Bakka/Mecca
-
Peace Hawk.
You and I know that ,no matter what you say, even if it is backed up by Qoran, others are going to claim you are " using hadith"?
Peace good logic, It is true what you say, however in a forum setting
exchanges are not just for the addresser and addressee but for "all"
members to examine the points of view and decide if there is any useful
information.Peace hawk99,
My apologies for missing that post. So you do admit there was a shared tradition once, confirmed by the mosque of the two qiblas. You seemed to deny this earlier.
Thank you runninglikezebras, I do not deny the former qibla.
Please answer these questions
Who built the shrine at mecca?
How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?
What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?
Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?
Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?
These questions may be important to you, but for me they are
of little value, the qibla, and our house are clear to me as per
Quran.Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?
Hindering non Muslims from Mecca is not an injustice. I have no desire to visit
other faiths sacred landmarks or participate in their rites and rituals.These questions are still to be answered by the stone worshippers.
There's a stone also I believe in your Jerusalem!
Bottom line There are no shared rites and rituals amongst faiths,
Hindus have their rites, Jews have theirs, Buddhist have their way,
we have ours! You can face Jerusalem if you like or Ontario or Brazil.God bless you from the schizophrenic, acrobatic, fleshy beast. ;D
-
Just a quick note. Somewhere here something was mentioned. The Zoroastrians seem to be mentioned in the Qur'an by a different term than that of the polytheists, and the Zoroastrians at times were referred to in the Bible in positive terms (such as being called Messiah and righteous at times). Zoroastrian, though having various corruptions or exaggerations, was generally supposed to be mostly monotheistic with Ahura Mazda as the supreme God, but they would praise and glorify other powers too that were said to be subject to Ahura Mazda as servants and emanations of the Ultimate Power.
They were referred to in the New Testament as well, and in a positive way generally at times, rather than called "polytheists".
The polytheists in the Qur'an seem to have certain beliefs which the Zoroastrians don't seem to share in, and there seems to be archaeological evidence for non-Zoroastrian polytheism around the Arabian region and elsewhere.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia
http//www.academia.edu/829636/Pre-Islamic_Christianity_in_Arabia
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Christians#Classic_antiquity
Haha the song playing right now is Thumbhang by Anvil
-
Peace Hawk.
Thank you for the reminder."May my Lord guide me to do better next time."
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
Salam,
The site of Mecca was destroyed if you consider that the fiery stones that were unleashed on the people of Lot have a resonance in traditional history, where they believe that the people of the elephant were destroyed in Mecca by fiery projectiles.
-
What was there to destroy?
non Islamic Historians cannot find the City of Mecca before 400 AD and many experts seem to think it was not anywhere near the Arabian trade route.
The famous greek geographer Ptolemy mentioned Macoraba as a city in the Arabian interior. Some people wanted to assume that Macoraba was actually Mecca. Macoraba had appeared recently, with respect to Ptolemy?s time. This assumption would result in the conclusion that Mecca was built around the middle of the 2nd century A.D. However, even if this were true, it wouldn?t support the claim that Mecca was an old city existing from the time of Abraham.
Upon further study of the facts concerning Macoraba, we can conclude with certainty that Macoraba can?t be Mecca, and we can refute the idea that Mecca was built in the 2nd century A.D. All the facts point to the historical argument that Mecca was constructed in the 4th century A.D. Since Macoraba is not pronounced similar to Mecca, the scholar Crone suggested that the location of Maqarib, near Yathrib, was actually Macoraba. Maqarib is mentioned by Yaqut al-Hamawi, an Arab geographer who lived from 1179 to1229 A.D., in his geographical dictionary Mujam al-Buldan. This location is more acceptable than Mecca for the modern-day location of Macoraba, because Maqarib is closer in pronunciation to Macoraba than Mecca. Another reason is that Maqarib, though it does not exactly fit the documented location of Macoraba, is closer to the location, according to the latitude and longitude of Ptolemy, than Mecca is to the documented location of Macoraba. -
While that may be true, it has no impact on the discussion at hand. Many towns which were destroyed have been lost for centuries, some never being populated again (Petra - capital of the Nabataen empire - was lost for centuries and left abandoned).
That Mecca was only populated in the 2nd or 4th century A.D. does not detract from what it could have been centuries before that.
-
Peace Hawk.
Thank you for the reminder."May my Lord guide me to do better next time."
GOD bless you.
Peace.You are a contributor to the knowledge exchange in this forum,
one does not have to agree with you in order for others to benefit.
Keep up the good work.That Mecca was only populated in the 2nd or 4th century A.D. does not detract from what it could have been centuries before that.
Agreed, places change names, rise and fall.
God bless
peace
-
While that may be true, it has no impact on the discussion at hand. Many towns which were destroyed have been lost for centuries, some never being populated again (Petra - capital of the Nabataen empire - was lost for centuries and left abandoned).
That Mecca was only populated in the 2nd or 4th century A.D. does not detract from what it could have been centuries before that.
Well that's an honest reply. Conjecture but at least you're honest about it.
