The Prayer Issue Revived
-
Peace "c0de",
Salaam JK
Why do people here keep referring to articles from this website to support their arguments? It would be like me making my own website and providing it as a scholarly source to back up my own statements.
JK- You should LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEREWITH REFERENCES. So what do you make of all those REFERENCED archaological findings in "aymans" article? Arnt they extremely telling? They made up the whole "jahilliyapoertry" nonsense as well as associating common nouns in the Quran with names. You can clearly see that theres no evidence of there ever being a city called mecca or a builfing called kaaba archaeologically. Can you dispute that?
No, that is not what I am asking. I am not asking you to prove something doesnt exist. I am asking you to prove that something (a practice) did exist Your claiming that 3 prayers were the established ritual of the early Muslims. So you need to provide historical proof of this. Do you have any historical proof at all that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times a day?
JK- No im not claiming that 3 daily salat were an established "muslim" ritual. It could be but im beginning to sense that the whole salat=prayer argument doesnt make any sense after all and theres archaological evidence which supports that.
But the source you provided (the wiki article) doesnt say the Shia do not recognize 5 distinct prayers. And I have provided a link from a shia website in this thread which clearly says that shias recognize the 5 prayers as DISTINCT prayers with DISTINCT timings. The only difference is that they combine prayers into 3 timings (not always, but are allowed to do this for the sake of convenience).
JK- Isnt it strange that they acknoledge two prayers dont have fixed timings? What sense does it make for GOD to order two such prayers which dont even have defined timings whilst the Quran clearly states that salat is to be made at "fixed times".
It doesn't matter if you don't accept it as a valid historical document, because it is. It is not perfect, but it is a historical document nonetheless. Besides, I already asked you to provide your own source material which provides proof that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times.
JK- Ive provided proof that the whole salat=prayer is bunk.
As I said, it is subjective. And if you want to question the meaning of Salat, go ahead. Just bring some actual evidence to prove that your interpretation was the same as the practice of the early Muslims.
JK- As i said ive provided evidence now.
Yes, you can, if you convert the sphere into a grid.
JK- So what about the point opposite the claimed focal point where all directions lead to the same , thus all unity breaking down? You didnt address that.
Wrong, there is always a shortest path between any two points on a sphere. And in some cases, there are two "shortest paths", and if you find yourself on that point of the grid, then just face any one of them you like. (common sense).
JK- This is exactly the prob. If we could face anywhere we like then what sense does it make for GOD to order to face a certain physical location in the 1st place. MOREOVER your now using COMMON SENSE in salat whilst you yourself said that there can be no use of rationality in this regard. Youve just contradicted yourself.
I personally do not require, nor want, any such labels associated with my beliefs. I am a Muslim, that is all I care to be.
JK- Fair enough.
Now you are asking me to disprove Santa.... You are now guilty of a hypocritical fallacy.
JK- No i was clarifying my point with an example since you were asking me to prove a -ve namely that "muslims" didnt always pray 5 times.
The 5 prayer ritual does not contradict the Quran in the slightest. Refer to the previous pages for the nullification of this claim.
JK- If you bothered to read any of the articles i posted you would have known that there are so many verses where salat cannot mean prayer by any possible stretch. Please read those articles and if you find a flaw bring it here so we can discuss it.
You completely missed the point of my response. You can not prove your faith to me, and I can not prove mine to you. You think you can, but I advise you to go and talk to an atheist...
JK- I can provide evidence for my understandings and you can for yours. Then it's upto people to decide which makes more sense and either we both will stay the same or Ill accedpt your views or you mine.
You are seeing things in my posts which aren't there, a perfect example of subjective reasoning.
JK- I was making clear to you that without independent natural observations converging to the same conclusions we cannot know what is closer to the truth. Thus taking your arguments i said every religion can claim to be right and it makes no sense whatsoever.
So have I, on other forums. Guess what, no atheist ever got converted... How many atheists have you converted?
