Focal Point
-
Bring the Evidence that Mecca was not at the present at the time of Revelation of the Holy Quran.
All this brainless progeny is addicted to "lying" and posting things without any proof/evidence.
2111
I am anxiously waiting for evidence of" non -existance of Mecca"{BTWIs Mecca present even now or not ?? What is the "Quranist thought"}
Nowhere did I assert Mecca didn't exist. I am undecided. You need to stop generalizing ("Quranists" as if one of us is arguing something, then EVERY other person who follows the quran only agrees. Stop, really, it's childish.
-
Nowhere did I assert Mecca didn't exist. I am undecided. You need to stop generalizing ("Quranists" as if one of us is arguing something, then EVERY other person who follows the quran only agrees. Stop, really, it's childish.
"LYING ' is a marker sign of Quranist How can you deny ? Look at your post;
-
Nowhere in al-qur'aan does it mention that "al-masjid al-haraam" is in the so called Mecca. If you think that "al-masjid al-haraam" is or was a physical location in Mecca or elsewhere, then bring proof for it please.
-
There is ZERO evidence of the existence of a town named Mecca at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan. If you think that a town named Mecca existed at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, then bring proof for it please.
Who said this ?
Still waiting for Evidence for "Non existance of Mecca"
-
-
Salaam all,
2142 mentions about them turning away from the "qiblata" that they WERE on, i.e. the former qiblata, and the wording used is "allatee kaanoo 3alayhaa", meaning "that they WERE on".
2143 uses the wording "allatee kunta 3alayhaa", meaning "that you BECAME on" (referring to the new qiblata of al-masjid al-haraam). If 2143 was pointing to the same qiblata that they WERE on, i.e. the old qiblata, then the wording should have been the same as in 2142, i.e. "allatee kaanoo 3alayha".
This is my understanding but it could be wrong. I would request those who are well founded in Classical Arabic to correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.
salam
brother, i am still having difficulty with the forms of qibla in these verses. i understand your point about the qibla in 2142 being plural/collective in the past tense. however i do not understand what you are saying about the qibla in 2143. i appreciate it is singular, but are you saying it is in the present tense? the english translation as "that you became on" is not completely clear and a little awkward linguisticaly.
when i suddenly and unexpectedly abandoned my former practises and beliefs about God which i had been spoonfed by the clergy, i was resolved not to discuss or debate God or the Quran with anyone for a long time, in fear of being brainwashed again. i had decided to study secretly, and form a better understanding (at least outwardly) of such things before i progress, God willing, to engage in the kind of discussions as this.
i do not know how so quickly my thirst for enlightenment has made me abandon my initial resolve. i think i have far too little understanding and knowledge to be involved in this debate, and i think i am wasting other people's time. i am not sure if i can add anything of value to the discussion, with my knowledge in Quran and arabic so poor. it seems i am still lacking understanding of basic concepts that the clever people on this forum take for granted. i apologise.
thank you for your time.
salam
-
Peace brother,
Thank you for taking the time to address some of the points. God willing, we should arrive at the truth by being patient, connecting with The God, letting al-qur'aan explain itself, using our gifts of mind, logic, and reasoning, and continued constructive discussion, and then following the best meaning.
Brother, you still have not addressed a very important issue of wherever you are, and some other points.
- If the people of previous scriptures know it is the truth from our Lord, and know it as they know their children (2146), then how come none of them knows about or acknowledges any "al-masjid al-haraam" at mecca or anywhere else ? After all, they are supposed to know it as they know their children. Please go and ask any one of the knowledgable people of previous scriptures and that will be empirical verification of this issue.
this verse plays on my mind a great deal. i always thought this is the key to understanding what al masjid al haram is, because, as you say, one could verify a theory by asking people of knowledge of previous scripture. however, it is far from clear who these people are and where one might find them. i do not think most modern jews and christians can be classified as people with knowledge of previous scriptures.
i think if brother Layth has a theory that al masjid al haram is somewhere in Jerusalem or nearby. if you ask most jew or christians, who are the closest i can find to being people with knowledge of previous scriptures, they will unanimously indentify with Jerusalem.
this verse still does not show whether al masjid al haram is a physical thing or location, or if it is something mental. i do not think that people that are the likeliest candidates for people with knowledge of previous scriptures would identify with the institution that you are saying al masjid al haram is.
