Why other prophets never came to kaaba?

ayman

Peace brother Wakas,

I think you have commented on this before, but can you give me your thoughts on what Lane says about Al-Lat

Al-Lat - female idol of the pagan Arabs, the prototype of the Greek semi-goddess Leto, one of the wives of Zeus and mother of Apollo.

It is interesting to note the dominance of those who upheld Al-Lat over Mecca, building a house over it, possible involvement of the tribe of Kureysh and the practice to compass it.

5319-23 shows that this was present during the messenger's time.

All a coincidence?

Thank you for your comments and the info from Lane. The part about Allat being a mother goddess is indeed verified by physical archeological evidence. On the other hand, there is a bunch of baseless pious fiction that Lane recounts. I think that Lane should stick to etymology as opposed to trying to recount pious fiction. We know from pre-quranic inscriptions that the idols Allat, Al-3uzza, and Manat are Nabataean idols. So the answer to what their names mean will not be found by Classical Arabic dictionaries in baseless hearsay stories, but one must look at the abundant inscriptions in Nabataean and North Arabian dialects.

The name of the deity Allat occurs in Safaitic graffiti as Ha'ilat. In the Safaitic North Arabian dialect, the Ha is the definite article as opposed to Al in Arabic. The meaning in Safaitic is "the goddess". So this is most likely to be the original meaning in Arabic too.

Interestingly, 5319-23 give us very important clues about where the great reading was originally revealed. Specifically, the script of the great reading and even the spelling of certain words in it help us to determine where the great reading was or was not originally written.

For example, there is an Old Arabic inscription, from eastern Arabia where the deity Manat is invoked, and spelt "mnt" in Old Arabic (i.e. presumably with a long /a/ which would not be represented in a medial position), rather than mnwtw as in Nabataean. Interestingly, unlike the Old Arabic inscription, in the great reading we see the name spelled with a medial wa, which is in line with the Nabataean spelling. This indicates that the great reading was revealed in an area where Nabataean was the prestige script and hence the scribes adopted the foreign Nabataean spelling of the proper name that they are used to instead of the Old Arabic spelling, which matches the Arabic pronunciation. The name in Nabataean was most likely pronounced mnot with a long "o".

The script of the great reading helps us to pinpoint where it was revealed. As an informal language of the common people, Arabic did not have a specific script associated with it. When it was written, people simply used the prestige script of the area where it was written. For example, all the pre-quranic Arabic inscriptions in Central Arabia are written in the South Arabian (Musnad) script, which was the script of prestige of that region. On the other hand, the great reading is written in the Nabataean script, which was the script of prestige in Northern Arabia, specifically the Lakhmid provinces and border towns. This completely negates a Central Arabian origin of the great reading. This also completely negates that the great reading was revealed in a Christian Roman province such as Jerusalem where the script of prestige was Greek and in fact we have an Arabic manuscript which came from this area and indeed it was written in Greek script. So the evidence from the script and spelling of words in the great reading itself points to a location in Northern Arabia, somewhere between Hira in Southwest Iraq and Sakakah and Hegra in Northern Arabia.

I hope this helps.

Peace and all best wishes,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Jaxal,

This is false. The building that is presently called Kaaba was built by the Saudis in 1996.

And what was in its place before this allegdely happened?

In its place was nothing since the Saudis had to tear down the previous structure, which was also built by them some years back.

Also, what do you mean by "allegedly happened"?

The fact that the structure that people call Kaaba was built by the Saudis in 1996 is indisputable. In fact, we know that the stone cube had to be torn down and rebuilt every number of years due to natural disasters, fire, and just regular wear and tear. Or do you think that it withstands forever all the millions of rubs, kisses, and fondling by the millions of pagans every year?

This is so indisputable that even the most fanatic Sunnis are forced to admit that only the so-called Black Stone supposedly remains from the original shrine (in reality it is a bunch of broken stones tied together with a silver strap). So what are you disputing?

