The Prayer Issue Revived
-
Peace "JK",
JK- Still the verse says "sabbat was decreed FOR THOSE WHO DISPUTED IT. PERIOD". This means it is a LOCAL commandment referring only to a particular group of people. You never find in the Quran saying "Oh you who beleive, weve made for you the sabbath as we had on those before you".
This is false, bro, and there are other passages that attest to this. For example
You have known about those among you who violated the shabbat. We said to them, "Be lowly apes." We set them up as an example for their generation, as well as SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS, and an enlightenment for the righteous. (265, 66)
The example for them is NOT TO VIOLATE THE SABBATH, and this is the same example for the subsequent generations, which include the submitters during the time of Muhammad and us today.
O you who've been given the book, you shall believe in what We reveal herein, confirming what you have, before We efface faces or condemn them, as We condemned those violated the shabbat. God's command is executed. (447)
Coincidentally, the verses BEFORE and AFTER this passage refer to idolatry, implying that breaking the shabbat is equal to committing idol worship. Nowhere in the Qur'aan are we told that this only applies to the Jews and Christians, and nowhere are we told that the shabbat was only instituted for certain communities... Again, for you to base your reasoning on the shabbat ("sabbath" being for those who disputed in it, you have to look at their disputes. And NONE OF THEM disputed concerning it's observance. They only disputed in their violation of it, which is what the Qur'aan points out...
JK- Ofcourse that is the modern Jewish "scholars" last excuse to save their scriptures in an ever increasing secular world. If you make everything allegorical then all scriptures of all religions, even the hadith, can be consdiered true. The context has to allow for allegory WITHIN THE SCRIPTURE ITSELF. Lets take a look at the following verses
Leviticus 2410-16Blasphemer to be put to death
10 Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. 11 The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) 12 They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them.
13 Then the LORD said to Moses 14 "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.Sabbath breaker to be put to death too
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.See how clear the details are and how GOD is suposedly commanding them? If this can be taken as allegorical then every absurd hadith can also be taken as allegorical and moreover there would be no statement in the world which could not be taken as allegorical. Hence every commander, every politician, every general can always get away safe after ordering to kill someone just by claiming that they meant all of it allegorically. Do you see how absurd this is?
This is unreasonable. Many of these direct commands only applied literally to the people of that time; in other cases, they were completely allegorical. This is even further emphasized throughout the Tanakh. Another example of this is the atonement offerings in the temple of Yerushalom (Jerusalem). According to the Torah, these offerings can't be offered outside of the temple. So, what happened after the temple was destroyed? Does this mean that God didn't know the temple would be destroyed?
The Qur'aan even points out that some of God's verses/signs are allegorical, not literal. So, what's the difference with the Torah? You can't compare the Torah with the hadith writings, since men wrote the hadiths. God Himself sent down the Torah, just like He did the Qur'aan...
JK- The comittment is mentioned in the Quran itself. It is to establish a system of monotheism where people gather together and dicsuss things using reaon and logic. This has been explained numerous times here on freeminds. You can read some of the articles and posts on this issue. Adopting mindless rituals and accepting them as Divine does not make any sense whatsoever.
Like I said, the system includes more than simply "monotheism". Most modern Muslims aren't pure monotheists anyway, since they idolize Muhammad... But regardless, this is unrealistic. Our system is to "discuss things using reason and logic"? And what happens if everyone agrees? Does this mean our system is over? What about the Qur'aanic passages instructing everyone to 'believe in God, believe in the last day, and lead a righteous life'? What role to these play in discussing things using reason and logic? And how will everyone discuss these matters? Online? Over the phone? Or do you expect all submitters in the world to live in one huge community? We uphold the same system as Abraham and the patriarchs. Did they base their system on discussing things using reason and logic?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Since a scholar says something is so, they must be right?
LoL... no, but when all experts agree, it means something.
Many people can throw the question right back at you and say the belief in GOD is irrational in itself then afterlife in heaven is irrational.
(lol) err... yea.. That was my point. Belief in God is irrational.
You've came to the conclusion that a test of faith can never be rational?
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
How can GOD "obey rationality" hypno Who decided that good is rational? Me jumping in front of a bullet to keep it from hitting osama bin laden might be "good thing to do" but many will says it's irrational due to the atrocities Osama bin laden has done. It would matter your point of view now wouldn't it?
You missed the point entirely. I was the one who was saying God does not "obey" rationality.
Useless chatter, Where is it stated
err.. the Quran. All divine injunctions are in the Quran. (are you disagreeing with this? Because I wasnt)
Useless chatter, can we see some of this proof from the "scholars rotfl in the field"
Refer to my last response to Ayman, right in the beginning I state multiple quotes from different authors (all scholars) who have called into question the source of Ayman's beliefs which is based in the work of Patricia Crone.
Sigh it would matter what hadith your talking about sunnis reject hadiths that shiite follow and shiite reject hadith that sunni follow so your arguement is complete failure right there. What do you think sectarians have been arguing about for the past hundred-thousand years? THE AUTHENCITY OF THEIR HADITH!
Do you even know what I am arguing? Because this objection doesnt even address my point. I never once said that the hadith manuscripts are perfect or fully authentic. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting.
Same ol' useless chatter, no quranic verses to back up your view point, I can see why you rely on protecting the hadith so much and your loveable "scholars" Oh noes! A "scholarly rotfl" community won't like us, how will this forum live!
All the verses have been provided in this thread, supporting every point of the argument (5 times, rituals, the Kabbah, Qiblah, Mecca etc.). I suggest you flip back through the pages.
PeAcE
-
LoL... no, but when all experts agree, it means something.
Yes, it means something should be investigated. I don't follow anything just because the masses believe it(which is why im not a sunni)
(lol) err... yea.. That was my point. Belief in God is irrational.
Ok
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
No that's why it's based off faith.
You missed the point entirely. I was the one who was saying God does not "obey" rationality.
No you clearly said "God is not good, because GOD is not rational". I was correcting you, GOD can do anything he wants, he might choose to do things rational or he might choose things to do irrational. Even though in Qu'ran it clearly says GOD will not test you above your limits. You tried to use Abraham being asked to sacrafice his son, but you missed the whole point of him asking him to do it. It was a test of faith, GOD knew already that he wasn't going to allow him to sacrafice his only son, so it was rational
err.. the Quran. All divine injunctions are in the Quran. (are you disagreeing with this? Because I wasnt)
I was disagreeing with what you considered "divine injuctions"(ex pray 5 times a day) not if there were any divine injuctions.
Refer to my last response to Ayman, right in the beginning I state multiple quotes from different authors (all scholars) who have called into question the source of Ayman's beliefs which is based in the work of Patricia Crone.
Which you guys still are debating and noone has been proven really right or wrong...Your still stuck on the notion just because the person is a scholar, they must be right.
Do you even know what I am arguing? Because this objection doesnt even address my point. I never once said that the hadith manuscripts are perfect or fully authentic. Please familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting.
Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific hadith, I was talking about in general. Considering you kept mentioning "what scholars think" and what "scholars believe", I was showing depending on what "sect that scholar would be in" would decide what hadith they would support and if they believe it would be historically(so the hadith are "historically correct" doesn't always hold up to your "scholars know best" standards. That's my fault I worded it horribly
Peace
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Actually bro, none of them will disagree with me. I guarantee you this. If you want to prove me wrong, just go and talk to a professor yourself.
JK- Ok lets go along with that.
This is because you are not a student of philosophy. In actuality, the paradox already exists in your view because you are applying rationality to something which is inherently irrational.
JK- No im not. Im simply denying GOD ever commanded rituals in the first place considering there to be no significant evidence to support this thesis. And im sure the majority of historians dont accept rituals, especially sunni/shia five daily salat, as coming from GOD. Or do they?
This question you asked is a perfect example of religion's irrationality. Your question talks about "benefit", but what you are ignoring is that the concept of "benefit" in religion is completely irrational. For example the whole idea of an infinite afterlife in a heaven, is that "rational" ?? Of course not. So for anyone to obey God in this life, for the promise of "benefits" and "rewards" in the next life is completely irrational. Because the "benefit" is totally unproven and illogical. But it is something we are required to do. That is the essence of faith.
JK- Whether the afterlife is infinite or not in the absolute sense is not clear from the Quran because of the following verse
11108 And as for those who will be glad (that day) they will be in the Garden, abiding there so long as the heavens and the earth endure save for that which thy Lord willeth a gift unfailing.
Besides this bro Arnold has written an article on the scientific approach to the afterlife and you probaly know about Frank Tipler's "The Omega Point Theory". Heres bro Arnold's article
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596858.0
ALSO ofcourse there is obvious benefit of the aftterlife in that we'd have exponentially more benefits and pleasure than we could ever have here.
Moreover the akhira is NOT A COMMAND whilst wer commanded to do salat. So my qs again is Why would GOD command us to do somehting on earth which has no benefit?God asked Abraham PBUH to sacrifice his son. Now this command, was totally irrational and illogical in every way. There is no way for you to rationally defend such a command. (go ahead and try, it would be a good exercise, if you wish). But God's commands must be obeyed, not because they are rational, but because they are a test of our faith, precisely because they are irrational.
JK- ABSOLUTELY WRONG INTERPRETAION. GOD never asked Abraham to sacrifice the life of his son by putting him down and holding a knife to his neck. There are two rational interpreations of this verse. 1) Abraham SAW A RANDOM DREAM and only the hadith interprets that every prophet's dream is supposedly from GOD. Thus Abraham thought it was from GOD but it actually wasnt and ultimately GOD saved Abraham from comitting a mistake. Here is the article explaining that
http//www.submission.org/Ismail.html
2) Abraham sacrificed his son metaphorically in that he took him along with himself to establish the system of monotheism against a great majority of disbelievers.
728 They commit a gross sin, then say, "We found our parents doing this, and GOD has commanded us to do it." Say, "GOD never advocates sin. Are you saying about GOD what you do not know?"
GOD has commanded elsewhere that killing of innocnts is a gross sin. Thus what sense would to then ask from one of his followers to commit a sin? And remember GOD Himself states it here that He does not advocater sin so the traditional understanding of Abrham physically sacrificing his son contradicts the Quran.God is not good because good is rational. Because then God would be obeying rationality! And God does not "obey" anything, everything obeys God. Do you see?
JK- Good is defined as that which provides benefits for the people which they can experience. If GOD does not communicate with humans on our level we cannot possibly know whether it is really from GOD. That wouldnt make any sense whatsoever. And yes everything obeys GOD's set laws in the universe.
And I made it clear that the temple Diodorus was talking about was not just any regular temple. He clearly says that it was a temple of great significance, revered by the whole Arab race.
JK- Even if so why does it have to be the location known as "mecca" today? Why not one of the other many "invisible" towns?
I have no right to issue such judgments and neither do you. What I do consider wrong is the concept of 3 prayers, or no prayers at all. Because this is stated in the Quran and is therefore a divine injunction. The number of rakats (methodology) is NOT a divine injunction because it is not in the Quran.
