "c0de",

Quote
Bro, do me a favor: I ask you (sincerely) to please go and talk to any philosophy professor at any local university. Just make an appointment with him and go and ask him if religious injunctions can be considered "rational". And then ask him if religion itself can be defended via rationality. Do that and come back and tell me what you learned.

JK- Lets assume some of them say there could be rationa arguments to support rituals, which are irrational, as coming from GOD. This would not make any sense to me. It would create a paradox in my mind. My qustion now is: Why would GOD command us to do something which has no benefit for us?

Quote
Again, a misconception and a misreading. I asked him to prove any location other then Mecca as fulfilling the requirements of Diodorus. That is not asking to prove a negative assertion. Besides, we already know through Ptolemy that it was Mecca, as he mentions it by name.

JK- Well Ayman made it clear there were many "invisible" temples. Was the "kaaba" in "mecca" the only invisible temple in that area on the map?

Quote
okay... what part of "I dont care" do you not understand bro? It is between that person and his God. I have to worry about doing what I think is right. This is why I dont care to argue over the details. You want me to answer a question which I consider of no importance.

JK- Yes and im talking about what you consider right. SO DO YOU CONSIDER it wrong if someone prostartes and bows a random no of times in his/her five daily salat?

Quote
Actually, you are just claiming that I am asking for a negative assertion, because you hope that this will allow you an excuse not to answer my objection  or provide evidence for your own view. I asked you to prove any other format you want. That is not asking you to prove a negative, but the exact opposite. The fact that you dont have any evidence, do you?

JK- I told you we dont actually need evidence because WE ARE NOT MAKING A +VE CLAIM. YOU ARE. Get it? Those who dont accept rituals are not the ones making a +ve claim. Besides that Ayman has provided evidence that these rituals are pagan in origin and he'll continue this debate with you.
 
Quote
And what credible Historian do you know who would say hadith do not qualify as historical documents?

JK- I personally dont but maybe Ayman, who has knowledge in the historical field, can answer you there. BESIDES i did mention that the hadith can be used for estimating certain historical events which are not inherently talking abt the hadiths own religion. In other words if you wanna know about Muhammad you dont just go ask Bukhari, Muslim what he did BUT you ask non sunni, shia groups. Ofcourse the former would only point out things which favored their political agenda at tht time.

Quote
Circumstantial evidence. You are speculating, just like Ayman.

JK- This has nothing to do with speculation. It is a reasonable assumption. BESIDES arnt you assuming that what the hadith say about salat was actually how Muhammad perormed them? If so then again you are making a +ve assumption and YOU need to prove your point.

Quote
Whatever contradicts the Quran is not part of Islam. There are hadiths that directly contradict the Quran. But even those are still historical evidence. We only reject them because our faith is in the superiority of the Quran, not because they are not historical documents. That is the point.

JK- The Quran is also a historical document and it is the most authentic one. The point is that in regards to DIVINE INJUNCTION ONLY THE QURAN MAYBE USED. Is this too difficult to grasp?

Quote
No, this ritual does not contradict the Quran. So you can not apply that criticism here. Your assertion that this is a pagan ritual is unfounded and based in an orientalist anti-islamic rhetorical argument that has been used by bigots against Islam. Keep that in mind.

JK- Oh but in our understanding here at FM it mostly does. Weve studied the Quran and found no five times in it but three at best. And also weve shown verses where salat just cannot mean ritual prayer but has to mean comittment. BUT you still havnt answered my qs: Why did GOD put the details of His inspired rituals to not in the Quran but instead 1) in the hadith 2) in the minds of certain people who claim to follow more or less hadith? As for the rituals being paganiostic im sure ayman will answer you on that.

Quote
::) Just go and make that appointment with a Philosophy professor. And while you are at it, make an appointment with a professor in the history or theology department as well. It is obvious you will not listen to me, maybe you will listen to others who will tell you to your face your errors.

JK- If at the end i do not find aymans arguments satisfactory then i will do that. The debate isnt over yet.  GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 09:45:38 AM
Peace "AB",

Peace Jonny_K,

The Qur'aan never says that the shabbat was decreed "only" for the Jews and Christians. In fact, here's what the passage actually says:

But the Shabbat was placed on those who disputed in it, and indeed your L-rd judges between them, on the day of judgement, in what they were disputing. (16:124)

That passage is immediately followed by this:

Call to the way of your L-rd with wisdom and good advice, and dispute with them with which is best, that your L-rd He is more knowledgeable of who strayed from His way. And He is more knowledgeable of the guided. (16:125)

Now, this tells us that there are people who dispute concerning the shabbat. However, it does NOT say that this is referring to the Jews and Christians. In fact, directly afterwards, we are told to call/invite others to the path of G-d through disputing, the same thing warranted in 16:124. So, obviously, we are supposed to dispute with others concerning the shabbat, in hopes of leading them to the true path. The passage directly before that one (16:123) tells us to follow the religion of Abraham, which, based on the context of the verse that follows it, obviously includes adhering to the shabbat... Also, the followers of Torah don't dispute on WHETHER OR NOT THEY MUST OBSERVE SHABBAT. They dispute regarding it's transgression; some of them have very tough rules concerning it, while others are very lax in their observance of it. This is the only dispute concerning the shabbat among the Jews, not it's actual observance. In fact, observance of the shabbat is part of the "ten commandments", which represent the most important of the Jewish laws. There's no question concerning this...

JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".

Quote
When did G-d order the Jews to kill all apostates?! Even Jewish scholars agree with many of these passages being allegorical, meaning they must remove apostates from Jewish communities and societies... How many modern Jewish communities have you heard of that murder apostates? NONE. How many modern Islaamic communities murder apostates? PLENTY.

JK-  Ofcourse that is the modern Jewish "scholars" last excuse to save their scriptures in an ever increasing secular world. If you make everything allegorical then all scriptures of all religions, even the hadith, can be consdiered true. The context has to allow for allegory WITHIN THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Lets take a look at the following verses:
Leviticus 24:10-16

Blasphemer to be put to death:
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Sabbath breaker to be put to death too:
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

See how clear the details are and how GOD is suposedly commanding them? If this can be taken as allegorical then every absurd hadith can also be taken as allegorical and moreover there would be no statement in the world which could not be taken as allegorical. Hence every commander, every politician, every general can always get away safe after ordering to kill someone just by claiming that they meant all of it allegorically. Do you see how absurd this is?

Quote
Okay, perhaps this is true. The word "salaat" could, based on the context of certain passages, refer to commitments. However, this would imply that we're supposed to "keep" the same commitments that the Jews preserve, such as monotheism, prayer, purity, charity, and even "circumcision" (which the Qur'aan doesn't even mention at all)... Also, if this was the "only" meaning for salaat, then what is the morning commitment, or the evening commitment? What is the night commitment? This meaning for "salaat" wouldn't fit in these contexts. And if we fuse this with preceding commitments (concerning the Jews and Nazarenes), their commitment includes morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. So, either way, we'd be led to the same conclusion...

Peace,

Ahmad

JK- The comittment is mentioned in the Quran itself. It is to establish a system of monotheism where people gather together and dicsuss things using reaon and logic. This has been explained numerous times here on freeminds. You can read some of the articles and posts on this issue. Adopting mindless rituals and accepting them as Divine does not make any sense whatsoever. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 29, 2009, 10:24:22 AM

@ Jonny

Salaam bro


Quote
Lets assume some of them say there could be rationa arguments to support rituals, which are irrational, as coming from GOD.


Actually bro, none of them will disagree with me. I guarantee you this. If you want to prove me wrong, just go and talk to a professor yourself.

Quote
This would not make any sense to me. It would create a paradox in my mind.

This is because you are not a student of philosophy. In actuality, the paradox already exists in your view because you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.

Quote
Why would GOD command us to do something which has no benefit for us?

This question you asked is a perfect example of religion's irrationality. Your question talks about "benefit", but what you are ignoring is that the concept of "benefit" in religion is completely irrational. For example: the whole idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven, is that "rational" ?? Of course not. So for anyone to obey God in this life, for the promise of "benefits" and "rewards" in the next life is completely irrational. Because the "benefit" is totally unproven and illogical. But it is something we are required to do. That is the essence of faith.

God asked Abraham PBUH to sacrifice his son. Now this command, was totally irrational and illogical in every way. There is no way for you to rationally defend such a command. (go ahead and try, it would be a good exercise, if you wish). But God's commands must be obeyed, not because they are rational, but because they are a test of our faith, precisely because they are irrational.

God is not good because good is rational. Because then God would be obeying rationality! And God does not "obey" anything, everything obeys God. Do you see?

Quote
Well Ayman made it clear there were many "invisible" temples.

And I made it clear that the temple Diodorus was talking about was not just any regular temple. He clearly says that it was a temple of great significance, revered by the whole Arab race.

Quote
SO DO YOU CONSIDER it wrong if someone prostartes and bows a random no of times in his/her five daily salat?

I have no right to issue such judgments and neither do you. What I do consider wrong is the concept of 3 prayers, or no prayers at all. Because this is stated in the Quran and is therefore a divine injunction. The number of rakats (methodology) is NOT a divine injunction because it is not in the Quran.

Quote
I told you we dont actually need evidence because WE ARE NOT MAKING A +VE CLAIM.

Is that what you think? (because that is your misunderstanding)

Quote
Those who dont accept rituals are not the ones making a +ve claim.


Do you realize that challenging rituals is itself a claim? You are claiming that those rituals dont have to be observed. That is a claim. So you need to provide evidence for it.

Quote
Besides that Ayman has provided evidence that these rituals are pagan in origin and he'll continue this debate with you.

You keep saying Ayman has provided proof, but he hasnt. His argument has been borrowed from anti-Islamic sources which have already been dis credited by scholars in the field.

Quote
I personally dont but maybe Ayman, who has knowledge in the historical field, can answer you there.

So you personally then, can not defend your own argument.

Quote
This has nothing to do with speculation. It is a reasonable assumption.

"reasonable assumption" ??? (lol) bro, it is only "reasonable" to you because it fits your view. This is why you can not base arguments on assumptions. No matter how "reasonable" they might seem to you.  Because at the end of the day: it is >speculation< because you have no proof to back it up.

Quote
BESIDES arnt you assuming that what the hadith say about salat was actually how Muhammad perormed them? If so then again you are making a +ve assumption and YOU need to prove your point.

The hadith is a historical document, and therefore it is proof itself. You yourself have admitted you dont know of any historian who will deny that the hadith is a historical document.

Quote
The Quran is also a historical document and it is the most authentic one. The point is that in regards to DIVINE INJUNCTION ONLY THE QURAN MAYBE USED. Is this too difficult to grasp?

yea... and the number of rakats are not a divine injunction. The 5 prayers are a divine injunction. I am not defending the number of rakats, I am defending the 5 prayers.

Quote
Oh but in our understanding here at FM it mostly does. Weve studied the Quran and found no five times in it but three at best. And also weve shown verses where salat just cannot mean ritual prayer but has to mean comittment. BUT you still havnt answered my qs: Why did GOD put the details of His inspired rituals to not in the Quran but instead 1) in the hadith 2) in the minds of certain people who claim to follow more or less hadith? As for the rituals being paganiostic im sure ayman will answer you on that.

I hope that you realize that the community here at Free-minds would never be taken seriously in any scholarly community. How many Western Universities do you know that have people teaching the beliefs that people here hold in their histories of Islam? Because the views of people like Ayman have been discredited and thrown out by real scholars.


PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 29, 2009, 12:29:06 PM
Quote
Peace "AB",

JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".
interesting
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 29, 2009, 01:00:13 PM

Quote
Actually bro, none of them will disagree with me. I guarantee you this. If you want to prove me wrong, just go and talk to a professor yourself.
Since a scholar says something is so, they must be right?

Quote
This is because you are not a student of philosophy. In actuality, the paradox already exists in your view because you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.
:o

Quote
This question you asked is a perfect example of religion's irrationality. Your question talks about "benefit", but what you are ignoring is that the concept of "benefit" in religion is completely irrational. For example: the whole idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven, is that "rational" ?? Of course not. So for anyone to obey God in this life, for the promise of "benefits" and "rewards" in the next life is completely irrational. Because the "benefit" is totally unproven and illogical. But it is something we are required to do. That is the essence of faith.
Actually the idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven is RATIONAL if you believe in GOD and believe that GOD can do anything. Many people can throw the question right back at you and say the belief in GOD is irrational in itself then afterlife in heaven is irrational.

Quote
God asked Abraham PBUH to sacrifice his son. Now this command, was totally irrational and illogical in every way. There is no way for you to rationally defend such a command. (go ahead and try, it would be a good exercise, if you wish). But God's commands must be obeyed, not because they are rational, but because they are a test of our faith, precisely because they are irrational.
You've came to the conclusion that a test of faith can never be rational? GOD asking you to feed a homeless person and he will do something for you is rational and it can be a test of faith to see if you will do it.

Quote
God is not good because good is rational. Because then God would be obeying rationality! And God does not "obey" anything, everything obeys God. Do you see?
How can GOD "obey rationality" :hypno: Who decided that good is rational? Me jumping in front of a bullet to keep it from hitting osama bin laden might be "good thing to do" but many will says it's irrational due to the atrocities Osama bin laden has done. It would matter your point of view now wouldn't it?

Quote
And I made it clear that the temple Diodorus was talking about was not just any regular temple. He clearly says that it was a temple of great significance, revered by the whole Arab race.
Ok

Quote
I have no right to issue such judgments and neither do you. What I do consider wrong is the concept of 3 prayers, or no prayers at all. Because this is stated in the Quran and is therefore a divine injunction. The number of rakats (methodology) is NOT a divine injunction because it is not in the Quran.
Useless chatter, Where is it stated ::)

Quote
Do you realize that challenging rituals is itself a claim? You are claiming that those rituals dont have to be observed. That is a claim. So you need to provide evidence for it.
It would matter if its supported by the quran and only by the quran
Quote
You keep saying Ayman has provided proof, but he hasnt. His argument has been borrowed from anti-Islamic sources which have already been dis credited by scholars in the field.
Useless chatter, can we see some of this proof from the "scholars :rotfl: in the field"

Quote
The hadith is a historical document, and therefore it is proof itself. You yourself have admitted you dont know of any historian who will deny that the hadith is a historical document.
Sigh it would matter what hadith your talking about sunnis reject hadiths that shiite follow and shiite reject hadith that sunni follow so your arguement is complete failure right there. What do you think sectarians have been arguing about for the past hundred-thousand years? THE AUTHENCITY OF THEIR HADITH!

Quote
yea... and the number of rakats are not a divine injunction. The 5 prayers are a divine injunction. I am not defending the number of rakats, I am defending the 5 prayers.
Same ol' useless chatter, no quranic verses to back up your view point, I can see why you rely on protecting the hadith so much and your loveable "scholars"
Quote
I hope that you realize that the community here at Free-minds would never be taken seriously in any scholarly community. How many Western Universities do you know that have people teaching the beliefs that people here hold in their histories of Islam? Because the views of people like Ayman have been discredited and thrown out by real scholars.
Oh noes! A "scholarly  :rotfl:" community won't like us, how will this forum live!

You know through this whole paper you wrote, you didn't provide one quranic evidence or "scholarly" evidence for your claims yet you accuse other people of speculating.  :bravo: :bravo:

Peace
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 29, 2009, 01:51:25 PM
Peace "JK",

JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".

This is false, bro, and there are other passages that attest to this. For example:

You have known about those among you who violated the shabbat. We said to them, "Be lowly apes." We set them up as an example for their generation, as well as SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS, and an enlightenment for the righteous. (2:65, 66)

The example for them is NOT TO VIOLATE THE SABBATH, and this is the same example for the subsequent generations, which include the submitters during the time of Muhammad and us today.

O you who've been given the book, you shall believe in what We reveal herein, confirming what you have, before We efface faces or condemn them, as We condemned those violated the shabbat. God's command is executed. (4:47)

Coincidentally, the verses BEFORE and AFTER this passage refer to idolatry, implying that breaking the shabbat is equal to committing idol worship. Nowhere in the Qur'aan are we told that this only applies to the Jews and Christians, and nowhere are we told that the shabbat was only instituted for certain communities... Again, for you to base your reasoning on the shabbat ("sabbath") being for those who disputed in it, you have to look at their disputes. And NONE OF THEM disputed concerning it's observance. They only disputed in their violation of it, which is what the Qur'aan points out...

JK-  Ofcourse that is the modern Jewish "scholars" last excuse to save their scriptures in an ever increasing secular world. If you make everything allegorical then all scriptures of all religions, even the hadith, can be consdiered true. The context has to allow for allegory WITHIN THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Lets take a look at the following verses:
Leviticus 24:10-16

Blasphemer to be put to death:
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses: 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

Sabbath breaker to be put to death too:
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

See how clear the details are and how GOD is suposedly commanding them? If this can be taken as allegorical then every absurd hadith can also be taken as allegorical and moreover there would be no statement in the world which could not be taken as allegorical. Hence every commander, every politician, every general can always get away safe after ordering to kill someone just by claiming that they meant all of it allegorically. Do you see how absurd this is?

This is unreasonable. Many of these direct commands only applied literally to the people of that time; in other cases, they were completely allegorical. This is even further emphasized throughout the Tanakh. Another example of this is the atonement offerings in the temple of Yerushalom (Jerusalem). According to the Torah, these offerings can't be offered outside of the temple. So, what happened after the temple was destroyed? Does this mean that God didn't know the temple would be destroyed?

The Qur'aan even points out that some of God's verses/signs are allegorical, not literal. So, what's the difference with the Torah? You can't compare the Torah with the hadith writings, since men wrote the hadiths. God Himself sent down the Torah, just like He did the Qur'aan...

JK- The comittment is mentioned in the Quran itself. It is to establish a system of monotheism where people gather together and dicsuss things using reaon and logic. This has been explained numerous times here on freeminds. You can read some of the articles and posts on this issue. Adopting mindless rituals and accepting them as Divine does not make any sense whatsoever.

Like I said, the system includes more than simply "monotheism". Most modern Muslims aren't pure monotheists anyway, since they idolize Muhammad... But regardless, this is unrealistic. Our system is to "discuss things using reason and logic"? And what happens if everyone agrees? Does this mean our system is over? What about the Qur'aanic passages instructing everyone to 'believe in God, believe in the last day, and lead a righteous life'? What role to these play in discussing things using reason and logic? And how will everyone discuss these matters? Online? Over the phone? Or do you expect all submitters in the world to live in one huge community? We uphold the same system as Abraham and the patriarchs. Did they base their system on discussing things using reason and logic?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 29, 2009, 03:10:51 PM
Since a scholar says something is so, they must be right?

LoL... no, but when all experts agree, it means something.


Quote
Many people can throw the question right back at you and say the belief in GOD is irrational in itself then afterlife in heaven is irrational.

(lol) err... yea.. That was my point. Belief in God is irrational.

Quote
You've came to the conclusion that a test of faith can never be rational?


Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?

Quote
How can GOD "obey rationality" :hypno: Who decided that good is rational? Me jumping in front of a bullet to keep it from hitting osama bin laden might be "good thing to do" but many will says it's irrational due to the atrocities Osama bin laden has done. It would matter your point of view now wouldn't it?

You missed the point entirely. I was the one who was saying God does not "obey" rationality.


