The Prayer Issue Revived
-
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
-
Jonny + Ayman
Salaam brothers
@ Jonny
JK- Quran can be c14 dated almost 1400 years back. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur%27an#Oldest_copy_known_today
Do hadith scriptures date that much back? Find me hadith dating back even 1300 yrs to have some credibility. BESIDES one non Divine document alone cannot provide all correct info ABOUT ANY ISSUE especially if it's rituals inside relgious texts biased towards them.Did I say the hadith were as valid as the Quran? But the 5 prayer ritual doesn't contradict the Quran, does it? This why the hadith which talk about the 5 prayers, AND the historical practice of this ritual confirm it.
No because he knows more of the details regarding the arhcaelogical findings he provided which i already pointed out but aparently you dont give them much credit so hed be best clarifying that to you. GOD Bless!
Check below for the errors in his findings
@ Ayman
You will see below that both of the alternative locations you have pointed to are non-starters for you
Diodorus Siculus gives the location as somewhere between the Thamudites and the Sabeans.
Yes, here is a map highlighting that region
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Hijaz.png
The Thamudites were located in the Northern Hejaz http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meda%27in_Saleh And the Sabaeans were way down South, near the Coast. I have another map of their location which I have provided below. Now, remember that the account says the location of this temple lies "between" this region.
then this would be the magnificent and extremely revered temple at Tayma that was famous all over the ancient world and is well documented in the archeological record.
Two major problems with this hypothesis.
#1 This town was always more important to the Babylonians and the Jews then the Arabs. Here is the wiki page of the history of this town http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma Do you see any reference to any ancient Arab temple? While the Greek account clearly says that the temple it is talking about is an Arab temple.
#2 Look at the location Tayma (zoom out)
http//maps.google.com/maps?q=Tayma&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B2GGGL_enCA206CA206&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
This location is Northwards and towards the East of Medinah, 400km away. It is hardly even in the Hejaz as it is on the border of the Nefd Desert. So it is not "between the Thamudites and the Sabeans." is it? As the Sabeans are located here
http//www.toddmiller.com/maps/Arabia/Arabia.gif
All the way down the Western Coast near Yemen.
It could also be the important and highly revered temple at Dumat al-Jundal that is also talked about extensively in the archeological record.
This is not even an option for you as it is located in this province
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Saudi_Arabia_-_Al_Jawf_province_locator.png
"Dumat al-Jundal (Arabic ‎, is a ruined ancient city located in North Western Saudi Arabia in the Al Jawf province."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumat_Al-JandalNot even close to the Thamudites, let alone the Sabaeans. So no point in even discussing this option.
Mecca is never mentioned by Diodorus Siculus or ANYONE prior to the 8th century CE.
Yes it is. Mecca is the only location which fits this Greek description. You have no alternatives at this point.
C0de, all this is well established and it is besides the point anyway. What is the purpose of your emotional attachment to Mecca? Why can't you just build a stone cube on your street, stick a black stone in its corner in a vagina-shaped enclosure facing the winter sunrise, and spin around it seven times and kiss it while wearing nothing but a towel? Why would doing those crazy things suddenly be OK in Mecca but not on your street? Does the air in Mecca make them rational?
(lol) ... this rhetorical paragraph might have been really effective... if it was preceded by a valid argument.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Jonny + Ayman
Salaam brothers
@ Jonny
Did I say the hadith were as valid as the Quran? But the 5 prayer ritual doesn't contradict the Quran, does it? This why the hadith which talk about the 5 prayers, AND the historical practice of this ritual confirm it.
JK- The fly hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? The command to keep the beard and trim the mustache in hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? Why do you take one issue, rituals, and make it more important than other commands in hadith which also dont contradict the Quran? Dont you see the flaw even now?
Check below for the errors in his findings
JK- Ok ill see as the debate goes on. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
The fly hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? The command to keep the beard and trim the mustache in hadith doesnt contradict the Quran does it? Why do you take one issue, rituals, and make it more important than other commands in hadith which also dont contradict the Quran? Dont you see the flaw even now?
