The Prayer Issue Revived
-
@ Ahmed
Bro you don't seriously expect to base your entire argument on
the practices of the Jews and get away with it do ya? You do realize
that the 5 established prayers are like the ONLY THING that all the
sects in Islam actually agree on rite??! lol. And this is the one thing
that you all are questioning... confusedSo again, this only qualifies as more circumstantial evidence,
as no one has provided any proof that the early Muslims
ever prayed 3 prayers (or 2) instead of 5.PeAcE
-
Peace code,
Wrong, I want proof that salat was something other then 5 times a day. (more or less)
So in this way, it is not a negative assertion. Just provide proof that it was 3, or 7
or whatever. Basically, just show me some actual proof already! (lol)The qur'aan is not proof? It clearly mentions only 2-3 times for salat. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum in the past. You can look for the appropriate threads.
Dude I am not the one who is twisting the words of God. When God says
"To Him be Praise in the after noon" Obviously, God is telling us to
give Him praise in the afternoon. How much clearer can it get?The word used is "hamd" meaning praise and not "salaat". You are the one who earlier said this refers to salaat, thus twisting God's word. Why can't we praise God at certain times? Just because a time is mentioned does not make "hamd"/praise same as salaat. Hamd/praise can be done outside salaat too. God does not play word games. Where He means salaat He uses the word "salaat".
Well, maybe they did. I am open to that possibility. But you have to prove to me that
they did. And the way you do it, is to provide evidence that the practice was once different
then it is today.The qur'aan is the evidence that salaat is only 2-3 times per day. So definitely they fabricated the other times.
Also, the TIMES for prayer and the basic rituals (facing mecca etc.) do all have a foundation
in the Quran. All the verses that are provided here cover the timings of the prayers.
Also, the rituals (bowing, prostration, recital of surah Fatiah, "seven oft repeated verses"
all have a foundation in the Quran).You are again twisting God's words. Nowhere are we asked to face mecca in the qur'aan and nowhere is the bowing position. You know that it is a huge sin to twist God's words and to ascribe to Him what He never said right?
Yes, the qur'aan is fully detailed and it does provide the timings of only 2-3 salaat per day. No there is no bowing position according to the qur'aan and no, we are not asked to face "mecca" in the qur'aan.
Dude they say that you can combine Zuhr and Asr and pray them together.
They do not say that Zuhr and Asr are one prayer. You are basically
using circumstantial evidence to make your case, and it won't hold.Your logic is one of the most absurd ones I have come across. How can it be two different salaats when combined into one? By the way "salaat" does not mean "prayer". There is another word used in the qur'aan for "prayer" which is "du3aa". You are again twisting God's words by saying "prayer" instead of "salaat". If you attend five one hour classes in school and they are combined to three one hour classes, are you still attending five one hour classes or are you now attending three one hour classes?
You can't seriously base your entire argument on the absence of
details in the Quran for these actions as proof that these prayers
never existed.You don't seem to have faith/trust in the qur'aan. When the qur'aan says it is fully detailed and mentions only 2-3 times for salaat, that is proof that the other times are fabricated because THE QUR'AAN IS FULLY DETAILED as far as our guidance is concerned.
The Quran tells you to worship at those times, and you can worship
however you wish, as long as it follows some basic requirements.
Just like the Quran tells you to pay zakat, but doesnt tell you how much.
Now its up to you to take care of the specifics, as long as you pay zakat rite?
The same is the case with prayer. You just have to do it, its part of the
submitting your whole self to God, and it makes perfect sense.Establishing salaat does not mean worshipping God .... again you are twisting God's words. All the guidelines of salaat are mentioned in the qur'aan and I agree we have to stay within those guidelines. That is why there are no five obligatory salaats because that is outside the guidelines.
Now your just being too picky dude
017.107
YUSUFALI ...when it is recited to them, fall down on their faces in humble prostration,
PICKTHAL ...when it is read unto them, fall down prostrate on their faces, adoring,
SHAKIR ... those who are given the knowledge before it fall down on their faces, making obeisance when it is recited to them.you need to ease up with the specifics.