Quote
Useless chatter, Where is it stated ::)

err.. the Quran. All divine injunctions are in the Quran. (are you disagreeing with this? Because I wasnt)

Quote
Useless chatter, can we see some of this proof from the "scholars :rotfl: in the field"

Refer to my last response to Ayman, right in the beginning I state multiple quotes from different authors (all scholars) who have called into question the source of Ayman's beliefs which is based in the work of Patricia Crone.

Quote
Sigh it would matter what hadith your talking about sunnis reject hadiths that shiite follow and shiite reject hadith that sunni follow so your arguement is complete failure right there. What do you think sectarians have been arguing about for the past hundred-thousand years? THE AUTHENCITY OF THEIR HADITH!

Do you even know what I am arguing? Because this objection doesnt even address my point. I never once said that the hadith manuscripts are perfect or fully authentic. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting.


Quote
Same ol' useless chatter, no quranic verses to back up your view point, I can see why you rely on protecting the hadith so much and your loveable "scholars" Oh noes! A "scholarly  :rotfl:" community won't like us, how will this forum live!

All the verses have been provided in this thread, supporting every point of the argument (5 times, rituals, the Kabbah, Qiblah, Mecca etc.). I suggest you flip back through the pages.




PeAcE

Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Real Truth on March 29, 2009, 05:39:42 PM
Quote
LoL... no, but when all experts agree, it means something.
Yes, it means something should be investigated. I don't follow anything just because the masses believe it(which is why im not a sunni)

Quote
(lol) err... yea.. That was my point. Belief in God is irrational.
Ok
 
Quote
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
No that's why it's based off faith.

Quote
You missed the point entirely. I was the one who was saying God does not "obey" rationality.
No you clearly said "God is not good, because GOD is not rational". I was correcting you, GOD can do anything he wants, he might choose to do things rational or he might choose things to do irrational. Even though in Qu'ran it clearly says GOD will not test you above your limits. You tried to use Abraham being asked to sacrafice his son, but you missed the whole point of him asking him to do it. It was a test of faith, GOD knew already that he wasn't going to allow him to sacrafice his only son, so it was rational
Quote
err.. the Quran. All divine injunctions are in the Quran. (are you disagreeing with this? Because I wasnt)
I was disagreeing with what you considered "divine injuctions"(ex: pray 5 times a day) not if there were any divine injuctions.

Quote
Refer to my last response to Ayman, right in the beginning I state multiple quotes from different authors (all scholars) who have called into question the source of Ayman's beliefs which is based in the work of Patricia Crone.
Which you guys still are debating and noone has been proven really right or wrong...Your still stuck on the notion just because the person is a scholar, they must be right.

Quote
Do you even know what I am arguing? Because this objection doesnt even address my point. I never once said that the hadith manuscripts are perfect or fully authentic. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting.
Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific hadith, I was talking about in general. Considering you kept mentioning "what scholars think" and what "scholars believe", I was showing depending on what "sect that scholar would be in" would decide what hadith they would support and if they believe it would be historically(so the hadith are "historically correct" doesn't always hold up to your "scholars know best" standards. That's my fault I worded it horribly

Peace




PeAcE


[/quote]
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 06:48:48 PM
Peace "c0de",


 

Actually bro, none of them will disagree with me. I guarantee you this. If you want to prove me wrong, just go and talk to a professor yourself.

JK- Ok lets go along with that.

Quote
This is because you are not a student of philosophy. In actuality, the paradox already exists in your view because you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.

JK- No im not. Im simply denying GOD ever commanded rituals in the first place considering there to be no significant evidence to support this thesis. And im sure the majority of historians dont accept rituals, especially sunni/shia five daily salat, as coming from GOD. Or do they?

Quote
This question you asked is a perfect example of religion's irrationality. Your question talks about "benefit", but what you are ignoring is that the concept of "benefit" in religion is completely irrational. For example: the whole idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven, is that "rational" ?? Of course not. So for anyone to obey God in this life, for the promise of "benefits" and "rewards" in the next life is completely irrational. Because the "benefit" is totally unproven and illogical. But it is something we are required to do. That is the essence of faith.

JK- Whether the afterlife is infinite or not in the absolute sense is not clear from the Quran because of the following verse:
11:108 And as for those who will be glad (that day) they will be in the Garden, abiding there so long as the heavens and the earth endure save for that which thy Lord willeth: a gift unfailing.
Besides this bro Arnold has written an article on the scientific approach to the afterlife and you probaly know about Frank Tipler's "The Omega Point Theory". Heres bro Arnold's article:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596858.0
ALSO ofcourse there is obvious benefit of the aftterlife in that we'd have exponentially more benefits and pleasure than we could ever have here.
Moreover the akhira is NOT A COMMAND whilst wer commanded to do salat. So my qs again is Why would GOD command us to do somehting on earth which has no benefit?

Quote
God asked Abraham PBUH to sacrifice his son. Now this command, was totally irrational and illogical in every way. There is no way for you to rationally defend such a command. (go ahead and try, it would be a good exercise, if you wish). But God's commands must be obeyed, not because they are rational, but because they are a test of our faith, precisely because they are irrational.

JK- ABSOLUTELY WRONG INTERPRETAION. GOD never asked Abraham to sacrifice the life of his son by putting him down and holding a knife to his neck. There are two rational interpreations of this verse. 1) Abraham SAW A RANDOM DREAM and only the hadith interprets that every prophet's dream is supposedly from GOD. Thus Abraham thought it was from GOD but it actually wasnt and ultimately GOD saved Abraham from comitting a mistake. Here is the article explaining that:
http://www.submission.org/Ismail.html
2) Abraham sacrificed his son metaphorically in that he took him along with himself to establish the system of monotheism against a great majority of disbelievers.
7:28 They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?"
GOD has commanded elsewhere that killing of innocnts is a gross sin. Thus what sense would to then ask from one of his followers to commit a sin? And remember GOD Himself states it here that He does not advocater sin so the traditional understanding of Abrham physically sacrificing his son contradicts the Quran.

Quote
God is not good because good is rational. Because then God would be obeying rationality! And God does not "obey" anything, everything obeys God. Do you see?

JK- Good is defined as that which provides benefits for the people which they can experience. If GOD does not communicate with humans on our level we cannot possibly know whether it is really from GOD. That wouldnt make any sense whatsoever. And yes everything obeys GOD's set laws in the universe.

Quote
And I made it clear that the temple Diodorus was talking about was not just any regular temple. He clearly says that it was a temple of great significance, revered by the whole Arab race.

JK- Even if so why does it have to be the location known as "mecca" today? Why not one of the other many "invisible" towns?

Quote
I have no right to issue such judgments and neither do you. What I do consider wrong is the concept of 3 prayers, or no prayers at all. Because this is stated in the Quran and is therefore a divine injunction. The number of rakats (methodology) is NOT a divine injunction because it is not in the Quran.

JK- OH OK so you at least agree that the no of rakats is not Divine injunction. So then you would have no argument with people who pray 5 times daily but with random no of rakats, rukoos and sujood correct?

Quote
Is that what you think? (because that is your misunderstanding)

JK- No we are not making a +ve claim. The ones who claim 3 salat, YES, they are but not people like ayman and myself.

Quote
Do you realize that challenging rituals is itself a claim? You are claiming that those rituals dont have to be observed. That is a claim. So you need to provide evidence for it.

JK- So challenging Jesus is GOD incarnate according to you would be a +ve claim too? COMMON. The burden of proof is upon the ones who ake these claims and we are to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to support the claim or falsify it. thats how it goes.

Quote
You keep saying Ayman has provided proof, but he hasnt. His argument has been borrowed from anti-Islamic sources which have already been dis credited by scholars in the field.

JK- Im sure ayman will have good replies to you in his coming posts.

Quote
So you personally then, can not defend your own argument.

JK- I can using reason, logic and the Quran.

Quote
"reasonable assumption" ??? (lol) bro, it is only "reasonable" to you because it fits your view. This is why you can not base arguments on assumptions. No matter how "reasonable" they might seem to you.  Because at the end of the day: it is >speculation< because you have no proof to back it up.

JK- It is not only my view but the view of many other free thinkers right on this forum. As for proof i suppose you dont consider logical arguments and the use of conextual analyis in the Quran proof do you? Youd rather consider hadith proof of what the Quran actually means by salat than underatdning the Quran contextually staring from the root meanings of the Arabic terms.

Quote
The hadith is a historical document, and therefore it is proof itself. You yourself have admitted you dont know of any historian who will deny that the hadith is a historical document.

JK- Actually the hadith are very weak historical documents because there exists no evidence of any hadith literature being even as close to 150 years after the Prophet's death. Thus it is bound to contain alot of fiction about Muhamad's time.

Quote
yea... and the number of rakats are not a divine injunction. The 5 prayers are a divine injunction. I am not defending the number of rakats, I am defending the 5 prayers.

JK- Fair enough. Can you point out the time span at which to offer each of these prayers justifying your claims from the Quran?

Quote
I hope that you realize that the community here at Free-minds would never be taken seriously in any scholarly community. How many Western Universities do you know that have people teaching the beliefs that people here hold in their histories of Islam? Because the views of people like Ayman have been discredited and thrown out by real scholars.

JK- If they have been why havnt all historians started praying five times a day or promoting these rituals in the name of GOD? Obviously most of them dont belevie that these rituals come from GOD or any other for that matter. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 07:03:39 PM
Peace bro "AB",

Peace "JK",

This is false, bro, and there are other passages that attest to this. For example:

You have known about those among you who violated the shabbat. We said to them, "Be lowly apes." We set them up as an example for their generation, as well as SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS, and an enlightenment for the righteous. (2:65, 66)

The example for them is NOT TO VIOLATE THE SABBATH, and this is the same example for the subsequent generations, which include the submitters during the time of Muhammad and us today.

O you who've been given the book, you shall believe in what We reveal herein, confirming what you have, before We efface faces or condemn them, as We condemned those violated the shabbat. God's command is executed. (4:47)

Coincidentally, the verses BEFORE and AFTER this passage refer to idolatry, implying that breaking the shabbat is equal to committing idol worship. Nowhere in the Qur'aan are we told that this only applies to the Jews and Christians, and nowhere are we told that the shabbat was only instituted for certain communities... Again, for you to base your reasoning on the shabbat ("sabbath") being for those who disputed in it, you have to look at their disputes. And NONE OF THEM disputed concerning it's observance. They only disputed in their violation of it, which is what the Qur'aan points out...

JK- The sabbath breakers were indeed made an example for subsequent generations in the sense that people< who break GOD's command at any given time ae punished. it doesnt mean that that particular command is still active. If your understanding of these verses is significant then why havnt i heard of bros Edip, ayman and others support this view? Have you presented this to other people here and how did they respond?

Quote
This is unreasonable. Many of these direct commands only applied literally to the people of that time; in other cases, they were completely allegorical.

JK- Ofcourse it can be argued that the commands only applied to people at the time BUT NOT that people wernt supposed to be stoned to death literally. Clearly the passage defines the details of how to take them out in and stone them there. If you take this as allegorical then the hadith proponents would have no problems in taking all the hadith as allegorical too. How then do we distingish which religious scripture is better?

Quote
This is even further emphasized throughout the Tanakh. Another example of this is the atonement offerings in the temple of Yerushalom (Jerusalem). According to the Torah, these offerings can't be offered outside of the temple. So, what happened after the temple was destroyed? Does this mean that God didn't know the temple would be destroyed?

JK- Could you please provide the relevant verses here so i can see what your talking about?

Quote
The Qur'aan even points out that some of God's verses/signs are allegorical, not literal. So, what's the difference with the Torah? You can't compare the Torah with the hadith writings, since men wrote the hadiths. God Himself sent down the Torah, just like He did the Qur'aan...

JK- Yes but the Quran in such cases does not provide such details as the above verses ive quoted which lead one to another conclusion that the commands were litgeral. That is the major difference. An example would be when GOD states that adulters should receive 100 lashes. This can be interpreted symbolically because there is no detailed scenario added to it. If the statement was followed by "and take him/her out in the field, take a whip of high quality leather and lash him/her therewith" then wed have to conclude that the command is literal. See the difference.

Quote
Like I said, the system includes more than simply "monotheism". Most modern Muslims aren't pure monotheists anyway, since they idolize Muhammad... But regardless, this is unrealistic. Our system is to "discuss things using reason and logic"? And what happens if everyone agrees? Does this mean our system is over? What about the Qur'aanic passages instructing everyone to 'believe in God, believe in the last day, and lead a righteous life'? What role to these play in discussing things using reason and logic? And how will everyone discuss these matters? Online? Over the phone? Or do you expect all submitters in the world to live in one huge community? We uphold the same system as Abraham and the patriarchs. Did they base their system on discussing things using reason and logic?

Peace,

Ahmad

JK- Yes we would discuss with reaon and logic just like wer doing on freeminds as well as gatherings physically at designated places in the future GW. That is the system of monotheism where we refute all kinds of innovations and ultimately more and more people will accept this system as per:
110:2 And you will see the people enter GOD's system in crowds.
GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 29, 2009, 07:17:27 PM
Peace again "c0de",

Quote
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?

JK- YES WE CAN and tend to do exactly that at freeminds, apart from debunking sectraians. Some argue the existence of GOD on their personal experience, yes, but that is not good enough. Others argue on the basis of all humans inheritently tending towards recognizing GOD. This is supported by scientific evidence. Atheists call it "the GOD gene" but they claim it is not their because GOD put it there but because of other factors. However it can certainly be used as a supporting argument for the existence of GOD. Then if you anlyse even pagan religions like Hinduism at the core of their scriptures youll find them referring to ONE GOD ONLY. Thus we can conclude that different people and religions from all over the world did at one point or another accept the existence of one GOD independent of each other. I myself have explained rationally in many of my posts as to why the existence of GOD is inevitable. Then ive read scientific articles on quantum mechanics coming close to what ive mentioned, one quantum physicist,hans Peter D?rr, even referring to GOD as the combined quantum field or "quantum ghost". That again would fit with the Quran's explanation of GOD referred to in:
24:35 GOD is the LIGHT of the heavens and the earth...
So again you can see how this all seems to add up both logically and in favor of the Quran.
SECONDLY ofcourse we can show that one particular religio is better than another by comparing the amount of rational points/benefits for humanty vs. absurdities in each of them. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 30, 2009, 01:08:44 AM
Peace all,

           After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God. Thats the reason why the pagans were called polythiests as they followed the tradition of Abraham(Millat) but to multiple gods while most Jews and Christians are called 'rejectors' because they rejected the tradition altogether. Therefore, the Quran is an amendment to the tradition but a fully detailed Law to complement the tradition to become a fully functional system. Therefore a Muslim is the follower of the monotheistic Abrahamic tradition. The goal of the Quran was to make all polythiests, Jews and Christians Muslims then to make all the Muslims Believers. Thats why the Quran says that God has completed the religion and he wants to perfect the religion. What boggles my mind, why is this tradition suspended in mid-air. What is the reference for this tradition? Or is it something inherited?

Peace,

Rami
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 30, 2009, 05:43:37 AM
Real Truth + Jonny + Rami

Salaam All

@ RT

Quote
Yes, it means something should be investigated. I don't follow anything just because the masses believe it(which is why im not a sunni)

It has nothing to do with majority rule. 2+2=4, not because everyone agrees it equals 4, but because it equals 4 with or without anyone accepting it. What I stated (religion is irrational) is a logically proven argument that is accepted by all philosophers and most people who are familiar with such debates.

Quote
No that's why it's based off faith.

YEa, thats what I said.   ???

Quote
No you clearly said "God is not good, because GOD is not rational".

Actually, no... I didnt say that. I said: "God is not good because good is rational". I was stating the supremacy of God above any human conceptions of "morality".

Quote
I was disagreeing with what you considered "divine injuctions"(ex: pray 5 times a day)

All 5 times have been listed in the Quran and these verses have been provided. The only difference is that the command to pray on two of those times just says "offer praise". My argument is that the 5 times are still valid because salat=offering praise.

Quote
Which you guys still are debating and noone has been proven really right or wrong...Your still stuck on the notion just because the person is a scholar, they must be right.

And your still stuck on the notion that because Ayman's point fits with your view, it must be right. Even though his point is borrowed from a view that has been discredited. And you know why it has been discredited? Because it is based on bad scholarship (not because it was a popularity contest).

Quote
Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific hadith, I was talking about in general. Considering you kept mentioning "what scholars think" and what "scholars believe", I was showing depending on what "sect that scholar would be in" would decide what hadith they would support and if they believe it would be historically(so the hadith are "historically correct" doesn't always hold up to your "scholars know best" standards. That's my fault I worded it horribly

And my whole point is that since those hadith are still permissiable as historical evidence, the other side has to present their own evidence if they want to refute it. Which they have not done. Ayman is trying, but remember his argument is nothing new. It is old and discredited.





@ Jonny

Quote
Im simply denying GOD ever commanded rituals in the first place considering there to be no significant evidence to support this thesis.

This is a completely invalid and astonishing statement.

Quote
And im sure the majority of historians dont accept rituals, especially sunni/shia five daily salat, as coming from GOD. Or do they?

Yes they do. And now, you can go and ask any historian or theological historian yourself on this issue as well. It is a FACT that religion is based in rituals. It is one of the defining characteristics or religion. It is what separates religion from philosophy.

Quote
Whether the afterlife is infinite or not in the absolute sense is not clear from the Quran because of the following verse:

Read that verse again, and this time notice the part at the end which you refused to bold: "a gift unfailing." It is an accepted fact that all the three Abrahamic religions present an infinite afterlife.

Quote
Besides this bro Arnold has written an article on the scientific approach to the afterlife and you probaly know about Frank Tipler's "The Omega Point Theory". Heres bro Arnold's article:
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596858.0

There are many ways man can try and conceptualize infinite and the afterlife. If you want to do it in scientific terms, you can try (as a hobby). But we have no actual knowledge of it, remember that. That is a fact confirmed by science (as we have no actual proof of multiverse and string theory yet, and these are the theories which deal with higher dimensions and meta-verses). Scientifically, we are at a major paradoxical point right now because we can not reconcile classical physics (Einstein's Relativity + Newton's laws) with modern physics (Quantum Physics). So to talk about meta-verses right now in scientific terms is out of the question. We cant even define and make sense of this current finite world, let alone the infinite afterlife.

Quote
Why would GOD command us to do somehting on earth which has no benefit?

The whole point of religion is that we do not think in finite and material terms. Benefit and loss is up to God. So if we pray (which is irrational, and gives us no perceivable benefit) we are told that we will get benefit from this via the irrational (God will grant us benefit of salat).

Quote
ABSOLUTELY WRONG INTERPRETAION. GOD never asked Abraham to sacrifice the life of his son by putting him down and holding a knife to his neck. There are two rational interpreations of this verse. 1) Abraham SAW A RANDOM DREAM and only the hadith interprets that every prophet's dream is supposedly from GOD. Thus Abraham thought it was from GOD but it actually wasnt and ultimately GOD saved Abraham from comitting a mistake. Here is the article explaining that:

Actually, the site you provided completely fails to show how the dream was not from God because the verse itself makes it clear that it was:

[37:105] "You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
[37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.

I suggest you read the actual verse yourself. Here are 3 different translations, all of them point out that the dream was itself from God:

037.105
YUSUFALI: "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL: Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR: You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good.

The fact that Abraham PBUH was rewarded for fulfilling the vision means that the dream was from God.