It seems someone has a bad case of repeatidis (lol). Tell me bro, why do you keep repeating objections which have already been answered? What did I tell you the last time you raised this same objection? I take any hadith which does not contradict the Quran OR my own reason to be valid. Why? Because the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents (whether you like it or not). Only the Quran is perfect, if you started rejecting all historical documents which weren't 100% authentic or didnt have errors, there would be no way to study history! So if you want to base your argument on something, bring historical proof. You reject all the hadith? Then bring something else which proves that the Early Muslims thought that the prayers were just metaphorical, or that they only prayed 3 times in the day. But your problems dont end there. Because even if you brought such evidence (which you dont have) it would still have to be weighed against all the hadiths which contradict it, and unless you somehow prove that each and every single one of those ahadith is inauthentic, your case will still be weaker then the alternative. But that is besides the point anyway, because for now you have no case, because you have no evidence anyway.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
It seems someone has a bad case of repeatidis (lol).
JK- I gave another example of beard this time so no it's an extension to further make my point.
Tell me bro, why do you keep repeating objections which have already been answered? What did I tell you the last time you raised this same objection? I take any hadith which does not contradict the Quran OR my own reason to be valid.
JK- OK BRO then most secular people's REASON would immediately tell them that rituals make the least sense even less than keeping the beard which could at least serve as an attraction for females if shaped right as many do today. Rituals have absolutely ZERO secular value. People only get into those because of their reliigous dogma. Dont you see this?
Why? Because the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents (whether you like it or not). Only the Quran is perfect, if you started rejecting all historical documents which weren't 100% authentic or didnt have errors, there would be no way to study history!
JK- You may use the hadith to get the appx dates of how old people were and other secular activities. That i can still accept but NEVER regarding any Divine instructions. HOW many times do i have to make tht clear?
So if you want to base your argument on something, bring historical proof. You reject all the hadith?
JK- I reject all hadith AS BEIN DIVINE. I clearly stated that the events in some hadith are almost inevitably going to be true but how do you know which if you only look in hadith? See my point?
Then bring something else which proves that the Early Muslims thought that the prayers were just metaphorical, or that they only prayed 3 times in the day. But your problems dont end there.
JK- I told you with religious rituals hadith would be the most unreliable biased document to refer to. Secular inscriptions presented by ayman refute the rituals. AND EVEN IF most "muslims" prayed five times a day doesnt mean that they got the command of GOD right. The majority of Chrisans too beleived in the trinity.
Because even if you brought such evidence (which you dont have) it would still have to be weighed against all the hadiths which contradict it, and unless you somehow prove that each and every single one of those ahadith is inauthentic, your case will still be weaker then the alternative. But that is besides the point anyway, because for now you have no case, because you have no evidence anyway.
PeAcE
JK- BRO it is inevitable that some hadith are going to be right. The pts to note are 1) how can we know which ones are right and which are wrong from the hadith itself 2) no hadith can be authentic in regards to additional Divine instructions for all times that are not mentioned in the Quran because why then didnt GOD put them in the Quran in the 1st palce. Got it? GOD Bless!
-
It seems someone has a bad case of repeatidis (lol). Tell me bro, why do you keep repeating objections which have already been answered? What did I tell you the last time you raised this same objection? I take any hadith which does not contradict the Quran OR my own reason to be valid. Why? Because the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents (whether you like it or not). Only the Quran is perfect, if you started rejecting all historical documents which weren't 100% authentic or didnt have errors, there would be no way to study history! So if you want to base your argument on something, bring historical proof. You reject all the hadith? Then bring something else which proves that the Early Muslims thought that the prayers were just metaphorical, or that they only prayed 3 times in the day. But your problems dont end there. Because even if you brought such evidence (which you dont have) it would still have to be weighed against all the hadiths which contradict it, and unless you somehow prove that each and every single one of those ahadith is inauthentic, your case will still be weaker then the alternative. But that is besides the point anyway, because for now you have no case, because you have no evidence anyway.
