What Does The Word Makkah Mean?

[bkanwar2]

Furthermore, you would notice that the word in Lane under Bekkata is written as . Whereas in verse 4824 it is written
as . Are these same words?

Badar

[ayman]

Peace Alen,

Here is Yusuf Ali's modified translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common noun "makka"

4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "makka" un-translated, I didn't. As one can easily see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 4824.

Peace,

Ayman

[herbman]

Peace Alen,

Here is Yusuf Ali's modified translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common noun "makka"

4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "makka" un-translated, I didn't. As one can easily see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 4824.

Peace,

Ayman

Salam all,

I proposed the following translation, the answer is the following

if makkata would mean destruction as you suggest, gramatically we should have "bibatni makkatan" or "bibatni almakkati" following the rule.
Instead we have "bibatni makkata". The rule in arabic should be "bibatni makkati" cause it is a moudaf ilayh. But we have here a mamnou3 minasarf then we do the nasb.

Please help

If sister Samia or someone else could help, you are welcome. Thanks

ps eidkoum mubarak to all

[herbman]

Salam all,

I proposed the following translation, the answer is the following

if makkata would mean destruction as you suggest, gramatically we should have "bibatni makkatan" or "bibatni almakkati" following the rule.
Instead we have "bibatni makkata". The rule in arabic should be "bibatni makkati" cause it is a moudaf ilayh. But we have here a mamnou3 minasarf then we do the nasb.

Please help

If sister Samia or someone else could help, you are welcome. Thanks

ps eidkoum mubarak to all

I think I got it but need some someone to confirm

Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahum AAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi an athfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahu bima taAAmaloona baseeran

"bi batni makkata" is maf3ul bih then it is in nasb state but bibatni is force to have jara because of bi

is it correct or am I totally wrong?

[herbman]

I searched about this grammatical rule

and strangely Makkah is named in the rule to support this

http//www.drmosad.com/index20.htm

also read the article from Anwar to explain this grammatical non-sens

http//groups.yahoo.com/group/quranists/message/9

wa salam

[ayman]

Peace Herbman,

I searched about this grammatical rule
and strangely Makkah is named in the rule to support this
http//www.drmosad.com/index20.htm
also read the article from Anwar to explain this grammatical non-sens
http//groups.yahoo.com/group/quranists/message/9
wa salam

This post might help prove why the vocalization marks, specifically vocalization case endings, are a later addition by grammarians

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598276.msg201108#msg201108

Peace,

Ayman

[Alen]

Peace Alen,

Here is Yusuf Ali's modified translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common noun "makka"
4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "makka" un-translated, I didn't. As one can easily see, the clear classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in verse 4824.
Peace,
Ayman

Peace,
Respectfully.

Thank you very much and may The Exalted God bless you, brother.
This will help me. AlhamdilAllah.

Peace.

[herbman]

Peace Herbman,

This post might help prove why the vocalization marks, specifically vocalization case endings, are a later addition by grammarians

http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9598276.msg201108#msg201108

Peace,

Ayman

Thank you Ayman, it was of a great help. May God reward you and give us strength to continue.

Peace

[Mazhar]

4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

After the victory of one of the two conflicting parties the phenomenon of destruction is already over. After the victory of one group which means crushing defeat of the other party, "restraining of hands in the midst of destruction" is quite a funny statement. The advancing army on a city keeps following the enemy troops who retreat to the inner of the city and the swords can come to a halt inside the city only when the retreating army/remaining soldiers surrender the weapons. On surrender/dropping of the arms by the remaining defeated army the victorious army also hold back their hand.

[Ahmad_Bilal]

The passage (i.e. Q. 4824) is in the past tense. Therefore, it would have to be translated as, based on Ayman's translation of "makka"

And it is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst/valley of destruction after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is Seer of what you do. (Q. 4824)

Translating "makka" as destruction would be illogical, since it points out that it was AFTER Allah had given the people victory. Therefore, they weren't facing destruction, they were already victorious... Also, the passage says that the people were restrained from eachother (i.e. "restrained their hands from you and your hands from them...&quot, and this wouldn't make sense in translating it as "in the midst of destruction", since it applies to both parties. How were BOTH of them in the midst of destruction? In a battle, there is a victor and there's a loser; there can't be two losers. Therefore, one of them had to have been facing destruction while the other wasn't. But this is not what the passage says. Rather, it implies that they were both in the same place (or in this sense, facing the same end). In order for this to make sense, "makka" has to be a proper noun, referring to the name of a place, not a common noun, especially not meaning "destruction"...

If it's being translated as a common noun, it still has to be referring to a place or location. So, where is "babatni makkata"?

[Q_student]

The passage (i.e. Q. 4824) is in the past tense. Therefore, it would have to be translated as, based on Ayman's translation of "makka"

And it is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst/valley of destruction after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is Seer of what you do. (Q. 4824)

Translating "makka" as destruction would be illogical, since it points out that it was AFTER Allah had given the people victory. Therefore, they weren't facing destruction, they were already victorious... Also, the passage says that the people were restrained from eachother (i.e. "restrained their hands from you and your hands from them...&quot, and this wouldn't make sense in translating it as "in the midst of destruction", since it applies to both parties. How were BOTH of them in the midst of destruction? In a battle, there is a victor and there's a loser; there can't be two losers. Therefore, one of them had to have been facing destruction while the other wasn't. But this is not what the passage says. Rather, it implies that they were both in the same place (or in this sense, facing the same end). In order for this to make sense, "makka" has to be a proper noun, referring to the name of a place, not a common noun, especially not meaning "destruction"...

