The Prayer Issue Revived
-
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
-
Salaam Brothers! I hope you are all doing well
Instead of answering the posts in chronological order, I will refer to Ayman's argument first as our discussion began before the secondary debate started. But all of your concerns are addressed in this single post. )
@ Ayman
Before I begin answering your objections I will like to add to your troubles I noticed that your argument is mostly based on the single point that Diodorus does not mention Mecca by name. Well, I will simply give you an account of Mecca being mentioned by name. I am sure you are already aware that the name "Kaaba" comes from the word "muka'ab" meaning "cube". And I am sure you are also aware that historians have uncovered a reference to Mecca as being mentioned by Ptolemy as "Macoraba" in the 2nd century AD (so only a century after Diodorus, but still much earlier then the arrival of the Prophet).
Your entire argument though (as pointed out by another member, earlier in this thread) is based on objections raised by Patricia Cone and Michael Cook. Both of these anti-Islamic Orientalists have floated the idea that this reference by Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca at all. And this is what you will invariably build your case on. But before you do, I will point out to you that Patricia Cone's views have been summarily dismissed by the scholarly community. Here are some quotes referring to their arguments
R. B. Sergeant states that "? is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ?leg pull?, pure ?spoof?." Sergeant, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1981, p. 210
" been almost universally rejected" David Waines, Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous." van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, Sep 8 1978, p. 998
And in case you are wondering, it took very little effort to uncover this dirt on Cone and Cook... apparently, they are somewhat of a joke in scholarly circles studying in this field. Their anti-Islamic agenda is so obvious that it would be very amusing if you actually try to defend their thesis or by linking your own views with theirs.
Now, moving on to your previous post
"Between" A and B doesn't mean precisely in the middle, especially if points A and B are vaguely defined.
Tabuk and Dummat-al-Jandal are not "between" the two points listed by Diodorus, by any stretch of the imagination. Sabeaen territory is not "generally defined" it is located all the way down by Yemen.
Show where I say anything about the border of Yemen. Qaryat Al-Faw is in Central Arabia
No, at best it is in South-Central Arabia. But stretching the directions will not help in this case anyway because this location was actually part of Sabeaen territory, so (again) obviously not in "between" Sabeaen and Nabeanites, if it is part of one of them is it?
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.
--
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.
Do you realize that you have just cemented my case and destroyed your own? By arguing that the location of the temple mentioned by Diodorus was (according to you) not located inside a "well documented city" you have carelessly abandoned Tayma as a possible site (because the temple in Tayma was inside the city). And this was your most promising candidate because of its central location! Much more so then Tabuk which, as stated above, is not even close to being anywhere "in between". Don't feel too bad though, because Tayma's hope was already lost anyway, as it was so "well documented" and still, somehow not mentioned by name...
Thanks again.
I also see that you still didn't get your eyes checked because Dedan is next to Hegra (just south of it) not Tayma.
Dedan (Al-Ula) is only 40 miles South-West of Tayma... (and spare me the dramatics, thank you).
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.
Circumstantial speculation...
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.
Oh don't worry about that bro... a direct reference to Mecca has already been provided. The Diodorus account just cements the case, as none of the alternatives you provided fit the bill.
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.
I am well aware of the Weberian thesis you are presenting and I recognize its accuracy. The Muslims are misguided, but this doesnt help you make a case for this particular point.
@ Truthseeker
Before we begin, examine this verse "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day..." 9.019
Does this sound like a metaphorical place to you? Would you be able to "maintain" a metaphor? Or provide "drinks" to pilgrims circling a metaphor?
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).
Excuse me, but when did I refuse to answer anything by you (or anyone)? Let me remind you Mr. Truthseeker, you left the discussion numerous times, abandoning your own arguments in this very thread. You still have issues pending in the previous pages of this thread. I suggest that you scroll through the pages and see all of your objections have been answered (and refuted) and start with defending those first.
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.
"Allah has made the Kaaba, the sacred house... " 5.097
This puts an end to your distinctions.
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.
No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah, as it is itself the actual "Sacred House" set up by Abraham PBUH.
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.
Has any Muslim ever actually prayed to the black stone? No. So it is not idolatry. And circling the Kabah is a ritual started since the time of Abraham PBUH. So I could very easily claim that the pagans were imitating an ancient practice commanded by God. Also, accusing your fellow Muslims of pagan idolatry is inadvisable. I warned you about making such careless comments before.
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
Wrong. The hajj is not for the "entire mankind". It is for those who want to worship God alone, as that was the reason for its creation
Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). 2.125
And when taken together this with this verse "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque..." 9.028
It becomes clear that the limitation was placed on the pagans specifically (those who pray to others besides Allah). Everyone who wants to worship Allah is still allowed to visit the Kabbah by God. The additional restrictions and actions of the wahhabi authorities can not be used as a case to support your argument because that is an argument against the wahhabis themselves.