JK- I havnt disucssed these issues with atheists alot and many dont come to free minds or studfy the Quran at all. We can access the Quranic verses in question right here.
Did you also notice that God has said that He controls the hearing and the sight? So those who are blind to faith, are blind because God has not granted them sight.
JK- Yes but that is when one is deliberately unwilling to beleive. However i dont beleive your willingly rejecting anything or are you? neither am i.
Independent "nonbiased" (there is no such thing) scholars accept the hadith manuscripts as historical documents. They of course know they are not 100% accurate as the sunnis claim, but they still recognize them as containing accurate information.
JK- I kindly ask you to gain read "aymans" article and see if you still find the hadith acceptable as historical documents.
I once again ask you to provide proof for your arguments. If you do not accept the hadith, then go ahead and provide any other historical document which proves that there was a time when the early Muslims used to pray 3 times a day.
PeAcE
JK- I can only repeat ive provided evidence that salat<>ritual prayer at all. Now please go through those articles. GOD Bless!
-
You should LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED THEREWITH REFERENCES. So what do you make of all those REFERENCED archaological findings in "aymans" article? Arnt they extremely telling? They made up the whole "jahilliyapoertry" nonsense as well as associating common nouns in the Quran with names. You can clearly see that theres no evidence of there ever being a city called mecca or a builfing called kaaba archaeologically. Can you dispute that?
I think you have misunderstood the word "archeological". I took a quick look at those links and all I saw were more semantics.
No im not claiming that 3 daily salat were an established "muslim" ritual. It could be but im beginning to sense that the whole salat=prayer argument doesnt make any sense after all and theres archaological evidence which supports that.
"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.
Isnt it strange that they acknoledge two prayers dont have fixed timings? What sense does it make for GOD to order two such prayers which dont even have defined timings whilst the Quran clearly states that salat is to be made at "fixed times".
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- Ive provided proof that the whole salat=prayer is bunk.
You have provided semantics, and uncertainties. "proof" would be historical evidence that the early Muslims used to "pray" randomly.
JK- As i said ive provided evidence now.
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- So what about the point opposite the claimed focal point where all directions lead to the same , thus all unity breaking down? You didnt address that.
(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- This is exactly the prob. If we could face anywhere we like then what sense does it make for GOD to order to face a certain physical location in the 1st place. MOREOVER your now using COMMON SENSE in salat whilst you yourself said that there can be no use of rationality in this regard. Youve just contradicted yourself.
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- No i was clarifying my point with an example since you were asking me to prove a -ve namely that "muslims" didnt always pray 5 times.
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- If you bothered to read any of the articles i posted you would have known that there are so many verses where salat cannot mean prayer by any possible stretch. Please read those articles and if you find a flaw bring it here so we can discuss it.
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- I can provide evidence for my understandings and you can for yours. Then it's upto people to decide which makes more sense and either we both will stay the same or Ill accedpt your views or you mine.
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- I was making clear to you that without independent natural observations converging to the same conclusions we cannot know what is closer to the truth. Thus taking your arguments i said every religion can claim to be right and it makes no sense whatsoever.
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- I havnt disucssed these issues with atheists alot and many dont come to free minds or studfy the Quran at all. We can access the Quranic verses in question right here.
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- Yes but that is when one is deliberately unwilling to beleive. However i dont beleive your willingly rejecting anything or are you? neither am i.
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- I kindly ask you to gain read "aymans" article and see if you still find the hadith acceptable as historical documents.
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- I can only repeat ive provided evidence that salat<>ritual prayer at all. Now please go through those articles. GOD Bless!
Then you have exchanged your weak argument, for an even weaker one.
PeAcE
-
peace jk, all,
To save you some time debating with "c0de", I strongly recommend reading the first two pages of this thread. It was proven he/she makes statements without reading past discussions or bothering to check the basic Arabic.