If it's being translated as a common noun, it still has to be referring to a place or location. So, where is "babatni makkata"?

Peace
Brother you are right.
Makkah never means destruction. Because it is not "ismul masdar of the verb Makka".
Anyone who claims that it means "destruction" he will have to prove first that it is "Verbal noun" of the verb MaKKa.

• ( 2 / 682)
  ( )

Its verbal noun is only one i.e Makkun not Makkatu

Secondly a verbal noun is never used as a "diptote" while the word Makkatu is used as a Diptote (Proper Noun) in the Quran.
Regards

[herbman]

The passage (i.e. Q. 4824) is in the past tense. Therefore, it would have to be translated as, based on Ayman's translation of "makka"

And it is He Who restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst/valley of destruction after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is Seer of what you do. (Q. 4824)

Translating "makka" as destruction would be illogical, since it points out that it was AFTER Allah had given the people victory. Therefore, they weren't facing destruction, they were already victorious... Also, the passage says that the people were restrained from eachother (i.e. "restrained their hands from you and your hands from them...&quot, and this wouldn't make sense in translating it as "in the midst of destruction", since it applies to both parties. How were BOTH of them in the midst of destruction? In a battle, there is a victor and there's a loser; there can't be two losers. Therefore, one of them had to have been facing destruction while the other wasn't. But this is not what the passage says. Rather, it implies that they were both in the same place (or in this sense, facing the same end). In order for this to make sense, "makka" has to be a proper noun, referring to the name of a place, not a common noun, especially not meaning "destruction"...

If it's being translated as a common noun, it still has to be referring to a place or location. So, where is "babatni makkata"?

read the verse following 4824, and you will see it makes sense.

peace

[afridi220]

read the verse following 4824, and you will see it makes sense.

peace

Read all the verses togather.

4824] He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

It is they who disbelieved and barred you from the Sacred Masjid, and even prevented your offerings from reaching their destination. There were believing men and women (within the enemy camp) whom you did not know, and you were about to hurt them, unknowingly. GOD thus admits into His mercy whomever He wills. If they persist, He will requite those among them who disbelieve with a painful retribution.

While those who disbelieved were enraged, and their hearts were filled with the pride of the days of ignorance, GOD blessed His messenger and the believers with peaceful contentment, and directed them to uphold the word of righteousness. This is what they well deserved. GOD is fully aware of all things.

GOD has fulfilled His messenger's truthful vision "You will enter the Sacred Masjid, GOD willing, perfectly secure, and you will cut your hair or shorten it (as you fulfill the pilgrimage rituals) there. You will not have any fear. Since He knew what you did not know, He has coupled this with an immediate victory

[ayman]

Peace Mazhar,

4824. And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
      After the victory of one of the two conflicting parties the phenomenon of destruction is already over. After the victory of one group which means crushing defeat of the other party, "restraining of hands in the midst of destruction" is quite a funny statement. The advancing army on a city keeps following the enemy troops who retreat to the inner of the city and the swords can come to a halt inside the city only when the retreating army/remaining soldiers surrender the weapons. On surrender/dropping of the arms by the remaining defeated army the victorious army also hold back their hand.

So you know that it is a city. This is also confirmed by 4825 which clearly indicates the presence of civilian non combatants. In ancient times almost all cities had walls and fortifications to protect them from attackers. Since 4824 indicates the imminency of hand to hand combat then we can deduce that the walls and fortifications that protect the city were destroyed and breached and nothing kept the two armies from engaging in hand to hand combat in the midst of this destruction. Also, once the city walls are destroyed, then the invaders have the upper hand and pretty much victory of the invading army is almost certainly guaranteed. Notice the use of the word "athfarakum" (gave you the upper hand) not "nasarakum" (gave you victory) in 4824.

MKKH means "destruction" in the same way that the same form NKBH means "disaster" (same exact form F3LH). This is a mundane form and a well known fact in Arabic that only the most ignorant can deny.

Peace,

Ayman

[Mazhar]

Peace Mazhar,

So you know that it is a city. This is also confirmed by 4825 which clearly indicates the presence of civilian non combatants. In ancient times almost all cities had walls and fortifications to protect them from attackers. Since 4824 indicates the imminency of hand to hand combat then we can deduce that the walls and fortifications that protect the city were destroyed and breached and nothing kept the two armies from engaging in hand to hand combat in the midst of this destruction. Also, once the city walls are destroyed, then the invaders have the upper hand and pretty much victory of the invading army is almost certainly guaranteed. Notice the use of the word "athfarakum" (gave you the upper hand) not "nasarakum" (gave you victory) in 4824.
MKKH means "destruction" in the same way that the same form NKBH means "disaster" (same exact form F3LH). This is a mundane form and a well known fact in Arabic that only the most ignorant can deny.