Quote
GOD has commanded elsewhere that killing of innocnts is a gross sin. Thus what sense would to then ask from one of his followers to commit a sin? And remember GOD Himself states it here that He does not advocater sin so the traditional understanding of Abrham physically sacrificing his son contradicts the Quran.

This is why the command (in the dream) was irrational.

Quote
Good is defined as that which provides benefits for the people which they can experience.

Wrong. That is a materialistic definition of "good" and is rejected by Islam. In Islam (and all Abrahamic religions) "good" is defined by God. Whatever God says is "good" is good. It has nothing to do with calculating benefit or harm, as that is the utilitarian (materialistic) philosophical definition of good.


Quote
Even if so why does it have to be the location known as "mecca" today? Why not one of the other many "invisible" towns?

If it was in an "invisible town" then why did Ayman present so many "well documented" locations as alternatives? Besides, it had to be Mecca because a century later Diodorus, Ptolemy came along and mentioned it by name.

Quote
OH OK so you at least agree that the no of rakats is not Divine injunction. So then you would have no argument with people who pray 5 times daily but with random no of rakats, rukoos and sujood correct?

Did I ever say I did? I would still advise they follow an accepted form and method though, just to be on the safe side. Thats what I do.


Quote
No we are not making a +ve claim. The ones who claim 3 salat, YES, they are but not people like ayman and myself.

And this position is even weaker then the 3 salat position. Because all you have to rely on are semantics ("alternative translations") which can just be criticized as "manipulations". Especially if Ayman's argument is proven wrong (which it was a by scholars long before this debate between me and him).

Quote
The burden of proof is upon the ones who ake these claims and we are to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to support the claim or falsify it. thats how it goes.

And proof has been provided.

Quote
Im sure ayman will have good replies to you in his coming posts.

You dont realize that it doesnt even matter what he replies. His view is discredited by scholarship. I could leave the debate right now and still win because my view is the accepted view of those historical community (Muslim and non-Muslim).

Quote
I can using reason, logic and the Quran.

Then defend your own views without relying on Ayman. The hadith is a valid historical document, and is accepted by historians as such. So how can you deny its validity in an argument about Islamic and middle eastern history?

Quote
It is not only my view but the view of many other free thinkers right on this forum.

Now you are relying on the fallacy of the majority (as in this case, you guys in this forum are the majority). It doesnt matter who agrees with you, what matters is that the experts who know a lot more about this subject then the members of this forum, disagree with their conclusions. And these experts are not biased Muslim sectarians, but historians. The quotes I presented were not from Muslims.

Quote
Youd rather consider hadith proof of what the Quran actually means by salat than underatdning the Quran contextually staring from the root meanings of the Arabic terms.

Semantics (again). Until you prove your argument from history, you can not claim validity of these translations. And the fact is that the views presented here that try and justify your alternative translations, have been proven invalid by scholarship.

Quote
Actually the hadith are very weak historical documents because there exists no evidence of any hadith literature being even as close to 150 years after the Prophet's death. Thus it is bound to contain alot of fiction about Muhamad's time.

Bro, in terms of historical documents the hadiths are EXCEPTIONAL documents of EXTREME validity. Here is a professor who actually converted to Islam after studying how scientific the proccess of hadith collection was. Here is a link to his lectures at MIT, his name is Dr. Jonathan Brown.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5960619842161782578&ei=rbrQSdmFAoPE-wGZvIH3CQ&q=jonathan+brown+hadith

Do you realize how authentic the hadith are when compared to many other historical documents? Historians LOVE hadith because of how scientific the method of its classification and codification was.

Quote
Fair enough. Can you point out the time span at which to offer each of these prayers justifying your claims from the Quran?

Once again, I am not arguing about the details. But I follow the hadith method because I believe it to be what God intended. But I will not criticize anyone who chooses his own method. It is between him and his God.

Quote
If they have been why havnt all historians started praying five times a day or promoting these rituals in the name of GOD? Obviously most of them dont belevie that these rituals come from GOD or any other for that matter. GOD Bless!

Actually, some do. The link I provided to you of Dr. Jonathan Brown, he is a historian who converted to Islam while studying the proccess of hadith collection after he was astonished how scientific it was. As for those people that dont convert, it has nothing to do with their opinion on the hadith and the rituals as being valid historically speaking. They just have their own beliefs (rational or irrational).

Quote
I myself have explained rationally in many of my posts as to why the existence of GOD is inevitable.

If it was so "inevitable" then why is not every scientist a believer in God? The fact is (and you may not be aware of this) is that belief in God ultimately always has to rest on a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are always based in faith. Now I believe that it is (ironically) more rational to believe in those assumptions rather then believe in the alternative (the atheist approach). I know that, and I agree with that. HOWEVER, what you can not do is to say that these set of faithful assumptions are logically proven. Because they always result in a circular argument. At the end of the day, the believer has no choice but to fall back on those assumptions about the universe which can never been proven or tested.

For example, one of my favorite "proofs" of God is the fine tuned argument of the universe. But a philosophical atheists will always have the option of saying that this is no "proof" because the believer is assuming that there is any "fine turning" at all. And there are many atheist physicists and scientists who reject this model and have "faith" (their own assumptions) that an alternative model can explain any "fine tuning". Even though they KNOW that those alternative models can never fully disprove God either.

The fact is that at the end of the day (and this is an accepted fact) God can not be proven, or disproven. This is why in the Quran Allah tells us to wait... He tells us that those who disbelieve will question the believers, and the believers should (instead of arguing with them) tell them: "wait, for we too are waiting..."




@ Rami

Quote
After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God.

If you take faith out of the equation, and only rely on "reason" then you will no doubt come to similar conclusions about Judiasm and Christianity as well.





PeAcE






















Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Rami on March 30, 2009, 06:46:27 AM
Peace Code,

I would like to ask whether you also support the classical Islamic calendar and Ramadan? And why aren't you a Sunni? What do you have against orthodox Sunni Islam?

Peace,

Rami
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 30, 2009, 08:15:09 AM
Peace Code,

I would like to ask whether you also support the classical Islamic calendar and Ramadan?

Yes I do. But I dont actually follow the Islamic calender in daily life.


Quote
And why aren't you a Sunni? What do you have against orthodox Sunni Islam?

Sunnis are a sect, whether they believe it or not. Today, they are also an institution (with their own aqeedahs etc.) And I do NOT recognize religious institutions. However, I do recognize authority of the original imams themselves (e.g. Imam Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Ahmed).


PeAcE




Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 30, 2009, 08:32:07 AM
Peace "JK",

JK- The sabbath breakers were indeed made an example for subsequent generations in the sense that people< who break GOD's command at any given time ae punished. it doesnt mean that that particular command is still active. If your understanding of these verses is significant then why havnt i heard of bros Edip, ayman and others support this view? Have you presented this to other people here and how did they respond?

I haven't presented this view to Edip and Ayman, so I don't know how they feel about this concept... Regardless, though, it would be pointless for the scriptures to relate "violating the sabbath" to breaking any of G-d's commands. Observing the shabbat was one of the MAJOR mitzvot in Jewish law, I believe number FOUR of the ten commandments, coming even before prohibitions against murder and adultery! What can this be equated with in Islaamic law? Obviously, the passage was referring specifically to those who violated the shabbat, not those who "sinned"...

JK- Ofcourse it can be argued that the commands only applied to people at the time BUT NOT that people wernt supposed to be stoned to death literally. Clearly the passage defines the details of how to take them out in and stone them there. If you take this as allegorical then the hadith proponents would have no problems in taking all the hadith as allegorical too. How then do we distingish which religious scripture is better?

Better? We can't determine which of G-d's revelations is "better" than the other, since He sent down both of them... I think, based on the Torah, stoning was an authorized punishment. However, it may not have specifically been a religious requirement. For example, the Hebrew scriptures instruct the Levites to provide atonement offerings for those who sinned. Examples are provided of people like David, who, according to the scriptures, was worthy of being stoned because of his indiscretions. Yet, he was repentant, and he was forgiven by G-d. Samson the Judge was worthy of being stoned because he broke his Naziritical covenant with G-d, which is deserving of death according to the Hebrew scriptures. Yet, he repented, and he was forgiven. The same went for the children of Israel who committed idolatry and later repented. This shows that many of the punishments mentioned in the Torah were both literal and allegorical. In most cases, today, these are regarded as allegorical, not literal. That's why more MUSLIMS stone/kill apostates than JEWS, and capital punishment is not even mentioned in the Qur'aan...

JK- Could you please provide the relevant verses here so i can see what your talking about?

See the above examples.

JK- Yes but the Quran in such cases does not provide such details as the above verses ive quoted which lead one to another conclusion that the commands were litgeral. That is the major difference. An example would be when GOD states that adulters should receive 100 lashes. This can be interpreted symbolically because there is no detailed scenario added to it. If the statement was followed by "and take him/her out in the field, take a whip of high quality leather and lash him/her therewith" then wed have to conclude that the command is literal. See the difference.

So, the passage in 24:2-4 can be considered as simply allegorical? Why, then, does it say not to be moved to pity regarding the adulterer and adulteress? From reading the entire passage, it's clear that the punishment is most likely BOTH literal and allegorical, just like the Torah passages on stoning. It depends on the people and the time period...

JK- Yes we would discuss with reaon and logic just like wer doing on freeminds as well as gatherings physically at designated places in the future GW. That is the system of monotheism where we refute all kinds of innovations and ultimately more and more people will accept this system as per:
110:2 And you will see the people enter GOD's system in crowds.

So, what happens when everyone turns to monotheism? If everyone agrees, will this be the end of the system? The system is about worshipping G-d ALONE, not about debating. Refuting polytheistic doctrines only apply while there is polytheism. So, what happens if you live in a monotheistic society?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 30, 2009, 11:34:02 PM
Peace C0de, everyone,

Before I begin answering your objections I will like to add to your troubles: I noticed that your argument is mostly based on the single point that Diodorus does not mention Mecca by name. Well, I will simply give you an account of Mecca being mentioned by name.

Mecca is never mentioned by name and you know it. Since I doubt that you went to Arabia and dug out some unheard of inscription or manuscript then, without even reading the rest of your post, I can safely conclude that you are either lying or grossly misinformed.

I am sure you are already aware that the name "Kaaba" comes from the word "muka'ab" meaning "cube".

This is false. Semitic words all come from three-lettered roots. Therefore, "K?AB" is the three-letter root that all the forms are derived from. In Arabic, the feminine and the masculine share the same meaning (Sometimes the feminine can add intensification or collective classification). So it is the other way around "MuK?AB? (a shape with bases on all sides) is derived from "K?AB"/"K?ABH" (base) and not the other way around as you falsely stated.

And I am sure you are also aware that historians have uncovered a reference to Mecca as being mentioned by Ptolemy as "Macoraba" in the 2nd century AD (so only a century after Diodorus, but still much earlier then the arrival of the Prophet).

So Mecca is in fact not mentioned by name as you claimed above but Macoraba is mentioned by name. It is ironic that you quote Ptolemy's reference to Macroba when in fact this further discredits the historicity of Mecca. Either you or the source that you blindly copied from left out the most crucial information. Ptolemy listed the towns in Arabia going from north to south. After Iathrippa (Yathrib), going from north to south Ptolemy lists 5 more towns and then Macoraba:

"Iathrippa
*[...5 more names until:]*
Macoraba"

The reason why those defending their emotional attachment to Mecca don't tell us about those "5 more names" is that it exposes their lies. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Iathrippa, but the sixth city to the south of it. The first of those names is the city of Carna in Southern Arabia. So while Macoraba is the sixth city to the south, the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Iathrippa. Thus, Ptolemy places Macoraba south of Carna. Present day Mecca on the other hand is North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was in fact a town somewhere in Southern Arabia to the south of present day Mecca. A likely candidate is a city called Mochorba in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny).

All we have seen from you are fallacious arguments and half truths, hanging on to the straw of a non-mention by Diodorus, hiding the information from Ptolemy that you don't like, and completely ignoring the clear facts from the great reading. Why do you keep on hanging to such false straws and defending them so obstinately? It is because you know that you have nothing real to stand on. So go ahead and keep hanging on to this straw of Macoraba, it only exposes that you have nothing.

Your entire argument though (as pointed out by another member, earlier in this thread) is based on objections raised by Patricia Cone and Michael Cook. Both of these anti-Islamic Orientalists have floated the idea that this reference by Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca at all. And this is what you will invariably build your case on. But before you do, I will point out to you that Patricia Cone's views have been summarily dismissed by the scholarly community. Here are some quotes referring to their arguments:
R. B. Sergeant states that "[Crone and Cook's thesis]? is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ?leg pull?, pure ?spoof?." Sergeant, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1981, p. 210
"[their theories have] been almost universally rejected" David Waines, Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous." van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, Sep 8 1978, p. 998
And in case you are wondering, it took very little effort to uncover this dirt on Cone and Cook... apparently, they are somewhat of a joke in scholarly circles studying in this field. Their anti-Islamic agenda is so obvious that it would be very amusing if you actually try to defend their thesis or by linking your own views with theirs.

Neither Sergeant, Waines or Van Ess above dismiss the view that Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca. The fact that Ptolemy was not referring to Mecca is indisputable as far as all serious researchers are concerned. You seem to ignore what Crone and Cook?s book Hagarism is about. I doubt that you even read it. Not everything in this book is dismissed and not everything is accepted. Most researchers have dismissed their idea that the great reading is an 8th century CE invention. They didn?t dismiss it because they are out to ?uncover dirt? on people LOL. They dismissed it because there are many early manuscripts and references to the great reading, even by Christian sources. The error that Crone and Cook made was that they tied the historicity of Mecca to the historicity of the great reading. They failed to realize that those are two completely different issues and there is no real evidence that ties the great reading to Mecca. Ironically, the best part of Crone and Cook?s work is also their least controversial and hence most overlooked and least mentioned. It is their excellent discussion on the cultural forces affecting the early Islamic empire. This is the only part that I rely on and reference.

I first got the idea that Mecca didn?t exist not from Crone and Cook or anyone else for that matter. I discovered this based on the great reading and the obvious fact that ?mecca? is used as a common noun in 48:24. Everything else is just confirmation of what the great reading is saying.

Now, moving on to your previous post:
Tabuk and Dummat-al-Jandal are not "between" the two points listed by Diodorus, by any stretch of the imagination. Sabeaen territory is not "generally defined" it is located all the way down by Yemen.
No, at best it is in South-Central Arabia. But stretching the directions will not help in this case anyway because this location was actually part of Sabeaen territory, so (again) obviously not in "between" Sabeaen and Nabeanites, if it is part of one of them is it?

The Sabaean territory stretched north only as far as Najran.

Do you realize that you have just cemented my case and destroyed your own? By arguing that the location of the temple mentioned by Diodorus was (according to you) not located inside a "well documented city" you have carelessly abandoned Tayma as a possible site (because the temple in Tayma was inside the city). And this was your most promising candidate because of its central location! Much more so then Tabuk which, as stated above, is not even close to being anywhere "in between". Don't feel too bad though, because Tayma's hope was already lost anyway, as it was so "well documented" and still, somehow not mentioned by name...
Thanks again.

As I said, Diodorus was talking about a temple and not the city where the temple is inside or outside. Diodorus didn?t mention many things and he was just indirectly reporting from an unknown informer. We can?t read the mind of Diodorus let alone his unknown informer. Also, since the temple is only mentioned by Diodorus in the 1st century BC and never before and never after him then, as common with all temples which go up and down in importance, this is clearly a temple that was important only at the time of Diodorus. So there are two possibilities:
1. He was talking about a temple in one of the many possible towns that are known to have had a revered pagan temple and didn?t mention the town where it is located because his informer didn?t tell him or in the context, the town wasn?t the primary focus.
2. He was talking about a temple not inside but outside a town and this temple is unheard of before or after Diodorus because it existed and was only important during his time.

Mecca is not even a possibility because according to sectarian legends it was one of the most important towns in Arabia and had the most important temple continuously since the time of Abraham. So unless you are acknowledging that sectarians have grossly exaggerated and lied about Mecca then Mecca is not even a possibility.

In fact, Mecca is completely absent from the historic record even in places where according to sectarian legends we should absolutely expect to find it. For example, sectarian legends tell us that Abraha went on his expedition in Arabia specifically to conquer Mecca. Yet it is completely absent from any historic records, including the very inscription specifically commemorating the expedition of Abaraha:

http://www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm

Dedan (Al-Ula) is only 40 miles South-West of Tayma... (and spare me the dramatics, thank you).

No, it is 65 miles away from Tayma but only 15 miles south of Hegra. So it is close to Hegra, not Tayma.

Circumstantial speculation...

It is not speculation. Here are the indisputable facts:
1. In all of history, pagan temples have risen and fallen in importance over time.
2. This temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus.

So a logical unbiased conclusion is that it is most likely to be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time.

Oh don't worry about that bro... a direct reference to Mecca has already been provided. The Diodorus account just cements the case, as none of the alternatives you provided fit the bill.

So now it is ?direct?! Just because you keep repeating and exaggerating a lie, it won?t make it true. You can only fool yourself and pagans who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones.

I am well aware of the Weberian thesis you are presenting and I recognize its accuracy. The Muslims are misguided, but this doesnt help you make a case for this particular point.

What is special about ?this particular point?? Why do you think that this particular stone cube and black stones and mindless pagan rituals are special and that the Arabs were misguided except when it came to those ?special? stones and associated rituals?

Before we begin, examine this verse: "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day..." 9.019
Does this sound like a metaphorical place to you? Would you be able to "maintain" a metaphor? Or provide "drinks" to pilgrims circling a metaphor?

First of all there are no ?pilgrims circling? in 9:19. Also, if I say that I am providing bottled water and managing my company, does this mean that I am managing a stone cube and the walls and ceiling of a building? In regular speech, when you say that so and so is managing any entity such as ?the government? or ?the court? then does this mean that he is primarily concerned with the wall and ceiling of the government or the court? Is the building what makes them ?the government? and ?the court? or is it their function and purpose?

Similarly, when someone does ?sujud?, is it primarily about physically putting the forehead on the floor or about obeying the god? Who is more likely to go to heaven, someone who disobeys the god but puts his forehead on the floor or someone who obeys the god but doesn?t put his forehead on the floor? Is the physical act more important or obedience more important? Clearly, the real ?sujud? that is done by all creatures (even those without foreheads) is first and foremost about obedience of the god. So it follows that ?masjid? is not primarily about the physical building but is an institution of obedience, in other words, an institution of authority. This is truth that everyone knows and thus, when people say for example that the ?masjid issued a fatwa?, they are not talking about the walls and the ceiling issuing a ?fatwa? but about an institution of authority. If we average humans use deep meaningful meanings in our regular speech, why do you assume that the god is only concerned with the superficial building and doesn?t care about deep concepts? Any rational person can quickly see that ?al-masjid al-haram? is about the ?inviolable institution of authority? and not about four walls and a ceiling.

Excuse me, but when did I refuse to answer anything by you (or anyone)? Let me remind you Mr. Truthseeker, you left the discussion numerous times, abandoning your own arguments in this very thread. You still have issues pending in the previous pages of this thread. I suggest that you scroll through the pages and see all of your objections have been answered (and refuted) and start with defending those first.
"Allah has made the Kaaba, the sacred house... " 5.097
This puts an end to your distinctions.