Thus, the chances of fruitful discussion about AQ with a person like this are almost zero.
-
Salaam JK
Mr. CoDe has some unanswered questions
As you are claiming the prayers are not five so the burden of proof is on You? You should provide a historical or an otherwise proof for your claim.
When you keep on bringing the articles of ayman or others from this very site, that makes your case weak, because this is the very site which has put forward this claim.
Mr. Wakas; we donot know about the past of "CoDe" but at least in debate he is scoring well.
-
Wakas + Rajah
@ Wakas
The only valid objection which you made which was the plural of the word "salat". But even then I provided you with an argument against this. You did not provide any other point which has not already been answered. Remember that you were the one who left the discussion after issuing insulting comments, not I. And you have returned again in the same unsavory fashion. I remind you again that you are a moderator here and need to tone it down for the sake of the credibility of this entire website.
@ Rajah
First of all, thank you for the compliment. peace Second of all, anyone who claims that the prayers are 3, has to provide the proof (that is the argument from my side). I have discussed this issue with JK via MSN, and I find the entire premise of rejecting the hadith as a valid historical document to be simply bad scholarship. Also, I was not the one who brought articles from this site, they were quoted to me as "evidence" from members here.
PeAcE
-
Mr. Wakas; we donot know about the past of "CoDe" but at least in debate he is scoring well.
On the contrary, past discussion is valid as what is "past". Of course, I am using the dictionary definition of "past", you are free to use your own definition.
The only valid objection which you made which was the plural of the word "salat". But even then I provided you with an argument against this. You did not provide any other point which has not already been answered. Remember that you were the one who left the discussion after issuing insulting comments, not I. And you have returned again in the same unsavory fashion. I remind you again that you are a moderator here and need to tone it down for the sake of the credibility of this entire website.
Can you reference these so-called "insulting comments"?
As I said, a simple look at the first two pages of this thread should suffice for the reader.
-
On the contrary, past discussion is valid as what is "past". Of course, I am using the dictionary definition of "past", you are free to use your own definition.
If you feel any points of the previous discussion invalidate my arguments here, please post them on this thread.
Can you reference these so-called "insulting comments"?
This is from your last post
"Thus, the chances of fruitful discussion about AQ with a person like this are almost zero."
-
@ c0de
Selam. Although the Ismailis are Shia, they do 3x Duas per day. They don't practive 5x Salaat per day.
-
@ Progressive
Salaam bro,
The reason for 3 prayers is stated as thus
"Nizari Ismai'lis reason that it is up to the Imm of the time to designate the style and form of prayer,"
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili#SalahTherefore their practice can not be used to support the idea that the early Muslims used to pray 3 times.
Also, there are even branches of Ismailis which practice 5 prayers
"In contrast, the Mustaali (Bohra) branch of Ismailism has kept five prayers and their style is generally closely related to Twelver groups." http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismaili#SalahThis quote also serves to prove that the Shias believe in 5 distinct prayers.
PeAcE
-
Firstly Salaam brother coDe; In my post I was asking JK to answer your unanswered questions. I know it is he who has brought forward the claim thus burden of proof lies with him.
Secondly you must not be dishearted by Mr. Wakas's comments as his signature says
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify 1736, 20114, 3528, 496, 5811.
Thirdly It is very much true that almost all sects of Shia believe in 5 times prayers, it is only the timing issue and that too is not compulsory.
-
Peace "rajah",
The bruden of proof is not on the ones who dont acceot rituals which is a secular standpoint. Your not born with the knowledge of rituals and no one comes to that conclusion independently. The burdern of proof is thus on the ones claiming there are a specific set of rituals ordained by GOD. Your argument is just like the Christians saying since atheist brought up the issue that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is ridiculous theyr the ones who shld proide proof that this wasnt so. Do you see the flaw? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "rajah",
The bruden of proof is not on the ones who dont acceot rituals which is a secular standpoint. Your not born with the knowledge of rituals and no one comes to that conclusion independently. The burdern of proof is thus on the ones claiming there are a specific set of rituals ordained by GOD. Your argument is just like the Christians saying since atheist brought up the issue that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is ridiculous theyr the ones who sld proide proof. Do you see the flaw? GOD Bless!
