The Prayer Issue Revived
-
Peace Ahmad,
So, according to the Qur'aan, what does their covenant include?!
Just do a search on "mythaq" and "3ahd" (covenant/contract) in the great reading. You will see what their covenant includes.
Clearly, according to the reading, their covenant was in obeying G-d's commandments, which includes observing the shabbat ("sabbath". Therefore, the shabbat was definately part of their covenant, and that's why they were punished for violating it...
No, their covenant is clearly stated in the great reading and it doesn't include the Sabbath no more than it includes spinning around a stone cube. Just because some people think that those moronic things are the god's commandments, it doesn't make them so. I asked you where does it say in the great reading that the Sabbath is part of their covenant? Please provide the verse, if you can.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
The following comments by "c0de" were left unanswered by me so im going to reply to them now.I think you have misunderstood the word "archeological". I took a quick look at those links and all I saw were more semantics.
JK- Those were arhaeological artifacts the likes of which are not seen in case of hadith, which you claim to be a valid historical document. Infact hadith is more fiction than history.
"Archaeology" is a term which is usually (in popular usage) applied to things which have been excavated. I don't know what tombs your scholars have been excavating for their proofs here.
JK- I will let bro Ayman answer this assertion.
Once again, I advise you to actually talk to a shia about this. They recognize 5 distinct times (as they recognize 5 distinct prayers). They just combine prayers because of convenience.
JK- But they can combine it at ANY TIME and not just during travel or war as sunnis claim. If one can always combine certain prayers and offer them at the same times as the other two, thus in this case making it three times then this shows that the more clear timings are only three. Hence the shia practice shows us independent viewers that theres a confusion. Since GOD cannot be the Author of confusion, it follow logically that the whole concept of ritual prayer does not come from GOD but is either 1) a man made innovation or 2) a pagan ritual introduced into "islam", the latter of which is mroe likely from the evidence I have seen.
You have provided semantics, and uncertainties. "proof" would be historical evidence that the early Muslims used to "pray" randomly.
JK- As ive told you before the Quran, being a KITAAB, is mainly about semantics. Otherwise GOD coulve revealed a video tape or just physical practices passed down through the generations with 100% accuracy non of which is the case. Also in the latter case a KITAAB, i.e. something WRITTEN and thus obviously related to semantics, would be superfluous.
No, what you have done is change your argument. And you have even LESS proof for this new argument then you did for your first.
JK- It is very possible that as the debate goes along i need t correct some minor points. I readily admit this. You dont and ive clearly pointed out your discrepnacies.
(that is funny)
Tell me, when a passenger aircraft takes off from JFK and lands at Heathrow, how does it land on the runway? According to your argument, it will keep going on forever because the direction goes on forever. I will tell you how it lands, because it is not making the direction of Heathrow as its destination, but the runway at Heathrow is the destination of the plane. When it reaches its destination, it has accomplished its goal, so it does not keep going in a circle forever. Common sense dictates that when you face an object on the grid, you make that object your objective, not the direction of the object itself. We are not worshiping the direction of Mecca, we are making the Kaabah a focal point for worship.JK- Yes but a plain will always have at least two possible directions to go and reach the same destination AND if one airport on the globe is exactly opposite to another one on this earth, THEN the plane can START OFF IN ANY direction and reach the airport oppsoite to that part of the globe. Did you get my point? If not i suggest you take any sphrical object like an apple or an orange. Take the top and the bottom of it as the two points im talking about and youll see that all directions from any of those would lead to the other on that fruit.
Ok, first of all, you have misunderstood my response. I did not say you could face anywhere you like. Please read what I said again. And secondly, I have not contradicted myself because I have not used my common sense in making Mecca the focal point of my worship. I did not come up with this idea myself.
JK- For the first part see my comment above. As for the second part ive already told you why GOD never, GOD frobid, came up with this idea.
