The Prayer Issue Revived
-
@ 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
-
Since a scholar says something is so, they must be right?
LoL... no, but when all experts agree, it means something.
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.
(lol) err... yea.. That was my point. Belief in God is irrational.
You've came to the conclusion that a test of faith can never be rational?
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
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?
You missed the point entirely. I was the one who was saying God does not "obey" rationality.
Useless chatter, Where is it stated
err.. the Quran. All divine injunctions are in the Quran. (are you disagreeing with this? Because I wasnt)
Useless chatter, can we see some of this proof from the "scholars rotfl in the field"
Refer to my last response to Ayman, right in the beginning I state multiple quotes from different authors (all scholars) who have called into question the source of Ayman's beliefs which is based in the work of Patricia Crone.
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!
Do you even know what I am arguing? Because this objection doesnt even address my point. I never once said that the hadith manuscripts are perfect or fully authentic. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting.
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" Oh noes! A "scholarly rotfl" community won't like us, how will this forum live!
All the verses have been provided in this thread, supporting every point of the argument (5 times, rituals, the Kabbah, Qiblah, Mecca etc.). I suggest you flip back through the pages.
PeAcE
-
LoL... no, but when all experts agree, it means something.
Yes, it means something should be investigated. I don't follow anything just because the masses believe it(which is why im not a sunni)
(lol) err... yea.. That was my point. Belief in God is irrational.
Ok
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
No that's why it's based off faith.
You missed the point entirely. I was the one who was saying God does not "obey" rationality.
No you clearly said "God is not good, because GOD is not rational". I was correcting you, GOD can do anything he wants, he might choose to do things rational or he might choose things to do irrational. Even though in Qu'ran it clearly says GOD will not test you above your limits. You tried to use Abraham being asked to sacrafice his son, but you missed the whole point of him asking him to do it. It was a test of faith, GOD knew already that he wasn't going to allow him to sacrafice his only son, so it was rational
err.. the Quran. All divine injunctions are in the Quran. (are you disagreeing with this? Because I wasnt)
I was disagreeing with what you considered "divine injuctions"(ex pray 5 times a day) not if there were any divine injuctions.
Refer to my last response to Ayman, right in the beginning I state multiple quotes from different authors (all scholars) who have called into question the source of Ayman's beliefs which is based in the work of Patricia Crone.
Which you guys still are debating and noone has been proven really right or wrong...Your still stuck on the notion just because the person is a scholar, they must be right.
Do you even know what I am arguing? Because this objection doesnt even address my point. I never once said that the hadith manuscripts are perfect or fully authentic. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting.
Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific hadith, I was talking about in general. Considering you kept mentioning "what scholars think" and what "scholars believe", I was showing depending on what "sect that scholar would be in" would decide what hadith they would support and if they believe it would be historically(so the hadith are "historically correct" doesn't always hold up to your "scholars know best" standards. That's my fault I worded it horribly
Peace
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
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.
JK- Ok lets go along with that.
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.
JK- No im not. Im simply denying GOD ever commanded rituals in the first place considering there to be no significant evidence to support this thesis. And im sure the majority of historians dont accept rituals, especially sunni/shia five daily salat, as coming from GOD. Or do they?
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.
JK- Whether the afterlife is infinite or not in the absolute sense is not clear from the Quran because of the following verse
11108 And as for those who will be glad (that day) they will be in the Garden, abiding there so long as the heavens and the earth endure save for that which thy Lord willeth a gift unfailing.
Besides this bro Arnold has written an article on the scientific approach to the afterlife and you probaly know about Frank Tipler's "The Omega Point Theory". Heres bro Arnold's article
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596858.0
ALSO ofcourse there is obvious benefit of the aftterlife in that we'd have exponentially more benefits and pleasure than we could ever have here.
Moreover the akhira is NOT A COMMAND whilst wer commanded to do salat. So my qs again is Why would GOD command us to do somehting on earth which has no benefit?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.
