Baccata and Haj
-
Double post
-
""ka?b
cube Per ka?b borrowed from Ara
ka?b
heel
kaba
trouble, pain Per kabe borrowed from Ara
ka?ba cube Hin kaba, Ind kaabah, Per ka?be borrowed from Ara"So where is this cube? Where is it known to be to the people of Medina?
I suggest you read my answer again. It states in my opinion that is a wrong translation. I translate it as recompense in the context of the verse it is used.
"Would the true qibla then still be a test if it is named explicitly? I don't think so. To me it's not mentioned by name for good reason outside the becca reference."
What exactly is the purpose of God being ambiguous in this regard? Creating trouble as usual?
This answer is inside Quran to make evident those turning back on their heels from those following the messenger. This was also answered in my post.
"are you contesting these ancient mosques did have a Jerusalem qibla?"
The Mosque of the two qiblahs or what? It could be there were buildings which the non-existence Christians and Jews of the Hijaz were sharing with the Muslims later.
I linked you a timeline showing the qibla of ancient mosques. Did it only list the mosque of the two qiblas? Did you click that link at all?
"I think I've answered in the above. How is this qibla to be a test and to be recognized like your sons when you would have a nametag for them."
Why would Jerusalem be recognized to the people of Medina or where Muhammed was preaching as their own sons, when there were no Jews and Christians in the Hijaz according to you? What they would recognize as their own sons would be something close to them in Arabia, because like their sons it is near to their location, they see it often. If Muhammed is mainly preaching in the Hijaz, in Medina and the vicinity, and there are no Jews and Christians there, then why would the people he is preaching to recognize Jerusalem? If it was Jews and Christians he was preaching to, was he not in the Hijaz at this time since there were none whatsoever in the Hijaz according to you and he was preaching perhaps in or near Jerusalem, having left Medina behind for all those times he is apparently interacting with Jewish and Christian people so much? This is probably one of the many reasons the mainstream academics would not agree to the complete lack of existence of Jews and Christians in the Hijaz and Medina in particular.
You are twisting quranic words around. Quran does not say to the people of Medina will recognize it as their own sons. I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading what it says. Look up the verse. Find out who's address. Contemplate on your rebuttal again. Are you saying the people in Medina were given a Book? If so I'd like to see that book. The people of the Book are all those familiar with it christians, jews. I disagree Muhammad was preaching in the Hijaz region. I think his focus, and that of the first caliphs was rather north than south. If he was preaching I'm sure the same priority as recorded in the first islamic expansion has to correspond.
"What kind of father needs an explicit nametag to recognize his son?"
Who was being told that they will recognize it as their own sons? The Polytheist Arabs of Medina, or the Non-Existent Jews and Christians of the Hijaz? or the people of Jerusalem while Muhammed was there, when there is no record of any pilgrimages to a valley there at that time apparently, of Jews and Christians from Jerusalem itself going on pilgrimage to any particular House there?
The Jews, Christians wherever you find them. Either in Yemen, Syria, Palestine or Arabia doing their hajj. There are many records of pilgrimage in a Jerusalem located valley.
What is the Cube?
What is your fixation with cubes? It's getting on my nerves. Quran does not speak on any cube.
"It serves the purpose of making evident those following the messenger from those turning on their heels. This is intended to happen. Gods will. Making the deviators evident."
It is a little strange then perhaps that the Qur'an says the Jews and the Christians would love if the Muslims followed their form of religion, especially considering the Jews and the Christians were turned towards Jerusalem. They seemed to be the ones who were being contentious about this shift occurring towards some Cube they didn't recognize which was familiar to them though.
It was never a question of assimilating the others belief. There is only one abrahamic faith. Deviations occur among 'muslims', jews and christians. Why would the Jews and Christians have to accept a new qibla? No messenger ever came to them saying, you were wrong about your qibla here's the right one! Including Muhammad. His message never contained any such information. Even the hadith agree Muhammad rather learned from the Jews than vice versa. Many hadith even contend he even fasted with them. Not only prayed in the same direction.
"I don't know if he was able to preach in Jerusalem."
Did he ever talk to Christians and Jews like the Qur'an seems to depict? He did not have those encounters within the Hijaz since there were no Christians and Jews anywhere in the Hijaz?
Don't forget many south arabian jews made their hajj most likely passing through or in the vicinity of Medina. For the answer you will have to crosscheck Quran. But I do agree he had encounters with them.
"Why would Quran mention such an event if it were not for the sole reason this was affecting their hajj."
Well apparently God as described earlier likes to be totally ambiguous as part of some weird and rather unfair seeming "Testing" going on, but besides that, maybe because it was a major event in the history for where the Muslim Empire would find their opportunities soon as well. They were well known and renowned Empires. One could say "the pilgrimage was effected" to many places, not necessarily Jerusalem. There seems to be no mention at all of Rome involved with the pilgrimage activities, only locals which were perhaps around Medina if Muhammed was at Medina. It talks about various battles, yet Rome and Persia did not fight them later, and did not have stories of being involved in combat regarding a Cube anywhere and vehemently defending it or considering it sacred or a sacred sanctuary as the polytheists seemed to also believe in the Qur'an thus honoring the various laws and rules which were sacred to it except in cases of transgression.
There you are again with your cube! Meh! Forget about a cube. Quran does not speak about cubes. I guess you still haven't read up much on the Jerusalem history during the Sassanid Byzantine war. A lot of what you state here is factually incorrect. The battle mentioned in Quran did not involve muslim forces. It was a byzantine persian conflict. In many ways this was hugely important to the messenger because during Muhammads lifetime Temple Mount was controlled by christians, expelling jews, putting a ban on the hajj and strict rules. Then jews collaborated with Persians betraying their convenant with God. Reports of massacres. Historically masjid al haram was only secure again from religious abomination when muslims conquered it after Muhammads death. Which was promised to them in Quran. God promises they will enter masjid al haram.
No, but I think some mention of "Arabs" suddenly coming in hordes practicing Jewish rites might get a little News among Jews and Christians at least. No news of such ever occurring at all until way late in the game, yet the Muslim population grew quite large apparently even within the lifetime of Muhammed, also there did not seem to be a practice of garlands and the other things called "pagan" in the Qur'an which are permitted by God regarding the practices around the Kabah, no record of those things happening apparently and being considered pagan in Jerusalem at that time. The ancient arabs might have been, like some of the tribes to this day, into flowers (check out the "flower people" of Arabia).
I'm intrigued by your usage of Arabs in contrast to Jews. Did you never hear about Jewish Arabs? Christian Arabs? The word Arab says nothing about religion. You pretend like it does to build a case but it is utterly despicable to make such assertions. When muslims gained followership, historical record does not name them muslims. The don't call them Islamic. None of those labels are used in that period of time. No one would be surprised by an Arab who takes on jewish rites, or christian rites. Which by all accounts in my opinion they never did. They had a message for them that reminded them of an earlier convenant and showed which things were human corruptions in their practices such as making Jesus a God, making pacts with Persians etc.
The garlands fell out of practice later on apparently, but do not seem to be a long recorded thing in Jerusalem, which the Medina people would probably not know about anyway. Anything practiced in Jerusalem might not be called "pagan" or "polytheist" either, as these were particular practices that the polytheists did which Allah said are fine.
My roots would be "pagan" then, going back into ancient religions of Asia, and Abraham was luckily not a polytheist (and neither were the ancient Vedic people or anyone else until later, since Islam was always presently available and not exclusive to the Jews or their private religion) and not a Jew or a Christian either. In other words, the whole world are our roots.