Peace,

Ayman

Jaxal

SaLaM Ayman

The reason i say it allegdey happened is becoz the saudis didnt built the Kabbah in 1996. Ibrahim did. And even leaving that aside, as you said, there is no way a structure can survive for that long. But for some reason, you think that Kabbah has lost its place simply becoz it was rebuilt. Why is that? Ibrahim built it. It got damaged so the people rebuilt it. It is as simple as that. The symbolism it carries has not been lost. If our house was damaged, we would do our best to fix it. Why should it be any differernt for something built by Prophet Ibrahim so long ago, symbolising something so important?

mquran

Salaam Ayman and Wakas,

Which bit of Lanes can you authenticate ? I'd be interested to know how. And while you're at it, please tell me how you interpret archeological findings.

Wakas, if Al-laaat was a statue, why is it not called 'asnaam' and 'tamathil' even though al-quraan uses those words ? al-laat, manaat and uzza were alled 'aaliha'. So if we say al-quraan says all there needs to be said, Lanes is wrong in this case.

Layth

Peace Pazuzu,

Speaking about the town of Lot and his people
Layth, please look closely at the following verses, and read them thouroughly

And We left remains of it as a clear sign for a people who understand.

And We have left in it a sign for those who fear the painful retribution.

These two verse state that the remains of the town of Lot have been left behind as "signs" so that the people can learn a lesson from it.

Looking closely at the next three verses, you will notice that the people who can learn most from this sign are the Meccans themselves. The town of Lot was very close to Mecca. So close, that anyone riding a camel, can make the trip to and fro, in a single day.

In this are signs for those who seek concrete signs.
And it was on an established path.
In that is a sign for the believers.

Verse 1575 states that in it (the remains of the town) are signs for the "mutawassimeen"

-1 ) The way I see it, "mutawassimeen" are those who like (or seek) material or concrete evidences or signs. We know that there were always hippocrites who kept asking the prophet about "material signs" ( miracles).
This verse can be thought of as a kind of mocking reply to such people ( the "mutawassimeen")

-2) Note the italics in 1576. It says that the remains of the town are "on a well established path"

We can interpret that the path or road that leads to it, is well established -clear, and very well known - to the Meccans.

Therefore, it serves as an excellent sign to those who believe .

The last and strongest case to support this theory, would have to be the following verse

And you pass by their ruins in the morning;
And in the night. Do you not understand?

I believe he is addressing the Meccans here.

Conclusion Mecca is NOT the town of Lot, but it's very close to it

Your feedback is welcome!

Your analysis makes perfect sence ifMecca is the place where Mohammed was preaching and where his mission was based (which is not what I see).

I see Mohammed beginning his mission in Jerusalem where Abraham was originally based and where he made the following prayer

"And as Abraham raised the foundations for the sanctuary with Ishmael ?Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable. Our Lord, and let us surrender to You and from our progeny a nation surrendering to You, and show us our rites and forgive us; You are the Forgiving, the Merciful. Our Lord, and send amongst them a messenger from among themselves, that he may recite to them Your revelations and teach them the Scripture and the wisdom, and purify them. You are the Noble, the Wise.? (The Message 2127-129)

If we look at the evidence from the Scripture that Lot was with Abraham, and that he established a town near the shrine...Then the town of Lot would be in present day Jordan or Palestine (the town of Petra has a high probability in my opinoin of being that town).

After this, we know for certainty that Mohammed emigrated in the face of persicusion and hardship...And that his migration was to the town of Yathrib.

Yathrib would be a prime candidate for 'a people who have not received any prophet' as brother agent has pointed out.

agentxxx

salam to all,

Kaaba is never mentioned with Ibrahim. 5/95 and 5/97 are only 2 verses which mention the word 'kaaba'.
Mquran

You answered the question...It was 'according to our belief' that we spread this misinformation about the Kaaba in Mecca being the house built by Abraham.
Layth

This is false. The building that is presently called Kaaba was built by the Saudis in 1996.
ayman

Ibrahim built it. It got damaged so the people rebuilt it
.jaxal

Your analysis makes perfect sence ifMecca is the place where Mohammed was preaching and where his mission was based (which is not what I see).