No, that does not absolve you of a hypocritical fallacy. Because in order to support your point the example you gave was the same fallacy which you earlier accused (wrongly) me of giving you. (i.e. Argument from ignorance)
JK- You are comitting a similar fallacy as I mentioned in my example. When people ask of us to prove that their well established concept of Santa is not true, theyr comitting a fallacy which is similar to yours in this particular statement. As for the "evidence" youve provided for GOD commanding 5 daily salat it has been debunked.
I looked through those articles and I am telling you that they are just semantics. Because even the articles themselves state CLEARLY in the beginning that the word salat has "different" meanings. (i.e. multiple meanings, i.e. those meanings are not mutually exclusive). So even if their alternative meanings are valid, (which they probably are) it still does not mean that salat does not have ritual significance.
"For those who take guidance from 'al quran' ('the reading' alone, different views have emerged about the word "salat"."
http//www.free-minds.org/salat_anonJK- Please refer to my reply above where ive explained this clearly.
You have completely contradicted yourself here. If beliefs were based in "reason" and rationality then everyone would be following the same principles because we would all arrive at the same conclusion! Tell me, why was it that the Prophet PBUH only had around 60 followers for the first 16 years of his preaching!? You think that his arguments (the Quran) lacked any "reason"?? The fact is that God decides whose heart is allowed to be opened to faith and who remains rejected... It has nothing to do with reason and rationality.
JK- Ive already told you why this is not true. All people do not want to be reasobanle. Otherwise everyone would have accepted evolution. Yet more than 50% of US citizens outright deny it and even go so far as to beleive the earth was created in the last 6000 yrs or so. As for your example with Muhammad tell me how many people followed Galileo in the beginning or how many followe Darwin? Do you see how wrong your points are? As for your last part it is GOD who opens ones heart/mind by enabling one to use his/her reason and logic(1736) and eliminate biases.
Exactly! Thank you for supporting my point. The fact is that every religion DOES claim to be right, and this DOES NOT make any sense whatsoever. Does it?
JK- It doesnt and thats why you dont make any sense whatsoever and there is no reason why your belief is anymore credible than any others. Yet you claim it is. Now theres a danger since youd obviously insist on you being right vehemently claiming your guided by GOD where as the counter religions would claim the same. And what likely happens if two ideologies, boith ascertain absolute certainty collide? BLOODHSED. This is the basic problem with blind faith. Im open to all possibilties and have changed my views many times on the forum.
Well I have. Take a look at this thread from another forum. I invite you come and join if you want
http//www.interfaith.org/forum/proof-of-god-9794.htmlKeep in mind my views have changed somewhat since I made this post, as that was actually my first post on that forum last year. But I want you to notice the debate between me and the chief atheist there in the first few pages. Notice that even when his arguments were completely defeated (which happened numerous times on that forum actually) that one person in particular never gave up his position. He was banned several times, and is still on the forum today with a different name.
JK- Ive also made it clear that not even every atheist is going to accept every evidence especially because your still claiming that GOD is supernatural. You made some very good points but then focussed more on fine tune than the actual point which was "In an ifinite amount of time ANYTHING inclduing a god could arise". Instead you say
A "naturally occurring mechanism"... sure. But what are the odds that this mechanism occurred the way it did? Can these odds be sustained in a finite system? No they can not. This is why a Designer becomes necessary, and thats the whole point of the argument.
JK- See now how youve shifted the argument away from your original logical point. What you probably didnt think of is that atheists do recognize that there are infinite possible universes which might exist(i say they inevitably do) and one just happens to have the right constant. However taking your original point you shouldve gone like this "Since in an infinite amount of time anything can arise including a god, once GOD came an infinite "time" ago in the quantum realm and that time being a subset of the previous infinite time, He/It left nothing more upto chance so EVERY universe is BY DEFINITION created by GOD i.e. the Light of the heavens and the earth as per 2435.