How would you naturally fall down on your face
other then the standard forehead prostrating position?
You cant actually fall down on your face, as that
you break your nose!! And touching your chin... ???
that is just weird.I am not being picky but YOU ARE TWISTING GOD'S WORDS. These translators deliberately mistranslate and twist God's words in this sign/ayat to justify their preconceived notions based on unverifiable hearsay, and by quoting them and using those mistranslations as part of your argument, you become guilty of the same crime. This is carelessness to the highest degree. How can you understand God's words if you don't do your homework and verify the correct meaning yourself first before believing in other's mistranslations? I think this is your basic flaw because of which you are unable to comprehend God's message. You are twisting God's words because of your carelessness.
ATHQAAN DOES NOT MEAN FACES BUT MEANS CHINS. Faces is "wajooh" (plural) and "wajh" (singular) as used in the qur'aan.
The Quran itself states that that it should be recited in a voice that is not too loud
and not to remain silent while reciting it either. Hence, the quiet whisper.Here again you are twisting God's words because of your carelessness. Had you bothered to verify what 17110 is saying, you would have found out that the word used is "takhaafat", which means speaking in a low or soft voice according to Classical Arabic dictionaries, which is the same as a "quiet whisper". God is asking us exactly NOT to do that "quiet whispering". He clearly says "do not be loud nor speak in a low/soft voice but a way in between those", which can only mean a moderate tone.
I am sorry, but I cannot continue discussion with those who are extremely careless and keep twisting God's words because there is no evidence/proof that will convince them and no one except God can guide them unless The God wishes.
378 And from amongst them is a group that twist their tongues with the Scripture so that you may think it is from the Scripture, while it is not from the Scripture, and they say it is from God while it is not from God, and they say about God lies while they know.
-
Peace Nabster,
I now fully accept the argument because I scrutinized the Quran to look for anything to do with Salat.
Salat means either of commitment or ritual prayer depending on the context, but Salat as commitment
is more prevalent throughout.
The three Salats are
Fajr Salat (before dawn)
Salat Wusta (Noon prayer - as it is right in the middle between the two)
and
Salat al Isha (Evening prayer from just after sunset to night time).
There is in my opinion an anti pagan logic for this.
The times cannot encourage someone to pray towards the sun, as for Fajr and Isha the sun is hidden,
and for Salat Wusta, at its zenith so impossible to bow to it (well at least in the middle east), even if that might be an unimportant factor, but if we look at these little pagan things like the moon and star on minarets (cult of moon god), the Kaaba (Allat Manat and Uzzat Dark Son God), the word Amen (egyptian God Amoun Ra), one wonders why the Muslims are incurring such wrath from their Creator.
God bless...
NobleThere are some logical problems with your understanding.
-
If salaat al-wusta means "middle salaat" then did God forget to tell us which one is the middle? If your inference is correct then the qur'aan is not fully detailed and God left something out of it and forgot.
-
Why is noon the middle time? Middle of the night can also be the middle time.
-
2238 says "guard/protect our salawaat and salaat al-wusta". Salawaat already includes ALL the salaats. Mentioning a "middle salaat" after that will be totally redundant and illogical.
If a teacher says to the student "bring your books and the math book" would it not be redundant to say "math book", because it is already included in "your books"? If your inference is correct then God is a fool because He does not know such redundancies and does not know any logic.
- The words derived from WST in the qur'aan mean "best/balanced" in all other occurrences. The only logical meaning of 2238 would be to establish all our salaats in the best/balanced manner. First God tells us to guard/protect our salaats, meaning that we should strive to establish all salaats according to God's commands and guidelines, and then by saying salaat al-wusta God is telling us to establish salaat in the best/balanced manner within those guidelines.
EVERY SALAAT IS SALAAT AL-WUSTA if established sincerely according to God's commands.
You might say that "salawaat" means three or more salaats, but where in 2238 or its context does it say that it refers to the salaats in one day? Salawaat here refers to ALL the salaats in our lifetime.