Not exactly. The 5 prayer ritual is an established practice already which is itself proof of it. Also, since all the times are listed in the Quran, and the hadith confirms this (as it is a valid historical document whether you accept it as one or not), it does have proof.
However, the alternative position which challenges this and says that there were 3 prayers, or no prayers, has not brought any historical evidence to corroborate their claims and show that the Early Muslims prayed 3 prayers instead of 5, or any number greater or less then 5 contact prayers. All you have right now is conjecture, semantics and speculation.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Not exactly. The 5 prayer ritual is an established practice already which is itself proof of it. Also, since all the times are listed in the Quran, and the hadith confirms this (as it is a valid historical document whether you accept it as one or not), it does have proof.
JK- According to your argument the claim that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is an established claim too. Dont you see how flawed your pt is? Infact more people around the world beleive that Jesus died on the cross for their sins than those who claim 5 daily prayers are from GOD.
However, the alternative position which challenges this and says that there were 3 prayers, or no prayers, has not brought any historical evidence to corroborate their claims and show that the Early Muslims prayed 3 prayers instead of 5, or any number greater or less then 5 contact prayers. All you have right now is conjecture, semantics and speculation.
PeAcE
JK- From the Quran alone you can unambiguously claim 3 prayers at best. And im even questioning tht. Ritual prayer doesnt make any sense whatsoever and bro ayman can provide you with more evidence than ive already presented that those were pagan rituals. But even if he couldnt it still wouldnt prove your 5 daily salat being from GOD in any way. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
JK- According to your argument the claim that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is an established claim too. Dont you see how flawed your pt is? Infact more people around the world beleive that Jesus died on the cross for their sins than those who claim 5 daily prayers are from GOD.
You think my point is flawed because you have not yet understood it. I never claimed that the hadith manuscripts were perfect. I claimed that they are valid historical documents (which they are). They do constitute as evidence. This is why I accept the evidence which supports my view, and reject anything which goes against the Quran and my own reason. I have that privilege. While you do not, because you do not accept the hadith at all... which basically limits your resources. You have placed these constraints on yourself, so deal with the consequences.
JK- From the Quran alone you can unambiguously claim 3 prayers at best. And im even questioning tht. Ritual prayer doesnt make any sense whatsoever and bro ayman can provide you with more evidence than ive already presented that those were pagan rituals. But even if he couldnt it still wouldnt prove your 5 daily salat being from GOD in any way. GOD Bless!
Nothing you have said has stood up to my objections on this thread, nor on our MSN chat. If you feel this Ayman can resurrect your position, please feel free to ask him to post his arguments on this thread.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
You think my point is flawed because you have not yet understood it. I never claimed that the hadith manuscripts were perfect. I claimed that they are valid historical documents (which they are). They do constitute as evidence. This is why I accept the evidence which supports my view, and reject anything which goes against the Quran and my own reason. I have that privilege. While you do not, because you do not accept the hadith at all... which basically limits your resources. You have placed these constraints on yourself, so deal with the consequences.
JK- You ignored my Christian example entirely. If GOD wanted us to follow rituals why put the details between imperfect scriptures? i think u said at tht pt "it's not coz of hadith but wht muslims have been practicng all along" but where did u get this tht muslims were practicng this all along? "from the hadith" so its a cear circular argument.
Nothing you have said has stood up to my objections on this thread, nor on our MSN chat. If you feel this Ayman can resurrect your position, please feel free to ask him to post his arguments on this thread.
