The Prayer Issue Revived
-
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 12-30 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!
-
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. 9128, 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
-
Peace "Ahmed Bilal",
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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. 9128, 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 11 fall under that and no other verse. So it yet remains to be discovered. GOD Bless!
-
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 (11) before light (13), sun and stars (116); birds and whales (121) before reptiles and insects (124); and flowering plants (111) before any animals (120). 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! -
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
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 9128&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 11 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.
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?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!
-
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! -
@ 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
-
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! -
@ 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.
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.
Secondly why are there even so many variances in the various acts in salat amongst various sects?
See above.
Thirdly what sense does it make to face a physical Qiblah on a spherical planet?
What "sense" does it make to pray at all?
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
-
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.
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.
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
2149 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.
2150 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.2150 again repeats whats in 2149 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!
-
Peace "c0de",
I forgot to address this qs of yours.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!
-
@ Jonny K
Salaam bro. Again, most of the points you have raised have already been answered, but I will answer you out of courtesy.
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.
2149 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.
2150 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.2150 again repeats whats in 2149 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 229).
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.
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.
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"
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.
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".
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
-
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 9128&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 11 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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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/petraWhat 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 229).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
PeAcEJK- 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!