To me your interpretation still feels incompatible with "recognize it like their sons". I still need to find the first Jew who recognizes mecca like they recognize their sons.
On my part I admit I have no hard evidence showing Bacca is a historical place in the vicinity of Jerusalem. I feel comfortable however with the references in OT to bacca, always in conjunction with mount Zion, of which there is no doubt to be situated in Jerusalem.
Peace
-
references in OT to bacca, always in conjunction with mount Zion, of which there is no doubt to be situated in Jerusalem.
Salam.
This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Arman
-
Salam.
This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Arman
I think he said right above that he doesn't really have any direct evidence of this except that Mount Zion being mentioned around the same verses or something like that.
-
This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?"Blessed are those whose strength is in you, whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.
As they pass through the Valley of Baka, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.
They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion."
-- Psalm84http//www.archatlas.org/workshop/philip/Slide21-edited.jpg
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileano_Baalbek_1.jpg
Baalbek or Baalbeck is a town in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon situated east of the Litani River. Known as Heliopolis (Greek ς during the period of Roman rule, it was one of the largest sanctuaries in the empire and contains some of the best preserved Roman ruins in Lebanon.
Gigantic Stone in Baalbek which predate the Roman period
http//www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_11.jpgThe roman build temple to their gods on top of a much older gigantic stone slab.
Why would the Roman bothered to set up a temple there?
Far away from Rome, Italy... -
We juggle with words, one says baa and the other says bacca, juggling movings the posts so that anything fits anything else at will.
Up till now, what was sayd about the ot was Baca, now it is transformed into becca. Which is it.
Because a and e might pass, but doubling the consonnant does not. Bakka(t) in Arabic is obviously a root b-k-k and nothing to do with a root b-k and the last letter is a ta marbuta which a marker for feminine.
All hisotrical and archeological research in Palestine ans orroundings is tainted by the previous assumption of the whole Bible being doubtless in every count and everything has been interpreted as taking that for granted and making it fit by hook or crook and now also the whole of Arabia must submit to the literary claims of a boc to which any finding must submit instead of submitting the assertions of the book to the real findings, no matter what the Qur'an says.
And since Pazuzu who exposed this kind of thing now is being buried under the question of the flat earth we apply to subverting the Qur'an also on things that have been cleared already.
Salaam
-
All hisotrical and archeological research in Palestine ans orroundings is tainted by the previous assumption of the whole Bible being doubtless in every count and everything has been interpreted as taking that for granted and making it fit by hook or crook and now also the whole of Arabia must submit to the literary claims of a boc to which any finding must submit instead of submitting the assertions of the book to the real findings, no matter what the Qur'an says.
I don't believe that the "True God" really command the entire mankind to flock into a SINGLE SPOT on earth anyway.
And shall punish those who refused to do so..
Only fools shall believe in such nonsense..You want to go to Mecca? Go to Mecca..
You want to go to Becca? Go to Becca..
You want to go to Jerusalem? Go to Jerusalem..
You want to go to Girzim? Go to Girzim..
You want to go to Gangges river? Go to Gangges river
You want to go to Himalaya? Go to Himalaya..
You want to go to Fuji? Go to Fuji..
You want to go to Red Rock? Go to Red Rock..
You want to go to Borobudur? Go to Borobudur..
You want to go to Las Vegas? Go to Las Vegas..
You want to go to Abu Dhabi? Go to Abu Dhabi..And since Pazuzu who exposed this kind of thing now is being buried under the question of the flat earth we apply to subverting the Qur'an also on things that have been cleared already.
My condolences on your lost..
-
Salam.
This is interesting. I also believe Qur'an becca is a reference to OT becca.
However I did not know that there is any evidence / theory that OT becca is in or around Jerusalem.
Do you have any supporting?May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Arman
There is no direct evidence only indirect.
The indirect evidence in OT is as follows
"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."
The word Baca occurs rarely in the Bible; it is also found in 2 Samuel 523,24 and 1 Chronicles 1414,15 where it identifies a valley in which David fought the Philistines. The word Baka describes a bush, probably a Balsam bush but translated in the AV as a mulberry tree.
In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. This is to the southwest of Jerusalem and forms an approach route to the city. The Philistines encamped in Rephaim to attack Jerusalem (2 Samuel 517,1, which shows that it is not in Arabia and David attacked Philistines who were encamped in the valley of Rephaim from the Valley of Baca (2 Sam. 523,24; 1 Chron. 1414,15). Therefore the valley of Baka is near Jerusalem. It is clearly not in Arabia.
The Psalm is in praise of the house of God (the temple) in Jerusalem. Verses 5-7 describe the last part of the ascent of pilgrims to this house; the particular pilgrims ascend from the south west through the valley of Baca.
Psalm 846 describes a well made by the pilgrims. The well Zam-zam in Mecca was not made by pilgrims.
The valley is filled with pools of water by the rains. Mecca is very dry all the year round; it virtually never finds itself surrounded by pools of standing water left by rains.