PeAcE
JK- I guess that is for ppl to decide. I can make the same claim for you. Infact youve not proided any other evidence for your claim aept hadith whilst ayman has provided PHYSICAL inscriptins independent of hadith,this being secular, making his pt and his pts make much more sense to. So whos got the more powerful arguments? GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
JK- You ignored my Christian example entirely. If GOD wanted us to follow rituals why put the details between imperfect scriptures? i think u said at tht pt "it's not coz of hadith but wht muslims have been practicng all along" but where did u get this tht muslims were practicng this all along? "from the hadith" so its a cear circular argument.
Your Christian example is no example at all because it doesnt help you. Their view is more valid then yours because it is based in at least some evidence. While all you have is semantics. As for your second argument, you are just repeating things which have already been answered on this thread before. I am not defending the details of any ritual, I am defending the established 5 prayer ritual which has a foundation in the Quran. The details which are present in the secondary scriptures are not important to my argument.
JK- I guess that is for ppl to decide. I can make the same claim for you. Infact youve not proided any other evidence for your claim aept hadith whilst ayman has provided PHYSICAL inscriptins independent of hadith,this being secular, making his pt and his pts make much more sense to. So whos got the more powerful arguments? GOD Bless!
No you cant make the same claim to me. And I also provided a Greek Historical document which pre-dates the Quran which destroys the idea that Mecca was not a spiritual center before our Prophet. You have totally failed to respond to that as of yet.
PeAcE
-
Peace "c0de",
Your Christian example is no example at all because it doesnt help you. Their view is more valid then yours because it is based in at least some evidence. While all you have is semantics. As for your second argument, you are just repeating things which have already been answered on this thread before. I am not defending the details of any ritual, I am defending the established 5 prayer ritual which has a foundation in the Quran. The details which are present in the secondary scriptures are not important to my argument.
JK- Christians are in the same boat as you are. IM NOT MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM. I dont accept GOD commands rituals unless someone brings evidence. That is the point your not getting. Secondly there IS actually evidence to the contrary from inscriptions as bro ayman has provided and he will go into more detail with you. BUT even if those were not present YET YOU, NOT WE, would require a positive evidence for GOD commanding rituals.
No you cant make the same claim to me. And I also provided a Greek Historical document which pre-dates the Quran which destroys the idea that Mecca was not a spiritual center before our Prophet. You have totally failed to respond to that as of yet.
PeAcE
JK- Does it actually mention the name "mecca"? Just a description of an area and arguing that that is what the Quran implies by mecca doesnt make any sense whatsoever moreso when the root menaings of that word have nothing to do with a proper noun. Again you can debte this further with bro ayman. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "c0de",
I noticed you sayingThe equivalent of the word "salat" in English is worship, and there is
no plural of this word in Arabic,JK- This is WRONG. The plural of the word "salat" is "salaWAT" and it is there in the Quran itself
Y.Ali 2238 Guard strictly your (habit of) prayers(AS-SALAWAAT), especially the Middle Prayer; and stand before God in a devout (frame of mind).
GOD Bless! -
@ Jonny K
I have since that post come to know of the plural is Salwaat, thank you anyway though.
JK- Christians are in the same boat as you are. IM NOT MAKING A POSITIVE CLAIM. I dont accept GOD commands rituals unless someone brings evidence. That is the point your not getting. Secondly there IS actually evidence to the contrary from inscriptions as bro ayman has provided and he will go into more detail with you. BUT even if those were not present YET YOU, NOT WE, would require a positive evidence for GOD commanding rituals.
We have evidence, you just refuse to accept it because it contradicts your view. I can't help such issues.
Does it actually mention the name "mecca"? Just a description of an area and arguing that that is what the Quran implies by mecca doesnt make any sense whatsoever moreso when the root menaings of that word have nothing to do with a proper noun. Again you can debte this further with bro ayman. GOD Bless!
If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck... chances are its a duck. All the descriptions that are present in the Greek Historical record point to Mecca, and only Mecca fits the description used in the account.
PeAcE