Consider this Can someone choose to reject guidance if God wills that person to be guided? Of course not. That is the point, it is not up to us to accept or reject anything, it is up to God who allows us to accept, or forbids us from accepting.
JK- You need to talk from our frame of reference and not speculate about GOD's frame of reference. This is infact religious people's biggest fault. You dont know what GOD has in mind in an absolute sense. So as i said earlier we need to use our reaosn and logic to detect who is guided based on the material we have and have also in turn analysed using reason and logic. Do you get it this time?
I am already aware of the inadequacies of the hadith manuscripts. But I am also aware of their value as historical documents. All historical documents are flawed (except the Quran). If we were to rely on a perfect criteria, history as a field of study would end.
JK- And i said theyr not even much valid as historical documents especially regarding the system of islam because 1) theyr very biased in THT regard and 2) theyve been compiled more than 250 yrs AfTER Muhammad's death.
Then you have exchanged your weak argument, for an even weaker one.
PeAcE
JK- As everyone can see now this is most probably not the case. GOD Bless!
-
Peace everyone,
I consider the following, taken fro my reply to "c0de" very important and hence I'm going to requote it here separately again
"Code" claimed in his reply to an atheist
A "naturally occurring mechanism"... sure. But what are the odds that this mechanism occurred the way it did? Can these odds be sustained in a finite system? No they can not. This is why a Designer becomes necessary, and thats the whole point of the argument.
Then i replied
JK- See now how has shifted the argument away from your original logical point. What you probably didnt think of is that atheists do recognize that there are infinite possible universes which might exist(i say they inevitably do) and one just happens to have the right constant. However taking your original point you shouldve gone like this "Since in an infinite amount of time anything can arise including a god, once GOD came an infinite "time" ago in the quantum realm and that time being a subset of the previous infinite time, He/It left nothing more upto chance so EVERY universe is BY DEFINITION created by GOD i.e. the Light of the heavens and the earth as per 2435.
GOD Bless!
-
Peace again "c0de",
I almost forgot to tell you one important thing. You claimed that you believe the Quran is the Word of GOD and it is preserved on faith preseumably without there being any mechanism in nature which would show this over time. So what would happen if say someone took a pen, erased a few lines from the "Quran" or added a few and then print that book naming it "Quran"? Right there your belief would be falsified or no? GOD Bless! -
Salamun alaykum
Peace C0de
Do you you have to be a genius to know that all Religions are man-made ? including Muhammadanism mistakenly called "Islam" .
If you believe that The Qur'an is the word of God , Complete , Perfect , No contradiction in it , and Fully Detailed , why do you need the Nonsensical Hadiths for your so called Islamic Rituals ? .
Another question for you is ...If The Kaaba and or Masjid al Haraam is the one in Mecca as you insisted and cited 396-97 for your evidence , why then didn't The Ottoman Rulers and Scholars order an Archaelogical excavation in Mecca ( and The present Al Saud Rulers ) to prove to the World that indeed , the first dwelling built for mankind on this Earth was in Mecca ? and therefore The Cradle of Civilization , began there ? Or do you think those Ottoman Rulers , Sharif Hussein and his Clan , The al Saud and Abdul Wahhab could not understand the meanings of 396-97 ? .
As for your saying that Ibrahim and his son Ismail was only ordered by The God to built The Foundation of The Kaaba but not to Convey God's Message to Local people , is silly to put it mildly . As an intelligent person who claims to believe in The Qur'an , you are closed minded , and unwilling to learn from humble "Free-Minders" but you worship anyone with Prof before their names ( Very Sad ). Someone pointed out to 4213 ( That God's deen or System is the same ) but you still dismissed it , if you search The Qur'an with clear mind and good intention , you will find other Verses that say That Sunnatullah does not change . Why insist on Ibrahim and Ismail built The Kaaba even after you read 3444 ? Please see 12106 , 3945 7218 for your Belief and Rituals .
