Re: Non-Muslims and Shariah
So if you agree with my previous points then then next thing that makes sense would be to historically prove that the Prophet SAW never prayed and companions and followers never prayed and this concept was introduced later on. Historically there is not a single document that exists to suggest that Salah was introduced later on and not in the early years when Quran was being revealed, or when the Caliphates existed or in later generations.
Could also mean there was an inquisition where all records expect the "official record" were burnt/destroyed... things like these are not uncommon. Christian history is rewritten too, and so is the Jewish or any other history. The only thing I can stand by is the Quran, but not anything more as far as authenticity is concerned.
Every single historical document or evidence we have says prayer has been there ever since.
I agree, and I never said there was no "prayer" ... I said Salaat does not mean prayer, but is a more general term that also encompasses prayer. I however cannot accept that ritual prayer we practice today is the "salaat" of the Quran.
What I would like to see is one historical reference from muslim historians who objected to this in the earliest of times. Many of the recent people who say or have converging POV as yours disregard history and do not associate Quran with its history but try to define there own. What I am looking for is a contradiction somewhere in our history about the ritual worship from the first 3 generations.
Indeed, very correct and I agree with your perspective, however, I believe there may be an alternate explanation. And I know you will say that we have derailed in our discussion but I do not have a direct answer for you. Our previous discussion was quite detailed and we held on to our views even after that, so this may be no different. I will hence make it brief...
From all non-muslim sources, it is observed that the word Muslim, Quran, and Allah does not appear in Umayyad documents or coinage until as late as 72AH (i.e. post Sufianid). Moreover, we see that many Umayyad "mosques" constructed quite later from the time of the prophet seem to point not to Mecca (i.e. the supposed Qiblah), but to somewhere south of Jerusalem (the ragion that is recignized as Nabataean capital region, i.e. Hejra/Petra) ... This is also the original home of the deities, Allat/Uzza and DhuSharaa, that were pagan deities. Now how would Arabs, after embracing Islam, would point not to the Islamic holy of holies: Mecca (if it existed), but to Northern Arabia. Recall that trading and even sea-faring among Arabs was done long before the advent of Islam so they were experts in direction and navigation. Why are they pointing to pagan origins for the "congregational prayers"?
For them it is said they did build structures for prayers and were called "midzgitha" by one of the manuscripts I have seen referenced. However, almost always the quarters of the "general" were connected/attached to this structure, which could also imply it was used for office/administration as well. Could this be the lost legacy of the Masjid (an institution of obedience) that was turned by the Umayyads/Hagaraeans into no more than a prayer hall overtime? I have no other way of looking at it.
Secondly, there seems to be a strong Jewish/muhaggaraye alliance well into the Marwanid Umayyad dynasty. Yes muhaggaray - those who did the hjra is what the Umayyads were called by the christians and the Jews, which is wierd isn't it? Why aren't they being called Arabs, or Hijaazis or Muslims, but rather MUHAAJIREEN? Is this enough detachment of historic consistancy for you?