The Prayer Issue Revived
-
I see that you are not talking about Babylonians anymore LOL. Well at least you learned something new today.
I gave you the history of the city, I never said that the Babylonians existed in the 1st century. I ignored to mention it the last time because it was irrelevant to the argument as you had mistaken the referrence I made the first time. But if you want to persue it, please show me where I said the Babylonians were around by 1st century.
I also see that are still pathetically trying to become the miracle archeologist who will somehow save his crazy pagan rituals by copying and pasting from Wiki .
Your frustrations are showing... nice. Keep it up
The Nabataean kingdom wasn?t actually in Tayma but was north of Tyama (just look at your sorry map). The main inhabitants of Tayma were not the Nabataeans but were Arab tribes (and Jews) who at the time acted as proxies for the Nabataeans.
Point Being The area was well known to the Greek historian at 1st century. Plus, no great "arab" shrine mentioned, as the city was most likely dominated by arab >jews<
Get your eyes checked.
I would suggest the same to you, but it wouldnt help. You will go to any length to disprove the obvious.
You seem to ignore that after their destruction, the Thamudites were scattered over a large area, as far north as the Negev.
and that proves your point?
Any of those towns fit much better than a NON-EXISTENT town. Tabuk fits very well and had a temple that seemed to have peaked in importance around the time of Diodorus. As for Al-hegr, the term Thamudites referred not to its inhabitants but to nomads who roamed north Arabia. Remember that the inhabitants of the town of Saleh were destroyed. Dedan fits very well too and by the way it is near of El-hegr (just south of it), not near Tayma, further evidence that you need to get your eyes checked.
None of these towns fit. You have not dealt with the objections in the previous post. Instead, all you have done is "evaded the issue"
You can?t even read from the very Wiki link that you provided. Qaryat-al-faw is not a tribe, it is a town! There is no Wiki article on Qaryat-al-faw so no wonder you are confused. LOL
I was obviously talking about the tribe AT this location. A little trigger happy, are we?
Qaryat-al-faw in central Arabia
"central" arabia, now is it? (lol). How is the border of Yemen, "central" arabia?
In fact, the earliest pure Old Arabic inscription is from Qaryat-al-faw. Interestingly, this inscription dates from the time of Diodorus. So it was inhabited by Arabs during his time.
And they were also part of the Sabeaen territory... so I am sorry, not "between" the two locations, but part of the Sabeaens.
You are obviously desperately looking for any straw to hang on to. You are doing this because you KNOW VERY WELL that Mecca is never even remotely mentioned. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever heard of Mecca or visited it. You also KNOW VERY WELL that none of the people of the book ever spun seven times around a cube and kissed and revered a black stone WHILE THE PAGAN WORSHIPPERS OF ALLAT CERTAINLY DID.
I have no need to be desperate... because your argument is completely self-defeating. You made such an effort to show us that all of these alternative locations you have provided were "well documented" at the time of Diodorus... Yet you fail to realize that this very same argument defeats your own purpose. Because if they were so "well documented" then why did this Greek Historian not mention this mysterious location by name? Why did he not say that it was located in Sabeaen Territory? Or the Northern areas which the Greeks were familliar with? Why did he give its location as between these two areas and did not actually name the place? Percisely because Mecca is not well documented, while these other places are. And its invisibility actually destroys your argument, because it is itself proof of it. Since the account from Greek history mentions a shrine that was revered by all Arabs, without actually giving its location, or giving it a name.
The craziness of those pagan rituals is independent of location.Pagan is as pagan does. You keep evading the issue because you know that your pagan rituals are indefensible. Frankly speaking, I don?t care about the location and I wouldn?t mind supporting Mecca even if it was built in the 8th century CE had it been a place where no partners are setup with the god.
whatever
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
There is a difference between using rational arguments to support the material justifying the ritual, and using rationality to justify the ritual itself. If you can't sense this subtle distinction, it is not my fault. But your argument is crippled because you can't seem to manage this.