Peace and guidance of God to you .
-
DELETED
-
check out this link http//www.mostmerciful.com/realities-of-our-daily-prayers.htm
there are also other very interesting topics on www.mostmerciful.com -
Peace again "c0de",
You claimJK- 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!
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?
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!
I think it says men and not believers becaue all kinds of people go there, believers and non believers. The same thing the Koran says about surat al fath, when it says if you see the poeple enter the religion of God and not believers. Many of the pagans, hypocrites and others entered Islam after their military defeat.
Anyways why all this heated debate about something thats not important. there are many shrines of God, the Ka'aba is one of them. So whats the big deal? Its a place for people to worship, its all symbolism. I don't see why all this heated debate is necessary. It only will make you fight and seperate from each other which the Koran forbids.
There is still a Sunni mindset thats not going away. Once again this verse is useful
Righteousness does not consist in whether you turn your faces towards the east or the west; what is righteous is to believe in Allah and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and in times of war. Such as do so are people of truth. Such are the Allah-fearing. (Al-Baqara, 177)
-
Peace JK,
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.
Irrational pagans will always find an excuse to idolize things and delude themselves. Sectarians do it all the time and they use the great reading to justify their idolatry. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that fondling, kissing and spinning around a stone cube is an irrational pagan fetish that has nothing to do with the god. People without sickness in their hearts would naturally feel that something is not quite right about those filthy pagan symbols and rituals and would denounce such things when reminded of not setting partners with the god. As for people with blind hearts, no reply or any amount of debate can help them anyway and they will follow whatever lies and delusions are in line with their preconceptions.
Peace,
Ayman
-
My my my..... all these words, and not a single thought worth the bandwidth.... its sad really.
I thought I would check up on this ancient thread (I was bored P) to see what you people came up with in my absence, and I had to try really hard to contain my amusement. I mean just the sheer USELESSNESS of your posts is astounding! All of these little points *(most of which are almost pointless repetitions of refuted ideas, over and over and over again).... Tell me something Mr. "jonny" you're not an Internet Zombie are you??? Or maybe like an experimental bot device... (lol)
Anyways, enough fun... let me just quickly address some of your.... misunderstandings.
#1 Atheists REJECT the argument from Causality ( I apologize for not making this clear before, but whatever) which you are using to prove God. Don't believe me, go and ask your friend Mr. James Randi. Ask him why he doesnt believe in God. But I will save you some time and answer for him, because I already know exactly what he and all atheists like him say "Hey Jonny, I'll tell you why I dont believe in God, because there was no divine "cause" which was observable which proves that the "effect" of the universe being of a divine origin. As my idol David Hume proved philosophically centuries ago, Causality IS ONLY VALID when observed and measured DIRECTLY to be considered scientific. So your assertion that because the universe exists, and this implies a Creator, this is an IRRATIONAL claim because it is an unfounded assertion. This is why the argument from causality which you are using is INVALID, and this is why it can not be used to "prove" God scientifically. Furthermore my good rationalistic friend, I will say that I dont believe in God, because, as a rational scientist, I also must say that causality must also apply to God, and therefore when God says that He Himself was not created by anything (i.e. is without a cause) I will say that such an explanation is outside of rationality, and this is why I do not believe in God" Once again, if you dont want to believe me, go and ask him yourself. Go on his website and find his email and send him an email. (I dare ya)
#2 I see your friend Mr. "Archeology" didn't have any answers for any of my objections, (as expected). But I am sure you still have faith in him and his crackpot claims.
#3 I am flattered that you were reading my argument with Mr. Tao the Atheist on the other forum. But my views on that argument are not the same and have changed considerably in the last half a year since I posted that argument. I know that my own argument is now invalid, because the infinite time argument contradicts God's own description of Himself in the Quran. Time could not be responsible for creating God, because Time did not exist before God, also, if Time was responsible for creating God, then Time itself would be greater then God, which would invalidate God's uncreated supremacy. Therefore, I am sorry if you liked that point, but I myself reject it now. The only reason I linked that post was to show you the behavior of that atheist and how he behaved. If you think you can talk to an atheist and convert one via rationality, please go ahead and try.