JK- ABSOLUTELY WRONG INTERPRETAION. GOD never asked Abraham to sacrifice the life of his son by putting him down and holding a knife to his neck. There are two rational interpreations of this verse. 1) Abraham SAW A RANDOM DREAM and only the hadith interprets that every prophet's dream is supposedly from GOD. Thus Abraham thought it was from GOD but it actually wasnt and ultimately GOD saved Abraham from comitting a mistake. Here is the article explaining that
http//www.submission.org/Ismail.html
2) Abraham sacrificed his son metaphorically in that he took him along with himself to establish the system of monotheism against a great majority of disbelievers.
728 They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?"
GOD has commanded elsewhere that killing of innocnts is a gross sin. Thus what sense would to then ask from one of his followers to commit a sin? And remember GOD Himself states it here that He does not advocater sin so the traditional understanding of Abrham physically sacrificing his son contradicts the Quran.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?
JK- Good is defined as that which provides benefits for the people which they can experience. If GOD does not communicate with humans on our level we cannot possibly know whether it is really from GOD. That wouldnt make any sense whatsoever. And yes everything obeys GOD's set laws in the universe.
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.
JK- Even if so why does it have to be the location known as "mecca" today? Why not one of the other many "invisible" towns?
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.
JK- OH OK so you at least agree that the no of rakats is not Divine injunction. So then you would have no argument with people who pray 5 times daily but with random no of rakats, rukoos and sujood correct?
Is that what you think? (because that is your misunderstanding)
JK- No we are not making a +ve claim. The ones who claim 3 salat, YES, they are but not people like ayman and myself.
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.
JK- So challenging Jesus is GOD incarnate according to you would be a +ve claim too? COMMON. The burden of proof is upon the ones who ake these claims and we are to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to support the claim or falsify it. thats how it goes.
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.
JK- Im sure ayman will have good replies to you in his coming posts.
So you personally then, can not defend your own argument.
JK- I can using reason, logic and the Quran.
"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.
JK- It is not only my view but the view of many other free thinkers right on this forum. As for proof i suppose you dont consider logical arguments and the use of conextual analyis in the Quran proof do you? Youd rather consider hadith proof of what the Quran actually means by salat than underatdning the Quran contextually staring from the root meanings of the Arabic terms.
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.
JK- Actually the hadith are very weak historical documents because there exists no evidence of any hadith literature being even as close to 150 years after the Prophet's death. Thus it is bound to contain alot of fiction about Muhamad's time.
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.
JK- Fair enough. Can you point out the time span at which to offer each of these prayers justifying your claims from the Quran?
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.
JK- If they have been why havnt all historians started praying five times a day or promoting these rituals in the name of GOD? Obviously most of them dont belevie that these rituals come from GOD or any other for that matter. GOD Bless!
-
Peace bro "AB",
Peace "JK",
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- The sabbath breakers were indeed made an example for subsequent generations in the sense that people< who break GOD's command at any given time ae punished. it doesnt mean that that particular command is still active. If your understanding of these verses is significant then why havnt i heard of bros Edip, ayman and others support this view? Have you presented this to other people here and how did they respond?
This is unreasonable. Many of these direct commands only applied literally to the people of that time; in other cases, they were completely allegorical.
JK- Ofcourse it can be argued that the commands only applied to people at the time BUT NOT that people wernt supposed to be stoned to death literally. Clearly the passage defines the details of how to take them out in and stone them there. If you take this as allegorical then the hadith proponents would have no problems in taking all the hadith as allegorical too. How then do we distingish which religious scripture is better?
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?
JK- Could you please provide the relevant verses here so i can see what your talking about?
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- Yes but the Quran in such cases does not provide such details as the above verses ive quoted which lead one to another conclusion that the commands were litgeral. That is the major difference. An example would be when GOD states that adulters should receive 100 lashes. This can be interpreted symbolically because there is no detailed scenario added to it. If the statement was followed by "and take him/her out in the field, take a whip of high quality leather and lash him/her therewith" then wed have to conclude that the command is literal. See the difference.
