Your initial claim included Sahih al-Bukhari 2 Book 26 710 Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days of the Pre-lslamic period of ignorance, till Allah revealed: 'Verily! (The two mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who performs the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, or performs 'Umra, to perform Tawaf between them.'" (2.158) I have highlighted and underlined what you seem to be missing Once we get past this I will show you where your wikki, wikki , "proof" is not quite correct
I've laid out my points clearly, with supporting evidence, and some clarification on what's needed as a reply. You have rambled all over, and your argument seems to be solely on your interpretation of two direct quotes, with nothing to back your claim. There are other quotes I could use if you don't like those, but they're pretty much academic, as the evidence shows it was pagan, rather than abrahimic traditions. So far, you've offered little if anything to counter that.
Two direct quotes from you, which you have either misunderstood or misinterpreted and now are desperate to move away from rapidly, wonder why? A gentle reminder Its good etiquette of debating to set clear boundariesfrom the off, it stops tedious repetitive nonsense, incessant questioning by one party and a level playing field
FFS, is that seriously what you're hanging your hat on? Of course they'll say that, it's what the story had become by then, but you seem to miss the bit that links the two positions. It was Pagan till Allah revealed to mohamed... Now, your response to the rest, and try to make it coherent and supported with something more than your opinion.
Good now we are back on track. Albeit your claim/position/conclusion is way off The hadith you quoted clearly says that the sahabi in question didn't like doing it "thinking" it was pagan. But Allah revealed its origins were not. This can actually be understood from your quote, however hadith didn't appear just as single sayings or narrations. They also came with tafsir. When you delve into those it becomes clear the origin of doing the SAI is derived from the actions of Hagar with Ishmael. Hence the origin is indeed as Allah is said yo have revealed in YOUR quote
Nope, that's not proof. That's just the words in the book. They need outside verification. Ask yourself why they thought it was pagan, until mohamed told them differently.
Nope that's the words in your "evidence". I am just pointing out that your claim is not as you interpreted it. Remember its your claim and your " proof". I didn't bring the quotes to the table As for why they thought it was pagan before Muhammad told them differently that isn't surprising in the least. They waited for Muhammad to verify many things via revelation, even in your quote (again using YOUR evidence here) the bit starting with verily is an ayat of Quran. Many many issues and questions were resolved like this including the banning of the pagans or then direction of prayer etc
Nope. It's your interpretation of the quote, which you're trying to support with an unverified claim of mythical activity, which seemingly had no precedence until mohamed 'revealed' it, which I take to mean invented. They still had doubts hence the conversation, and they thought it was still pagan, because that was clearly what it had been, based on their experience and their words, and the other information in my earlier post. A claim of "god says" is not credible evidence.
Not sure where you are getting your assertions from I havent "interpreted" anything. Just pointed out bits from your quote. You can't post a quote as evidence and then refuse to believe said quote in its entirety Break it down, my additions in italics Sahih al-Bukhari 2 Book 26 710 Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to (past tense) dislike to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days of the Pre-lslamic period of ignorance, till Allah revealed (present tense and change in stance) : 'Verily! (The two mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are among the symbols of Allah(affirms its not pagan). It is therefore no sin for him who performs the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba(includes Kaaba as symbol of Allah also), or performs 'Umra, to perform Tawaf between them.'" (2.158) Italics not clear? Its the bracketed bits
Mohammed claiming god revealed it to him, is not a credible argument, it needs external verification. However, the 'till' bit and the fact that they clearly say they believed it was pagan before mohammed heard voices, and the other evidence in my earlier reply shows its origins are pagan, even your books confirm it, or there'd be no need for the 'revelation'. Edit. Let me see if I can break it down a bit more. They believed it was pagan, because that's what their eyes and experience had witnessed. The fact that your books even need to try to explain why it's no longer pagan, says it was in deed pagan up to that point. They believed their own first hand evidence 'till' mohamed said he'd heard voices. bells or whatever, which he takes to mean that these things were originally for his god, but pagans took them, and now followers of mohamed can take them back. This claim from mohamed needs some external proof. I'd argue that the fact no abrahimic faiths have similar and that it's unlikely Abraham ever went near mecca, and had probably never heard of it, as it gets little mention in other writing of the time, so wasn't a significant place, and it's unlikely that the kaaba is old enough, all point to it being pagan. There is evidence from historians that the nomadic, pagan arabs would travel to meet up once a year to settle any tribal disputes, and these 'pilgrimages' are the most likely source of the hajj. Even if you choose to deny any or all of that, your ultimate claim is that it was from the Abrahimic faith, which itself takes its stories from earlier pagan tales. Someone hearing voices, images or sensations and claiming they're divine, is not proof, as Peter Sutcliffe found out when he tried that one.
I wouldn't mind....however one of the first things in a debate have to be respect or it won't work, won't last and I certainly wouldn't let it pass when someone is throwing in underhanded digs...that won't change so I'm not interested. I can't really be arsed to try to rationalise, ultimately if someone doesn't want to believe in what I believe in then fine....DMD is on his 'I need to prove that God does not exist and Islam is a Pagan faith in disguise . Can see right through it and I wouldn't patronise myself by trying to 'discuss' anything with someone who's default is that. My approach to that is somewhat different to debate lol I couldn't give a **** what DMD thinks.....he's a drop in the ocean, probably the piss droplet trickling down the Urinal. Don't waste your time Fan
That's just your usual snide dig at me, with your usual innacurate claims. My replies are reasoned and considered and backed up with evidence. Yours is just the whining of an irrelevant nobhead. You offer nothing of substance and advise your buddy to leg it. You'd get more respect if you offered him some basis in which to argue the points raised.
It's better left guys. While I think both parties have been somewhat respectful on a personal level, there really is no point trying to debate something you know to be factually true with someone whose religion wont let them agree with you. The problem is religious folk quote their respective Holy book as a source of credible information, where as to an Atheist, their book has about as much factual credibility as Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince or Fifty Shades of Grey. I would suggest closing this thread. That is unless DMD and Fan wish to talk each other in circles for another few weeks?
They come along strong. And I have been one, and can get ranty (as you know) when I am on one. Its utterly pointless trying to debate the validity of religion with someone who is devout though. They have a strong rooted belief in magic and other worldly ****, you aint gonna break that with words or logic.....so there is no point trying. As for your technique for dealing with aggressive atheists being something other than debate...Lets face it, it would have to be..... DMD and Fan have indulged each other too much, which is admirable, or would be, if this was a political debate. But religion......forget it....people are where they are with their own beliefs, and its best not ****ed with.
They would probably find your toothpick handy, but as I'm neither aggressive nor an atheist, I don't need to consider your kind offer.
Spurlock just a yappy nonentity. I'm happy plodding on with this. I'm not trying to convert or convince anyone of anything. It's a bit of small talk to rest my mind from important things. It's not as though it's particularly challenging or takes much effort.
