The Prayer Issue Revived
-
Peace "c0de",
How can you say it is "ridiculous"? When every field of study has primary source material and secondary source material?
JK- The problem is hadith is to biased in regards to religion as to be used to explain the Quran. The only reasonable way to explain the Quran is 1) select from a variety of meanings using classical Arabic 2) seeing that it fits the Quran's context and does not contradict other verses which refer to similar incidences i.e. cross referencing within the Quran itself, 3) using archaeological evidence from the TIME OF MUHAMMAD which a) hadith are not, b) that material should not be other human writings but natural non consciously induced incidences e.g. when the Quran mentions the destruction of town x it can be verified that way. If GOD sought another writing i.e. book to be necessary to explain the Quran then why wouldnt He Himself inspire that other book? See now how this doesnt make sense?
Your conception of Atheism is so far off the mark, its funny. (You also believe atheists believe in causality, while modern atheism is actually based in a rejection of causality). Atheists dont believe in God or anything, period. So when you say that they are closer to "real Islam", you should question your own conceptions of "real Islam".
JK- James Randi is one of the most popular atheists. Now what is the 1M USD challenge about. It is about proving under controlled condition any supernatural or paranormal event WHICH IS WHT? It is an event which has no apparent cause isnt it? So JR is relying on the fact that any of those claims would have a cause which will be detected if observed properly.
And neither do Pagans (in their hearts). And I did not ignore the verses you quoted, but I told you that you did not understand them correctly. Take a look at the following verses. They not only show the real state of the pagans, but expose the parallels between pagans and atheists
010.028
And on the day when We will gather them all together, then We will say to those who associated others (with Allah) Keep where you are, you and your associates; then We shall separate them widely one from another and their associates would say It was not us that you servedThis verse clearly says that the pagans didnt actually points out that
010.031
Say "Who is it that sustains you (in life) from the sky and from the earth? or who is it that has power over hearing and sight? And who is it that brings out the living from the dead and the dead from the living? and who is it that rules and regulates all affairs?" They will soon say, "Allah". Say, "will ye not then show piety (to Him)?"JK- This verse clearly shows that the pagans beleived in GOD BUT they took partners besides him. Lemme give you an exmaple. The Christians except GOD. They even claim that Jesus is ALLAH, YES it is their in the Quran. YET those are termed as "kafirs" in the Quran. So theyr amongst the pagans NOT the atheists who dont associate anyone with GOD even though they dont accept His existence. Dr. Zakir Naik, though i dont agree with him much, has made a good statement in this regard. He says atheists have already accepted first part of the kalima i.e. "there is no god" and hence all that is left is convince them of "ilallah(except GOD" whilst the pagans youll first have to prove to prove to them that their concept of GOD is wrong and those that they associate with Him have no power which is exactly in line with these Quranic verses.
This shows that before David Hume's attack on causality, the Athesits had no choice but to reasonably point to God in any logical argument from causality as the "first cause". So in the ancient world, pagans=atheists. But in the modern world the difference between pagans and atheists is that atheists can rely on new arguments against causality. This is why today they dont even have to answer the same as the pagans did back then to this question.
JK- But if you deny causality then youd actually have to 1) beleive in a first cause OR 2) beleive in magic at one point or another. Is there a way around this logically? And again you must be talking about some infamous atheists here like Ali Sina or whatever. Im talking about atheists/agnotics like M Shermer and James Randi. All their arguments rely on causality. If causality is violated the JR will payout 1M usd to the one who shows it.
010.039
Nay, they charge with falsehood that whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before the elucidation thereof hath reached them thus did those before them make charges of falsehood but see what was the end of those who did wrong!This is the real description of the heart of a pagan/atheist. Notice how this verse applies EQUALLY to pagans and atheists.
JK- This might be applciable for some atheists but it is still applicable for all trinitarian christians and other pagans. The main focus is not on atheists here or anywhere else in the Quran.
Its a long story. But your argument of "environment" does not apply to my experience. My coming to Islam was something totally personal and internal.
JK- Dont tell me like people finding Jesus in their heart? If not please explain.
No that is not what I am saying. I am saying the exact opposite. God reveals Himself to whomever He pleases. Our subjectivity, or objectivity has nothing to do with it.
JK- Like the Christians claim that He, GOD forbiud, reveals Himself in Christ??? Do you see the flaw in your argument?
Wrong. The 2nd law applies to closed systems. What you are describing would not be a closed system.
JK- Closed systems are a concept of energy exchange within defined "closed" bounds. If this were not the case there would be just one giant ball of energy without individuals existing. Moreover an ideal closed system does not even exist practically. Similarly in paradise/heaven there would be energy tranfer at one level or another to simlate say our very minds. That system needs to be closed to a great extent otherwise no individualsim.
But you dont fully accept the Quran, that is your problem. You only accept the parts which make sense to you, and reject all the parts which dont. You have made your own rationality above faith. What "faith" is left in such interpretations accept the very basic?
JK- This is wrong but requires some explanation as many others also did not understand this view of mine. The main point to note is that i accept whatever i know to be Quran in the first palce. Just because someone comes to me and says "Hey Jonny heres the Quran, take it" i cannot just accpt that all that he has given me is the true Quran. There has to be a mechanism in nature which enables us to realize which statments here on earth are Quran and thus Divine and which are not. I hope you got it.
I am not playing with words. You only think this because these concepts are new to you and you are not familiar with philosophy. This is why I told you to go and ask a philosophy professor. It would be much easier to explain this to a person face to face.