Another grammatical point is that both fajr and isha salaats have the following wording in the qur'aan
"AL-salaat al-fajr" meaning THE dawn salaat (specific salaat)
"AL-salaat al-3isha" meaning THE dusk salaat (specific salaat)The wording of wusta salaat is as follows
"Salaat al-wusta" meaning best/balanced salaat (NO AL BEFORE IT).
This is a GENERAL phrase and does not refer to a specific salaat or a specific time.
-
-
Peace c0de,
Bro you don't seriously expect to base your entire argument on
the practices of the Jews and get away with it do ya? You do realize
that the 5 established prayers are like the ONLY THING that all the
sects in Islam actually agree on rite??! lol. And this is the one thing
that you all are questioning... confusedThis is WRONG. In fact, it's necessary to note that believers of "Shia" Islaam actually believe in observing salaat THREE times per day as well, and guess what these three times are? Yep, that's right, brother (1) morning, (2) afternoon, and (3) night. Some smaller groups of them believe in 5 daily salaat observances, but they only perform them during these three periods, therefore consolidating two prayers into one... The only groups that firmly believe in the 5 daily salaat observances are those who follow the guidance of the hadith and sunna writings ordaining them. Nothing else even mentions 5 prayers at all, and the Qur'aan clearly speaks of three distinct times...
So again, this only qualifies as more circumstantial evidence,
as no one has provided any proof that the early Muslims
ever prayed 3 prayers (or 2) instead of 5.Where is the proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times per day? The only thing that supports this doctrine is the sunna, something that has admittedly been SEVERELY CORRUPTED, FORGED, AND (in many cases) COMPLETELY FABRICATED, especially when it came to adopting pagan rituals... The 5 daily prayers were the practice of the Zoroastrians and certain Sabian sects, not the Muslims. That's why none of the scriptures mention 5 daily prayers for any of the Abrahamic systems; instead, they all promote THREE... So, where is your proof that the ancient submitters believed in 5 daily prayers? And were these three salaat observances ordained by G-d, or were they pagan traditions inherited from their forefathers?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Truthseeker,
- 2238 says "guard/protect our salawaat and salaat al-wusta". Salawaat already includes ALL the salaats. Mentioning a "middle salaat" after that will be totally redundant and illogical.
If a teacher says to the student "bring your books and the math book" would it not be redundant to say "math book", because it is already included in "your books"? If your inference is correct then God is a fool because He does not know such redundancies and does not know any logic.
This is an illogical argument. The Qur'aan says to guard the "salawaat wa'al-salaatu al-wusta"... There's the word "waw"/and between them, but it occurs after the plural form. Therefore, instead of mentioning a separate one, it speaks of especially observing one, namely the middle... Also, the Arabic word "salawaat" specifically refers to the plurality of salaat, meaning THREE OR MORE. So, this can't be referring to only 2 prayers; it has to be at least speaking of three. The word used to describe two salaat observances would be "salatayn", a word that doesn't occur in the Qur'aan at all... Now, some people have made the argument that the word "salawaat" is referring to all the prayers during one's lifetime, but again, in context, this is completely illogical. If it was referring to all the prayers during one's lifetime, then the especialized one ("al-salaatu al-wusta" must be referring to ONE SPECIFIC SALAAT during one's lifetime, meaning either (1) in the middle of one's life or (2) the one best/balanced salaat during one's life. Since we don't know how long our life will be, this is not a sensible concept. Therefore, "salawaat" must be referring to DAILY PRAYERS, and this means there must be at least three per day. This further illustrates that the word "wusta" in this sense is most likely meaning "middle", not balanced, best, or anything else...
Another grammatical point is that both fajr and isha salaats have the following wording in the qur'aan
"AL-salaat al-fajr" meaning THE dawn salaat (specific salaat)
"AL-salaat al-3isha" meaning THE dusk salaat (specific salaat)The wording of wusta salaat is as follows
"Salaat al-wusta" meaning best/balanced salaat (NO AL BEFORE IT).
This is a GENERAL phrase and does not refer to a specific salaat or a specific time.