Peace,

Ayman

"athfarakum" is more close to convey the perception of victory, dominance as compared to "nasarakum", helped you. Mecca never had fortification wall. It has always been an open city in the history and in the Qur'aan.

[ayman]

Peace Mazhar,

"athfarakum" is more close to convey the perception of victory, dominance as compared to "nasarakum", helped you. Mecca never had fortification wall. It has always been an open city in the history and in the Qur'aan.

Saying that Mecca never had fortification walls while this discussion is about the meaning of "mecca" is a circular argument. You have already baselessly assumed that "mecca" is the name of some town. Please read the title of this thread. What you are saying is like saying "in ancient times vampires never slept during the day". First you have to prove that there was such as thing as "vampires".

Peace,

Ayman

[Ahmad_Bilal]

Peace Ayman,

Can you explain how the context of the passage implies that "makka" means destruction? You quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation, but that's not even a proper translation, since it conveys the incident in a present tense. Since the actual reading of this passage is referring to something that happened in the past (from the time of that revelation), it changes the idea of the message. It implies that BOTH parties/armies were in "babatni makkata" (i.e. midst of destruction, valley/borders of Makka). How is it possible that they were all in the "midst of destruction" if Allah gave the believers the victory? How could BOTH groups be facing impending destruction from the other?

Also, if "makka" was being described as a common noun (i.e. destruction) which was impending upon the people, and Allah was giving a description of the events, wouldn't it make more sense to clearly identify the event with "the" (i.e. babatni al makkati), instead of leaving it separate in the form of an adjective or a proper name? I could be wrong, though... What's your take on this?

Peace,

Ahmad

[Q_student]

Peace Mazhar,

Saying that Mecca never had fortification walls while this discussion is about the meaning of "mecca" is a circular argument. You have already baselessly assumed that "mecca" is the name of some town. Please read the title of this thread. What you are saying is like saying "in ancient times vampires never slept during the day". First you have to prove that there was such as thing as "vampires".

Peace,

Ayman

Peace
Ayman ! you do not understand such a simple linguistic principle that "Proper Nouns " are not translated.
As we do not translate January ,February ,March ,or Sunday ,Monday etc.So Mecca being a Proper Noun cannot be Translated.
Is this not used as a Diptote in the Quran ??????????????????????
Regards

[Mazhar]

Peace Mazhar,

Saying that Mecca never had fortification walls while this discussion is about the meaning of "mecca" is a circular argument. You have already baselessly assumed that "mecca" is the name of some town. Please read the title of this thread. What you are saying is like saying "in ancient times vampires never slept during the day". First you have to prove that there was such as thing as "vampires".

Peace,

Ayman

What you quoted back was a parethetic. Issue was about your conclusion

Notice the use of the word "athfarakum" (gave you the upper hand) not "nasarakum" (gave you victory) in
4824. Ayman

This was responded

"athfarakum" is more close to convey the perception of victory, dominance as compared to "nasarakum", helped you.

Which of the two is true? Pl opine.

[ayman]

Peace Ahmad,

Can you explain how the context of the passage implies that "makka" means destruction?

The context is a war in an urban area. War in an urban area and destruction go hand in hand. This is especially true in ancient times where urban areas had fortifications and walls that had to be destroyed for the army to enter the town and hand to hand street combat to take place.

You quoted from Yusuf Ali's translation, but that's not even a proper translation, since it conveys the incident in a present tense. Since the actual reading of this passage is referring to something that happened in the past (from the time of that revelation), it changes the idea of the message. It implies that BOTH parties/armies were in "babatni makkata" (i.e. midst of destruction, valley/borders of Makka). How is it possible that they were all in the "midst of destruction" if Allah gave the believers the victory? How could BOTH groups be facing impending destruction from the other?

Can you please show the word "nasr" (victory) in the passage? The exact word used is "athfarakum" (gave you the upper hand). So here we clearly have a situation where the following things happened (in sequence)

1. The walls and fortifications AROUND the city have been destroyed.
2. As a result of this destruction, now the invading army has the upper hand and it is a virtual certainty that they will win the war.
3. The invading army enters the city and meets with its defenders and therefore both are in the MIDST/CENTER of the destruction that is AROUND them.
4. Hand to hand street combat is about to begin.
5. Cooler heads prevail and the fighting is stopped to avert civilian casualties.

Also, if "makka" was being described as a common noun (i.e. destruction) which was impending upon the people, and Allah was giving a description of the events, wouldn't it make more sense to clearly identify the event with "the" (i.e. babatni al makkati), instead of leaving it separate in the form of an adjective or a proper name? I could be wrong, though... What's your take on this?

What you are saying would make sense only if the specific type of destruction or what was specifically destroyed was important or was mentioned elsewhere. In this instance, clearly this doesn't add value to the idea of the passage since, for example, it doesn't matter if the destruction happened as a result of catapults or rams or whatever. The important thing is that there was destruction around them. So the indefinite "destruction" works better and is more to the point.

Peace,

Ayman