Your definitions of these words that you use is very amateur. Also, you talk about concepts you dont fully understand. You are also unfamiliar with the history of atheism and this is linked with your other misconceptions.
JK- Please present your definition here if you claim this aint good enough. I can see the world around me and i can say that the agnostics/atheists have produced much more to the befit of people than most of the religious folk. The only religious folk that have somehow provided benefit for humanity is that that has seprated religion from their regular work. And yet that seoration didnt make them better than the other atheists but it still caused a hindrance coz of theextra ritual stuff at home instead of spending tht time for more rational thought.
You only see the good in utilitarianism/atheism but are unaware of its ultimate heresy, or you just refuse to see it. The fact is that if you take out revelation and God's commandments from the picture then the concept of "good" can be molded and you can justify anything and everything. At the end of the day, the system just breaks down completely into a sort of moral relativism.
JK- This is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS and ill explain why. First of all you should know that all humans have an evolved sense of morality. I suggest you read Michael Shermer's book "the sciecne of good and evil". This means that though the natural process of learning humans got to know how to interact with each other e.g. people learned not to kill each other because it then others would also in turn kill them and they themslves wouldnt prosper. That is why altruism is also found in lower primates. Here see this
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
So if altrusim is provided by religion then how come animals show this behaviour too which wed consider moral? But wait there is more. INFACT it is religion which is much more likely for someone to act immorally and ill tell you exactly why. Someone claims that the spirit of Jesus or GOD directly inspired them to kill person x,y,z. Others claim that their religious scripture allows them to kill all infidels. What do they do? Thats right. They kill all otherwise innocent human beings who have done them no harm and start a great war. Moreover every religion has it's own set of morals and almost all claim to come from their concept of GOD and other "gods". So who is immoral, atheists or religious folk? Think hard about this one.I am aware of all of those reasons. (Although I disagree with you completely that the Quran is incomplete).
JK- The Quran has not been revealed in full TO US which includes it's udnerstanding logically. Can you claim that you understand all of the Quran? Similarly you also cannot claim that it has reached you all in it's physical form.
But here is the difference between me and you I would believe in the Quran even if you took all those reasons away. Because my belief is based on faith, not on reason. While your "belief" is based on a flawed rationality. This is why if tomorrow someone came and negated your "rational" proofs and reasons above, you would leave the Quran and throw it away. This is the difference between faith and rationality.
JK- Yes ofcourse if someone can convince me that the Quran is false or if someone can show me a scripture more likely to be Divine than the Quran then it would be stupid not to convert otherwise why do Christians convert to Islam. If it's faith then no religion should ever convert to another so your being hypocritical here. Even faith people accept the better arguments and at a certain point they break down. However it makes it much more diffcult to reason with them and as such they can be very dangerous whilst still holding their dogma as true. BUT YOU HAVNT TOLD ME YET. Why do you beleive in the Quran and not any other scripture being that much Divinely inspired?
I didnt ignore anything. I told you your interpretation is refuted by the letter of the Quran which makes it clear that Abraham PBUH was rewarded because he FULFILLED THE DREAM. You are ignoring the plain and simple words which leave no room for your interpretation.
JK- Ok he fulfilled the dream not of a physical sacrifice of his son but a sacrifice of his son to establish monotheism in the land. hat still makes pefect sense and is not absurd and contradicts the other verse in the Quran which says that GOD does not command vice and the Quran itself states that killing an inncoent is WRONG. Ismail or whoever was sacrificed by Abraham was inncent even by Qurns own standard so your understanding would cause the Quran to have an internal contra besides being totally absurd.
Your position is no more logical then anyone elses.
JK- I guess thats for each individual here to decide for themselves.
I advise you to talk to someone who can council you on philosophy face to face. You need a proper course. Your concepts are very under-developed.
JK- Coming from a person who accepts irrational stuff such as rituals.
Your going in circles. I tell you one thing, you dont understand it.. and then you ask the same question again. You are not a person who learns well by reading. Some people learn better via face to face interaction. This is why I told you to get that appointment with a professor.
JK- Oh sure i will when i feel the time is right. Here im debating with you. As for me goinf in circles again that is for other individuals to decide. Even what professors say is meaningless unless indivduals realize the rationality of their arguments but most of the professors arguments would probably be rational in his/her own field but that again is my statement.
Does he believe that revelation was granted to the Prophet? Yes or no?
JK- He beleives that "wahy" has been granted to Muhammad or any other messenger and I myself accept this but at this point i need to tell you that i dont accept Muhammad was the last messenger but ony the last prophet. prophet being the one whod elivers a divine scripture. The evidence for this which i accept can be found here
http//www.submission.org/messenger/prophet.htmlActually, he is refusing to answer many objections and is "shying away". His arguments on all of the locations he provided have completely collapsed. He has also failed to provide the references which I asked for.
JK- Well i myelf and others on this forum think you are the one shying away and ive noticed you not directly answering some of my points like the 2nd interpretaion i gave you of Abraham's sacrifice above and also you not explaing why you believe in the Quran.
Your question is almost comical. You know how to drive a car right? Would you not care to improve your driving if you had a chance? (methodology is important in everything).
JK- So your saying that one can even improve on the rituals which GOD reveals? I thought you said those were irrational. How can one improve on an irrational concept? Also then is it ok if people continue to add or subtract more details from the rituals and adjust them in the manner they feel best instead of falling a standard mentioned in hadith 1200 yrs ago?
Same old repetition... The hadith is still more reliable then the Jewish and Christian scriptures! And entire religions are based off them, so what makes you think the hadith should be rejected totally?