JK- If you have extra ordinary evidence in support of GOD commanding those rituals then I would say ok but no such evidence has been provided. In order to do so you need to show that the statements in the Quran unambiguously point to rituals and if youve read the independent articles written by various freeminders they all came to the exact opposite conclusion.
The difference is that I rely on evidence to support my views. While you rely on semantics... that is how I know your view is wrong.
JK- As i pointed out many times you rely on faulty evidence. I rely on the powerful evidence of independent research of the Quran leading to the opposite conclusion of your claims. If that is semantics then everything is semantics. As for the secular historical claims you brought up regarding mecca etc im watching the debate as it goes on.
Yea... everything which doesnt support your argument is "biased"... rite )
JK- Lets ask a large body of secular people whether finding in a religious document that people at a certain time performed the very rituals of the religion of the document is not totally biased. It is so obvious.
Yea, I know the Quran does contain all the important details regarding divine injunctions. The 5 times, bowing, standing, Surah fatiah.. The hadith does not add any of this (thats the point). It doesnt add any divine injunctions in this regard.
JK- Ok so according to you we dnt need to perform certain no of rakats then. So it should be ok then to prostrate bow etc a random no of times correct?
I am majoring in History and Pol Sci, doesnt make me a "historian". But like I said, you dont need to be a "historian" to deal with Mr. Ayman's argument. You could have done it yourself had you tried, and not taken his word for it.
PeAcE
JK- Well we'll see in the end if Ayman's arguemnts get defeated ot not. GOD Bless!
-
Peace C0de,
This is the most desperate argument yet
I have no need to be desperate... because your argument is completely self-defeating. You made such an effort to show us that all of these alternative locations you have provided were "well documented" at the time of Diodorus... Yet you fail to realize that this very same argument defeats your own purpose. Because if they were so "well documented" then why did this Greek Historian not mention this mysterious location by name? Why did he not say that it was located in Sabeaen Territory? Or the Northern areas which the Greeks were familliar with? Why did he give its location as between these two areas and did not actually name the place? Percisely because Mecca is not well documented, while these other places are. And its invisibility actually destroys your argument, because it is itself proof of it. Since the account from Greek history mentions a shrine that was revered by all Arabs, without actually giving its location, or giving it a name.
Diodorus was not talking about a town. He was talking about a temple. His informer didn't tell him the temple's name or he didn't think that it was important for his purposes. At the time of Diodorus, this was not an exact science like it is today and Diodorus didn't mention many things, far more than what he mentioned. Diodorus couldn't go to Google maps like you LOL. The burden of proof is on you to bring positive proof of Mecca not on me to prove a negative. The reason that you keep hanging on to this straw of a vague mention of a temple by Diodorus is that you have NOTHING. If you had anything even remotely referring to Mecca then we wouldn't be having this debate. Your entire faith in Mecca and blindly doing crazy rituals is based on such flimsy straw. There is really nothing more to discuss unless you can bring positive proof and not fallaciously ask for negative proof.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
"BETWEEN" DOES NOT MEAN EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE.
Between Thamudites and Sabeans could be anywhere in between those two.
If I say "I spent between 15 and 20 dollars" I could be referring to any amount between those two. It won't mean exactly 17.5 dollars.
-
Jonny + Ayman + Truthseeker
Salaam ppl
@ Jonny
If you have extra ordinary evidence in support of GOD commanding those rituals then I would say ok but no such evidence has been provided.
It was provided, and dismissed by you, on almost hilarious grounds.
As i pointed out many times you rely on faulty evidence.
Actually, you rely on ZERO evidence.
Lets ask a large body of secular people whether finding in a religious document that people at a certain time performed the very rituals of the religion of the document is not totally biased. It is so obvious.
Yes do that. Please go and ask your "secular" scholars whether the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents are not.