No the god clearly said that he has made the inviolable house as the ?kaaba?, not the ?inviolable masjid? as the ?kaaba?. So there is a distinction.

No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah, as it is itself the actual "Sacred House" set up by Abraham PBUH.

No, you are again demonstrating your inability to properly read the great reading as your vision is clouded by your preconceptions. The ?qibla?/target is towards ?al-masjid al-haram? (2:142-150). There is no passage in the great reading that says that the ?qibla? is the ?kaaba? or ?al-bayt al-haram?.

Has any Muslim ever actually prayed to the black stone? No. So it is not idolatry. And circling the Kabah is a ritual started since the time of Abraham PBUH. So I could very easily claim that the pagans were imitating an ancient practice commanded by God. Also, accusing your fellow Muslims of pagan idolatry is inadvisable. I warned you about making such careless comments before.

This is the same exact thing Christians and Buddhists and all sorts of people who idolize special things say. Christians also say that they don?t pray to the cross and Buddhists also say that they don?t pray to a statue of Buddha. They all say that it helps them get closer to god and acts as a focal point of unity.

Spinning seven times around an idol is a pagan ritual for celebrating the annual rebirth of fertility idols. To this day, it is an Arab custom to go around the house seven times for the birth celebration of Subu3, which takes place seven days after the birth of a newborn. It is not coincidental that the sectarian so-called Hajj similarly takes place on the 8th of Dhu Al-Hjjah, seven days after the beginning of the month.

Allat was a fertility goddess and the stone cuboid whose height is slightly longer than the other dimensions was used by the Arabs to represent her (It is actually not a cube). We find similar stone cuboids in other pagan temples in Arabia and sometimes they were enhanced with eyes, a nose and a mouth:

(http://nabataea.net/eyeidolsml.jpg)

Notice also that the above stone cuboid has a pedestal around the base like the sectarian cuboid in Mecca. Like most fertility goddesses and traditionally females in general in Arabia, Allat?s idol in Mecca is veiled with a black dress.

It is also common pagan symbolism to have footprints imprinted next to the idol. Those footprints were traditionally encased in a vase-shaped enclosure and filled with flowers because the ancients believed that flowers sprang in the steps of the fertility goddess (notice the encasement and the flowery motif around the footprints in Mecca):

(http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8995/92maqamibrahim1sj5.jpg)

Like the pagan shrine in Mecca, it was also common to have ?eternal springs? next to the shrines of fertility goddesses whose water is believed by pagans to have magical powers such as curing all ills.

The focal point of Allat?s idol is the Black Stone set in a vagina-shaped enclosure facing the winter sunrise. Female fertility idols were venerated all over the ancient world and most had black stones associated with them. Fertility idols have close association with the cycle of the sun. The winter sunrise marks the ?birth? of the sun. The Black Stone in the idol?s dilated vagina facing the winter sunrise represents the crown of the head of the newborn pagan idol as Allat is about to give birth.

In Arab tradition, the kissing of the head is a way to ask for forgiveness. Therefore, the pagans who kiss the crown of the head of the newborn idol as it is coming out of Allat?s vagina have their sins forgiven and they return sinless like newborns. This is also why the pagans wear newborn-style wraps. As part of the newborn idol birth celebrations, the pagans also run between two hills to symbolize looking for water to serve to the newborn idol.

Like the pagan shrine in Mecca, pagan shrines dedicated to fertility goddesses have a semi-circular wall on their north side. This semi-circular wall represented the world of the dead and the belly of the goddess where death is transformed into life. Only the pagan priests are allowed to enter this area and the pagan pilgrims circling the shrine are not allowed to go in there. Similarly, in Mecca the pilgrims are not allowed to circle through the semi-circular wall and according to sectarian ?scholars? their pilgrimage is nullified if they do.

Also, as is common with all pagan cults who revere female goddesses, the male force, symbolized by the erect obelisk is vilified. Therefore, while the pagans in Mecca venerate the female symbols, they stone the male symbol.

So what is going on here?

As we know, all previous nations reverted to their misguided ways shortly after the death of their prophets. As you may be aware, Christians appropriated pagan symbols and festivals into Christianity and gave them Christian names. So, for example, a pagan festival was made into a Christian festival by renaming it to Christmas. The Arabs did the same exact thing by renaming their pagan shrines and rituals to match concepts in the great reading;
1. The Jinn-block cuboid shrine of Allat became Kaaba.
2. Allat?s footprint became Abarham?s footprint.
3. The running between two hills to search for water for the newborn idol became running to search for water for Ismail.
4. The semi-circular belly of the idol and underworld became ?7ijr Ismail? where Ismail was raised and Ibrahim, Hagar, and Ismail were buried.
5. The black stone idol head that the pagans kissed to have their sins forgiven, they made the prophet kiss it in Hadith stories.
6. The stoning of the male symbol became the stoning of the devil.
7. Pagan rituals associated with pagan symbols and fertility idol birth celebrations were renamed to Hajj.
Etc. Etc. ...

Wrong. The hajj is not for the "entire mankind". It is for those who want to worship God alone, as that was the reason for its creation:
Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). 2.125
And when taken together this with this verse: "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque..." 9.028
It becomes clear that the limitation was placed on the pagans specifically (those who pray to others besides Allah). Everyone who wants to worship Allah is still allowed to visit the Kabbah by God. The additional restrictions and actions of the wahhabi authorities can not be used as a case to support your argument because that is an argument against the wahhabis themselves.

9:28 talks about ?al-masjid al-haram? while the god told Abraham to invite ALL people to ?hajj? to ?al-bayt al-haram?. There is no exclusion from ALL people. You exchange ?al-masjid al-haram? for ?al-masjid al-haram? haphazardly. The god on the other hand doesn?t use words haphazardly.

See above brother. The house was clearly set up for the worship of God alone. Why would God tell Abraham PBUH to set up a house for the worship of idols? Or those who would worship idols?

Abraham has nothing to do with the pagan orgy going on in Mecca. The god didn?t tell sectarians to set up a house for the worship of idols no more than he told Christians to setup Jesus as an idol. This is your own doing.

C0de, take a good look at the pagan idol that you want us to revere:

(http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7458/7theblackstone02vu3.jpg)

I hope that I am wrong about you and that (like most of us at one point or another) you are simply misinformed and not deliberately lying. I also hope that you still have some of your god-given instinct left in you and that your heart would fear the god and would be repulsed by such idols and unequivocally denounce revering the stone pagan symbols and associated rituals in Mecca.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 31, 2009, 12:03:32 AM
Peace Rami,

After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God. Thats the reason why the pagans were called polythiests as they followed the tradition of Abraham(Millat) but to multiple gods while most Jews and Christians are called 'rejectors' because they rejected the tradition altogether. Therefore, the Quran is an amendment to the tradition but a fully detailed Law to complement the tradition to become a fully functional system. Therefore a Muslim is the follower of the monotheistic Abrahamic tradition. The goal of the Quran was to make all polythiests, Jews and Christians Muslims then to make all the Muslims Believers. Thats why the Quran says that God has completed the religion and he wants to perfect the religion. What boggles my mind, why is this tradition suspended in mid-air. What is the reference for this tradition? Or is it something inherited?

You are looking too hard when the simple answer is right in front of you. One has to be "given" something in order to reject it. Those who were never given a message have nothing to reject but they can still be idolaters. Being a monotheist doesn't require a message. Once they were given a message then they have only two choices, they can either become believers or rejecters.

Tradition is the way of the forefathers and following the forefathers blindly is constantly condemned in the great reading. The god didn't give us a religion. All religions are manmade. Even monotheism is manmade. Therefore it is described as the religion/"millat" of Abraham NOT of the god. The universe is naturally monotheistic and doesn't need any religion to establish monotheism. Monotheism is only relevant to humans as a result of their polytheism.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 31, 2009, 12:05:30 AM
Peace "AB",

Peace "JK",

I haven't presented this view to Edip and Ayman, so I don't know how they feel about this concept... Regardless, though, it would be pointless for the scriptures to relate "violating the sabbath" to breaking any of G-d's commands. Observing the shabbat was one of the MAJOR mitzvot in Jewish law, I believe number FOUR of the ten commandments, coming even before prohibitions against murder and adultery! What can this be equated with in Islaamic law? Obviously, the passage was referring specifically to those who violated the shabbat, not those who "sinned"...

JK- That is all very possible and it WAS once ordained by GOD just as he made certain prohibitions only for a specific people.

Quote
Better? We can't determine which of G-d's revelations is "better" than the other, since He sent down both of them... I think, based on the Torah, stoning was an authorized punishment.

JK- But we sure can determine which scripture is from GOD and which isnt using reeason and logic. This is how we camer to know the Quran is GOD's Word havnt we? The book which is called as "torah" toda by a group of people, even though they might be the majority, is not the true Torah and hence not the word of GOD, all this again being determined by using reason and logic. GOD authorizing stoning as a punishment for bloasphemy can NEVER make sense, much less back in the times when people had no spohisticted lie detectors like the fMRI brain scan.

Quote
However, it may not have specifically been a religious requirement. For example, the Hebrew scriptures instruct the Levites to provide atonement offerings for those who sinned. Examples are provided of people like David, who, according to the scriptures, was worthy of being stoned because of his indiscretions. Yet, he was repentant, and he was forgiven by G-d. Samson the Judge was worthy of being stoned because he broke his Naziritical covenant with G-d, which is deserving of death according to the Hebrew scriptures. Yet, he repented, and he was forgiven. The same went for the children of Israel who committed idolatry and later repented. This shows that many of the punishments mentioned in the Torah were both literal and allegorical. In most cases, today, these are regarded as allegorical, not literal. That's why more MUSLIMS stone/kill apostates than JEWS, and capital punishment is not even mentioned in the Qur'aan...

JK- I dont know what exactly did David and the others do to deserv stonign but if it was blasphemy or adultery then for sure we can determine logically that stoning cannot be fit. If they murdered someone or commanded someone to be killed unjustly then one could say well ok as a last resort if the killers turned out to be extremely dangerous. And yes the Quran doesnt mention any capital punishment for blasphemy ofcourse because it never makes any sense. Blasphemy cant even be quantified well enough with fMRI.

Quote
See the above examples.

So, the passage in 24:2-4 can be considered as simply allegorical? Why, then, does it say not to be moved to pity regarding the adulterer and adulteress? From reading the entire passage, it's clear that the punishment is most likely BOTH literal and allegorical, just like the Torah passages on stoning. It depends on the people and the time period...

JK- The lashes can be considered allegorical or rather not physical meaning that they dont have to be physical lashes with a whip but one could just Boo at the adulterers in public a 100 times. Thats what i meant.

Quote
So, what happens when everyone turns to monotheism? If everyone agrees, will this be the end of the system? The system is about worshipping G-d ALONE, not about debating. Refuting polytheistic doctrines only apply while there is polytheism. So, what happens if you live in a monotheistic society?

Peace,

Ahmad

JK- There will probably never be a times when all humans agree on every aspect even on that pf the Quran. The differences will become ever minor yes but a 100% agreement is not possible. This is why life is a continuous challenge. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 31, 2009, 12:15:34 AM
Peace Ahmad,

I haven't presented this view to Edip and Ayman, so I don't know how they feel about this concept... Regardless, though, it would be pointless for the scriptures to relate "violating the sabbath" to breaking any of G-d's commands.

The word "sabbath" never occurs in the great reading. The word "sabt" simply means "rest". As such, it can be any day of rest such as the sectarian Eid or Christmas or Saturday where some people falsely claim that the god ordered them to rest. We can have vacation days but we should not attribute them to the god.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 31, 2009, 12:55:33 AM
Peace "c0de",


This is a completely invalid and astonishing statement.

JK- WHY?? This is only astonishing to you because you were probably born into a religious family and indoctrinated with rituals. Humans are not born with rituals.

Quote
Yes they do. And now, you can go and ask any historian or theological historian yourself on this issue as well. It is a FACT that religion is based in rituals. It is one of the defining characteristics or religion. It is what separates religion from philosophy.

JK- You have a point here and thats why i dont like to call Islam a religion. "deen" is not "religion" in the Quran's context but rather "judgement/law/obedience/submission".

Quote
Read that verse again, and this time notice the part at the end which you refused to bold: "a gift unfailing." It is an accepted fact that all the three Abrahamic religions present an infinite afterlife.

JK- Well then why this phrase "as long as the heavens and the earth endure"? "A gift unfailing" can very well mean that we would get as was promised to us without any excuses.

Quote
There are many ways man can try and conceptualize infinite and the afterlife. If you want to do it in scientific terms, you can try (as a hobby). But we have no actual knowledge of it, remember that. That is a fact confirmed by science (as we have no actual proof of multiverse and string theory yet, and these are the theories which deal with higher dimensions and meta-verses). Scientifically, we are at a major paradoxical point right now because we can not reconcile classical physics (Einstein's Relativity + Newton's laws) with modern physics (Quantum Physics). So to talk about meta-verses right now in scientific terms is out of the question. We cant even define and make sense of this current finite world, let alone the infinite afterlife.

JK- 1) Yet it makes more sense than rituals and 2) Afterlife is a concept which has obvious benefits whilst rituals dont AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. In other words it would be entirely sensible for GOD to provide us with an afterlife BUT it would not for Him to provide us with rituals.

Quote
The whole point of religion is that we do not think in finite and material terms. Benefit and loss is up to God. So if we pray (which is irrational, and gives us no perceivable benefit) we are told that we will get benefit from this via the irrational (God will grant us benefit of salat).

JK- If we have get a physical command to do something here on earth it should have a perceivable benefit otherwise how can we know that the command itself was Divine? Couldve been some person making it up.

Quote
Actually, the site you provided completely fails to show how the dream was not from God because the verse itself makes it clear that it was:

[37:105] "You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
[37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.

I suggest you read the actual verse yourself. Here are 3 different translations, all of them point out that the dream was itself from God:

037.105
YUSUFALI: "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL: Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR: You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good.

The fact that Abraham PBUH was rewarded for fulfilling the vision means that the dream was from God.


This is why the command (in the dream) was irrational.

JK- This has been discussed. Here(see pt 4.)
http://www.submission.org/ismail-q.html
ALSO i told you another explanation would be that Abraham sacrificed his son by taking him along with him on a hard mission to establish monotheism, not putting a knife to his throat which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I were to accept that notion then i might as well except all of the nonsense in the OT.

Quote
Wrong. That is a materialistic definition of "good" and is rejected by Islam. In Islam (and all Abrahamic religions) "good" is defined by God. Whatever God says is "good" is good. It has nothing to do with calculating benefit or harm, as that is the utilitarian (materialistic) philosophical definition of good.

JK- This is extremely problematic because GOD does not talk with anyone directly and even if He did how would other people know that He did? Hence it is always lastly upto people to interpret what is coming from GOD.  This is most efficiently done by using reason and logic NOT by mere trust in a religious majority as religion does. So say if a scripture says GOD said x,y,z is good HOW would we know that scripture is from GOD in the st place?

Quote
If it was in an "invisible town" then why did Ayman present so many "well documented" locations as alternatives? Besides, it had to be Mecca because a century later Diodorus, Ptolemy came along and mentioned it by name.

JK- Didnt ayman say that there were many invisible towns as well BESIDES the more famous ones hed already pted out?

Quote
Did I ever say I did? I would still advise they follow an accepted form and method though, just to be on the safe side. Thats what I do.

JK- I thought you implied that. However the 2nd part is still problematic. What is the accepted method the shias or the sunnis or the wahaabis, all have different methods in thed details, the wahabis claiming for example that the prophet alwys did rafae yadain(rasing of both hands) before entering every rukoo and sajda. Then your phrase "just in case to be safe" says it all doent it? It shows that GOD, if He commanded this rituals, didnt, GOD forbid, accurately protect them and you wanna sidestep the issue by just going along with what the majority of religious people accept.
them?

Quote
And this position is even weaker then the 3 salat position. Because all you have to rely on are semantics ("alternative translations") which can just be criticized as "manipulations". Especially if Ayman's argument is proven wrong (which it was a by scholars long before this debate between me and him).

JK- Infact the Quran is primarily about semantics i.e. context and grammar unless one can provide solid historical evidence to the contrary. So if Ayman fails and at the same time your historical evidence is as solid as say the big bang theory then youd have a point. I doubt however that would be the case.

Quote
And proof has been provided.

JK- And it has been countered by ayman.

Quote
You dont realize that it doesnt even matter what he replies. His view is discredited by scholarship. I could leave the debate right now and still win because my view is the accepted view of those historical community (Muslim and non-Muslim).

JK- For that youll have to bring some well known non sunni/shia paid historians here. Last but not least each one of us decides for hkm/herself which arguments are stronger.

Quote
Then defend your own views without relying on Ayman. The hadith is a valid historical document, and is accepted by historians as such. So how can you deny its validity in an argument about Islamic and middle eastern history?

JK- The hadith is a vlid historical dicument for some views and not for others just like any other document. Document x written by the Christans could be accurate depicting those things which Chritsinas dont have a bias against, Document y written by Communists would be accuarte depicting those things which they have no bias against whilst document z written by sunnis/shias would be somewhat accurate depicting those things which they dont have a bias against in their repecive ideologies.

Quote
Now you are relying on the fallacy of the majority (as in this case, you guys in this forum are the majority). It doesnt matter who agrees with you, what matters is that the experts who know a lot more about this subject then the members of this forum, disagree with their conclusions. And these experts are not biased Muslim sectarians, but historians. The quotes I presented were not from Muslims.

JK- I doubt once they comapre Aymans arguments with yours theyd still favor more in your direction. But your most welcome bring them here.

Quote
Semantics (again). Until you prove your argument from history, you can not claim validity of these translations. And the fact is that the views presented here that try and justify your alternative translations, have been proven invalid by scholarship.

JK- Which scholarship? Sunni/shia scholarship? Are you honestly saying that the majority of historians agree that kaaba and mecca in the Quran refers to the location today in Saudia?

Quote
Bro, in terms of historical documents the hadiths are EXCEPTIONAL documents of EXTREME validity. Here is a professor who actually converted to Islam after studying how scientific the proccess of hadith collection was. Here is a link to his lectures at MIT, his name is Dr. Jonathan Brown.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5960619842161782578&ei=rbrQSdmFAoPE-wGZvIH3CQ&q=jonathan+brown+hadith

JK- See now i just knew it. Pointing out some random historian who converted to "islam". Sunnis pay alot to get converts and promise that guy a high position. Who wouldnt be tempted? Nobody in his/her right mind would convert to "islam" after one has read through the hadith. They depict the Prophet as GOD forbid a theif, murderer, torturer, pedophile, hypocrite, liar and what not. Remember the hadith which is suppodely sahih where Porphet ordered the gauging out of eyes for ppl and others where he married aisha at 6 and consumated it at 9? those r from bukhari, the most sahih. How on earth can tht be authentic? And the irony is that "muslims" fool themslves into belieng that the sira derived fom hadith claims the opposite.

Quote
Do you realize how authentic the hadith are when compared to many other historical documents? Historians LOVE hadith because of how scientific the method of its classification and codification was.

JK- This is just plain nonsense and only a few "scholars" paid by sunnis could possibly state such.

Quote
Once again, I am not arguing about the details. But I follow the hadith method because I believe it to be what God intended. But I will not criticize anyone who chooses his own method. It is between him and his God.

JK- So according to you GOD intennded the hadoth method? So GOD allowed some of the details to be in inferior protected sources as the Quran? What sense does that make?