JK- OH OK so you at least agree that the no of rakats is not Divine injunction. So then you would have no argument with people who pray 5 times daily but with random no of rakats, rukoos and sujood correct?
Is that what you think? (because that is your misunderstanding)
JK- No we are not making a +ve claim. The ones who claim 3 salat, YES, they are but not people like ayman and myself.
Do you realize that challenging rituals is itself a claim? You are claiming that those rituals dont have to be observed. That is a claim. So you need to provide evidence for it.
JK- So challenging Jesus is GOD incarnate according to you would be a +ve claim too? COMMON. The burden of proof is upon the ones who ake these claims and we are to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to support the claim or falsify it. thats how it goes.
You keep saying Ayman has provided proof, but he hasnt. His argument has been borrowed from anti-Islamic sources which have already been dis credited by scholars in the field.
JK- Im sure ayman will have good replies to you in his coming posts.
So you personally then, can not defend your own argument.
JK- I can using reason, logic and the Quran.
"reasonable assumption" ??? (lol) bro, it is only "reasonable" to you because it fits your view. This is why you can not base arguments on assumptions. No matter how "reasonable" they might seem to you. Because at the end of the day it is >speculation< because you have no proof to back it up.
JK- It is not only my view but the view of many other free thinkers right on this forum. As for proof i suppose you dont consider logical arguments and the use of conextual analyis in the Quran proof do you? Youd rather consider hadith proof of what the Quran actually means by salat than underatdning the Quran contextually staring from the root meanings of the Arabic terms.
The hadith is a historical document, and therefore it is proof itself. You yourself have admitted you dont know of any historian who will deny that the hadith is a historical document.
JK- Actually the hadith are very weak historical documents because there exists no evidence of any hadith literature being even as close to 150 years after the Prophet's death. Thus it is bound to contain alot of fiction about Muhamad's time.
yea... and the number of rakats are not a divine injunction. The 5 prayers are a divine injunction. I am not defending the number of rakats, I am defending the 5 prayers.
JK- Fair enough. Can you point out the time span at which to offer each of these prayers justifying your claims from the Quran?
I hope that you realize that the community here at Free-minds would never be taken seriously in any scholarly community. How many Western Universities do you know that have people teaching the beliefs that people here hold in their histories of Islam? Because the views of people like Ayman have been discredited and thrown out by real scholars.
JK- If they have been why havnt all historians started praying five times a day or promoting these rituals in the name of GOD? Obviously most of them dont belevie that these rituals come from GOD or any other for that matter. GOD Bless!
-
Peace bro "AB",
Peace "JK",
This is false, bro, and there are other passages that attest to this. For example
You have known about those among you who violated the shabbat. We said to them, "Be lowly apes." We set them up as an example for their generation, as well as SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS, and an enlightenment for the righteous. (265, 66)
The example for them is NOT TO VIOLATE THE SABBATH, and this is the same example for the subsequent generations, which include the submitters during the time of Muhammad and us today.
O you who've been given the book, you shall believe in what We reveal herein, confirming what you have, before We efface faces or condemn them, as We condemned those violated the shabbat. God's command is executed. (447)
Coincidentally, the verses BEFORE and AFTER this passage refer to idolatry, implying that breaking the shabbat is equal to committing idol worship. Nowhere in the Qur'aan are we told that this only applies to the Jews and Christians, and nowhere are we told that the shabbat was only instituted for certain communities... Again, for you to base your reasoning on the shabbat ("sabbath" being for those who disputed in it, you have to look at their disputes. And NONE OF THEM disputed concerning it's observance. They only disputed in their violation of it, which is what the Qur'aan points out...
JK- The sabbath breakers were indeed made an example for subsequent generations in the sense that people< who break GOD's command at any given time ae punished. it doesnt mean that that particular command is still active. If your understanding of these verses is significant then why havnt i heard of bros Edip, ayman and others support this view? Have you presented this to other people here and how did they respond?
This is unreasonable. Many of these direct commands only applied literally to the people of that time; in other cases, they were completely allegorical.
JK- Ofcourse it can be argued that the commands only applied to people at the time BUT NOT that people wernt supposed to be stoned to death literally. Clearly the passage defines the details of how to take them out in and stone them there. If you take this as allegorical then the hadith proponents would have no problems in taking all the hadith as allegorical too. How then do we distingish which religious scripture is better?
This is even further emphasized throughout the Tanakh. Another example of this is the atonement offerings in the temple of Yerushalom (Jerusalem). According to the Torah, these offerings can't be offered outside of the temple. So, what happened after the temple was destroyed? Does this mean that God didn't know the temple would be destroyed?
JK- Could you please provide the relevant verses here so i can see what your talking about?
The Qur'aan even points out that some of God's verses/signs are allegorical, not literal. So, what's the difference with the Torah? You can't compare the Torah with the hadith writings, since men wrote the hadiths. God Himself sent down the Torah, just like He did the Qur'aan...
JK- Yes but the Quran in such cases does not provide such details as the above verses ive quoted which lead one to another conclusion that the commands were litgeral. That is the major difference. An example would be when GOD states that adulters should receive 100 lashes. This can be interpreted symbolically because there is no detailed scenario added to it. If the statement was followed by "and take him/her out in the field, take a whip of high quality leather and lash him/her therewith" then wed have to conclude that the command is literal. See the difference.
Like I said, the system includes more than simply "monotheism". Most modern Muslims aren't pure monotheists anyway, since they idolize Muhammad... But regardless, this is unrealistic. Our system is to "discuss things using reason and logic"? And what happens if everyone agrees? Does this mean our system is over? What about the Qur'aanic passages instructing everyone to 'believe in God, believe in the last day, and lead a righteous life'? What role to these play in discussing things using reason and logic? And how will everyone discuss these matters? Online? Over the phone? Or do you expect all submitters in the world to live in one huge community? We uphold the same system as Abraham and the patriarchs. Did they base their system on discussing things using reason and logic?
Peace,
Ahmad
JK- Yes we would discuss with reaon and logic just like wer doing on freeminds as well as gatherings physically at designated places in the future GW. That is the system of monotheism where we refute all kinds of innovations and ultimately more and more people will accept this system as per
1102 And you will see the people enter GOD's system in crowds.
GOD Bless! -
Peace again "c0de",
Not if the belief in God is itself irrational. Can you see God? Can you "test" his existence? Can you scientifically prove that one system of belief is better then another?
JK- YES WE CAN and tend to do exactly that at freeminds, apart from debunking sectraians. Some argue the existence of GOD on their personal experience, yes, but that is not good enough. Others argue on the basis of all humans inheritently tending towards recognizing GOD. This is supported by scientific evidence. Atheists call it "the GOD gene" but they claim it is not their because GOD put it there but because of other factors. However it can certainly be used as a supporting argument for the existence of GOD. Then if you anlyse even pagan religions like Hinduism at the core of their scriptures youll find them referring to ONE GOD ONLY. Thus we can conclude that different people and religions from all over the world did at one point or another accept the existence of one GOD independent of each other. I myself have explained rationally in many of my posts as to why the existence of GOD is inevitable. Then ive read scientific articles on quantum mechanics coming close to what ive mentioned, one quantum physicist,hans Peter D?rr, even referring to GOD as the combined quantum field or "quantum ghost". That again would fit with the Quran's explanation of GOD referred to in
2435 GOD is the LIGHT of the heavens and the earth...
So again you can see how this all seems to add up both logically and in favor of the Quran.
SECONDLY ofcourse we can show that one particular religio is better than another by comparing the amount of rational points/benefits for humanty vs. absurdities in each of them. GOD Bless! -
Peace all,
After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God. Thats the reason why the pagans were called polythiests as they followed the tradition of Abraham(Millat) but to multiple gods while most Jews and Christians are called 'rejectors' because they rejected the tradition altogether. Therefore, the Quran is an amendment to the tradition but a fully detailed Law to complement the tradition to become a fully functional system. Therefore a Muslim is the follower of the monotheistic Abrahamic tradition. The goal of the Quran was to make all polythiests, Jews and Christians Muslims then to make all the Muslims Believers. Thats why the Quran says that God has completed the religion and he wants to perfect the religion. What boggles my mind, why is this tradition suspended in mid-air. What is the reference for this tradition? Or is it something inherited?
Peace,
Rami
-
Real Truth + Jonny + Rami
Salaam All
@ RT
Yes, it means something should be investigated. I don't follow anything just because the masses believe it(which is why im not a sunni)
It has nothing to do with majority rule. 2+2=4, not because everyone agrees it equals 4, but because it equals 4 with or without anyone accepting it. What I stated (religion is irrational) is a logically proven argument that is accepted by all philosophers and most people who are familiar with such debates.
No that's why it's based off faith.
YEa, thats what I said. ???
No you clearly said "God is not good, because GOD is not rational".
Actually, no... I didnt say that. I said "God is not good because good is rational". I was stating the supremacy of God above any human conceptions of "morality".
I was disagreeing with what you considered "divine injuctions"(ex pray 5 times a day)
All 5 times have been listed in the Quran and these verses have been provided. The only difference is that the command to pray on two of those times just says "offer praise". My argument is that the 5 times are still valid because salat=offering praise.
Which you guys still are debating and noone has been proven really right or wrong...Your still stuck on the notion just because the person is a scholar, they must be right.
And your still stuck on the notion that because Ayman's point fits with your view, it must be right. Even though his point is borrowed from a view that has been discredited. And you know why it has been discredited? Because it is based on bad scholarship (not because it was a popularity contest).
Actually, I wasn't talking about a specific hadith, I was talking about in general. Considering you kept mentioning "what scholars think" and what "scholars believe", I was showing depending on what "sect that scholar would be in" would decide what hadith they would support and if they believe it would be historically(so the hadith are "historically correct" doesn't always hold up to your "scholars know best" standards. That's my fault I worded it horribly
And my whole point is that since those hadith are still permissiable as historical evidence, the other side has to present their own evidence if they want to refute it. Which they have not done. Ayman is trying, but remember his argument is nothing new. It is old and discredited.
@ Jonny
Im simply denying GOD ever commanded rituals in the first place considering there to be no significant evidence to support this thesis.
This is a completely invalid and astonishing statement.
And im sure the majority of historians dont accept rituals, especially sunni/shia five daily salat, as coming from GOD. Or do they?
Yes they do. And now, you can go and ask any historian or theological historian yourself on this issue as well. It is a FACT that religion is based in rituals. It is one of the defining characteristics or religion. It is what separates religion from philosophy.
Whether the afterlife is infinite or not in the absolute sense is not clear from the Quran because of the following verse
Read that verse again, and this time notice the part at the end which you refused to bold "a gift unfailing." It is an accepted fact that all the three Abrahamic religions present an infinite afterlife.
