The Prayer Issue Revived

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

You do realize that the pagans are actually atheists right? This was their description in the Quran, as they only believed in tradition, but not in any actual gods or God. So closest to their description, is not me, but YOU, as an atheist. I still believe in revelation.

JK- Bro i must say but this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by you since ive known you. The Quran itself disproves this. Have you ever read these verses
5319-21 Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza,
And another, the third (goddess), Manat?
What! for you the male sex, and for Him(GOD), the female(the three previous idols)?

Do you see how the pagans beleived in Allah? They just claimed He has daughters?

Then see

6100 Yet they(the pagans) make the Jinns equals with God, though God did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!

1657 And they assign daughters for God! - Glory be to Him! - and for themselves (sons,- the issue) they desire!
This verse explains 5319-21 or vice versa. Do i need to quote more? Shirk is associating PARTNERS WITH GOD not being atheists. Quran does NOT mention atheists. GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace again "c0de",
Btw i beleive i asked you this already and think you didnt reply. So here it is again. How can hadith be used to understand what any term means in the Quran WHEN HADITH WERE NOT COMPILED UNTIL MORE THAN 200 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HADITH TRACING BACK EVEN CLOSE TO A 100 YEARS AFTER MUHAMMAD'S DEATH. So how does that make hadith reliable about what Muhammad practiced and what certain Quranic terms mean. THEREFORE we at FM INSIST that to understand the Quran you need to use 1) meanings of Arabic terms using Classical arabic dictionaries STARTING FROM THE ROOT and thus taking into account the simplest meaning 2) cross reference WITHIN the Quran and 3) use archaeological evidence such as inscriptions proivded by ayman. GOD Bless!

[c0de]

@ Jonny

Btw i beleive i asked you this already and think you didnt reply. So here it is again. How can hadith be used to understand what any term means in the Quran WHEN HADITH WERE NOT COMPILED UNTIL MORE THAN 200 YEARS AFTER THE DEATH OF THE PROPHET AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY HADITH TRACING BACK EVEN CLOSE TO A 100 YEARS AFTER MUHAMMAD'S DEATH. So how does that make hadith reliable about what Muhammad practiced and what certain Quranic terms mean. THEREFORE we at FM INSIST that to understand the Quran you need to use 1) meanings of Arabic terms using Classical arabic dictionaries STARTING FROM THE ROOT and thus taking into account the simplest meaning 2) cross reference WITHIN the Quran and 3) use archaeological evidence such as inscriptions proivded by ayman. GOD Bless!

My position on this is CLEAR and has been stated many times. I do not believe the hadith are perfect recorders of the Prophet messages. This is why I do not accept them as containint divine injuntions. Only divine injunctions which are already in the Quran are divine injunctions. And the hadith can be used to get more meanings only those injunctions which have a foundation in the Quran. This is why I do not care about the methodology as much, but the 5 prayers themselves are a diving injunction because they have a foundation in the Quran.

Bro i must say but this is the most ridiculous argument put forward by you since ive known you. The Quran itself disproves this. Have you ever read these verses

Actually, God makes clear in the Quran that the pagans pretend to believe, but they dont actually believe in anything. Over and over again we are told that all the pagans observe are traditonal rituals and that is all they care about. For them, there is no afterlife, or God, or judgement. Atheism is at the heart of paganism. The only difference being the pagans observed empty rituals, but at the end of the day they lacked all spirituality, just like atheists.

So your not born into a sunni/shia family? Being moderate or highly educated is not an issue. My father an mother are both well educated and moderate but i was a fanatic sunni. It depends 1) on the environemt 2) when a person is looking for acceptance and can relatively easy achieve it he/she will most likely delve deep into a certain ideology and subconsciouly that will take over ones mind. ALSO the extremists who rammed their car into the airport in London were edicated doctors. Education does NOT prevent you from becoming extreme neither did it prevent me.

No, at least a quarter of my familly is neither sunni nor shia. And the rest are mostly secular. I have very few people in my familly who care about religion.

What do you mean by transcendent? Do you mean supernatural? Did you know that even Dr. Zakir Naik, whos a relatively extrreme dunni, said in one of his speeches boldly "In Islam, GOD IS NATURAL" rasing islam above other religions who claim GOD to be supernatural whilst making a point to atheists. And in that regard i agree with him though i somehow think he just said that in excitement to please the atheists. In other words Islam is submission to THE LIGHT OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH (2435)

No, I do not mean "supernatural" exactly. Trancendent is a philosophical concept which states that something is beyond any human cognitive capacity. Anything trancendent is totally objective, and does not depend on human subjectivity.

But the same phrase "as long as GOD doesnt will otherwise" is also used for heaven. ANYWAYS lets say heaven is eternal. Lets go with that. Is an eternal hevaen not beneficial to us? IT IS EXTREMELY isnt it and we can very well comprehend this benefit right now cant we?

For all we know when Qiyamat comes, even the heavens will be destroyed. And maybe this is why God added that. But in any case, once everything will be rebuilt in perfection in the afterlife, that will be an infinite existence, and the laws of physics (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) will not apply.

Secondly, you can not argue rationally why praying to God (a Trancendent Creator) increases your chances of getting into heaven. This is why no religion is rational. Because all of the things which God asks man to do, are irrational. And there is no PROOF that God is actually speaking through the words of the Quran, this is why not everyone is a Muslim. This is why ultimately, faith is blind.

So your argument is look at all religions and pick the most rational one even though that still contains irrationality or what should i get from this? I would prefer to go with 100% rational system, NOT religion, which i beleive the ones at FMs and my Islam is. If thats not your Islam then im sorry we dont have the same Islam. Even the Quran talks about "their islam" meaning it is not necessarily a proper noun

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. The point is that your belief in God is not rational. If you want to be "100%" rational then you will have to give up all beliefs in everything. Even rationality! Because rationality is self-negating! What do you think existentialism is?

The fact is bro, you seem to be new to the philosophical way of thinking. This is why you are confusing your concepts. You think you know what rationality is, but you dont. And you think that this utilitarian way of thinking (which you hold) is compatible with Islam, when it is not in an absolute sense. Although the two can live side by side in everyday life.

NO this is where you are wrong. Look at this verse
7117-120 We put it into Moses's mind by inspiration "Throw (now) thy rod"and behold! it swallows up straight away all the falsehoods which they fake!
Thus truth was confirmed, and all that they did was made of no effect.
So the (great ones) were vanquished there and then, and were made to look small.
But the magicians(skeptics analysing the magic) fell down prostrate in adoration.

So we can see that a messenger's meesage is analysed using logic and reason.

LOL go and recite this verse to an atheist and see if he thinks there is anything "rational" about this verse.

NO your now putting words in GOD's mouth. Show me the verse where it says "We inspired you(abraham) in your dream". Why does GOD not use this statement which He has done in other cases as in "we inspired the bee", "we revealed it to you"? Coincidence?

I am only pointing out the obvious God rewarded him from following his dream. Didn't He? Why would God reward him if he was following something from Satan?

You know, you talk a lot about "logic" and "reason"... but you seem not to apply it where it is actually needed. (i.e. your arguments). Instead you apply it to those things which are inherently irrational (religious rituals).

Did you get that appointment with a philosophy department yet?

And how do you know the letter is from GOD in the foirst palce? THINK bro.

EXACTLY! That is the whole point! You dont! You have to take it on faith!

Ill follow the debate and see who brings the better arguments along the way. The debate isnt over neither are bro aymans arguments.

Why do you keep calling Ayman your "brother"?? He is not even a Muslim.

So how then can you claim it is Mecca what is meant by one of the invisible sites?

I am not claiming that the proccess of deduction yeilds Mecca to be the most plausible site according to Diodorus's description. Ayman has provided many other sites, none of them fit the bill.

The difference is that I am pointing to Mecca and saying this is the location. However, Ayman is saying "no its not mecca, but it can be any other invisible town"... that statement makes no sense. Because at least Mecca can be deduced from logic, while Ayman is just saying it can be anything else besides mecca, but not mecca. Why? Why cant it be Mecca but everything besides Mecca? (its just desperation).

So then why did you say that we need to follow a certain accepted methodology. You should be fine then with bowing and prostrating random no of times as long as your intentions are pure.

I gave you my opinion. Methodology is still important in my opinion, but since it is not mentioned in the Quran, it is not neccessary to set a standard.

Ayman can say the same of you. Does this mean your shying away from the debate? I hope not. Also the Quran's words have to be understood using primarily it's own context. Secondly hadith is biased in certain areas and salat is definitely one of them.

How can he say the same of me when I am not the one who is rejecting historical litriture because it doesnt fit with my argument? Am I rejecting all of hadith litriture? (and you cant claim it is biased because all historical litriture is biased, you can keep repeating it, and I will keep repeating this).

The hadith are collected by mostly by sunnis especially Bukhari and Muslim. Those two were sunnis wanting to follow the "sunnah" of the Prophet.

Do you see how your argument is the same argument used by atheists against religion in general? They can say (and they do) that all religious texts (Quran, bible, Torah) was written by biased people.

But what they cant say is that this bias makes them invalid historical documents. Because even a biased document is still historical.

But you reject the obvious biases in them and those issues which have been proven false by other stronger evidence such as the inscriptions ayman has shown. I consider them much greater evidence than the hadith.

Read my last response to him. His "inscriptions" are a joke. Moses PBUH is not mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions either, does that mean there was no Moses PBUH??

Lets analyse some of the hadith here shall we and then see how rational it is to accept the religion those portray. And im talking about sahih hadith.

again with this "rationality"

No but i can display the content of some of those hadith which would defintely support my point.

Arent you forgetting that I do not consider hadith perfect?

i reject them all as a SOURCE OF DIVINE INJUNCTION NOT THAT THEY HAVE SOME TRUTH AS EVEN THE STATEMENTS OF A MURDERER OR CORRUPT CLERGYMEN WLD HAVE SOME TRUTH. Dont you get this?