@ Real Truth
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.
See above brother. The house was clearly set up for the worship of God alone. Why would God tell Abraham PBUH to set up a house for the worship of idols? Or those who would worship idols?
Actually your referring to titles of GOD, GOD does not have a "name", he has titles.
Bro, the words "title" and "name" are synonyms of each other
http//thesaurus.reference.com/browse/title?r=76@ Jonny
There are alternative interpretations of the Quran which show it doesnt even talk about rituals
Bro, whatever definition of the words "cut your hair" may be, at the end of the day, the command is to "cut your hair"... And therefore, this action is irrational.
Even Ayman came to the conclusion that you are asking us to prove a -ve.
Seems you are paying attention only to what he is saying.
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?
How would I know? But even more importantly, why should I care?
Also do you beleive that GOD inspired the format 24434 rakats with all its no of rukoos and sujood?
I have no reason to suspect this practice, as you have not provided any evidence to support any other format.
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
"scientific community" ??? Why would a "scientific community" be interested in such a discussion?
Bro I asked you, which credible historian would deny that the the hadith are valid pieces of historical evidence? You have not yet answered this question.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
No, you all have presented invalid arguments and semantics.
@ Ahmed Bilal
The system is the same, and this INCLUDES monotheism (tawheed). However, our system includes much more than simply "monotheism".
Actually, the Jews have many more (and much more complex) commandments then us. According to your argument, should we all start keeping the Sabbath?
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...
err... this doesn't actually answer the objection to your argument bud. confused
PeAcE
-
@ c0de
The "from" and the "until" in 1778 state the time frame in which the "Isha" prayer is to be prayed. The "liduluki shamsi" means the rubbing (at the horizon) of the sun, or simply the the setting the sun. It does not mean "from when the sun has passed its zenith". it simply says from "liduluki shamsi" until "gasaki layl"(darkness of the night). The Quranic isha prayer is frm the end of sunset when the sun is "rubbing" against the earth until darkness at night. for more info check out my post on the topic "my opionion/response on 3 salaat" (or smthn like that).
Wakas + Bigmo
@ Wakas
If there were only 3 times of the contact prayers, then the words "from"
and "until" would not need to be used. As the three times are already
mentioned in that verse.@ Bigmo
But that is not what the verse is saying. It is not saying that all believers
have their own fixed times. It is clearly saying that the times for the prayers
are themselves fixed.Also, you have not yet provided any proof that the practice of 5 daily prayers
at their stated times was ever any different then it is today. Unless you provide
evidence for this, you do not really have a case.PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Bro, whatever definition of the words "cut your hair" may be, at the end of the day, the command is to "cut your hair"... And therefore, this action is irrational.
JK- I havnt figured out the exact meaning of that phrase and hence will not be hasty to claim that is what it means. It could mean many things besides this and needs to be analysed carefully. That is excatly my point. If an injuction is irrational it cannot be Divine.
Seems you are paying attention only to what he is saying.
JK- No im reading both sides and it did appear so to me. He pointed out that there were many small "invisible" temples back then and it doesnt necessarily lead back to what today is called "kaaba". You need to be prejudiced to beleive that otherwise the area IN BETWEEN is huge. So now your claim is that we should show it is NOT the kaaba what is meant to be in between that area thus asking us to prove a -ve once more.
How would I know? But even more importantly, why should I care?
JK- If not the second part you should at least be able to answer whether this would go against YOUR OWN FAITH or what what YOU THINK the salat should be like. So i ask you onc more Do YOU think that someone who prays five times a day bowing and prostaring a random no of times though is not doing anything wrong IYO?
I have no reason to suspect this practice, as you have not provided any evidence to support any other format.
JK- Again your asking for a -ve. How do you know GOD inspired 24434 in the first place? OR do you accept that some of GOD's inspirations indeed are in present in hadith which have been left out of the Quran?
"scientific community" ??? Why would a "scientific community" be interested in such a discussion?
Bro I asked you, which credible historian would deny that the the hadith are valid pieces of historical evidence? You have not yet answered this question.JK- Historians ARE part of the scientific community as long as they use the scientific method to analyse historical artifiacts and writings. 2ndly i didnt say all of hadith were unreliable as history. If you go back i clearly pointed out that the dates of birth of certain people and even Muhammad could potentially be correct as i can see no motive for such to be played with. HOWEVER whatever those same hadth mention in regard to rituals is very likely to be biased in favor of the pagans living at that time. Infact if you analyse the hadith it contains much of the same nonsense found in the OT Bible as well e.g. circumcision for males, stoning for adulteers, killing of homosexuals apostates NONE of which are found in the Quran. Same would go for this five time salat 24434 rakat ritual adapted from pagan religions.