- It bothers me when people quote partial phrases and then base their conclusions on the partial phrase, instead of taking the whole phrase into account.
Brother, The God asks us to face towards "al-masjid al-haraam" WHEREVER WE ARE, and not just face towards "al-masjid al-haraam". Now please think with an open mind and address the following issues, which you have neglected in your previous post
-
You are driving on I-10 (in USA) going west. You are somewhere, right ? Now WHEREVER you are on I-10, you are supposed to face al-masjid al-haraam, how are you going to do it ? Remember, you are sitting in a car, driving on I-10 going west, and you are supposed to be facing al-masjid al-haraam which is supposedly located in Mecca or Jerusalem, how are you going to face it in that situation ? If not then you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are sitting in your friends house watching TV. His furniture is arranged in such a way that when you sit on his sofa, you are facing west. For argument sake, lets say that in that area, the supposed al-masjid al-haraam is east of you. Now in this situation, you are somewhere right ? How are you going to face al-masjid al-haraam which is to your east, while watching TV facing west ? The only way is by rearranging all the furniture in your friends place so that you can face east. Do you do that when you visit your friends place ? If not you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are sitting in your own home on the toilet facing west, and al-masjid al-haraam is supposedly towards the east. Now remember that according to 2144 you are supposed to face "al-masjid al-haram" WHEREVER you are. When you are sitting on the toilet, you are somewhere, right ? How can you face al-majid al-haraam on your east while you are sitting on a toilet which is built in such a way that you are facing west when you are sitting on it ? If not, then you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
Right now, you must be sitting in front of your computer, facing a certain direction, which is most likely not in the supposed direction of al-masjid al-haraam. If that is true, are you not disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150 ?
-
When you go to sleep on your bed, you must lie down on your back with your face up at some time thus facing the sky, or on your side with your face not facing the supposed physical al-masjid al-haraam at some time. The moment you do that, you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
Now tell me the following
WHICH PHYSICAL DIRECTION IN THE WORLD IS SUCH THAT ONE WILL BE FACING THAT PHYSICAL DIRECTION WHEREVER ONE IS ?
I hope you can see clearly that this is an impossible interpretation.
the later part of this section presents much more difficulty to the idea that al masjid al haram is something physical. it is only now that i understand your point of wherever you may be meaning always, continuously. if by this phrase, God means constantly and always, the theory of al masjis al haram being anything physical hits upon a very tall hurdle, maybe an unsurmountable one.
i have been pondering this phrase wherever you may be and i really have not got to grips by what exactly God means by it. if He means continuously in a strong literal sense, then why did He not make it clearer. i think there are many ways He could have expressed this idea of constancy, but it seems there is a great deal more in this phrase than just that.
all the traditional translations, and tafseer parenthesise in prayer in this phrase, but you are absolutely right that there is nothing that suggests this. i cannot find any contextual reason to justify relating the verse specifically to prayer, and neither can i see any word meaning prayer therein.
i am tempted to conclude that al masjid al haram must be a mental or metphorical thing at this stage, but i am dissatisfied with my understanding of wherever you may be. i realise my arabic is very poor, but i think the matter goes deeper. perhaps you could comment on this phrase? is it used elsewhere in the Quran?
-
The distinguishing is for both The God and the people. Suppose you take a test, and the teacher declares you in 1st position without announcing each person's test results to all others, would the students not complain and object to that and claim that it was not fair ?
-
A hypocrite can easily pretend to be a believer and face a certain physical direction with the other believers, thereby deceiving them. It is, however, IMPOSSIBLE for a hypocrite to mentally keep facing the inviolable institution of obedience and be a hypocrite at the same time.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish a hypocrite from a believer just on the basis of facing a physical direction.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a hypocrite to keep facing the inviolable institution of obedience.
The ONLY way to distinguish a hypocrite from a believer would be if the "qiblatan" is a mental one. For example, if one mentally faces the inviolable institution of obedience wherever one is, one cannot be a hypocrite, because the actions/deeds will always match that mental "qiblatan".
i do not see that a hypocrite is distinguishable of the qibla is a mental one. if is mental, how do you propose to read another's thoughts? if it is physical, you at least have the possibilty of distinguishing you see a hypocrite facing a different direction in private. it is also not obvious that those who turn on their heels means specifically hypocrites. it could mean those who go from belief to disbelief, or from practising the religion of islam (if such a thing exists) to not practising it. in this case, those who turn on their heels are distinguishable.
what is still not clear to me is exactly who is to distinguish. if it is God, then both physical and mental qiblas are clearly distinguishable to Him. if it is his humans, then i think my objections to a mental qibla in the last paragraph stand strong.