5 PRAYERS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE QURAN NOT THE HADITH...

Quantum physics talks about "instantanous" cause and effect i.e. all at once. That would inevitably result in intelligence in an infinitesimal small period of time. It is proves the existence of GOD even more. Quantum physics goes very much in favor of GOD. HOWEVER i consider this somewhat problematic. It is more logical to say that one wave is causing the other ad infinitum but yes for any possible non quantum observer this would sure seem instantaneous.

Everything PROVES God if you already believe in God. That is not the point. Tell me, why aren't all Quantum Physcists believers in God?

No i wont because as I said nothing for me has greater proof, in the true sense of the word, than the existence of GOD. Alost all atheists accept an infinite chain of cause and effect.

You obviously are not familliar with atheism's history either. Atheists for the most part REJECT cause and effect. David Hume (the foundational atheist) disproved causality philosophically. He did this percisely because he wanted to destroy the rational arguments for the existence of God.

Proof doesnt necessarily rely on what others think. I think ultimately theyll get it. Reason and logic has brought me where i stand now. Otherwise i would be killing alot of people in the name of GOD today.

Good for you.. but you are forgetting something. It wasnt your reason and logic which saved you... it was God.

Ok then please tell me what other method is there to arrive at the truth besides reason and logic? GOD Bless!

Thats the point! You cant "arrive" at truth. Because truth is a trancendent thing. This is what Imannuel Kant proved. this is what makes such concepts irrational, because they are trancendent. Only God can guide people to the truth, and this is what the Quran says God guides the believers via faith (not logic)

PeAcE

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace Ayman,

The word "sabbath" never occurs in the great reading. The word "sabt" simply means "rest". As such, it can be any day of rest such as the sectarian Eid or Christmas or Saturday where some people falsely claim that the god ordered them to rest. We can have vacation days but we should not attribute them to the god.

So, you're saying that G-d never ordered the Jews (or anyone else) to rest on the "sabbath"? This is a completely fabricated commandment? If this is the case, then why does the Qur'aan mention G-d punishing them for breaking this period of rest? If there's no command to observe it, then it's illogical for them to be punished for not abiding by this "nonexistent" practice... And yes, the word "sabt" does indeed refer to a resting or ceasing from something. However, in the scriptures, it's used in reference to the Jewish shabbat, not for any random, arbitrary rest period. The scriptures make it clear that G-d certainly ordained the period of rest for the Jews, the Nazarenes, and for all of His worshippers.

Peace,

Ahmad

[ayman]

Peace C0de, everyone,

So this is the paradigm you are working from. I suspected as much. Thank you for making it clear.

You are always welcome. But judging from your admitted lack of rational thinking you probably didn?t understand anything I said or the difference between ?millat?/religion and ?deen?/obligation.

I know, that is what I said. Near Yemen.

No you didn?t know that. You didn?t even know that Qaryat-al-faw was a town. You thought it was a tribe LOL.

(lol) Why would you expect to find an inscription of Mecca here??? Tell me, did you find any inscriptions about Moses (PBUH) in the inscriptions of Pharoah? Since when have the defeated immortalized their enemies in their own inscriptions??? This only shows your ineptness in the field, nothing else.

Pharoah and his army were drowned and couldn?t write an inscription commemorating defeat or victory. On the other hand, this inscription commemorates Abraha?s expedition into Arabia and is even dated. The inscription not only doesn?t mention Mecca but doesn?t mention elephants which certainly would have been worth mentioning. So this further confirms that the sectarian accounts are pure fiction. This inscription is in line with other inscriptions in Arabia commemorating Abaraha?s other achievements such as buildings and so on. Also, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that it is the Persians and not the Arabs that years later defeated Aksumites.

You have completely sidestepped the objection to your argument. Your closest hope was Tayma, and this site contained the temple within the city. This site was also well known to the Greeks. So why then did Diodorus (and his mysterious informer, who would know at least as much as the Greeks) not name this location by name? Because this is the only location you presented which is closest to the "middle" location cited by Diodorus.
You gave all this proof for the well documented cities that you put forward as alternatives, most of them which were WELL KNOWN to the Greeks as they lay on the famous incense route. Only Mecca DID NOT lie directly on the incense route in that time. You are avoiding this known fact completely.
The fact is that at the end of the day you have present a long list of invalid alternatives, none of which hold up to scrutiny.
65 miles by road maybe. And I was referring to its location with regards to the other locations you have cited.

All your fallacious arguments have been dealt with. The last one is funny because maybe next you will desperately try to justify your plunder by claiming that this is by some kind of long ?road? that an unscrupulous Taxi driver takes people on LOL.

The second is an unproven assertion (at this time, as you will see below) and the first is just neither here nor there (for your over all argument).

You are being irrational again (as you admit).

You do realize that the pagans are actually atheists right? This was their description in the Quran, as they only believed in tradition, but not in any actual gods or God. So closest to their description, is not me, but YOU, as an atheist. I still believe in revelation.

Pagans revere stone idols and assign to them special status or powers. What do you call people like you who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones and give those stones special status and power? They are called pagans.

I am not an atheist. I bear witness that there is no god except the god and I don?t partner with him anything. Unlike you, I don?t setup as partners things such as stone cubes or black stones by giving them special status and powers.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever. Other then the fact that (I believe) God has told me to face it. He could tell me to face any other point for all I care. My allegiance is to God, not to Mecca!

Your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god and this is demonstrated by the rest of your post as everyone will see below.

Semantics. It is the generally accepted translation of the words, and equally valid. And since it is supported by historical evidence (while yours is not) it is more applicable then your translation.

You are lying again. If not, then please tell everyone which word in 919 is translated as ?circling?.

(lol) yea, only in this case the verse is not talking about any of those things is it? It is referring very particularly to the maintainers of a mosque.
This entire point has already been answered in the previous pages of this thread. A metaphorical meaning of the words does not negate the ritualistic meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, religion is built on irrational rituals. It is what separates it from philosophy. So your entire argument is once again a non-starter.

The primary meaning is not the superficial physical one. The god is not superficial like you. Of course, all pagan religions are built on mindless irrational rituals. So as a pagan you readily admit to being irrational and it is not surprising that all your arguments on this thread are irrational. It is also no wonder that you can?t read the great reading since we are constantly reminded throughout it that only those who are rational will take heed.

Also, for your info, there are irrational philosophies. So your idea that religion is irrational while philosophy is rational is false from both sides.

Sacred House = Sacred Mosque
unless you can prove otherwise (with something more then semantics).

As you admitted, you are being irrational.

First of all, I never said the qibla "is" the kabba. Did I? "qibla" means direction, so it cant actually be anything other then a direction towards something. And secondly you are demonstrating your inability to accept valid historical evidence (the hadith) to clarify these concepts.

Here is what you said (copy and paste) ?No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah?. As I said, according to 2142-150 it is ?al-masjid al-haram? that we should be facing and not the ?kaabah?. As for Hadiths, only irrational people such as you base their faith on them.

Wrong, and this totally exposes your lack of understanding. The Christians and the Buddhist prostrating to the object because they feel it is symbolizing divinity. While Muslims do not make the Kaaba as a symbol of God, because we believe in a God that is absolutely transcendent, and yet personal at the same time.

No, Christians and Buddhists don?t believe that those objects symbolize god. Like pagan sectarians, they gave those objects special status and power. Sectarians give those pagan symbols special powers and they claim that whoever spins 7 times around the stone cube will be forgiven for all his sins. They also believe that whoever kisses the Black Stone will have all his sins wiped out.

I could care less about the foot steps or the black stones, as they are not mentioned in the Quran. It doesnt affect my argument. And I am well aware of extra-Quranic concepts creeping into Islam, and I do not support them.

So you admit that those pagan footprints and black stones have crept into so-called Islam. Yet, despite this blatant idolatry, you keep defending Mecca. Your actions demonstrate that your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god as I noted above.

I can see that you skipped and evaded denouncing or even defending the clearly pagan symbols and rituals going on in Mecca that I outlined in my previous post. Your evasiveness is because you know very well that they are indefensible irrational pagan symbols.

Another stale objection which has already been nullified. Many things have been mentioned by many names in the Quran. Hell and Heaven have many names, does not mean they are distinct heavens and distinct hells. God has many names in the Quran, does not mean there is more then one God.

They are not names, they are various descriptions/attributes. If you abandon that ?al-masjid al-haram? and ?al-bayt al-haram? are names of specific shrines but are descriptions/attributes then you are essentially agreeing with me.

Mecca is mentioned by name. And as for your archeological evidence... keep digging. What makes you so sure you won't find something more? What kind of an archeologist are you? The only recently uncovered the evidence for the Temple of Solomon, and dated it exactly to the right time as it was supposed to have been standing.

You are lying. Mecca is not mentioned by name. The name mentioned is Macoraba and not Mecca.

Also, there is no evidence for the temple of Solomon and it is never mentioned in the great reading. This is only Zionist wishful thinking.

In order to prove it is false, you must first prove your following argument

The fact that Arabic words are derived from 3-letter roots is indisputable and has nothing to do with Mecca or Macoraba or whatever else in this discussion. This is expected since you are irrational.

Please provide your references. You think I am just going to take your word for it? The only ones who I have heard challenge this idea are Crone and Cook, both of them are a joke with an obvious agenda. You will have to prove your point with some credible historians who back up your argument.
Then show me a reference other then Crone who dismisses this view. All this energy you are spending typing your own thoughts, would be better spent if you back up your words with scholarly material.

Here are the references

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, translated by Edward Luther Stevenson, Dover Publications, New York 1991.

You can buy it here
http//www.amazon.com/Geography-Claudius-Ptolemy/dp/0486268969/

You can also see the reference to Mochorba in the book Natural history of Pliny.

Be honest, you were reading the Quran at this time to uncover proof for an already established belief which was present in your mind. This is why you only saw, what you wanted to see.

Don?t assume that everyone is like you.

And reading that verse, it is very clear that the Mecca referred to in 4824 is a specific place, not a general location, as you assert.

No. According to Classical Arabic dictionaries, ?mecca? means ?destruction?. So here is a translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the passage to translate the common description "mecca"

4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "mecca" un-translated I didn't. As everyone can see, the clear Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in 4824.