#4 Btw, while we are on the subject, let me address another point you tried to make about the definition of the word "iman" as a belief in things through reason. Tell me something, before you checked the dictionary, did you even bother checking the Quranic definition of Iman? Iman is stated as a belief in God, Angels, Hereafter (among other things). Which makes the concept of Iman totally CIRCULAR in logic. Because what it basically means is that God is saying in that verse that He guides those who believe by their iman by their belief in God!. That is TOTALLY CIRCULAR LOGIC. But This is what makes God above Philosophy! God can use circular logic and still get away with it. How can you rationally guide someone in something that can't be seen or proven, by their belief in that same unseen and unproven thing?? Is that "rational"??? (err.. no, it isnt).
#5 I noticed you said somewhere here that "God is not supernatural".... Dude... you know what... I wish I could watch you go to up to a philosopher or a scientist and say that to him!!! You know what I would LOVE! Is if you went up to your hero Richard Dawkins, or whatever, and said this exact statement like that to their face!!! LOL! Man... they would tear you APART! dude, they would HUMILIATE you, with the very same RATIONALITY which you hold to be supreme! You know why? Because you HAVE NO IDEA (and I say this again) how to use or apply rationality in an actual philosophic argument! "God is not supernatural" LOL!!.... aw man... that cute really... so adorable!
.... I would refute more of your "reasoning" here ... but i am bored again... think i'll watch a movie.... at this point, I am sure any activity will be more productive then this hopeless discussion.
PeAcE
im out
-
Peace Vivek,
Salat does not involve bowing and prostration. Salat is the act of incense burning. Please read my article titled "Salat is none other than Incense Burning".
Can you do everyone a favor and post your comment just once and do not spam the forum with the same post over and over again on every thread!
Moderators Please delete all of Vivek's repeated posts except one.
Thanks in advance and peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
For all the idiots out there who base their faith in Mecca and its pagan symbols and rituals on a mention by Ptolemy of a town named Macoraba and are too lazy to verify what Ptolemy said for themselves, here is a copy of the translation of the relevant entry in Ptolemy where he mentions Macoraba
http//i44.tinypic.com/2unwljd.gif
Please note that Ptolemy describes Macoraba as the fifth city south of Yathrib and the fourth south of Carna. So while present day Mecca is to the north of Carna, Macoraba is to the south of Carna. Ironically, this is the best evidence that sectarian have to justify their paganism! They have built their house of cards on the edge of a cliff.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "c0de",
I totally overlooked this post.#1 Atheists REJECT the argument from Causality ( I apologize for not making this clear before, but whatever) which you are using to prove God. Don't believe me, go and ask your friend Mr. James Randi. Ask him why he doesnt believe in God. But I will save you some time and answer for him, because I already know exactly what he and all atheists like him say "Hey Jonny, I'll tell you why I dont believe in God, because there was no divine "cause" which was observable which proves that the "effect" of the universe being of a divine origin. As my idol David Hume proved philosophically centuries ago, Causality IS ONLY VALID when observed and measured DIRECTLY to be considered scientific. So your assertion that because the universe exists, and this implies a Creator, this is an IRRATIONAL claim because it is an unfounded assertion. This is why the argument from causality which you are using is INVALID, and this is why it can not be used to "prove" God scientifically. Furthermore my good rationalistic friend, I will say that I dont believe in God, because, as a rational scientist, I also must say that causality must also apply to God, and therefore when God says that He Himself was not created by anything (i.e. is without a cause) I will say that such an explanation is outside of rationality, and this is why I do not believe in God" Once again, if you dont want to believe me, go and ask him yourself. Go on his website and find his email and send him an email. (I dare ya)
JK- Just because a cause cannot be detected does NOT MEAN there is none. Infact there MUST be a cause for every effect otherwise you stumble upon magic at one point or another? HOW then would you solve that puzzle? YOU CANT. You MUST accept an infinite chain of cause and effect. ONLY tht provides a satisfactory answer.