Nothing pagan was going on. No monasteries were burned. No churches destroyed. None of that. The persians came and were so gentle with all the existing architecture, Heraclius felt compelled to avenge what had happened. Even go so far as too withdraw troops from areas in Europe (Balkan) that were highly needed there (Slavic invasion). Right... No paganism whatsoever folks! These sassanids were totally monotheistic! I totally disagree my friend. No jews were ever expelled from jerusalem! Byzantines never put restrictions on the hajj! I suggest you read those history links again I gave you.
Now I'm not really arguing with you but questioning, where was the big event of lots of Arabs coming to pilgrimage in Jerusalem and battling around Jerusalem for pilgrimage rights or any of that and the defense of polytheists who considered it special too (Sassanids, who were Zoroastrians and Zoroastrians had been mentioned by name separately and are also generally monotheistic in the belief of Ahura Mazda and had been praised in the Bible at times, were not particular in considering Jerusalem sacred or honoring ancient pacts regarding it.
What about the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem? Are those enough muslims for you? I disagree the Persians were at all times monotheistic, especially in that era of Quranic revelation they were highly polytheistic. This narrative you use, keeps reiterating stereotypical ideas of homogeneous religious groups. Each and everyone of them was in reality very mixed. State religion was often far removed from the reality in the streets. Polytheism is ever present in entire Palestine. How many artefacts found in Israel showing polytheistic ideas dated from a time that is supposedly Jewish do I have to show you? To any observer the muslim pilgrims would be entirely indistinguishable from jewish or christian pilgrims. What makes you think they would stick out as muslim or arab? Again, those labels are historically never attested for during that time to be used for any such religious groups. This is information I already posted including source and everything. Still you keep returning using this flawed argument. Do you think muslims had some sticker on their head saying muslim?
Peace
-
Forgot to mention in the previous post
If the Jewish and Christian had a wrong qibla. Then why is the Dome of the Rock not addressing them about their qibla. It is clearly addressing the christians in its inscriptions, not on the qibla however.
Don't you think there would be something there making it evident "THIS IS THE WRONG QIBLA" to rub into the jewish their faces if mecca was the correct one?
Not only is the inscription missing saying Mecca is the right qibla. So is the entire architecture the opposite of what you'd expect. It's not a mosque facing Mecca. It's a building with no qibla. Making it even more suitable to be a qibla confirmation rather then a qibla negation.
If I was caliph and Muhammad told me explicitly mecca is the true qibla. I would not only build a mosque facing mecca on temple mount. I would put in huge letters on it "To all Jewish, this page has been redirected to Mecca". Is that irrational of me?
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
There is not a placename used for it that's correct. We only get some pointers that hint towards it's identification. Making it a place where people prostrate however makes me quite convinced it is a real place/geolocation
Masjid can be a physical place but it can also be a mental "institution of obedience". You are assuming "prostrate" is the only meaning of SJD. SJD can mean both prostration or obedience. SJD as used in al-quran has a meaning of obedience in most instances.
If it was a physical place of prostration, so important to be qibla, then al-quran would have explicitly mentioned its location. Because a physical location is not mentioned, the evidence tips in favor of mental "truth from your lord"/the message, than a physical place of prostration.
EVIDENCE No mention of physical place in al-quran as location of qibla.
MENTAL = 1, PHYSICAL = 0
Saying the place had to be mental and can not be physical is not proven by that verse. Turning your gaze towards the sky is often an act of desperation. Looking towards God for answer. I take no more from it but that. This does not exclude the place being both physical and metaphysical. Both apply in my understanding to the Temple Mount qibla. It's geolocation needs no explanation, it's metaphysical significance is that of a place of return. The return to Abrahamic ancestry. Where it all started. See my previous post.
Fair enough. 1 point for each.
MENTAL = 2, PHYSICAL = 1
The question is not whether a building can be the truth from your lord. The question is whether a focal point can be the truth from your lord, both in geolocation as in symbolism Temple Mount is conforming those requirements. The buildings on temple mount don't mean anything to me. The place itself removed of all buildings on it will not make it less significant. It never did when the temples where destroyed in contrary.
If it is the truth from your lord, then the actual physical location of qibla MUST have been mentioned in al-quran. Temple Mount as location of al-masjid al-haram becomes conjecture based on al-quran. The truth from your lord being "the message" fits perfectly and does not require mention of location.
Score remains 2-1 in favor of mental.
Well you can't explain that verse unless you understand the Jewish mizrah has a history in which the Jewish weren't sure wether the entrance/exit of their synagogues should face Jerusalem or rather the qiblah wall. The answer in this verse is perfectly clear the entrance/exit. This is what is referred to with "wherever you go out". I explained this before.
You are assuming it is referring to entrance/exit of a temple.
What about "wherever you may be" in 2144 and 2150? There is no "wherever you go out" in those verses.
You did not answer my question
If qibla is a physical direction, then how will you face a physical direction towards a physical place from a colony of humans residing in a glass domed city on the dark side of the moon (from wherever you may be)?
EVIDENCE One cannot face a physical location or place from WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
MENTAL = 3, PHYSICAL = 1
I see no contradiction. God is telling us Temple Mount/masjid al haram is the focal point, and this message is the truth from your Lord. Leaving no doubt the abrahamic roots at Temple Mount are those designated froim God to Abraham.
In 2149, the "it" in "it is the truth from your lord" grammatically refers to "al-masjid al-haram" and not to "you shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid". You can check with the linguistic experts here.
I'm not trying to convince anyone.
You took "you" as referring to you! What I meant was, if qibla is a physical location then there will be room for debate. However if qibla is "the truth from your lord"/the message then there will be no room for debate.
EVIDENCE Mental focal point leaves no room for debate.
MENTAL = 4, PHYSICAL = 1
Of course it doesn't it is both a message and a place. The message being the first message Abraham received from a malaika at Temple Mount. Can't you see it keeps reiterating it is the truth from the Lord, the truth being a message first relayed to Abraham in that exact spot?
The truth is the message first relayed to Abraham, so the qibla would be that MESSAGE and not the exact spot! The exact spot is not the truth from your lord otherwise its location would have been explicitly mentioned. The creator has no problem mentioning exact location; it does not run out of words in a book which explains all things and is fully detailed.
Exactly how easy is it to spot them at mecca?
Fair enough. The turning on their heels could imply both physical or mental. 1 point for both.
MENTAL = 5, PHYSICAL = 2
See Abraham.
The context of qibla being al-masjid al-haram has no mention of salat.
The question remains
If qibla is facing a physical direction, then facing a physical direction FOR WHAT?
Clearly ancient architecture disagrees with you. Everyone of the early mosques had a qibla. So did every synagogue (mizrah).
Firstly, the late 7th century mosques discovered were not from the time of revelation of al-quran but from post-quranic time. The direction of post quranic mosques has no value. If you come across discovery of a mosque from the time of revelation of al-quran, then kindly let me know.
Secondly, even those late 7th century mosques were facing a direction south of Jerusalem by almost 30 degrees, and not facing Jerusalem.
The empiric fact remains If qibla is a physical direction towards a physical temple, then after some miles distance from any physical temple you will not be able to face it physically due to Earth's curvature. You will instead be facing the sky, tangential to the curvature instead of facing a physical temple. So you will not be able to face a physical temple "from wherever you may be".
The quranic and astronomical evidence is in favor of qibla and the inviolable masjid being a mental focal point and "the truth from your lord"/the message rather than a physical direction or location.
Peace and may the infinite creator guide us to the truth.
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
Masjid can be a physical place but it can also be a mental "institution of obedience". You are assuming "prostrate" is the only meaning of SJD. SJD can mean both prostration or obedience. SJD as used in al-quran has a meaning of obedience in most instances.