You may be wrong about me, but I am not wrong about you. I know who you are, and I have encountered many like you before. Give up hope for converting me to your point of view. Its not going to happen.

So I was right then, you are a deliberately lying pagan. This is why you evaded denouncing or even defending the clearly pagan symbols and rituals going on in Mecca that I outlined in my previous post. You know very well that they are indefensible irrational pagan symbols and rituals but you are still deluding yourself. You already admitted that you are following irrational junk. People who want to be pagans will do it anyway and will not listen to anything rational. I am not writing for your benefit but for everyone who reads this.

Peace,

Ayman

[ayman]

Peace Ahmad,

So, you're saying that G-d never ordered the Jews (or anyone else) to rest on the "sabbath"? This is a completely fabricated commandment?

Yes.

If this is the case, then why does the Qur'aan mention G-d punishing them for breaking this period of rest?

As far as I know, there is never a mention of punishing them for "breaking it". There is a mention for punishing them for "transgressing in it".

If there's no command to observe it, then it's illogical for them to be punished for not abiding by this "nonexistent" practice... And yes, the word "sabt" does indeed refer to a resting or ceasing from something. However, in the scriptures, it's used in reference to the Jewish shabbat, not for any random, arbitrary rest period. The scriptures make it clear that G-d certainly ordained the period of rest for the Jews, the Nazarenes, and for all of His worshippers.

Nope.

Peace,

Ayman

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace Ayman,

As far as I know, there is never a mention of punishing them for "breaking it". There is a mention for punishing them for "transgressing in it".

Okay... What's the difference? The people transgressed in the shabbat because it was part of their covenant with G-d. When they violated this covenant, they were punished... What's your view concerning the Jews and Nazarenes "transgressing in" the shabbat? What does this mean to you?

Where do the scriptures imply that the shabbat was a manmade event? And what's your translation of the Qur'aanic passage in 16124?

Peace,

Ahmad

[ayman]

Peace Ahmad,

Okay... What's the difference?

The difference is that this is not about violating it but about the violation being in it. So the violation is in observing it.

The people transgressed in the shabbat because it was part of their covenant with G-d. When they violated this covenant, they were punished... What's your view concerning the Jews and Nazarenes "transgressing in" the shabbat? What does this mean to you?

Where does it say that it is part of their covenant? The covenant with the people of the book is clearly stated in the great reading and it doesn't even remotely include it.

Where do the scriptures imply that the shabbat was a manmade event? And what's your translation of the Qur'aanic passage in 16124?

Please see the same wording used in 16124 used in 393 in reference to other manmade falsehoods such as setting partners with the god.

Peace,

Ayman

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

My position on this is CLEAR and has been stated many times. I do not believe the hadith are perfect recorders of the Prophet messages. This is why I do not accept them as containint divine injuntions. Only divine injunctions which are already in the Quran are divine injunctions. And the hadith can be used to get more meanings only those injunctions which have a foundation in the Quran. This is why I do not care about the methodology as much, but the 5 prayers themselves are a diving injunction because they have a foundation in the Quran.

JK- So your saying that hadith can be used to explain the foundations mentioned in the Quran? If that is your claim then this is just ridiculous because ofcourse hadith will explain the Quran in the way a certain group of people with an agenda want it to be. Thats why we stress so much that the Quran explains itself. And the meanings of the words are not derived from hadith but classical Arabic dictionaries.

Actually, God makes clear in the Quran that the pagans pretend to believe, but they dont actually believe in anything. Over and over again we are told that all the pagans observe are traditonal rituals and that is all they care about. For them, there is no afterlife, or God, or judgement. Atheism is at the heart of paganism. The only difference being the pagans observed empty rituals, but at the end of the day they lacked all spirituality, just like atheists.

JK- Youve ignored the verses i quoted. They clearly say that the pagans BELEIVE IN DAUGHTERS OF GOD. They beleived those will intercede for them on GOD's behalf. Your confuing pagans with atheists. IMHO atheists are closer to the true concept of GOD than most of the sunni/shia/sufi/Jews/christians. And no GOD does not say pagans dont beleive in GOD and ive shown you verses to support my claim. They dont beleive in an afterlife with judgement as portrayed in the Quran EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY THINK THE DAUGHTERS OF GOD WILL INTERFERE AND RESCUE THEM FROM GOD'S WRATH. All pagans have their intercessors at GOD and this is what GOD actually denies in the Quran i.e. no intercessor will help them sicen GOD alone has all authority.

No, at least a quarter of my familly is neither sunni nor shia. And the rest are mostly secular. I have very few people in my familly who care about religion.

JK- What about the environment you lived in. How did you learn about "islam" and what made you delve into it so much?

No, I do not mean "supernatural" exactly. Trancendent is a philosophical concept which states that something is beyond any human cognitive capacity. Anything trancendent is totally objective, and does not depend on human subjectivity.

JK- So are you saying that GOD IYU can be objectively known? If so then wouldnt that be ultimate proof of His existence? But even so how does one prove from here that He commanded rituals? That sure aint objective.

For all we know when Qiyamat comes, even the heavens will be destroyed. And maybe this is why God added that. But in any case, once everything will be rebuilt in perfection in the afterlife, that will be an infinite existence, and the laws of physics (e.g. the 2nd law of thermodynamics) will not apply.

JK- 2nd law can still apply whilst there could be a continous refill directly from the quantum field. That is not the main issue.

Secondly, you can not argue rationally why praying to God (a Trancendent Creator) increases your chances of getting into heaven. This is why no religion is rational. Because all of the things which God asks man to do, are irrational. And there is no PROOF that God is actually speaking through the words of the Quran, this is why not everyone is a Muslim. This is why ultimately, faith is blind.

JK- NO your wrong. If the Quran was irrational ayman, myself and many others would not have accepted it. We only accept the Quran because of it's very rational nature. If IYU there is no evidence that the Quran is GOD's Word then why do you accept it as such? Why not any other religious texts. What is it about the Quran that makes you think it is GOD's Word and not that of man?

That has nothing to do with what I was saying. The point is that your belief in God is not rational. If you want to be "100%" rational then you will have to give up all beliefs in everything. Even rationality! Because rationality is self-negating! What do you think existentialism is?

JK- Ok i think your now playing with words here. Rationality as a word has to mean something. Rationality includes cause and effect primarily and that is how I derive the existence of GOD. Rational also means basing ones argument on good reasons which further implies basing them on observations with the real world and how people themsleves including oneself function in the real world, how they act and react in certain situations etc. Then these are repeated by other people independently and when they all come to similar conclusions then the claim is said to be evidenced.

The fact is bro, you seem to be new to the philosophical way of thinking. This is why you are confusing your concepts. You think you know what rationality is, but you dont. And you think that this utilitarian way of thinking (which you hold) is compatible with Islam, when it is not in an absolute sense. Although the two can live side by side in everyday life.

JK- Ultimately it's all about benefits even in your own religion. Why do religious people do good? Because they are promised heaven. However we say that whilst that is also true we also do it so we can hope for a good life and interaction with people her on earth(rabbana FI DUNYA HASSANATAN wa fil akhirati hassanatan" and this is one of the many points we have in comon with atheists. This is very important and ultimately it all boils down to utility anyways. No one does anything for nothing. Yes some people do good because it feels good to them. But then again that feeling is what drives them. Did they feel bad in doing the same, they wouldnt do it.

LOL go and recite this verse to an atheist and see if he thinks there is anything "rational" about this verse.

JK- Moses did not perform a supernatural act here but one which is so sophisticated that others couldnt replicate it. That is proof. Otherwise why should people have believed Moses if ordinary people could do the same? Get my point. That is why we beleive in the Quran because of 1) the predictions it makes 2) the accuate scientific desciptions(as per 2130) and 3) numerical structure BUT i and mabe some others also claim that the whole Quran has not yet been revealed to us meaning we cannot say for sure whether every letter we find today in what sectarians call "quran" as actuall being part of the true Quran but GW with time all will be revealed. Ayman on the other hand doesnt accept no. 3 but the other two PLUS he relies on the archaeological evidence where oldest Quran manuscripts were c-14 dated and they are ALMOST identical to todays. I too agree with that to a certain extent and ALL OF THIS constitutes EVIDENCE without which none of us wouldve accepted the Quran. Now it's time to give us your reason for accepting it as GOD's Word.

I am only pointing out the obvious God rewarded him from following his dream. Didn't He? Why would God reward him if he was following something from Satan?

JK- Could be same as the account with Yusuf. GOD rewarded him for coming to his senses at the very last moment. BUT then again there is also a totally different understanding which ive repeated two times already and you ignored it i.e. not a sacrifice by putting a knife to his throat but taking him along a journey to establish monotheism in the land. Infact the latter makes more sense to me.

You know, you talk a lot about "logic" and "reason"... but you seem not to apply it where it is actually needed. (i.e. your arguments). Instead you apply it to those things which are inherently irrational (religious rituals).

JK- I apply it throughout. You cannot apply it somewhere and abandon it elsewhere. That would be paradoxial and is exactly one of the main reasons why many people in tthis world act so chaotic. Let me give you an example. Say tomorrow somebody claims hehas been inspried by GOD to kill people x,y,z. He has no evidence but he still believes in it just like you beleive in the truth of the Quran or perhaps even more. Thats why if you have no evidence to back up your beleif in the Quran then that person would be equally justified to accept that statement as being from GOD. This is how most religions operate.

Did you get that appointment with a philosophy department yet?

JK- Nope and id rather discuss it directly here.

EXACTLY! That is the whole point! You dont! You have to take it on faith!

JK- ??? So then why not just accept the OT or the NT or the Vedas as GOD's word to the letter? THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT. WHY QURAN? I ask you again "Why do you beleive the uran to be GOD's word?

Why do you keep calling Ayman your "brother"?? He is not even a Muslim.

JK- Ofcourse he is a Muslim(submitter to GOD ALONE) with very good intentions IMU. So i will call him brother. Infact hes more of a brother to me than you are. Our views are much further part than mine and his. He rejects all hadith as explaining the Quran as most of us do whilst you dont. He rejects rituals and so do i. You dont.