Ummm... Are you sure about this one, brother?
Haafithu a'alaa al-salawaat wa' al-salaat al-wusta wa qumoo lilaahi qaaniteen...
There is DEFINATELY the word "al"/the present behind "salaat al-wusta", and this is specifically referring to a distinct salaat observance. Since the word "salawaat" refers to three or more distinct times, in a plural sense, the word "wusta" would have to be referring to a time amongst these other ones... So, if there are three salaat per day ("hypothetically", which one would be the "best"? Which one is most "balanced"? There's no way we can make this distinction. Therefore, it must mean "middle", and in right between the other two...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Truthseeker + Ahmed
Salaam brothers
@ Truthseeker
Nowhere are we asked to face mecca in the qur'aan
And from whatsoever place you come forth, turn your face towards the Sacred Mosque;
and surely it is the very truth from your Lord, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.
Verse 2149The word used is "hamd" meaning praise and not "salaat". You are the one who earlier said this refers to salaat, thus twisting God's word. Why can't we praise God at certain times? Just because a time is mentioned does not make "hamd"/praise same as salaat. Hamd/praise can be done outside salaat too. God does not play word games. Where He means salaat He uses the word "salaat".
This is an invalid argument. The act of praise is included
in the act of salat. The first words that a Muslim utters in Salat
are words of praise.And I did not say the word salat was used, I said the
times for Zuhr and Asr are clearly mentioned in that verse
and therefore their practice has a clear foundation in the Quran.How can it be two different salaats when combined into one?
Don't believe me? This is from a Shia source
"The Shi'ah acknowledge the five obligatory daily prayers. However,
they frequently combine the Zuhr and 'Asr prayers by offering them
consecutively"http//74.125.95.132/search?q=cachesjA2LZmfcCAJwww.al-islam.org/nutshell/redirect.asp%3Furll%3D/nutshell/files/combine.pdf+combining+prayers+islam+Quran&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
The act of combining prayers is done for convenience, and
not because they do not recognize Zuhr and Asr distinctly.He clearly says "do not be loud nor speak in a low/soft voice but a way in between those", which can only mean a moderate tone.
ATHQAAN DOES NOT MEAN FACES BUT MEANS CHINS. Faces is "wajooh" (plural) and "wajh" (singular) as used in the qur'aan.
In the first case you are right, in the second, you are wrong.
The chin is still part of the person's face so the translations for
that verse are correct.@ Ahmed
This is WRONG. In fact, it's necessary to note that believers of "Shia" Islaam actually believe in observing salaat THREE times per day as well, and guess what these three times are? Yep, that's right, brother (1) morning, (2) afternoon, and (3) night. Some smaller groups of them believe in 5 daily salaat observances, but they only perform them during these three periods, therefore consolidating two prayers into one... The only groups that firmly believe in the 5 daily salaat observances are those who follow the guidance of the hadith and sunna writings ordaining them. Nothing else even mentions 5 prayers at all, and the Qur'aan clearly speaks of three distinct times...
I provided a link above to a shia site which clearly stated that they
recognize Zuhr and Asr as separate prayers.Where is the proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times per day? The only thing that supports this doctrine is the sunna, something that has admittedly been SEVERELY CORRUPTED, FORGED, AND (in many cases) COMPLETELY FABRICATED, especially when it came to adopting pagan rituals... The 5 daily prayers were the practice of the Zoroastrians and certain Sabian sects, not the Muslims. That's why none of the scriptures mention 5 daily prayers for any of the Abrahamic systems; instead, they all promote THREE... So, where is your proof that the ancient submitters believed in 5 daily prayers? And were these three salaat observances ordained by G-d, or were they pagan traditions inherited from their forefathers?