If it was a physical place of prostration, so important to be qibla, then al-quran would have explicitly mentioned its location. Because a physical location is not mentioned, the evidence tips in favor of mental "truth from your lord"/the message, than a physical place of prostration.
EVIDENCE No mention of physical place in al-quran as location of qibla.
MENTAL = 1, PHYSICAL = 0
Fair enough. 1 point for each.
MENTAL = 2, PHYSICAL = 1
If it is the truth from your lord, then the actual physical location of qibla MUST have been mentioned in al-quran. Temple Mount as location of al-masjid al-haram becomes conjecture based on al-quran. The truth from your lord being "the message" fits perfectly and does not require mention of location.
Score remains 2-1 in favor of mental.
You are assuming it is referring to entrance/exit of a temple.
What about "wherever you may be" in 2144 and 2150? There is no "wherever you go out" in those verses.
You did not answer my question
If qibla is a physical direction, then how will you face a physical direction towards a physical place from a colony of humans residing in a glass domed city on the dark side of the moon (from wherever you may be)?
EVIDENCE One cannot face a physical location or place from WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
MENTAL = 3, PHYSICAL = 1
In 2149, the "it" in "it is the truth from your lord" grammatically refers to "al-masjid al-haram" and not to "you shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid". You can check with the linguistic experts here.
You took "you" as referring to you! What I meant was, if qibla is a physical location then there will be room for debate. However if qibla is "the truth from your lord"/the message then there will be no room for debate.
EVIDENCE Mental focal point leaves no room for debate.
MENTAL = 4, PHYSICAL = 1
The truth is the message first relayed to Abraham, so the qibla would be that MESSAGE and not the exact spot! The exact spot is not the truth from your lord otherwise its location would have been explicitly mentioned. The creator has no problem mentioning exact location; it does not run out of words in a book which explains all things and is fully detailed.
Fair enough. The turning on their heels could imply both physical or mental. 1 point for both.
MENTAL = 5, PHYSICAL = 2
The context of qibla being al-masjid al-haram has no mention of salat.
The question remains
If qibla is facing a physical direction, then facing a physical direction FOR WHAT?
Firstly, the late 7th century mosques discovered were not from the time of revelation of al-quran but from post-quranic time. The direction of post quranic mosques has no value. If you come across discovery of a mosque from the time of revelation of al-quran, then kindly let me know.
Secondly, even those late 7th century mosques were facing a direction south of Jerusalem by almost 30 degrees, and not facing Jerusalem.
The empiric fact remains If qibla is a physical direction towards a physical temple, then after some miles distance from any physical temple you will not be able to face it physically due to Earth's curvature. You will instead be facing the sky, tangential to the curvature instead of facing a physical temple. So you will not be able to face a physical temple "from wherever you may be".
The quranic and astronomical evidence is in favor of qibla and the inviolable masjid being a mental focal point and "the truth from your lord"/the message rather than a physical direction or location.
Peace and may the infinite creator guide us to the truth.
What kind of game is this in which you are debating and arbiter at the same time. But whatever read my response
Masjid can be a physical place but it can also be a mental "institution of obedience". You are assuming "prostrate" is the only meaning of SJD. SJD can mean both prostration or obedience. SJD as used in al-quran has a meaning of obedience in most instances.
If it was a physical place of prostration, so important to be qibla, then al-quran would have explicitly mentioned its location. Because a physical location is not mentioned, the evidence tips in favor of mental "truth from your lord"/the message, than a physical place of prostration.
EVIDENCE No mention of physical place in al-quran as location of qibla.
MENTAL = 1, PHYSICAL = 0
Well, the verse I was referring to, which you can find in this thread not only mentions sujud it also says this
lilifna
for those who circumambulate P ? prefixed preposition lm
N ? genitive masculine plural active participle(222614)
wal-qimna
and those who stand CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
N ? genitive masculine plural active participle(222615)
wal-rukai
and those who bow, CONJ ? prefixed conjunction wa (and)
N ? genitive masculine plural active participle(222616)
l-sujdi
(and) those who prostrate.MENTAL = 0, PHYSICAL = 1
One can not mentally circumambulate.
Fair enough. 1 point for each.
MENTAL = 0, PHYSICAL = 2
If it is the truth from your lord, then the actual physical location of qibla MUST have been mentioned in al-quran. Temple Mount as location of al-masjid al-haram becomes conjecture based on al-quran. The truth from your lord being "the message" fits perfectly and does not require mention of location.
I disagree it has to be mentioned explicitly. It would contradict "recognize it like their sons". A father/mother does need to know his son's name to recognize him.
You are assuming it is referring to entrance/exit of a temple.
What about "wherever you may be" in 2144 and 2150? There is no "wherever you go out" in those verses.
You did not answer my question
If qibla is a physical direction, then how will you face a physical direction towards a physical place from a colony of humans residing in a glass domed city on the dark side of the moon (from wherever you may be)?
EVIDENCE One cannot face a physical location or place from WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
2144 So from wherever you go out turn your face toward al- Masjid al-Haram, and indeed, it is the truth from your Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.
MENTAL = 0, PHYSICAL = 3
One can not go out from the mental. Furthermore it would be feasible to do on the dark side of the moon. But I agree it would be impractical. This not synonymous to impossible.
You took "you" as referring to you! What I meant was, if qibla is a physical location then there will be room for debate. However if qibla is "the truth from your lord"/the message then there will be no room for debate.
EVIDENCE Mental focal point leaves no room for debate.
How can the qibla be used to make evident those turning back on their heels from those following the messenger if there is a precise placename? It can't.
How can the qibla be a test in recognizing like your own sons if you need a placename for it? If you name the place the quranic test can not be applied to distinct those following the message. Everyone could just focus towards it and claim they recognize it like their sons while at the same time longing for another place that means more to them.
The context of the verses do not allow, even if it's a physical place for it to be named.MENTAL = 0, PHYSICAL = 5 Rendering a placename in it makes Quran contradict and makes the recognize as sons verse meaningless
Fair enough. The turning on their heels could imply both physical or mental. 1 point for both.
MENTAL = 1, PHYSICAL = 6
Peace.
-
I gave myself an extra point in the count because I can
-
Firstly, the late 7th century mosques discovered were not from the time of revelation of al-quran but from post-quranic time. The direction of post quranic mosques has no value. If you come across discovery of a mosque from the time of revelation of al-quran, then kindly let me know.
Secondly, even those late 7th century mosques were facing a direction south of Jerusalem by almost 30 degrees, and not facing Jerusalem.
The empiric fact remains If qibla is a physical direction towards a physical temple, then after some miles distance from any physical temple you will not be able to face it physically due to Earth's curvature. You will instead be facing the sky, tangential to the curvature instead of facing a physical temple. So you will not be able to face a physical temple "from wherever you may be".
The quranic and astronomical evidence is in favor of qibla and the inviolable masjid being a mental focal point and "the truth from your lord"/the message rather than a physical direction or location.
Peace and may the infinite creator guide us to the truth.
Sure they are post-quranic but still relevant in any serious discussion considering qiblah
My understanding
- Qibla walls are rather common then exception
- Synagogues all have mizrah.
- The qibla of the earliest mosques points too far north to be able to be Mecca. I'm not speculating about whether they point to syria or jerusalem by all standards of that time they point to the Levant not Hijaz.
- The dome of the rock is not a mosque, nor does it have a qibla.
- Logic demands any religious building to be suitable for consideration as qibla can't have a qibla by itself.
- Orientating buildings according to the stars or astronomy is a pagan tradition not an abrahamic one. Abraham didn't worship any stars. The whole thing that set the Abrahamic faith apart from all the others was this monotheistic belief that the sun and the stars are all creations of the One God. I'm honestly shocked you even consider astronomical orientations as it goes in against all the fundamentals I know.