#2 I see your friend Mr. "Archeology" didn't have any answers for any of my objections, (as expected). But I am sure you still have faith in him and his crackpot claims.
JK- See his latest post.
#3 I am flattered that you were reading my argument with Mr. Tao the Atheist on the other forum. But my views on that argument are not the same and have changed considerably in the last half a year since I posted that argument. I know that my own argument is now invalid, because the infinite time argument contradicts God's own description of Himself in the Quran. Time could not be responsible for creating God, because Time did not exist before God, also, if Time was responsible for creating God, then Time itself would be greater then God, which would invalidate God's uncreated supremacy. Therefore, I am sorry if you liked that point, but I myself reject it now. The only reason I linked that post was to show you the behavior of that atheist and how he behaved. If you think you can talk to an atheist and convert one via rationality, please go ahead and try.
JK- Time itself is not something to be created but ordered time is. Otherwise whenever theres cause and effect i.e. whenever there is something theres time. NOWHERE in the Quran does it say there was no time before the creation of the universe. Your getting this from the usual religious folk. GOD came about an infinite time ago in the quantum realm through random fluctuations at infinity. BUT since tht happened an infinite time ago we can logically say tht GOD always existed. Tht is the only reasonable explanation.
#4 Btw, while we are on the subject, let me address another point you tried to make about the definition of the word "iman" as a belief in things through reason. Tell me something, before you checked the dictionary, did you even bother checking the Quranic definition of Iman? Iman is stated as a belief in God, Angels, Hereafter (among other things). Which makes the concept of Iman totally CIRCULAR in logic. Because what it basically means is that God is saying in that verse that He guides those who believe by their iman by their belief in God!. That is TOTALLY CIRCULAR LOGIC. But This is what makes God above Philosophy! God can use circular logic and still get away with it. How can you rationally guide someone in something that can't be seen or proven, by their belief in that same unseen and unproven thing?? Is that "rational"??? (err.. no, it isnt).
JK- NONSENSE. All these terms your interpreting using sunni/shia bias. Malaaikah are not some supernatural angels but 1) universal force or 2) specific type of aliens made from plasma but tht is still just a hypothesis. The Quran repeatedly stressed to use ones senses 1736 an ponder upon GOD's signs. Also what do you think "bayinnah" is which is mentioned in the QUran as a whole sura name? It means PROOF. So wht is this your saying?
#5 I noticed you said somewhere here that "God is not supernatural".... Dude... you know what... I wish I could watch you go to up to a philosopher or a scientist and say that to him!!! You know what I would LOVE! Is if you went up to your hero Richard Dawkins, or whatever, and said this exact statement like that to their face!!! LOL! Man... they would tear you APART! dude, they would HUMILIATE you, with the very same RATIONALITY which you hold to be supreme! You know why? Because you HAVE NO IDEA (and I say this again) how to use or apply rationality in an actual philosophic argument! "God is not supernatural" LOL!!.... aw man... that cute really... so adorable!
JK- You can say all you want and they can too. Fact is you havnt answered my assertions and your hypothesizing wht others would say.
.... I would refute more of your "reasoning" here ... but i am bored again... think i'll watch a movie.... at this point, I am sure any activity will be more productive then this hopeless discussion.
PeAcE
im out
JK- DO IT. Well all be waiting. GOD Bless!
-
Peace C0de
Per 3-7, believers should follow well-established meaning verses in order to know their obligated duties. Now, I know that Sunset, night, and Dawn prayers are commended in a very well-established verses. But on the other hand, Zuher and Aser time are not mentioned in well-established verses to be as time for prayers.
