Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?

Offline Wakas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
    • View Profile
    • What does The Quran really say?
Re: Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?
« Reply #75 on: July 16, 2019, 08:49:42 AM »
peace Athman,

....... theological approach to verse 48:29 to be, respectfully, academically wanting.


Thanks for the reply. To clarify, the preposition "fee" occurs many times in Quran (well over a thousand) and you cited one wherein you think it means "on" (20:71). Of course there may be more as I do not expect you (or others) to study every occurrence.

I found your use of "academically wanting" interesting because the gist of your post was "it could still mean X despite the issues you raise" (I never said it couldn't) and you never pointed out any clear errors or logical fallacies etc. Such an approach seems sound to me. "to me" being the key phrase, as it is my subjective opinion, as is yours with regard to what is "academically wanting".

As I've said many times I prefer evidence on the table so it can be weighed, so thanks for presenting yours. Readers can make up their own minds.

Offline Athman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Why should we face towards the Kaaba(mecca) while praying ?
« Reply #76 on: July 17, 2019, 05:10:59 PM »
Dear Br. Wakas,

Peace to you too,

Kindly see my responses to your italicized comments below.

To clarify, the preposition "fee" occurs many times in Quran (well over a thousand)

I sincerely do find your ‘clarification’ here to rather be redundant. This is in fact what was firstly noted in my introductory address to the said particle above, “...the Arabic particle ‘fi’ as used in the Qur’an many a times...

 “...and you cited one wherein...

My address to the said particle still stands as can be viewed above and one has the chance to see if your claim stands true to what is noted in my response.

...you think it means "on" (20:71)...

It is one thing one to ‘think’ exclusively on their own about something and another for one to argue citing a supporting reference [1] which in turn references earlier lexicographers that attest to different usages of a particle including the particular one under contention. Kindly see the link cited.

Of course there may be more as I do not expect you (or others) to study every occurrence.

You are right. After all, it is the arguments presented in defense of a particular understanding that matter in this case and not an exhaustive list.

"it could still mean X despite the issues you raise"

I respect your prerogative to extract whatever understanding you happen to from my response, which could of course not necessarily be what I actually claimed. However, I trust that my replies were clear and specific to your claimed ‘issues,’ and more importantly relevant.

 “(I never said it couldn't)

This is rather a patently dismissive remark especially as contrasted to the fact that the alleged ‘issues’ have been re-cited by you in at least 3 threads on this forum and arguably whenever the traditional understanding of 48:29 is presented, or when a related topic ensues. Such reiterations would have been redundant in the first place if you do admit that the traditional understanding stands 'in its own respect.' In fact, even this response of mine would have been unnecessary.

...and you never pointed out any clear errors or logical fallacies etc...

I would not find it necessary to cite such ‘issues’ if my intention was basically to respond to your claimed ‘issues’ which I did. The key areas of your alleged contentions have been addressed and the inadequacy of your expectations pointed out of which I collectively find to be ‘academically wanting.’

...as is yours with regard to what is "academically wanting".

I think it can easily be proven otherwise via an apt response/ rebuttal to the comments made if one sincerely deems such a remark disagreeable.

As I've said many times I prefer evidence on the table so it can be weighed, so thanks for presenting yours.

Though I acknowledge your general sentiment here, it must be remembered that in this case, I was simply addressing your alleged ‘issues’ as claimed here [2]. This is however not an exhaustive analysis of verse 48:29 nor the related topic [3] among others. It is also not yet a criticism of your own approach and understanding of the verse nor the related topics.

Regards,
Athman.


REFERENCES:

[1]. LANE. E.W, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 6, Page 2466-2467
[2]. Prayer

http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=2762.msg14161#msg14161
[3]. Ibid