PeAcE
Some people here reject all hadiths. Others reject only those they think contradict the Koran. Some reject anything outside the Koran whatever it is. Some like me take the Koran with the previous scriptures. Some like you take the Koran and some of the hadith but not the previous scriptures. Everybody has his angle. Why do you insist your method is correct and others are wrong? These debates get nowhere. Some here pray 5 times, some pray 3 and some two and some believe prayers is not physical but spiritual. Some pray like Sunnis do but not 5, others pray very differently even if they pray 5. To each is his own. There is no one way to pray. There is no evidence to support one side from the other. Some people act like there is but there really isn't. This has been discussed here so many times but everyone reached different conclusions. But there is a pattern we can detect and that is everyone is trying to understand the Koran and understand history. The Koran is not always easy to understand and interpret and history about Muhammad is non existent except bits here and bits there and the rest is all sectarian.
-
Jonny + Bigmo
Salaam brothers
@ Jonny
Peace "c0de",
JK- I gave another example of beard this time so no it's an extension to further make my point.
lol, are you serious? How does giving another example of the same type "further your point" when that entire argument has already been parried?
JK- OK BRO then most secular people's REASON would immediately tell them that rituals make the least sense even less than keeping the beard which could at least serve as an attraction for females if shaped right as many do today. Rituals have absolutely ZERO secular value. People only get into those because of their reliigous dogma. Dont you see this?
Completely invalid reasoning. There are so many rituals in the Quran which are TOTALLY illogical."logic" has nothing to do with it. Look at this verse from the Quran, see how many actions we are told to do which make no sense "rationally" speaking
- You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and
Umrah for GOD. If you are prevented, you shall send an offering, and do not resume cutting your hair until your offering has reached its destination. If you are ill, or suffering a head injury (and you must cut your hair), you shall expiate by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship. During the normal Hajj, if you break the state of Ihraam (sanctity) betweenUmrah and Hajj, you shall expiate by offering an animal sacrifice. If you cannot afford it, you shall fast three days during Hajj and seven when you return home - this completes ten - provided you do not live at the Sacred Masjid. You shall observe GOD, and know that GOD is strict in enforcing retribution.
Faith is not about "reason and rationality".... this is why it is Faith.
JK- BRO it is inevitable that some hadith are going to be right. The pts to note are 1) how can we know which ones are right and which are wrong from the hadith itself 2) no hadith can be authentic in regards to additional Divine instructions for all times that are not mentioned in the Quran because why then didnt GOD put them in the Quran in the 1st palce. Got it? GOD Bless!
Exactly! The Quran already mentions the divine injunction to pray (all 5 times are listed). The hadith are only adding details. They are not adding divine injunctions.
JK- You may use the hadith to get the appx dates of how old people were and other secular activities. That i can still accept but NEVER regarding any Divine instructions. HOW many times do i have to make tht clear?
Do whatever you want... I dont care what your personal beliefs are and what you accept or reject. But this isnt about your personal beliefs, this is a DEBATE! And you cant win a debate by ignoring evidence.
JK- I reject all hadith AS BEIN DIVINE. I clearly stated that the events in some hadith are almost inevitably going to be true but how do you know which if you only look in hadith? See my point?
Your point has already been addressed... you are just repeating yourself.
JK- I told you with religious rituals hadith would be the most unreliable biased document to refer to. Secular inscriptions presented by ayman refute the rituals. AND EVEN IF most "muslims" prayed five times a day doesnt mean that they got the command of GOD right. The majority of Chrisans too beleived in the trinity.
repetition... (its getting boring now dude)
@ Bigmo
I am not the one who is attacking other people's beliefs. I am defending my beliefs against accusations of paganism. Please keep that in mind.
PeAcE
- You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and
-
Salaam,
Dear J-K; your calling upon ayman on almost your every second post in this particular debate has said it all. Arguments of cOde are much stronger then yours.
Regarding your not taking Ahadith or any other Historical document as an evidence in support of 5 prayers when in contrast your have failed to bring up a single one in your support is not understandable.
Ayman?s theory is like a half boiled egg. No documentary support. He builds his whole edifice on calligraphy & inscriptions, which are lame without historical proofs. Prayers and practical prayers have been established in Jews the Bible talks about it, it talks about Kibla being a physical place and not metaphorical place. So this Kibla thing being physical is not invented by Arabs as protrayed by ayman.