11-114 is a well established verse
And you shall hold the communion at the two edges of the day, during the night. The good deeds take away the bad. This is a reminder to those who remember.
11114THEREFORE, 1778 Calls for prayer AT Sunset, Night, and Dawn (after all Quranic verses will have to match with each others !)
Therefore, the Middle prayer that God ordered the believer to guard is the Night Prayer (2-23;
Here is a well established verses that prove That731 O you who are covered with your garments.
732 Stand the night except for a little.
733 Half of it, or a little less than that.
734 Or a little more, and arrange the Quran in its arrangement.
735 We will place upon you a saying which is heavy.
736 The time of the night is more effective and stronger in reciting ( ا.From the above well established verses, The night prayer is the Westa Prayer. Now can you bring me a well established verse that says Aser prayer is the prayer that is more stronger and effective than the other prayers including the night prayer?
Moreover, please note the following verse
Quraan 2458
O you who believe, permission must be requested by your servants and the children who have not attained puberty. This is to be done in three instances-before the Dawn Prayer, at noon when you change your clothes to rest, and after the Night Prayer. These are three private times for you. At other times, it is not wrong for you or them to mingle with one another. Allah thus clarifies the revelations for you. Allah is Omniscient, Most Wise.Now, please note the red colored words and the blue ones. If there is a prayer during noon, why God did not mention (in blue word section) as He did when speaking about the Dawn and night (red colored section)?
May God lead us to the truth.
PeaceGood point belH,
I've been thinking about that and 1778. Notice that "liduluki ash-shamsi" is meantioned first, then the darkness of the night, thenn dawn. Maybe your arguement is right, since the timings are listed in this order
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
i am still thinking about 1778 if it really means sunset or not.
peace
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
-
Good point belH,
I've been thinking about that and 1778. Notice that "liduluki ash-shamsi" is meantioned first, then the darkness of the night, thenn dawn. Maybe your arguement is right, since the timings are listed in this order
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
i am still thinking about 1778 if it really means sunset or not.
peace
It says "liduluki ash-shamsi TO ghasaq Al-Layl and not And. Meaning its between those two time periods and not those two time periods.
- Sunset 2. Dawn 3. Night
-
Jonny + Ayman
@ Jonny K
You think you know what you are talking about, but you dont. If you did, then you could prove the existence of God to someone like Richard Dawkins, or better yet, David Hume, but you cant. Do yourself a favor and enroll yourself in a philosophy class.
You also don't understand that if God came about as a result of infinite time, then He can not be said to be absolutely transcendent because the same mathematical laws which apply to us, would then apply to God. Your "reasonable" explanation of God therefore contradicts His transcendence and limits His power. Anything created through a proccess is by definition dependent on a system of laws. God is transcendent, and therefore above any laws of mathematics. Time is dependent on God's perspective, not God on time. You probably still do not understand any of this, and this is why I advised you to go and talk to a professor of philosophy or logic so that he can teach you why you can not "rationalize" an Omnipotent God from a logical point of view. And as for your "plasma alien" hypothesis... all i can say is LOL. The definition of the word "iman" is clearly defined in the Quran, and it is circular i.e. irrational, despite what you want to believe to justify your own view.
@ Ayman
I asked you to provide secondary sources which back up your crackpot views that the traditional Islamic focus on Mecca was an act of conspiracy. And while your at it, try answering the all the other objections to your pointless argument. Your "inscription" argument has been destroyed, and so have all of your alternative locations argument. You have absolutley nothing left... but then again, you didn't have much to begin with. If you really are such an accomplished archeologist, why don't you publish your views in a peer-reviewed journal?
Later
-
Peace "c0de",
Jonny + Ayman
@ Jonny K
You think you know what you are talking about, but you dont. If you did, then you could prove the existence of God to someone like Richard Dawkins, or better yet, David Hume, but you cant. Do yourself a favor and enroll yourself in a philosophy class.