JK- NO it is NOT. There is at least some archaelogical evidecne for the arts of the OT i.e. the dead sea scrolls (http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_sea_scrolls). Non such have ever been presented for hadith which have been written down more than 200 yrs AFTER the Prophets death.
No thank you. You can have your "numerical structures", but my faith is not based on such arguments. Such a belief is inherently weak. Because rationality can be fooled very easily.
JK- And faith is ryling on something which makes one rigiid, stubborn and also dangerous in many cases when one feels that ones faith is being destroyed. Rational people tend to change their views accordingly without violence.
This position is irrational again (I told you, you keep contradicting your own rationality). If it is a historical document, then it is admissible evidence in all areas. bias or not, you have to provide counter evidence first, or alternative means of verifying.
JK- The hadith were compiled 200 yrs or more after the prophet's death. How can those be as reliable as you claim as compared to aymans much more solid evidence? Anyways the ppl will decide for themslves.
LOL... There is no archeological evidence for Charlemagne either. Or Ceaser... I guess they were allegorical too then?
JK- There is much more evidence for Caesar then there is for Moses. Otherwise why do the majority of archaelogists and historians accept one and not the other?
I think I may be wasting time arguing with you... you seem too far gone...
JK- Now youve shown your arrogance here clearly. I could say the same of you. Keep on expaoing yourself to everyone here.
YEs, because neither the hadith, nor the OT are perfect.
JK- The hadith are even more imperfect and many hadith are infact direct plagiarizations of OT nonsense such as man being created in the image of GOD, or Eve created from the rib of Adam, circfumcision etc.
Yes they are. All 5 times are listed in the Quran. This is an undeniable fact.
JK- If it is indisputable then why are so many right on this forum and others disputing it pointing out the exact verses and showing that this is not so. Your getting more and more irrational just like bro ayman was saying.
Which credible biologist does not believe in some form of evolution?
JK- "Credible" is also a matter of perception and/or acceptance by the people lastly isnt it? Creation "scientists", whom i dont consider credible personally, would hold their list of biologists as credible amongst themslves.
Hence my point that you can never disprove God. You keep misunderstanding almost everything I say... this is getting to be really boring.
JK- Can we disprove sin^2(x)+cos^2x=1. NO because it follows logically from the definitions. This is cosnidered a very strong proof. But infact one could disprove the existence/dominion of one GOD only by showing a paranormal event vioalting the laws of nature.
Did I say they were? I said that ultimately faith is blind, and this is a fact. Please get that appointment with a philosophy or theology professor.
010.009
Surely (as for) those who believe and do good, their Lord will guide them by their faith; there shall flow from beneath them rivers in gardens of bliss.JK- The word "imaan" does not mean "belief" like in the English but rather a confidence attained via use of ones GOD given senses(see 1736) i.e. rationality.
Magrib and Fajr are already short prayers. The "shortening" applies to Zhur, Asr and Isha. Its pretty simple actually.
PeAcE
JK- Now where did you get that definition from? Did GOD decide not to put that in the Quran either? Dont you see that your this way reyling on ever more definitions out of hadith? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
You claim to accept the theory of evolution. Do you also accept that humans and apes share a common ancestor? If you do then the hadith explaining the verses pertaining to the creation of man in the Quran are to be understood as Adam being created as an adult and fully fomed and Eve out of him. Or would you come up with the absurd argument and claim that the hadith can be more trusted in favor of the supposed "rituals" mentioned in the Quran than they can be about the creation event in the Quran?
Also i want to ask you do you beleive Muhammad was inspried with a novel set of ritual prayers? If so then how can you justify this with the Quran which NEVER even hints at such a thing and mentions salat in connection with many messengers before Muhammad. GOD Bless! -
Peace again "c0de",
You claimNo, the real difference is that I accept the limitations of human "rationality".
JK- The limit of rationality is the limit to our knowing things with significant accuracy. Rationality and the usage of our five senses is all we have to get closer to the truth(again i urge you to refer to 1736 in the Quran). Apart from that it is all wishful thinking and blind faith, that be the worst and most unjustifiable with drastical consequences at times not only for oneself but for others as well. GOD Bless!
And your paradigm is specifically tied to the belief that no revelation was granted to the Prophet. So you are not a Muslim, are you?
JK- Has ayman mentioned specifically anywhere that he didnt acceopt Muhammad as receiving inspration/wahy from GOD? If not then what sense would it make for him to accept the Quran as GOD's Word or a Divinely inspired Book?
Yea... and, Masjid al Haraam contains the Kabbah.
JK- "masjid-al-haram" cannot be outside of the "kaaba" because GOD says that the "kaaba" is for everyone whilst the disbelievers are not to enter "masjidal haram". Here are the verses
928 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach "al-masjid-al-haram"...
Now look at this verse
597 God made the "Ka'ba", "al-BAIT-al-haram", an asylum of security for men(NOT MUSLIMS ONLY), as also the Sacred Months, the animals for offerings, and the garlands that mark them...So unless you wanna have a contradiction in the Quran "al-bait-al-haram"/"kaabah" cannot be inside "al-masjid-al-haram". If the kaaba is contained inside "al-masjid-al-haram" then how can the people in general reach it as theyr not allowed to enter al-masjid-al-haram which one would then need to go through to reach "kaaba"? GOD Bless!
-
@ c0de
the "from" and "until" indicate the time frame of the prayer. In the topic "My arguement for 3 prayers" I have already explaine what this means IMO. I wrote that it means from sunset until evening and that it stands for 1 prayer. check my post for further details. It might mean from the declining of the sun at noon until the darkness of the night, but i'm not sure about that (although many say so.)