Peace
-
I suggest you read my answer again. It states in my opinion that is a wrong translation. I translate it as recompense in the context of the verse it is used.
This answer is inside Quran to make evident those turning back on their heels from those following the messenger. This was also answered in my post.
I linked you a timeline showing the qibla of ancient mosques. Did it only list the mosque of the two qiblas? Did you click that link at all?
You are twisting quranic words around. Quran does not say to the people of Medina will recognize it as their own sons. I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading what it says. Look up the verse. Find out who's address. Contemplate on your rebuttal again. Are you saying the people in Medina were given a Book? If so I'd like to see that book. The people of the Book are all those familiar with it christians, jews. I disagree Muhammad was preaching in the Hijaz region. I think his focus, and that of the first caliphs was rather north than south. If he was preaching I'm sure the same priority as recorded in the first islamic expansion has to correspond.
The Jews, Christians wherever you find them. Either in Yemen, Syria, Palestine or Arabia doing their hajj. There are many records of pilgrimage in a Jerusalem located valley.
What is your fixation with cubes? It's getting on my nerves. Quran does not speak on any cube.
It was never a question of assimilating the others belief. There is only one abrahamic faith. Deviations occur among 'muslims', jews and christians. Why would the Jews and Christians have to accept a new qibla? No messenger ever came to them saying, you were wrong about your qibla here's the right one! Including Muhammad. His message never contained any such information. Even the hadith agree Muhammad rather learned from the Jews than vice versa. Many hadith even contend he even fasted with them. Not only prayed in the same direction.
Don't forget many south arabian jews made their hajj most likely passing through or in the vicinity of Medina. For the answer you will have to crosscheck Quran. But I do agree he had encounters with them.
There you are again with your cube! Meh! Forget about a cube. Quran does not speak about cubes. I guess you still haven't read up much on the Jerusalem history during the Sassanid Byzantine war. A lot of what you state here is factually incorrect. The battle mentioned in Quran did not involve muslim forces. It was a byzantine persian conflict. In many ways this was hugely important to the messenger because during Muhammads lifetime Temple Mount was controlled by christians, expelling jews, putting a ban on the hajj and strict rules. Then jews collaborated with Persians betraying their convenant with God. Reports of massacres. Historically masjid al haram was only secure again from religious abomination when muslims conquered it after Muhammads death. Which was promised to them in Quran. God promises they will enter masjid al haram.
I'm intrigued by your usage of Arabs in contrast to Jews. Did you never hear about Jewish Arabs? Christian Arabs? The word Arab says nothing about religion. You pretend like it does to build a case but it is utterly despicable to make such assertions. When muslims gained followership, historical record does not name them muslims. The don't call them Islamic. None of those labels are used in that period of time. No one would be surprised by an Arab who takes on jewish rites, or christian rites. Which by all accounts in my opinion they never did. They had a message for them that reminded them of an earlier convenant and showed which things were human corruptions in their practices such as making Jesus a God, making pacts with Persians etc.
Nothing pagan was going on. No monasteries were burned. No churches destroyed. None of that. The persians came and were so gentle with all the existing architecture, Heraclius felt compelled to avenge what had happened. Even go so far as too withdraw troops from areas in Europe (Balkan) that were highly needed there (Slavic invasion). Right... No paganism whatsoever folks! These sassanids were totally monotheistic! I totally disagree my friend. No jews were ever expelled from jerusalem! Byzantines never put restrictions on the hajj! I suggest you read those history links again I gave you.
What about the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem? Are those enough muslims for you? I disagree the Persians were at all times monotheistic, especially in that era of Quranic revelation they were highly polytheistic. This narrative you use, keeps reiterating stereotypical ideas of homogeneous religious groups. Each and everyone of them was in reality very mixed. State religion was often far removed from the reality in the streets. Polytheism is ever present in entire Palestine. How many artefacts found in Israel showing polytheistic ideas dated from a time that is supposedly Jewish do I have to show you? To any observer the muslim pilgrims would be entirely indistinguishable from jewish or christian pilgrims. What makes you think they would stick out as muslim or arab? Again, those labels are historically never attested for during that time to be used for any such religious groups. This is information I already posted including source and everything. Still you keep returning using this flawed argument. Do you think muslims had some sticker on their head saying muslim?
Peace
"I suggest you read my answer again. It states in my opinion that is a wrong translation. I translate it as recompense in the context of the verse it is used."
Oh ok, not Cube, Recompense, got it.
"This answer is inside Quran to make evident those turning back on their heels from those following the messenger. This was also answered in my post."
How would it prove who is "turning back on their heels" if the Jews and the Christians were aiming to Jerusalem and there was no Kabah Cube thing even? What were they turning to before?
"I linked you a timeline showing the qibla of ancient mosques. Did it only list the mosque of the two qiblas? Did you click that link at all?"
No, I didn't click the link, some internet issues at that time, but I'm sure it is good and shows that there were lots of mosques with niches pointing Jerusalem or whatever you were showing in that, in other words I believe you already, I didn't need to look at it to catch you out or anything, if you say you saw something I take your word for it.
"You are twisting quranic words around. Quran does not say to the people of Medina will recognize it as their own sons. I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading what it says. Look up the verse."
Yeah, but the issue is there was no Jew and Christian in the Hijaz according to you, and Muhammed was unknown to be preaching in or around Jerusalem as far as we know, so why are the people of Medina if he was in Medina mainly being told this unless there were Jews and Christians in Medina, and even so, if he was Medina or near Mecca a shrine there would be familiar to them all whereas a "son" one m ight not imagine is a far away place, one could maybe call that "mother", I don't know why the locals of Arabia who were not really known to travel there would recognize it and if there were no Jews or Christians to talk to would it be referred to. I know it didn't say "people of Medina" in that context, but there were no Jews and Christians in the Hijaz according to you, and he was apparently in and around Medina for the most part probably, right?
"Find out who's address. Contemplate on your rebuttal again. Are you saying the people in Medina were given a Book?"
This isn't a rebuttal really, its just puzzling aspects. There are no Christians and Jews in the Hijaz, Muhammed is in the Hijaz (and particularly Medina at least at some point), Muhammed is talking to Jews and Christians constantly, this is all rather of unheard of in Jerusalem further pointing to him not being there, and from Arabia a mysterious group springs out further pointing to Arabia, and then they turn to Mecca at least eventually, further pointing to Arabia, where there were no Christians and Jews according to you. I'm not trying to be difficult, I am putting together the actual things I have gathered from what you are saying. If you have a clearer story of how it went down, then you can explain it.
"If so I'd like to see that book."
Me too, since the mainstream of Academics believe that there were Jews and Christians in the Hijaz, in Mecca and Medina, and Muhammed was in Mecca and Medina, and the Jews and Christians faced Jerusalem, and they were the ones who refused to turn towards a pagan shrine in Arabia, and do to this day, making the distinguishing factor pretty clear as well at the time, and that this tradition was so widespread among Muslims within the lifetime of Muhammed and after his lifetime, that it would have been difficult to institute anything else. Those are not my views, remember I don't care deeply about the issue, but the mainstream of Academics seem to have reasons for believing what they do.
"The people of the Book are all those familiar with it christians, jews. I disagree Muhammad was preaching in the Hijaz region. I think his focus, and that of the first caliphs was rather north than south."