- What does piety have to do with facing a physical direction ?
2177 Piety is not to turn your faces towards the east and the west, but piety is one who believes in God and the Last Day, and the angels, and the Scripture, and the prophets, and who gives money out of love to the relatives, and the orphans, and the needy and the wayfarer, and those who ask, and to free the slaves; and who honors the Connection, and who contributes towards betterment; as well as those who keep their pledges when they make a pledge, and those who are patient in the face of good and bad and when in despair. These are the ones who have been truthful, and they are the righteous.
i agree that piety is not about facing any direction or any other kind of outward action. the qibla, however, is not necessarily about piety and I do not think God implies that it is. there are many things spoken of in the Quran that are not about piety, although their importance in faith and following the straight path are not any the lesser, for example, adminstering justice or dividing an inheritence.
Are The God's words not clear ?
God words are clear, there is not doubt. that my vision is not good is also clear. God veils the hearts of some wrongdoers, and i might just be one of those. i cannot see any way out of this except pray to The Raheem.
You did not address the following point
You are sailing on a ship on the Pacific, and you are at a point on the surface of the Earth which is directly opposite where al-masjid al-haraam is supposedly located physically. Which direction do you face, and why not the other direction ?
in this case one has many ways of facing al masjid al haram; it is not impossible.
I think you misunderstood the relevant point again. I was not mentioning any building but the supposed physical al-masjid al-haraam, or the supposed physical Kaaba itself
You are standing in the so called Kaaba, in Mecca. You have to perform salaat in this situation. Which direction do you face ?
take 2 steps back, and your problem is solved.
at this point it is not even clear to me if the qibla is mental or physical; whether it is the kaba is a distant question to me, so only give the above example to demonstrate that your objection can be easily overcome.
Actually the "qiblatan" is not only for salaat, but for wherever one is. Even if you are not performing salaat, you are supposed to face al-masjid al-haraam wherever you are, i.e. in every possible anatomical orientation of the human body. Facing which direction will you stand or sit IN the so called Kaaba, and why ?
Remember, in the Kaaba, when you are facing a certain direction, a major portion of the supposed physical al-masjid al-haraam will be behind you or on your sides. Facing the direction of something physical means that all of that physical thing has to be in front of you.
i have addressed this near the top of this post.
I hope you can see the logical impossibility of the part of your quote in red.
the impossible situation that you refer to here is my example of a man on the moon, on the face opposite to the earth, facing al masjid al haram. this is not impossible or difficult. there is no need for the astronaught to contort himself or lie on the moon surface to achieve this; he can simply look down. i do not find anything unusual or difficult about this, and it fits well within the universal and natural meaning of to face something.
Let me remind you The God asks us to face the direction of al-masjid al-haraam WHEREVER we are, which means that we should be facing it in whatever anatomical position we are. What you are suggesting can only happen if one is in a perpetual bowing position while standing on the Moon with the Earth on the opposite side. Even if you are lying down, you will always have to lie on your stomach so you are facing the Earth. While you are sitting, you will have to sit in a bowing position with your face towards Earth at all times. Do you see the absurdity of what you are proposing ?
i have addressed this above where i talk about the concept of wherever you may be.
Asking someone to bring proof of a negative statement is illogical. The burden of proof is on someone making a positive statement.
For example, someone cannot say that "Iraq has WMD" and then ask others to prove him wrong by bringing proof that Iraq does not have WMD. The burden of proof is on that person to bring proof that Iraq does have WMD.
You cannot just say that "al-masjid al-haraam" was in Mecca at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, and then ask others to bring proof that "al-masjid al-haraam" could not have been in Mecca at that time. You will have to bring proof that "al-masjid al-haraam" was in Mecca at that time. The burden of proof will be on you to prove the positive.
- Nowhere in al-qur'aan does it mention that "al-masjid al-haraam" is in the so called Mecca. If you think that "al-masjid al-haraam" is or was a physical location in Mecca or elsewhere, then bring proof for it please.
i did not ask for proof of a negative statement. what i said was that it has not been proved that the thing in mecca, commonly thought of as al masjid al haram, did not exist at the time of revelation. i agree that the converse that it did exist is also not proven.
just because there is no proof that al masjid al haram did not exist in mecca during revelation does not mean it did not exist.