Besides this bro Arnold has written an article on the scientific approach to the afterlife and you probaly know about Frank Tipler's "The Omega Point Theory". Heres bro Arnold's article
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9596858.0There are many ways man can try and conceptualize infinite and the afterlife. If you want to do it in scientific terms, you can try (as a hobby). But we have no actual knowledge of it, remember that. That is a fact confirmed by science (as we have no actual proof of multiverse and string theory yet, and these are the theories which deal with higher dimensions and meta-verses). Scientifically, we are at a major paradoxical point right now because we can not reconcile classical physics (Einstein's Relativity + Newton's laws) with modern physics (Quantum Physics). So to talk about meta-verses right now in scientific terms is out of the question. We cant even define and make sense of this current finite world, let alone the infinite afterlife.
Why would GOD command us to do somehting on earth which has no benefit?
The whole point of religion is that we do not think in finite and material terms. Benefit and loss is up to God. So if we pray (which is irrational, and gives us no perceivable benefit) we are told that we will get benefit from this via the irrational (God will grant us benefit of salat).
ABSOLUTELY WRONG INTERPRETAION. GOD never asked Abraham to sacrifice the life of his son by putting him down and holding a knife to his neck. There are two rational interpreations of this verse. 1) Abraham SAW A RANDOM DREAM and only the hadith interprets that every prophet's dream is supposedly from GOD. Thus Abraham thought it was from GOD but it actually wasnt and ultimately GOD saved Abraham from comitting a mistake. Here is the article explaining that
Actually, the site you provided completely fails to show how the dream was not from God because the verse itself makes it clear that it was
"You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
That was an exacting test indeed.I suggest you read the actual verse yourself. Here are 3 different translations, all of them point out that the dream was itself from God
037.105
YUSUFALI "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good.The fact that Abraham PBUH was rewarded for fulfilling the vision means that the dream was from God.
GOD has commanded elsewhere that killing of innocnts is a gross sin. Thus what sense would to then ask from one of his followers to commit a sin? And remember GOD Himself states it here that He does not advocater sin so the traditional understanding of Abrham physically sacrificing his son contradicts the Quran.
This is why the command (in the dream) was irrational.
Good is defined as that which provides benefits for the people which they can experience.
Wrong. That is a materialistic definition of "good" and is rejected by Islam. In Islam (and all Abrahamic religions) "good" is defined by God. Whatever God says is "good" is good. It has nothing to do with calculating benefit or harm, as that is the utilitarian (materialistic) philosophical definition of good.
Even if so why does it have to be the location known as "mecca" today? Why not one of the other many "invisible" towns?
If it was in an "invisible town" then why did Ayman present so many "well documented" locations as alternatives? Besides, it had to be Mecca because a century later Diodorus, Ptolemy came along and mentioned it by name.
OH OK so you at least agree that the no of rakats is not Divine injunction. So then you would have no argument with people who pray 5 times daily but with random no of rakats, rukoos and sujood correct?
Did I ever say I did? I would still advise they follow an accepted form and method though, just to be on the safe side. Thats what I do.
No we are not making a +ve claim. The ones who claim 3 salat, YES, they are but not people like ayman and myself.
And this position is even weaker then the 3 salat position. Because all you have to rely on are semantics ("alternative translations" which can just be criticized as "manipulations". Especially if Ayman's argument is proven wrong (which it was a by scholars long before this debate between me and him).
The burden of proof is upon the ones who ake these claims and we are to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to support the claim or falsify it. thats how it goes.
And proof has been provided.
Im sure ayman will have good replies to you in his coming posts.
You dont realize that it doesnt even matter what he replies. His view is discredited by scholarship. I could leave the debate right now and still win because my view is the accepted view of those historical community (Muslim and non-Muslim).
I can using reason, logic and the Quran.
Then defend your own views without relying on Ayman. The hadith is a valid historical document, and is accepted by historians as such. So how can you deny its validity in an argument about Islamic and middle eastern history?
It is not only my view but the view of many other free thinkers right on this forum.
Now you are relying on the fallacy of the majority (as in this case, you guys in this forum are the majority). It doesnt matter who agrees with you, what matters is that the experts who know a lot more about this subject then the members of this forum, disagree with their conclusions. And these experts are not biased Muslim sectarians, but historians. The quotes I presented were not from Muslims.
Youd rather consider hadith proof of what the Quran actually means by salat than underatdning the Quran contextually staring from the root meanings of the Arabic terms.
Semantics (again). Until you prove your argument from history, you can not claim validity of these translations. And the fact is that the views presented here that try and justify your alternative translations, have been proven invalid by scholarship.
Actually the hadith are very weak historical documents because there exists no evidence of any hadith literature being even as close to 150 years after the Prophet's death. Thus it is bound to contain alot of fiction about Muhamad's time.
Bro, in terms of historical documents the hadiths are EXCEPTIONAL documents of EXTREME validity. Here is a professor who actually converted to Islam after studying how scientific the proccess of hadith collection was. Here is a link to his lectures at MIT, his name is Dr. Jonathan Brown.
http//video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5960619842161782578&ei=rbrQSdmFAoPE-wGZvIH3CQ&q=jonathan+brown+hadithDo you realize how authentic the hadith are when compared to many other historical documents? Historians LOVE hadith because of how scientific the method of its classification and codification was.
Fair enough. Can you point out the time span at which to offer each of these prayers justifying your claims from the Quran?
Once again, I am not arguing about the details. But I follow the hadith method because I believe it to be what God intended. But I will not criticize anyone who chooses his own method. It is between him and his God.
If they have been why havnt all historians started praying five times a day or promoting these rituals in the name of GOD? Obviously most of them dont belevie that these rituals come from GOD or any other for that matter. GOD Bless!
Actually, some do. The link I provided to you of Dr. Jonathan Brown, he is a historian who converted to Islam while studying the proccess of hadith collection after he was astonished how scientific it was. As for those people that dont convert, it has nothing to do with their opinion on the hadith and the rituals as being valid historically speaking. They just have their own beliefs (rational or irrational).
I myself have explained rationally in many of my posts as to why the existence of GOD is inevitable.
If it was so "inevitable" then why is not every scientist a believer in God? The fact is (and you may not be aware of this) is that belief in God ultimately always has to rest on a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are always based in faith. Now I believe that it is (ironically) more rational to believe in those assumptions rather then believe in the alternative (the atheist approach). I know that, and I agree with that. HOWEVER, what you can not do is to say that these set of faithful assumptions are logically proven. Because they always result in a circular argument. At the end of the day, the believer has no choice but to fall back on those assumptions about the universe which can never been proven or tested.
For example, one of my favorite "proofs" of God is the fine tuned argument of the universe. But a philosophical atheists will always have the option of saying that this is no "proof" because the believer is assuming that there is any "fine turning" at all. And there are many atheist physicists and scientists who reject this model and have "faith" (their own assumptions) that an alternative model can explain any "fine tuning". Even though they KNOW that those alternative models can never fully disprove God either.
The fact is that at the end of the day (and this is an accepted fact) God can not be proven, or disproven. This is why in the Quran Allah tells us to wait... He tells us that those who disbelieve will question the believers, and the believers should (instead of arguing with them) tell them "wait, for we too are waiting..."
@ Rami
After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God.
If you take faith out of the equation, and only rely on "reason" then you will no doubt come to similar conclusions about Judiasm and Christianity as well.
PeAcE
-
Peace Code,
I would like to ask whether you also support the classical Islamic calendar and Ramadan?
Yes I do. But I dont actually follow the Islamic calender in daily life.
And why aren't you a Sunni? What do you have against orthodox Sunni Islam?
Sunnis are a sect, whether they believe it or not. Today, they are also an institution (with their own aqeedahs etc.) And I do NOT recognize religious institutions. However, I do recognize authority of the original imams themselves (e.g. Imam Hanafi, Shafi, Maliki, Ahmed).
PeAcE
-
Peace "JK",
JK- The sabbath breakers were indeed made an example for subsequent generations in the sense that people< who break GOD's command at any given time ae punished. it doesnt mean that that particular command is still active. If your understanding of these verses is significant then why havnt i heard of bros Edip, ayman and others support this view? Have you presented this to other people here and how did they respond?
I haven't presented this view to Edip and Ayman, so I don't know how they feel about this concept... Regardless, though, it would be pointless for the scriptures to relate "violating the sabbath" to breaking any of G-d's commands. Observing the shabbat was one of the MAJOR mitzvot in Jewish law, I believe number FOUR of the ten commandments, coming even before prohibitions against murder and adultery! What can this be equated with in Islaamic law? Obviously, the passage was referring specifically to those who violated the shabbat, not those who "sinned"...
JK- Ofcourse it can be argued that the commands only applied to people at the time BUT NOT that people wernt supposed to be stoned to death literally. Clearly the passage defines the details of how to take them out in and stone them there. If you take this as allegorical then the hadith proponents would have no problems in taking all the hadith as allegorical too. How then do we distingish which religious scripture is better?
Better? We can't determine which of G-d's revelations is "better" than the other, since He sent down both of them... I think, based on the Torah, stoning was an authorized punishment. However, it may not have specifically been a religious requirement. For example, the Hebrew scriptures instruct the Levites to provide atonement offerings for those who sinned. Examples are provided of people like David, who, according to the scriptures, was worthy of being stoned because of his indiscretions. Yet, he was repentant, and he was forgiven by G-d. Samson the Judge was worthy of being stoned because he broke his Naziritical covenant with G-d, which is deserving of death according to the Hebrew scriptures. Yet, he repented, and he was forgiven. The same went for the children of Israel who committed idolatry and later repented. This shows that many of the punishments mentioned in the Torah were both literal and allegorical. In most cases, today, these are regarded as allegorical, not literal. That's why more MUSLIMS stone/kill apostates than JEWS, and capital punishment is not even mentioned in the Qur'aan...
JK- Could you please provide the relevant verses here so i can see what your talking about?
See the above examples.
JK- Yes but the Quran in such cases does not provide such details as the above verses ive quoted which lead one to another conclusion that the commands were litgeral. That is the major difference. An example would be when GOD states that adulters should receive 100 lashes. This can be interpreted symbolically because there is no detailed scenario added to it. If the statement was followed by "and take him/her out in the field, take a whip of high quality leather and lash him/her therewith" then wed have to conclude that the command is literal. See the difference.
So, the passage in 242-4 can be considered as simply allegorical? Why, then, does it say not to be moved to pity regarding the adulterer and adulteress? From reading the entire passage, it's clear that the punishment is most likely BOTH literal and allegorical, just like the Torah passages on stoning. It depends on the people and the time period...
JK- Yes we would discuss with reaon and logic just like wer doing on freeminds as well as gatherings physically at designated places in the future GW. That is the system of monotheism where we refute all kinds of innovations and ultimately more and more people will accept this system as per
1102 And you will see the people enter GOD's system in crowds.So, what happens when everyone turns to monotheism? If everyone agrees, will this be the end of the system? The system is about worshipping G-d ALONE, not about debating. Refuting polytheistic doctrines only apply while there is polytheism. So, what happens if you live in a monotheistic society?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace C0de, everyone,
Before I begin answering your objections I will like to add to your troubles I noticed that your argument is mostly based on the single point that Diodorus does not mention Mecca by name. Well, I will simply give you an account of Mecca being mentioned by name.