No, you all have presented invalid arguments and semantics.
JK- Oh have i? Well i guess thats for the people to judge whor reading our posts. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
Actually, the Jews have many more (and much more complex) commandments then us. According to your argument, should we all start keeping the Sabbath?
What commandments in the Torah conflict with the teachings in the Qur'aan? And where in the Qur'aan are we instructed NOT to keep the shabbat?
err... this doesn't actually answer the objection to your argument bud. confused
Actually, my argument is very sound. According to the Torah, the Jews also learn the religion of Abraham. And based on the Qur'aan, this includes religious rituals, such as prayer. So, this means that, based on the scriptures, the prayers of the Jews (in the Torah) and Muslims (in the Qur'aan) should be the same, or at least very similar...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace bro "AB",
Peace "c0de",
What commandments in the Torah conflict with the teachings in the Qur'aan? And where in the Qur'aan are we instructed NOT to keep the shabbat?
JK- I your talking about the real Torah which the Jewish elites probably hiding then ofcourse NO commandments would conflict with the Quran although the Quran states that some commandments were ONLY LOCALLY for certain people at a certain time. The sabbath is one such
The Sabbath was decreed only for those who ended up disputing it (Jews & Christians). Your Lord is the One who will judge them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disputes.As for the false "torah" we as common people have access to only today there are alot of conflicts especially the supposed order of GOD to kill apostates is extremely dangerous and as ive explained before will only lead people to kill themslves over ever small differences particularly in the time back then when modern ways of acquiring evidence were lacking.
Actually, my argument is very sound. According to the Torah, the Jews also learn the religion of Abraham. And based on the Qur'aan, this includes religious rituals, such as prayer. So, this means that, based on the scriptures, the prayers of the Jews (in the Torah) and Muslims (in the Qur'aan) should be the same, or at least very similar...
Peace,
Ahmad
JK- That COULD BE a valid argument however i myself am finding less and less reason to accept salat meaning rituals prayers at all. The Quranic verses pointed out by various freeminders have clearly shown in their respective contexts that salat means comittment and not ritual prayer. Plus if ayman succeeds in this debate IMU then it would only confirm this thesis even more for myself and many others here as well. GOD Bless!
-
Progressive + Ahmed + Jonny
Salaam all
@ Progressive
The "from" and the "until" in 1778 state the time frame in which the "Isha" prayer is to be prayed. The "liduluki shamsi" means the rubbing (at the horizon) of the sun, or simply the the setting the sun. It does not mean "from when the sun has passed its zenith". it simply says from "liduluki shamsi" until "gasaki layl"(darkness of the night). The Quranic isha prayer is frm the end of sunset when the sun is "rubbing" against the earth until darkness at night. for more info check out my post on the topic "my opionion/response on 3 salaat" (or smthn like that).
Thanks for that bro. I tried looking for your thread, it is not in the first few pages of this section of the forum and didn't see it. ???
@ Jonny
I havnt figured out the exact meaning of that phrase and hence will not be hasty to claim that is what it means. It could mean many things besides this and needs to be analysed carefully. That is excatly my point. If an injuction is irrational it cannot be Divine.
Bro, do me a favor I ask you (sincerely) to please go and talk to any philosophy professor at any local university. Just make an appointment with him and go and ask him if religious injunctions can be considered "rational". And then ask him if religion itself can be defended via rationality. Do that and come back and tell me what you learned.
So now your claim is that we should show it is NOT the kaaba what is meant to be in between that area thus asking us to prove a -ve once more.
Again, a misconception and a misreading. I asked him to prove any location other then Mecca as fulfilling the requirements of Diodorus. That is not asking to prove a negative assertion. Besides, we already know through Ptolemy that it was Mecca, as he mentions it by name.
Do YOU think that someone who prays five times a day bowing and prostaring a random no of times though is not doing anything wrong IYO?
okay... what part of "I dont care" do you not understand bro? It is between that person and his God. I have to worry about doing what I think is right. This is why I dont care to argue over the details. You want me to answer a question which I consider of no importance.
Again your asking for a -ve. How do you know GOD inspired 24434 in the first place? OR do you accept that some of GOD's inspirations indeed are in present in hadith which have been left out of the Quran?
Actually, you are just claiming that I am asking for a negative assertion, because you hope that this will allow you an excuse not to answer my objection or provide evidence for your own view. I asked you to prove any other format you want. That is not asking you to prove a negative, but the exact opposite. The fact that you dont have any evidence, do you?