I see Mohammed beginning his mission in Jerusalem where Abraham was originally based and where he made the following prayer

Yathrib would be a prime candidate for 'a people who have not received any prophet' as brother agent has pointed out.
layth

lots of assumtions here my friends? history tells us that many jews and christians were living in and around yathrib

can someone tell me why the verses of quran are not in exact chronological order? is it to confuse us intentionally or unintentionally by those who collected it? those who manufactured false hadiths to suit them, were for centuries the guardians of quran also, did they fiddle with quran too?

layth says about ch 105

My reading is that it refers to what happened to the town of Lot (unless Mekka is the town of Lot, which I doubt). The key word is 'rocks of Sijeel' which is found in 1182 and 1575 as reference to the destruction wreaked upon the town of Lot.

these verses should have be in the same chapter together if they relate to the same event? what I mean to say is why the verses are scattered like a jigsaw puzzle pieces and to prove any point or issue we have to pick one verse from ch1, one from5 and the other may be some place else?
take care.

Layth

Peace agent,

The order (or misorder) of the Scripture has two aims in my opinoin

It acts as a protection mechanism from tampering by having verses embedded within each other (it is far easier for people to tamper with a book of chronological and subject order than one which is mixed and the laws need to be gathered in order to be understood).
It requires believers in the Scripture to do some leg-work which helps then undertsand and verify for themselves rather than being spoon fed the information.

agentxxx

salam layth,

Sura-44 Al-Dukhan
58?Verily We have made this (Qur'an) easy in thy tongue in order that they may give heed.

Sura-43 (Al-zukhruf)
2?By the Book that makes things clear

sura-41 (Ha Mim)
3?A Book whereof the verses are explained in detail a Qur'an in Arabic for people who understand

I have to disagree with you and the above verse, if the verses were explained in detail there would have been very few arguments about what they actually meant.
The current arrangement makes it easy for every to prove a point in what ever way one wishes or believes. if it was arranged catagorically or subject wise it would have been easy for us to understand and thus less argument.
now a layman has to search for similar verses from 114 chapters.

take care.

KGB

Salaam Layth

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) started his mission in Jerusalem? Confused after reading all the replies.

unknownuser

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) started his mission in Jerusalem?

Salaam KGB,

Dunno about Jerusalem but the Prophet of the Qur'an had to be close to the remains of the people of Lut considering he came across them in his journeys. Layth had an article on this and he may be close to the answer.

KGB

Salaam Ash Shuura

Thank you. Let me see if I can find that article.

Wakas

can someone tell me why the verses of quran are not in exact chronological order? is it to confuse us intentionally or unintentionally by those who collected it?

You may be interested in the following book
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4079

agentxxx

salam,
thanks waqas I will search for that book and read it.

Fatima says

The last and strongest case to support this theory, would have to be the following verse

And you pass by their ruins in the morning;
And in the night. Do you not understand?

I believe he is addressing the Meccans here.

Pazuzu says

Looking closely at the next three verses, you will notice that the people who can learn most from this sign are the Meccans themselves. The town of Lot was very close to Mecca. So close, that anyone riding a camel, can make the trip to and fro, in a single day.

In this are signs for those who seek concrete signs.
And it was on an established path.
In that is a sign for the believers.

If the town of lut was close to mecca then the theory of "Ibrahim and Ismael never came to Mecca" does not have a solid footing because we know Ibraham was never very far away from Lut.

layth says

If we look at the evidence from the Scripture that Lot was with Abraham, and that he established a town near the shrine...Then the town of Lot would be in present day Jordan or Palestine (the town of Petra has a high probability in my opinoin of being that town).

This is what I mean by assumptions? Fatima, layth and pazuzu can code different verses and then our own iterpretation to prove our own points. none of the verses clearly state where the town of lut was?

and I have a feeling waqas and mquran are avoiding my question

I asked

can someone tell me why the verses of quran are not in exact chronological order?

Is it to confuse us intentionally or unintentionally by those who collected it?

those who manufactured false hadiths to suit them, were for centuries the guardians of quran also, did they fiddle with quran too?

thanks guys.