Mecca is never mentioned by name and you know it. Since I doubt that you went to Arabia and dug out some unheard of inscription or manuscript then, without even reading the rest of your post, I can safely conclude that you are either lying or grossly misinformed.
I am sure you are already aware that the name "Kaaba" comes from the word "muka'ab" meaning "cube".
This is false. Semitic words all come from three-lettered roots. Therefore, "K?AB" is the three-letter root that all the forms are derived from. In Arabic, the feminine and the masculine share the same meaning (Sometimes the feminine can add intensification or collective classification). So it is the other way around "MuK?AB? (a shape with bases on all sides) is derived from "K?AB"/"K?ABH" (base) and not the other way around as you falsely stated.
And I am sure you are also aware that historians have uncovered a reference to Mecca as being mentioned by Ptolemy as "Macoraba" in the 2nd century AD (so only a century after Diodorus, but still much earlier then the arrival of the Prophet).
So Mecca is in fact not mentioned by name as you claimed above but Macoraba is mentioned by name. It is ironic that you quote Ptolemy's reference to Macroba when in fact this further discredits the historicity of Mecca. Either you or the source that you blindly copied from left out the most crucial information. Ptolemy listed the towns in Arabia going from north to south. After Iathrippa (Yathrib), going from north to south Ptolemy lists 5 more towns and then Macoraba
"Iathrippa
**
Macoraba"The reason why those defending their emotional attachment to Mecca don't tell us about those "5 more names" is that it exposes their lies. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Iathrippa, but the sixth city to the south of it. The first of those names is the city of Carna in Southern Arabia. So while Macoraba is the sixth city to the south, the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Iathrippa. Thus, Ptolemy places Macoraba south of Carna. Present day Mecca on the other hand is North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was in fact a town somewhere in Southern Arabia to the south of present day Mecca. A likely candidate is a city called Mochorba in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny).
All we have seen from you are fallacious arguments and half truths, hanging on to the straw of a non-mention by Diodorus, hiding the information from Ptolemy that you don't like, and completely ignoring the clear facts from the great reading. Why do you keep on hanging to such false straws and defending them so obstinately? It is because you know that you have nothing real to stand on. So go ahead and keep hanging on to this straw of Macoraba, it only exposes that you have nothing.
Your entire argument though (as pointed out by another member, earlier in this thread) is based on objections raised by Patricia Cone and Michael Cook. Both of these anti-Islamic Orientalists have floated the idea that this reference by Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca at all. And this is what you will invariably build your case on. But before you do, I will point out to you that Patricia Cone's views have been summarily dismissed by the scholarly community. Here are some quotes referring to their arguments
R. B. Sergeant states that "? is not only bitterly anti-Islamic in tone, but anti-Arabian. Its superficial fancies are so ridiculous that at first one wonders if it is just a ?leg pull?, pure ?spoof?." Sergeant, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1981, p. 210
" been almost universally rejected" David Waines, Introduction to Islam, Cambridge, Eng. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Van Ess has dismissed it stating that "a refutation is perhaps unnecessary since the authors make no effort to prove it in detail...Where they are only giving a new interpretation of well-known facts, this is not decisive. But where the accepted facts are consciously put upside down, their approach is disastrous." van Ess, "The Making Of Islam", Times Literary Supplement, Sep 8 1978, p. 998
And in case you are wondering, it took very little effort to uncover this dirt on Cone and Cook... apparently, they are somewhat of a joke in scholarly circles studying in this field. Their anti-Islamic agenda is so obvious that it would be very amusing if you actually try to defend their thesis or by linking your own views with theirs.Neither Sergeant, Waines or Van Ess above dismiss the view that Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca. The fact that Ptolemy was not referring to Mecca is indisputable as far as all serious researchers are concerned. You seem to ignore what Crone and Cook?s book Hagarism is about. I doubt that you even read it. Not everything in this book is dismissed and not everything is accepted. Most researchers have dismissed their idea that the great reading is an 8th century CE invention. They didn?t dismiss it because they are out to ?uncover dirt? on people LOL. They dismissed it because there are many early manuscripts and references to the great reading, even by Christian sources. The error that Crone and Cook made was that they tied the historicity of Mecca to the historicity of the great reading. They failed to realize that those are two completely different issues and there is no real evidence that ties the great reading to Mecca. Ironically, the best part of Crone and Cook?s work is also their least controversial and hence most overlooked and least mentioned. It is their excellent discussion on the cultural forces affecting the early Islamic empire. This is the only part that I rely on and reference.
I first got the idea that Mecca didn?t exist not from Crone and Cook or anyone else for that matter. I discovered this based on the great reading and the obvious fact that ?mecca? is used as a common noun in 4824. Everything else is just confirmation of what the great reading is saying.
Now, moving on to your previous post
Tabuk and Dummat-al-Jandal are not "between" the two points listed by Diodorus, by any stretch of the imagination. Sabeaen territory is not "generally defined" it is located all the way down by Yemen.
No, at best it is in South-Central Arabia. But stretching the directions will not help in this case anyway because this location was actually part of Sabeaen territory, so (again) obviously not in "between" Sabeaen and Nabeanites, if it is part of one of them is it?The Sabaean territory stretched north only as far as Najran.
Do you realize that you have just cemented my case and destroyed your own? By arguing that the location of the temple mentioned by Diodorus was (according to you) not located inside a "well documented city" you have carelessly abandoned Tayma as a possible site (because the temple in Tayma was inside the city). And this was your most promising candidate because of its central location! Much more so then Tabuk which, as stated above, is not even close to being anywhere "in between". Don't feel too bad though, because Tayma's hope was already lost anyway, as it was so "well documented" and still, somehow not mentioned by name...
Thanks again.As I said, Diodorus was talking about a temple and not the city where the temple is inside or outside. Diodorus didn?t mention many things and he was just indirectly reporting from an unknown informer. We can?t read the mind of Diodorus let alone his unknown informer. Also, since the temple is only mentioned by Diodorus in the 1st century BC and never before and never after him then, as common with all temples which go up and down in importance, this is clearly a temple that was important only at the time of Diodorus. So there are two possibilities
- He was talking about a temple in one of the many possible towns that are known to have had a revered pagan temple and didn?t mention the town where it is located because his informer didn?t tell him or in the context, the town wasn?t the primary focus.
- He was talking about a temple not inside but outside a town and this temple is unheard of before or after Diodorus because it existed and was only important during his time.
Mecca is not even a possibility because according to sectarian legends it was one of the most important towns in Arabia and had the most important temple continuously since the time of Abraham. So unless you are acknowledging that sectarians have grossly exaggerated and lied about Mecca then Mecca is not even a possibility.
In fact, Mecca is completely absent from the historic record even in places where according to sectarian legends we should absolutely expect to find it. For example, sectarian legends tell us that Abraha went on his expedition in Arabia specifically to conquer Mecca. Yet it is completely absent from any historic records, including the very inscription specifically commemorating the expedition of Abaraha
http//www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm
Dedan (Al-Ula) is only 40 miles South-West of Tayma... (and spare me the dramatics, thank you).
No, it is 65 miles away from Tayma but only 15 miles south of Hegra. So it is close to Hegra, not Tayma.
Circumstantial speculation...
It is not speculation. Here are the indisputable facts
- In all of history, pagan temples have risen and fallen in importance over time.
- This temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus.
So a logical unbiased conclusion is that it is most likely to be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time.
Oh don't worry about that bro... a direct reference to Mecca has already been provided. The Diodorus account just cements the case, as none of the alternatives you provided fit the bill.
So now it is ?direct?! Just because you keep repeating and exaggerating a lie, it won?t make it true. You can only fool yourself and pagans who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones.
I am well aware of the Weberian thesis you are presenting and I recognize its accuracy. The Muslims are misguided, but this doesnt help you make a case for this particular point.
What is special about ?this particular point?? Why do you think that this particular stone cube and black stones and mindless pagan rituals are special and that the Arabs were misguided except when it came to those ?special? stones and associated rituals?
Before we begin, examine this verse "Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day..." 9.019
Does this sound like a metaphorical place to you? Would you be able to "maintain" a metaphor? Or provide "drinks" to pilgrims circling a metaphor?First of all there are no ?pilgrims circling? in 919. Also, if I say that I am providing bottled water and managing my company, does this mean that I am managing a stone cube and the walls and ceiling of a building? In regular speech, when you say that so and so is managing any entity such as ?the government? or ?the court? then does this mean that he is primarily concerned with the wall and ceiling of the government or the court? Is the building what makes them ?the government? and ?the court? or is it their function and purpose?
Similarly, when someone does ?sujud?, is it primarily about physically putting the forehead on the floor or about obeying the god? Who is more likely to go to heaven, someone who disobeys the god but puts his forehead on the floor or someone who obeys the god but doesn?t put his forehead on the floor? Is the physical act more important or obedience more important? Clearly, the real ?sujud? that is done by all creatures (even those without foreheads) is first and foremost about obedience of the god. So it follows that ?masjid? is not primarily about the physical building but is an institution of obedience, in other words, an institution of authority. This is truth that everyone knows and thus, when people say for example that the ?masjid issued a fatwa?, they are not talking about the walls and the ceiling issuing a ?fatwa? but about an institution of authority. If we average humans use deep meaningful meanings in our regular speech, why do you assume that the god is only concerned with the superficial building and doesn?t care about deep concepts? Any rational person can quickly see that ?al-masjid al-haram? is about the ?inviolable institution of authority? and not about four walls and a ceiling.
Excuse me, but when did I refuse to answer anything by you (or anyone)? Let me remind you Mr. Truthseeker, you left the discussion numerous times, abandoning your own arguments in this very thread. You still have issues pending in the previous pages of this thread. I suggest that you scroll through the pages and see all of your objections have been answered (and refuted) and start with defending those first.
"Allah has made the Kaaba, the sacred house... " 5.097
This puts an end to your distinctions.No the god clearly said that he has made the inviolable house as the ?kaaba?, not the ?inviolable masjid? as the ?kaaba?. So there is a distinction.
No, the "Qibla" (direction) is towards the Kabbah, as it is itself the actual "Sacred House" set up by Abraham PBUH.
No, you are again demonstrating your inability to properly read the great reading as your vision is clouded by your preconceptions. The ?qibla?/target is towards ?al-masjid al-haram? (2142-150). There is no passage in the great reading that says that the ?qibla? is the ?kaaba? or ?al-bayt al-haram?.
Has any Muslim ever actually prayed to the black stone? No. So it is not idolatry. And circling the Kabah is a ritual started since the time of Abraham PBUH. So I could very easily claim that the pagans were imitating an ancient practice commanded by God. Also, accusing your fellow Muslims of pagan idolatry is inadvisable. I warned you about making such careless comments before.