Historians ARE part of the scientific community
And what credible Historian do you know who would say hadith do not qualify as historical documents?
HOWEVER whatever those same hadth mention in regard to rituals is very likely to be biased in favor of the pagans living at that time.
Circumstantial evidence. You are speculating, just like Ayman.
Infact if you analyse the hadith it contains much of the same nonsense found in the OT Bible as well e.g. circumcision for males, stoning for adulteers, killing of homosexuals apostates NONE of which are found in the Quran.
Whatever contradicts the Quran is not part of Islam. There are hadiths that directly contradict the Quran. But even those are still historical evidence. We only reject them because our faith is in the superiority of the Quran, not because they are not historical documents. That is the point.
Same would go for this five time salat 24434 rakat ritual adapted from pagan religions.
No, this ritual does not contradict the Quran. So you can not apply that criticism here. Your assertion that this is a pagan ritual is unfounded and based in an orientalist anti-islamic rhetorical argument that has been used by bigots against Islam. Keep that in mind.
Oh have i? Well i guess thats for the people to judge whor reading our posts
Just go and make that appointment with a Philosophy professor. And while you are at it, make an appointment with a professor in the history or theology department as well. It is obvious you will not listen to me, maybe you will listen to others who will tell you to your face your errors.
@ Ahmed
What commandments in the Torah conflict with the teachings in the Qur'aan? And where in the Qur'aan are we instructed NOT to keep the shabbat?
wait... So you actually keep the "shabbat"? lol
Actually, my argument is very sound.
Bro, your argument was shattered long ago when you failed to defend all the inconsistencies between the Torah and the Quranic accounts of the same stories. You failed to respond to any of those objections and instead retreated from the discussion. If you want to prove your case, I suggest you start by first answering those objections. You already know where to find them.
PeAcE
-
Peace Jonny_K,
JK- I your talking about the real Torah which the Jewish elites probably hiding then ofcourse NO commandments would conflict with the Quran although the Quran states that some commandments were ONLY LOCALLY for certain people at a certain time. The sabbath is one such
The Sabbath was decreed only for those who ended up disputing it (Jews & Christians). Your Lord is the One who will judge them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disputes.The Qur'aan never says that the shabbat was decreed "only" for the Jews and Christians. In fact, here's what the passage actually says
But the Shabbat was placed on those who disputed in it, and indeed your L-rd judges between them, on the day of judgement, in what they were disputing. (16124)
That passage is immediately followed by this
Call to the way of your L-rd with wisdom and good advice, and dispute with them with which is best, that your L-rd He is more knowledgeable of who strayed from His way. And He is more knowledgeable of the guided. (16125)
Now, this tells us that there are people who dispute concerning the shabbat. However, it does NOT say that this is referring to the Jews and Christians. In fact, directly afterwards, we are told to call/invite others to the path of G-d through disputing, the same thing warranted in 16124. So, obviously, we are supposed to dispute with others concerning the shabbat, in hopes of leading them to the true path. The passage directly before that one (16123) tells us to follow the religion of Abraham, which, based on the context of the verse that follows it, obviously includes adhering to the shabbat... Also, the followers of Torah don't dispute on WHETHER OR NOT THEY MUST OBSERVE SHABBAT. They dispute regarding it's transgression; some of them have very tough rules concerning it, while others are very lax in their observance of it. This is the only dispute concerning the shabbat among the Jews, not it's actual observance. In fact, observance of the shabbat is part of the "ten commandments", which represent the most important of the Jewish laws. There's no question concerning this...
As for the false "torah" we as common people have access to only today there are alot of conflicts especially the supposed order of GOD to kill apostates is extremely dangerous and as ive explained before will only lead people to kill themslves over ever small differences particularly in the time back then when modern ways of acquiring evidence were lacking.
When did G-d order the Jews to kill all apostates?! Even Jewish scholars agree with many of these passages being allegorical, meaning they must remove apostates from Jewish communities and societies... How many modern Jewish communities have you heard of that murder apostates? NONE. How many modern Islaamic communities murder apostates? PLENTY.
JK- That COULD BE a valid argument however i myself am finding less and less reason to accept salat meaning rituals prayers at all. The Quranic verses pointed out by various freeminders have clearly shown in their respective contexts that salat means comittment and not ritual prayer. Plus if ayman succeeds in this debate IMU then it would only confirm this thesis even more for myself and many others here as well.