Layth

Peace agent,

Sura-44 Al-Dukhan
58?Verily We have made this (Qur'an) easy in thy tongue in order that they may give heed.

Sura-43 (Al-zukhruf)
2?By the Book that makes things clear

sura-41 (Ha Mim)
3?A Book whereof the verses are explained in detail a Qur'an in Arabic for people who understand

I have to disagree with you and the above verse, if the verses were explained in detail there would have been very few arguments about what they actually meant.

You can disagree with me all you like, but I do not think it wise to disagree with any verses...rather you should say 'my Lord, increase my knowledge'.

If God says the Quran is clear, then it is clear...

If you have a problem with the order of the Book, that does not take anything away from its clarity.

Also, God tells us to 'arrange' the Scripture 'Ratil Al-Quran', which means that the instructions on how to see the clarity have already been given with the Book.

The current arrangement makes it easy for every to prove a point in what ever way one wishes or believes. if it was arranged catagorically or subject wise it would have been easy for us to understand and thus less argument.

I do not think you will find many who argue without taking all relevant verses into account, else they are blown out of the water quite quickly.

now a layman has to search for similar verses from 114 chapters.

Yes. Nothing is wrong with that if that is how the Lord decided to arrange His Scripture.

Peace KGB,

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) started his mission in Jerusalem? Confused after reading all the replies.

Yes. My reading on the Scripture after ignoring all external distortions/static is that the prophet began his mission in Bacca (Jerusalem) and was then persicuted whereby he made his migration to Yathrib.

Yathrib became the base of all his operations and mission until the very end when he managed to liberate Jerusalem from the hands of the Romans.

Mecca was never even involved in the prophet's mission, but only took centerstage after his death whereby the Arab speaking tribes wanted to keep the center for religion under their domain.

KGB

Salaam Layth

I read your article which is about pilgrimage. Quite interesting. I understand what you are saying now. Thank you.

Qur'an did not give details of history as they really are not that important mandatory part of faith. Very small test by Allah Taala to read and take the best understanding of the message. Simple and easy.

ayman

Salam Jaxal,

The reason i say it allegdey happened is becoz the saudis didnt built the Kabbah in 1996. Ibrahim did.

We know for sure that the building presently called Kaabah was freshly built in 1996 by the Saudis. I doubt that they brought Ibrahim back from the grave and hired him to build it. )

And even leaving that aside, as you said, there is no way a structure can survive for that long. But for some reason, you think that Kabbah has lost its place simply becoz it was rebuilt. Why is that? Ibrahim built it. It got damaged so the people rebuilt it. It is as simple as that. The symbolism it carries has not been lost. If our house was damaged, we would do our best to fix it. Why should it be any differernt for something built by Prophet Ibrahim so long ago, symbolising something so important?

OK so here you finally seem to admit that Ibrahim didn't build the object presently called Kaaba and now appeal to its symbolism. However, you didn't tell us anything about this symbolism. What do you think a black stone cube symbolises?

Peace,

Ayman

agentxxx

Peace be with you all,
Today we celebrated Eid in Lahore so Eid mubarak to you all.

Fatima says

The last and strongest case to support this theory, would have to be the following verse
And you pass by their ruins in the morning;
And in the night. Do you not understand?

I believe he is addressing the Meccans here.

Conclusion Mecca is NOT the town of Lot, but it's very close to it

Pazuzu wrote

Looking closely at the next three verses, you will notice that the people who can learn most from this sign are the Meccans themselves. The town of Lot was very close to Mecca. So close, that anyone riding a camel, can make the trip to and fro, in a single day.

If The town of Lot was very close to Mecca then the theory ?Ibrahim never came to Mecca? is not based on solid grounds because we know that Ibrahim was never very far away from lut.

Ayman wrote

There is nothing about Meccans in the passages that you quoted. You are making a baseless assumption
.

Layth wrote

If we look at the evidence from the Scripture that Lot was with Abraham, and that he established a town near the shrine...Then the town of Lot would be in present day Jordan or Palestine (the town of Petra has a high probability in my opinoin of being that town).