This is the same exact thing Christians and Buddhists and all sorts of people who idolize special things say. Christians also say that they don?t pray to the cross and Buddhists also say that they don?t pray to a statue of Buddha. They all say that it helps them get closer to god and acts as a focal point of unity.
Spinning seven times around an idol is a pagan ritual for celebrating the annual rebirth of fertility idols. To this day, it is an Arab custom to go around the house seven times for the birth celebration of Subu3, which takes place seven days after the birth of a newborn. It is not coincidental that the sectarian so-called Hajj similarly takes place on the 8th of Dhu Al-Hjjah, seven days after the beginning of the month.
Allat was a fertility goddess and the stone cuboid whose height is slightly longer than the other dimensions was used by the Arabs to represent her (It is actually not a cube). We find similar stone cuboids in other pagan temples in Arabia and sometimes they were enhanced with eyes, a nose and a mouth
http//nabataea.net/eyeidolsml.jpg
Notice also that the above stone cuboid has a pedestal around the base like the sectarian cuboid in Mecca. Like most fertility goddesses and traditionally females in general in Arabia, Allat?s idol in Mecca is veiled with a black dress.
It is also common pagan symbolism to have footprints imprinted next to the idol. Those footprints were traditionally encased in a vase-shaped enclosure and filled with flowers because the ancients believed that flowers sprang in the steps of the fertility goddess (notice the encasement and the flowery motif around the footprints in Mecca)
http//img120.imageshack.us/img120/8995/92maqamibrahim1sj5.jpg
Like the pagan shrine in Mecca, it was also common to have ?eternal springs? next to the shrines of fertility goddesses whose water is believed by pagans to have magical powers such as curing all ills.
The focal point of Allat?s idol is the Black Stone set in a vagina-shaped enclosure facing the winter sunrise. Female fertility idols were venerated all over the ancient world and most had black stones associated with them. Fertility idols have close association with the cycle of the sun. The winter sunrise marks the ?birth? of the sun. The Black Stone in the idol?s dilated vagina facing the winter sunrise represents the crown of the head of the newborn pagan idol as Allat is about to give birth.
In Arab tradition, the kissing of the head is a way to ask for forgiveness. Therefore, the pagans who kiss the crown of the head of the newborn idol as it is coming out of Allat?s vagina have their sins forgiven and they return sinless like newborns. This is also why the pagans wear newborn-style wraps. As part of the newborn idol birth celebrations, the pagans also run between two hills to symbolize looking for water to serve to the newborn idol.
Like the pagan shrine in Mecca, pagan shrines dedicated to fertility goddesses have a semi-circular wall on their north side. This semi-circular wall represented the world of the dead and the belly of the goddess where death is transformed into life. Only the pagan priests are allowed to enter this area and the pagan pilgrims circling the shrine are not allowed to go in there. Similarly, in Mecca the pilgrims are not allowed to circle through the semi-circular wall and according to sectarian ?scholars? their pilgrimage is nullified if they do.
Also, as is common with all pagan cults who revere female goddesses, the male force, symbolized by the erect obelisk is vilified. Therefore, while the pagans in Mecca venerate the female symbols, they stone the male symbol.
So what is going on here?
As we know, all previous nations reverted to their misguided ways shortly after the death of their prophets. As you may be aware, Christians appropriated pagan symbols and festivals into Christianity and gave them Christian names. So, for example, a pagan festival was made into a Christian festival by renaming it to Christmas. The Arabs did the same exact thing by renaming their pagan shrines and rituals to match concepts in the great reading;
- The Jinn-block cuboid shrine of Allat became Kaaba.
- Allat?s footprint became Abarham?s footprint.
- The running between two hills to search for water for the newborn idol became running to search for water for Ismail.
- The semi-circular belly of the idol and underworld became ?7ijr Ismail? where Ismail was raised and Ibrahim, Hagar, and Ismail were buried.
- The black stone idol head that the pagans kissed to have their sins forgiven, they made the prophet kiss it in Hadith stories.
- The stoning of the male symbol became the stoning of the devil.
- Pagan rituals associated with pagan symbols and fertility idol birth celebrations were renamed to Hajj.
Etc. Etc. ...
Wrong. The hajj is not for the "entire mankind". It is for those who want to worship God alone, as that was the reason for its creation
Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma'il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). 2.125
And when taken together this with this verse "O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque..." 9.028
It becomes clear that the limitation was placed on the pagans specifically (those who pray to others besides Allah). Everyone who wants to worship Allah is still allowed to visit the Kabbah by God. The additional restrictions and actions of the wahhabi authorities can not be used as a case to support your argument because that is an argument against the wahhabis themselves.928 talks about ?al-masjid al-haram? while the god told Abraham to invite ALL people to ?hajj? to ?al-bayt al-haram?. There is no exclusion from ALL people. You exchange ?al-masjid al-haram? for ?al-masjid al-haram? haphazardly. The god on the other hand doesn?t use words haphazardly.
See above brother. The house was clearly set up for the worship of God alone. Why would God tell Abraham PBUH to set up a house for the worship of idols? Or those who would worship idols?
Abraham has nothing to do with the pagan orgy going on in Mecca. The god didn?t tell sectarians to set up a house for the worship of idols no more than he told Christians to setup Jesus as an idol. This is your own doing.
C0de, take a good look at the pagan idol that you want us to revere
http//img113.imageshack.us/img113/7458/7theblackstone02vu3.jpg
I hope that I am wrong about you and that (like most of us at one point or another) you are simply misinformed and not deliberately lying. I also hope that you still have some of your god-given instinct left in you and that your heart would fear the god and would be repulsed by such idols and unequivocally denounce revering the stone pagan symbols and associated rituals in Mecca.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Rami,
After failing to refute the fact that the target audience of the Quran knew things regarding ritual practices, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that Islam is the name of the pagan tradition practiced in Arabia when done to the one God. Thats the reason why the pagans were called polythiests as they followed the tradition of Abraham(Millat) but to multiple gods while most Jews and Christians are called 'rejectors' because they rejected the tradition altogether. Therefore, the Quran is an amendment to the tradition but a fully detailed Law to complement the tradition to become a fully functional system. Therefore a Muslim is the follower of the monotheistic Abrahamic tradition. The goal of the Quran was to make all polythiests, Jews and Christians Muslims then to make all the Muslims Believers. Thats why the Quran says that God has completed the religion and he wants to perfect the religion. What boggles my mind, why is this tradition suspended in mid-air. What is the reference for this tradition? Or is it something inherited?
You are looking too hard when the simple answer is right in front of you. One has to be "given" something in order to reject it. Those who were never given a message have nothing to reject but they can still be idolaters. Being a monotheist doesn't require a message. Once they were given a message then they have only two choices, they can either become believers or rejecters.
Tradition is the way of the forefathers and following the forefathers blindly is constantly condemned in the great reading. The god didn't give us a religion. All religions are manmade. Even monotheism is manmade. Therefore it is described as the religion/"millat" of Abraham NOT of the god. The universe is naturally monotheistic and doesn't need any religion to establish monotheism. Monotheism is only relevant to humans as a result of their polytheism.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "AB",
Peace "JK",
I haven't presented this view to Edip and Ayman, so I don't know how they feel about this concept... Regardless, though, it would be pointless for the scriptures to relate "violating the sabbath" to breaking any of G-d's commands. Observing the shabbat was one of the MAJOR mitzvot in Jewish law, I believe number FOUR of the ten commandments, coming even before prohibitions against murder and adultery! What can this be equated with in Islaamic law? Obviously, the passage was referring specifically to those who violated the shabbat, not those who "sinned"...
JK- That is all very possible and it WAS once ordained by GOD just as he made certain prohibitions only for a specific people.
Better? We can't determine which of G-d's revelations is "better" than the other, since He sent down both of them... I think, based on the Torah, stoning was an authorized punishment.
JK- But we sure can determine which scripture is from GOD and which isnt using reeason and logic. This is how we camer to know the Quran is GOD's Word havnt we? The book which is called as "torah" toda by a group of people, even though they might be the majority, is not the true Torah and hence not the word of GOD, all this again being determined by using reason and logic. GOD authorizing stoning as a punishment for bloasphemy can NEVER make sense, much less back in the times when people had no spohisticted lie detectors like the fMRI brain scan.
However, it may not have specifically been a religious requirement. For example, the Hebrew scriptures instruct the Levites to provide atonement offerings for those who sinned. Examples are provided of people like David, who, according to the scriptures, was worthy of being stoned because of his indiscretions. Yet, he was repentant, and he was forgiven by G-d. Samson the Judge was worthy of being stoned because he broke his Naziritical covenant with G-d, which is deserving of death according to the Hebrew scriptures. Yet, he repented, and he was forgiven. The same went for the children of Israel who committed idolatry and later repented. This shows that many of the punishments mentioned in the Torah were both literal and allegorical. In most cases, today, these are regarded as allegorical, not literal. That's why more MUSLIMS stone/kill apostates than JEWS, and capital punishment is not even mentioned in the Qur'aan...
JK- I dont know what exactly did David and the others do to deserv stonign but if it was blasphemy or adultery then for sure we can determine logically that stoning cannot be fit. If they murdered someone or commanded someone to be killed unjustly then one could say well ok as a last resort if the killers turned out to be extremely dangerous. And yes the Quran doesnt mention any capital punishment for blasphemy ofcourse because it never makes any sense. Blasphemy cant even be quantified well enough with fMRI.
See the above examples.
So, the passage in 242-4 can be considered as simply allegorical? Why, then, does it say not to be moved to pity regarding the adulterer and adulteress? From reading the entire passage, it's clear that the punishment is most likely BOTH literal and allegorical, just like the Torah passages on stoning. It depends on the people and the time period...
JK- The lashes can be considered allegorical or rather not physical meaning that they dont have to be physical lashes with a whip but one could just Boo at the adulterers in public a 100 times. Thats what i meant.
So, what happens when everyone turns to monotheism? If everyone agrees, will this be the end of the system? The system is about worshipping G-d ALONE, not about debating. Refuting polytheistic doctrines only apply while there is polytheism. So, what happens if you live in a monotheistic society?
Peace,
Ahmad
JK- There will probably never be a times when all humans agree on every aspect even on that pf the Quran. The differences will become ever minor yes but a 100% agreement is not possible. This is why life is a continuous challenge. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Ahmad,
I haven't presented this view to Edip and Ayman, so I don't know how they feel about this concept... Regardless, though, it would be pointless for the scriptures to relate "violating the sabbath" to breaking any of G-d's commands.
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.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace "c0de",
This is a completely invalid and astonishing statement.
JK- WHY?? This is only astonishing to you because you were probably born into a religious family and indoctrinated with rituals. Humans are not born with rituals.
Yes they do. And now, you can go and ask any historian or theological historian yourself on this issue as well. It is a FACT that religion is based in rituals. It is one of the defining characteristics or religion. It is what separates religion from philosophy.