-
There is ZERO evidence of the existence of a town named Mecca at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan. If you think that a town named Mecca existed at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, then bring proof for it please.
-
There is ZERO evidence of the existence of a physical building by the name of Kaaba in the so called Mecca at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan. In fact, there is evidence that shows that the pagan temple in the so called Mecca was renamed after the common noun "kaaba" in al-qur'aan, about 80-100 years after the revelation of al-qur'aan.
If you think that a physical building by the name Kaaba existed in the so called Mecca at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, then bring proof for it please.
- There is ZERO evidence of the existence of a physical building by the name of Masjid Al-Haraam in the so called Mecca at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan. In fact, there is evidence that shows that such a physical building was constructed around the so called Kaaba many years after the revelation of al-qur'aan. The evidence also shows that at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, there was no physical building by the name of Masjid Al-Haraam in the so called Mecca.
If you think that a physical building by the name Masjid Al-Haraam existed in the so called Mecca or elsewhere at the time of revelation of al-qur'aan, then bring proof for it please.
please see my last point. also, i think it is not correct to say that there is zero evidence. i agree the evidence is miniscule or weak.
even if al masjid al haram is not in mecca, it may be something physical elswhere.
- The God also mentions "al-masjid al-aqsa" in al-qur'aan. It is an established fact that the physical building by the name of Masjid Al-Aqsa was built in the Ummayad dynasty long after the revelation of al-qur'aan, thus it cannot be "al-masjid al-aqsa" talked about in Chapter 17. Even the staunchest sectarians admit that. If it is a physical building, then which building is "al-masjid al-aqsa" mentioned in 171 ?
i am not sure of the relevancy of this.
- The God tells us that His message is fully detailed and complete and details ALL things (6114-115, 6126, 12111, 1712), contains every example (1789, 1854, 3058, 3927) and clear explanation of everything (1689) relevant to our guidance to the straight path and is enough for our guidance (2951) and the prophet followed only the qur'aan (1015, 4105).
Did The God forget to tell us the physical location of al-masjid al-haraam in al-qur'aan ?
please see my response, earlier in this post, to you comments about God's words not being clear.
please remember, brother, that i am not attempting to support any theory of al masjd al haram. i am trying my best to understand the Quran as objectively as i can.
also, i sometimes gain insight when strange thoughts cross my mind. it just occured to me that al masjid al haram could be the Quran itself. i do not expect this is the correct interpretation, but sometimes i gain insight into problems by thinkning about the wrong solutions. without going to too much trouble or providing a detailed proof, is there any reason why this idea is ridiculous?
i know i had said that i should keep out of these debates and let you geniuses work it out, but i feel awkward leaving a discussion half way. you can probably easily sho my ideas to be proposterous, but please do not feel obliged to waste your time responding.
salam
-
Peace Leoxyz,
EVEN A SINGLE EVIDENCE THAT MECCA DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF REVELATION OF THE QURAN.
Prove that MECCA EXISTED AT THE TIME OF REVELATION OF THE QURAN.
I know you can't. Nobody was able to prove that on this forum or ANYWHERE ELSE.
Let me make it even easier for you
Prove that MECCA EXISTED ANYTIME BEFORE THE 8th CENTURY CE.
Try it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Leoxyz,
Prove that MECCA EXISTED AT THE TIME OF REVELATION OF THE QURAN.
I know you can't. Nobody was able to prove that on this forum or ANYWHERE ELSE.
Let me make it even easier for you
Prove that MECCA EXISTED ANYTIME BEFORE THE 8th CENTURY CE.
Try it.