Your definition seems logical if we are to believe Ibrahim never came to Mecca.

You also wrote

Yes. My reading on the Scripture after ignoring all external distortions/static is that the prophet began his mission in Bacca (Jerusalem) and was then persicuted whereby he made his migration to Yathrib.

Yathrib became the base of all his operations and mission until the very end when he managed to liberate Jerusalem from the hands of the Romans.

Mecca was never even involved in the prophet's mission, but only took centerstage after his death whereby the Arab speaking tribes wanted to keep the center for religion under their domain.

About prophet`s mission in Bacca (Jerusalem)? Now this is something I have never read or heard before? Would you mind explaining it in ?

You can disagree with me all you like, but I do not think it wise to disagree with any verses...rather you should say 'my Lord, increase my knowledge'.

Layth my knowledge cannot be increased simply by uttering words unless I strive hard to seek it and this is what I am trying for.

If God says the Quran is clear, then it is clear...
If you have a problem with the order of the Book, that does not take anything away from its clarity

God says Quran is clear and God says

Sura-3 (Al-Imran)
7?He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book others are llegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical seeking discord and searching for its hidden meanings but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord"; and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

do good; for Allah loveth those who do good.
For Allah loveth those who do good
for Allah loveth those who judge in equity

all such verses are very clear and do not require any explanation to understand, but there are many verses which are confusing for some one like me with not enough knowledge, and explanations are needed to understand them.

Sura-2 al baqara
30?Behold thy Lord said to the angels "I will create a vicegerent on earth?
31?And He taught Adam the nature of all things; then He placed them before the angels and said?
34?And behold We said to the angels "Bow down to Adam"; and they bowed down not so Iblis he refused?

sura-7 al ar`af
11?It is We who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels bow down to Adam and they bowed down; not so Iblis; he refused to be of those who bow down.

sura-20 ta-ha
116?When We said to the angels "Prostrate yourselves to Adam" they prostrated themselves but not Iblis he refused.

sura-18 (A-Kahf)
50?And (remember) when We said unto the angels Fall prostrate before Adam, and they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He was of the Jinn

All the above mentioned verses say that Allah said to the angels to prostrate before Adam and all obeyed except iblis, but the last verse say iblis was a jinn?
For me its like some one saying ?I have invited all the cricketers to come to my house but david beckham has refused?

sura-5 al maida
60?Say "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine those who worshipped Evil; these are (many)

All these verses are confusing for some one like me with not enough knowledge, and lots of explanations is needed to understand them in the right context.

Because the verses are not arraigned in any categorical order it becomes very easy for people to pick one verse from here, one from there and paint a picture compatible to their point of view, and that is what I see in this discussion.

In a country like Pakistan where the literacy level is around 30% it becomes very easy for the mullahs to manipulate the people in making them believe what ever they want them to believe in. [since the soviet invasion of Afghanistan I have seen the mullah change their stance 360 degree and they have always used different verses to justify their preaching.

Layth you say

Also, God tells us to 'arrange' the Scripture 'Ratil Al-Quran', which means that the instructions on how to see the clarity have already been given with the Book.

Where are these instructions? Please tell me the ch and verse no.
Take care.
.

unknownuser

Where are these instructions? Please tell me the ch and verse no.

Peace agent,

2532, 734

Read the surrounding verses for context etc..

Peace

Jaxal

SaLaM Ayman

I doubt that they brought Ibrahim back from the grave and hired him to build it.

Indeed ayman. That WOULD be a silly thought )

OK so here you finally seem to admit that Ibrahim didn't build the object presently called Kaaba and now appeal to its symbolism. However, you didn't tell us anything about this symbolism. What do you think a black stone cube symbolises?