JK- You have a point here and thats why i dont like to call Islam a religion. "deen" is not "religion" in the Quran's context but rather "judgement/law/obedience/submission".
Read that verse again, and this time notice the part at the end which you refused to bold "a gift unfailing." It is an accepted fact that all the three Abrahamic religions present an infinite afterlife.
JK- Well then why this phrase "as long as the heavens and the earth endure"? "A gift unfailing" can very well mean that we would get as was promised to us without any excuses.
There are many ways man can try and conceptualize infinite and the afterlife. If you want to do it in scientific terms, you can try (as a hobby). But we have no actual knowledge of it, remember that. That is a fact confirmed by science (as we have no actual proof of multiverse and string theory yet, and these are the theories which deal with higher dimensions and meta-verses). Scientifically, we are at a major paradoxical point right now because we can not reconcile classical physics (Einstein's Relativity + Newton's laws) with modern physics (Quantum Physics). So to talk about meta-verses right now in scientific terms is out of the question. We cant even define and make sense of this current finite world, let alone the infinite afterlife.
JK- 1) Yet it makes more sense than rituals and 2) Afterlife is a concept which has obvious benefits whilst rituals dont AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. In other words it would be entirely sensible for GOD to provide us with an afterlife BUT it would not for Him to provide us with rituals.
The whole point of religion is that we do not think in finite and material terms. Benefit and loss is up to God. So if we pray (which is irrational, and gives us no perceivable benefit) we are told that we will get benefit from this via the irrational (God will grant us benefit of salat).
JK- If we have get a physical command to do something here on earth it should have a perceivable benefit otherwise how can we know that the command itself was Divine? Couldve been some person making it up.
Actually, the site you provided completely fails to show how the dream was not from God because the verse itself makes it clear that it was
"You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
That was an exacting test indeed.I suggest you read the actual verse yourself. Here are 3 different translations, all of them point out that the dream was itself from God
037.105
YUSUFALI "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
PICKTHAL Thou hast already fulfilled the vision. Lo! thus do We reward the good.
SHAKIR You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good.The fact that Abraham PBUH was rewarded for fulfilling the vision means that the dream was from God.
This is why the command (in the dream) was irrational.
JK- This has been discussed. Here(see pt 4.)
http//www.submission.org/ismail-q.html
ALSO i told you another explanation would be that Abraham sacrificed his son by taking him along with him on a hard mission to establish monotheism, not putting a knife to his throat which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I were to accept that notion then i might as well except all of the nonsense in the OT.Wrong. That is a materialistic definition of "good" and is rejected by Islam. In Islam (and all Abrahamic religions) "good" is defined by God. Whatever God says is "good" is good. It has nothing to do with calculating benefit or harm, as that is the utilitarian (materialistic) philosophical definition of good.
JK- This is extremely problematic because GOD does not talk with anyone directly and even if He did how would other people know that He did? Hence it is always lastly upto people to interpret what is coming from GOD. This is most efficiently done by using reason and logic NOT by mere trust in a religious majority as religion does. So say if a scripture says GOD said x,y,z is good HOW would we know that scripture is from GOD in the st place?
If it was in an "invisible town" then why did Ayman present so many "well documented" locations as alternatives? Besides, it had to be Mecca because a century later Diodorus, Ptolemy came along and mentioned it by name.
JK- Didnt ayman say that there were many invisible towns as well BESIDES the more famous ones hed already pted out?
Did I ever say I did? I would still advise they follow an accepted form and method though, just to be on the safe side. Thats what I do.
JK- I thought you implied that. However the 2nd part is still problematic. What is the accepted method the shias or the sunnis or the wahaabis, all have different methods in thed details, the wahabis claiming for example that the prophet alwys did rafae yadain(rasing of both hands) before entering every rukoo and sajda. Then your phrase "just in case to be safe" says it all doent it? It shows that GOD, if He commanded this rituals, didnt, GOD forbid, accurately protect them and you wanna sidestep the issue by just going along with what the majority of religious people accept.
them?And this position is even weaker then the 3 salat position. Because all you have to rely on are semantics ("alternative translations" which can just be criticized as "manipulations". Especially if Ayman's argument is proven wrong (which it was a by scholars long before this debate between me and him).
JK- Infact the Quran is primarily about semantics i.e. context and grammar unless one can provide solid historical evidence to the contrary. So if Ayman fails and at the same time your historical evidence is as solid as say the big bang theory then youd have a point. I doubt however that would be the case.
And proof has been provided.
JK- And it has been countered by ayman.
You dont realize that it doesnt even matter what he replies. His view is discredited by scholarship. I could leave the debate right now and still win because my view is the accepted view of those historical community (Muslim and non-Muslim).
JK- For that youll have to bring some well known non sunni/shia paid historians here. Last but not least each one of us decides for hkm/herself which arguments are stronger.
Then defend your own views without relying on Ayman. The hadith is a valid historical document, and is accepted by historians as such. So how can you deny its validity in an argument about Islamic and middle eastern history?
JK- The hadith is a vlid historical dicument for some views and not for others just like any other document. Document x written by the Christans could be accurate depicting those things which Chritsinas dont have a bias against, Document y written by Communists would be accuarte depicting those things which they have no bias against whilst document z written by sunnis/shias would be somewhat accurate depicting those things which they dont have a bias against in their repecive ideologies.
Now you are relying on the fallacy of the majority (as in this case, you guys in this forum are the majority). It doesnt matter who agrees with you, what matters is that the experts who know a lot more about this subject then the members of this forum, disagree with their conclusions. And these experts are not biased Muslim sectarians, but historians. The quotes I presented were not from Muslims.
JK- I doubt once they comapre Aymans arguments with yours theyd still favor more in your direction. But your most welcome bring them here.
Semantics (again). Until you prove your argument from history, you can not claim validity of these translations. And the fact is that the views presented here that try and justify your alternative translations, have been proven invalid by scholarship.
JK- Which scholarship? Sunni/shia scholarship? Are you honestly saying that the majority of historians agree that kaaba and mecca in the Quran refers to the location today in Saudia?
Bro, in terms of historical documents the hadiths are EXCEPTIONAL documents of EXTREME validity. Here is a professor who actually converted to Islam after studying how scientific the proccess of hadith collection was. Here is a link to his lectures at MIT, his name is Dr. Jonathan Brown.
http//video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=5960619842161782578&ei=rbrQSdmFAoPE-wGZvIH3CQ&q=jonathan+brown+hadithJK- See now i just knew it. Pointing out some random historian who converted to "islam". Sunnis pay alot to get converts and promise that guy a high position. Who wouldnt be tempted? Nobody in his/her right mind would convert to "islam" after one has read through the hadith. They depict the Prophet as GOD forbid a theif, murderer, torturer, pedophile, hypocrite, liar and what not. Remember the hadith which is suppodely sahih where Porphet ordered the gauging out of eyes for ppl and others where he married aisha at 6 and consumated it at 9? those r from bukhari, the most sahih. How on earth can tht be authentic? And the irony is that "muslims" fool themslves into belieng that the sira derived fom hadith claims the opposite.
Do you realize how authentic the hadith are when compared to many other historical documents? Historians LOVE hadith because of how scientific the method of its classification and codification was.
JK- This is just plain nonsense and only a few "scholars" paid by sunnis could possibly state such.
Once again, I am not arguing about the details. But I follow the hadith method because I believe it to be what God intended. But I will not criticize anyone who chooses his own method. It is between him and his God.
JK- So according to you GOD intennded the hadoth method? So GOD allowed some of the details to be in inferior protected sources as the Quran? What sense does that make?
Actually, some do. The link I provided to you of Dr. Jonathan Brown, he is a historian who converted to Islam while studying the proccess of hadith collection after he was astonished how scientific it was. As for those people that dont convert, it has nothing to do with their opinion on the hadith and the rituals as being valid historically speaking. They just have their own beliefs (rational or irrational).
JK- No i beleive it has everything to do. i used to be a a strict pratcing sunni following many hadith from Bukhari until i realized how absurd they really are. Everything that was claimed about the Prophet Muhammad you could find the opposite of his character in those same "sahih" hadith.
If it was so "inevitable" then why is not every scientist a believer in God? The fact is (and you may not be aware of this) is that belief in God ultimately always has to rest on a set of assumptions, and those assumptions are always based in faith. Now I believe that it is (ironically) more rational to believe in those assumptions rather then believe in the alternative (the atheist approach). I know that, and I agree with that. HOWEVER, what you can not do is to say that these set of faithful assumptions are logically proven. Because they always result in a circular argument. At the end of the day, the believer has no choice but to fall back on those assumptions about the universe which can never been proven or tested.
JK- The only assumption for me to accept the existence of GOD as the never ending chain of cause and effect. If you deny that assumtpion then you can also deny your own existence not to mention well established theories like evolution, big bang etc.
For example, one of my favorite "proofs" of God is the fine tuned argument of the universe. But a philosophical atheists will always have the option of saying that this is no "proof" because the believer is assuming that there is any "fine turning" at all. And there are many atheist physicists and scientists who reject this model and have "faith" (their own assumptions) that an alternative model can explain any "fine tuning". Even though they KNOW that those alternative models can never fully disprove God either.
JK- The fine tune is good but it's not good enough since if theres an infinite no of universes evolving then an infinite subset would inevitably be fit for living creatures. BUT what atheists are fogetting that an Intelligence would ALREADY have "evolved" in the quantum realm BEFORE ANY of the universes even came into existence, mroe clesrly before the first differentiation of a quantum wave/particle to an elementary particle. THAT is the main point. 2ndly we can prove GOD commnciates to us in that almost allr eligions, even the pagsnitc ones, talk at the core of there being only one GOD despite all the polytheism that has crept in. Also you again comitted the fallacy of asking atheits to disprove a -ve i.e. "prove that GOD does not exist". We have to prove that He does exist and i say i just did.
The fact is that at the end of the day (and this is an accepted fact) God can not be proven, or disproven. This is why in the Quran Allah tells us to wait... He tells us that those who disbelieve will question the believers, and the believers should (instead of arguing with them) tell them "wait, for we too are waiting..."
JK- Infact the existence of GOD is proven by pure logic which makes it even more solid then any of the well established theories in science. As you know we dont tehnically prove anything in science but only in mathematics and logic. GOD Bless!
-
Ayman + Jonny
Salaam
@ Ayman
Your points are dealt with in order of chronology.
The god didn't give us a religion. All religions are manmade. Even monotheism is manmade.
So this is the paradigm you are working from. I suspected as much. Thank you for making it clear.
All we have seen from you are fallacious arguments and half truths,
Funny, I can apply this same accusation to you. It seems your not putting forward Tabuk as an alternative anymore... I guess that is an improvement.
The Sabaean territory stretched north only as far as Najran.
I know, that is what I said. Near Yemen. (so no more "tabuk" and "Dummat-al-Jandal" as they are "in between" Medinah and Damascus.)