The end of the pilgrimage is Zion (v. 7). This is, of course, Jerusalem and not Mecca.
http//bibleatlas.org/regional/valley_of_rephaim.htm
The wells are interesting, I relate them to https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Pools
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/The_pools_of_Solomon_Bethlehem_ca1890.jpg
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Solomonspool3_n.jpg
Compare these images to the zam zam well, which can hardly be imagined to be a pool.
Peace
-
Why would the Roman bothered to set up a temple there?
Far away from Rome, Italy...Romans build temples everywhere in their empire. It's not at all uncommon.
Peace
-
Hello Jafar, others,
"Blessed are those whose strength is in you, whose hearts are set on pilgrimage.
As they pass through the Valley of Baka, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.
They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion."
-- Psalm84http//www.archatlas.org/workshop/philip/Slide21-edited.jpg
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FilePano_Baalbek_1.jpg
Baalbek or Baalbeck is a town in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon situated east of the Litani River. Known as Heliopolis (Greek ς during the period of Roman rule, it was one of the largest sanctuaries in the empire and contains some of the best preserved Roman ruins in Lebanon.
Gigantic Stone in Baalbek which predate the Roman period
http//www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_misterios/baalbek_11.jpgThe roman build temple to their gods on top of a much older gigantic stone slab.
Why would the Roman bothered to set up a temple there?
Far away from Rome, Italy...bravo
My current opinion/hypothesis is that the 1st quraanic bayt set-up for mankind was at Baalbek at this very location where Romans later built their temple. The Beqaa valley could be the changed name for Bakkah. This fits with other indirect and circumstantial evidences.
Peace
-
There is no direct evidence only indirect.
The indirect evidence in OT is as follows
"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools."
The word Baca occurs rarely in the Bible; it is also found in 2 Samuel 523,24 and 1 Chronicles 1414,15 where it identifies a valley in which David fought the Philistines. The word Baka describes a bush, probably a Balsam bush but translated in the AV as a mulberry tree.
In 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles the valley of Baka is a valley full of balsam bushes near the valley of Rephaim. This is to the southwest of Jerusalem and forms an approach route to the city. The Philistines encamped in Rephaim to attack Jerusalem (2 Samuel 517,1, which shows that it is not in Arabia and David attacked Philistines who were encamped in the valley of Rephaim from the Valley of Baca (2 Sam. 523,24; 1 Chron. 1414,15). Therefore the valley of Baka is near Jerusalem. It is clearly not in Arabia.
Salam runninglikezebras.
The indirect evidences did not seem any more convincing to me than the Becca=Mecca hypothesis. 2 Samuel 523,24 and 1 Chronicles 1414,15 seem to be talking about the tree rather than the valley. But I do agree with you "It is clearly not in Arabia."
Like what brother Jafar suggested my initial impression was also that the reference is for the valley in Lebanon. But then after careful reconsideration of the full message of Al Qur'an 396-97 and Psalm 845-6, my conclusion is in both this cases the reference is more allegorical / spiritual rather than physical.
You are of course entitled to have your own opinion.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Salamun alaik Arman,
The indirect evidences did not seem any more convincing to me than the Becca=Mecca hypothesis. 2 Samuel 523,24 and 1 Chronicles 1414,15 seem to be talking about the tree rather than the valley. But I do agree with you "It is clearly not in Arabia."
Like what brother Jafar suggested my initial impression was also that the reference is for the valley in Lebanon. But then after careful reconsideration of the full message of Al Qur'an 396-97 and Psalm 845-6, my conclusion is in both this cases the reference is more allegorical / spiritual rather than physical.
Agreed. bravo
My opinion/hypothesis about Baalbek is influenced by the Ancient Alien Theory about extra terrestrial beings having constructed the platform in Baalbek using advanced technology (most likely anti-gravity or sound wave levitation) around the time of Abraham, due to the size of the stones used to construct the platform (800 tons and more). Even modern technology fails to move around such huge stones and lift them up for construction. This coupled with the theory/hypothesis of Gabriel being a higher dimensional positive alien, who could belong to the same group of aliens who constructed Baalbek platform, and who brought the message to the prophet, led to my hypothesis about Baalbek.
The hypothesis of bakkah being "more allegorical/spiritual rather than physical", thereby being a common noun rather than a proper name of a place, is a completely valid hypothesis.
396 The first bayt established for the people is bibakkatan/"a cut above the rest", blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.
OR
396 The first bayt established for the people is bibakkatan/"with much crowding", blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.
OR
396 The first bayt established for the people is the one in Bakkah, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.
Time, further archeological evidence, or close encounters of the 4th kind, might shed more light on this matter. Either way I am one hundred percent certain bakkah does not refer to Makkah.
Best regards.
-
I think references to Zion are often metaphorical too, if not also literal simultaneously. Such a view accounts for both possibilities and tries to interpret things in multiple ways "it could mean this, it could mean this, it could mean this, from such an interpretation we can take this, from such an interpretation we could take this, and from such and interpretation we could take this, we need not eschew any value for ourselves if there is value in any or all of the interpretations, just that we speak carefully regarding them".
-
Why not ascend Zion instead?