Peace,
Ayman
salam brother Ayman
sorry if you directly wished to address brother Leoxyz, but here is my 2 pennies worth.
i think the point is has neither been proved that it existed, nor has it proved that it did not. you cannot say it did not exist just because there is not proof that it did exist.
the lack of proof of its existence and its actual existence are not the same thing.
salam
-
Peace Ignoramus,
this verse plays on my mind a great deal. i always thought this is the key to understanding what al masjid al haram is, because, as you say, one could verify a theory by asking people of knowledge of previous scripture. however, it is far from clear who these people are and where one might find them. i do not think most modern jews and christians can be classified as people with knowledge of previous scriptures.
i think if brother Layth has a theory that al masjid al haram is somewhere in Jerusalem or nearby. if you ask most jew or christians, who are the closest i can find to being people with knowledge of previous scriptures, they will unanimously indentify with Jerusalem.
this verse still does not show whether al masjid al haram is a physical thing or location, or if it is something mental. i do not think that people that are the likeliest candidates for people with knowledge of previous scriptures would identify with the institution that you are saying al masjid al haram is.Actually, ask any of the people of the book what is inviolable and shoud be instituted and obeyed, they will all answer "the truth from our lord". This is empirically verifiable.
the later part of this section presents much more difficulty to the idea that al masjid al haram is something physical. it is only now that i understand your point of wherever you may be meaning always, continuously. if by this phrase, God means constantly and always, the theory of al masjis al haram being anything physical hits upon a very tall hurdle, maybe an unsurmountable one.
i have been pondering this phrase wherever you may be and i really have not got to grips by what exactly God means by it. if He means continuously in a strong literal sense, then why did He not make it clearer. i think there are many ways He could have expressed this idea of constancy, but it seems there is a great deal more in this phrase than just that.
all the traditional translations, and tafseer parenthesise in prayer in this phrase, but you are absolutely right that there is nothing that suggests this. i cannot find any contextual reason to justify relating the verse specifically to prayer, and neither can i see any word meaning prayer therein.
i am tempted to conclude that al masjid al haram must be a mental or metphorical thing at this stage, but i am dissatisfied with my understanding of wherever you may be. i realise my arabic is very poor, but i think the matter goes deeper. perhaps you could comment on this phrase? is it used elsewhere in the Quran?The "7yth-ma", "7yth" (where) together with the indefinite "ma" is not used anywhere else except in those passages.
i do not see that a hypocrite is distinguishable of the qibla is a mental one. if is mental, how do you propose to read another's thoughts? if it is physical, you at least have the possibilty of distinguishing you see a hypocrite facing a different direction in private. it is also not obvious that those who turn on their heels means specifically hypocrites. it could mean those who go from belief to disbelief, or from practising the religion of islam (if such a thing exists) to not practising it. in this case, those who turn on their heels are distinguishable.
what is still not clear to me is exactly who is to distinguish. if it is God, then both physical and mental qiblas are clearly distinguishable to Him. if it is his humans, then i think my objections to a mental qibla in the last paragraph stand strong.Actually, it is very easy to empirically verify 2142-150. Go to any Mosque. Instead of praying in the same direction as everyone, pray in a random direction. When people there see you do this, they will certainly ask you something equivalent to the following statement in 2142 "What has made you turn away from the "qibla" that you were on?" You will probably answer them with something equivalent to "the god is everywhere and a physical direction is not important for one to be guided" (to the god belongs the east and the west, he guides whom he wills to a straight path).
Now tell them what you just told us here about the god's message in the passage and the clear implication that "wherever you are is a very tall hurdle, maybe an unsurmountable one for the theory of al masjis al haram being anything physical". What will they do? Will they even think about what the god is saying and reflect upon it? Those who are REALLY interested in setting their direction towards the truth from their lord will think about it and ponder that maybe you have a point. On the other hand, those who are only interested in following others and their forefathers will brush the passage off. Can you distinguish those who follow the messenger (i.e., the message) and who turned on their heels? Absolutely!!! This is an empirically verifiable fact.
i agree that piety is not about facing any direction or any other kind of outward action. the qibla, however, is not necessarily about piety and I do not think God implies that it is. there are many things spoken of in the Quran that are not about piety, although their importance in faith and following the straight path are not any the lesser, for example, adminstering justice or dividing an inheritence.
Everything is about piety. Without piety there would be no justice and people would steal the orphan's money. Read 2142 which introduces the whole passage about the "qibla". The straight path is not a physical road to Mecca or anywhere.
God words are clear, there is not doubt. that my vision is not good is also clear. God veils the hearts of some wrongdoers, and i might just be one of those. i cannot see any way out of this except pray to The Raheem.
These are very wise words. We are only saved by the mercy of the most merciful. May he have mercy on you and on all of us.
please see my last point. also, i think it is not correct to say that there is zero evidence. i agree the evidence is miniscule or weak.
