[am8957]

I am not Kaminyu.

[am8957]

And I am not able to see the latest reply by Kaminyu.

[Warmheart4u2007]

Originally Posted by am8957

What I understood from your previous reply is that you are of the opinion to reject a hadith quoted in Sahih Bukhari on the basis of logic and reason. In the quotation given by me every thing is given in a logical way and here you want proof and base from shariya. I don't understand what is your standard about religion.

Our beloved Prophet (Peace be upon him) said "Verily religion is reason and there is no religion without reason". Religion and reason/logic go together. So the ideal solution would be the one which is sound logically and backed by shariya.

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

Correct, and in which case, the qibla is not in a straight line for that very reason. It is curved, and only "looks" straight, as you've said.



Yes, you have. If the're a lot of points which would be closest to Earth for an equal amount of time, then you would obviously look at other factors in choosing one, such as location, terrain, etc.





Sorry, I'm not am8957. Just because people sort've agree with each other online, doesn't mean that they're the same person. What is interesting though, about what am8957 posted regarding the heavenly Ka'bah being the antipode of the one on Earth, is that the Earth doesn't stay in the same place, as it is constantly in motion. Therefore, unless the heavenly Ka'bah follows Earth's rotation and orbit, then it isn't always going to be the antipode of the Eathly Ka'bah. This means, that the Earthly Ka'bah doesn't always have to be the antipode of the Heavenly one, for it to be a valid Qibla. If this is the case, then it must also be the case that on another planet, the Qibla doesn't always have to be the antipode of the Earthly one, for it be valid either.

On earth we use what can be called as relative direction. That is a necessity. But direction in itself is always in a straight line. You can consult any science manuals.

About infinite points. then what is the use of finding that closest point.

Originally Posted by am8957

I am not Kaminyu.

Originally Posted by am8957

And I am not able to see the latest reply by Kaminyu.

Ok, ok, you are not kaminyu. .

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by Warmheart4u2007

On earth we use what can be called as relative direction. That is a necessity. But direction in itself is always in a straight line. You can consult any science manuals.

So why can't you apply this same "relative direction" when finding the correct qibla on other planets?

About infinite points. then what is the use of finding that closest point.

Because it's the closest point on that planet to Earth. Just like when you're on Earth, you always face Mecca in the direction that it's closest to you, even though any number of directions would eventually get to it. You would apply that same principal in space, when trying to face Earth.

[am8957]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

So why can't you apply this same "relative direction" when finding the correct qibla on other planets?



Because it's the closest point on that planet to Earth. Just like when you're on Earth, you always face Mecca in the direction that it's closest to you, even though any number of directions would eventually get to it. You would apply that same principal in space, when trying to face Earth.

It is straight now. Damn, Kaminyu is very right here.

[Warmheart4u2007]

Originally Posted by Kaminyu

So why can't you apply this same "relative direction" when finding the correct qibla on other planets?

Because this relative direction works in the form of an arc and if applied it would work to only a limited range i.e the diameter of earth (circle). Your idea involves use of straight line from earth to some other planet ok. and then every body on that planet would bow towards that point so effectively creating another Qibla. It is not the same relative direction which is used on earth.

Now further suppose someone on earth at a point "A" exactly on the apposite side of Kaaba. Now the closest distance is through earth. If we apply your theory here then that point "A" is the new Qibla point and all the people around that place should offer prayer towards that point as it is the most closest. do you get me

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by Warmheart4u2007

Because this relative direction works in the form of an arc and if applied it would work to only a limited range i.e the diameter of earth (circle). Your idea involves use of straight line from earth to some other planet ok. and then every body on that planet would bow towards that point so effectively creating another Qibla. It is not the same relative direction which is used on earth.

It's the same principle though. You also can't really call it a "new qibla", when it only acts as a secondary one to the primary one.

Now further suppose someone on earth at a point "A" exactly on the apposite side of Kaaba. Now the closest distance is through earth. If we apply your theory here then that point "A" is the new Qibla point and all the people around that place should offer prayer towards that point as it is the most closest. do you get me

Well, no, because that's not really the same thing, since that point is always the same distance from the Kaaba, which doesn't change with rotation or revolution. Also, that point is in the middle of the ocean, and if it were on land, it would be the anti-qibla, i.e, where your back faces when you pray.

You can't apply this to another planet, because its position and distance is always changing, relative to the Earth. That's why the point/direction you pray facing towards on another planet, would be the closest possible one to Earth, in terms of distance.