Quote
Actually, some do. The link I provided to you of Dr. Jonathan Brown, he is a historian who converted to Islam while studying the proccess of hadith collection after he was astonished how scientific it was. As for those people that dont convert, it has nothing to do with their opinion on the hadith and the rituals as being valid historically speaking. They just have their own beliefs (rational or irrational).

JK- No i beleive it has everything to do. i used to be a a strict pratcing sunni following many hadith from Bukhari until i realized how absurd they really are. Everything that was claimed about the Prophet Muhammad you could find the opposite of his character in those same "sahih" hadith.

Quote
If it was so "inevitable" then why is not every scientist a believer in God? The fact is (and you may not be aware of this) is that belief in God ultimately always has to rest on a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are always based in faith. Now I believe that it is (ironically) more rational to believe in those assumptions rather then believe in the alternative (the atheist approach). I know that, and I agree with that. HOWEVER, what you can not do is to say that these set of faithful assumptions are logically proven. Because they always result in a circular argument. At the end of the day, the believer has no choice but to fall back on those assumptions about the universe which can never been proven or tested.

JK- The only assumption for me to accept the existence of GOD as the never ending chain of cause and effect. If you deny that assumtpion then you can also deny your own existence not to mention well established theories like evolution, big bang etc.

Quote
For example, one of my favorite "proofs" of God is the fine tuned argument of the universe. But a philosophical atheists will always have the option of saying that this is no "proof" because the believer is assuming that there is any "fine turning" at all. And there are many atheist physicists and scientists who reject this model and have "faith" (their own assumptions) that an alternative model can explain any "fine tuning". Even though they KNOW that those alternative models can never fully disprove God either.

JK- The fine tune is good but it's not good enough since if theres an infinite no of universes evolving then an infinite subset would inevitably be fit for living creatures. BUT what atheists are fogetting that an Intelligence would ALREADY have "evolved" in the quantum realm BEFORE ANY of the universes even came into existence, mroe clesrly before the first differentiation of a quantum wave/particle to an elementary particle. THAT is the main point. 2ndly we can prove GOD commnciates to us in that almost allr eligions, even the pagsnitc ones, talk at the core of there being only one GOD despite all the polytheism that has crept in. Also you again comitted the fallacy of asking atheits to disprove a -ve i.e. "prove that GOD does not exist". We have to prove that He does exist and i say i just did.

Quote
The fact is that at the end of the day (and this is an accepted fact) God can not be proven, or disproven. This is why in the Quran Allah tells us to wait... He tells us that those who disbelieve will question the believers, and the believers should (instead of arguing with them) tell them: "wait, for we too are waiting..."

JK- Infact the existence of GOD is proven by pure logic which makes it even more solid then any of the well established theories in science. As you know we dont tehnically prove anything in science but only in mathematics and logic.  GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 31, 2009, 06:25:32 AM
Ayman + Jonny

Salaam


@ Ayman

Your points are dealt with in order of chronology.

Quote
The god didn't give us a religion. All religions are manmade. Even monotheism is manmade.

So this is the paradigm you are working from. I suspected as much. Thank you for making it clear.

Quote
All we have seen from you are fallacious arguments and half truths,

Funny, I can apply this same accusation to you. It seems your not putting forward Tabuk as an alternative anymore... I guess that is an improvement.

Quote
The Sabaean territory stretched north only as far as Najran.

I know, that is what I said. Near Yemen. (so no more "tabuk" and "Dummat-al-Jandal" as they are "in between" Medinah and Damascus.)


Quote
In fact, Mecca is completely absent from the historic record even in places where according to sectarian legends we should absolutely expect to find it. For example, sectarian legends tell us that Abraha went on his expedition in Arabia specifically to conquer Mecca. Yet it is completely absent from any historic records, including the very inscription specifically commemorating the expedition of Abaraha:

http://www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm

(lol) Why would you expect to find an inscription of Mecca here??? Tell me, did you find any inscriptions about Moses (PBUH) in the inscriptions of Pharoah? Since when have the defeated immortalized their enemies in their own inscriptions??? This only shows your ineptness in the field, nothing else.

Quote
As I said, Diodorus was talking about a temple and not the city where the temple is inside or outside. Diodorus didn?t mention many things and he was just indirectly reporting from an unknown informer. We can?t read the mind of Diodorus let alone his unknown informer. Also, since the temple is only mentioned by Diodorus in the 1st century BC and never before and never after him then, as common with all temples which go up and down in importance, this is clearly a temple that was important only at the time of Diodorus. So there are two possibilities:
1. He was talking about a temple in one of the many possible towns that are known to have had a revered pagan temple and didn?t mention the town where it is located because his informer didn?t tell him or in the context, the town wasn?t the primary focus.
2. He was talking about a temple not inside but outside a town and this temple is unheard of before or after Diodorus because it existed and was only important during his time.

Mecca is not even a possibility because according to sectarian legends it was one of the most important towns in Arabia and had the most important temple continuously since the time of Abraham. So unless you are acknowledging that sectarians have grossly exaggerated and lied about Mecca then Mecca is not even a possibility.

You have completely sidestepped the objection to your argument. Your closest hope was Tayma, and this site contained the temple within the city. This site was also well known to the Greeks. So why then did Diodorus (and his mysterious informer, who would know at least as much as the Greeks) not name this location by name? Because this is the only location you presented which is closest to the "middle" location cited by Diodorus.

You gave all this proof for the well documented cities that you put forward as alternatives, most of them which were WELL KNOWN to the Greeks as they lay on the famous incense route. Only Mecca DID NOT lie directly on the incense route in that time. You are avoiding this known fact completely.

The fact is that at the end of the day you have present a long list of invalid alternatives, none of which hold up to scrutiny.

Quote
No, it is 65 miles away from Tayma but only 15 miles south of Hegra. So it is close to Hegra, not Tayma.

65 miles by road maybe. And I was referring to its location with regards to the other locations you have cited.

Quote
It is not speculation. Here are the indisputable facts:
1. In all of history, pagan temples have risen and fallen in importance over time.
2. This temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus.

So a logical unbiased conclusion is that it is most likely to be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time.

The second is an unproven assertion (at this time, as you will see below) and the first is just neither here nor there (for your over all argument).

Quote
You can only fool yourself and pagans who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones.

You do realize that the pagans are actually atheists right? This was their description in the Quran, as they only believed in tradition, but not in any actual gods or God. So closest to their description, is not me, but YOU, as an atheist. I still believe in revelation.

Quote
What is special about ?this particular point??

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Other then the fact that (I believe) God has told me to face it. He could tell me to face any other point for all I care. My allegiance is to God, not to Mecca!

Quote
First of all there are no ?pilgrims circling? in 9:19.

Semantics. It is the generally accepted translation of the words, and equally valid. And since it is supported by historical evidence (while yours is not) it is more applicable then your translation.

Quote
Also, if I say that I am providing bottled water and managing my company, does this mean that I am managing a stone cube and the walls and ceiling of a building? In regular speech, when you say that so and so is managing any entity such as ?the government? or ?the court? then does this mean that he is primarily concerned with the wall and ceiling of the government or the court? Is the building what makes them ?the government? and ?the court? or is it their function and purpose?

(lol) yea, only in this case the verse is not talking about any of those things is it? It is referring very particularly to the maintainers of a mosque.

Quote
Similarly, when someone does ?sujud?, is it primarily about physically putting the forehead on the floor or about obeying the god? Who is more likely to go to heaven, someone who disobeys the god but puts his forehead on the floor or someone who obeys the god but doesn?t put his forehead on the floor? Is the physical act more important or obedience more important? Clearly, the real ?sujud? that is done by all creatures (even those without foreheads) is first and foremost about obedience of the god. So it follows that ?masjid? is not primarily about the physical building but is an institution of obedience, in other words, an institution of authority. This is truth that everyone knows and thus, when people say for example that the ?masjid issued a fatwa?, they are not talking about the walls and the ceiling issuing a ?fatwa? but about an institution of authority. If we average humans use deep meaningful meanings in our regular speech, why do you assume that the god is only concerned with the superficial building and doesn?t care about deep concepts? Any rational person can quickly see that ?al-masjid al-haram? is about the ?inviolable institution of authority? and not about four walls and a ceiling.

This entire point has already been answered in the previous pages of this thread. A metaphorical meaning of the words does not negate the ritualistic meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, religion is built on irrational rituals. It is what separates it from philosophy. So your entire argument is once again a non-starter.

Quote
No the god clearly said that he has made the inviolable house as the ?kaaba?, not the ?inviolable masjid? as the ?kaaba?. So there is a distinction.

Sacred House = Sacred Mosque

unless you can prove otherwise (with something more then semantics).

Quote
No, you are again demonstrating your inability to properly read the great reading as your vision is clouded by your preconceptions. The ?qibla?/target is towards ?al-masjid al-haram? (2:142-150). There is no passage in the great reading that says that the ?qibla? is the ?kaaba? or ?al-bayt al-haram?.

First of all, I never said the qibla "is" the kabba. Did I? "qibla" means direction, so it cant actually be anything other then a direction towards something. And secondly you are demonstrating your inability to accept valid historical evidence (the hadith) to clarify these concepts.

Quote
This is the same exact thing Christians and Buddhists and all sorts of people who idolize special things say.

Wrong, and this totally exposes your lack of understanding. The Christians and the Buddhist prostrating to the object because they feel it is symbolizing divinity. While Muslims do not make the Kaaba as a symbol of God, because we believe in a God that is absolutely transcendent, and yet personal at the same time.

Quote
So what is going on here?

1. The Jinn-block cuboid shrine of Allat became Kaaba.
2. Allat?s footprint became Abarham?s footprint.
3. The running between two hills to search for water for the newborn idol became running to search for water for Ismail.
4. The semi-circular belly of the idol and underworld became ?7ijr Ismail? where Ismail was raised and Ibrahim, Hagar, and Ismail were buried.
5. The black stone idol head that the pagans kissed to have their sins forgiven, they made the prophet kiss it in Hadith stories.
6. The stoning of the male symbol became the stoning of the devil.
7. Pagan rituals associated with pagan symbols and fertility idol birth celebrations were renamed to Hajj.
Etc. Etc. ...


I could care less about the foot steps or the black stones, as they are not mentioned in the Quran. It doesnt affect my argument. And I am well aware of extra-Quranic concepts creeping into Islam, and I do not support them.

Quote
9:28 talks about ?al-masjid al-haram? while the god told Abraham to invite ALL people to ?hajj? to ?al-bayt al-haram?. There is no exclusion from ALL people. You exchange ?al-masjid al-haram? for ?al-masjid al-haram? haphazardly. The god on the other hand doesn?t use words haphazardly.

Another stale objection which has already been nullified. Many things have been mentioned by many names in the Quran. Hell and Heaven have many names, does not mean they are distinct heavens and distinct hells. God has many names in the Quran, does not mean there is more then one God.

Quote
Mecca is never mentioned by name and you know it. Since I doubt that you went to Arabia and dug out some unheard of inscription or manuscript then, without even reading the rest of your post, I can safely conclude that you are either lying or grossly misinformed.

Mecca is mentioned by name. And as for your archeological evidence... keep digging. What makes you so sure you won't find something more? What kind of an archeologist are you? The only recently uncovered the evidence for the Temple of Solomon, and dated it exactly to the right time as it was supposed to have been standing.

Quote
This is false. Semitic words all come from three-lettered roots. Therefore, "K?AB" is the three-letter root that all the forms are derived from. In Arabic, the feminine and the masculine share the same meaning (Sometimes the feminine can add intensification or collective classification). So it is the other way around "MuK?AB? (a shape with bases on all sides) is derived from "K?AB"/"K?ABH" (base) and not the other way around as you falsely stated.

In order to prove it is false, you must first prove your following argument:

Quote
So Mecca is in fact not mentioned by name as you claimed above but Macoraba is mentioned by name. It is ironic that you quote Ptolemy's reference to Macroba when in fact this further discredits the historicity of Mecca. Either you or the source that you blindly copied from left out the most crucial information. Ptolemy listed the towns in Arabia going from north to south. After Iathrippa (Yathrib), going from north to south Ptolemy lists 5 more towns and then Macoraba:

"Iathrippa
*[...5 more names until:]*
Macoraba"

The reason why those defending their emotional attachment to Mecca don't tell us about those "5 more names" is that it exposes their lies. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Iathrippa, but the sixth city to the south of it. The first of those names is the city of Carna in Southern Arabia. So while Macoraba is the sixth city to the south, the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Iathrippa. Thus, Ptolemy places Macoraba south of Carna. Present day Mecca on the other hand is North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was in fact a town somewhere in Southern Arabia to the south of present day Mecca. A likely candidate is a city called Mochorba in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny).


Please provide your references. You think I am just going to take your word for it? The only ones who I have heard challenge this idea are Crone and Cook, both of them are a joke with an obvious agenda. You will have to prove your point with some credible historians who back up your argument.

Quote
Neither Sergeant, Waines or Van Ess above dismiss the view that Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca.

Then show me a reference other then Crone who dismisses this view. All this energy you are spending typing your own thoughts, would be better spent if you back up your words with scholarly material.

Quote
I first got the idea that Mecca didn?t exist not from Crone and Cook or anyone else for that matter. I discovered this based on the great reading and the obvious fact that ?mecca? is used as a common noun in 48:24. Everything else is just confirmation of what the great reading is saying.

Be honest, you were reading the Quran at this time to uncover proof for an already established belief which was present in your mind. This is why you only saw, what you wanted to see. And reading that verse, it is very clear that the Mecca referred to in 48:24 is a specific place, not a general location, as you assert.

Quote
I hope that I am wrong about you and that (like most of us at one point or another) you are simply misinformed and not deliberately lying. I also hope that you still have some of your god-given instinct left in you and that your heart would fear the god and would be repulsed by such idols and unequivocally denounce revering the stone pagan symbols and associated rituals in Mecca.

You may be wrong about me, but I am not wrong about you. I know who you are, and I have encountered many like you before. Give up hope for converting me to your point of view. Its not going to happen.





@ Jonny


Quote
WHY?? This is only astonishing to you because you were probably born into a religious family and indoctrinated with rituals. Humans are not born with rituals.

Wrong. I was not born into a religious familly, in fact my familly is moderate and very learned and highly educated. There are doctors, civil servants, businessmen and engineers in my familly tree.

Quote
You have a point here and thats why i dont like to call Islam a religion. "deen" is not "religion" in the Quran's context but rather "judgement/law/obedience/submission".

Islam is a religion because that "submission" to an absolutely transcendent Creator is "irrational" in the philosophic sense.

Quote
Well then why this phrase "as long as the heavens and the earth endure"? "A gift unfailing" can very well mean that we would get as was promised to us without any excuses

A gift unfailing confirms the infinite nature of the afterlife (this is obvious). This is why it is used to stamp the verse. Also notice that the punishment of hell is confirmed as finite (temporary) in the same way. First God says that they will stay in hell forever, but then the end of that verse is stamped with the words "as long as Allah please" which confirms the finite nature of hell.

Quote
1) Yet it makes more sense than rituals and 2) Afterlife is a concept which has obvious benefits whilst rituals dont AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. In other words it would be entirely sensible for GOD to provide us with an afterlife BUT it would not for Him to provide us with rituals.

That doesnt help your argument. Philosophically, you cant apply rationality to one concept in religion, and not apply it in another. Either religion is rational or it is irrational. Even if there is any irrational parts of religion, then technically (and philosophically) it is irrational. (which it is classified as).

Quote
If we have get a physical command to do something here on earth it should have a perceivable benefit otherwise how can we know that the command itself was Divine? Couldve been some person making it up.

Wrong. Prophets received revelation, how did they know they were not just crazy and going schizophrenic, or possessed by demons? It is FAITH which guides a man, not his reason. Because his own reason will always create doubt. It is even in the Quran that God guides people by their faith (not by their reason).


Quote
JK- This has been discussed. Here(see pt 4.)
http://www.submission.org/ismail-q.html
ALSO i told you another explanation would be that Abraham sacrificed his son by taking him along with him on a hard mission to establish monotheism, not putting a knife to his throat which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I were to accept that notion then i might as well except all of the nonsense in the OT.

It doesnt matter what people say about this. It is a clear fact in the Quran that is obvious! Read the verse yourself and see. It cant get any clearer then this. The dream was obviously from God.


Quote
This is extremely problematic because GOD does not talk with anyone directly and even if He did how would other people know that He did? Hence it is always lastly upto people to interpret what is coming from GOD.  This is most efficiently done by using reason and logic NOT by mere trust in a religious majority as religion does. So say if a scripture says GOD said x,y,z is good HOW would we know that scripture is from GOD in the st place?

Wrong. This is the utilitarian principle, and it is what has gotten this world to the sad and sorry state that it is in today. All these people think they can twist God's word and interpret the definition of "good" themselves. It is a materialistic point of view. According to faith, you obey God to the letter. The principle receives the higher importance.

Quote
Didnt ayman say that there were many invisible towns as well BESIDES the more famous ones hed already pted out?

His argument with regards to Diodorus has been completely defeated. He mostly put forward well known sites most of them were not even in the area mentioned by Diodorus and the one main site that was, contains the temple inside the city.

As for the "invisible sites", they can never be proven or disproven, so you cant put forward those sites in a logical debate.

Quote
thought you implied that. However the 2nd part is still problematic. What is the accepted method the shias or the sunnis or the wahaabis, all have different methods in thed details, the wahabis claiming for example that the prophet alwys did rafae yadain(rasing of both hands) before entering every rukoo and sajda. Then your phrase "just in case to be safe" says it all doent it? It shows that GOD, if He commanded this rituals, didnt, GOD forbid, accurately protect them and you wanna sidestep the issue by just going along with what the majority of religious people accept.
them?

It may be problematic to those who worry about it, but not to me. Intention is most important, and purity of heart. What I have to worry about in my prayer is my own level of attention. That is what concerns me, not the methodology.

Quote
Infact the Quran is primarily about semantics i.e. context and grammar unless one can provide solid historical evidence to the contrary. So if Ayman fails and at the same time your historical evidence is as solid as say the big bang theory then youd have a point. I doubt however that would be the case.

Ayman has failed as his arguments reject the historical arguments based on the hadith (because it contradicts his points, and therefore he fails to take into account valid evidence). To tell you the truth, I am not even taking him seriously. And by the way, the Quran is not "about semantics". Sorry, that is not the correct view at all.

Quote
JK- And it has been countered by ayman.

We will see about that.

Quote
For that youll have to bring some well known non sunni/shia paid historians here. Last but not least each one of us decides for hkm/herself which arguments are stronger.

I never brought any sectarian scholar into the debate. The hadith itself is not "sectarian". the manuscripts are just texts. The sectarians accept some and reject others, but that does not concern the validity of the actual text.

Quote
The hadith is a vlid historical dicument for some views and not for others just like any other document. Document x written by the Christans could be accurate depicting those things which Chritsinas dont have a bias against, Document y written by Communists would be accuarte depicting those things which they have no bias against whilst document z written by sunnis/shias would be somewhat accurate depicting those things which they dont have a bias against in their repecive ideologies.

It is a valid document period. Like I said, all documents are biased. This does not mean you can reject them.


Quote
I doubt once they comapre Aymans arguments with yours theyd still favor more in your direction. But your most welcome bring them here.

What scholars has Ayman brought to support his views?