Okay, perhaps this is true. The word "salaat" could, based on the context of certain passages, refer to commitments. However, this would imply that we're supposed to "keep" the same commitments that the Jews preserve, such as monotheism, prayer, purity, charity, and even "circumcision" (which the Qur'aan doesn't even mention at all)... Also, if this was the "only" meaning for salaat, then what is the morning commitment, or the evening commitment? What is the night commitment? This meaning for "salaat" wouldn't fit in these contexts. And if we fuse this with preceding commitments (concerning the Jews and Nazarenes), their commitment includes morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. So, either way, we'd be led to the same conclusion...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace "c0de",
Bro, do me a favor I ask you (sincerely) to please go and talk to any philosophy professor at any local university. Just make an appointment with him and go and ask him if religious injunctions can be considered "rational". And then ask him if religion itself can be defended via rationality. Do that and come back and tell me what you learned.
JK- Lets assume some of them say there could be rationa arguments to support rituals, which are irrational, as coming from GOD. This would not make any sense to me. It would create a paradox in my mind. My qustion now is Why would GOD command us to do something which has no benefit for us?
Again, a misconception and a misreading. I asked him to prove any location other then Mecca as fulfilling the requirements of Diodorus. That is not asking to prove a negative assertion. Besides, we already know through Ptolemy that it was Mecca, as he mentions it by name.
JK- Well Ayman made it clear there were many "invisible" temples. Was the "kaaba" in "mecca" the only invisible temple in that area on the map?
okay... what part of "I dont care" do you not understand bro? It is between that person and his God. I have to worry about doing what I think is right. This is why I dont care to argue over the details. You want me to answer a question which I consider of no importance.
JK- Yes and im talking about what you consider right. SO DO YOU CONSIDER it wrong if someone prostartes and bows a random no of times in his/her five daily salat?
Actually, you are just claiming that I am asking for a negative assertion, because you hope that this will allow you an excuse not to answer my objection or provide evidence for your own view. I asked you to prove any other format you want. That is not asking you to prove a negative, but the exact opposite. The fact that you dont have any evidence, do you?
JK- I told you we dont actually need evidence because WE ARE NOT MAKING A +VE CLAIM. YOU ARE. Get it? Those who dont accept rituals are not the ones making a +ve claim. Besides that Ayman has provided evidence that these rituals are pagan in origin and he'll continue this debate with you.
And what credible Historian do you know who would say hadith do not qualify as historical documents?
JK- I personally dont but maybe Ayman, who has knowledge in the historical field, can answer you there. BESIDES i did mention that the hadith can be used for estimating certain historical events which are not inherently talking abt the hadiths own religion. In other words if you wanna know about Muhammad you dont just go ask Bukhari, Muslim what he did BUT you ask non sunni, shia groups. Ofcourse the former would only point out things which favored their political agenda at tht time.
Circumstantial evidence. You are speculating, just like Ayman.
JK- This has nothing to do with speculation. It is a reasonable assumption. BESIDES arnt you assuming that what the hadith say about salat was actually how Muhammad perormed them? If so then again you are making a +ve assumption and YOU need to prove your point.
Whatever contradicts the Quran is not part of Islam. There are hadiths that directly contradict the Quran. But even those are still historical evidence. We only reject them because our faith is in the superiority of the Quran, not because they are not historical documents. That is the point.
JK- The Quran is also a historical document and it is the most authentic one. The point is that in regards to DIVINE INJUNCTION ONLY THE QURAN MAYBE USED. Is this too difficult to grasp?
No, this ritual does not contradict the Quran. So you can not apply that criticism here. Your assertion that this is a pagan ritual is unfounded and based in an orientalist anti-islamic rhetorical argument that has been used by bigots against Islam. Keep that in mind.
JK- Oh but in our understanding here at FM it mostly does. Weve studied the Quran and found no five times in it but three at best. And also weve shown verses where salat just cannot mean ritual prayer but has to mean comittment. BUT you still havnt answered my qs Why did GOD put the details of His inspired rituals to not in the Quran but instead 1) in the hadith 2) in the minds of certain people who claim to follow more or less hadith? As for the rituals being paganiostic im sure ayman will answer you on that.
Just go and make that appointment with a Philosophy professor. And while you are at it, make an appointment with a professor in the history or theology department as well. It is obvious you will not listen to me, maybe you will listen to others who will tell you to your face your errors.
