The Prayer Issue Revived
-
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 I have discussed this issue with JK via MSN, and I find the entire premise of rejecting the hadith as a valid historical document to be simply bad scholarship.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!
-
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.
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
-
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.
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!
-
Peace "c0de",
I noticed you sayingThe 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 2238 Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers(AS-SALAWAAT), especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before God in a devout (frame of mind).
GOD Bless! -
@ Jonny K
I have since that post come to know of the plural is Salwaat, thank you anyway though.
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.
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
-
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?
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.
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.
PeAcEJK- This discussion ill leave btw u and ayman and then we'll see who presents the better evidence for his claim. GOD Bless!
-
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.
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.
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
-
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.
(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.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!
-
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