What is that miniscule or weak evidence? I haven't seen any.
also, i sometimes gain insight when strange thoughts cross my mind. it just occured to me that al masjid al haram could be the Quran itself. i do not expect this is the correct interpretation, but sometimes i gain insight into problems by thinkning about the wrong solutions. without going to too much trouble or providing a detailed proof, is there any reason why this idea is ridiculous?
Actually, your natural insight makes very good sense. When one insitutes the great reading (the truth from our lord), which contains the inviolable commands from our lord that should be obeyed, then one is implementing "the inviolable institution of obedience". An institution of government which takes the great reading as its constitution is an inviolable institution of obedience.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ignoramus,
i think the point is has neither been proved that it existed, nor has it proved that it did not. you cannot say it did not exist just because there is not proof that it did exist.
the lack of proof of its existence and its actual existence are not the same thing.But the negative proof shifts the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So the burden of proof is on those who make the extraordinary claim that Mecca was a famous town established by Abraham and a shrine in it known to the people of the book (as they know their own children) despite the complete absence of any mention of Mecca prior to the 8th century CE and the fact that none of the people of the book ever visited or ever even heard of this so-called Mecca.
If people are going to claim that there were unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, winged horses or 80 meter tall humans then they had better bring the skeletons to support such claims. They should not say "prove that such things didn't exist".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Leoxyz,
Prove that MECCA EXISTED AT THE TIME OF REVELATION OF THE QURAN.
I know you can't. Nobody was able to prove that on this forum or ANYWHERE ELSE.
Let me make it even easier for you
Prove that MECCA EXISTED ANYTIME BEFORE THE 8th CENTURY CE.
Try it.
Peace,
Ayman
Dear Ayman
I am copy pasting just first paragraph of an article from "Encyclopedia Britannica" Edition 2005. If you need I will paste rest of articles also."The Prophet Muammad
Muammad's years in Mecca
Spiritual awakening. Any explanationof such an unprecedented development must include an analysis not only of Muammad's individual genius but also of his ability to articulate an ideology capable of appealing to multiple constituencies. His approach to the role of prophet allowed a variety of groups to conceptualize and form a single community. Muammad was, according to many students of social behaviour, particularly well placed tolead such a social movement; in both ascribed and acquired characteristics he was unusual. Although he was a member of a high-status tribe, he belonged to one of its less well-placed clans. He was fatherless at birth; his mother and grandfather died when he was young, leaving him under the protection of an uncle. Although he possessed certain admirable personality traits to an unusual degree, his commercial success derived not from his own status but from his marriage to a much older woman, a wealthy widow named Khadjah. During the years of his marriage, his personal habits grew increasingly atypical; he began to absent himself in the hills outside Mecca to engage in the solitary spiritualactivity of the anfs. At age 40, while on retreat, he saw a figure, whom he later identified as the angel Gabriel, who forced him to repeat these words ? Recite In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. Recite And your Lord is Most Generous. He teaches by the pen, teaches man what he knew not.? Although a few individuals, including his wife Khadjah, recognized his experience as that of a messenger of God, the contemporary religious life of most of the Meccans and the surrounding Arabs didnot prepare them to share in this recognition easily.
Arabs did recognize several other types of intermediaries with the sacred. Some of the kings of the Yemen are said to have had priestly functions; and tribal leaders, shaykhs, in protecting their tribes' hallowed custom (sunnah), had a spiritual dimension. Tribal Arabs also had their khins, religious specialists who delivered oracles in ecstatic rhymed prose (sajʾ and read omens. They also had their shirs, professionally trained oral poets who defended the group's honour, expressed its identity, and engaged in verbal duels with the poets of other groups. The power of the recited word was well established; the poets' words were even likened to arrows that could wound the unprotected enemy. Because Muammad's utterances seemed similar, at least in form, to those of the khins, many of his hearers naturally assumed that he was one of the figures with whom they were more familiar. Indeed, Muammad might not even have attracted attention had he not sounded like other holy men; but by eschewing any source other than the one supreme being, whom he identified as Allh (?the god?) and whose message he regarded as cosmically significant and binding, he was gradually able to distinguish himself from all other intermediaries. Like many successful leaders Muammad broke through existing restraints by what might be called transformative conservatism. By combining familiar leadership roles with a less familiar one, he expanded his authority; by giving existing practices a new history, he reoriented them; by assigning a new cause to existing problems, he resolved them. His personal characteristics fit his historical circumstances perfectly."