So where do you believe he was, even as a rough guess, which actually had no records of him even though he might have been close to administrative regions? That is why Mecca and Medina seemed a better bet to mainstream Academics, because it was out of range of the eyes of the Empires generally so the origins of the religion were mysterious and seemed to burst forth out of nowhere, while the various movements within the Byzantine and Sassanid areas were watched and observed and Christian and Jewish scribes could record these things and transfer news among themselves, but didn't find out about these guys or this movement until after they were forming raiding bands and had an army it seems and Muhammed was already gone, and they seemed to trace their origins back to Arabia, Mecca and Medina.
"If he was preaching I'm sure the same priority as recorded in the first islamic expansion has to correspond."
I don't understand what this means. Is there a suggestion in there that Muhammed was not preaching? Maybe you didn't mean that, it is just the "if he was preaching" was confusing for a moment.
"The Jews, Christians wherever you find them. Either in Yemen, Syria, Palestine or Arabia doing their hajj. There are many records of pilgrimage in a Jerusalem located valley."
Yes, but not many records of a sudden influx of distant Arabs who had been polytheists but now followers of Muhammed in legions arriving to this pilgrimage in or near Jerusalem and battles with them around this fact. No such thing seems to have ever happened and seems that it would be significant news.
"What is your fixation with cubes? It's getting on my nerves. Quran does not speak on any cube."
The first definition of the word Kaba is Cube but that is fine, no cube except the obvious one in Mecca, we understand now that you say it doesn't mean cube but "retribution" and there is no cube whatsoever that people circle around or anything, but "retribution" instead.
"It was never a question of assimilating the others belief. There is only one abrahamic faith. Deviations occur among 'muslims', jews and christians. Why would the Jews and Christians have to accept a new qibla?"
To prove they are believers in the new messenger, not harboring or holding on to the denial of the Qur'an and the message he brought. Distinguishing who believes in the Qur'an to who doesn't, it mostly seems to work to this day, as the Jews and the Christians still refuse to turn to Mecca and believe in the Qur'an. If he is talking to Jews and Christians outside of the Hijaz region, then why would turning towards Arabia be an easy thing for them? It would indeed distinguish from Jews and Christians who believes in the Qur'an and Muhammed.
"No messenger ever came to them saying, you were wrong about your qibla here's the right one! Including Muhammad."
There was some switch of qibla. There is apparently no Cube, and the Arab Polytheists were not Jews and Christians so were unlikely to be "qibla" users in general (polytheism generally is known to pray to little personal idols they feed and bow down to), so what two qibla users were being distinguished? It seems to the mainstream academics at least that Jerusalem is where the Jews and the Christians were facing, and the Muslims turned it somewhere they didn't like, and they disputed regarding such a change.
"His message never contained any such information. Even the hadith agree Muhammad rather learned from the Jews than vice versa. Many hadith even contend he even fasted with them. Not only prayed in the same direction."
The same Hadiths (which I might like less than you apparently, that you use them as an example not too rarely) also talk about Mecca, Meccans, Medina, Muhammed in Arabia, Muhammed turning towards Mecca, and blah blah blah. Jewish and Christian tribes in the Hijaz region and much more. They generally do not generally show a picture that agrees with what you are presenting, which is why those who hold the Hadith's dear and the mainstream Academics who might accept them as well all point towards Mecca, Media, Kaba Cube, and all that typical stuff. Also including praying with Jews towards Jerusalem and the change towards Mecca being a major problem for Jews and Christians in the Hijaz and Mecca and Medina, and them saying "do not abandon your religion".
"Don't forget many south arabian jews made their hajj most likely passing through or in the vicinity of Medina."
Yes, but for some reason none can exist in the actual Hijaz, there is some great Anti-Jew or Christian force-field perhaps that prevents them from settling anywhere in the region, they can at most only pass through.
"For the answer you will have to crosscheck Quran. But I do agree he had encounters with them."
Ok, he had encounters with them. Maybe in Medina when they were quickly walking through so as not to stay long enough in the Hijaz to be considered "local/settled".
"There you are again with your cube! Meh! Forget about a cube."
Yeah, yeah, no cube, circling around retribution or something. I'll look up all the instances in the Qur'an and put the word Retribution in there in a moment.
"Quran does not speak about cubes. I guess you still haven't read up much on the Jerusalem history during the Sassanid Byzantine war. A lot of what you state here is factually incorrect."
Well, I don't know about that, what did I state? I was just asking questions. In the Byzantine and Sassanid period, it seemed people were writing things down, yet none of them seem to talk about this stuff so mainstream Academics seem to believe it started in remote Arabia and far from the eyes of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires until later on and news did not reach them until late in the game when the Arabs, who seemed pretty focused on their homeland of Arabia, popped up, with no record of any major influx of Arabs visiting Jerusalem and joining in the pilgrimage with Jews in Jerusalem or anything like that being mentioned among any of the administration or the Jews or the Christians of that Empire, when they seemed pretty alert about things often.
"The battle mentioned in Quran did not involve muslim forces. It was a byzantine persian conflict."
Yes, but what about the battles of Muhammed? What about "being driven from your homes" that whole story? Where do you place that and what happened and who is involved and why isn't it recorded anywhere? That is why people think it happened in the middle of the boondocks Arabia.
"In many ways this was hugely important to the messenger because during Muhammads lifetime Temple Mount was controlled by christians, expelling jews, putting a ban on the hajj and strict rules."
I wonder why the win by the Byzantine's was given a positive light in interpretations and Jews were given so much hate seemingly in the Qur'an.
"Then jews collaborated with Persians betraying their convenant with God. Reports of massacres. Historically masjid al haram was only secure again from religious abomination when muslims conquered it after Muhammads death. Which was promised to them in Quran. God promises they will enter masjid al haram."
Didn't it say "you will see them" and he was alive, and there was the conquering of Mecca? Do the Jews shave their heads when they go on pilgrimage?
"I'm intrigued by your usage of Arabs in contrast to Jews."
The Christian Monks who first wrote about the Muslims did not call them "Jews" or say they resembled or practiced like the Jews at all, they referred to them as something "Other" and did not identify them as Jews. Jews too were also very hostile to anyone seeming alien, so an influx of these aliens would have (one would imagine at least) been notable, as it was notable when there was an actual influx, and then the Jews and the Christians and whoever started writing about them and news of them, they did not write about some weird Prophet and his legions of former polytheists from Arabia visiting Jerusalem or around there with shaved heads. The Jews who were local to that area as well as the Christians, who later identified these foreigners as apart from Jews quite early on, would have noted this weirdness occurring probably. That these Medina Arab Ishmaelite Saracen Hagarites or whatever are suddenly coming in a huge influx, arguing about things, getting into fights and defending areas or whatever, none of that seemed to happen at all, they seemed to appear alien and remote when the Christians first started writing about their war hordes.
"Did you never hear about Jewish Arabs? Christian Arabs? The word Arab says nothing about religion. You pretend like it does to build a case but it is utterly despicable to make such assertions."
lol, it is not that despicable, because you should read what was written about and how it was written about by the first and earlier non-Muslim accounts, they did not identify these as "Jews" and "Arabs" were not "pan national Arabs" where Syrians were the same as Yeminites and all that modern stuff. These hordes from the dessert appeared distinct to those people, were not to known to Jewish, apparently no Jews and Christians existed anywhere in the Hijaz, and the way the early writers wrote about them did not make it seem like "oh they are just Syrians that we know well" or anything like that.
"When muslims gained followership, historical record does not name them muslims."
I know this, forgive my use or misuse of some words for the sake of ease. I know they didn't appear by that identification to people.
"The don't call them Islamic. None of those labels are used in that period of time. No one would be surprised by an Arab who takes on jewish rites, or christian rites."