Ok so according to you we dnt need to perform certain no of rakats then. So it should be ok then to prostrate bow etc a random no of times correct?
Sure, if you reject the hadith totally, do whatever you like. What do I care?
@ Ayman
So I am "desperate" now am I? (lol) I am not the one who was putting forward Tabuk, and Dumat al-Jundal as valid options. Anyone with a map can see these places are almost next to the area of Palestine. Why even mention Sabeaen territory in connection with these sites? And how about calling the border of Yemen "central Arabia" (lol). And lets not forget that you brought up Dedan/Al Ula, which was a site already well known to the Greeks http//www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4040/lihyan.htm (21st footnote) So thats out as well, because if Dedan was the location, then Diodorus would have just called it by name. But what is most important is that this also cripples your argument for Tayma, because these locations are next to each other. Why didn't Diodorus just call these locations by name if they were what he meant? Because they weren't! Mecca at the time was not as important as these sites and was more obscure. It had no great dynasty associated with either the Northern Nabeanites or the Souther Sabeaens. This is why he did not mention it by name.
All of these locations you picked have been dismissed. You can choose to cling to them if you wish.
Diodorus was not talking about a town. He was talking about a temple. His informer didn't tell him the temple's name or he didn't think that it was important for his purposes.
Then why didnt he say this temple was located in any one of those cities? Why did he bother giving such a general description? If that temple was located in any of those WELL DOCUMENTED sites (which you yourself have proven, thank you) why did he not just call those sites by name? And also, he was talking about a temple that was revered by all Arabs, and not specifically one group of Arabs. This temple was not an ordinary temple, like those present in "every other arab town" (as you stated).
The burden of proof is on you to bring positive proof of Mecca not on me to prove a negative.
I have provided proof. While all you have provided is attempts to discredit that proof with a long list of invalid examples.
The reason that you keep hanging on to this straw of a vague mention of a temple by Diodorus is that you have NOTHING. If you had anything even remotely referring to Mecca then we wouldn't be having this debate. Your entire faith in Mecca and blindly doing crazy rituals is based on such flimsy straw. There is really nothing more to discuss unless you can bring positive proof and not fallaciously ask for negative proof.
Yea, thats right... there was a big conspiracy and everyone decided to make the Mecca the focal point of worship... And all Muslims who bow to Mecca are pagan idiots... (lol) While you of course, are the enlightened prophet who has discovered the truth.
Have fun with your delusions.
@ truthseeker
It imples that the location is in the middle. That is the only reason for using the word "between". Otherwise you can easily say it was closer to such and such a point. Mecca is smack in the middle of the two points listed by Diodorus. Much more so then any of these other locations provided by Ayman (which are invalid anyway for other reasons).
PeAcE
-
Salamun alaykum
Code
Could you please provide Qur'anic evidence as to Kabbah as " The Revered " Temple and Mecca is the Location ?
As far as I know , there is nothing in the Qur'an that says that any Prophets/Messengers were ever sent there , on the contrary
3444 ( Qur'an Surah 3444 ) indicates that there was no Warner/Prophet/Messenger ever sent there prior to The Messenger whose
name was Ahmad . Unles you subscribe to the theory that 'Masjidil Haraam' was a physical building , if you do please provide us
with Qur'anic evidence of its existence at the time of the Qur'an revelation and immediately after .
Thank you
Peace
-
almarh0m-As far as I know , there is nothing in the Qur'an that says that any Prophets/Messengers were ever sent there
I have to say that's pretty insightful -- "nothing in the Qur'an that says that any Prophets/Messengers were ever sent there;" where is this "there"?
ma'a salaam.
God bless all.
al'hamd li Allaah Rabb al'aalameen
-
Peace "c0de",
Jonny + Ayman + Truthseeker
Salaam ppl
@ Jonny
It was provided, and dismissed by you, on almost hilarious grounds.