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
JK- Yes we would discuss with reaon and logic just like wer doing on freeminds as well as gatherings physically at designated places in the future GW. That is the system of monotheism where we refute all kinds of innovations and ultimately more and more people will accept this system as per
1102 And you will see the people enter GOD's system in crowds.
GOD Bless! -
Peace again "c0de",
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
JK- YES WE CAN and tend to do exactly that at freeminds, apart from debunking sectraians. Some argue the existence of GOD on their personal experience, yes, but that is not good enough. Others argue on the basis of all humans inheritently tending towards recognizing GOD. This is supported by scientific evidence. Atheists call it "the GOD gene" but they claim it is not their because GOD put it there but because of other factors. However it can certainly be used as a supporting argument for the existence of GOD. Then if you anlyse even pagan religions like Hinduism at the core of their scriptures youll find them referring to ONE GOD ONLY. Thus we can conclude that different people and religions from all over the world did at one point or another accept the existence of one GOD independent of each other. I myself have explained rationally in many of my posts as to why the existence of GOD is inevitable. Then ive read scientific articles on quantum mechanics coming close to what ive mentioned, one quantum physicist,hans Peter D?rr, even referring to GOD as the combined quantum field or "quantum ghost". That again would fit with the Quran's explanation of GOD referred to in
2435 GOD is the LIGHT of the heavens and the earth...
So again you can see how this all seems to add up both logically and in favor of the Quran.
SECONDLY ofcourse we can show that one particular religio is better than another by comparing the amount of rational points/benefits for humanty vs. absurdities in each of them. GOD Bless! -
Peace all,
After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God. Thats the reason why the pagans were called polythiests as they followed the tradition of Abraham(Millat) but to multiple gods while most Jews and Christians are called 'rejectors' because they rejected the tradition altogether. Therefore, the Quran is an amendment to the tradition but a fully detailed Law to complement the tradition to become a fully functional system. Therefore a Muslim is the follower of the monotheistic Abrahamic tradition. The goal of the Quran was to make all polythiests, Jews and Christians Muslims then to make all the Muslims Believers. Thats why the Quran says that God has completed the religion and he wants to perfect the religion. What boggles my mind, why is this tradition suspended in mid-air. What is the reference for this tradition? Or is it something inherited?
Peace,
Rami
-
Real Truth + Jonny + Rami
Salaam All
@ RT
Yes, it means something should be investigated. I don't follow anything just because the masses believe it(which is why im not a sunni)
It has nothing to do with majority rule. 2+2=4, not because everyone agrees it equals 4, but because it equals 4 with or without anyone accepting it. What I stated (religion is irrational) is a logically proven argument that is accepted by all philosophers and most people who are familiar with such debates.
No that's why it's based off faith.
YEa, thats what I said. ???
No you clearly said "God is not good, because GOD is not rational".
Actually, no... I didnt say that. I said "God is not good because good is rational". I was stating the supremacy of God above any human conceptions of "morality".
I was disagreeing with what you considered "divine injuctions"(ex pray 5 times a day)
All 5 times have been listed in the Quran and these verses have been provided. The only difference is that the command to pray on two of those times just says "offer praise". My argument is that the 5 times are still valid because salat=offering praise.
Which you guys still are debating and noone has been proven really right or wrong...Your still stuck on the notion just because the person is a scholar, they must be right.
And your still stuck on the notion that because Ayman's point fits with your view, it must be right. Even though his point is borrowed from a view that has been discredited. And you know why it has been discredited? Because it is based on bad scholarship (not because it was a popularity contest).
Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific hadith, I was talking about in general. Considering you kept mentioning "what scholars think" and what "scholars believe", I was showing depending on what "sect that scholar would be in" would decide what hadith they would support and if they believe it would be historically(so the hadith are "historically correct" doesn't always hold up to your "scholars know best" standards. That's my fault I worded it horribly
And my whole point is that since those hadith are still permissiable as historical evidence, the other side has to present their own evidence if they want to refute it. Which they have not done. Ayman is trying, but remember his argument is nothing new. It is old and discredited.
@ Jonny
Im simply denying GOD ever commanded rituals in the first place considering there to be no significant evidence to support this thesis.