JK- If at the end i do not find aymans arguments satisfactory then i will do that. The debate isnt over yet. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "AB",
Peace Jonny_K,
The Qur'aan never says that the shabbat was decreed "only" for the Jews and Christians. In fact, here's what the passage actually says
But the Shabbat was placed on those who disputed in it, and indeed your L-rd judges between them, on the day of judgement, in what they were disputing. (16124)
That passage is immediately followed by this
Call to the way of your L-rd with wisdom and good advice, and dispute with them with which is best, that your L-rd He is more knowledgeable of who strayed from His way. And He is more knowledgeable of the guided. (16125)
Now, this tells us that there are people who dispute concerning the shabbat. However, it does NOT say that this is referring to the Jews and Christians. In fact, directly afterwards, we are told to call/invite others to the path of G-d through disputing, the same thing warranted in 16124. So, obviously, we are supposed to dispute with others concerning the shabbat, in hopes of leading them to the true path. The passage directly before that one (16123) tells us to follow the religion of Abraham, which, based on the context of the verse that follows it, obviously includes adhering to the shabbat... Also, the followers of Torah don't dispute on WHETHER OR NOT THEY MUST OBSERVE SHABBAT. They dispute regarding it's transgression; some of them have very tough rules concerning it, while others are very lax in their observance of it. This is the only dispute concerning the shabbat among the Jews, not it's actual observance. In fact, observance of the shabbat is part of the "ten commandments", which represent the most important of the Jewish laws. There's no question concerning this...
JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".
When did G-d order the Jews to kill all apostates?! Even Jewish scholars agree with many of these passages being allegorical, meaning they must remove apostates from Jewish communities and societies... How many modern Jewish communities have you heard of that murder apostates? NONE. How many modern Islaamic communities murder apostates? PLENTY.
JK- Ofcourse that is the modern Jewish "scholars" last excuse to save their scriptures in an ever increasing secular world. If you make everything allegorical then all scriptures of all religions, even the hadith, can be consdiered true. The context has to allow for allegory WITHIN THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Lets take a look at the following verses
Leviticus 2410-16Blasphemer to be put to death
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.Sabbath breaker to be put to death too
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.See how clear the details are and how GOD is suposedly commanding them? If this can be taken as allegorical then every absurd hadith can also be taken as allegorical and moreover there would be no statement in the world which could not be taken as allegorical. Hence every commander, every politician, every general can always get away safe after ordering to kill someone just by claiming that they meant all of it allegorically. Do you see how absurd this is?
Okay, perhaps this is true. The word "salaat" could, based on the context of certain passages, refer to commitments. However, this would imply that we're supposed to "keep" the same commitments that the Jews preserve, such as monotheism, prayer, purity, charity, and even "circumcision" (which the Qur'aan doesn't even mention at all)... Also, if this was the "only" meaning for salaat, then what is the morning commitment, or the evening commitment? What is the night commitment? This meaning for "salaat" wouldn't fit in these contexts. And if we fuse this with preceding commitments (concerning the Jews and Nazarenes), their commitment includes morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. So, either way, we'd be led to the same conclusion...
Peace,
Ahmad
JK- The comittment is mentioned in the Quran itself. It is to establish a system of monotheism where people gather together and dicsuss things using reaon and logic. This has been explained numerous times here on freeminds. You can read some of the articles and posts on this issue. Adopting mindless rituals and accepting them as Divine does not make any sense whatsoever. GOD Bless!
-
@ Jonny
Salaam bro
Lets assume some of them say there could be rationa arguments to support rituals, which are irrational, as coming from GOD.
Actually bro, none of them will disagree with me. I guarantee you this. If you want to prove me wrong, just go and talk to a professor yourself.
This would not make any sense to me. It would create a paradox in my mind.
This is because you are not a student of philosophy. In actuality, the paradox already exists in your view because you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.
Why would GOD command us to do something which has no benefit for us?
This question you asked is a perfect example of religion's irrationality. Your question talks about "benefit", but what you are ignoring is that the concept of "benefit" in religion is completely irrational. For example the whole idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven, is that "rational" ?? Of course not. So for anyone to obey God in this life, for the promise of "benefits" and "rewards" in the next life is completely irrational. Because the "benefit" is totally unproven and illogical. But it is something we are required to do. That is the essence of faith.
God asked Abraham PBUH to sacrifice his son. Now this command, was totally irrational and illogical in every way. There is no way for you to rationally defend such a command. (go ahead and try, it would be a good exercise, if you wish). But God's commands must be obeyed, not because they are rational, but because they are a test of our faith, precisely because they are irrational.
God is not good because good is rational. Because then God would be obeying rationality! And God does not "obey" anything, everything obeys God. Do you see?
Well Ayman made it clear there were many "invisible" temples.
And I made it clear that the temple Diodorus was talking about was not just any regular temple. He clearly says that it was a temple of great significance, revered by the whole Arab race.
SO DO YOU CONSIDER it wrong if someone prostartes and bows a random no of times in his/her five daily salat?
I have no right to issue such judgments and neither do you. What I do consider wrong is the concept of 3 prayers, or no prayers at all. Because this is stated in the Quran and is therefore a divine injunction. The number of rakats (methodology) is NOT a divine injunction because it is not in the Quran.
I told you we dont actually need evidence because WE ARE NOT MAKING A +VE CLAIM.