The earliest dated hijz inscription was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
So therefore there was a person by the name of Umar who ruled the Arab at that time and not all these stories are fabricated as you and your friend ayman think.Ayman?s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.
-
Peace C0de, everyone,
Two major problems with this hypothesis.
#1 This town was always more important to the Babylonians and the Jews then the Arabs. Here is the wiki page of the history of this town http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tayma Do you see any reference to any ancient Arab temple? While the Greek account clearly says that the temple it is talking about is an Arab temple.There was no such thing as Babylonians at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Babylonia ceased to exist almost 400 years earlier. The Arab Lihyanite Kingdom took it over from the fifth to the third century BC. At the time of Diodorus Siculus it was under the dominion of the Arab Nabataeans. So it was very much Arab!
This is the problem with ?Wiki archeologists?. You take information in isolation without looking at the big picture and how each piece fits with everything else we know.
#2 Look at the location Tayma (zoom out)
http//maps.google.com/maps?q=Tayma&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B2GGGL_enCA206CA206&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
This location is Northwards and towards the East of Medinah, 400km away. It is hardly even in the Hejaz as it is on the border of the Nefd Desert. So it is not "between the Thamudites and the Sabeans." is it? As the Sabeans are located here
All the way down the Western Coast near Yemen.There was no such thing as the present region named Hejaz at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. So it being in or outside Hejaz is irrelevant. Even the map that you provided shows that the region presently named Hejaz had a different border in 1916-1923.
Also, you might want to get your eyes checked because the Google map of Tayma actually shows that it is indeed located between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. In fact, here is your map with the Google map of the location of Tayma superimposed on it and, as everyone can see, it is located exactly between the regions where the Thamudites and the Sabeans lived
http//img160.imageshack.us/img160/4666/arabiathasabgoogle.jpg
This is not even an option for you as it is located in this province
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Saudi_Arabia_-_Al_Jawf_province_locator.png
"Dumat al-Jundal (Arabic ‎, is a ruined ancient city located in North Western Saudi Arabia in the Al Jawf province."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumat_Al-Jandal
Not even close to the Thamudites, let alone the Sabaeans. So no point in even discussing this option.This is just your myopic point of view. Again, when superimposing the maps that you provided yourself, it is apparent that it is very close to the Thamudites. This is especially true given the fact that after the destruction of Thamud and by the time of Diodorus Siculus the tribes referred to as Thamudites were scattered all over north western and north Arabia and were not residing specifically in a certain town such as Hegra (Madian Saleh).
Yes it is. Mecca is the only location which fits this Greek description. You have no alternatives at this point.
Almost every town in ancient Arabia had a temple and the more important the town and the better it was situated on trade routes, the more important was its temple. It is the law of supply and demand. In fact, alleged Mecca is not even an alternative since it is completely absent from the archeological records and only appears on the scene in the 8th century CE.
Another alternative of the many available is Tabuk, which also had a temple. Around the same time as Diodorus Siculus, a Nabataean temple foundation text dated to 166 BC from Rawafa refers to a Thamudic tribal confederation operating under Roman control.
Another alternative is Al-Hegr/Madiyan which is also very well documented in the archeological record.
Another alternative is Dedan which is located just south of Al-Hegr/Madiyan and which is also very well documented in the archeological record.
Yet another alternative further south and closer to Sabaa is Qaryat-al-faw which is also very well documented in the archeological record.
So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.
(lol) ... this rhetorical paragraph might have been really effective... if it was preceded by a valid argument.
The rituals are independent of the location. Doing a crazy ritual in Mecca doesn?t somehow make it logical. You really have no logical grounds to stand on with respect to the pagan rituals going on in Mecca and this is why you evade the issue. To borrow your analogy, ?if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck? or ?if it spins seven times around a stone cube like a pagan and kisses and reveres a black stone in a vagina-shaped enclosure like a pagan, and wears newborn-style wraps like a pagan, then it must be a pagan?.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "c0de",
Jonny + Bigmo
Salaam brothers
@ Jonny
lol, are you serious? How does giving another example of the same type "further your point" when that entire argument has already been parried?