Correction. Here i am stating that Prophet Ibrahim WAS the original builder of the Kabbah. But why was the Kabbah built ayman? Was it becoz Prophet Ibrahim didnt have any useful to do that day so he said 'might as well build a rock structure'? Or did this building had a deeper meaning to it? I am sure i dont have to quote you the Quran since i know you have done substantial amount of research on this topic. But that should also have given you ample oppertunity to see past the rock structure and the meaning of its existance. not even sunnis worship the Kabbah. They believe it to be the house of God and in the love for God, they kiss it and do what not. But that is understand able isnt it? How would you react if you believed in your heart that this was the house of God? Anyways, That is not the point. The point is, Kabbah is a rock strucker. No one worships it. No one takes it to be God. No one ask it for guidance. All they do is make pilgrimage to it as God said we OWE it to him. As for the black stone, i share your opinion. Inshallah if i ever get a chance to go there, i will just sit in a corner and devote myself to God. The way it was meant to be.

ayman

Salam Mquran,

Which bit of Lanes can you authenticate? I'd be interested to know how. And while you're at it, please tell me how you interpret archeological findings.

Lane's info is from Islamic pious fiction, which is in turn plagiarized from Hebrew mythology. The part about "latt al-suwek" ("suwek" means barely) is clearly borrowed from Hebrew mythology in which "to mix barley" is associated with the "idol of jealousy" (Ashtoreth) erected in the temple of Jerusalem. The "oblation of jealousy", offered by the husband who suspected his wife of infidelity, was made by mixing barley-meal. The legend of the mixer of "suwek" describes a ritual similar to the Hebraic ritual of the "oblation of jealousy".

Only the part in Lane below about Al-Lat being a mother-goddess is confirmed by archeological evidence. However, Lane got the relationships to the Greek pantheon wrong

Al-Lat - female idol of the pagan Arabs, the prototype of the Greek semi-goddess Leto, one of the wives of Zeus and mother of Apollo.

The evidence from Nabataean archeological sites indicates that Allat was a goddess of fertility. This would make her equivalent to the Greek goddess Aphrodite not Leto. This would also make her equivalent to the Roman goddess Venus, the Semitic goddess Astarte/Ashtoreth, the Mesopotamian Ishtar, the Vedic goddess Kali - Black Mother, the Anatolian Cybele, and Frigga in the Norse mythos. Such fertility mother goddess was worshipped all over the ancient world under various names.

Interestingly, black stones like the one in Mecca are commonly associated with such goddesses. For example, the following picture shows a Black Stone that was venerated at the Temple of Aphrodite, near Paphos, Cyprus

http//www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/paphos3.gif

Black phallic stones were also widely associated with the cult of Cybele, the ancient Anatolian fertility goddess; and similar egg-shaped black stones are, to this day, revered in Indian temples to the Hindu fertility goddess Kali.

Interestingly, according to Greek mythology Aphrodite's beauty is kept in a black cube. Allat has a particularly strong association with Aphrodite even in post-quranic times and we hear from Roman Christian sources about Aphrodite being worshipped by Arab pagans as late as the 8th century, long after the death of the prophet. So paganism was not eradicated in Arabia as traditions contend but remained and reemerged.

Another interesting common thread that runs through several of those idols is that they all had association with Friday. For example, Ashtoreth is connected to Friday. So is Venus, where the Romans named Friday after her as "dies veneris". The very name Friday is derived from the Norse goddess, Frigga. When the Germanic tribes invaded England they imposed their goddess upon the day meant to honor Venus. The day was called frigedaeg, which gradually became "Friday". Perhaps it is not a coincidence that Friday also became the "holy day" for sectarians who venerate Allat/Aphrodite and her black cube and Black Stone.

Wakas, if Al-laaat was a statue, why is it not called 'asnaam' and 'tamathil' even though al-quraan uses those words? al-laat, manaat and uzza were alled 'aaliha'. So if we say al-quraan says all there needs to be said, Lanes is wrong in this case.

Lane says that it is a stone not a statue. Sometimes the Nabataeans enhanced the stone cube representing Allat with facial features but most of the times, the stone cube representing Allat and the black stone representing the crown of the head of the new-born idol remained un-worked. Like the fertility goddess Cybele's veil, which covered her whole body, the female goddess stone cube was also veiled with a black "dress". This practice of veiling the stone cube (and females in general) with a black dress continues to this day.

Peace,

Ayman