JK- Hadith is extra ordinary evidence that GOD commanded ritual salat? A certain interpretation of the Quran, which has been refuted by indendent free minders here, is your evidence that GOD commanded ritual prayer? COMMON!
Actually, you rely on ZERO evidence.
JK- No i rely on the evidence provided by independent researchers like bro ayman and use logic and reason WHEREAS YOU rely on totally biased evidence and the secula evidence your providing is being e dbunked by ayman OR perhaps in the end your arguments will turn out to debunk his, well see.
Yes do that. Please go and ask your "secular" scholars whether the hadith manuscripts are valid historical documents are not.
JK- I forgot to add "in mentioning that the people following those hadith performed a certain set of rituals". This the point. Since hadith are of religious nature the religious groups couldve easily written about certain rituals to be performed in them, especially the pagans at that time, thus duping people into believng this is what GOD wants in the Quran.
Sure, if you reject the hadith totally, do whatever you like. What do I care?
JK- No im asking you whether YOU consider the no of rakats, sujood and rukus mentioned in the hadith to be coming from GOD? That is my qs. GOD Bless!
-
Peace again "c0de"
You write to ayman
Yea, thats right... there was a big conspiracy and everyone decided to make the Mecca the focal point of worship... And all Muslims who bow to Mecca are pagan idiots... (lol) While you of course, are the enlightened prophet who has discovered the truth.
JK- Have the Christians not been duped by their elite into believing the trinity? Are they not still being duped on a daily basis. And ofcurse i beleive that GOD sees the intentions so He wont punish the ones whor still facing or circulating the "kaaba" thinking this is what GOD wants until theyr provided with rational arguments which they push to the side just because it makes them feel uncomfortable. This is the point. Ayman has provided evideince that circulating the kaaba is a pagan ritual. They used to to it and they somhow succeeded in making the muslims think that these are Divine instructions. GOD Bless!
-
@ All
Salam guys, before I begin I would like to apologize for my somewhat aggressive tone of late. I would rather not sound like a cyber bully, and I have been regretting some of the pointed personal remarks I have made so far and I assure you that I will mend my ways, inshAllah. peace
On the Mecca + Prayer issue
Honestly, there is so much obvious evidence that Mecca is Masjid al-Haram, that it is a wonder how some here have objections against it. Before I explain the case of 3444 (which can be easily understood), take a look at the characteristics of the "first house appointed for worship" mentioned in the Quran singles out Mecca. As the alternative (Jeruselum) does not fit the description of a peaceful sacred place because it is a historical fact that Jerusalem has always been a focal point of warfare and bloodshed, a city which God Himself has repeatedly destroyed. Compare Jerusalem with the description of this place "The first House (of worship) established for mankind was that at Bakkah full of blessing and of guidance for all the worlds. In it are Signs Manifest; The Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security." ( 3 96-97) Which inhabitants would you say are more secure? The inhabitants of Mecca, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem?
Also, the idea that just because the word "becca" is different then "mecca" means they refer to separate locations is invalid considering that many things in the Quran have been called by different names. Ahmed, equals Muhammad (pbuh), after all. Another obvious example are the many different names of God Himself in the Quran, it doesnt mean that there is more then one God. Heaven and Hell have been called by different names as well, it doesnt mean there are different heavens and multiple hells.
Now, about the actual pilgrimage. The argument that the act of going around the Kabbah is a pagan ritual, is a very old argument which was used by the critics of Islam, mainly the Christian critics. There are two main problems with this approach. #1 It assumes that the act of going around was not borrowed by the pagans from the Abrahamic practice. We already know that this was the house set up by Abraham and the ritual was established well in antiquity "And then we assigned to Abraham the place of the House, saying , do not set up ought with me, and purify My House for those who make the circuit, and who stand to pray and who bow and prostrate themselves. And proclaim among men, the Hajj?? (2226-27) #2 If you accept different translations of the word "tawaf" and say this does not actually mean "going around", well, all you are really doing is basing your entire argument on semantics. The fact that the word has multiple meanings can not be used to say those meanings are mutually exclusive (because obviously they are not). And the meaning "going around" is supported by historical evidence, while the other meaning, while still valid, does not override the first meaning. And the fact remains that the historical practice and evidence contradicts the argument.