JK- No it hasnt since the rituals are ultimately derived from hadith too. This point is not escapable.
Completely invalid reasoning. There are so many rituals in the Quran which are TOTALLY illogical."logic" has nothing to do with it. Look at this verse from the Quran, see how many actions we are told to do which make no sense "rationally" speaking
- You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and
Umrah for GOD. If you are prevented, you shall send an offering, and do not resume cutting your hair until your offering has reached its destination. If you are ill, or suffering a head injury (and you must cut your hair), you shall expiate by fasting, or giving to charity, or some other form of worship. During the normal Hajj, if you break the state of Ihraam (sanctity) betweenUmrah and Hajj, you shall expiate by offering an animal sacrifice. If you cannot afford it, you shall fast three days during Hajj and seven when you return home - this completes ten - provided you do not live at the Sacred Masjid. You shall observe GOD, and know that GOD is strict in enforcing retribution.
Faith is not about "reason and rationality".... this is why it is Faith.
JK- NOW suddenly it's not about reason but yet you insisted that when somehting contradicts either the Quran or REASON, YES YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, then you wont accept it. So why are you playing the faith card here? If this interpretaion of the Quran contradicts reason you should rethink whether there isnt a more rational understanding of the verses WHICH IS EXACTLY what is the case. The above translation i a sunni translation. The verse can be translated entirely different so that thres no rituals at all.
Exactly! The Quran already mentions the divine injunction to pray (all 5 times are listed). The hadith are only adding details. They are not adding divine injunctions.
JK- ADDING DETAILS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know thoose added details are from GOD which are not in Quran? This is where it gets absurd
Do whatever you want... I dont care what your personal beliefs are and what you accept or reject. But this isnt about your personal beliefs, this is a DEBATE! And you cant win a debate by ignoring evidence.
JK- For the last time if you dont see the bias for considering the very religious document of the religion/sect which supports 5 daily salat to "prove" people prayed 5 times a day back then then i really cannot help you.
Your point has already been addressed... you are just repeating yourself.
repetition... (its getting boring now dude)
JK- I can say the same for you since your not actually addressing these points of mine but talking around them. As i said if you dont see the flaw of looking at non religious documents in order to get the details about what rituals people actually performed back in time your on the wrong track BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS DOC WANTS TO PORTRY PPL AS GOOD "BELEIVERS". Get it? GOD Bless!
- You shall observe the complete rites of Hajj and
-
Peace "rajah",
Salaam,
Dear J-K; your calling upon ayman on almost your every second post in this particular debate has said it all. Arguments of cOde are much stronger then yours.
JK- No his arguments are not stronger BUT I LACK SECULAR HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE IN THIS AREA AND BRO AYMAN KNOWS IT. So only he could explain this well. If I did try to explain the historical points against a historian, as c0de clims he is, i could be making a significant no of false statements which although logically pointing to how nonsensible rituals are, could be used against me with a twist of emotion. On the other hand ayman, since hes the author of those articles and hes been reaearching the history for years, it is him whol answer the points pertaining to history and i myself will answer pertaining to reason and logic.
Regarding your not taking Ahadith or any other Historical document as an evidence in support of 5 prayers when in contrast your have failed to bring up a single one in your support is not understandable.
JK- Ive brought up a lot of evidence in support of mine. Ive explained with reason and logic why rituals dont make any sense at all and that those quranic verses dont imply rituals.
Ayman?s theory is like a half boiled egg. No documentary support. He builds his whole edifice on calligraphy & inscriptions, which are lame without historical proofs.
JK- ARE YOU SERIOUS? Secular calligraphy and inscriptions dont count as historical proof BUT HADITH DO???! It cant get any more absurd than that can it?
Prayers and practical prayers have been established in Jews the Bible talks about it, it talks about Kibla being a physical place and not metaphorical place. So this Kibla thing being physical is not invented by Arabs as protrayed by ayman.
JK- If this is true it would only show that once again the sunni/shia "muslims" took one Jewish/Christian concept and made it their own just like they did with circumcision, eve being made crooked out of the the rib of adam, dogma, death penalty for apostates as in the OT, NON of which are to be found in the Quran. So why wouldnt they adopt the physical "qiblah" conecpt too? This only makes my case stronger.