I am not claiming that the proccess of deduction yeilds Mecca to be the most plausible site according to Diodorus's description. Ayman has provided many other sites, none of them fit the bill.

JK- As i said the debate isnt over and im sure ayman will continue to reply.

The difference is that I am pointing to Mecca and saying this is the location. However, Ayman is saying "no its not mecca, but it can be any other invisible town"... that statement makes no sense. Because at least Mecca can be deduced from logic, while Ayman is just saying it can be anything else besides mecca, but not mecca. Why? Why cant it be Mecca but everything besides Mecca? (its just desperation).

JK- I beleive you pointed this out to him didnt you? If so Ill see what he has to reply to this.

I gave you my opinion. Methodology is still important in my opinion, but since it is not mentioned in the Quran, it is not neccessary to set a standard.

JK- But why then is the methodology in regards to the religious details that you accept but are not mentioned in Quran still important in your opinion? Could you elaborate on that?

How can he say the same of me when I am not the one who is rejecting historical litriture because it doesnt fit with my argument? Am I rejecting all of hadith litriture? (and you cant claim it is biased because all historical litriture is biased, you can keep repeating it, and I will keep repeating this).

JK- And once agaion youve totally ignored my pts. I made it clear that whilst hadith is biased in some areas, particularly the religious issues, other sources are biased in regards to the ideology of the people who wrote them. The hadith were not written by people from all kinds of religious background BUT BY supposed followers of the sunnah. ALSO hadith were only compiled more than 250 yyrs after the Porphet's death. Thats what you are totally ignoring.

Do you see how your argument is the same argument used by atheists against religion in general? They can say (and they do) that all religious texts (Quran, bible, Torah) was written by biased people.

JK- Thats why we need to have evidence that the Quran is something special and we claim that we do and we point it out to others eg 1) numerical structure 2) lack of contras both with reality and internal 3) predictions 4) claims which have only recently been dicovered(eg 2130). Infact at the age of 12, i would not have found much interest in further reading the Quran if it wasnt for 2130.

But what they cant say is that this bias makes them invalid historical documents. Because even a biased document is still historical.

JK- Yes and i agree there are things in the hadith not pertaining to religion or rituals which can most probably be true.

Read my last response to him. His "inscriptions" are a joke. Moses PBUH is not mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions either, does that mean there was no Moses PBUH??

JK- YOU GOT IT BRO. To date there is NO archaelogical evidence for Moses either. That is just an undeniable fact. So we'll have to wait and see whether this Quranic prediction is confirmed. Some people have also suggested that the account of Moses in the Quran might be allegorical. So weve to see what happens. As for the inscriptions they show that Abraha never went to mecca tring to destroy the kaaba wth his ppl riding on elephants and that is one major claim of the sunni/shia derived from hadith. Much of hadith pertaining to religion of "islam" is all fiction just as ayman has said. Most of the hadith writers were thus fiction writers.

again with this "rationality"

JK- Let me put it this way. Lets compare the hadith and see how theyd apply in the world around us. They have many of the same absurdities as in the OT.

Arent you forgetting that I do not consider hadith perfect?

JK- No i am not.

5 PRAYERS ARE SUPPORTED BY THE QURAN NOT THE HADITH...

JK- NO they are not.

Everything PROVES God if you already believe in God. That is not the point. Tell me, why aren't all Quantum Physcists believers in God?

JK- Why arnt all biologists "believers" in evolution? It is very possible that a certain ideology may divert you fromt he facts at hand. Also another point to understand is that if we define GOD as the combination of all intelligence in existence then they already accept that. However theyd say that That Intelligecne does NOT care about us and they dont delve into further search thus they dont analyse how GOD communictes with us and cares as in the Quran.

You obviously are not familliar with atheism's history either. Atheists for the most part REJECT cause and effect. David Hume (the foundational atheist) disproved causality philosophically. He did this percisely because he wanted to destroy the rational arguments for the existence of God.

JK- BUT BRO if you deny cause and effect then too GOD is inevitable. Its just that then Hed be magical just like the religious folk claim. For if there can be an effect without a cause this means everything can popup into existence at any place any time. Then inevitably GOD would have done so too and would have from that point assumed authority over everythng else. You see how that conslusion is inesapabale? However this(non cause and effect theory) is ridiculous because then we should see an infinite intervention being made in this universe at any place any time and we dont. Infact not a single one. the JREF has offered 1 M uSD for any paranormal activity shown under controlled condiitons i.e. any activity for which theres no cause AND NONE succeeded.

Good for you.. but you are forgetting something. It wasnt your reason and logic which saved you... it was God.

JK- GOD and reason and logic are NOT mutually exclusive. GOD has provided us with them and hence we ought to use them. If we dont then we fail.

Thats the point! You cant "arrive" at truth. Because truth is a trancendent thing. This is what Imannuel Kant proved. this is what makes such concepts irrational, because they are trancendent. Only God can guide people to the truth, and this is what the Quran says God guides the believers via faith (not logic)

JK- GOD does NOT guide via faith. He guides via reason and logic. THIS IS EXACTLY the pt your missing. If GOD guided via faith then religous faith mehtofdsd i.e. ritual prayer, etc should be the most successful but instead the ones who employ reaosn and logic get (rabbana atina FIDDUNYA HASSANATN). So i just showed you with evidence that your claim is false. GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace again "c0de",
Although the following is a relatively old point of yours I'd like to address it

Firstly, I did not say that the Quran mentions the standard, I said that the Quran says that
there is a standard. This is clear when we are told that we can shorten our
prayers when we are traveling, this implies that there is a set length to the prayer. If there
was no set length or standard, then why would God tell us we can "shorten" the prayer? If
its length was arbitrary to begin with, this injunction would not have been necessary.

JK- So if you accept the standard of the "muslim" majority then Maghrib, the fourth prayer, has 3 units. How would you shorten 3 units and remember that the same majority of "muslims" all agree that "fajr" and "maghrib" are not to be shortened. Now if you decide to go along with the majority, in case when the shortening applies, then youve contradicted the Quran in at least two prayers and if you decide to shorten "fajr" to one unit and "maghrib" to say 2 units, then you wldve violated the standard. So how are you going to solve this dilemna? Do you see now why this argument of a standard found in so called "muslim" socieities doesnt hold up to scutiny? GOD Bless!

[c0de]

Ayman + Jonny

Salaam

@ Ayman

You are always welcome. But judging from your admitted lack of rational thinking you probably didn?t understand anything I said or the difference between ?millat?/religion and ?deen?/obligation.

No, the real difference is that I accept the limitations of human "rationality". While you hold it above all else, ironically unaware of the irrationality of your own position. And your paradigm is specifically tied to the belief that no revelation was granted to the Prophet. So you are not a Muslim, are you?

No you didn?t know that. You didn?t even know that Qaryat-al-faw was a town. You thought it was a tribe LOL.

Yes I did, and your "lol" doesnt save your argument on Tabuk or Dummat al Jammat, nor your Sabeaen towns, nor Tayma... at least your not arguing over them anymore. I consider that an improvement (i.e. surrender).

Pharoah and his army were drowned and couldn?t write an inscription commemorating defeat or victory.

This is the funniest thing you have said so far. Pharoah was not drowned. This is even in the Quran. His body has already been excavated. But you would have known that already, had you been a credible archeologist.

On the other hand, this inscription commemorates Abraha?s expedition into Arabia and is even dated. The inscription not only doesn?t mention Mecca but doesn?t mention elephants which certainly would have been worth mentioning. So this further confirms that the sectarian accounts are pure fiction. This inscription is in line with other inscriptions in Arabia commemorating Abaraha?s other achievements such as buildings and so on. Also, you are demonstrating your ignorance of the fact that it is the Persians and not the Arabs that years later defeated Aksumites.

You completely failed to respond to the objection If Abraha was defeated while attacking Mecca, why would he inscribe his defeat (or any part of the episode) in an inscription? Humiliation is generally avoided in the accounts of the loser.

All your fallacious arguments have been dealt with. The last one is funny because maybe next you will desperately try to justify your plunder by claiming that this is by some kind of long ?road? that an unscrupulous Taxi driver takes people on LOL.

I will consider this a surrender from your side, as you have failed to respond to the objections and are pretending as if you have dealt with them, while you have not.

Pagans revere stone idols and assign to them special status or powers. What do you call people like you who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones and give those stones special status and power? They are called pagans.

I am not an atheist. I bear witness that there is no god except the god and I don?t partner with him anything. Unlike you, I don?t setup as partners things such as stone cubes or black stones by giving them special status and powers.

Okay, you are not an atheist, and I apologize. But are you a Muslim? Do you also believe that revelation was granted to the Prophet? As Muslims are required to believe in ALL the prophets.

Your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god and this is demonstrated by the rest of your post as everyone will see below.

Why would my allegiance be to a place I have never been to? What stake do I have in anything "meccan" ??

You are lying again. If not, then please tell everyone which word in 919 is translated as ?circling?.

I already had this argument with Jonny. The translations of the word tawwaf are not mutually exclusive. They can mean visitation AND circling. So you can not claim that one definition cancels out the other.

The primary meaning is not the superficial physical one. The god is not superficial like you. Of course, all pagan religions are built on mindless irrational rituals. So as a pagan you readily admit to being irrational and it is not surprising that all your arguments on this thread are irrational. It is also no wonder that you can?t read the great reading since we are constantly reminded throughout it that only those who are rational will take heed.

Also, for your info, there are irrational philosophies. So your idea that religion is irrational while philosophy is rational is false from both sides.

I know the primary meaning is not the "superficial one"... was I talking about "meaning"?

And I know philosophy is not rational. I said the difference between philosophy and religion is primarily of ritual (not rationality) I actually said philosophy and rationality is self-negating as it proves the irrationality or rationality. It is clear that you have not read or understood anything from my previous response.

As you admitted, you are being irrational.

LOL, I can see you have picked up a nice catchword... good for you.

Here is what you said (copy and paste) ?No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah?. As I said, according to 2142-150 it is ?al-masjid al-haram? that we should be facing and not the ?kaabah?. As for Hadiths, only irrational people such as you base their faith on them.