Nevertheless, imagine that you never knew what hadiths were and you never knew what salaat is. Now open the Quran. If it says to establish prayers at both ends of the day and at the early parts of the night (11114) establish the prayer like described above (177 and to establish the "middle prayer" (223, would you say that there are 3 or 5 salaat?
It all depends on the "duluk al-shams" - if it means the suns decline at just after noon or at sunset. If it means at noon, than there are 5 prayers, but if it means at sunset there are 3 prayers dawn, afternoon (just before sunset) and at evening (from the late-sunset until the evening/darkness of the night).
Anyways...check out my post in the other topic.
Wakas + Bigmo
@ Wakas
If there were only 3 times of the contact prayers, then the words "from"
and "until" would not need to be used. As the three times are already
mentioned in that verse.@ Bigmo
But that is not what the verse is saying. It is not saying that all believers
have their own fixed times. It is clearly saying that the times for the prayers
are themselves fixed.Also, you have not yet provided any proof that the practice of 5 daily prayers
at their stated times was ever any different then it is today. Unless you provide
evidence for this, you do not really have a case.PeAcE
-
@ Jonny
This is useless. Others on this thread have already pointed to your lack of proper debate etiquette, not that I need to rely on anyone else's opinion of you to form my own. You failed to answer objections (repeatedly), and then you repeated the same old stale objections. (I cant believe you are actually accusing me of the same). Countless times you have brought up the same points which have already been answered. You might have a lot of free time on your hands, but I do not. So excuse me if I grow bored of humoring you.
Also, your knowledge of the philosophical, historical, and physical concepts is so limited that it is pointless to have a discussion with you on these subjects. I suggest you take a couple of courses in philosophy and theology before attempting to debate with people. Your talking about rationality, and causality, when you have no idea how to use these terms in proper philosophical context. Instead you ask me to teach you how to use them in a debate, that you are having with me! (lol)
Your views on the Quran, (such as your belief that it is incomplete) are hopelessly wayward. You have also misinterpreted plain and simple verses of the Quran which clearly contradict your interpretations. And the fact that you do not accept the finality of prophethood and revelation tells me that I have no reason to continue this discussion with you. You and I share no common ground. If I had known this in the beginning, I would not have bothered to engage you at all.
If you think I am "shying away" then you are right. I see no point in arguing with you. Nor do I see any point in continuing my participation on this forum. Nothing productive can come from such a place. But it has been very enlightening for me to see what the future holds for this ummah. As I am very sure that your brand of "Islam" is precisely where this ummah is headed towards. It is the natural consequence of utilitarianism replacing faith in the Muslim world.
Have a good life "jonny"
-
Peace "c0de",
This is useless. Others on this thread have already pointed to your lack of proper debate etiquette, not that I need to rely on anyone else's opinion of you to form my own. You failed to answer objections (repeatedly), and then you repeated the same old stale objections. (I cant believe you are actually accusing me of the same). Countless times you have brought up the same points which have already been answered. You might have a lot of free time on your hands, but I do not. So excuse me if I grow bored of humoring you.
JK- I can point out the people who disagree with you. The ones disagreeing with me are obviously the ones who still support the rituals like i myself used to do. It takes time. This reply of your just shows that you are shying away. Ive answered almost every single point of yours EXCEPT the history points which is what bro ayman repleid to you and im sure he'll reply to your above comments as well. You say that i repeat objections. Well didnt you repeat stuff over and over? For sure you did. And every new reply of mine was adding a little more info to it. The Quran itself repeats things many times but at each point giving a bit more information. This is not wrong but actually the natural way to further ones points.
Also, your knowledge of the philosophical, historical, and physical concepts is so limited that it is pointless to have a discussion with you on these subjects. I suggest you take a couple of courses in philosophy and theology before attempting to debate with people. Your talking about rationality, and causality, when you have no idea how to use these terms in proper philosophical context. Instead you ask me to teach you how to use them in a debate, that you are having with me! (lol)
JK- I think ive given quite adequate definitions of the terms. So if you think it is wrong then YOU need to clarify your point, nothing about teaching, and not refer me to other authorities which indeed is a fallacy in an argument. Your arrogance is once again clearly showing here. I will address the things i beleive i know about and i did that.
Your views on the Quran, (such as your belief that it is incomplete) are hopelessly wayward. You have also misinterpreted plain and simple verses of the Quran which clearly contradict your interpretations. And the fact that you do not accept the finality of prophethood and revelation tells me that I have no reason to continue this discussion with you. You and I share no common ground. If I had known this in the beginning, I would not have bothered to engage you at all.
JK- Comes from the one who didnt know that "salat" has a plural in arabic despte the verse being pointed out to him containing "salawat". Ok Mr. smarty tell me if Muhammad was supposed to be both last prophet and messenger then what do you make of these verses
1047 To each community, a messenger(wa liKULLI UMMATIN RASOOL i.e. PRESENT continuous tense). After their messenger comes, they are judged equitably, without the least injustice.
2859 For your Lord never annihilates any community without sending a messenger in the midst thereof, to recite our revelations to them.
Since communities keep coming and going as long as their are humans it follows logically that messengers will continue to come and show us new things from the Quran by GOD's leave and through His inspiration. The rest is explained well in the link i posted above.If you think I am "shying away" then you are right. I see no point in arguing with you. Nor do I see any point in continuing my participation on this forum. Nothing productive can come from such a place. But it has been very enlightening for me to see what the future holds for this ummah. As I am very sure that your brand of "Islam" is precisely where this ummah is headed towards. It is the natural consequence of utilitarianism replacing faith in the Muslim world.