In fact, Mecca is completely absent from the historic record even in places where according to sectarian legends we should absolutely expect to find it. For example, sectarian legends tell us that Abraha went on his expedition in Arabia specifically to conquer Mecca. Yet it is completely absent from any historic records, including the very inscription specifically commemorating the expedition of Abaraha
http//www.mnh.si.edu/EPIGRAPHY/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm
(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.
As I said, Diodorus was talking about a temple and not the city where the temple is inside or outside. Diodorus didn?t mention many things and he was just indirectly reporting from an unknown informer. We can?t read the mind of Diodorus let alone his unknown informer. Also, since the temple is only mentioned by Diodorus in the 1st century BC and never before and never after him then, as common with all temples which go up and down in importance, this is clearly a temple that was important only at the time of Diodorus. So there are two possibilities
- He was talking about a temple in one of the many possible towns that are known to have had a revered pagan temple and didn?t mention the town where it is located because his informer didn?t tell him or in the context, the town wasn?t the primary focus.
- He was talking about a temple not inside but outside a town and this temple is unheard of before or after Diodorus because it existed and was only important during his time.
Mecca is not even a possibility because according to sectarian legends it was one of the most important towns in Arabia and had the most important temple continuously since the time of Abraham. So unless you are acknowledging that sectarians have grossly exaggerated and lied about Mecca then Mecca is not even a possibility.
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.
No, it is 65 miles away from Tayma but only 15 miles south of Hegra. So it is close to Hegra, not Tayma.
65 miles by road maybe. And I was referring to its location with regards to the other locations you have cited.
It is not speculation. Here are the indisputable facts
- In all of history, pagan temples have risen and fallen in importance over time.
- This temple was never mentioned prior to Diodorus or after Diodorus.
So a logical unbiased conclusion is that it is most likely to be a temple that was important ONLY around Diodorus time.
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 can only fool yourself and pagans who enjoy spinning around, fondling, and kissing stones.
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.
What is special about ?this particular point??
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!
First of all there are no ?pilgrims circling? in 919.
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.
Also, if I say that I am providing bottled water and managing my company, does this mean that I am managing a stone cube and the walls and ceiling of a building? In regular speech, when you say that so and so is managing any entity such as ?the government? or ?the court? then does this mean that he is primarily concerned with the wall and ceiling of the government or the court? Is the building what makes them ?the government? and ?the court? or is it their function and purpose?
(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.
Similarly, when someone does ?sujud?, is it primarily about physically putting the forehead on the floor or about obeying the god? Who is more likely to go to heaven, someone who disobeys the god but puts his forehead on the floor or someone who obeys the god but doesn?t put his forehead on the floor? Is the physical act more important or obedience more important? Clearly, the real ?sujud? that is done by all creatures (even those without foreheads) is first and foremost about obedience of the god. So it follows that ?masjid? is not primarily about the physical building but is an institution of obedience, in other words, an institution of authority. This is truth that everyone knows and thus, when people say for example that the ?masjid issued a fatwa?, they are not talking about the walls and the ceiling issuing a ?fatwa? but about an institution of authority. If we average humans use deep meaningful meanings in our regular speech, why do you assume that the god is only concerned with the superficial building and doesn?t care about deep concepts? Any rational person can quickly see that ?al-masjid al-haram? is about the ?inviolable institution of authority? and not about four walls and a ceiling.
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.
No the god clearly said that he has made the inviolable house as the ?kaaba?, not the ?inviolable masjid? as the ?kaaba?. So there is a distinction.
Sacred House = Sacred Mosque
unless you can prove otherwise (with something more then semantics).
No, you are again demonstrating your inability to properly read the great reading as your vision is clouded by your preconceptions. The ?qibla?/target is towards ?al-masjid al-haram? (2142-150). There is no passage in the great reading that says that the ?qibla? is the ?kaaba? or ?al-bayt al-haram?.
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.
This is the same exact thing Christians and Buddhists and all sorts of people who idolize special things say.
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.
So what is going on here?
- The Jinn-block cuboid shrine of Allat became Kaaba.
- Allat?s footprint became Abarham?s footprint.
- The running between two hills to search for water for the newborn idol became running to search for water for Ismail.
- The semi-circular belly of the idol and underworld became ?7ijr Ismail? where Ismail was raised and Ibrahim, Hagar, and Ismail were buried.
- The black stone idol head that the pagans kissed to have their sins forgiven, they made the prophet kiss it in Hadith stories.
- The stoning of the male symbol became the stoning of the devil.
- Pagan rituals associated with pagan symbols and fertility idol birth celebrations were renamed to Hajj.
Etc. Etc. ...
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.
928 talks about ?al-masjid al-haram? while the god told Abraham to invite ALL people to ?hajj? to ?al-bayt al-haram?. There is no exclusion from ALL people. You exchange ?al-masjid al-haram? for ?al-masjid al-haram? haphazardly. The god on the other hand doesn?t use words haphazardly.
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.
Mecca is never mentioned by name and you know it. Since I doubt that you went to Arabia and dug out some unheard of inscription or manuscript then, without even reading the rest of your post, I can safely conclude that you are either lying or grossly misinformed.
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.
This is false. Semitic words all come from three-lettered roots. Therefore, "K?AB" is the three-letter root that all the forms are derived from. In Arabic, the feminine and the masculine share the same meaning (Sometimes the feminine can add intensification or collective classification). So it is the other way around "MuK?AB? (a shape with bases on all sides) is derived from "K?AB"/"K?ABH" (base) and not the other way around as you falsely stated.
In order to prove it is false, you must first prove your following argument
So Mecca is in fact not mentioned by name as you claimed above but Macoraba is mentioned by name. It is ironic that you quote Ptolemy's reference to Macroba when in fact this further discredits the historicity of Mecca. Either you or the source that you blindly copied from left out the most crucial information. Ptolemy listed the towns in Arabia going from north to south. After Iathrippa (Yathrib), going from north to south Ptolemy lists 5 more towns and then Macoraba
"Iathrippa
**
Macoraba"The reason why those defending their emotional attachment to Mecca don't tell us about those "5 more names" is that it exposes their lies. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Iathrippa, but the sixth city to the south of it. The first of those names is the city of Carna in Southern Arabia. So while Macoraba is the sixth city to the south, the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Iathrippa. Thus, Ptolemy places Macoraba south of Carna. Present day Mecca on the other hand is North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was in fact a town somewhere in Southern Arabia to the south of present day Mecca. A likely candidate is a city called Mochorba in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny).
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.
Neither Sergeant, Waines or Van Ess above dismiss the view that Ptolemy is not referring to Mecca.
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.
I first got the idea that Mecca didn?t exist not from Crone and Cook or anyone else for that matter. I discovered this based on the great reading and the obvious fact that ?mecca? is used as a common noun in 4824. Everything else is just confirmation of what the great reading is saying.
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. 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.
I hope that I am wrong about you and that (like most of us at one point or another) you are simply misinformed and not deliberately lying. I also hope that you still have some of your god-given instinct left in you and that your heart would fear the god and would be repulsed by such idols and unequivocally denounce revering the stone pagan symbols and associated rituals in Mecca.
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.
@ Jonny
WHY?? This is only astonishing to you because you were probably born into a religious family and indoctrinated with rituals. Humans are not born with rituals.
Wrong. I was not born into a religious familly, in fact my familly is moderate and very learned and highly educated. There are doctors, civil servants, businessmen and engineers in my familly tree.
You have a point here and thats why i dont like to call Islam a religion. "deen" is not "religion" in the Quran's context but rather "judgement/law/obedience/submission".
Islam is a religion because that "submission" to an absolutely transcendent Creator is "irrational" in the philosophic sense.
Well then why this phrase "as long as the heavens and the earth endure"? "A gift unfailing" can very well mean that we would get as was promised to us without any excuses
A gift unfailing confirms the infinite nature of the afterlife (this is obvious). This is why it is used to stamp the verse. Also notice that the punishment of hell is confirmed as finite (temporary) in the same way. First God says that they will stay in hell forever, but then the end of that verse is stamped with the words "as long as Allah please" which confirms the finite nature of hell.
- Yet it makes more sense than rituals and 2) Afterlife is a concept which has obvious benefits whilst rituals dont AND THAT IS THE ISSUE. In other words it would be entirely sensible for GOD to provide us with an afterlife BUT it would not for Him to provide us with rituals.
That doesnt help your argument. Philosophically, you cant apply rationality to one concept in religion, and not apply it in another. Either religion is rational or it is irrational. Even if there is any irrational parts of religion, then technically (and philosophically) it is irrational. (which it is classified as).
If we have get a physical command to do something here on earth it should have a perceivable benefit otherwise how can we know that the command itself was Divine? Couldve been some person making it up.
Wrong. Prophets received revelation, how did they know they were not just crazy and going schizophrenic, or possessed by demons? It is FAITH which guides a man, not his reason. Because his own reason will always create doubt. It is even in the Quran that God guides people by their faith (not by their reason).
JK- This has been discussed. Here(see pt 4.)
http//www.submission.org/ismail-q.html
ALSO i told you another explanation would be that Abraham sacrificed his son by taking him along with him on a hard mission to establish monotheism, not putting a knife to his throat which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If I were to accept that notion then i might as well except all of the nonsense in the OT.It doesnt matter what people say about this. It is a clear fact in the Quran that is obvious! Read the verse yourself and see. It cant get any clearer then this. The dream was obviously from God.
This is extremely problematic because GOD does not talk with anyone directly and even if He did how would other people know that He did? Hence it is always lastly upto people to interpret what is coming from GOD. This is most efficiently done by using reason and logic NOT by mere trust in a religious majority as religion does. So say if a scripture says GOD said x,y,z is good HOW would we know that scripture is from GOD in the st place?
Wrong. This is the utilitarian principle, and it is what has gotten this world to the sad and sorry state that it is in today. All these people think they can twist God's word and interpret the definition of "good" themselves. It is a materialistic point of view. According to faith, you obey God to the letter. The principle receives the higher importance.
Didnt ayman say that there were many invisible towns as well BESIDES the more famous ones hed already pted out?
His argument with regards to Diodorus has been completely defeated. He mostly put forward well known sites most of them were not even in the area mentioned by Diodorus and the one main site that was, contains the temple inside the city.
As for the "invisible sites", they can never be proven or disproven, so you cant put forward those sites in a logical debate.
thought you implied that. However the 2nd part is still problematic. What is the accepted method the shias or the sunnis or the wahaabis, all have different methods in thed details, the wahabis claiming for example that the prophet alwys did rafae yadain(rasing of both hands) before entering every rukoo and sajda. Then your phrase "just in case to be safe" says it all doent it? It shows that GOD, if He commanded this rituals, didnt, GOD forbid, accurately protect them and you wanna sidestep the issue by just going along with what the majority of religious people accept.
them?It may be problematic to those who worry about it, but not to me. Intention is most important, and purity of heart. What I have to worry about in my prayer is my own level of attention. That is what concerns me, not the methodology.