Yea... and, Masjid al Haraam contains the Kabbah.

No, Christians and Buddhists don?t believe that those objects symbolize god. Like pagan sectarians, they gave those objects special status and power. Sectarians give those pagan symbols special powers and they claim that whoever spins 7 times around the stone cube will be forgiven for all his sins. They also believe that whoever kisses the Black Stone will have all his sins wiped out.

Actually, they do believe those objects symbolize God. Don't believe me? Then go and ask a hindu if he thinks the idol of Shiva symbolizes Shiva or not.

So you admit that those pagan footprints and black stones have crept into so-called Islam. Yet, despite this blatant idolatry, you keep defending Mecca. Your actions demonstrate that your allegiance is to Mecca and not to the god as I noted above.

I can see that you skipped and evaded denouncing or even defending the clearly pagan symbols and rituals going on in Mecca that I outlined in my previous post. Your evasiveness is because you know very well that they are indefensible irrational pagan symbols.

I did not evade your points but I already answered it. I will answer it again (and have done so multiple times already on this thread) None of the rituals that you point out as pagan can be proven if the Quranic argument is that all these rituals started out as monotheistic and were then copied by the pagans. There is only one truly pagan ritual the setting up of idols and bowing to it. I, nor any Muslim actually bows to an idol.

They are not names, they are various descriptions/attributes. If you abandon that ?al-masjid al-haram? and ?al-bayt al-haram? are names of specific shrines but are descriptions/attributes then you are essentially agreeing with me.

I am agreeing with the fact that these names/descriptions have multiple significances. What I am disagreeing with is that they do not also point out specific places. Just because something is called by different names (hell and heaven do have different names) Does not mean they are different places.

You are lying. Mecca is not mentioned by name. The name mentioned is Macoraba and not Mecca.

I am not "lying" I am quoting the opinion of others.

Also, there is no evidence for the temple of Solomon and it is never mentioned in the great reading. This is only Zionist wishful thinking.

Really? Then what was the temple in which Queen Sheba stood with Solomon, wondering at the glass floors beneath which ran running water? This story is in the Quran.

Here are the references

Claudius Ptolemy, The Geography, translated by Edward Luther Stevenson, Dover Publications, New York 1991.

You can buy it here
http//www.amazon.com/Geography-Claudius-Ptolemy/dp/0486268969/

You can also see the reference to Mochorba in the book Natural history of Pliny.

LOL! I didnt ask you for primary sources. I asked you which scholars agree with your interpretations of these primary sources? Who agrees with the fact that Macroaba is not Mecca?

No. According to Classical Arabic dictionaries, ?mecca? means ?destruction?. So here is a translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the passage to translate the common description "mecca"

4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "mecca" un-translated I didn't. As everyone can see, the clear Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in 4824.

More semantics.

So I was right then, you are a deliberately lying pagan.

lol, whatever.

@ Jonny

So your saying that hadith can be used to explain the foundations mentioned in the Quran? If that is your claim then this is just ridiculous because ofcourse hadith will explain the Quran in the way a certain group of people with an agenda want it to be. Thats why we stress so much that the Quran explains itself. And the meanings of the words are not derived from hadith but classical Arabic dictionaries.

How can you say it is "ridiculous"? When every field of study has primary source material and secondary source material?

Youve ignored the verses i quoted. They clearly say that the pagans BELEIVE IN DAUGHTERS OF GOD. They beleived those will intercede for them on GOD's behalf. Your confuing pagans with atheists. IMHO atheists are closer to the true concept of GOD than most of the sunni/shia/sufi/Jews/christians. And no GOD does not say pagans dont beleive in GOD and ive shown you verses to support my claim. They dont beleive in an afterlife with judgement as portrayed in the Quran EXACTLY BECAUSE THEY THINK THE DAUGHTERS OF GOD WILL INTERFERE AND RESCUE THEM FROM GOD'S WRATH. All pagans have their intercessors at GOD and this is what GOD actually denies in the Quran i.e. no intercessor will help them sicen GOD alone has all authority.

Your conception of Atheism is so far off the mark, its funny. (You also believe atheists believe in causality, while modern atheism is actually based in a rejection of causality). Atheists dont believe in God or anything, period. So when you say that they are closer to "real Islam", you should question your own conceptions of "real Islam".

And neither do Pagans (in their hearts). And I did not ignore the verses you quoted, but I told you that you did not understand them correctly. Take a look at the following verses. They not only show the real state of the pagans, but expose the parallels between pagans and atheists

010.028
And on the day when We will gather them all together, then We will say to those who associated others (with Allah) Keep where you are, you and your associates; then We shall separate them widely one from another and their associates would say It was not us that you served

This verse clearly says that the pagans didnt actually points out that

010.031
Say "Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?" They will soon say, "Allah". Say, "will ye not then show piety (to Him)?"

This shows that before David Hume's attack on causality, the Athesits had no choice but to reasonably point to God in any logical argument from causality as the "first cause". So in the ancient world, pagans=atheists. But in the modern world the difference between pagans and atheists is that atheists can rely on new arguments against causality. This is why today they dont even have to answer the same as the pagans did back then to this question.

010.039
Nay, they charge with falsehood that whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before the elucidation thereof hath reached them thus did those before them make charges of falsehood but see what was the end of those who did wrong!

This is the real description of the heart of a pagan/atheist. Notice how this verse applies EQUALLY to pagans and atheists.

What about the environment you lived in. How did you learn about "islam" and what made you delve into it so much?

Its a long story. But your argument of "environment" does not apply to my experience. My coming to Islam was something totally personal and internal.

So are you saying that GOD IYU can be objectively known? If so then wouldnt that be ultimate proof of His existence? But even so how does one prove from here that He commanded rituals? That sure aint objective.

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying the exact opposite. God reveals Himself to whomever He pleases. Our subjectivity, or objectivity has nothing to do with it.

2nd law can still apply whilst there could be a continous refill directly from the quantum field. That is not the main issue.

Wrong. The 2nd law applies to closed systems. What you are describing would not be a closed system.

NO your wrong. If the Quran was irrational ayman, myself and many others would not have accepted it. We only accept the Quran because of it's very rational nature. If IYU there is no evidence that the Quran is GOD's Word then why do you accept it as such? Why not any other religious texts. What is it about the Quran that makes you think it is GOD's Word and not that of man?

But you dont fully accept the Quran, that is your problem. You only accept the parts which make sense to you, and reject all the parts which dont. You have made your own rationality above faith. What "faith" is left in such interpretations accept the very basic?

Ok i think your now playing with words here. Rationality as a word has to mean something. Rationality includes cause and effect primarily and that is how I derive the existence of GOD. Rational also means basing ones argument on good reasons which further implies basing them on observations with the real world and how people themsleves including oneself function in the real world, how they act and react in certain situations etc. Then these are repeated by other people independently and when they all come to similar conclusions then the claim is said to be evidenced.

I am not playing with words. You only think this because these concepts are new to you and you are not familiar with philosophy. This is why I told you to go and ask a philosophy professor. It would be much easier to explain this to a person face to face.

Your definitions of these words that you use is very amateur. Also, you talk about concepts you dont fully understand. You are also unfamiliar with the history of atheism and this is linked with your other misconceptions.

Ultimately it's all about benefits even in your own religion. Why do religious people do good? Because they are promised heaven. However we say that whilst that is also true we also do it so we can hope for a good life and interaction with people her on earth(rabbana FI DUNYA HASSANATAN wa fil akhirati hassanatan" and this is one of the many points we have in comon with atheists. This is very important and ultimately it all boils down to utility anyways. No one does anything for nothing. Yes some people do good because it feels good to them. But then again that feeling is what drives them. Did they feel bad in doing the same, they wouldnt do it.

You only see the good in utilitarianism/atheism but are unaware of its ultimate heresy, or you just refuse to see it. The fact is that if you take out revelation and God's commandments from the picture then the concept of "good" can be molded and you can justify anything and everything. At the end of the day, the system just breaks down completely into a sort of moral relativism.

Moses did not perform a supernatural act here but one which is so sophisticated that others couldnt replicate it. That is proof. Otherwise why should people have believed Moses if ordinary people could do the same? Get my point. That is why we beleive in the Quran because of 1) the predictions it makes 2) the accuate scientific desciptions(as per 2130) and 3) numerical structure BUT i and mabe some others also claim that the whole Quran has not yet been revealed to us meaning we cannot say for sure whether every letter we find today in what sectarians call "quran" as actuall being part of the true Quran but GW with time all will be revealed. Ayman on the other hand doesnt accept no. 3 but the other two PLUS he relies on the archaeological evidence where oldest Quran manuscripts were c-14 dated and they are ALMOST identical to todays. I too agree with that to a certain extent and ALL OF THIS constitutes EVIDENCE without which none of us wouldve accepted the Quran. Now it's time to give us your reason for accepting it as GOD's Word.

I am aware of all of those reasons. (Although I disagree with you completely that the Quran is incomplete).

But here is the difference between me and you I would believe in the Quran even if you took all those reasons away. Because my belief is based on faith, not on reason. While your "belief" is based on a flawed rationality. This is why if tomorrow someone came and negated your "rational" proofs and reasons above, you would leave the Quran and throw it away. This is the difference between faith and rationality.

Could be same as the account with Yusuf. GOD rewarded him for coming to his senses at the very last moment. BUT then again there is also a totally different understanding which ive repeated two times already and you ignored it i.e. not a sacrifice by putting a knife to his throat but taking him along a journey to establish monotheism in the land. Infact the latter makes more sense to me.

I didnt ignore anything. I told you your interpretation is refuted by the letter of the Quran which makes it clear that Abraham PBUH was rewarded because he FULFILLED THE DREAM. You are ignoring the plain and simple words which leave no room for your interpretation.

I apply it throughout. You cannot apply it somewhere and abandon it elsewhere. That would be paradoxial and is exactly one of the main reasons why many people in tthis world act so chaotic. Let me give you an example. Say tomorrow somebody claims hehas been inspried by GOD to kill people x,y,z. He has no evidence but he still believes in it just like you beleive in the truth of the Quran or perhaps even more. Thats why if you have no evidence to back up your beleif in the Quran then that person would be equally justified to accept that statement as being from GOD. This is how most religions operate.