As for the 3444, remember the words Abraham PBUH used to describe the valley in which he left his wife Hajra (ra)? That description indicates that there were no people there or it was an empty abandoned area ("a valley unproductive of fruit". Whatever the state of Mecca at that time, it was no "center" of anything back then. What is clear (and what we know for sure) is that since that time, until the arrival of the Prophet PBUH no messengers came to the Ishmaelites (Arabs). And also remember that while Ishmael PBUH himself was there, he had no real mission to reform the people (that we know of). This is why the statement that no messengers had been sent to the people (Arabs) remains true. Abraham PBUH and Ishmael PBUH were told to lay the foundations for the future. That was their real mission in Mecca, and that future was fulfilled in our Prophet PBUH.
Lastly, the idea that Masjid al-Haram is only a metaphor is negated by the fact that this entire argument assumes that a metaphorical meanings and a practical meaning are mutually exclusive when there is no basis for this assumption. It is very possible (and I believe it is true) that masjid-al-haram signifies devotion to God in general. However, this does not mean that the ritual significance of this direction is negated. There is ZERO evidence provided by the opposition that has shown that there was any time in history where the Muslims took any other direction, other then Mecca (since the command to face Mecca was handed down) to pray to. All the objections against these claims have been answered. while no actual evidence for 3 prayers, or any other random number, or that the Muslims considered prayer only in metaphorical terms, has been provided.
At the end of the day, all the opposition has done is challenge a well-established ritual without bringing any counter evidence.
@ Jonny
Have the Christians not been duped by their elite into believing the trinity?
And so have the Muslims been "duped" into believing that Jesus PBUH is sitting in heaven and will return to earth. But you are assuming that you haven't been "duped" as well into believing the arguments that you believe. Everyone here including myself could be "duped", but that isn't the point. The point is when you make a claim, you have to justify it with a reasonable argument, which includes valid evidence. I have given you many occasions to present any piece of evidence to support your claims. I continue to do so. Please provide any historical evidence to back up your views. You keep denying the hadith as valid evidence (which it is) without actually bringing any counter evidence yourself to disprove the hadith. You just say "it is biased"... well, everything is "biased". It doesnt mean everything is, by default, invalid. You also applied rationality to religious rituals, when religion is irrational by nature. You denied clear rituals present in the Quran with the claim that alternative translations can be provided. When no alternative explanations can provide "rational" explanations for religion or religious rituals.
Hadith is extra ordinary evidence that GOD commanded ritual salat? A certain interpretation of the Quran, which has been refuted by indendent free minders here, is your evidence that GOD commanded ritual prayer? COMMON!
See above. Most of your responses on this issue have been answered in the previous paragraphs.
No im asking you whether YOU consider the no of rakats, sujood and rukus mentioned in the hadith to be coming from GOD? That is my qs. GOD Bless!
If those details in the hadith do not contradict the Quran (contain Faitiah, prostrating, standing) then its ok to follow them, if you wish. After all, there is nothing unreasonable about it.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
The Qur'aan says
He decreed for you the same system decreed for Noah, and what We inspired to you, and what We decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. You must uphold this one system, and do not divide it. (4213)
Nothing that was given to any of the other prophets ever required them to circle a shrine in Makka, throw stones at "the devil", kiss a black rock, pray 5 times per day, or do any of these other rituals recorded in the hadiths, many of which directly conflict with the Qur'aan... Saying that these concepts were "new" when they were given to Muhammad is saying that G-d decreed for him (and us) a different system than what He decreed for His other worshippers, and that conflicts with the scripture...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Salaam bro
Peace "c0de",
The Qur'aan says
He decreed for you the same system decreed for Noah, and what We inspired to you, and what We decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. You must uphold this one system, and do not divide it. (4213)
Nothing that was given to any of the other prophets ever required them to circle a shrine in Makka, throw stones at "the devil", kiss a black rock, pray 5 times per day, or do any of these other rituals recorded in the hadiths, many of which directly conflict with the Qur'aan... Saying that these concepts were "new" when they were given to Muhammad is saying that G-d decreed for him (and us) a different system than what He decreed for His other worshippers, and that conflicts with the scripture...