Have a good life "jonny"
JK- Now i think youve shown your true sunni face havnt you? Many people on this forum agree with me and arrive exactly at the same conclusions independently. Wonder why that is? As for you claiming wer replacing faith in the "muslim" world id say it's about time. Those artrogant sunni/shia think theyr the only guided ones by GOD and hence they have a right to bach anyone and even kill apostates or imprison the ones who criticize them too much. It is tragedic that your still subtly siding with those guys. So thats it then are you not even going to repond to ayman anymore? GOD Bless!
-
Peace everyone,
Now that i have brought up that Muhammad was not the last messenger providing evidence from the Quran and also brought up James Randi, an famous atheist/agnostic, whos 1M USD challenge relies on causality mr. "c0de" is shying away(c0de claims modern atheists deny causality). Well i guess thats just too bad isnt it. ALSO i showed him that altruistic behaviour, i.e. bahaviour we as humans would consider highly moral, is present in animals too. This clearly refutes his argument that morals come from religion where morals vary greatly from one religion to another. He might now claim that he just said that morals came from GOD. But in that sense EVERYTHING comes from GOD, the understanding of relativity, development of MRIs and other sophisticated medical devices etc. What he actually means is that GOD reveals Himself via inducing faith in people and this is where it gets absurd because almost all religions have vast difference and many of them claim to believe in one God and to have been inspired by God to believe. He continuosuly ignores 1736 in the Quran which makes clear that we get to understand what GOD wants via the rational approach. You can notice that if you go through our debate above. GOD Bless! -
Peace Ayman,
The difference is that this is not about violating it but about the violation being in it. So the violation is in observing it.
This is an interesting analysis, but it is only speculation. It could also mean that they were violating IN IT in the sense of improper observance. They added all kinds of extra prohibitions to the observance in the shabbat, even things not outlined in the Torah. This is how the Hebrew scriptures mention them violating it, as a nation. The Qur'aan never claims that the shabbat was a manmade observance given by the Jews...
Where does it say that it is part of their covenant? The covenant with the people of the book is clearly stated in the great reading and it doesn't even remotely include it.
So, according to the Qur'aan, what does their covenant include?! Clearly, according to the reading, their covenant was in obeying G-d's commandments, which includes observing the shabbat ("sabbath". Therefore, the shabbat was definately part of their covenant, and that's why they were punished for violating it...
Please see the same wording used in 16124 used in 393 in reference to other manmade falsehoods such as setting partners with the god.
This doesn't say, or even imply, anything manmade about the shabbat. So, this passage is not applicable at all... According to the Qur'aan, their idolatry came in the form of them NOT observing the shabbat properly or wholeheartedly...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace everyone,
Notice what "c0de" has written early in his posts talking about the moderate tone in salatI(c0de) personally keep the volume of recital constant because of this verse as well.
JK- Sounds like he keeps his recital constant in all prayers as the above statement is not retsricted to specific prayers. Notice now here he doesnt make the claim that the two prayers, zuhr and asr, are already silent but in case of the shortening prayers he does claim that prayers maghrib and fajr are already short. I quote his reply to that again
Magrib and Fajr are already short prayers. The "shortening" applies to Zhur, Asr and Isha. Its pretty simple actually.
JK- Do you see now how he's being inconsistent and on the other hand he's started to become so arrogant? GOD Bless!
-
Peace Ahmad,
So, according to the Qur'aan, what does their covenant include?!
Just do a search on "mythaq" and "3ahd" (covenant/contract) in the great reading. You will see what their covenant includes.
Clearly, according to the reading, their covenant was in obeying G-d's commandments, which includes observing the shabbat ("sabbath". Therefore, the shabbat was definately part of their covenant, and that's why they were punished for violating it...
No, their covenant is clearly stated in the great reading and it doesn't include the Sabbath no more than it includes spinning around a stone cube. Just because some people think that those moronic things are the god's commandments, it doesn't make them so. I asked you where does it say in the great reading that the Sabbath is part of their covenant? Please provide the verse, if you can.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace everyone,
The following comments by "c0de" were left unanswered by me so im going to reply to them now.I think you have misunderstood the word "archeological". I took a quick look at those links and all I saw were more semantics.
JK- Those were arhaeological artifacts the likes of which are not seen in case of hadith, which you claim to be a valid historical document. Infact hadith is more fiction than history.
"Archaeology" is a term which is usually (in popular usage) applied to things which have been excavated. I don't know what tombs your scholars have been excavating for their proofs here.
JK- I will let bro Ayman answer this assertion.
Once again, I advise you to actually talk to a shia about this. They recognize 5 distinct times (as they recognize 5 distinct prayers). They just combine prayers because of convenience.
JK- But they can combine it at ANY TIME and not just during travel or war as sunnis claim. If one can always combine certain prayers and offer them at the same times as the other two, thus in this case making it three times then this shows that the more clear timings are only three. Hence the shia practice shows us independent viewers that theres a confusion. Since GOD cannot be the Author of confusion, it follow logically that the whole concept of ritual prayer does not come from GOD but is either 1) a man made innovation or 2) a pagan ritual introduced into "islam", the latter of which is mroe likely from the evidence I have seen.
You have provided semantics, and uncertainties. "proof" would be historical evidence that the early Muslims used to "pray" randomly.