Bro you are contradicting yourself. First you reject a practice
because it is mentioned in corrupted texts (sunnah) and then you
cite the previous scriptures (which are also corrupted) to support
your own argument.The proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times a day is that
all the times are mentioned in the Quran. Plus the
complete uniformity of this belief throughout the Muslim lands.PeAcE
-
Peace c0de,
Bro you are contradicting yourself. First you reject a practice
because it is mentioned in corrupted texts (sunnah) and then you
cite the previous scriptures (which are also corrupted) to support
your own argument.I mentioned the Torah (i.e. the Tanakh and the Mishna), and I didn't say anything regarding it being corrupted. Where did you get this idea from?! The modern Torah is NOT corrupted, it has just been mistranslated in certain aspects. Reading it in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic forms removes many of the misconceptions, especially when it comes to the Written Torah... This is not the case with the Sunna, which is fabricated and forged. You can't compare the Sunna to the Torah, the word of G-d, which is not fabricated.
The proof that the early Muslims prayed 5 times a day is that
all the times are mentioned in the Quran. Plus the
complete uniformity of this belief throughout the Muslim lands.The 5 times are NOT mentioned in the Qur'aan, which I already explained to you. The words "alsalaat" are mentioned in reference to THREE distinct times (1) faajr, (2) esha, and (3) wusta. The other names and times of these other two prayers are not in the Qur'aan at all, and they're only mentioned in the hadith and sunna writings.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace c0de,
I mentioned the Torah (i.e. the Tanakh and the Mishna), and I didn't say anything regarding it being corrupted. Where did you get this idea from?! The modern Torah is NOT corrupted, it has just been mistranslated in certain aspects. Reading it in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic forms removes many of the misconceptions, especially when it comes to the Written Torah... This is not the case with the Sunna, which is fabricated and forged. You can't compare the Sunna to the Torah, the word of G-d, which is not fabricated.
I somewhat agree with this.... church fathers considered the old testament to be highly authentic and valid way before they considered the new testament to be. There are 3 different sources for old testament(septugint...hebrew masoretic... and I forget other) different groups use different ones....like in the hebrew masoretic, the word "THE messiah" doesn't appear but in the septuagint it does..depending on what you believe will be what you choose....chritians usually choose septuagint, while jews aim for hebrew masoretic which I don't care for either really..and depending if the translator is a christian or a jew will also affect how they translate it...only thing I have problem with is why Jews kicked some parts out of the torah for bad reasons...christian bible's torah and jewish tanach doesn't have the same amount of books and chapters.
-
@ Ahmed Bilal
I mentioned the Torah (i.e. the Tanakh and the Mishna), and I didn't say anything regarding it being corrupted. Where did you get this idea from?! The modern Torah is NOT corrupted, it has just been mistranslated in certain aspects. Reading it in the ancient Hebrew or Aramaic forms removes many of the misconceptions, especially when it comes to the Written Torah... This is not the case with the Sunna, which is fabricated and forged. You can't compare the Sunna to the Torah, the word of G-d, which is not fabricated.
Bro the scholarly view is that the Tanakh was compiled over a thousand
years after Moses was born! Moses was alive somewhere between 1400-1200 BCE
and the Tanakh according to the academics who have studied it was compiled
200 BCE - 200 CE. That is an IMMENSE time between the revelation and the codification
of this text. So the Tanakh, can not be more reliable then the hadith in any case.
If you reject one for being inaccurate, you can not accept another to
base your argument on.The 5 times are NOT mentioned in the Qur'aan, which I already explained to you. The words "alsalaat" are mentioned in reference to THREE distinct times (1) faajr, (2) esha, and (3) wusta. The other names and times of these other two prayers are not in the Qur'aan at all, and they're only mentioned in the hadith and sunna writings.
When did I say the word "salat" was used with reference to the 5 times in the Quran?
I said that the 5 times themselves were clearly mentioned. Also, I said that the times for Zuhr and Asr
are mentioned along with the commandment to give praise to Allah at those times. And since the act of Salat
includes the giving of praise to God, therefore, all 5 times of the established prayers are covered in the Quran.
Which basically means that the established ritual of Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Magrib and Isha has a foundation in the Quran.