Peace,
Ahmad
The fact that the details of Judaism and Islam are different, does not mean that the "system" is different. The system (monotheism) is the same. Also, you are ignoring all the things which the Jews have to do which the Muslims are exempt from (keeping the sabbath, eating seafood, and a whole long list of other restrictions placed on the Jews). This is proof that the details are not what is being referred to in this verse which you quoted.
PeAcE
-
Peace everyone,
Let's assume for argument sake that al-masjid al-haraam is a physical building which encircles the Kaaba in Makkah (which it is not because many qur'aanic verses will then be contradicted as already discussed many times on this forum and these contradictions have NEVER been answered by Mr. code). The qiblah/target/focal point is clearly al-masjid al-haraam according to the qur'aan, and NOT kaaba or al-bayt al-haraam. So how can people make Kaaba their focal point during salaat while being inside the physical building of al-masjid al-haraam? Is that not a CLEAR violation of the qur'aan?
If al-masjid al-haraam is a physical building then when one is inside that physical building then the qiblah/focal point would be ANY direction. That is an indisputable physical and mathematical fact. However, when all face Kaaba while being inside al-masjid al-haraam and stand in circular lines around Kaaba while being inside al-masjid al-haraam, then they are making Kaaba their qiblah/focal point which would clearly violate the qur'aanic commandment to make ONLY al-masjid al-haraam their qiblah/focal point.
-
Peace everyone,
Firstly, it is an indisputable fact that "between" two points does not mean EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE.
Secondly, If one calculates the point in the middle of where it says Nabateans and Sabeans in Mr. codes map, that point would fall north of Jeddah.
Both ways the argument of Mr. code is COMPLETELY defeated.
No further comments from me on this particular issue.
-
Peace everyone,
The system (monotheism) is the same.
Circling a cuboidal building 7 times, dressing the cuboidal building in black cloth, kissing a black stone, having a vulva shaped enclosure on the side of the building precisely facing the sunrise in winter solstice etc. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MONOTHEISM and EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PAGANISM/SETTING UP PARTNERS WITH THE GOD.
Preventing mushrikeen from visiting Kaaba (remember hajj is for entire mankind?), not allowing people to enter Kaaba, riots breaking out between sunnis and shias in Makkah (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_massacre_of_Iranian_pilgrims)
CLEARLY VIOLATE THE QUR'AANIC COMMANDMENTS AND EQUIVALENT TO SETTING UP PARTNERS WITH GOD (manmade commandments and violating the peace and security, instead of following God's commandments).The location of Kaaba is clearly given as where no partners are set up with The God (2226)
-
Compare Jerusalem with the description of this place "The first House (of worship) established for mankind was that at Bakkah full of blessing and of guidance for all the worlds. In it are Signs Manifest; The Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security." ( 3 96-97) Which inhabitants would you say are more secure? The inhabitants of Mecca, or the inhabitants of Jerusalem?
I'm sorry where in that verse did you draw the conclusion that abraham went to mecca or that the station was in mecca? The kaaba cannot be the "station of abraham" due to not all of mankind is even permitted to enter it....You do realize non muslims is off limits to the kaaba.