JK- As ive told you before the Quran, being a KITAAB, is mainly about semantics. Otherwise GOD coulve revealed a video tape or just physical practices passed down through the generations with 100% accuracy non of which is the case. Also in the latter case a KITAAB, i.e. something WRITTEN and thus obviously related to semantics, would be superfluous.
No, what you have done is change your argument. And you have even LESS proof for this new argument then you did for your first.
JK- It is very possible that as the debate goes along i need t correct some minor points. I readily admit this. You dont and ive clearly pointed out your discrepnacies.
(that is funny)
Tell me, when a passenger aircraft takes off from JFK and lands at Heathrow, how does it land on the runway? According to your argument, it will keep going on forever because the direction goes on forever. I will tell you how it lands, because it is not making the direction of Heathrow as its destination, but the runway at Heathrow is the destination of the plane. When it reaches its destination, it has accomplished its goal, so it does not keep going in a circle forever. Common sense dictates that when you face an object on the grid, you make that object your objective, not the direction of the object itself. We are not worshiping the direction of Mecca, we are making the Kaabah a focal point for worship.JK- Yes but a plain will always have at least two possible directions to go and reach the same destination AND if one airport on the globe is exactly opposite to another one on this earth, THEN the plane can START OFF IN ANY direction and reach the airport oppsoite to that part of the globe. Did you get my point? If not i suggest you take any sphrical object like an apple or an orange. Take the top and the bottom of it as the two points im talking about and youll see that all directions from any of those would lead to the other on that fruit.
Ok, first of all, you have misunderstood my response. I did not say you could face anywhere you like. Please read what I said again. And secondly, I have not contradicted myself because I have not used my common sense in making Mecca the focal point of my worship. I did not come up with this idea myself.
JK- For the first part see my comment above. As for the second part ive already told you why GOD never, GOD frobid, came up with this idea.
No, that does not absolve you of a hypocritical fallacy. Because in order to support your point the example you gave was the same fallacy which you earlier accused (wrongly) me of giving you. (i.e. Argument from ignorance)
JK- You are comitting a similar fallacy as I mentioned in my example. When people ask of us to prove that their well established concept of Santa is not true, theyr comitting a fallacy which is similar to yours in this particular statement. As for the "evidence" youve provided for GOD commanding 5 daily salat it has been debunked.
I looked through those articles and I am telling you that they are just semantics. Because even the articles themselves state CLEARLY in the beginning that the word salat has "different" meanings. (i.e. multiple meanings, i.e. those meanings are not mutually exclusive). So even if their alternative meanings are valid, (which they probably are) it still does not mean that salat does not have ritual significance.
"For those who take guidance from 'al quran' ('the reading' alone, different views have emerged about the word "salat"."
http//www.free-minds.org/salat_anonJK- Please refer to my reply above where ive explained this clearly.
You have completely contradicted yourself here. If beliefs were based in "reason" and rationality then everyone would be following the same principles because we would all arrive at the same conclusion! Tell me, why was it that the Prophet PBUH only had around 60 followers for the first 16 years of his preaching!? You think that his arguments (the Quran) lacked any "reason"?? The fact is that God decides whose heart is allowed to be opened to faith and who remains rejected... It has nothing to do with reason and rationality.
JK- Ive already told you why this is not true. All people do not want to be reasobanle. Otherwise everyone would have accepted evolution. Yet more than 50% of US citizens outright deny it and even go so far as to beleive the earth was created in the last 6000 yrs or so. As for your example with Muhammad tell me how many people followed Galileo in the beginning or how many followe Darwin? Do you see how wrong your points are? As for your last part it is GOD who opens ones heart/mind by enabling one to use his/her reason and logic(1736) and eliminate biases.
Exactly! Thank you for supporting my point. The fact is that every religion DOES claim to be right, and this DOES NOT make any sense whatsoever. Does it?
JK- It doesnt and thats why you dont make any sense whatsoever and there is no reason why your belief is anymore credible than any others. Yet you claim it is. Now theres a danger since youd obviously insist on you being right vehemently claiming your guided by GOD where as the counter religions would claim the same. And what likely happens if two ideologies, boith ascertain absolute certainty collide? BLOODHSED. This is the basic problem with blind faith. Im open to all possibilties and have changed my views many times on the forum.
Well I have. Take a look at this thread from another forum. I invite you come and join if you want
http//www.interfaith.org/forum/proof-of-god-9794.htmlKeep in mind my views have changed somewhat since I made this post, as that was actually my first post on that forum last year. But I want you to notice the debate between me and the chief atheist there in the first few pages. Notice that even when his arguments were completely defeated (which happened numerous times on that forum actually) that one person in particular never gave up his position. He was banned several times, and is still on the forum today with a different name.
JK- Ive also made it clear that not even every atheist is going to accept every evidence especially because your still claiming that GOD is supernatural. You made some very good points but then focussed more on fine tune than the actual point which was "In an ifinite amount of time ANYTHING inclduing a god could arise". Instead you say
A "naturally occurring mechanism"... sure. But what are the odds that this mechanism occurred the way it did? Can these odds be sustained in a finite system? No they can not. This is why a Designer becomes necessary, and thats the whole point of the argument.
JK- See now how youve shifted the argument away from your original logical point. What you probably didnt think of is that atheists do recognize that there are infinite possible universes which might exist(i say they inevitably do) and one just happens to have the right constant. However taking your original point you shouldve gone like this "Since in an infinite amount of time anything can arise including a god, once GOD came an infinite "time" ago in the quantum realm and that time being a subset of the previous infinite time, He/It left nothing more upto chance so EVERY universe is BY DEFINITION created by GOD i.e. the Light of the heavens and the earth as per 2435.
