The Prayer Issue Revived
-
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/languageHere 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_anonGOD Bless!
-
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
-
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_scrollsPublication 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! -
Salaam JK
Peace "c0de",
BEFORE YOU REPLY TO THIS PLZ GO HERE http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597936.msg196341#msg196341Why 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- 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?
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).
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.
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 95 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...
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=13378.0You are seeing things in my posts which aren't there, a perfect example of subjective reasoning.
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 onwardsSo have I, on other forums. Guess what, no atheist ever got converted... How many atheists have you converted?
JK- GOD has given us our brain and our senses and He wants us to use them as per 1736.
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- 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
-
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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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_anonJK- 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.
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?
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.htmlKeep 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.
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.
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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."
-
@ c0de
Selam. Although the Ismailis are Shia, they do 3x Duas per day. They don't practive 5x Salaat per day.
-
@ Progressive
Salaam bro,
The reason for 3 prayers is stated as thus
"Nizari Ismai'lis reason that it is up to the Imm of the time to designate the style and form of prayer,"
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili#SalahTherefore 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#SalahThis quote also serves to prove that the Shias believe in 5 distinct prayers.
PeAcE
-
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
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 1736, 20114, 3528, 496, 5811.
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
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!
-
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.
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
-
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.
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!