Infact the Quran is primarily about semantics i.e. context and grammar unless one can provide solid historical evidence to the contrary. So if Ayman fails and at the same time your historical evidence is as solid as say the big bang theory then youd have a point. I doubt however that would be the case.
Ayman has failed as his arguments reject the historical arguments based on the hadith (because it contradicts his points, and therefore he fails to take into account valid evidence). To tell you the truth, I am not even taking him seriously. And by the way, the Quran is not "about semantics". Sorry, that is not the correct view at all.
JK- And it has been countered by ayman.
We will see about that.
For that youll have to bring some well known non sunni/shia paid historians here. Last but not least each one of us decides for hkm/herself which arguments are stronger.
I never brought any sectarian scholar into the debate. The hadith itself is not "sectarian". the manuscripts are just texts. The sectarians accept some and reject others, but that does not concern the validity of the actual text.
The hadith is a vlid historical dicument for some views and not for others just like any other document. Document x written by the Christans could be accurate depicting those things which Chritsinas dont have a bias against, Document y written by Communists would be accuarte depicting those things which they have no bias against whilst document z written by sunnis/shias would be somewhat accurate depicting those things which they dont have a bias against in their repecive ideologies.
It is a valid document period. Like I said, all documents are biased. This does not mean you can reject them.
I doubt once they comapre Aymans arguments with yours theyd still favor more in your direction. But your most welcome bring them here.
What scholars has Ayman brought to support his views?
Which scholarship? Sunni/shia scholarship? Are you honestly saying that the majority of historians agree that kaaba and mecca in the Quran refers to the location today in Saudia?
Tell me, which non-biased credible historians has Ayman brought?
See now i just knew it. Pointing out some random historian who converted to "islam". Sunnis pay alot to get converts and promise that guy a high position. Who wouldnt be tempted? Nobody in his/her right mind would convert to "islam" after one has read through the hadith. They depict the Prophet as GOD forbid a theif, murderer, torturer, pedophile, hypocrite, liar and what not. Remember the hadith which is suppodely sahih where Porphet ordered the gauging out of eyes for ppl and others where he married aisha at 6 and consumated it at 9? those r from bukhari, the most sahih. How on earth can tht be authentic? And the irony is that "muslims" fool themslves into belieng that the sira derived fom hadith claims the opposite.
So now this professor is not a valid example because he converted to Islam and supports the hadith (lol)? Even though he is lecturing at MIT? That is your argument? Cuz its not a very good one.
This is just plain nonsense and only a few "scholars" paid by sunnis could possibly state such.
And of course, you have proof that he was "paid" by the sunnis, right? Or this another "reasonable assertion"?
So according to you GOD intennded the hadoth method? So GOD allowed some of the details to be in inferior protected sources as the Quran? What sense does that make?
It makes perfect sense because the Quran is not concerned with details. It is the word of God that deals with the core concepts, which are much more important.
No i beleive it has everything to do. i used to be a a strict pratcing sunni following many hadith from Bukhari until i realized how absurd they really are. Everything that was claimed about the Prophet Muhammad you could find the opposite of his character in those same "sahih" hadith.
So you rejected them all because of a few hadiths which you did not like? Is that view anymore rational?
The only assumption for me to accept the existence of GOD as the never ending chain of cause and effect. If you deny that assumtpion then you can also deny your own existence not to mention well established theories like evolution, big bang etc.
I asked you a question that you didnt answer. If that is so inevitable, then why isnt every scientist and philosopher a believer? Because in philosophy, cause and effect was disproven already (by Hume) and in science, there are alternative models of the universe which do not rely on cause and effect. Quantum Physics doesnt need cause and effect for example.
If you rely on reason alone, pretty soon you will be an atheist. And then your position will be totally illogical, because it will have no certainty of being at all. You will reject God totally not because you have disproved God (because that is impossible) but because your reason will tell you there is no proof for God (which there isnt).
The fine tune is good but it's not good enough since if theres an infinite no of universes evolving then an infinite subset would inevitably be fit for living creatures. BUT what atheists are fogetting that an Intelligence would ALREADY have "evolved" in the quantum realm BEFORE ANY of the universes even came into existence, mroe clesrly before the first differentiation of a quantum wave/particle to an elementary particle. THAT is the main point. 2ndly we can prove GOD commnciates to us in that almost allr eligions, even the pagsnitc ones, talk at the core of there being only one GOD despite all the polytheism that has crept in. Also you again comitted the fallacy of asking atheits to disprove a -ve i.e. "prove that GOD does not exist". We have to prove that He does exist and i say i just did.
Again that is full of unverified assumptions, that the atheists will point out as preconceived. Nothing you have said can be considered "proof"
Infact the existence of GOD is proven by pure logic which makes it even more solid then any of the well established theories in science. As you know we dont tehnically prove anything in science but only in mathematics and logic. GOD Bless!
Completely wrong. Pure logic is blind and self negating (refer to David Hume, and Immanuel Kant). You can never arrive at objective truth via "logic". The fact that philosophers are usually atheists disproves your point entirely.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Wrong. I was not born into a religious familly, in fact my familly is moderate and very learned and highly educated. There are doctors, civil servants, businessmen and engineers in my familly tree.
JK- 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.
Islam is a religion because that "submission" to an absolutely transcendent Creator is "irrational" in the philosophic sense.
JK- 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)
A gift unfailing confirms the infinite nature of the afterlife (this is obvious). This is why it is used to stamp the verse. Also notice that the punishment of hell is confirmed as finite (temporary) in the same way. First God says that they will stay in hell forever, but then the end of that verse is stamped with the words "as long as Allah please" which confirms the finite nature of hell.
JK- 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?
That doesnt help your argument. Philosophically, you cant apply rationality to one concept in religion, and not apply it in another. Either religion is rational or it is irrational. Even if there is any irrational parts of religion, then technically (and philosophically) it is irrational. (which it is classified as).
JK- 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
4917 They impress on thee as a favour that they have submitted. Say, "Count not YOUR islam as a favour upon me...Wrong. Prophets received revelation, how did they know they were not just crazy and going schizophrenic, or possessed by demons? It is FAITH which guides a man, not his reason. Because his own reason will always create doubt. It is even in the Quran that God guides people by their faith (not by their reason).
JK- 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. When the message appears to be highly rational then it is concluded that this is an extra ordinary inspiration. This could be via extra ordinary performances, a numerical structure in the messgae delivered, etc. It can definitely not just be taken on faith otherwise anyone who said he was a messenger of GOD should have been one and for those who accept that messengers will come till DOJ even now people could just claim to be messengers of GOD and ill just have to take it on faith BUT THTS NOT HOW IT WORKS. People are guided to the Quran by REASON. How many times does the Quran ask us to ponder upon thev verses? Didnt you ever read 1736?
It doesnt matter what people say about this. It is a clear fact in the Quran that is obvious! Read the verse yourself and see. It cant get any clearer then this. The dream was obviously from God.
JK- 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?
Wrong. This is the utilitarian principle, and it is what has gotten this world to the sad and sorry state that it is in today. All these people think they can twist God's word and interpret the definition of "good" themselves. It is a materialistic point of view. According to faith, you obey God to the letter. The principle receives the higher importance.
JK- And how do you know the letter is from GOD in the foirst palce? THINK bro.
His argument with regards to Diodorus has been completely defeated. He mostly put forward well known sites most of them were not even in the area mentioned by Diodorus and the one main site that was, contains the temple inside the city.
JK- Ill follow the debate and see who brings the better arguments along the way. The debate isnt over neither are bro aymans arguments.
As for the "invisible sites", they can never be proven or disproven, so you cant put forward those sites in a logical debate.
JK- So how then can you claim it is Mecca what is meant by one of the invisible sites?
It may be problematic to those who worry about it, but not to me. Intention is most important, and purity of heart. What I have to worry about in my prayer is my own level of attention. That is what concerns me, not the methodology.
JK- 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.
Ayman has failed as his arguments reject the historical arguments based on the hadith (because it contradicts his points, and therefore he fails to take into account valid evidence). To tell you the truth, I am not even taking him seriously. And by the way, the Quran is not "about semantics". Sorry, that is not the correct view at all.
JK- 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.
We will see about that.
JK- Sure.
I never brought any sectarian scholar into the debate. The hadith itself is not "sectarian". the manuscripts are just texts. The sectarians accept some and reject others, but that does not concern the validity of the actual text.
JK- The hadith are collected by mostly by sunnis especially Bukhari and Muslim. Those two were sunnis wanting to follow the "sunnah" of the Prophet.
It is a valid document period. Like I said, all documents are biased. This does not mean you can reject them.
JK- 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.
What scholars has Ayman brought to support his views?
JK- I beleive he mentioned some in his above post.
Tell me, which non-biased credible historians has Ayman brought?
JK- See the latest post of his if you havnt already replied to it. If not ill ask him to in his next post.
So now this professor is not a valid example because he converted to Islam and supports the hadith (lol)? Even though he is lecturing at MIT? That is your argument? Cuz its not a very good one.
JK- 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.
And of course, you have proof that he was "paid" by the sunnis, right? Or this another "reasonable assertion"?
JK- No but i can display the content of some of those hadith which would defintely support my point.
It makes perfect sense because the Quran is not concerned with details. It is the word of God that deals with the core concepts, which are much more important.
JK- So that means GOD left the details upto us. Otherwise you can never have enough details. You can always ask for more. Infact there is a supreme example of this behaviour in the Quran. 267-271
So you rejected them all because of a few hadiths which you did not like? Is that view anymore rational?
JK- 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?
I asked you a question that you didnt answer. If that is so inevitable, then why isnt every scientist and philosopher a believer? Because in philosophy, cause and effect was disproven already (by Hume) and in science, there are alternative models of the universe which do not rely on cause and effect. Quantum Physics doesnt need cause and effect for example.
JK- 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.
If you rely on reason alone, pretty soon you will be an atheist. And then your position will be totally illogical, because it will have no certainty of being at all. You will reject God totally not because you have disproved God (because that is impossible) but because your reason will tell you there is no proof for God (which there isnt).
JK- 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. Now ask those atheists how then is it possible that through such an infinite chain an infinite intelligence has not inevitably emerged assuming control over everything that follows after it? So by their most fundamental point GOD is proven. I dont think anyone has even bothered to look at this aspect. You also may not be able to grasp this initially but eventually you might. This is also why it's unlikely for me to become an atheist whilst it easy for relgiious folk who realize their irrationality at one palce or another.
Again that is full of unverified assumptions, that the atheists will point out as preconceived. Nothing you have said can be considered "proof"
JK- 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.
Completely wrong. Pure logic is blind and self negating (refer to David Hume, and Immanuel Kant). You can never arrive at objective truth via "logic". The fact that philosophers are usually atheists disproves your point entirely.
JK- Ok then please tell me what other method is there to arrive at the truth besides reason and logic? GOD Bless!
-
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! -
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!