Why then were they surprised by these apparently "Jewish" war hordes and never identified them as being Jews or like Jews, but gave them a distinct origin from Jews? Yes, they definitely would've noticed an influx from a region of polytheists going on pilgrimage I think and having their heads shaved and following Muhammed and having their own scriptures, this all came as a surprise to people a long time later because (it seems to mainstream Academics) of the remote origins of this group in Arabia.
"Which by all accounts in my opinion they never did. They had a message for them that reminded them of an earlier convenant and showed which things were human corruptions in their practices such as making Jesus a God, making pacts with Persians etc."
Weird that making Pacts with Persians is a sin, considering at times the Bible calls a Zoroastrian, Messiah and pacts were made which seemed positive. Why would these Zoroastrian pagans who were apparently mentioned be so vehemently involved and caring about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem?
"Nothing pagan was going on. No monasteries were burned. No churches destroyed. None of that. The persians came and were so gentle with all the existing architecture, Heraclius felt compelled to avenge what had happened. Even go so far as too withdraw troops from areas in Europe (Balkan) that were highly needed there (Slavic invasion). Right... No paganism whatsoever folks! These sassanids were totally monotheistic!"
The Zoroastrians are mentioned in the Qur'an by another name, are they the only Polytheists it refers to or are there a variety? Can you identify them all and where exactly Muhammed is? Why did these people from Arabia and pointing back to Arabia become the top people if Muhammed was not an Arabian who was focused more on Syria, Jerusalem, and talking about Persians but not much by name even though was capable of it at least once.
"I totally disagree my friend."
You "disagree" with what? Questions? I don't understand "disagreeing with questions". I am not saying what happened or this or that happened, I am raising questions, no one is disagreeing with you really.
"No jews were ever expelled from jerusalem! Byzantines never put restrictions on the hajj! I suggest you read those history links again I gave you."
Yes, and Muhammed, who did he fight? Muhammed fought at the gates of Jerusalem with the Christians and the Zoroastrians or what?
"What about the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem? Are those enough muslims for you?"
What are you saying here? The Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, was there any record from the people about them doing that as a pilgrimage and that they were joined with the Jews? "We see these people from Arabia joining the Jews in their pilgrimage, shaving their heads" or whatever?
"I disagree the Persians were at all times monotheistic, especially in that era of Quranic revelation they were highly polytheistic."
Ok, so mainly the "polytheists" are Zoroastrians in the Qur'an? Where are these events taking place? Not the Hijaz? Certainly not the Hijaz or Medina if this is about Zoroastrians as the Polytheists.
"This narrative you use, keeps reiterating stereotypical ideas of homogeneous religious groups."
I know that the religions were similar and all that and the people don't look that different from each other all across the region, but the monks who wrote about it seemed to make a clear distinction about them and they were not considered to be Jews even or similar.
"Each and everyone of them was in reality very mixed. State religion was often far removed from the reality in the streets. Polytheism is ever present in entire Palestine."
Ok so was Muhammed a Palestinian in Palestine? Why is Arab stuff mentioned and the language of the Qur'an Arabic?
"How many artefacts found in Israel showing polytheistic ideas dated from a time that is supposedly Jewish do I have to show you?"
Where was Muhammed, give me the whole story please about what you think in this regard, just give me your Hadith about everything.
"To any observer the muslim pilgrims would be entirely indistinguishable from jewish or christian pilgrims. What makes you think they would stick out as muslim or arab? Again, those labels are historically never attested for during that time to be used for any such religious groups. This is information I already posted including source and everything. Still you keep returning using this flawed argument. Do you think muslims had some sticker on their head saying muslim?
Peace"Why were they distinguished later but pretty early on when the monks wrote about them? I am not talking about labels exactly, why were these people mentioned in a distinct way by those early non-Muslim writers and accounts.
Jews would not at all have questioned a new massive influx from Arabia or wherever the heck that had not formerly joined them and not had any conversation with these speakers of a slightly different tongue to find out about Muhammed? The conflicts and wars of Muhammed, where were those and why were they not mentioned particularly?
Some questions, no real statements except when I say "this is what the mainstream academics seem to think and this might be why.
The mainstream academic view seems to be
Muhammed is an arab, in Arabia, in Mecca and Medina, dealing with a Cube called The Cube in Mecca, known mainly to the locals, not cared for by the Jews or Christians, offensive to the Jews and Christians who were sorted out by the turning of this, the acceptance of pagan customs related to it, and all that. The early accounts making distinct note of them from Jews and others. This seems to be what they believe, and they seem to have reasons for it, that the whole majority of peer reviewed professionals in this field tend towards believing this and discounting whatever other weird ideas so far.
-
There was a mistake in my earlier post. The verse dealing with Kabaa is indeed a verse about recompense for killing an animal. The word itself however translates to grief/pain, as in the grief pain caused by killing this animal during Ihram (which is forbidden). I don't really care what mainstream says. Quranically the word can't possibly be translated as a cube. The recompense is measured with the grief done. How can a recompense be measured by a cube? How was a cube a standard for measuring damage?
Let me address more specifics on how I see the geolocations involved. No doubt Muhammad was at Medina. There is no archaeological evidence of churches nor synagogues in that region however dating to that era. This means there was no established christian or jewish influence in the Hijaz. Mainstream mostly bases this idea of established influence on the hadith. I'm looking at archaeological evidence. No church is no established influence. Now, does this mean there were no jews and no christians whatsoever in that region? It does not. They could have been present within those communities but clearly the historically record shows us they had no rights of establishing any religious buildings in that region. Furthermore one should consider the hajj of south arabic jews doubtlessly making contact with christians and jews a likelihood rather than an exception. It's very probable even Muhammad heard their stories of what was happening in Jerusalem preventing them from making their hajj. In my understanding Muhammad was also commanded by God to make his Hajj. His destination was no different from that of the south arabian jews making their hajj. Without any doubt he must have first handedly witnessed how byzantines attacked pilgrims along the way, refused providing water nor food to the pilgrims, making hajj a very risky endeavour indeed. The destination of pilgrimage and Jerusalem itself were supposed to be safe zones for any making their pilgrimage. During Muhammads time those decrees by God were violated by Byzantines and by Persians.
The making of this hajj, identical to that of the south arabian jews, was a very risky endeavour. There was no mass influx of arabs suddenly making their hajj. Jerusalem was used to arab pilgrimage, there is also no evidence this group of Muhammad was massive in number when they made this travel. I think it was a modest group. That grew bigger eventually and even started making raids on the Quraysh (who are historically known to have trade agreements with the byzantines, if not total byzantine vassals).
The outcome we all know. The islamic conquer of Jerusalem is not only significant in political sense, it also re-established the hajj and made the pilgrimage safe again for all those making their hajj towards it. Even jewish records attest to this.
Those turning back on their heels are historically attested for.
- Muslims, turning the qibla of their mosques rather late towards Mecca (confirming a switch to Mecca)
- Tiberian Jews and followers of Nehemiah ben Hushiel, they already abandoned their qiblas. They believed to be living in the end of times. Nehemiah ben Hushiel their Messiah, worshipped like Ezra. This subgroup of Jews thought Nehemiah to be one of the Apocalyptic signs. Ezra leading the Jews back to Jerusalem from exile and building the third temple announcing the end of days. The reader should know Nehemiah is also a biblical name for Ezra in some biblical accounts. This is by no means a coincidence.
- Christians persistently trying to reconquer Temple Mount (see crusades) and trying to expel Jews, Muslims from the site and prevent their hajj. Christians who by themselves do not have a qibla.