Your position is no more logical then anyone elses.

Nope and id rather discuss it directly here.

I advise you to talk to someone who can council you on philosophy face to face. You need a proper course. Your concepts are very under-developed.

So then why not just accept the OT or the NT or the Vedas as GOD's word to the letter? THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT. WHY QURAN? I ask you again "Why do you beleive the uran to be GOD's word?

Your going in circles. I tell you one thing, you dont understand it.. and then you ask the same question again. You are not a person who learns well by reading. Some people learn better via face to face interaction. This is why I told you to get that appointment with a professor.

Ofcourse he is a Muslim(submitter to GOD ALONE) with very good intentions IMU. So i will call him brother. Infact hes more of a brother to me than you are. Our views are much further part than mine and his. He rejects all hadith as explaining the Quran as most of us do whilst you dont. He rejects rituals and so do i. You dont.

Does he believe that revelation was granted to the Prophet? Yes or no?

As i said the debate isnt over and im sure ayman will continue to reply.

Actually, he is refusing to answer many objections and is "shying away". His arguments on all of the locations he provided have completely collapsed. He has also failed to provide the references which I asked for.

why then is the methodology in regards to the religious details that you accept but are not mentioned in Quran still important in your opinion? Could you elaborate on that?

Your question is almost comical. You know how to drive a car right? Would you not care to improve your driving if you had a chance? (methodology is important in everything).

And once agaion youve totally ignored my pts. I made it clear that whilst hadith is biased in some areas, particularly the religious issues, other sources are biased in regards to the ideology of the people who wrote them. The hadith were not written by people from all kinds of religious background BUT BY supposed followers of the sunnah. ALSO hadith were only compiled more than 250 yyrs after the Porphet's death. Thats what you are totally ignoring.

Same old repetition... The hadith is still more reliable then the Jewish and Christian scriptures! And entire religions are based off them, so what makes you think the hadith should be rejected totally?

Thats why we need to have evidence that the Quran is something special and we claim that we do and we point it out to others eg 1) numerical structure 2) lack of contras both with reality and internal 3) predictions 4) claims which have only recently been dicovered(eg 2130). Infact at the age of 12, i would not have found much interest in further reading the Quran if it wasnt for 2130.

No thank you. You can have your "numerical structures", but my faith is not based on such arguments. Such a belief is inherently weak. Because rationality can be fooled very easily.

Yes and i agree there are things in the hadith not pertaining to religion or rituals which can most probably be true.

This position is irrational again (I told you, you keep contradicting your own rationality). If it is a historical document, then it is admissible evidence in all areas. bias or not, you have to provide counter evidence first, or alternative means of verifying.

YOU GOT IT BRO. To date there is NO archaelogical evidence for Moses either. That is just an undeniable fact. So we'll have to wait and see whether this Quranic prediction is confirmed. Some people have also suggested that the account of Moses in the Quran might be allegorical. So weve to see what happens. As for the inscriptions they show that Abraha never went to mecca tring to destroy the kaaba wth his ppl riding on elephants and that is one major claim of the sunni/shia derived from hadith. Much of hadith pertaining to religion of "islam" is all fiction just as ayman has said. Most of the hadith writers were thus fiction writers.

LOL... There is no archeological evidence for Charlemagne either. Or Ceaser... I guess they were allegorical too then?

I think I may be wasting time arguing with you... you seem too far gone...

Let me put it this way. Lets compare the hadith and see how theyd apply in the world around us. They have many of the same absurdities as in the OT.

YEs, because neither the hadith, nor the OT are perfect.

NO they are not.

Yes they are. All 5 times are listed in the Quran. This is an undeniable fact.

Why arnt all biologists "believers" in evolution?

Which credible biologist does not believe in some form of evolution?

BUT BRO if you deny cause and effect then too GOD is inevitable. Its just that then Hed be magical just like the religious folk claim. For if there can be an effect without a cause this means everything can popup into existence at any place any time. Then inevitably GOD would have done so too and would have from that point assumed authority over everythng else. You see how that conslusion is inesapabale? However this(non cause and effect theory) is ridiculous because then we should see an infinite intervention being made in this universe at any place any time and we dont. Infact not a single one. the JREF has offered 1 M uSD for any paranormal activity shown under controlled condiitons i.e. any activity for which theres no cause AND NONE succeeded.

Hence my point that you can never disprove God. You keep misunderstanding almost everything I say... this is getting to be really boring.

GOD and reason and logic are NOT mutually exclusive. GOD has provided us with them and hence we ought to use them. If we dont then we fail.

Did I say they were? I said that ultimately faith is blind, and this is a fact. Please get that appointment with a philosophy or theology professor.

GOD does NOT guide via faith. He guides via reason and logic.

010.009
Surely (as for) those who believe and do good, their Lord will guide them by their faith; there shall flow from beneath them rivers in gardens of bliss.

So if you accept the standard of the "muslim" majority then Maghrib, the fourth prayer, has 3 units. How would you shorten 3 units and remember that the same majority of "muslims" all agree that "fajr" and "maghrib" are not to be shortened. Now if you decide to go along with the majority, in case when the shortening applies, then youve contradicted the Quran in at least two prayers and if you decide to shorten "fajr" to one unit and "maghrib" to say 2 units, then you wldve violated the standard. So how are you going to solve this dilemna? Do you see now why this argument of a standard found in so called "muslim" socieities doesnt hold up to scutiny?

Magrib and Fajr are already short prayers. The "shortening" applies to Zhur, Asr and Isha. Its pretty simple actually.

PeAcE

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

How can you say it is "ridiculous"? When every field of study has primary source material and secondary source material?

JK- The problem is hadith is to biased in regards to religion as to be used to explain the Quran. The only reasonable way to explain the Quran is 1) select from a variety of meanings using classical Arabic 2) seeing that it fits the Quran's context and does not contradict other verses which refer to similar incidences i.e. cross referencing within the Quran itself, 3) using archaeological evidence from the TIME OF MUHAMMAD which a) hadith are not, b) that material should not be other human writings but natural non consciously induced incidences e.g. when the Quran mentions the destruction of town x it can be verified that way. If GOD sought another writing i.e. book to be necessary to explain the Quran then why wouldnt He Himself inspire that other book? See now how this doesnt make sense?

Your conception of Atheism is so far off the mark, its funny. (You also believe atheists believe in causality, while modern atheism is actually based in a rejection of causality). Atheists dont believe in God or anything, period. So when you say that they are closer to "real Islam", you should question your own conceptions of "real Islam".

JK- James Randi is one of the most popular atheists. Now what is the 1M USD challenge about. It is about proving under controlled condition any supernatural or paranormal event WHICH IS WHT? It is an event which has no apparent cause isnt it? So JR is relying on the fact that any of those claims would have a cause which will be detected if observed properly.

And neither do Pagans (in their hearts). And I did not ignore the verses you quoted, but I told you that you did not understand them correctly. Take a look at the following verses. They not only show the real state of the pagans, but expose the parallels between pagans and atheists

010.028
And on the day when We will gather them all together, then We will say to those who associated others (with Allah) Keep where you are, you and your associates; then We shall separate them widely one from another and their associates would say It was not us that you served

This verse clearly says that the pagans didnt actually points out that

010.031
Say "Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?" They will soon say, "Allah". Say, "will ye not then show piety (to Him)?"

JK- This verse clearly shows that the pagans beleived in GOD BUT they took partners besides him. Lemme give you an exmaple. The Christians except GOD. They even claim that Jesus is ALLAH, YES it is their in the Quran. YET those are termed as "kafirs" in the Quran. So theyr amongst the pagans NOT the atheists who dont associate anyone with GOD even though they dont accept His existence. Dr. Zakir Naik, though i dont agree with him much, has made a good statement in this regard. He says atheists have already accepted first part of the kalima i.e. "there is no god" and hence all that is left is convince them of "ilallah(except GOD&quot whilst the pagans youll first have to prove to prove to them that their concept of GOD is wrong and those that they associate with Him have no power which is exactly in line with these Quranic verses.

This shows that before David Hume's attack on causality, the Athesits had no choice but to reasonably point to God in any logical argument from causality as the "first cause". So in the ancient world, pagans=atheists. But in the modern world the difference between pagans and atheists is that atheists can rely on new arguments against causality. This is why today they dont even have to answer the same as the pagans did back then to this question.

JK- But if you deny causality then youd actually have to 1) beleive in a first cause OR 2) beleive in magic at one point or another. Is there a way around this logically? And again you must be talking about some infamous atheists here like Ali Sina or whatever. Im talking about atheists/agnotics like M Shermer and James Randi. All their arguments rely on causality. If causality is violated the JR will payout 1M usd to the one who shows it.

010.039
Nay, they charge with falsehood that whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before the elucidation thereof hath reached them thus did those before them make charges of falsehood but see what was the end of those who did wrong!

This is the real description of the heart of a pagan/atheist. Notice how this verse applies EQUALLY to pagans and atheists.

JK- This might be applciable for some atheists but it is still applicable for all trinitarian christians and other pagans. The main focus is not on atheists here or anywhere else in the Quran.

Its a long story. But your argument of "environment" does not apply to my experience. My coming to Islam was something totally personal and internal.

JK- Dont tell me like people finding Jesus in their heart? If not please explain.

No that is not what I am saying. I am saying the exact opposite. God reveals Himself to whomever He pleases. Our subjectivity, or objectivity has nothing to do with it.

JK- Like the Christians claim that He, GOD forbiud, reveals Himself in Christ??? Do you see the flaw in your argument?

Wrong. The 2nd law applies to closed systems. What you are describing would not be a closed system.

JK- Closed systems are a concept of energy exchange within defined "closed" bounds. If this were not the case there would be just one giant ball of energy without individuals existing. Moreover an ideal closed system does not even exist practically. Similarly in paradise/heaven there would be energy tranfer at one level or another to simlate say our very minds. That system needs to be closed to a great extent otherwise no individualsim.