Quote
Which scholarship? Sunni/shia scholarship? Are you honestly saying that the majority of historians agree that kaaba and mecca in the Quran refers to the location today in Saudia?

Tell me, which non-biased credible historians has Ayman brought?


Quote
See now i just knew it. Pointing out some random historian who converted to "islam". Sunnis pay alot to get converts and promise that guy a high position. Who wouldnt be tempted? Nobody in his/her right mind would convert to "islam" after one has read through the hadith. They depict the Prophet as GOD forbid a theif, murderer, torturer, pedophile, hypocrite, liar and what not. Remember the hadith which is suppodely sahih where Porphet ordered the gauging out of eyes for ppl and others where he married aisha at 6 and consumated it at 9? those r from bukhari, the most sahih. How on earth can tht be authentic? And the irony is that "muslims" fool themslves into belieng that the sira derived fom hadith claims the opposite.

So now this professor is not a valid example because he converted to Islam and supports the hadith (lol)? Even though he is lecturing at MIT? That is your argument? Cuz its not a very good one.

Quote
This is just plain nonsense and only a few "scholars" paid by sunnis could possibly state such.

And of course, you have proof that he was "paid" by the sunnis, right? Or this another "reasonable assertion"?  ;)

Quote
So according to you GOD intennded the hadoth method? So GOD allowed some of the details to be in inferior protected sources as the Quran? What sense does that make?

It makes perfect sense because the Quran is not concerned with details. It is the word of God that deals with the core concepts, which are much more important.

Quote
No i beleive it has everything to do. i used to be a a strict pratcing sunni following many hadith from Bukhari until i realized how absurd they really are. Everything that was claimed about the Prophet Muhammad you could find the opposite of his character in those same "sahih" hadith.

So you rejected them all because of a few hadiths which you did not like? Is that view anymore rational?

Quote
The only assumption for me to accept the existence of GOD as the never ending chain of cause and effect. If you deny that assumtpion then you can also deny your own existence not to mention well established theories like evolution, big bang etc.

I asked you a question that you didnt answer. If that is so inevitable, then why isnt every scientist and philosopher a believer? Because in philosophy, cause and effect was disproven already (by Hume) and in science, there are alternative models of the universe which do not rely on cause and effect. Quantum Physics doesnt need cause and effect for example.

If you rely on reason alone, pretty soon you will be an atheist. And then your position will be totally illogical, because it will have no certainty of being at all. You will reject God totally not because you have disproved God (because that is impossible) but because your reason will tell you there is no proof for God (which there isnt).

Quote
The fine tune is good but it's not good enough since if theres an infinite no of universes evolving then an infinite subset would inevitably be fit for living creatures. BUT what atheists are fogetting that an Intelligence would ALREADY have "evolved" in the quantum realm BEFORE ANY of the universes even came into existence, mroe clesrly before the first differentiation of a quantum wave/particle to an elementary particle. THAT is the main point. 2ndly we can prove GOD commnciates to us in that almost allr eligions, even the pagsnitc ones, talk at the core of there being only one GOD despite all the polytheism that has crept in. Also you again comitted the fallacy of asking atheits to disprove a -ve i.e. "prove that GOD does not exist". We have to prove that He does exist and i say i just did.

Again that is full of unverified assumptions, that the atheists will point out as preconceived. Nothing you have said can be considered "proof"

Quote
Infact the existence of GOD is proven by pure logic which makes it even more solid then any of the well established theories in science. As you know we dont tehnically prove anything in science but only in mathematics and logic.  GOD Bless!

Completely wrong. Pure logic is blind and self negating (refer to David Hume, and Immanuel Kant). You can never arrive at objective truth via "logic". The fact that philosophers are usually atheists disproves your point entirely.




PeAcE
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 31, 2009, 09:36:10 AM
Peace "c0de",

Quote
Wrong. I was not born into a religious familly, in fact my familly is moderate and very learned and highly educated. There are doctors, civil servants, businessmen and engineers in my familly tree.

JK- So your not born into a sunni/shia family? Being moderate or highly educated is not an issue. My father an mother are both well educated and moderate but i was a fanatic sunni. It depends 1) on the environemt 2) when a person is looking for acceptance and can relatively easy achieve it he/she will most likely delve deep into a certain ideology and subconsciouly that will take over ones mind. ALSO the extremists who rammed their car into the airport in London were edicated doctors. Education does NOT prevent you from becoming extreme neither did it prevent me.

Quote
Islam is a religion because that "submission" to an absolutely transcendent Creator is "irrational" in the philosophic sense.

JK- What do you mean by transcendent? Do you mean supernatural? Did you know that even Dr. Zakir Naik, whos a relatively extrreme dunni, said in one of his speeches boldly "In Islam, GOD IS NATURAL" rasing islam above other religions who claim GOD to be supernatural whilst making a point to atheists. And in that regard i agree with him though i somehow think he just said that in excitement to please the atheists. In other words Islam is submission to THE LIGHT OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (24:35)

Quote
A gift unfailing confirms the infinite nature of the afterlife (this is obvious). This is why it is used to stamp the verse. Also notice that the punishment of hell is confirmed as finite (temporary) in the same way. First God says that they will stay in hell forever, but then the end of that verse is stamped with the words "as long as Allah please" which confirms the finite nature of hell.

JK- But the same phrase "as long as GOD doesnt will otherwise" is also used for heaven. ANYWAYS lets say heaven is eternal. Lets go with that. Is an eternal hevaen not beneficial to us? IT IS EXTREMELY isnt it and we can very well comprehend this benefit right now cant we?

Quote
That doesnt help your argument. Philosophically, you cant apply rationality to one concept in religion, and not apply it in another. Either religion is rational or it is irrational. Even if there is any irrational parts of religion, then technically (and philosophically) it is irrational. (which it is classified as).

JK- So your argument is look at all religions and pick the most rational one even though that still contains irrationality or what should i get from this? I would prefer to go with 100% rational system, NOT religion, which i beleive the ones at FMs and my Islam is. If thats not your Islam then im sorry we dont have the same Islam. Even the Quran talks about "their islam" meaning it is not necessarily a proper noun:
49:17 They impress on thee as a favour that they have submitted. Say, "Count not YOUR islam as a favour upon me:...

Quote
Wrong. Prophets received revelation, how did they know they were not just crazy and going schizophrenic, or possessed by demons? It is FAITH which guides a man, not his reason. Because his own reason will always create doubt. It is even in the Quran that God guides people by their faith (not by their reason).

JK- NO this is where you are wrong. Look at this verse:
7:117-120 We put it into Moses's mind by inspiration: "Throw (now) thy rod":and behold! it swallows up straight away all the falsehoods which they fake!
Thus truth was confirmed, and all that they did was made of no effect.
So the (great ones) were vanquished there and then, and were made to look small.
But the magicians(skeptics analysing the magic) fell down prostrate in adoration.

So we can see that a messenger's meesage is analysed using logic and reason. When the message appears to be highly rational then it is concluded that this is an extra ordinary inspiration. This could be via extra ordinary performances, a numerical structure in the messgae delivered, etc. It can definitely not just be taken on faith otherwise anyone who said he was a messenger of GOD should have been one and for those who accept that messengers will come till DOJ even now people could just claim to be messengers of GOD and ill just have to take it on faith BUT THTS NOT HOW IT WORKS. People are guided to the Quran by REASON. How many times does the Quran ask us to ponder upon thev verses? Didnt you ever read 17:36?

Quote
It doesnt matter what people say about this. It is a clear fact in the Quran that is obvious! Read the verse yourself and see. It cant get any clearer then this. The dream was obviously from God.

JK- NO your now putting words in GOD's mouth. Show me the verse where it says "We inspired you(abraham) in your dream". Why does GOD not use this statement which He has done in other cases as in "we inspired the bee", "we revealed it to you"? Coincidence?

Quote
Wrong. This is the utilitarian principle, and it is what has gotten this world to the sad and sorry state that it is in today. All these people think they can twist God's word and interpret the definition of "good" themselves. It is a materialistic point of view. According to faith, you obey God to the letter. The principle receives the higher importance.

JK- And how do you know the letter is from GOD in the foirst palce? THINK bro.

Quote
His argument with regards to Diodorus has been completely defeated. He mostly put forward well known sites most of them were not even in the area mentioned by Diodorus and the one main site that was, contains the temple inside the city.

JK- Ill follow the debate and see who brings the better arguments along the way. The debate isnt over neither are bro aymans arguments.

Quote
As for the "invisible sites", they can never be proven or disproven, so you cant put forward those sites in a logical debate.

JK- So how then can you claim it is Mecca what is meant by one of the invisible sites?

Quote
It may be problematic to those who worry about it, but not to me. Intention is most important, and purity of heart. What I have to worry about in my prayer is my own level of attention. That is what concerns me, not the methodology.

JK- So then why did you say that we need to follow a certain accepted methodology. You should be fine then with bowing and prostrating random no of times as long as your intentions are pure.

Quote
Ayman has failed as his arguments reject the historical arguments based on the hadith (because it contradicts his points, and therefore he fails to take into account valid evidence). To tell you the truth, I am not even taking him seriously. And by the way, the Quran is not "about semantics". Sorry, that is not the correct view at all.

JK- Ayman can say the same of you. Does this mean your shying away from the debate? I hope not. Also the Quran's words have to be understood using primarily it's own context. Secondly hadith is biased in certain areas and salat is definitely one of them.

Quote
We will see about that.

JK- Sure.

Quote
I never brought any sectarian scholar into the debate. The hadith itself is not "sectarian". the manuscripts are just texts. The sectarians accept some and reject others, but that does not concern the validity of the actual text.

JK- The hadith are collected by mostly by sunnis especially Bukhari and Muslim. Those two were sunnis wanting to follow the "sunnah" of the Prophet.

Quote
It is a valid document period. Like I said, all documents are biased. This does not mean you can reject them.

JK- But you reject the obvious biases in them and those issues which have been proven false by other stronger evidence such as the inscriptions ayman has shown. I consider them much greater evidence than the hadith.

Quote
What scholars has Ayman brought to support his views?

JK- I beleive he mentioned some in his above post.

Quote
Tell me, which non-biased credible historians has Ayman brought?

JK- See the latest post of his if you havnt already replied to it. If not ill ask him to in his next post.

Quote
So now this professor is not a valid example because he converted to Islam and supports the hadith (lol)? Even though he is lecturing at MIT? That is your argument? Cuz its not a very good one.

JK- Lets analyse some of the hadith here shall we and then see how rational it is to accept the religion those portray. And im talking about sahih hadith.

Quote
And of course, you have proof that he was "paid" by the sunnis, right? Or this another "reasonable assertion"?  ;)

JK- No but i can display the content of some of those hadith which would defintely support my point.

Quote
It makes perfect sense because the Quran is not concerned with details. It is the word of God that deals with the core concepts, which are much more important.

JK- So that means GOD left the details upto us. Otherwise you can never have enough details. You can always ask for more. Infact there is a supreme example of this behaviour in the Quran. 2:67-2:71

Quote
So you rejected them all because of a few hadiths which you did not like? Is that view anymore rational?

JK- i reject them all as a SOURCE OF DIVINE INJUNCTION NOT THAT THEY HAVE SOME TRUTH AS EVEN THE STATEMENTS OF A MURDERER OR CORRUPT CLERGYMEN WLD HAVE SOME TRUTH. Dont you get this?

Quote
I asked you a question that you didnt answer. If that is so inevitable, then why isnt every scientist and philosopher a believer? Because in philosophy, cause and effect was disproven already (by Hume) and in science, there are alternative models of the universe which do not rely on cause and effect. Quantum Physics doesnt need cause and effect for example.

JK- Quantum physics talks about "instantanous" cause and effect i.e. all at once. That would inevitably result in intelligence in an infinitesimal small period of time. It is proves the existence of GOD even more. Quantum physics goes very much in favor of GOD. HOWEVER i consider this somewhat problematic. It is more logical to say that one wave is causing the other ad infinitum but yes for any possible non quantum observer this would sure seem instantaneous.

Quote
If you rely on reason alone, pretty soon you will be an atheist. And then your position will be totally illogical, because it will have no certainty of being at all. You will reject God totally not because you have disproved God (because that is impossible) but because your reason will tell you there is no proof for God (which there isnt).

JK- No i wont because as I said nothing for me has greater proof, in the true sense of the word, than the existence of GOD. Alost all atheists accept an infinite chain of cause and effect. Now ask those atheists how then is it possible that through such an infinite chain an infinite intelligence has not inevitably emerged assuming control over everything that follows after it? So by their most fundamental point GOD is proven. I dont think anyone has even bothered to look at this aspect. You also may not be able to grasp this initially but eventually you might. This is also why it's unlikely for me to become an atheist whilst it easy for relgiious folk who realize their irrationality at one palce or another.

Quote
Again that is full of unverified assumptions, that the atheists will point out as preconceived. Nothing you have said can be considered "proof"

JK- Proof doesnt necessarily rely on what others think. I think ultimately theyll get it. Reason and logic has brought me where i stand now. Otherwise i would be killing alot of people in the name of GOD today.

Quote
Completely wrong. Pure logic is blind and self negating (refer to David Hume, and Immanuel Kant). You can never arrive at objective truth via "logic". The fact that philosophers are usually atheists disproves your point entirely.

JK- Ok then please tell me what other method is there to arrive at the truth besides reason and logic? GOD Bless!



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 31, 2009, 10:17:17 AM
Peace "c0de",
Quote
You do realize that the pagans are actually atheists right? This was their description in the Quran, as they only believed in tradition, but not in any actual gods or God. So closest to their description, is not me, but YOU, as an atheist. I still believe in revelation.

JK- Bro i must say but this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by you since ive known you. The Quran itself disproves this. Have you ever read these verses:
53:19-21 Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,
And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
What! for you the male sex, and for Him(GOD), the female(the three previous idols)?

Do you see how the pagans beleived in Allah? They just claimed He has daughters?

Then see:

6:100 Yet they(the pagans) make the Jinns equals with God, though God did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!

16:57 And they assign daughters for God! - Glory be to Him! - and for themselves (sons,- the issue) they desire!
This verse explains 53:19-21 or vice versa. Do i need to quote more? Shirk is associating PARTNERS WITH GOD not being atheists. Quran does NOT mention atheists. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 31, 2009, 12:17:13 PM
Peace again "c0de",
Btw i beleive i asked you this already and think you didnt reply. So here it is again. How can hadith be used to understand what any term means in the Quran WHEN HADITH WERE NOT COMPILED UNTIL MORE THAN 200 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HADITH TRACING BACK EVEN CLOSE TO A 100 YEARS AFTER MUHAMMAD'S DEATH. So how does that make hadith reliable about what Muhammad practiced and what certain Quranic terms mean. THEREFORE we at FM INSIST that to understand the Quran you need to use 1) meanings of Arabic terms using Classical arabic dictionaries STARTING FROM THE ROOT and thus taking into account the simplest meaning 2) cross reference WITHIN the Quran and 3) use archaeological evidence such as inscriptions proivded by ayman. GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on March 31, 2009, 12:27:44 PM
@ Jonny

Quote
Btw i beleive i asked you this already and think you didnt reply. So here it is again. How can hadith be used to understand what any term means in the Quran WHEN HADITH WERE NOT COMPILED UNTIL MORE THAN 200 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HADITH TRACING BACK EVEN CLOSE TO A 100 YEARS AFTER MUHAMMAD'S DEATH. So how does that make hadith reliable about what Muhammad practiced and what certain Quranic terms mean. THEREFORE we at FM INSIST that to understand the Quran you need to use 1) meanings of Arabic terms using Classical arabic dictionaries STARTING FROM THE ROOT and thus taking into account the simplest meaning 2) cross reference WITHIN the Quran and 3) use archaeological evidence such as inscriptions proivded by ayman. GOD Bless!

My position on this is CLEAR and has been stated many times. I do not believe the hadith are perfect recorders of the Prophet messages. This is why I do not accept them as containint divine injuntions. Only divine injunctions which are already in the Quran are divine injunctions. And the hadith can be used to get more meanings only those injunctions which have a foundation in the Quran. This is why I do not care about the methodology as much, but the 5 prayers themselves are a diving injunction because they have a foundation in the Quran.


Quote
Bro i must say but this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by you since ive known you. The Quran itself disproves this. Have you ever read these verses:

Actually, God makes clear in the Quran that the pagans pretend to believe, but they dont actually believe in anything. Over and over again we are told that all the pagans observe are traditonal rituals and that is all they care about. For them, there is no afterlife, or God, or judgement. Atheism is at the heart of paganism. The only difference being the pagans observed empty rituals, but at the end of the day they lacked all spirituality, just like atheists.

Quote
So your not born into a sunni/shia family? Being moderate or highly educated is not an issue. My father an mother are both well educated and moderate but i was a fanatic sunni. It depends 1) on the environemt 2) when a person is looking for acceptance and can relatively easy achieve it he/she will most likely delve deep into a certain ideology and subconsciouly that will take over ones mind. ALSO the extremists who rammed their car into the airport in London were edicated doctors. Education does NOT prevent you from becoming extreme neither did it prevent me.

No, at least a quarter of my familly is neither sunni nor shia. And the rest are mostly secular. I have very few people in my familly who care about religion.

Quote
What do you mean by transcendent? Do you mean supernatural? Did you know that even Dr. Zakir Naik, whos a relatively extrreme dunni, said in one of his speeches boldly "In Islam, GOD IS NATURAL" rasing islam above other religions who claim GOD to be supernatural whilst making a point to atheists. And in that regard i agree with him though i somehow think he just said that in excitement to please the atheists. In other words Islam is submission to THE LIGHT OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (24:35)

No, I do not mean "supernatural" exactly. Trancendent is a philosophical concept which states that something is beyond any human cognitive capacity. Anything trancendent is totally objective, and does not depend on human subjectivity.

Quote
But the same phrase "as long as GOD doesnt will otherwise" is also used for heaven. ANYWAYS lets say heaven is eternal. Lets go with that. Is an eternal hevaen not beneficial to us? IT IS EXTREMELY isnt it and we can very well comprehend this benefit right now cant we?

For all we know when Qiyamat comes, even the heavens will be destroyed. And maybe this is why God added that. But in any case, once everything will be rebuilt in perfection in the afterlife, that will be an infinite existence, and the laws of physics (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) will not apply.

Secondly, you can not argue rationally why praying to God (a Trancendent Creator) increases your chances of getting into heaven. This is why no religion is rational. Because all of the things which God asks man to do, are irrational. And there is no PROOF that God is actually speaking through the words of the Quran, this is why not everyone is a Muslim. This is why ultimately, faith is blind.

Quote
So your argument is look at all religions and pick the most rational one even though that still contains irrationality or what should i get from this? I would prefer to go with 100% rational system, NOT religion, which i beleive the ones at FMs and my Islam is. If thats not your Islam then im sorry we dont have the same Islam. Even the Quran talks about "their islam" meaning it is not necessarily a proper noun:

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. The point is that your belief in God is not rational. If you want to be "100%" rational then you will have to give up all beliefs in everything. Even rationality! Because rationality is self-negating! What do you think existentialism is?

The fact is bro, you seem to be new to the philosophical way of thinking. This is why you are confusing your concepts. You think you know what rationality is, but you dont. And you think that this utilitarian way of thinking (which you hold) is compatible with Islam, when it is not in an absolute sense. Although the two can live side by side in everyday life.