Now in spite of this you have all the right to say"No, Day is black".
No one can enforce I assure you. -
Can you tell me where Britannica got their source from?
-
History is always from authenticated sources.Or is there any other source for history?
Ok You give the proof of Non existance of Mecca.
-Any world History
-Any other Encyclopedia.I wish to know a simple fact. Where did Britannica get this information from? Of what source? Please do not dance around the question. There is no such thing as "non-proof".
-
I wish to know a simple fact. Where did Britannica get this information from? Of what source? Please do not dance around the question. There is no such thing as "non-proof".
I have given you my source;Encyclopedia Britanica Edition 2005
From where did they get can be answered by only Encyclopeia Editorial team more accurately.I think Mecca is present nowadays.It must be having its history somewhere else also i.e the time it was founded.
If Encyclopedia Britannica is unreliable (I do not know whether you mean this) Please give the History of Mecca from some other source;
-History Book
-Encyclopedia.
I am in search of authenticated information.Following is the Reference Encyclopedia Encarta
Mecca, also Makkah (ancient Macoraba), city in western Saudi Arabia, located in the Al ijz (Hejaz) region, near Jiddah. Mecca is the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad (the founder of Islam), the center of pilgrimage for Muslims, and the focal point of their daily prayers. In Arabic, the city is known as Makkah al-mukkaramah (?Mecca the blessed?). Pilgrimage to the city is one of the Five Pillars of Islam and is required of all able adult Muslims at least once in their lifetimes. The pilgrimage (hajj in Arabic) is the defining factor in the growth and life of the city. The influx of close to 2 million pilgrims each year during the last month of the Islamic calendar is a grand human spectacle as well as one of the largest logistical and administrative undertakings in the world.
Referencehttp//encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577367/Mecca.html
Encyclopedia Orient
'Mecca was a central point on the caravan routes running over the Arabian peninsula at the time of Muhammad. Mecca was revered as a holy city even before the first revelations came to Muhammad."
Reference http//lexicorient.com/e.o/mecca.htm
Wikipedia
"Importance of Makkah
Picture of the Kaaba taken in 1880Academic historians, however, state with certainty only that Makkah was a shrine and trading center for a number of generations before Prophet Muhammad . The extent of Makkan trade has been hotly debated. Some historians believe that Makkah was a waypoint on a land route from southern Arabia north to the Roman and Byzantine empires, and that Arabian and Indian Ocean spices were funneled through Makkah. Patricia Crone, in her book Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, argues that the Meccans were small merchants dealing in hides, camel butter, and the like."
Reference http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca
-
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/saudi_arabia/mecca.html
-
Peace,
If Makka existed during the time of Abraham, why it's not mentioning in the Bible. The Bible are known for it's many and colorful stories often in details.
Majidah
-
I have given you my source;Encyclopedia Britanica Edition 2005
From where did they get can be answered by only Encyclopeia Editorial team more accurately.Please, when it comes to historical information about the deen, I do not want www.blablablah, I want a simple primary or secondary source, with physical (written or otherwise) evidence, not oral hearsay. Encyclopedia Britannica is no authority on the subject, neither is Wikipedia or www.blablapedia, until we get a primary or secondary source.
Surely there must be a mound of physical evidence from "Islamic sources", dated to pre-600AD? Very strange that Allah would leave out this slight detail in his deen.
My eyes are decieving me, because I cannot see the very important trading hotspot, Makkah, on this map http//nabataea.net/trader.html
Here again, zero mention of a very important hotspot http//www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/silk/hd_silk.htm
-
Please, when it comes to historical information about the deen, I do not want www.blablablah, I want a simple primary or secondary source, with physical (written or otherwise) evidence, not oral hearsay. Encyclopedia Britannica is no authority on the subject, neither is Wikipedia or www.blablapedia, until we get a primary or secondary source.
Surely there must be a mound of physical evidence from "Islamic sources", dated to pre-600AD? Very strange that Allah would leave out this slight detail in his deen.
My eyes are decieving me, because I cannot see the very important trading hotspot, Makkah, on this map http//nabataea.net/trader.html
Here again, zero mention of a very important hotspot http//www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/hd/silk/hd_silk.htm
I was expecting such annoyance which is very common when one becomes speechless because of no argument.
Is Mecca present nowadays or not ??