Is that what you think? (because that is your misunderstanding)
Those who dont accept rituals are not the ones making a +ve claim.
Do you realize that challenging rituals is itself a claim? You are claiming that those rituals dont have to be observed. That is a claim. So you need to provide evidence for it.
Besides that Ayman has provided evidence that these rituals are pagan in origin and he'll continue this debate with you.
You keep saying Ayman has provided proof, but he hasnt. His argument has been borrowed from anti-Islamic sources which have already been dis credited by scholars in the field.
I personally dont but maybe Ayman, who has knowledge in the historical field, can answer you there.
So you personally then, can not defend your own argument.
This has nothing to do with speculation. It is a reasonable assumption.
"reasonable assumption" ??? (lol) bro, it is only "reasonable" to you because it fits your view. This is why you can not base arguments on assumptions. No matter how "reasonable" they might seem to you. Because at the end of the day it is >speculation< because you have no proof to back it up.
BESIDES arnt you assuming that what the hadith say about salat was actually how Muhammad perormed them? If so then again you are making a +ve assumption and YOU need to prove your point.
The hadith is a historical document, and therefore it is proof itself. You yourself have admitted you dont know of any historian who will deny that the hadith is a historical document.
The Quran is also a historical document and it is the most authentic one. The point is that in regards to DIVINE INJUNCTION ONLY THE QURAN MAYBE USED. Is this too difficult to grasp?
yea... and the number of rakats are not a divine injunction. The 5 prayers are a divine injunction. I am not defending the number of rakats, I am defending the 5 prayers.
Oh but in our understanding here at FM it mostly does. Weve studied the Quran and found no five times in it but three at best. And also weve shown verses where salat just cannot mean ritual prayer but has to mean comittment. BUT you still havnt answered my qs Why did GOD put the details of His inspired rituals to not in the Quran but instead 1) in the hadith 2) in the minds of certain people who claim to follow more or less hadith? As for the rituals being paganiostic im sure ayman will answer you on that.
I hope that you realize that the community here at Free-minds would never be taken seriously in any scholarly community. How many Western Universities do you know that have people teaching the beliefs that people here hold in their histories of Islam? Because the views of people like Ayman have been discredited and thrown out by real scholars.
PeAcE
-
Peace "AB",
JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".
interesting
-
Actually bro, none of them will disagree with me. I guarantee you this. If you want to prove me wrong, just go and talk to a professor yourself.
Since a scholar says something is so, they must be right?
This is because you are not a student of philosophy. In actuality, the paradox already exists in your view because you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.
This question you asked is a perfect example of religion's irrationality. Your question talks about "benefit", but what you are ignoring is that the concept of "benefit" in religion is completely irrational. For example the whole idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven, is that "rational" ?? Of course not. So for anyone to obey God in this life, for the promise of "benefits" and "rewards" in the next life is completely irrational. Because the "benefit" is totally unproven and illogical. But it is something we are required to do. That is the essence of faith.
Actually the idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven is RATIONAL if you believe in GOD and believe that GOD can do anything. Many people can throw the question right back at you and say the belief in GOD is irrational in itself then afterlife in heaven is irrational.
God asked Abraham PBUH to sacrifice his son. Now this command, was totally irrational and illogical in every way. There is no way for you to rationally defend such a command. (go ahead and try, it would be a good exercise, if you wish). But God's commands must be obeyed, not because they are rational, but because they are a test of our faith, precisely because they are irrational.
You've came to the conclusion that a test of faith can never be rational? GOD asking you to feed a homeless person and he will do something for you is rational and it can be a test of faith to see if you will do it.
God is not good because good is rational. Because then God would be obeying rationality! And God does not "obey" anything, everything obeys God. Do you see?
How can GOD "obey rationality" hypno Who decided that good is rational? Me jumping in front of a bullet to keep it from hitting osama bin laden might be "good thing to do" but many will says it's irrational due to the atrocities Osama bin laden has done. It would matter your point of view now wouldn't it?
And I made it clear that the temple Diodorus was talking about was not just any regular temple. He clearly says that it was a temple of great significance, revered by the whole Arab race.
Ok
I have no right to issue such judgments and neither do you. What I do consider wrong is the concept of 3 prayers, or no prayers at all. Because this is stated in the Quran and is therefore a divine injunction. The number of rakats (methodology) is NOT a divine injunction because it is not in the Quran.
Useless chatter, Where is it stated
Do you realize that challenging rituals is itself a claim? You are claiming that those rituals dont have to be observed. That is a claim. So you need to provide evidence for it.
It would matter if its supported by the quran and only by the quran
You keep saying Ayman has provided proof, but he hasnt. His argument has been borrowed from anti-Islamic sources which have already been dis credited by scholars in the field.