Also, the idea that just because the word "becca" is different then "mecca" means they refer to separate locations is invalid considering that many things in the Quran have been called by different names. Ahmed, equals Muhammad (pbuh), after all. Another obvious example are the many different names of God Himself in the Quran, it doesnt mean that there is more then one God. Heaven and Hell have been called by different names as well, it doesnt mean there are different heavens and multiple hells.
Actually your referring to titles of GOD, GOD does not have a "name", he has titles. It's obvious becca isn't same as mecca because GOD would have said Mecca if he meant mecca, let's be serious. If you are going to florida, will you tell me your going to europe and expect me to know that you mean your going to florida? Theres nothing in the quran that can draw a connection that will give you the idea becca means mecca, this is sunni reasoning with their hadith. Actually there is no archeological reference that have shown mecca was once called "becca", if so please show it
-
Peace "c0de",
And so have the Muslims been "duped" into believing that Jesus PBUH is sitting in heaven and will return to earth. But you are assuming that you haven't been "duped" as well into believing the arguments that you believe. Everyone here including myself could be "duped", but that isn't the point. The point is when you make a claim, you have to justify it with a reasonable argument, which includes valid evidence. I have given you many occasions to present any piece of evidence to support your claims. I continue to do so. Please provide any historical evidence to back up your views. You keep denying the hadith as valid evidence (which it is) without actually bringing any counter evidence yourself to disprove the hadith. You just say "it is biased"... well, everything is "biased". It doesnt mean everything is, by default, invalid. You also applied rationality to religious rituals, when religion is irrational by nature. You denied clear rituals present in the Quran with the claim that alternative translations can be provided. When no alternative explanations can provide "rational" explanations for religion or religious rituals.
JK- But this is exactly the point. There are alternative interpretations of the Quran which show it doesnt even talk about rituals in the verses sunnis/shias like to point out they do. The evidence that they dont lies in the fact that people independently using the root meaning of arabic terms in a classical arabic lexicon plus taking into account context and grammar WITHIN THE QURAN came up with. This is the highest possibnle evidence there can be to understand the Quran. Then there is Ayman presenting historical evidence here and ill see how the debate goes.
See above. Most of your responses on this issue have been answered in the previous paragraphs.
JK- Let the people on the forum decide whos points make more sense. Even Ayman came to the conclusion that you are asking us to prove a -ve. Remember when i told you that in our chat?
If those details in the hadith do not contradict the Quran (contain Faitiah, prostrating, standing) then its ok to follow them, if you wish. After all, there is nothing unreasonable about it.
JK- Even if you understand "salat" as ritual prayer and "sujood" and "Rukoo" as physical prostration, for which verses cn be shown that they dont actually but that aside, the Quran does NOT say how many times to do those in each "salat". SO do you beleive that someone who calls him/herself muslim, prays five times a day BUT prstartes and bows a random no of times is not doing anything against your faith or could potentially get the same reward from GOD? Also do you beleive that GOD inspired the format 24434 rakats with all its no of rukoos and sujood? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
At the end of the day, all the opposition has done is challenge a well-established ritual without bringing any counter evidence.
JK- Which scientific community has well established that the Quranic verses talking about salat,zakat,hajj, masjidul haram, kaaba refer to part of the ritualistic features as currently accepted by the majority of "Muslims"? The answer is NONE. On the other hand independent reserachers from all over includeing "truthseeker", "ayman", "aalmakto", myself and others have clearly provided evidence both fromt the Quran and historically that these rituals are pagan in origin and that the Quranic terms associated with them mean something else. Just because a certain majority of people in the past associated certain Quranic terms with certain meanings does NOT make them correct. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
The fact that the details of Judaism and Islam are different, does not mean that the "system" is different. The system (monotheism) is the same. Also, you are ignoring all the things which the Jews have to do which the Muslims are exempt from (keeping the sabbath, eating seafood, and a whole long list of other restrictions placed on the Jews). This is proof that the details are not what is being referred to in this verse which you quoted.