JK- Whether someone accepts the proof or not is still upto them. Dawkins might eventually agree with me about an ever increased Intelligence "evolved" in the quantu realm but then hed deny that That Intelligence wants anything to do with us or communicate with us which is included in the definition of GOD according to him. Then wed be getting to the Quran and the staistical signicance of its numerical structure, scientific oreknowledge etc and lastly it will boil down to what we both consider more significant or less. BUT that is fine with me. At least everyone wouldve given his rational views out. With you the case is different. You insist on supernaturalism and rituals for which theres no reason at all.
You also don't understand that if God came about as a result of infinite time, then He can not be said to be absolutely transcendent because the same mathematical laws which apply to us, would then apply to God. Your "reasonable" explanation of God therefore contradicts His transcendence and limits His power. Anything created through a proccess is by definition dependent on a system of laws. God is transcendent, and therefore above any laws of mathematics. Time is dependent on God's perspective, not God on time. You probably still do not understand any of this, and this is why I advised you to go and talk to a professor of philosophy or logic so that he can teach you why you can not "rationalize" an Omnipotent God from a logical point of view. And as for your "plasma alien" hypothesis... all i can say is LOL. The definition of the word "iman" is clearly defined in the Quran, and it is circular i.e. irrational, despite what you want to believe to justify your own view.
JK- You assertions are similar as to claim GOD can create a rock which He Himself cannot lift? Ofcourse that is not possible because the very statement is illogical. You have already setuip a false god and claimed attributes for Him which are not mentioned in the Quran and they defy logic and reason. The laws of mathematics are there by definition. Theyr not created only utuilized or discovered. GOD knows them all yes but saying that He has created those makes as much sense as saying that GOD could create a rock that He Himself cannot lift.
As for the Malak alien it is just a hypothesis. Malaaikah can also mean universal forces and used as a symbolic reference to them. It need not be literal at all. Take a look at Dr. Shabbirs Quran translation for example. ALSO the definition of Imaan in the Quran is NOT CIRCULAR. Show me the verses here. If that were so then why should i beleive the Quran and not some other book? Dont you see that your spewing nonsense here? GOD Bless! -
Intelligence will atleast tell us that, if randomness created everything, from nothing, as atheisths claim. And that it is a big finite state machine. Well, randomness is white noise. And white noise, into a finite state machine, created by randomness, doing random processes, will also output white noise.
First of all where does the randomness come from?
Second of all, does everything look like TV-snow to you? (white noise)
Are you random?
And also ofcourse, the theory of evolution, and survival of the species relies on similar arguments, such as randomness.
But there was no preferance to begin with, rather the command of God.
Also mutation, in such a theory, would happen "randomly", and the result would be random. And the mutates species would not be compatible. So offspring cannot come. And something unlikely as another random mutation, that produces the same result, in a partner, for offspring, is absurd. And if mutation did happen, randomly, resulting in mostly damaged offspring, mutation would happen on a very high rate. Today, no such mutation is present. The maths would deem it absurd, and reality is different.
These are good aruments for an atheist. )Regarding prayers..
..an established practice.
Read 1777, the practises came before Muhammad...throughout its history..
Throughout history, we see the 3 prayers, performed by Abraham, The Jews, The Christians...Everyone has
been praying 5 prayers since the time of the prophet.
At some point Islam was distorted by hadith, to support 5 prayers. Shia still pray 3 times.If you are
claiming that this is not true, then your the one who have to provide
evidence for your claim.
Read 1777 again. Gods ways(sunna) does not change. And 3 prayers are the earlier prayers given by the messengers, and they can be found in the Quran aswell. Please do read my post "Salat - FINALIZED" http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598161.0 -
Mutazilas (perhaps not all), Karajites and Nizari Ismailis (which make up 90% of Ismailis) have been praying 3 times ever since.