Consider this Can someone choose to reject guidance if God wills that person to be guided? Of course not. That is the point, it is not up to us to accept or reject anything, it is up to God who allows us to accept, or forbids us from accepting.
JK- You need to talk from our frame of reference and not speculate about GOD's frame of reference. This is infact religious people's biggest fault. You dont know what GOD has in mind in an absolute sense. So as i said earlier we need to use our reaosn and logic to detect who is guided based on the material we have and have also in turn analysed using reason and logic. Do you get it this time?
I am already aware of the inadequacies of the hadith manuscripts. But I am also aware of their value as historical documents. All historical documents are flawed (except the Quran). If we were to rely on a perfect criteria, history as a field of study would end.
JK- And i said theyr not even much valid as historical documents especially regarding the system of islam because 1) theyr very biased in THT regard and 2) theyve been compiled more than 250 yrs AfTER Muhammad's death.
Then you have exchanged your weak argument, for an even weaker one.
PeAcE
JK- As everyone can see now this is most probably not the case. GOD Bless!
-
Peace everyone,
I consider the following, taken fro my reply to "c0de" very important and hence I'm going to requote it here separately again
"Code" claimed in his reply to an atheist
A "naturally occurring mechanism"... sure. But what are the odds that this mechanism occurred the way it did? Can these odds be sustained in a finite system? No they can not. This is why a Designer becomes necessary, and thats the whole point of the argument.
Then i replied
JK- See now how has shifted the argument away from your original logical point. What you probably didnt think of is that atheists do recognize that there are infinite possible universes which might exist(i say they inevitably do) and one just happens to have the right constant. However taking your original point you shouldve gone like this "Since in an infinite amount of time anything can arise including a god, once GOD came an infinite "time" ago in the quantum realm and that time being a subset of the previous infinite time, He/It left nothing more upto chance so EVERY universe is BY DEFINITION created by GOD i.e. the Light of the heavens and the earth as per 2435.
GOD Bless!
-
Peace again "c0de",
I almost forgot to tell you one important thing. You claimed that you believe the Quran is the Word of GOD and it is preserved on faith preseumably without there being any mechanism in nature which would show this over time. So what would happen if say someone took a pen, erased a few lines from the "Quran" or added a few and then print that book naming it "Quran"? Right there your belief would be falsified or no? GOD Bless! -
Salamun alaykum
Peace C0de
Do you you have to be a genius to know that all Religions are man-made ? including Muhammadanism mistakenly called "Islam" .
If you believe that The Qur'an is the word of God , Complete , Perfect , No contradiction in it , and Fully Detailed , why do you need the Nonsensical Hadiths for your so called Islamic Rituals ? .
Another question for you is ...If The Kaaba and or Masjid al Haraam is the one in Mecca as you insisted and cited 396-97 for your evidence , why then didn't The Ottoman Rulers and Scholars order an Archaelogical excavation in Mecca ( and The present Al Saud Rulers ) to prove to the World that indeed , the first dwelling built for mankind on this Earth was in Mecca ? and therefore The Cradle of Civilization , began there ? Or do you think those Ottoman Rulers , Sharif Hussein and his Clan , The al Saud and Abdul Wahhab could not understand the meanings of 396-97 ? .
As for your saying that Ibrahim and his son Ismail was only ordered by The God to built The Foundation of The Kaaba but not to Convey God's Message to Local people , is silly to put it mildly . As an intelligent person who claims to believe in The Qur'an , you are closed minded , and unwilling to learn from humble "Free-Minders" but you worship anyone with Prof before their names ( Very Sad ). Someone pointed out to 4213 ( That God's deen or System is the same ) but you still dismissed it , if you search The Qur'an with clear mind and good intention , you will find other Verses that say That Sunnatullah does not change . Why insist on Ibrahim and Ismail built The Kaaba even after you read 3444 ? Please see 12106 , 3945 7218 for your Belief and Rituals .
Peace and guidance of God to you .
-
DELETED
-
check out this link http//www.mostmerciful.com/realities-of-our-daily-prayers.htm
there are also other very interesting topics on www.mostmerciful.com -
Peace again "c0de",
You claimJK- The limit of rationality is the limit to our knowing things with significant accuracy. Rationality and the usage of our five senses is all we have to get closer to the truth(again i urge you to refer to 1736 in the Quran). Apart from that it is all wishful thinking and blind faith, that be the worst and most unjustifiable with drastical consequences at times not only for oneself but for others as well. GOD Bless!
JK- Has ayman mentioned specifically anywhere that he didnt acceopt Muhammad as receiving inspration/wahy from GOD? If not then what sense would it make for him to accept the Quran as GOD's Word or a Divinely inspired Book?
JK- "masjid-al-haram" cannot be outside of the "kaaba" because GOD says that the "kaaba" is for everyone whilst the disbelievers are not to enter "masjidal haram". Here are the verses
928 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach "al-masjid-al-haram"...
Now look at this verse
597 God made the "Ka'ba", "al-BAIT-al-haram", an asylum of security for men(NOT MUSLIMS ONLY), as also the Sacred Months, the animals for offerings, and the garlands that mark them...So unless you wanna have a contradiction in the Quran "al-bait-al-haram"/"kaabah" cannot be inside "al-masjid-al-haram". If the kaaba is contained inside "al-masjid-al-haram" then how can the people in general reach it as theyr not allowed to enter al-masjid-al-haram which one would then need to go through to reach "kaaba"? GOD Bless!