The earliest dated hijz inscription was written by Zuhayr "at the time of Umar's death" in 24 AH, thus mentioning the name of the second caliph. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections. The Discovery Channel also mentioned the importance of this inscription in the news.
So therefore there was a person by the name of Umar who ruled the Arab at that time and not all these stories are fabricated as you and your friend ayman think.JK- I never said that all stories in hadith are fabricated but those pertaining to rituals most certainly are and ayman has provided evidece for that.
Ayman?s theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.
JK- Oh common. Real Muslims dont unite because of rituals. Scientists are amongst the most peaceful groups. Yes they disagree many times over the details BUT they never kill each other because one of the scientist "apostates" from a certain theory. People have this tendency tp adopt nonsensible rituals because they think it unites them while i doesnt. Understanding the Quran with reason and logic is what should unite us here. GOD Bless!
-
raj-ah-Aymans theory is flawed and is destined towards disuniting Muslims.
To be fair to him, it is not his theory; many years back some non-muslims fancied that muhammad would be better-off somewhere in the north of arabia.
Crone finds that Muhammad's career took place not in Mecca but hundreds of kilometers to the north.
Years later, they no longer subscribe to it for want of acceptable evidence. Then, yes, it doesn't help that it's a failed theory. -)
ma'a salaam.
God bless all.
al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen
-
Ayman + Jonny
@ Ayman
There was no such thing as Babylonians at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Babylonia ceased to exist almost 400 years earlier. The Arab Lihyanite Kingdom took it over from the fifth to the third century BC. At the time of Diodorus Siculus it was under the dominion of the Arab Nabataeans. So it was very much Arab!
Digging a deeper grave for your point here bro
Did you know that Diodorus Siculus chronicled and the Nabataeans??? He was very aware of their activities and their settlements. So if this mysterious shrine was a Nabataean artifact and located at Tayma, he would have said that it was a Nabataean artifact, and would have specified its location. But he did NOT. Because it was not located in a place that was familiar to him. And this location, and this tribe which you are suggesting was VERY familiar to him
Proof
"Classical references to the Nabataeans begin with Diodorus Siculus; they suggest that the Nabataeans' trade routes and the origins of their goods were regarded as trade secrets, and disguised in tales that should have strained outsiders' credulity. Diodorus described them as a strong tribe of some 10,000 warriors, pre-eminent among the nomads of Arabia, eschewing agriculture, fixed houses, and the use of wine, but adding to pastoral pursuits a profitable trade with the seaports in frankincense and myrrh and spices from Arabia Felix (today's Yemen), as well as a trade with Egypt in bitumen from the Dead Sea."
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans
There was no such thing as the present region named Hejaz at the time of Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. So it being in or outside Hejaz is irrelevant. Even the map that you provided shows that the region presently named Hejaz had a different border in 1916-1923.
Also, you might want to get your eyes checked because the Google map of Tayma actually shows that it is indeed located between the Thamudites and the Sabeans. In fact, here is your map with the Google map of the location of Tayma superimposed on it and, as everyone can see, it is located exactly between the regions where the Thamudites and the Sabeans lived
#1 I know the "hejaz" was actually named at that time, I provided the map because it closely correlates to that area
#2 Thank you for superimposing the two maps and helping MY POINT! It is even more clear now that the point specified at Taymya is not "between" the Thamudites and the Sabaeans. It is much too Northwards almost in Nabatean territory.
This is just your myopic point of view. Again, when superimposing the maps that you provided yourself, it is apparent that it is very close to the Thamudites. This is especially true given the fact that after the destruction of Thamud and by the time of Diodorus Siculus the tribes referred to as Thamudites were scattered all over north western and north Arabia and were not residing specifically in a certain town such as Hegra (Madian Saleh).
LOL !!! The description said it was BETWEEEN the Natateaens and the Sabeaens. Not in the Thamudite Kingdom! Only Mecca fits that description, and none of the two locations you provided suffice. You have destroyed your own argument...