Useless chatter, can we see some of this proof from the "scholars rotfl in the field"
The hadith is a historical document, and therefore it is proof itself. You yourself have admitted you dont know of any historian who will deny that the hadith is a historical document.
Sigh it would matter what hadith your talking about sunnis reject hadiths that shiite follow and shiite reject hadith that sunni follow so your arguement is complete failure right there. What do you think sectarians have been arguing about for the past hundred-thousand years? THE AUTHENCITY OF THEIR HADITH!
yea... and the number of rakats are not a divine injunction. The 5 prayers are a divine injunction. I am not defending the number of rakats, I am defending the 5 prayers.
Same ol' useless chatter, no quranic verses to back up your view point, I can see why you rely on protecting the hadith so much and your loveable "scholars"
I hope that you realize that the community here at Free-minds would never be taken seriously in any scholarly community. How many Western Universities do you know that have people teaching the beliefs that people here hold in their histories of Islam? Because the views of people like Ayman have been discredited and thrown out by real scholars.
Oh noes! A "scholarly rotfl" community won't like us, how will this forum live!
You know through this whole paper you wrote, you didn't provide one quranic evidence or "scholarly" evidence for your claims yet you accuse other people of speculating. bravo bravo
Peace
-
Peace "JK",
JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".
This is false, bro, and there are other passages that attest to this. For example
You have known about those among you who violated the shabbat. We said to them, "Be lowly apes." We set them up as an example for their generation, as well as SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS, and an enlightenment for the righteous. (265, 66)
The example for them is NOT TO VIOLATE THE SABBATH, and this is the same example for the subsequent generations, which include the submitters during the time of Muhammad and us today.
O you who've been given the book, you shall believe in what We reveal herein, confirming what you have, before We efface faces or condemn them, as We condemned those violated the shabbat. God's command is executed. (447)
Coincidentally, the verses BEFORE and AFTER this passage refer to idolatry, implying that breaking the shabbat is equal to committing idol worship. Nowhere in the Qur'aan are we told that this only applies to the Jews and Christians, and nowhere are we told that the shabbat was only instituted for certain communities... Again, for you to base your reasoning on the shabbat ("sabbath" being for those who disputed in it, you have to look at their disputes. And NONE OF THEM disputed concerning it's observance. They only disputed in their violation of it, which is what the Qur'aan points out...
JK- Ofcourse that is the modern Jewish "scholars" last excuse to save their scriptures in an ever increasing secular world. If you make everything allegorical then all scriptures of all religions, even the hadith, can be consdiered true. The context has to allow for allegory WITHIN THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Lets take a look at the following verses
Leviticus 2410-16Blasphemer to be put to death
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.Sabbath breaker to be put to death too
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.See how clear the details are and how GOD is suposedly commanding them? If this can be taken as allegorical then every absurd hadith can also be taken as allegorical and moreover there would be no statement in the world which could not be taken as allegorical. Hence every commander, every politician, every general can always get away safe after ordering to kill someone just by claiming that they meant all of it allegorically. Do you see how absurd this is?
This is unreasonable. Many of these direct commands only applied literally to the people of that time; in other cases, they were completely allegorical. This is even further emphasized throughout the Tanakh. Another example of this is the atonement offerings in the temple of Yerushalom (Jerusalem). According to the Torah, these offerings can't be offered outside of the temple. So, what happened after the temple was destroyed? Does this mean that God didn't know the temple would be destroyed?
The Qur'aan even points out that some of God's verses/signs are allegorical, not literal. So, what's the difference with the Torah? You can't compare the Torah with the hadith writings, since men wrote the hadiths. God Himself sent down the Torah, just like He did the Qur'aan...
JK- The comittment is mentioned in the Quran itself. It is to establish a system of monotheism where people gather together and dicsuss things using reaon and logic. This has been explained numerous times here on freeminds. You can read some of the articles and posts on this issue. Adopting mindless rituals and accepting them as Divine does not make any sense whatsoever.
Like I said, the system includes more than simply "monotheism". Most modern Muslims aren't pure monotheists anyway, since they idolize Muhammad... But regardless, this is unrealistic. Our system is to "discuss things using reason and logic"? And what happens if everyone agrees? Does this mean our system is over? What about the Qur'aanic passages instructing everyone to 'believe in God, believe in the last day, and lead a righteous life'? What role to these play in discussing things using reason and logic? And how will everyone discuss these matters? Online? Over the phone? Or do you expect all submitters in the world to live in one huge community? We uphold the same system as Abraham and the patriarchs. Did they base their system on discussing things using reason and logic?
Peace,
Ahmad