And this is why the practice of 5 daily prayers is confirmed by the uniformity of this practice throughout the Muslim lands.PeAcE
-
I somewhat agree with this.... church fathers considered the old testament to be highly authentic and valid way before they considered the new testament to be. There are 3 different sources for old testament(septugint...hebrew masoretic... and I forget other) different groups use different ones....like in the hebrew masoretic, the word "THE messiah" doesn't appear but in the septuagint it does..depending on what you believe will be what you choose....chritians usually choose septuagint, while jews aim for hebrew masoretic which I don't care for either really..and depending if the translator is a christian or a jew will also affect how they translate it...only thing I have problem with is why Jews kicked some parts out of the torah for bad reasons...christian bible's torah and jewish tanach doesn't have the same amount of books and chapters.
Yeah, you're right, brother... I don't really agree with everything in the Septuagint because I think many parts of it have been mistranslated, especially by the Greek and Roman Christian groups who tried to blend the Tanakh with the "New Testament". I definately prefer the Hebrew Masoretic writings. In my opinion, it's much more authentic. Plus, it's older, and many parts of the Septuagint are just translations of the Masoretic text... Regarding the Jews kicking certain books out of the Tanakh, it all depends on traditional readings. Some copies of the Tanakh contain more books than others. Plus, Christians did the same things, and they destroyed literally HUNDREDS of books that conflicted with their Trinitarian teachings and beliefs concerning the mashiach...
-
Peace c0de,
Bro the scholarly view is that the Tanakh was compiled over a thousand
years after Moses was born! Moses was alive somewhere between 1400-1200 BCE
and the Tanakh according to the academics who have studied it was compiled
200 BCE - 200 CE. That is an IMMENSE time between the revelation and the codification
of this text. So the Tanakh, can not be more reliable then the hadith in any case.
If you reject one for being inaccurate, you can not accept another to
base your argument on.Ummm... Who said the Tanakh was written by Moses?! The Written and Oral Torah is the only book directly related to Moses' teachings. The other books were written by a series of Jewish prophets and scribes, many of who lived long after Moses was already dead... If you go anywhere in the world, the Written Torah and the Mishna are UNCHANGED after thousands of years. The people have the same text, the same letters, and everything else is completely identical. This is NOT the case with the hadith and sunna, which is completely different among different regions, different sects, and different Islaamic scholars. The Torah is NOT inaccurate, while the hadith and sunna writings ARE inaccurate.
When did I say the word "salat" was used with reference to the 5 times in the Quran?
I said that the 5 times themselves were clearly mentioned. Also, I said that the times for Zuhr and Asr
are mentioned along with the commandment to give praise to Allah at those times. And since the act of Salat
includes the giving of praise to God, therefore, all 5 times of the established prayers are covered in the Quran.
Which basically means that the established ritual of Fajr, Zuhr, Asr, Magrib and Isha has a foundation in the Quran.
And this is why the practice of 5 daily prayers is confirmed by the uniformity of this practice throughout the Muslim lands.Maybe you didn't know this, but "praise" and "salaat" are NOT the same thing. Just because praise is included in salaat observance doesn't mean the two are the same thing. We can praise G-d anytime, while salaat is to be observed at specific times... Like I said, the observance of SALAAT is only referenced at THREE TIMES in the Qur'aan, not five. Just because the majority of Islaamic nations adhere to this doesn't make it right. The majority of Muslims worldwide believe in circling the "Kaaba" seven times and kissing a black stone to worship G-d. This is something that ALL sectarian Muslims agree on, right? Does this make it part of our worship?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
@ Ahmed Bilal
Ummm... Who said the Tanakh was written by Moses?! The Written and Oral Torah is the only book directly related to Moses' teachings. The other books were written by a series of Jewish prophets and scribes, many of who lived long after Moses was already dead... If you go anywhere in the world, the Written Torah and the Mishna are UNCHANGED after thousands of years. The people have the same text, the same letters, and everything else is completely identical. This is NOT the case with the hadith and sunna, which is completely different among different regions, different sects, and different Islaamic scholars. The Torah is NOT inaccurate, while the hadith and sunna writings ARE inaccurate.
Dude how can you say that the Torah is authentic!!??? You know how many times it contradicts the Quran?