- Anybody returning to shrines of idol worship
- Anyone hindering the abrahamic hajj to temple mount. Even the zionist israeli's understood this and granted authority over Temple Mount to muslims. For good reason. I strongly belief if the Israeli's back in the day would have decided to control temple mount themselves, the revolt throughout the entire middle-east would be massive. Not only do I think this is true, I even believe that if they did, God would intervene. It has many precedents not only that of Islamic conquer of Jerusalem but countless other examples. You may think I'm mad but in my understanding the Justinian Plague was an act of God. Weakening the Byzantine power grip on the Levant even before Muhammad was born. Whenever Jersulem falls into the wrong hands (not the appointed keepers) or the hajj gets hindered/made impossible God will intervene. This includes natural disasters, war and anything you can imagine that aids in restoring the safety of Temple Mount.
Mainstream idea is not compatible with historical fact. Were Jews and Christians supposed to turn to a qibla that had no significance at all to the muslims themselves? Now, that would be a very irrational thing to demand. I can say confidently not even the muslims had a meccan qibla as no of the early mosques show any qibla even near it.
Why were they distinguished later but pretty early on when the monks wrote about them? I am not talking about labels exactly, why were these people mentioned in a distinct way by those early non-Muslim writers and accounts.
These monks only wrote about them when Jerusalem was conquered. You can't compare a military force that was not persian or byzantine to be identified as a new group with a small group of pilgrims that were only trying to make their hajj. These pilgrims weren't conquerors with new authority calling the shots. What gives you the idea these early muslim pilgrims would stick out as muslim? There is no indication to think such a thing. It's a different story when Jerusalem falls, they are in the spotlight calling the shots about Temple Mount etc, identifying them as not Jewish nor Christian. A bit later in history we see muslims appear as a name for this group that was forging a national identity using a new religious identity as mortar. Coinciding with this nation-building, we slowly see mecca become important. Which it never was by all historical accounts during Muhammads time.
I can confidently say the group was very small making their pilgrimage during Muhammads time as hajj was difficult (hindered by byzantines, persians) and very dangerous.
The mass pilgrimage you (mainstream) refers to is a strawman argument, that never happened in Muhammads days.
Me too, since the mainstream of Academics believe that there were Jews and Christians in the Hijaz, in Mecca and Medina, and Muhammed was in Mecca and Medina, and the Jews and Christians faced Jerusalem, and they were the ones who refused to turn towards a pagan shrine in Arabia, and do to this day, making the distinguishing factor pretty clear as well at the time, and that this tradition was so widespread among Muslims within the lifetime of Muhammed and after his lifetime, that it would have been difficult to institute anything else. Those are not my views, remember I don't care deeply about the issue, but the mainstream of Academics seem to have reasons for believing what they do.
The mainstream idea does not correspond with historical facts. Mecca does not have any such importance historically. Not even for early muslims. The fact Mecca never was the capital of the Caliphate attests to this. The qibla directions of early mosques show beyond doubt that outside the lack of political importance to the early muslims it also lacked religious significance. The old qiblas point to the Levant. The first mosques pointing to Mecca can only be dated a century after Qurans revelation.
I'm sure I haven't addressed all your points, it was a long post. I will try to follow this one up with more answer.
Peace
-
I know my understanding will never become mainstream. It's not meant to be mainstream. I'm a non-conformist by nature. Always have been.
Peace
-
Those are not my views, remember I don't care deeply about the issue, but the mainstream of Academics seem to have reasons for believing what they do.
One can only share the mainstream idea when their choice is ignorance or not caring about it. For the sake of practicality whenever I say 'you' I'm addressing mainstream.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
Qibla or al-masjid al-haram has nothing to do with circumambulation. That's a strawman.
I am not discussing kaaba or al-bayt with you. Qibla and al-masjid al-haram is different from kaaba and al-bayt al-haram which is for hajj and nothing to do with qibla.
Yes Dome of Rock could have been the kaaba or al-bayt al-haram but you are confusing qibla/al-masjid al-haram with kaaba/al-bayt al-haram.
You haven't been able to refute any of the quranic evidence I mentioned and you haven't answered all the questions I posed.
By astronomical evidence I meant curvature of Earth and being on dark side of moon. It is impossible to face a physical location on Earth from more than a few miles away due to curvature of Earth so qibla cannot be a physical direction because you have to be able to set yourself towards al-masjid al-haram from WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
Similarly dark side of moon or a far away galaxy. If qibla is a physical direction and al-masjid al-haram is a physical location, you should be able to set yourself towards al-masjid al-haram from any location in the universe, WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
This alone disproves a physical qibla and a physical al-masjid al-haram.
Once again, I am not discussing kaaba or al-bayt al-haram which is indeed physical and is for hajj and I agree that Temple Mount could have been the kaaba or al-bayt al-haram, but that depends on proving that bakkah is clearly referring to that location.
If you want to continue to believe in a physical qibla or a physical al-masjid al-haram then you have the right to do so due to the law of free will, but quranic evidence is clearly against qibla or al-masjid al-haram being physical direction or location.
Quranic evidence, however, does prove that kaaba/al-bayt al-haram is a physical location.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
Qibla or al-masjid al-haram has nothing to do with circumambulation. That's a strawman.
It doesn't? What about
2225 Indeed, those who have disbelieved and avert from the way of Allah and al-Masjid al-haram, which We made for the people - equal are the resident therein and one from outside; and whoever intends therein of deviation or wrongdoing - We will make him taste of a painful punishment.
2226 And when We designated for Abraham the site of the House, "Do not associate anything with Me and purify My House for those who circumambulate and those who stand and those who bow and prostrate.
2227 And proclaim to the people the Hajj ; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass -
This is at least the third time I posted or referred to these verses, yet you pretend I never did. I don't see how you don't feel contradicted by them or refuse to accept them as evidence of a clear connection between hajj, circumambulation, qibla and masjid al haram. If you are calling this a strawman, are you then saying Qur. I would be very careful about saying such things.
This is speaking about Masjid al-Haram (see 2225)
I am not discussing kaaba or al-bayt with you. Qibla and al-masjid al-haram is different from kaaba and al-bayt al-haram which is for hajj and nothing to do with qibla.
Then why does the Quran say masjid al haram is a site for pilgrimage (see 2227). Don't take me the wrong way, truthseeker, but you are given me the impression you are unaware Quran explicitly names masjid al haram the place for hajj. See my previous posts in which I explain the kaaba is not a cube (unless you believe in hadith). The qibla and masjid al haram are one the same. The masjid al haram is al-bayt al-haram. So far you haven't proven anything quranically concerning this matter. You seem to just contradict sura 22 with your claims.
Yes Dome of Rock could have been the kaaba or al-bayt al-haram but you are confusing qibla/al-masjid al-haram with kaaba/al-bayt al-haram.
Quran contradicts what you state in surah 2225-27 see all my other posts quoting from surah 22.
You haven't been able to refute any of the quranic evidence I mentioned and you haven't answered all the questions I posed.
I think I have. I just did that again.
By astronomical evidence I meant curvature of Earth and being on dark side of moon. It is impossible to face a physical location on Earth from more than a few miles away due to curvature of Earth so qibla cannot be a physical direction because you have to be able to set yourself towards al-masjid al-haram from WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
Similarly dark side of moon or a far away galaxy. If qibla is a physical direction and al-masjid al-haram is a physical location, you should be able to set yourself towards al-masjid al-haram from any location in the universe, WHEREVER YOU MAY BE.
This alone disproves a physical qibla and a physical al-masjid al-haram.
This is of course a strawman argument. One can never wherever you go out focus to one specific point neither mentally nor physically. This is why my explanation remains valid. It speaks about whether entrance/exit of masjids (synagogues, mosques) or the qibla wall should be orientated towards masjid al haram. It never meant to focus at all times, anywhere you go. Although it is recommended to do this often.