Almost every town in ancient Arabia had a temple and the more important the town and the better it was situated on trade routes, the more important was its temple. It is the law of supply and demand. In fact, alleged Mecca is not even an alternative since it is completely absent from the archeological records and only appears on the scene in the 8th century CE.
Another alternative of the many available is Tabuk, which also had a temple. Around the same time as Diodorus Siculus, a Nabataean temple foundation text dated to 166 BC from Rawafa refers to a Thamudic tribal confederation operating under Roman control.
Another alternative is Al-Hegr/Madiyan which is also very well documented in the archeological record.
Another alternative is Dedan which is located just south of Al-Hegr/Madiyan and which is also very well documented in the archeological record.
Yet another alternative further south and closer to Sabaa is Qaryat-al-faw which is also very well documented in the archeological record.
So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.
Not a single one of these alternatives fits the bill
Tabuk Out of the question. Look at the location http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Tabuk,_Saudi_Arabia_locator_map.png
Mada'in Saleh Was actually inhabbited by the Thamudites! Again, this location is much too North anyway, so it wasn't between them and the Sabeaens.
"Dedan" I suppose you mean Al-Ula (as Dedan in biblical language is a general term for Arabia). Well, this location is also near Tayma, so another non-starter. Also, this entire area was well known to the Greeks and they would have mentioned it, and its people by name.
Qaryat-al-faw This tribe was actually part of the "Sabaean Kingdom of Ma'rib (central Yemen)", and hence inside their territory. Again, not an option for you. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindites Also, as you can see, their Kingdom flourished much later then the 1st century (3 centuries later in fact).
So any of the many towns that we have in the archeological record are much better alternatives than the completely invisible and NEVER mentioned NOT EVEN ONCE Mecca.
Actually, the very fact that Mecca was "invisible" confirms its identity in the Greek records. Because if they had known about this town, and if it was part of the major Kingdoms of the Area (the Nabeatens, or the Sabeaens) then the Greek Historian would have named it specifically. All the towns you have mentioned, are either in the North (Nabeatean territory), or the South (Sabeaen territory). Only Mecca falls right in between, and hence fits the description perfectly.
The rituals are independent of the location. Doing a crazy ritual in Mecca doesn?t somehow make it logical. You really have no logical grounds to stand on with respect to the pagan rituals going on in Mecca and this is why you evade the issue. To borrow your analogy, ?if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck? or ?if it spins seven times around a stone cube like a pagan and kisses and reveres a black stone in a vagina-shaped enclosure like a pagan, and wears newborn-style wraps like a pagan, then it must be a pagan?.
Before you use your "logic" to attack religious rituals (which are illogical to begin with), I suggest you try to apply it to your argument.
@ Jonny
No it hasnt since the rituals are ultimately derived from hadith too. This point is not escapable.
lol, you just don't get it do you?
NOW suddenly it's not about reason but yet you insisted that when somehting contradicts either the Quran or REASON, YES YOU SAID IT YOURSELF, then you wont accept it. So why are you playing the faith card here? If this interpretaion of the Quran contradicts reason you should rethink whether there isnt a more rational understanding of the verses WHICH IS EXACTLY what is the case. The above translation i a sunni translation. The verse can be translated entirely different so that thres no rituals at all.
err... yea. Your supposed to apply reason to rational things (like arguments)... not to irrational things (like religious rituals)...
and as for your "alternative" translations... have fun convincing anyone with semantics.JK- ADDING DETAILS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know thoose added details are from GOD which are not in Quran? This is where it gets absurd
Adding details (i.e. method) is not the problem if the ritual is itself mentioned in the Quran.
JK- For the last time if you dont see the bias for considering the very religious document of the religion/sect which supports 5 daily salat to "prove" people prayed 5 times a day back then then i really cannot help you.
bro that "religious document" is ALSO a historical document. Whether you like it or not.
I can say the same for you since your not actually addressing these points of mine but talking around them. As i said if you dont see the flaw of looking at non religious documents in order to get the details about what rituals people actually performed back in time your on the wrong track BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY A RELIGIOUS DOC WANTS TO PORTRY PPL AS GOOD "BELEIVERS". Get it? GOD Bless!