But you dont fully accept the Quran, that is your problem. You only accept the parts which make sense to you, and reject all the parts which dont. You have made your own rationality above faith. What "faith" is left in such interpretations accept the very basic?

JK- This is wrong but requires some explanation as many others also did not understand this view of mine. The main point to note is that i accept whatever i know to be Quran in the first palce. Just because someone comes to me and says "Hey Jonny heres the Quran, take it" i cannot just accpt that all that he has given me is the true Quran. There has to be a mechanism in nature which enables us to realize which statments here on earth are Quran and thus Divine and which are not. I hope you got it.

I am not playing with words. You only think this because these concepts are new to you and you are not familiar with philosophy. This is why I told you to go and ask a philosophy professor. It would be much easier to explain this to a person face to face.

Your definitions of these words that you use is very amateur. Also, you talk about concepts you dont fully understand. You are also unfamiliar with the history of atheism and this is linked with your other misconceptions.

JK- Please present your definition here if you claim this aint good enough. I can see the world around me and i can say that the agnostics/atheists have produced much more to the befit of people than most of the religious folk. The only religious folk that have somehow provided benefit for humanity is that that has seprated religion from their regular work. And yet that seoration didnt make them better than the other atheists but it still caused a hindrance coz of theextra ritual stuff at home instead of spending tht time for more rational thought.

You only see the good in utilitarianism/atheism but are unaware of its ultimate heresy, or you just refuse to see it. The fact is that if you take out revelation and God's commandments from the picture then the concept of "good" can be molded and you can justify anything and everything. At the end of the day, the system just breaks down completely into a sort of moral relativism.

JK- This is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS and ill explain why. First of all you should know that all humans have an evolved sense of morality. I suggest you read Michael Shermer's book "the sciecne of good and evil". This means that though the natural process of learning humans got to know how to interact with each other e.g. people learned not to kill each other because it then others would also in turn kill them and they themslves wouldnt prosper. That is why altruism is also found in lower primates. Here see this
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
So if altrusim is provided by religion then how come animals show this behaviour too which wed consider moral? But wait there is more. INFACT it is religion which is much more likely for someone to act immorally and ill tell you exactly why. Someone claims that the spirit of Jesus or GOD directly inspired them to kill person x,y,z. Others claim that their religious scripture allows them to kill all infidels. What do they do? Thats right. They kill all otherwise innocent human beings who have done them no harm and start a great war. Moreover every religion has it's own set of morals and almost all claim to come from their concept of GOD and other "gods". So who is immoral, atheists or religious folk? Think hard about this one.

I am aware of all of those reasons. (Although I disagree with you completely that the Quran is incomplete).

JK- The Quran has not been revealed in full TO US which includes it's udnerstanding logically. Can you claim that you understand all of the Quran? Similarly you also cannot claim that it has reached you all in it's physical form.

But here is the difference between me and you I would believe in the Quran even if you took all those reasons away. Because my belief is based on faith, not on reason. While your "belief" is based on a flawed rationality. This is why if tomorrow someone came and negated your "rational" proofs and reasons above, you would leave the Quran and throw it away. This is the difference between faith and rationality.

JK- Yes ofcourse if someone can convince me that the Quran is false or if someone can show me a scripture more likely to be Divine than the Quran then it would be stupid not to convert otherwise why do Christians convert to Islam. If it's faith then no religion should ever convert to another so your being hypocritical here. Even faith people accept the better arguments and at a certain point they break down. However it makes it much more diffcult to reason with them and as such they can be very dangerous whilst still holding their dogma as true. BUT YOU HAVNT TOLD ME YET. Why do you beleive in the Quran and not any other scripture being that much Divinely inspired?

I didnt ignore anything. I told you your interpretation is refuted by the letter of the Quran which makes it clear that Abraham PBUH was rewarded because he FULFILLED THE DREAM. You are ignoring the plain and simple words which leave no room for your interpretation.

JK- Ok he fulfilled the dream not of a physical sacrifice of his son but a sacrifice of his son to establish monotheism in the land. hat still makes pefect sense and is not absurd and contradicts the other verse in the Quran which says that GOD does not command vice and the Quran itself states that killing an inncoent is WRONG. Ismail or whoever was sacrificed by Abraham was inncent even by Qurns own standard so your understanding would cause the Quran to have an internal contra besides being totally absurd.

Your position is no more logical then anyone elses.

JK- I guess thats for each individual here to decide for themselves.

I advise you to talk to someone who can council you on philosophy face to face. You need a proper course. Your concepts are very under-developed.

JK- Coming from a person who accepts irrational stuff such as rituals.

Your going in circles. I tell you one thing, you dont understand it.. and then you ask the same question again. You are not a person who learns well by reading. Some people learn better via face to face interaction. This is why I told you to get that appointment with a professor.

JK- Oh sure i will when i feel the time is right. Here im debating with you. As for me goinf in circles again that is for other individuals to decide. Even what professors say is meaningless unless indivduals realize the rationality of their arguments but most of the professors arguments would probably be rational in his/her own field but that again is my statement.

Does he believe that revelation was granted to the Prophet? Yes or no?

JK- He beleives that "wahy" has been granted to Muhammad or any other messenger and I myself accept this but at this point i need to tell you that i dont accept Muhammad was the last messenger but ony the last prophet. prophet being the one whod elivers a divine scripture. The evidence for this which i accept can be found here
http//www.submission.org/messenger/prophet.html

Actually, he is refusing to answer many objections and is "shying away". His arguments on all of the locations he provided have completely collapsed. He has also failed to provide the references which I asked for.

JK- Well i myelf and others on this forum think you are the one shying away and ive noticed you not directly answering some of my points like the 2nd interpretaion i gave you of Abraham's sacrifice above and also you not explaing why you believe in the Quran.

Your question is almost comical. You know how to drive a car right? Would you not care to improve your driving if you had a chance? (methodology is important in everything).

JK- So your saying that one can even improve on the rituals which GOD reveals? I thought you said those were irrational. How can one improve on an irrational concept? Also then is it ok if people continue to add or subtract more details from the rituals and adjust them in the manner they feel best instead of falling a standard mentioned in hadith 1200 yrs ago?

Same old repetition... The hadith is still more reliable then the Jewish and Christian scriptures! And entire religions are based off them, so what makes you think the hadith should be rejected totally?

JK- NO it is NOT. There is at least some archaelogical evidecne for the arts of the OT i.e. the dead sea scrolls (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls). Non such have ever been presented for hadith which have been written down more than 200 yrs AFTER the Prophets death.

No thank you. You can have your "numerical structures", but my faith is not based on such arguments. Such a belief is inherently weak. Because rationality can be fooled very easily.

JK- And faith is ryling on something which makes one rigiid, stubborn and also dangerous in many cases when one feels that ones faith is being destroyed. Rational people tend to change their views accordingly without violence.

This position is irrational again (I told you, you keep contradicting your own rationality). If it is a historical document, then it is admissible evidence in all areas. bias or not, you have to provide counter evidence first, or alternative means of verifying.

JK- The hadith were compiled 200 yrs or more after the prophet's death. How can those be as reliable as you claim as compared to aymans much more solid evidence? Anyways the ppl will decide for themslves.

LOL... There is no archeological evidence for Charlemagne either. Or Ceaser... I guess they were allegorical too then?

JK- There is much more evidence for Caesar then there is for Moses. Otherwise why do the majority of archaelogists and historians accept one and not the other?

I think I may be wasting time arguing with you... you seem too far gone...

JK- Now youve shown your arrogance here clearly. I could say the same of you. Keep on expaoing yourself to everyone here.

YEs, because neither the hadith, nor the OT are perfect.

JK- The hadith are even more imperfect and many hadith are infact direct plagiarizations of OT nonsense such as man being created in the image of GOD, or Eve created from the rib of Adam, circfumcision etc.

Yes they are. All 5 times are listed in the Quran. This is an undeniable fact.

JK- If it is indisputable then why are so many right on this forum and others disputing it pointing out the exact verses and showing that this is not so. Your getting more and more irrational just like bro ayman was saying.

Which credible biologist does not believe in some form of evolution?

JK- "Credible" is also a matter of perception and/or acceptance by the people lastly isnt it? Creation "scientists", whom i dont consider credible personally, would hold their list of biologists as credible amongst themslves.

Hence my point that you can never disprove God. You keep misunderstanding almost everything I say... this is getting to be really boring.

JK- Can we disprove sin^2(x)+cos^2x=1. NO because it follows logically from the definitions. This is cosnidered a very strong proof. But infact one could disprove the existence/dominion of one GOD only by showing a paranormal event vioalting the laws of nature.

Did I say they were? I said that ultimately faith is blind, and this is a fact. Please get that appointment with a philosophy or theology professor.

010.009
Surely (as for) those who believe and do good, their Lord will guide them by their faith; there shall flow from beneath them rivers in gardens of bliss.

JK- The word "imaan" does not mean "belief" like in the English but rather a confidence attained via use of ones GOD given senses(see 1736) i.e. rationality.

Magrib and Fajr are already short prayers. The "shortening" applies to Zhur, Asr and Isha. Its pretty simple actually.

PeAcE

JK- Now where did you get that definition from? Did GOD decide not to put that in the Quran either? Dont you see that your this way reyling on ever more definitions out of hadith? GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",
You claim to accept the theory of evolution. Do you also accept that humans and apes share a common ancestor? If you do then the hadith explaining the verses pertaining to the creation of man in the Quran are to be understood as Adam being created as an adult and fully fomed and Eve out of him. Or would you come up with the absurd argument and claim that the hadith can be more trusted in favor of the supposed "rituals" mentioned in the Quran than they can be about the creation event in the Quran?
Also i want to ask you do you beleive Muhammad was inspried with a novel set of ritual prayers? If so then how can you justify this with the Quran which NEVER even hints at such a thing and mentions salat in connection with many messengers before Muhammad. GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace again "c0de",
You claim

No, the real difference is that I accept the limitations of human "rationality".