Once again, I am not discussing kaaba or al-bayt al-haram which is indeed physical and is for hajj.
If you want to continue to believe in a physical qibla or a physical al-masjid al-haram then you have the right to do so due to the law of free will, but quranic evidence is clearly against qibla or al-masjid al-haram being physical direction or location.
Peace
Kaaba means grief in one verse, ankles or heels in another. Never Cube, a cube does not fit the context where that root word is being used, anywhere. Bring your proof Kaaba means cube and please read my thesis that explains why it can't possibly refer to a cube. Also bring proof that contradicts surah 22 saying "And proclaim to the people the Hajj ; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass -" which is speaking about Masjid al Haram (2225)
I think my post answered your questions sufficiently and quranically. You claim masjid al haram was never associated with hajj while Quran explicitly states the contrary in sura 22. Dito concerning qibla and dito concerning circumambulation at masjid al haram. My friend if you want to continue this debate, you will have to address these verses. So far you have been only running from even mentioning them. Are we trying to conceal something?
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
I have never ever claimed kaaba is a cube. You can check all my hundreds of posts. That is a strawman. I have ALWAYS claimed otherwise.
Please read the Arabic of 2225-27 carefully.
2225 is talking about MASJID and not BAYT.
2226-27 are talking about BAYT and not MASJID.
MASJID is not BAYT per quranic terminology.
It speaks about whether entrance/exit of masjids (synagogues, mosques) or the qibla wall should be orientated towards masjid al haram.
NO IT DOESN'T )
It asks YOU to set yourself towards it WHEREVER YOU MAY BE )
The Arabic of the qibla verses say WHEREVER YOU MAY BE. This phrase clearly indicates to focus anywhere you go. That includes far away galaxies and dark side of the moon.
You still haven't answered how you will face a physical location more than a few miles away from it (unless you believe in flat Earth). You will be facing the sky at a tangent to the curvature of the Earth and not that physical location. This is an empirically verifiable fact.
Peace
-
My God... are you saying a mosque is not a house?
Well if you think that's the case. Good luck to you! There is nothing I can help you with then.
Concerning the qibla. One CAN NEVER ALWAYS SET ONESELF IN ONE DIRECTION NEITHER PHYSICAL NOR MENTAL REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE. Agreed? If you agree on this, then it means something different.
The answer about curvature is dealt with in Quran saying to God belongs the East and the West. Your praying direction doesnt have to be superaccurate. God is most forgiving. Or you could like Freedomstands does have a backup plan and hope your ass points in the right direction eventually.
Peace
-
So according to truthseeker a masjid is not a bayt. And the reader is supposed to understand that when it speaks about Abrahams house, being masjid al haram. This is no longer the next occurrence of House. That is some different house. Even if there is no indication to think it is speaking about anything different but Abrahams designated house.
This is just irrational.
My logic is this
The masjid al haram is a house on the spot designated to Abraham. Where Abraham's house started. When Quran speaks about Abraham's house, am I irrational to understand that house as to be situated where Temple Mount is now (Sharif al Haram) mentioned in the previous verse? The place traditionally believed where the binding of Isaac took place etc. ?
Tell us truthseeker what is the House of Abraham that makes it distinct from temple mount (masjid al haram)? How are we supposed to know what it is. Are we supposed to believe all of a sudden another house, not being a masjid is mentioned totally irrelevant to the previous verse?
Please also tell me where the three abrahamic faiths locate the binding of Isaac? Is it not temple mount?
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
We have to go by quranic terminology. According to quranic terminology MASJID is not BAYT. Please prove otherwise from al-quran.
My God... are you saying a mosque is not a building?
MASJID does not mean a mosque. That is a post quranic fabrication.
BUNYAN are buildings per quranic terminology.
BAYT is a physical house with evidence from al-quran.
What I am saying is that MASJID is not BAYT per quranic terminology.
Please do not invent strawman of mosque and building when I never said anything about mosque or building. Let's focus on you bringing proof from al-quran that MASJID can mean BAYT (whatever they mean). It should be very simple for you to bring a verse which clearly tells us that MASJID and BAYT are the same thing if you are truthful )
Concerning the qibla. One CAN NEVER ALWAYS SET ONESELF IN ONE DIRECTION NEITHER PHYSICAL NOR MENTAL REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE. Agreed? If you agree on this, then it means something different.
Again you are assuming it is a physical direction and not a mental direction.
YOU CAN SET ONESELF (FOCUS) TOWARDS A MENTAL DIRECTION OF MESSAGE FROM YOUR LORD WHEREVER YOU MAY BE )
The answer about curvature is dealt with in Quran saying to God belongs the East and the West. Your praying direction doesnt have to be superaccurate. God is most forgiving.
It also says WHEREVER YOU TURN YOU WILL FIND THE PRESENCE OF ALLAH. Then why interpret a physical direction which would contradict with 2115?
Qibla has nothing to do with praying direction. No SALAT is mentioned in the context of QIBLA and AL-MASJID AL-HARAM.
Qibla verses clearly ask you to set yourself towards al-masjid al-haram wherever you may be. If it is a physical direction, then if you are on opposite side of Earth, your direction (tangent to curvature) will be off by hundreds of miles and significant degrees off and will clearly contradict the qibla verses.
And what about far away galaxies and dark side of moon? How will you set yourself towards a physical qibla from those places (WHEREVER YOU MAY BE)?
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
We have to go by quranic terminology. According to quranic terminology MASJID is not BAYT. Please prove otherwise from al-quran.
MASJID does not mean a mosque. That is a post quranic fabrication.
BUNYAN are buildings per quranic terminology.
BAYT is a physical house with evidence from al-quran
Oh don't get me wrong I used mosque just for practicality. You can use temple, shrine, landmark its all equal to me. But there is no quranic evidence whatsoever a masjid is anything other but a physical house.
What I am saying is that MASJID is not BAYT per quranic terminology.
Please do not invent strawman of mosque and building when I never said anything about mosque or building. Let's focus on you bringing proof from al-quran that MASJID can mean BAYT (whatever they mean). It should be very simple for you to bring a verse which clearly tells us that MASJID and BAYT are the same thing if you are truthful )
Well you were looking at it. 2225-27.
2225 Indeed, those who have disbelieved and avert from the way of Allah and al-Masjid al-haram, which We made for the people - equal are the resident therein and one from outside; and whoever intends therein of deviation or wrongdoing - We will make him taste of a painful punishment.
2226 And when We designated for Abraham the site of the House, "Do not associate anything with Me and purify My House for those who circumambulate and those who stand and those who bow and prostrate.
2226 bayt refers to 2225 masjid. If you say it doesn't elaborate what house pop ups all of a sudden that can be situated?
ONE CAN SET ONESELF (FOCUS) TOWARDS A MENTAL DIRECTION OF MESSAGE FROM YOUR LORD WHEREVER YOU MAY BE )
Not all the time however. Well I'm fine with you understanding it as focussing towards a direction of a message even though you seem oblivious the message came first to Abraham in Jerusalem. I don't know any modern example of a direction used for a message that locates it physically. I want to see you use a non-quranic even english example of a direction pointing to a message wherever you may be (a secular example). I think you will struggle. The better thesis is this still a place. I'm not convinced by anything you said so far proving the bayt in verse 26 is not referring to the site of the house in verse 25.
You are still confused about who's being addressed in those verses dealing with qibla. It's not a qibla appointed to astronauts colonizing some planet. The ones disputing over the qibla were Jewish/Christians. They already had a qibla and didn't live on the moon.
Even on the moon and other planets one can easily create architecture pointing towards jerusalem. It's not technically impossible.
Peace