There are so many stories in the Old Testament which show the prophets committing such unimaginable sins!!!
All of these stories are retold in the Quran with the errors removed. And worst of all is the image of God presented
in the Jewish scriptures, as wiping out entire races of people almost arbitrarily, accounts which have been corrected
in the Quran. Also, the tanakh was compiled and codified in a proccess that was similar to the New Testament, in
a gathering of priests who basically picked and chose which parts make up the Tanakh today. After its codification
it might have stayed the same (like you said) but the corruption had already occurred by that time.Maybe you didn't know this, but "praise" and "salaat" are NOT the same thing. Just because praise is included in salaat observance doesn't mean the two are the same thing. We can praise G-d anytime, while salaat is to be observed at specific times... Like I said, the observance of SALAAT is only referenced at THREE TIMES in the Qur'aan, not five. Just because the majority of Islaamic nations adhere to this doesn't make it right. The majority of Muslims worldwide believe in circling the "Kaaba" seven times and kissing a black stone to worship G-d. This is something that ALL sectarian Muslims agree on, right? Does this make it part of our worship?
I never said that Zuhr and Asr times were mentioned under the name "salat". But the description
of the act that is commanded during those times is covered by the act of Salat. We are told to
give praise to Allah during the times of Zuhr and Asr. And we do indeed give praise to God in our salat.PeAcE
-
Peace c0de,
Dude how can you say that the Torah is authentic!!??? You know how many times it contradicts the Quran?
There are so many stories in the Old Testament which show the prophets committing such unimaginable sins!!!
All of these stories are retold in the Quran with the errors removed. And worst of all is the image of God presented
in the Jewish scriptures, as wiping out entire races of people almost arbitrarily, accounts which have been corrected
in the Quran.Please provide some scriptural proofs regarding this claim of the Torah being corrupted... In reality, the Qur'aan says that the Torah has NOT been corrupted, and it has been preserved, just like the Qur'aan. Please point out places where the Torah contradicts the Qur'aan...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace c0de,
Please provide some scriptural proofs regarding this claim of the Torah being corrupted... In reality, the Qur'aan says that the Torah has NOT been corrupted, and it has been preserved, just like the Qur'aan. Please point out places where the Torah contradicts the Qur'aan...
Peace,
Ahmad
Well quran does say the people distorted his words and attributed things that he never said, which things that they attributed to God which he never said is clearly in the torah. God didn't bash the torah/gospel that much since there was no need too, with the quran you can figure out what was change and what wasn't
-
@ Ahmed
Salaam bro
Please provide some scriptural proofs regarding this claim of the Torah being corrupted...
Here is one example from the Quran, Verse 2102, clearly says that the the Tanakh contains fabrications
against Solomon PBUH. Referring to The Book of Kings in the Tanakh which claims that Hazrat Sulaiman PBUH
was guilty of idolatry.The Quran also redeems the character of many other prophets who have been falsely accused of grave sins in the Tanakh...
to tell you the truth bro, some of the stuff in the tanakh... is so bad, I don't even want to repeat here. -
Peace c0de,
Here is one example from the Quran, Verse 2102, clearly says that the the Tanakh contains fabrications
against Solomon PBUH. Referring to The Book of Kings in the Tanakh which claims that Hazrat Sulaiman PBUH
was guilty of idolatry.The Quran also redeems the character of many other prophets who have been falsely accused of grave sins in the Tanakh...
Okay... This doesn't prove the Torah or Tanakh is forged at all, since the Qur'aan never says that the claim of Solomon possibly turning towards idolatry in his later life is a lie. It never mentions this at all. So, if the Tanakh says it's true, while the Qur'aan doesn't mention it at all, then how can you be sure it's not true? The same is the case with the Tanakh's portrayal of King David, claiming that he committed adultery, something that's not mentioned at all in the Qur'aan. But again, just because the Qur'aan doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, your argument on this means nothing...
to tell you the truth bro, some of the stuff in the tanakh... is so bad, I don't even want to repeat here.