This is a completely invalid and astonishing statement.
And im sure the majority of historians dont accept rituals, especially sunni/shia five daily salat, as coming from GOD. Or do they?
Yes they do. And now, you can go and ask any historian or theological historian yourself on this issue as well. It is a FACT that religion is based in rituals. It is one of the defining characteristics or religion. It is what separates religion from philosophy.
Whether the afterlife is infinite or not in the absolute sense is not clear from the Quran because of the following verse
Read that verse again, and this time notice the part at the end which you refused to bold "a gift unfailing." It is an accepted fact that all the three Abrahamic religions present an infinite afterlife.
Besides this bro Arnold has written an article on the scientific approach to the afterlife and you probaly know about Frank Tipler's "The Omega Point Theory". Heres bro Arnold's article
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596858.0There are many ways man can try and conceptualize infinite and the afterlife. If you want to do it in scientific terms, you can try (as a hobby). But we have no actual knowledge of it, remember that. That is a fact confirmed by science (as we have no actual proof of multiverse and string theory yet, and these are the theories which deal with higher dimensions and meta-verses). Scientifically, we are at a major paradoxical point right now because we can not reconcile classical physics (Einstein's Relativity + Newton's laws) with modern physics (Quantum Physics). So to talk about meta-verses right now in scientific terms is out of the question. We cant even define and make sense of this current finite world, let alone the infinite afterlife.
Why would GOD command us to do somehting on earth which has no benefit?
The whole point of religion is that we do not think in finite and material terms. Benefit and loss is up to God. So if we pray (which is irrational, and gives us no perceivable benefit) we are told that we will get benefit from this via the irrational (God will grant us benefit of salat).
ABSOLUTELY WRONG INTERPRETAION. GOD never asked Abraham to sacrifice the life of his son by putting him down and holding a knife to his neck. There are two rational interpreations of this verse. 1) Abraham SAW A RANDOM DREAM and only the hadith interprets that every prophet's dream is supposedly from GOD. Thus Abraham thought it was from GOD but it actually wasnt and ultimately GOD saved Abraham from comitting a mistake. Here is the article explaining that
Actually, the site you provided completely fails to show how the dream was not from God because the verse itself makes it clear that it was
"You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
That was an exacting test indeed.I suggest you read the actual verse yourself. Here are 3 different translations, all of them point out that the dream was itself from God
037.105
YUSUFALI "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good.The fact that Abraham PBUH was rewarded for fulfilling the vision means that the dream was from God.
GOD has commanded elsewhere that killing of innocnts is a gross sin. Thus what sense would to then ask from one of his followers to commit a sin? And remember GOD Himself states it here that He does not advocater sin so the traditional understanding of Abrham physically sacrificing his son contradicts the Quran.
This is why the command (in the dream) was irrational.
Good is defined as that which provides benefits for the people which they can experience.
Wrong. That is a materialistic definition of "good" and is rejected by Islam. In Islam (and all Abrahamic religions) "good" is defined by God. Whatever God says is "good" is good. It has nothing to do with calculating benefit or harm, as that is the utilitarian (materialistic) philosophical definition of good.
Even if so why does it have to be the location known as "mecca" today? Why not one of the other many "invisible" towns?
If it was in an "invisible town" then why did Ayman present so many "well documented" locations as alternatives? Besides, it had to be Mecca because a century later Diodorus, Ptolemy came along and mentioned it by name.
OH OK so you at least agree that the no of rakats is not Divine injunction. So then you would have no argument with people who pray 5 times daily but with random no of rakats, rukoos and sujood correct?
Did I ever say I did? I would still advise they follow an accepted form and method though, just to be on the safe side. Thats what I do.
No we are not making a +ve claim. The ones who claim 3 salat, YES, they are but not people like ayman and myself.
And this position is even weaker then the 3 salat position. Because all you have to rely on are semantics ("alternative translations" which can just be criticized as "manipulations". Especially if Ayman's argument is proven wrong (which it was a by scholars long before this debate between me and him).