JK- The limit of rationality is the limit to our knowing things with significant accuracy. Rationality and the usage of our five senses is all we have to get closer to the truth(again i urge you to refer to 1736 in the Quran). Apart from that it is all wishful thinking and blind faith, that be the worst and most unjustifiable with drastical consequences at times not only for oneself but for others as well. GOD Bless!

And your paradigm is specifically tied to the belief that no revelation was granted to the Prophet. So you are not a Muslim, are you?

JK- Has ayman mentioned specifically anywhere that he didnt acceopt Muhammad as receiving inspration/wahy from GOD? If not then what sense would it make for him to accept the Quran as GOD's Word or a Divinely inspired Book?

Yea... and, Masjid al Haraam contains the Kabbah.

JK- "masjid-al-haram" cannot be outside of the "kaaba" because GOD says that the "kaaba" is for everyone whilst the disbelievers are not to enter "masjidal haram". Here are the verses

928 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach "al-masjid-al-haram"...
Now look at this verse
597 God made the "Ka'ba", "al-BAIT-al-haram", an asylum of security for men(NOT MUSLIMS ONLY), as also the Sacred Months, the animals for offerings, and the garlands that mark them...

So unless you wanna have a contradiction in the Quran "al-bait-al-haram"/"kaabah" cannot be inside "al-masjid-al-haram". If the kaaba is contained inside "al-masjid-al-haram" then how can the people in general reach it as theyr not allowed to enter al-masjid-al-haram which one would then need to go through to reach "kaaba"? GOD Bless!

[Ex-"Quranist"]

@ c0de

the "from" and "until" indicate the time frame of the prayer. In the topic "My arguement for 3 prayers" I have already explaine what this means IMO. I wrote that it means from sunset until evening and that it stands for 1 prayer. check my post for further details. It might mean from the declining of the sun at noon until the darkness of the night, but i'm not sure about that (although many say so.)

Nevertheless, imagine that you never knew what hadiths were and you never knew what salaat is. Now open the Quran. If it says to establish prayers at both ends of the day and at the early parts of the night (11114) establish the prayer like described above (177 and to establish the "middle prayer" (223, would you say that there are 3 or 5 salaat?

It all depends on the "duluk al-shams" - if it means the suns decline at just after noon or at sunset. If it means at noon, than there are 5 prayers, but if it means at sunset there are 3 prayers dawn, afternoon (just before sunset) and at evening (from the late-sunset until the evening/darkness of the night).

Anyways...check out my post in the other topic.

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

[c0de]

@ Jonny

This is useless. Others on this thread have already pointed to your lack of proper debate etiquette, not that I need to rely on anyone else's opinion of you to form my own. You failed to answer objections (repeatedly), and then you repeated the same old stale objections. (I cant believe you are actually accusing me of the same). Countless times you have brought up the same points which have already been answered. You might have a lot of free time on your hands, but I do not. So excuse me if I grow bored of humoring you.

Also, your knowledge of the philosophical, historical, and physical concepts is so limited that it is pointless to have a discussion with you on these subjects. I suggest you take a couple of courses in philosophy and theology before attempting to debate with people. Your talking about rationality, and causality, when you have no idea how to use these terms in proper philosophical context. Instead you ask me to teach you how to use them in a debate, that you are having with me! (lol)

Your views on the Quran, (such as your belief that it is incomplete) are hopelessly wayward. You have also misinterpreted plain and simple verses of the Quran which clearly contradict your interpretations. And the fact that you do not accept the finality of prophethood and revelation tells me that I have no reason to continue this discussion with you. You and I share no common ground. If I had known this in the beginning, I would not have bothered to engage you at all.

If you think I am "shying away" then you are right. I see no point in arguing with you. Nor do I see any point in continuing my participation on this forum. Nothing productive can come from such a place. But it has been very enlightening for me to see what the future holds for this ummah. As I am very sure that your brand of "Islam" is precisely where this ummah is headed towards. It is the natural consequence of utilitarianism replacing faith in the Muslim world.

Have a good life "jonny"

[jonny_k]

Peace "c0de",

This is useless. Others on this thread have already pointed to your lack of proper debate etiquette, not that I need to rely on anyone else's opinion of you to form my own. You failed to answer objections (repeatedly), and then you repeated the same old stale objections. (I cant believe you are actually accusing me of the same). Countless times you have brought up the same points which have already been answered. You might have a lot of free time on your hands, but I do not. So excuse me if I grow bored of humoring you.

JK- I can point out the people who disagree with you. The ones disagreeing with me are obviously the ones who still support the rituals like i myself used to do. It takes time. This reply of your just shows that you are shying away. Ive answered almost every single point of yours EXCEPT the history points which is what bro ayman repleid to you and im sure he'll reply to your above comments as well. You say that i repeat objections. Well didnt you repeat stuff over and over? For sure you did. And every new reply of mine was adding a little more info to it. The Quran itself repeats things many times but at each point giving a bit more information. This is not wrong but actually the natural way to further ones points.

Also, your knowledge of the philosophical, historical, and physical concepts is so limited that it is pointless to have a discussion with you on these subjects. I suggest you take a couple of courses in philosophy and theology before attempting to debate with people. Your talking about rationality, and causality, when you have no idea how to use these terms in proper philosophical context. Instead you ask me to teach you how to use them in a debate, that you are having with me! (lol)

JK- I think ive given quite adequate definitions of the terms. So if you think it is wrong then YOU need to clarify your point, nothing about teaching, and not refer me to other authorities which indeed is a fallacy in an argument. Your arrogance is once again clearly showing here. I will address the things i beleive i know about and i did that.

Your views on the Quran, (such as your belief that it is incomplete) are hopelessly wayward. You have also misinterpreted plain and simple verses of the Quran which clearly contradict your interpretations. And the fact that you do not accept the finality of prophethood and revelation tells me that I have no reason to continue this discussion with you. You and I share no common ground. If I had known this in the beginning, I would not have bothered to engage you at all.

JK- Comes from the one who didnt know that "salat" has a plural in arabic despte the verse being pointed out to him containing "salawat". Ok Mr. smarty tell me if Muhammad was supposed to be both last prophet and messenger then what do you make of these verses
1047 To each community, a messenger(wa liKULLI UMMATIN RASOOL i.e. PRESENT continuous tense). After their messenger comes, they are judged equitably, without the least injustice.
2859 For your Lord never annihilates any community without sending a messenger in the midst thereof, to recite our revelations to them.
Since communities keep coming and going as long as their are humans it follows logically that messengers will continue to come and show us new things from the Quran by GOD's leave and through His inspiration. The rest is explained well in the link i posted above.

If you think I am "shying away" then you are right. I see no point in arguing with you. Nor do I see any point in continuing my participation on this forum. Nothing productive can come from such a place. But it has been very enlightening for me to see what the future holds for this ummah. As I am very sure that your brand of "Islam" is precisely where this ummah is headed towards. It is the natural consequence of utilitarianism replacing faith in the Muslim world.

Have a good life "jonny"

JK- Now i think youve shown your true sunni face havnt you? Many people on this forum agree with me and arrive exactly at the same conclusions independently. Wonder why that is? As for you claiming wer replacing faith in the "muslim" world id say it's about time. Those artrogant sunni/shia think theyr the only guided ones by GOD and hence they have a right to bach anyone and even kill apostates or imprison the ones who criticize them too much. It is tragedic that your still subtly siding with those guys. So thats it then are you not even going to repond to ayman anymore? GOD Bless!

[jonny_k]

Peace everyone,
Now that i have brought up that Muhammad was not the last messenger providing evidence from the Quran and also brought up James Randi, an famous atheist/agnostic, whos 1M USD challenge relies on causality mr. "c0de" is shying away(c0de claims modern atheists deny causality). Well i guess thats just too bad isnt it. ALSO i showed him that altruistic behaviour, i.e. bahaviour we as humans would consider highly moral, is present in animals too. This clearly refutes his argument that morals come from religion where morals vary greatly from one religion to another. He might now claim that he just said that morals came from GOD. But in that sense EVERYTHING comes from GOD, the understanding of relativity, development of MRIs and other sophisticated medical devices etc. What he actually means is that GOD reveals Himself via inducing faith in people and this is where it gets absurd because almost all religions have vast difference and many of them claim to believe in one God and to have been inspired by God to believe. He continuosuly ignores 1736 in the Quran which makes clear that we get to understand what GOD wants via the rational approach. You can notice that if you go through our debate above. GOD Bless!

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace Ayman,

The difference is that this is not about violating it but about the violation being in it. So the violation is in observing it.

This is an interesting analysis, but it is only speculation. It could also mean that they were violating IN IT in the sense of improper observance. They added all kinds of extra prohibitions to the observance in the shabbat, even things not outlined in the Torah. This is how the Hebrew scriptures mention them violating it, as a nation. The Qur'aan never claims that the shabbat was a manmade observance given by the Jews...

Where does it say that it is part of their covenant? The covenant with the people of the book is clearly stated in the great reading and it doesn't even remotely include it.

So, according to the Qur'aan, what does their covenant include?! Clearly, according to the reading, their covenant was in obeying G-d's commandments, which includes observing the shabbat ("sabbath&quot. Therefore, the shabbat was definately part of their covenant, and that's why they were punished for violating it...

Please see the same wording used in 16124 used in 393 in reference to other manmade falsehoods such as setting partners with the god.

This doesn't say, or even imply, anything manmade about the shabbat. So, this passage is not applicable at all... According to the Qur'aan, their idolatry came in the form of them NOT observing the shabbat properly or wholeheartedly...

Peace,

Ahmad

[jonny_k]

Peace everyone,
Notice what "c0de" has written early in his posts talking about the moderate tone in salat

I(c0de) personally keep the volume of recital constant because of this verse as well.

JK- Sounds like he keeps his recital constant in all prayers as the above statement is not retsricted to specific prayers. Notice now here he doesnt make the claim that the two prayers, zuhr and asr, are already silent but in case of the shortening prayers he does claim that prayers maghrib and fajr are already short. I quote his reply to that again

Magrib and Fajr are already short prayers. The "shortening" applies to Zhur, Asr and Isha. Its pretty simple actually.

JK- Do you see now how he's being inconsistent and on the other hand he's started to become so arrogant? GOD Bless!