Yeah, I didn't think so... ) I don't know of anything in the Tanakh that is so bad, it can't be mentioned in an open debate on scriptural authenticity. So, that comment is ridiculous...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace c0de,
Okay... This doesn't prove the Torah or Tanakh is forged at all, since the Qur'aan never says that the claim of Solomon possibly turning towards idolatry in his later life is a lie. It never mentions this at all.
Did you actually read the verse I gave you? Here it is again
(and keep in mind that this is not the only verse which clearly
places the charge of forgery against the Jews).And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon.
Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved...The words "falsely related" are referring to the story in the Book of Kings,
i.e. saying the account that Solomon PBUH disbelieved is a fabrication.The same is the case with the Tanakh's portrayal of King David, claiming that he committed adultery, something that's not mentioned at all in the Qur'aan. But again, just because the Qur'aan doesn't mention it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
David PBUH has been mentioned with high regard in the Quran. So I am sorry
if I find the claim that he had a man murdered so he could marry his wife, ridiculous.I don't know of anything in the Tanakh that is so bad
Then you clearly don't know the Old Testament.
"Lot, Abraham?s nephew, begat two sons by his own daughters while in a drunken stupor (Genesis 1930-35)."
http//www.christiancourier.com/articles/950-does-the-bible-conflict-with-itself-in-the-matter-of-incestPeAcE
-
Peace be unto you, brothers and sisters,
May God guide you to the Truth.
What the Quran says about the Torah and Gospel
Surah 291, 299, 32-4, 3184, 384, 4136, 566-68, 6154-155, 1037, 12111, 1856, 2848-49, 2946-47, 4215-16The Torah and the Scriptures have been corrupted. We know this for Truth because God tells us so. He warns us of the corruption and to use the Quran as a verifier and confirmation of the Truth within the Scriptures.
Would anyone who is a believer; a muslim with faith in their heart, dare to bear witness to the lies and slander of the mighty Prophets who came before?
Who would claim to believe Lot slept with his daughters, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?
Who would claim Noah got drunk and was discovered naked, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?
Who would claim Solomon fell into sorcerous practices, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?
Who would claim David slept with anyone or killed because of it, if it was not confirmed in the Quran?What Truth do you claim to believe in? The Quran or what is written in other Books that have been tarnished by carnal men who sold their soul to the deceiver?
We are told to read all God's Books, with the Quran as the verifier. The Quran abrogates previous Law, confirm and verifies Truth! Why would we fall prey to the deceiver's trap in believing this slander of our Prophets? God tells us to read the Torah and Scriptures for the Law, no? Our focus should be on serving God, not demeaning His Prophets.
Remember that the Jewish Council of Elders added to the Tanukh. What better way to reinforce the Rabbinical teachings of mysticism and kaballah than to demean the Prophets and usurp the worship of God to the jinn and iblis?
Read the Old and New Testament, just keep the Quran nearby to ascertain the Truth. If God does not speak of it, it did not occur. Or would you believe men before God?
If you read the Tanukh, are you searching for the Nebi'im? Then focus on the prophecies, ignore the porn and slander of Judaism.
Pray for guidance. God most assuredly provides.
Peace and blessings.
-
Peace,
You're wrong on this issue. There is nowhere in the Qur'aan that claims that the Torah is corrupted. In fact, the exact opposite is implied throughout the scripture... The Qur'aan accuses the Jews and Christians of distorting the scriptures with their MOUTHS, and trading in G-d's revelations for manmade books. In other words, the Jews traded the Torah for the Gemarra (Talmud). They didn't corrupt the actual scriptures, they simply misinterpreted and mistranslated them. The Christians abandoned the Torah, and instead, they adhered to the teachings of Paul in the Bible canon, some of which completely contradicted the Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus. This is why the Qur'aan continually encourages Jews to observe Torah and Christians (Nazarenes) to adhere to the Injeel. Why would He tell them to adhere to a corrupted book?
If you are truthful, then please point out a passage in the Qur'aan that alleges that the Torah has been corrupted... Or are you saying about G-d what you don't know?
Peace,
Ahmad