The burden of proof is upon the ones who ake these claims and we are to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to support the claim or falsify it. thats how it goes.
And proof has been provided.
Im sure ayman will have good replies to you in his coming posts.
You dont realize that it doesnt even matter what he replies. His view is discredited by scholarship. I could leave the debate right now and still win because my view is the accepted view of those historical community (Muslim and non-Muslim).
I can using reason, logic and the Quran.
Then defend your own views without relying on Ayman. The hadith is a valid historical document, and is accepted by historians as such. So how can you deny its validity in an argument about Islamic and middle eastern history?
It is not only my view but the view of many other free thinkers right on this forum.
Now you are relying on the fallacy of the majority (as in this case, you guys in this forum are the majority). It doesnt matter who agrees with you, what matters is that the experts who know a lot more about this subject then the members of this forum, disagree with their conclusions. And these experts are not biased Muslim sectarians, but historians. The quotes I presented were not from Muslims.
Youd rather consider hadith proof of what the Quran actually means by salat than underatdning the Quran contextually staring from the root meanings of the Arabic terms.
Semantics (again). Until you prove your argument from history, you can not claim validity of these translations. And the fact is that the views presented here that try and justify your alternative translations, have been proven invalid by scholarship.
Actually the hadith are very weak historical documents because there exists no evidence of any hadith literature being even as close to 150 years after the Prophet's death. Thus it is bound to contain alot of fiction about Muhamad's time.
Bro, in terms of historical documents the hadiths are EXCEPTIONAL documents of EXTREME validity. Here is a professor who actually converted to Islam after studying how scientific the proccess of hadith collection was. Here is a link to his lectures at MIT, his name is Dr. Jonathan Brown.
http//video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5960619842161782578&ei=rbrQSdmFAoPE-wGZvIH3CQ&q=jonathan+brown+hadithDo you realize how authentic the hadith are when compared to many other historical documents? Historians LOVE hadith because of how scientific the method of its classification and codification was.
Fair enough. Can you point out the time span at which to offer each of these prayers justifying your claims from the Quran?
Once again, I am not arguing about the details. But I follow the hadith method because I believe it to be what God intended. But I will not criticize anyone who chooses his own method. It is between him and his God.
If they have been why havnt all historians started praying five times a day or promoting these rituals in the name of GOD? Obviously most of them dont belevie that these rituals come from GOD or any other for that matter. GOD Bless!
Actually, some do. The link I provided to you of Dr. Jonathan Brown, he is a historian who converted to Islam while studying the proccess of hadith collection after he was astonished how scientific it was. As for those people that dont convert, it has nothing to do with their opinion on the hadith and the rituals as being valid historically speaking. They just have their own beliefs (rational or irrational).
I myself have explained rationally in many of my posts as to why the existence of GOD is inevitable.
If it was so "inevitable" then why is not every scientist a believer in God? The fact is (and you may not be aware of this) is that belief in God ultimately always has to rest on a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are always based in faith. Now I believe that it is (ironically) more rational to believe in those assumptions rather then believe in the alternative (the atheist approach). I know that, and I agree with that. HOWEVER, what you can not do is to say that these set of faithful assumptions are logically proven. Because they always result in a circular argument. At the end of the day, the believer has no choice but to fall back on those assumptions about the universe which can never been proven or tested.
For example, one of my favorite "proofs" of God is the fine tuned argument of the universe. But a philosophical atheists will always have the option of saying that this is no "proof" because the believer is assuming that there is any "fine turning" at all. And there are many atheist physicists and scientists who reject this model and have "faith" (their own assumptions) that an alternative model can explain any "fine tuning". Even though they KNOW that those alternative models can never fully disprove God either.
The fact is that at the end of the day (and this is an accepted fact) God can not be proven, or disproven. This is why in the Quran Allah tells us to wait... He tells us that those who disbelieve will question the believers, and the believers should (instead of arguing with them) tell them "wait, for we too are waiting..."
@ Rami
After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God.
If you take faith out of the equation, and only rely on "reason" then you will no doubt come to similar conclusions about Judiasm and Christianity as well.
PeAcE