Quote
NO this is where you are wrong. Look at this verse:
7:117-120 We put it into Moses's mind by inspiration: "Throw (now) thy rod":and behold! it swallows up straight away all the falsehoods which they fake!
Thus truth was confirmed, and all that they did was made of no effect.
So the (great ones) were vanquished there and then, and were made to look small.
But the magicians(skeptics analysing the magic) fell down prostrate in adoration.

So we can see that a messenger's meesage is analysed using logic and reason.


LOL go and recite this verse to an atheist and see if he thinks there is anything "rational" about this verse.

Quote
NO your now putting words in GOD's mouth. Show me the verse where it says "We inspired you(abraham) in your dream". Why does GOD not use this statement which He has done in other cases as in "we inspired the bee", "we revealed it to you"? Coincidence?

I am only pointing out the obvious: God rewarded him from following his dream. Didn't He? Why would God reward him if he was following something from Satan?

You know, you talk a lot about "logic" and "reason"... but you seem not to apply it where it is actually needed. (i.e. your arguments). Instead you apply it to those things which are inherently irrational (religious rituals).

Did you get that appointment with a philosophy department yet?

Quote
And how do you know the letter is from GOD in the foirst palce? THINK bro.

EXACTLY! That is the whole point! You dont! You have to take it on faith!


Quote
Ill follow the debate and see who brings the better arguments along the way. The debate isnt over neither are bro aymans arguments.

Why do you keep calling Ayman your "brother"?? He is not even a Muslim.

Quote
So how then can you claim it is Mecca what is meant by one of the invisible sites?

I am not claiming that the proccess of deduction yeilds Mecca to be the most plausible site according to Diodorus's description. Ayman has provided many other sites, none of them fit the bill.

The difference is that I am pointing to Mecca and saying this is the location. However, Ayman is saying "no its not mecca, but it can be any other invisible town"... that statement makes no sense. Because at least Mecca can be deduced from logic, while Ayman is just saying it can be anything else besides mecca, but not mecca. Why? Why cant it be Mecca but everything besides Mecca? (its just desperation).

Quote
So then why did you say that we need to follow a certain accepted methodology. You should be fine then with bowing and prostrating random no of times as long as your intentions are pure.

I gave you my opinion. Methodology is still important in my opinion, but since it is not mentioned in the Quran, it is not neccessary to set a standard.

Quote
Ayman can say the same of you. Does this mean your shying away from the debate? I hope not. Also the Quran's words have to be understood using primarily it's own context. Secondly hadith is biased in certain areas and salat is definitely one of them.

How can he say the same of me when I am not the one who is rejecting historical litriture because it doesnt fit with my argument? Am I rejecting all of hadith litriture? (and you cant claim it is biased because all historical litriture is biased, you can keep repeating it, and I will keep repeating this).

Quote
The hadith are collected by mostly by sunnis especially Bukhari and Muslim. Those two were sunnis wanting to follow the "sunnah" of the Prophet.

Do you see how your argument is the same argument used by atheists against religion in general? They can say (and they do) that all religious texts (Quran, bible, Torah) was written by biased people.

But what they cant say is that this bias makes them invalid historical documents. Because even a biased document is still historical.

Quote
But you reject the obvious biases in them and those issues which have been proven false by other stronger evidence such as the inscriptions ayman has shown. I consider them much greater evidence than the hadith.

Read my last response to him. His "inscriptions" are a joke. Moses PBUH is not mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions either, does that mean there was no Moses PBUH??

Quote
Lets analyse some of the hadith here shall we and then see how rational it is to accept the religion those portray. And im talking about sahih hadith.

again with this "rationality"

Quote
No but i can display the content of some of those hadith which would defintely support my point.

Arent you forgetting that I do not consider hadith perfect?

Quote
 i reject them all as a SOURCE OF DIVINE INJUNCTION NOT THAT THEY HAVE SOME TRUTH AS EVEN THE STATEMENTS OF A MURDERER OR CORRUPT CLERGYMEN WLD HAVE SOME TRUTH. Dont you get this?

5 PRAYERS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE QURAN NOT THE HADITH...

Quote
Quantum physics talks about "instantanous" cause and effect i.e. all at once. That would inevitably result in intelligence in an infinitesimal small period of time. It is proves the existence of GOD even more. Quantum physics goes very much in favor of GOD. HOWEVER i consider this somewhat problematic. It is more logical to say that one wave is causing the other ad infinitum but yes for any possible non quantum observer this would sure seem instantaneous.

Everything PROVES God if you already believe in God. That is not the point. Tell me, why aren't all Quantum Physcists believers in God?

Quote
No i wont because as I said nothing for me has greater proof, in the true sense of the word, than the existence of GOD. Alost all atheists accept an infinite chain of cause and effect.

You obviously are not familliar with atheism's history either. Atheists for the most part REJECT cause and effect. David Hume (the foundational atheist) disproved causality philosophically. He did this percisely because he wanted to destroy the rational arguments for the existence of God.

Quote
Proof doesnt necessarily rely on what others think. I think ultimately theyll get it. Reason and logic has brought me where i stand now. Otherwise i would be killing alot of people in the name of GOD today.

Good for you.. but you are forgetting something. It wasnt your reason and logic which saved you... it was God.

Quote
Ok then please tell me what other method is there to arrive at the truth besides reason and logic? GOD Bless!

Thats the point! You cant "arrive" at truth. Because truth is a trancendent thing. This is what Imannuel Kant proved. this is what makes such concepts irrational, because they are trancendent. Only God can guide people to the truth, and this is what the Quran says: God guides the believers via faith (not logic)




PeAcE















Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 31, 2009, 03:51:49 PM
Peace Ayman,

The word "sabbath" never occurs in the great reading. The word "sabt" simply means "rest". As such, it can be any day of rest such as the sectarian Eid or Christmas or Saturday where some people falsely claim that the god ordered them to rest. We can have vacation days but we should not attribute them to the god.

So, you're saying that G-d never ordered the Jews (or anyone else) to rest on the "sabbath"? This is a completely fabricated commandment? If this is the case, then why does the Qur'aan mention G-d punishing them for breaking this period of rest? If there's no command to observe it, then it's illogical for them to be punished for not abiding by this "nonexistent" practice... And yes, the word "sabt" does indeed refer to a resting or ceasing from something. However, in the scriptures, it's used in reference to the Jewish shabbat, not for any random, arbitrary rest period. The scriptures make it clear that G-d certainly ordained the period of rest for the Jews, the Nazarenes, and for all of His worshippers.

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 31, 2009, 04:46:58 PM
Peace C0de, everyone,

So this is the paradigm you are working from. I suspected as much. Thank you for making it clear.

You are always welcome. But judging from your admitted lack of rational thinking you probably didn?t understand anything I said or the difference between ?millat?/religion and ?deen?/obligation.

I know, that is what I said. Near Yemen.

No you didn?t know that. You didn?t even know that Qaryat-al-faw was a town. You thought it was a tribe LOL.

(lol) Why would you expect to find an inscription of Mecca here??? Tell me, did you find any inscriptions about Moses (PBUH) in the inscriptions of Pharoah? Since when have the defeated immortalized their enemies in their own inscriptions??? This only shows your ineptness in the field, nothing else.

Pharoah and his army were drowned and couldn?t write an inscription commemorating defeat or victory. On the other hand, this inscription commemorates Abraha?s expedition into Arabia and is even dated. The inscription not only doesn?t mention Mecca but doesn?t mention elephants which certainly would have been worth mentioning. So this further confirms that the sectarian accounts are pure fiction. This inscription is in line with other inscriptions in Arabia commemorating Abaraha?s other achievements such as buildings and so on. Also, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that it is the Persians and not the Arabs that years later defeated Aksumites.

You have completely sidestepped the objection to your argument. Your closest hope was Tayma, and this site contained the temple within the city. This site was also well known to the Greeks. So why then did Diodorus (and his mysterious informer, who would know at least as much as the Greeks) not name this location by name? Because this is the only location you presented which is closest to the "middle" location cited by Diodorus.
You gave all this proof for the well documented cities that you put forward as alternatives, most of them which were WELL KNOWN to the Greeks as they lay on the famous incense route. Only Mecca DID NOT lie directly on the incense route in that time. You are avoiding this known fact completely.
The fact is that at the end of the day you have present a long list of invalid alternatives, none of which hold up to scrutiny.
65 miles by road maybe. And I was referring to its location with regards to the other locations you have cited.

All your fallacious arguments have been dealt with. The last one is funny because maybe next you will desperately try to justify your plunder by claiming that this is by some kind of long ?road? that an unscrupulous Taxi driver takes people on LOL.

The second is an unproven assertion (at this time, as you will see below) and the first is just neither here nor there (for your over all argument).

You are being irrational again (as you admit).

You do realize that the pagans are actually atheists right? This was their description in the Quran, as they only believed in tradition, but not in any actual gods or God. So closest to their description, is not me, but YOU, as an atheist. I still believe in revelation.

Pagans revere stone idols and assign to them special status or powers. What do you call people like you who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones and give those stones special status and power? They are called pagans.

I am not an atheist. I bear witness that there is no god except the god and I don?t partner with him anything. Unlike you, I don?t setup as partners things such as stone cubes or black stones by giving them special status and powers.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Other then the fact that (I believe) God has told me to face it. He could tell me to face any other point for all I care. My allegiance is to God, not to Mecca!

Your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god and this is demonstrated by the rest of your post as everyone will see below.

Semantics. It is the generally accepted translation of the words, and equally valid. And since it is supported by historical evidence (while yours is not) it is more applicable then your translation.

You are lying again. If not, then please tell everyone which word in 9:19 is translated as ?circling?.

(lol) yea, only in this case the verse is not talking about any of those things is it? It is referring very particularly to the maintainers of a mosque.
This entire point has already been answered in the previous pages of this thread. A metaphorical meaning of the words does not negate the ritualistic meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, religion is built on irrational rituals. It is what separates it from philosophy. So your entire argument is once again a non-starter.

The primary meaning is not the superficial physical one. The god is not superficial like you. Of course, all pagan religions are built on mindless irrational rituals. So as a pagan you readily admit to being irrational and it is not surprising that all your arguments on this thread are irrational. It is also no wonder that you can?t read the great reading since we are constantly reminded throughout it that only those who are rational will take heed.

Also, for your info, there are irrational philosophies. So your idea that religion is irrational while philosophy is rational is false from both sides.

Sacred House = Sacred Mosque
unless you can prove otherwise (with something more then semantics).

As you admitted, you are being irrational.

First of all, I never said the qibla "is" the kabba. Did I? "qibla" means direction, so it cant actually be anything other then a direction towards something. And secondly you are demonstrating your inability to accept valid historical evidence (the hadith) to clarify these concepts.

Here is what you said (copy and paste): ?No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah?. As I said, according to 2:142-150 it is ?al-masjid al-haram? that we should be facing and not the ?kaabah?. As for Hadiths, only irrational people such as you base their faith on them.

Wrong, and this totally exposes your lack of understanding. The Christians and the Buddhist prostrating to the object because they feel it is symbolizing divinity. While Muslims do not make the Kaaba as a symbol of God, because we believe in a God that is absolutely transcendent, and yet personal at the same time.

No, Christians and Buddhists don?t believe that those objects symbolize god. Like pagan sectarians, they gave those objects special status and power. Sectarians give those pagan symbols special powers and they claim that whoever spins 7 times around the stone cube will be forgiven for all his sins. They also believe that whoever kisses the Black Stone will have all his sins wiped out.

I could care less about the foot steps or the black stones, as they are not mentioned in the Quran. It doesnt affect my argument. And I am well aware of extra-Quranic concepts creeping into Islam, and I do not support them.

So you admit that those pagan footprints and black stones have crept into so-called Islam. Yet, despite this blatant idolatry, you keep defending Mecca. Your actions demonstrate that your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god as I noted above.

I can see that you skipped and evaded denouncing or even defending the clearly pagan symbols and rituals going on in Mecca that I outlined in my previous post. Your evasiveness is because you know very well that they are indefensible irrational pagan symbols.

Another stale objection which has already been nullified. Many things have been mentioned by many names in the Quran. Hell and Heaven have many names, does not mean they are distinct heavens and distinct hells. God has many names in the Quran, does not mean there is more then one God.

They are not names, they are various descriptions/attributes. If you abandon that ?al-masjid al-haram? and ?al-bayt al-haram? are names of specific shrines but are descriptions/attributes then you are essentially agreeing with me.

Mecca is mentioned by name. And as for your archeological evidence... keep digging. What makes you so sure you won't find something more? What kind of an archeologist are you? The only recently uncovered the evidence for the Temple of Solomon, and dated it exactly to the right time as it was supposed to have been standing.

You are lying. Mecca is not mentioned by name. The name mentioned is Macoraba and not Mecca.

Also, there is no evidence for the temple of Solomon and it is never mentioned in the great reading. This is only Zionist wishful thinking.

In order to prove it is false, you must first prove your following argument:

The fact that Arabic words are derived from 3-letter roots is indisputable and has nothing to do with Mecca or Macoraba or whatever else in this discussion. This is expected since you are irrational.

Please provide your references. You think I am just going to take your word for it? The only ones who I have heard challenge this idea are Crone and Cook, both of them are a joke with an obvious agenda. You will have to prove your point with some credible historians who back up your argument.
Then show me a reference other then Crone who dismisses this view. All this energy you are spending typing your own thoughts, would be better spent if you back up your words with scholarly material.

Here are the references:

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, translated by Edward Luther Stevenson, Dover Publications, New York: 1991.

You can buy it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Claudius-Ptolemy/dp/0486268969/

You can also see the reference to Mochorba in the book Natural history of Pliny.

Be honest, you were reading the Quran at this time to uncover proof for an already established belief which was present in your mind. This is why you only saw, what you wanted to see.

Don?t assume that everyone is like you.

And reading that verse, it is very clear that the Mecca referred to in 48:24 is a specific place, not a general location, as you assert.

No. According to Classical Arabic dictionaries, ?mecca? means ?destruction?. So here is a translation of 48:24 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the passage to translate the common description "mecca":

48:24. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "mecca" un-translated I didn't. As everyone can see, the clear Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in 48:24.

You may be wrong about me, but I am not wrong about you. I know who you are, and I have encountered many like you before. Give up hope for converting me to your point of view. Its not going to happen.

So I was right then, you are a deliberately lying pagan. This is why you evaded denouncing or even defending the clearly pagan symbols and rituals going on in Mecca that I outlined in my previous post. You know very well that they are indefensible irrational pagan symbols and rituals but you are still deluding yourself. You already admitted that you are following irrational junk. People who want to be pagans will do it anyway and will not listen to anything rational. I am not writing for your benefit but for everyone who reads this.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 31, 2009, 05:05:50 PM
Peace Ahmad,

So, you're saying that G-d never ordered the Jews (or anyone else) to rest on the "sabbath"? This is a completely fabricated commandment?

Yes.

If this is the case, then why does the Qur'aan mention G-d punishing them for breaking this period of rest?

As far as I know, there is never a mention of punishing them for "breaking it". There is a mention for punishing them for "transgressing in it".

If there's no command to observe it, then it's illogical for them to be punished for not abiding by this "nonexistent" practice... And yes, the word "sabt" does indeed refer to a resting or ceasing from something. However, in the scriptures, it's used in reference to the Jewish shabbat, not for any random, arbitrary rest period. The scriptures make it clear that G-d certainly ordained the period of rest for the Jews, the Nazarenes, and for all of His worshippers.

Nope.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: Ahmad Bilal on March 31, 2009, 06:16:12 PM
Peace Ayman,

As far as I know, there is never a mention of punishing them for "breaking it". There is a mention for punishing them for "transgressing in it".

Okay... What's the difference? The people transgressed in the shabbat because it was part of their covenant with G-d. When they violated this covenant, they were punished... What's your view concerning the Jews and Nazarenes "transgressing in" the shabbat? What does this mean to you?

Where do the scriptures imply that the shabbat was a manmade event? And what's your translation of the Qur'aanic passage in 16:124?

Peace,

Ahmad
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: ayman on March 31, 2009, 06:43:08 PM
Peace Ahmad,

Okay... What's the difference?

The difference is that this is not about violating it but about the violation being in it. So the violation is in observing it.

The people transgressed in the shabbat because it was part of their covenant with G-d. When they violated this covenant, they were punished... What's your view concerning the Jews and Nazarenes "transgressing in" the shabbat? What does this mean to you?

Where does it say that it is part of their covenant? The covenant with the people of the book is clearly stated in the great reading and it doesn't even remotely include it.

Where do the scriptures imply that the shabbat was a manmade event? And what's your translation of the Qur'aanic passage in 16:124?

Please see the same wording used in 16:124 used in 39:3 in reference to other manmade falsehoods such as setting partners with the god.

Peace,

Ayman
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on March 31, 2009, 10:36:51 PM
Peace "c0de",

My position on this is CLEAR and has been stated many times. I do not believe the hadith are perfect recorders of the Prophet messages. This is why I do not accept them as containint divine injuntions. Only divine injunctions which are already in the Quran are divine injunctions. And the hadith can be used to get more meanings only those injunctions which have a foundation in the Quran. This is why I do not care about the methodology as much, but the 5 prayers themselves are a diving injunction because they have a foundation in the Quran.

JK- So your saying that hadith can be used to explain the foundations mentioned in the Quran? If that is your claim then this is just ridiculous because ofcourse hadith will explain the Quran in the way a certain group of people with an agenda want it to be. Thats why we stress so much that the Quran explains itself. And the meanings of the words are not derived from hadith but classical Arabic dictionaries.

Quote
Actually, God makes clear in the Quran that the pagans pretend to believe, but they dont actually believe in anything. Over and over again we are told that all the pagans observe are traditonal rituals and that is all they care about. For them, there is no afterlife, or God, or judgement. Atheism is at the heart of paganism. The only difference being the pagans observed empty rituals, but at the end of the day they lacked all spirituality, just like atheists.

JK- Youve ignored the verses i quoted. They clearly say that the pagans BELEIVE IN DAUGHTERS OF GOD. They beleived those will intercede for them on GOD's behalf. Your confuing pagans with atheists. IMHO atheists are closer to the true concept of GOD than most of the sunni/shia/sufi/Jews/christians. And no GOD does not say pagans dont beleive in GOD and ive shown you verses to support my claim. They dont beleive in an afterlife with judgement as portrayed in the Quran EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY THINK THE DAUGHTERS OF GOD WILL INTERFERE AND RESCUE THEM FROM GOD'S WRATH. All pagans have their intercessors at GOD and this is what GOD actually denies in the Quran i.e. no intercessor will help them sicen GOD alone has all authority.

Quote
No, at least a quarter of my familly is neither sunni nor shia. And the rest are mostly secular. I have very few people in my familly who care about religion.

JK- What about the environment you lived in. How did you learn about "islam" and what made you delve into it so much?

Quote
No, I do not mean "supernatural" exactly. Trancendent is a philosophical concept which states that something is beyond any human cognitive capacity. Anything trancendent is totally objective, and does not depend on human subjectivity.

JK- So are you saying that GOD IYU can be objectively known? If so then wouldnt that be ultimate proof of His existence? But even so how does one prove from here that He commanded rituals? That sure aint objective.

Quote
For all we know when Qiyamat comes, even the heavens will be destroyed. And maybe this is why God added that. But in any case, once everything will be rebuilt in perfection in the afterlife, that will be an infinite existence, and the laws of physics (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) will not apply.