The system is the same, and this INCLUDES monotheism (tawheed). However, our system includes much more than simply "monotheism". If all we needed to do was be monotheists, then what's the purpose of the Qur'aan or the Torah? They'd simply say, "Be monotheists." That would pretty much sum up everything, wouldn't it?
The scriptures tell us to follow the same system ("deen" given to the other prophets, which definately includes monotheism. However, later, we are instructed to follow the religion of Abraham ("millatu Ibraheem", and this emphasizes the fact that we must be more than monotheists. We have to follow certain rites and rituals in our worship of G-d. This same system was taught to the Jews through the Torah, Tanakh, and Injeel...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace C0de,
So I am "desperate" now am I? (lol)
Yes.
I am not the one who was putting forward Tabuk, and Dumat al-Jundal as valid options. Anyone with a map can see these places are almost next to the area of Palestine. Why even mention Sabeaen territory in connection with these sites?
"Between" A and B doesn't mean precisely in the middle, especially if points A and B are vaguely defined.
And how about calling the border of Yemen "central Arabia" (lol).
Show where I say anything about the border of Yemen. Qaryat Al-Faw is in Central Arabia and not in Yemen or on the border. But of course since you are starting from a certain preconception and working backwards to desperetly justify it, then you can make the border as thick as a few hundered kilometers. Therefore there is no point in arguing with you on geography.
And lets not forget that you brought up Dedan/Al Ula, which was a site already well known to the Greeks http//www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4040/lihyan.htm (21st footnote) So thats out as well, because if Dedan was the location, then Diodorus would have just called it by name. But what is most important is that this also cripples your argument for Tayma, because these locations are next to each other. Why didn't Diodorus just call these locations by name if they were what he meant? Because they weren't! Mecca at the time was not as important as these sites and was more obscure. It had no great dynasty associated with either the Northern Nabeanites or the Souther Sabeaens. This is why he did not mention it by name.
Because Diodorus was talking about a temple and not a town. As I said, he didn't mention many things, far more than what he mentioned. His accounts are very fragmentary. I also see that you still didn't get your eyes checked because Dedan is next to Hegra (just south of it) not Tayma.
All of these locations you picked have been dismissed. You can choose to cling to them if you wish.
Then why didnt he say this temple was located in any one of those cities? Why did he bother giving such a general description? If that temple was located in any of those WELL DOCUMENTED sites (which you yourself have proven, thank you) why did he not just call those sites by name?As I said, he wasn't talking about the cities but about a temple. The temple sometimes was not even located in the city. For example, the temple of Tabuk was located far from the town to the south. Many of Diodorus accounts are general descriptions. In fact, he never went to Arabia.
And also, he was talking about a temple that was revered by all Arabs, and not specifically one group of Arabs. This temple was not an ordinary temple, like those present in "every other arab town" (as you stated).
Pagan temples rise and fall in importance over time. Since this temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus then it must be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time. For example, the Tabuk temple seems to have peaked in importance around that time as the Nabatean inscription that I earlier referred to implies.
I have provided proof. While all you have provided is attempts to discredit that proof with a long list of invalid examples.
Your proof that Mecca existed because it was not mentioned by Diodorus is ridiculous. Even if what you are saying was remotely possible then there were many small towns in Central Arabia not mentioned by Diodorus or well known by the Greeks and whose any of their temples could have peaked in importance during Diodorus's time. The only reason that you see this as proof is that you are starting from a preconception about Mecca and working backwards to desperetly justify it.
Yea, thats right... there was a big conspiracy and everyone decided to make the Mecca the focal point of worship...
No need for conspiracy. It is human nature. All previous nations reverted to their misguided ways after the death of their prophet. To claim that Arabs are somehow wiser than all other nations is nothing but arrogant denial.
And all Muslims who bow to Mecca are pagan idiots... (lol)
Yes.
While you of course, are the enlightened prophet who has discovered the truth.
Have fun with your delusions.Peace.
Ayman