I think it says men and not believers becaue all kinds of people go there, believers and non believers. The same thing the Koran says about surat al fath, when it says if you see the poeple enter the religion of God and not believers. Many of the pagans, hypocrites and others entered Islam after their military defeat.
Anyways why all this heated debate about something thats not important. there are many shrines of God, the Ka'aba is one of them. So whats the big deal? Its a place for people to worship, its all symbolism. I don't see why all this heated debate is necessary. It only will make you fight and seperate from each other which the Koran forbids.
There is still a Sunni mindset thats not going away. Once again this verse is useful
Righteousness does not consist in whether you turn your faces towards the east or the west; what is righteous is to believe in Allah and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practise regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and in times of war. Such as do so are people of truth. Such are the Allah-fearing. (Al-Baqara, 177)
-
Peace JK,
Ive answered almost every single point of yours EXCEPT the history points which is what bro ayman repleid to you and im sure he'll reply to your above comments as well.
Irrational pagans will always find an excuse to idolize things and delude themselves. Sectarians do it all the time and they use the great reading to justify their idolatry. Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that fondling, kissing and spinning around a stone cube is an irrational pagan fetish that has nothing to do with the god. People without sickness in their hearts would naturally feel that something is not quite right about those filthy pagan symbols and rituals and would denounce such things when reminded of not setting partners with the god. As for people with blind hearts, no reply or any amount of debate can help them anyway and they will follow whatever lies and delusions are in line with their preconceptions.
Peace,
Ayman
-
My my my..... all these words, and not a single thought worth the bandwidth.... its sad really.
I thought I would check up on this ancient thread (I was bored P) to see what you people came up with in my absence, and I had to try really hard to contain my amusement. I mean just the sheer USELESSNESS of your posts is astounding! All of these little points *(most of which are almost pointless repetitions of refuted ideas, over and over and over again).... Tell me something Mr. "jonny" you're not an Internet Zombie are you??? Or maybe like an experimental bot device... (lol)
Anyways, enough fun... let me just quickly address some of your.... misunderstandings.
#1 Atheists REJECT the argument from Causality ( I apologize for not making this clear before, but whatever) which you are using to prove God. Don't believe me, go and ask your friend Mr. James Randi. Ask him why he doesnt believe in God. But I will save you some time and answer for him, because I already know exactly what he and all atheists like him say "Hey Jonny, I'll tell you why I dont believe in God, because there was no divine "cause" which was observable which proves that the "effect" of the universe being of a divine origin. As my idol David Hume proved philosophically centuries ago, Causality IS ONLY VALID when observed and measured DIRECTLY to be considered scientific. So your assertion that because the universe exists, and this implies a Creator, this is an IRRATIONAL claim because it is an unfounded assertion. This is why the argument from causality which you are using is INVALID, and this is why it can not be used to "prove" God scientifically. Furthermore my good rationalistic friend, I will say that I dont believe in God, because, as a rational scientist, I also must say that causality must also apply to God, and therefore when God says that He Himself was not created by anything (i.e. is without a cause) I will say that such an explanation is outside of rationality, and this is why I do not believe in God" Once again, if you dont want to believe me, go and ask him yourself. Go on his website and find his email and send him an email. (I dare ya)
#2 I see your friend Mr. "Archeology" didn't have any answers for any of my objections, (as expected). But I am sure you still have faith in him and his crackpot claims.
#3 I am flattered that you were reading my argument with Mr. Tao the Atheist on the other forum. But my views on that argument are not the same and have changed considerably in the last half a year since I posted that argument. I know that my own argument is now invalid, because the infinite time argument contradicts God's own description of Himself in the Quran. Time could not be responsible for creating God, because Time did not exist before God, also, if Time was responsible for creating God, then Time itself would be greater then God, which would invalidate God's uncreated supremacy. Therefore, I am sorry if you liked that point, but I myself reject it now. The only reason I linked that post was to show you the behavior of that atheist and how he behaved. If you think you can talk to an atheist and convert one via rationality, please go ahead and try.
#4 Btw, while we are on the subject, let me address another point you tried to make about the definition of the word "iman" as a belief in things through reason. Tell me something, before you checked the dictionary, did you even bother checking the Quranic definition of Iman? Iman is stated as a belief in God, Angels, Hereafter (among other things). Which makes the concept of Iman totally CIRCULAR in logic. Because what it basically means is that God is saying in that verse that He guides those who believe by their iman by their belief in God!. That is TOTALLY CIRCULAR LOGIC. But This is what makes God above Philosophy! God can use circular logic and still get away with it. How can you rationally guide someone in something that can't be seen or proven, by their belief in that same unseen and unproven thing?? Is that "rational"??? (err.. no, it isnt).
#5 I noticed you said somewhere here that "God is not supernatural".... Dude... you know what... I wish I could watch you go to up to a philosopher or a scientist and say that to him!!! You know what I would LOVE! Is if you went up to your hero Richard Dawkins, or whatever, and said this exact statement like that to their face!!! LOL! Man... they would tear you APART! dude, they would HUMILIATE you, with the very same RATIONALITY which you hold to be supreme! You know why? Because you HAVE NO IDEA (and I say this again) how to use or apply rationality in an actual philosophic argument! "God is not supernatural" LOL!!.... aw man... that cute really... so adorable!
.... I would refute more of your "reasoning" here ... but i am bored again... think i'll watch a movie.... at this point, I am sure any activity will be more productive then this hopeless discussion.
PeAcE
im out