JK- 2nd law can still apply whilst there could be a continous refill directly from the quantum field. That is not the main issue.

Quote
Secondly, you can not argue rationally why praying to God (a Trancendent Creator) increases your chances of getting into heaven. This is why no religion is rational. Because all of the things which God asks man to do, are irrational. And there is no PROOF that God is actually speaking through the words of the Quran, this is why not everyone is a Muslim. This is why ultimately, faith is blind.

JK- NO your wrong. If the Quran was irrational ayman, myself and many others would not have accepted it. We only accept the Quran because of it's very rational nature. If IYU there is no evidence that the Quran is GOD's Word then why do you accept it as such? Why not any other religious texts. What is it about the Quran that makes you think it is GOD's Word and not that of man?

Quote
That has nothing to do with what I was saying. The point is that your belief in God is not rational. If you want to be "100%" rational then you will have to give up all beliefs in everything. Even rationality! Because rationality is self-negating! What do you think existentialism is?

JK- Ok i think your now playing with words here. Rationality as a word has to mean something. Rationality includes cause and effect primarily and that is how I derive the existence of GOD. Rational also means basing ones argument on good reasons which further implies basing them on observations with the real world and how people themsleves including oneself function in the real world, how they act and react in certain situations etc. Then these are repeated by other people independently and when they all come to similar conclusions then the claim is said to be evidenced.

Quote
The fact is bro, you seem to be new to the philosophical way of thinking. This is why you are confusing your concepts. You think you know what rationality is, but you dont. And you think that this utilitarian way of thinking (which you hold) is compatible with Islam, when it is not in an absolute sense. Although the two can live side by side in everyday life.

JK- Ultimately it's all about benefits even in your own religion. Why do religious people do good? Because they are promised heaven. However we say that whilst that is also true we also do it so we can hope for a good life and interaction with people her on earth(rabbana FI DUNYA HASSANATAN wa fil akhirati hassanatan" and this is one of the many points we have in comon with atheists. This is very important and ultimately it all boils down to utility anyways. No one does anything for nothing. Yes some people do good because it feels good to them. But then again that feeling is what drives them. Did they feel bad in doing the same, they wouldnt do it.
 
Quote
LOL go and recite this verse to an atheist and see if he thinks there is anything "rational" about this verse.

JK- Moses did not perform a supernatural act here but one which is so sophisticated that others couldnt replicate it. That is proof. Otherwise why should people have believed Moses if ordinary people could do the same? Get my point. That is why we beleive in the Quran because of 1) the predictions it makes 2) the accuate scientific desciptions(as per 21:30) and 3) numerical structure BUT i and mabe some others also claim that the whole Quran has not yet been revealed to us meaning we cannot say for sure whether every letter we find today in what sectarians call "quran" as actuall being part of the true Quran but GW with time all will be revealed. Ayman on the other hand doesnt accept no. 3 but the other two PLUS he relies on the archaeological evidence where oldest Quran manuscripts were c-14 dated and they are ALMOST identical to todays. I too agree with that to a certain extent and ALL OF THIS constitutes EVIDENCE without which none of us wouldve accepted the Quran. Now it's time to give us your reason for accepting it as GOD's Word.

Quote
I am only pointing out the obvious: God rewarded him from following his dream. Didn't He? Why would God reward him if he was following something from Satan?

JK- Could be same as the account with Yusuf. GOD rewarded him for coming to his senses at the very last moment. BUT then again there is also a totally different understanding which ive repeated two times already and you ignored it i.e. not a sacrifice by putting a knife to his throat but taking him along a journey to establish monotheism in the land. Infact the latter makes more sense to me.

Quote
You know, you talk a lot about "logic" and "reason"... but you seem not to apply it where it is actually needed. (i.e. your arguments). Instead you apply it to those things which are inherently irrational (religious rituals).

JK- I apply it throughout. You cannot apply it somewhere and abandon it elsewhere. That would be paradoxial and is exactly one of the main reasons why many people in tthis world act so chaotic. Let me give you an example. Say tomorrow somebody claims hehas been inspried by GOD to kill people x,y,z. He has no evidence but he still believes in it just like you beleive in the truth of the Quran or perhaps even more. Thats why if you have no evidence to back up your beleif in the Quran then that person would be equally justified to accept that statement as being from GOD. This is how most religions operate.

Quote
Did you get that appointment with a philosophy department yet?

JK- Nope and id rather discuss it directly here.

Quote
EXACTLY! That is the whole point! You dont! You have to take it on faith!

JK-  ??? So then why not just accept the OT or the NT or the Vedas as GOD's word to the letter? THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT. WHY QURAN? I ask you again "Why do you beleive the uran to be GOD's word?[/b]

Quote
Why do you keep calling Ayman your "brother"?? He is not even a Muslim.

JK- Ofcourse he is a Muslim(submitter to GOD ALONE) with very good intentions IMU. So i will call him brother. Infact hes more of a brother to me than you are. Our views are much further part than mine and his. He rejects all hadith as explaining the Quran as most of us do whilst you dont. He rejects rituals and so do i. You dont.

Quote
I am not claiming that the proccess of deduction yeilds Mecca to be the most plausible site according to Diodorus's description. Ayman has provided many other sites, none of them fit the bill.

JK- As i said the debate isnt over and im sure ayman will continue to reply.

Quote
The difference is that I am pointing to Mecca and saying this is the location. However, Ayman is saying "no its not mecca, but it can be any other invisible town"... that statement makes no sense. Because at least Mecca can be deduced from logic, while Ayman is just saying it can be anything else besides mecca, but not mecca. Why? Why cant it be Mecca but everything besides Mecca? (its just desperation).

JK-  I beleive you pointed this out to him didnt you? If so Ill see what he has to reply to this.

Quote
I gave you my opinion. Methodology is still important in my opinion, but since it is not mentioned in the Quran, it is not neccessary to set a standard.

JK- But why then is the methodology in regards to the religious details that you accept but are not mentioned in Quran still important in your opinion? Could you elaborate on that?

Quote
How can he say the same of me when I am not the one who is rejecting historical litriture because it doesnt fit with my argument? Am I rejecting all of hadith litriture? (and you cant claim it is biased because all historical litriture is biased, you can keep repeating it, and I will keep repeating this).

JK- And once agaion youve totally ignored my pts. I made it clear that whilst hadith is biased in some areas, particularly the religious issues, other sources are biased in regards to the ideology of the people who wrote them. The hadith were not written by people from all kinds of religious background BUT BY supposed followers of the sunnah. ALSO hadith were only compiled more than 250 yyrs after the Porphet's death. Thats what you are totally ignoring.

Quote
Do you see how your argument is the same argument used by atheists against religion in general? They can say (and they do) that all religious texts (Quran, bible, Torah) was written by biased people.

JK- Thats why we need to have evidence that the Quran is something special and we claim that we do and we point it out to others eg 1) numerical structure 2) lack of contras both with reality and internal 3) predictions 4) claims which have only recently been dicovered(eg 21:30). Infact at the age of 12, i would not have found much interest in further reading the Quran if it wasnt for 21:30.

Quote
But what they cant say is that this bias makes them invalid historical documents. Because even a biased document is still historical.

JK- Yes and i agree there are things in the hadith not pertaining to religion or rituals which can most probably be true.

Quote
Read my last response to him. His "inscriptions" are a joke. Moses PBUH is not mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions either, does that mean there was no Moses PBUH??

JK- YOU GOT IT BRO. To date there is NO archaelogical evidence for Moses either. That is just an undeniable fact. So we'll have to wait and see whether this Quranic prediction is confirmed. Some people have also suggested that the account of Moses in the Quran might be allegorical. So weve to see what happens. As for the inscriptions they show that Abraha never went to mecca tring to destroy the kaaba wth his ppl riding on elephants and that is one major claim of the sunni/shia derived from hadith. Much of hadith pertaining to religion of "islam" is all fiction just as ayman has said. Most of the hadith writers were thus fiction writers.

Quote
again with this "rationality"

JK- Let me put it this way. Lets compare the hadith and see how theyd apply in the world around us. They have many of the same absurdities as in the OT.

Quote
Arent you forgetting that I do not consider hadith perfect?

JK- No i am not.

Quote
5 PRAYERS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE QURAN NOT THE HADITH...

JK- NO they are not.

Quote
Everything PROVES God if you already believe in God. That is not the point. Tell me, why aren't all Quantum Physcists believers in God?

JK- Why arnt all biologists "believers" in evolution? It is very possible that a certain ideology may divert you fromt he facts at hand. Also another point to understand is that if we define GOD as the combination of all intelligence in existence then they already accept that. However theyd say that That Intelligecne does NOT care about us and they dont delve into further search thus they dont analyse how GOD communictes with us and cares as in the Quran.

Quote
You obviously are not familliar with atheism's history either. Atheists for the most part REJECT cause and effect. David Hume (the foundational atheist) disproved causality philosophically. He did this percisely because he wanted to destroy the rational arguments for the existence of God.

JK- BUT BRO if you deny cause and effect then too GOD is inevitable. Its just that then Hed be magical just like the religious folk claim. For if there can be an effect without a cause this means everything can popup into existence at any place any time. Then inevitably GOD would have done so too and would have from that point assumed authority over everythng else. You see how that conslusion is inesapabale? However this(non cause and effect theory) is ridiculous because then we should see an infinite intervention being made in this universe at any place any time and we dont. Infact not a single one. the JREF has offered 1 M uSD for any paranormal activity shown under controlled condiitons i.e. any activity for which theres no cause AND NONE succeeded.

Quote
Good for you.. but you are forgetting something. It wasnt your reason and logic which saved you... it was God.

JK- GOD and reason and logic are NOT mutually exclusive. GOD has provided us with them and hence we ought to use them. If we dont then we fail.

Quote
Thats the point! You cant "arrive" at truth. Because truth is a trancendent thing. This is what Imannuel Kant proved. this is what makes such concepts irrational, because they are trancendent. Only God can guide people to the truth, and this is what the Quran says: God guides the believers via faith (not logic)

JK- GOD does NOT guide via faith. He guides via reason and logic. THIS IS EXACTLY the pt your missing. If GOD guided via faith then religous faith mehtofdsd i.e. ritual prayer, etc should be the most successful but instead the ones who employ reaosn and logic get (rabbana atina FIDDUNYA HASSANATN). So i just showed you with evidence that your claim is false. GOD Bless!



Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: jonny_k on April 01, 2009, 03:11:24 AM
Peace again "c0de",
Although the following is a relatively old point of yours I'd like to address it:

Quote
Firstly, I did not say that the Quran mentions the standard, I said that the Quran says that
there is a standard. This is clear when we are told that we can shorten our
prayers when we are traveling, this implies that there is a set length to the prayer. If there
was no set length or standard, then why would God tell us we can "shorten" the prayer? If
its length was arbitrary to begin with, this injunction would not have been necessary.

JK- So if you accept the standard of the "muslim" majority then Maghrib, the fourth prayer, has 3 units. How would you shorten 3 units and remember that the same majority of "muslims" all agree that "fajr" and "maghrib" are not to be shortened. Now if you decide to go along with the majority, in case when the shortening applies, then youve contradicted the Quran in at least two prayers and if you decide to shorten "fajr" to one unit and "maghrib" to say 2 units, then you wldve violated the standard. So how are you going to solve this dilemna? Do you see now why this argument of a standard found in so called "muslim" socieities doesnt hold up to scutiny? GOD Bless!
Title: Re: The Prayer Issue Revived
Post by: c0de on April 01, 2009, 05:14:02 AM
Ayman + Jonny

Salaam


@ Ayman

Quote
You are always welcome. But judging from your admitted lack of rational thinking you probably didn?t understand anything I said or the difference between ?millat?/religion and ?deen?/obligation.

No, the real difference is that I accept the limitations of human "rationality". While you hold it above all else, ironically unaware of the irrationality of your own position. And your paradigm is specifically tied to the belief that no revelation was granted to the Prophet. So you are not a Muslim, are you?

Quote
No you didn?t know that. You didn?t even know that Qaryat-al-faw was a town. You thought it was a tribe LOL.

Yes I did, and your "lol" doesnt save your argument on Tabuk or Dummat al Jammat, nor your Sabeaen towns, nor Tayma... at least your not arguing over them anymore. I consider that an improvement (i.e. surrender).

Quote
Pharoah and his army were drowned and couldn?t write an inscription commemorating defeat or victory.

This is the funniest thing you have said so far. Pharoah was not drowned. This is even in the Quran. His body has already been excavated. But you would have known that already, had you been a credible archeologist.

Quote
On the other hand, this inscription commemorates Abraha?s expedition into Arabia and is even dated. The inscription not only doesn?t mention Mecca but doesn?t mention elephants which certainly would have been worth mentioning. So this further confirms that the sectarian accounts are pure fiction. This inscription is in line with other inscriptions in Arabia commemorating Abaraha?s other achievements such as buildings and so on. Also, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that it is the Persians and not the Arabs that years later defeated Aksumites.

You completely failed to respond to the objection: If Abraha was defeated while attacking Mecca, why would he inscribe his defeat (or any part of the episode) in an inscription? Humiliation is generally avoided in the accounts of the loser.

Quote
All your fallacious arguments have been dealt with. The last one is funny because maybe next you will desperately try to justify your plunder by claiming that this is by some kind of long ?road? that an unscrupulous Taxi driver takes people on LOL.

I will consider this a surrender from your side, as you have failed to respond to the objections and are pretending as if you have dealt with them, while you have not.

Quote
Pagans revere stone idols and assign to them special status or powers. What do you call people like you who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones and give those stones special status and power? They are called pagans.

I am not an atheist. I bear witness that there is no god except the god and I don?t partner with him anything. Unlike you, I don?t setup as partners things such as stone cubes or black stones by giving them special status and powers.

Okay, you are not an atheist, and I apologize. But are you a Muslim? Do you also believe that revelation was granted to the Prophet? As Muslims are required to believe in ALL the prophets.

Quote
Your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god and this is demonstrated by the rest of your post as everyone will see below.

Why would my allegiance be to a place I have never been to? What stake do I have in anything "meccan" ??

Quote
You are lying again. If not, then please tell everyone which word in 9:19 is translated as ?circling?.

I already had this argument with Jonny. The translations of the word tawwaf are not mutually exclusive. They can mean visitation AND circling. So you can not claim that one definition cancels out the other.

Quote
The primary meaning is not the superficial physical one. The god is not superficial like you. Of course, all pagan religions are built on mindless irrational rituals. So as a pagan you readily admit to being irrational and it is not surprising that all your arguments on this thread are irrational. It is also no wonder that you can?t read the great reading since we are constantly reminded throughout it that only those who are rational will take heed.

Also, for your info, there are irrational philosophies. So your idea that religion is irrational while philosophy is rational is false from both sides.

I know the primary meaning is not the "superficial one"... was I talking about "meaning"?

And I know philosophy is not rational. I said the difference between philosophy and religion is primarily of ritual *(not rationality)* I actually said philosophy and rationality is self-negating as it proves the irrationality or rationality. It is clear that you have not read or understood anything from my previous response.

Quote
As you admitted, you are being irrational.

LOL, I can see you have picked up a nice catchword... good for you.

Quote
Here is what you said (copy and paste): ?No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah?. As I said, according to 2:142-150 it is ?al-masjid al-haram? that we should be facing and not the ?kaabah?. As for Hadiths, only irrational people such as you base their faith on them.

Yea... and, Masjid al Haraam contains the Kabbah.

Quote
No, Christians and Buddhists don?t believe that those objects symbolize god. Like pagan sectarians, they gave those objects special status and power. Sectarians give those pagan symbols special powers and they claim that whoever spins 7 times around the stone cube will be forgiven for all his sins. They also believe that whoever kisses the Black Stone will have all his sins wiped out.

Actually, they do believe those objects symbolize God. Don't believe me? Then go and ask a hindu if he thinks the idol of Shiva symbolizes Shiva or not.

Quote
So you admit that those pagan footprints and black stones have crept into so-called Islam. Yet, despite this blatant idolatry, you keep defending Mecca. Your actions demonstrate that your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god as I noted above.

I can see that you skipped and evaded denouncing or even defending the clearly pagan symbols and rituals going on in Mecca that I outlined in my previous post. Your evasiveness is because you know very well that they are indefensible irrational pagan symbols.

I did not evade your points but I already answered it. I will answer it again (and have done so multiple times already on this thread): None of the rituals that you point out as pagan can be proven if the Quranic argument is that all these rituals started out as monotheistic and were then copied by the pagans. There is only one truly pagan ritual: the setting up of idols and bowing to it. I, nor any Muslim actually bows to an idol.

Quote
They are not names, they are various descriptions/attributes. If you abandon that ?al-masjid al-haram? and ?al-bayt al-haram? are names of specific shrines but are descriptions/attributes then you are essentially agreeing with me.

I am agreeing with the fact that these names/descriptions have multiple significances. What I am disagreeing with is that they do not also point out specific places. Just because something is called by different names (hell and heaven do have different names) Does not mean they are different places.


Quote
You are lying. Mecca is not mentioned by name. The name mentioned is Macoraba and not Mecca.

I am not "lying" I am quoting the opinion of others.

Quote
Also, there is no evidence for the temple of Solomon and it is never mentioned in the great reading. This is only Zionist wishful thinking.

Really? Then what was the temple in which Queen Sheba stood with Solomon, wondering at the glass floors beneath which ran running water? This story is in the Quran.

Quote
Here are the references:

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, translated by Edward Luther Stevenson, Dover Publications, New York: 1991.

You can buy it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Claudius-Ptolemy/dp/0486268969/

You can also see the reference to Mochorba in the book Natural history of Pliny.


LOL! I didnt ask you for primary sources. I asked you which scholars agree with your interpretations of these primary sources? Who agrees with the fact that Macroaba is not Mecca?

Quote
No. According to Classical Arabic dictionaries, ?mecca? means ?destruction?. So here is a translation of 48:24 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the passage to translate the common description "mecca":

48:24. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "mecca" un-translated I didn't. As everyone can see, the clear Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in 48:24.

More semantics.


Quote
So I was right then, you are a deliberately lying pagan.

lol, whatever.






@ Jonny



Quote
So your saying that hadith can be used to explain the foundations mentioned in the Quran? If that is your claim then this is just ridiculous because ofcourse hadith will explain the Quran in the way a certain group of people with an agenda want it to be. Thats why we stress so much that the Quran explains itself. And the meanings of the words are not derived from hadith but classical Arabic dictionaries.

How can you say it is "ridiculous"? When every field of study has primary source material and secondary source material?

Quote
Youve ignored the verses i quoted. They clearly say that the pagans BELEIVE IN DAUGHTERS OF GOD. They beleived those will intercede for them on GOD's behalf. Your confuing pagans with atheists. IMHO atheists are closer to the true concept of GOD than most of the sunni/shia/sufi/Jews/christians. And no GOD does not say pagans dont beleive in GOD and ive shown you verses to support my claim. They dont beleive in an afterlife with judgement as portrayed in the Quran EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY THINK THE DAUGHTERS OF GOD WILL INTERFERE AND RESCUE THEM FROM GOD'S WRATH. All pagans have their intercessors at GOD and this is what GOD actually denies in the Quran i.e. no intercessor will help them sicen GOD alone has all authority.