... when you actually come up with an alternative historical document... let me know. Cuz this is getting quite boring.
PeAcE
p.s. ... where did I claim I was a "historian" again? You dont need to be a "historian" to see glaring errors in someone's argument. Maybe if you weren't placing so much hope and faith in the wrong people, you will see that yourself.
-
Peace "c0de",
lol, you just don't get it do you?
JK- ???
err... yea. Your supposed to apply reason to rational things (like arguments)... not to irrational things (like religious rituals)...
and as for your "alternative" translations... have fun convincing anyone with semantics.JK- Yeah and the rational arguments do not support rituals. Your admitting rituals are not about rationality and at the same time you claim to use rational arguments to support the rituals. your creating an oxymoron here.
Another question I'd ask is that if rituals are illogical and irrational THEN WHY WOULD GOD command us to perform them? Obviously GOD is in no need of us performing rituals so they should have an extra ordinary benfit for us. But if theyr not rational then it means they dont so it's just plain nonsense to claim GOD commands rituals.Adding details (i.e. method) is not the problem if the ritual is itself mentioned in the Quran.
JK- But this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know those "details" are Divinely inspired and if so why didnt GOD just put them in the Quran to leave no ambiguity? This is what your not getting apparently.
bro that "religious document" is ALSO a historical document. Whether you like it or not.
JK- Not usable in favor of ritual details becuase in that aspect itd be extrmely biased and other sources would be required. It seems you just dont get it do you?
... when you actually come up with an alternative historical document... let me know. Cuz this is getting quite boring.
JK- The Quran should contain all relevant details regarding Divine injunctions. As for birth dates of certain people, sure regarding that aspect you can trust hadith somewhat. I see no motive here why the religious folks would lie except in cetain specific cases. Place of birth of the Prophet would be biased too in the hadith though because of strong motive to promote some city as being holy. Get it?
p.s. ... where did I claim I was a "historian" again? You dont need to be a "historian" to see glaring errors in someone's argument. Maybe if you weren't placing so much hope and faith in the wrong people, you will see that yourself.
JK- You told me that you had a major in history. From that i assumed it. GOD Bless!
-
JK- Yeah and the rational arguments do not support rituals. Your admitting rituals are not about rationality and at the same time you claim to use rational arguments to support the rituals. your creating an oxymoron here.
Another question I'd ask is that if rituals are illogical and irrational THEN WHY WOULD GOD command us to perform them? Obviously GOD is in no need of us performing rituals so they should have an extra ordinary benfit for us. But if theyr not rational then it means they dont so it's just plain nonsense to claim GOD commands rituals.There is a difference between using rational arguments to support the material justifying the ritual, and using rationality to justify the ritual itself. If you can't sense this subtle distinction, it is not my fault. But your argument is crippled because you can't seem to manage this.
JK- But this is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM. How do you know those "details" are Divinely inspired and if so why didnt GOD just put them in the Quran to leave no ambiguity? This is what your not getting apparently.
The difference is that I rely on evidence to support my views. While you rely on semantics... that is how I know your view is wrong.
JK- Not usable in favor of ritual details becuase in that aspect itd be extrmely biased and other sources would be required. It seems you just dont get it do you?
Yea... everything which doesnt support your argument is "biased"... rite )
JK- The Quran should contain all relevant details regarding Divine injunctions. As for birth dates of certain people, sure regarding that aspect you can trust hadith somewhat. I see no motive here why the religious folks would lie except in cetain specific cases. Place of birth of the Prophet would be biased too in the hadith though because of strong motive to promote some city as being holy. Get it?
Yea, I know the Quran does contain all the important details regarding divine injunctions. The 5 times, bowing, standing, Surah fatiah.. The hadith does not add any of this (thats the point). It doesnt add any divine injunctions in this regard.
JK- You told me that you had a major in history. From that i assumed it. GOD Bless!
I am majoring in History and Pol Sci, doesnt make me a "historian". But like I said, you dont need to be a "historian" to deal with Mr. Ayman's argument. You could have done it yourself had you tried, and not taken his word for it.
PeAcE