A Miraculous Conspiracy Theory about Mecca
-
Peace,
Bro, I don?t really care about what these people put in their dictionaries, the years I spent learning Arabic I was never taught that Mecca means destruction and even if it does mean that, it has nothing to do with interpreting it as a town name from the context
Yes, I agree, you were not taught many things about Arabic.
For example, Cairo city in egypt is called ?Al Qahira? and Qahira means ?The one who wins, in fact it is a name of the names of Allah, ?Al Qahir?, now when Cairo was translated to English it was translated as Cairo, not the Winner, same with a city in Egypt called ?Mansoorah? which means the Victories, but when it appears in any context it will be translated as Mansoora, therefore Mecca has to be Mecca as any other city, town, village name
But if the word "mansoorah" shows up in a sentence as follows
"al-juyush alty tujahid mansoorah"
Then does it mean?
a) The armies that strive are victorious.
b) The armies that strive the city of Mansoorah. lolClearly, from the context "victorious" is the right translation.
Bro, the context of 4824 does not need in the midst of destruction, it should be in the midst of War if what you say is true, because Allah has always encouraged us to destroy the enemy who fight us and never be lazy to go to war, now let?s look at the verse again bit by bit
(24)
? ?, ? And He it is Who held back their hands from you?, very clear bro, Allah made the enemy to honour the peace treaty
It was " " AFTER he
So there was already fighting and this was AFTER they won (ْ.
? ?, ? And He it is Who held back their hands from you?, again very clear, Allah did the same with the believers, I guess all humans and can easily be deceivers and break the peace treaties but Allah made sure that non of the conflicting parties breaks that peace treaty which btw has a name in history that is called ?Solh Mecca? or ?the peace treaty of Mecca?
The whole story about the treaty of Mecca is a fairy tale that has no basis in the great reading.
4824 clearly says that the peace happened AFTER the believers had already won ( ْ NOT as a result of some treaty.
? ?, now this is where we have a problem, you say it means ?The midst of destruction? and most Muslims and the history records says ?it is a place in Mecca?, here is a strong argument against your claim bro, the Arabic word is clear ?Bi Battn? , can you see the Bi bro?, it is the Ba before the words Battn and is attached to it and appears as the first letter in the word ? ?, and that Ba requires a place for the sentence to make sence, the place called ?Makan? in the labguage i.e. a place, there is no way the place can be the destruction because destruction is not a place but a status, just one letter in the quran demolished your argument, now please ask any Arabic speaker and I?m sure you will be told that in this sentence where the Be appears we must have a place after it, here is an example from the Quran
Only non-native Arabic speakers make such false hasty generalizations as the above because they are not familiar with the various uses of the proposition "Be" in Arabic.
For example
"al-juyush alty tujahid be-shaga3ah mansoorah"Then does it mean?
a) The armies that strive with courage are victorious.
b) The armies that strive in a place called Shaga3ah are victorious.
lolAs for you saying "most Muslims and the history records says ?it is a place in Mecca?, this is the well known logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and it doesn't prove anything. In fact, most Muslims believe many ridiculous things so this doesn't mean anything. Most Muslims believe that it is healthy to dip a fly that fell into their food and eat the food and their history tells us that the prophet did such laughable things. lol
- ...
laqad sadaqa Allah rasulah alru'ya be-alhaq
According to you be-alhaq is a place because it is preceded by "be". lol
As I said, it is common for non-native Arabic speakers to make hasty generalizations about "Be". They do not know that the proposition "Be" can have many uses. This is the same in all languages, for example, "in" can be used to mean "in a place" in English or "in trouble". wink
now let?s go back to 4824
? ?, ? after He had given you victory over them?, bro, here is another strong argument against your claim, this bit clearly says it was AFTER THE WAR and AFTER THE MUSLIM WON, come on bro, please give me a break here, it was not a status of war in any way as the verse clearly tells usExactly, AFTER THE WAR so there was already war and destruction. Or do you think that WAR doesn't normally involve destruction?
PS can you please confirm wher you got Yusuf Ali translation from?, thanks
I just took Yusuf Ali translation but while he left the word "makkat" untranslated, I simply translated it using the context from the passage and I underlined that part.
Peace,
Ayman
- ...
-
Thank you brother Ayman
I'm at work now and when I go home I will respond to it in details, but can you please do me a favour
the arabic sentences you posted as an example, can you please post it in Arabic NOT IN ENGLISH, so I understand it properly
also Be can have many thing after it but in the context of 4824 IT REQUIRS A PLACE and that place is expressed by two words a location and the name of the city
and the example you showed clearly had Al "the" after the Be, Be Al Haqq, and that is another use for Ba "word", but in 4824 Battn does not have Al and the other example I posted "Be Ganib" also does not have the Al and gramatically speaking the context in both requires a place and as far as I know in the langugae it is called "Zarf Makan", a place
I will respond in details to the rest of yuor comment when i go home, but please write down the arabic examples in arabic so I can respond to it, if you don't have an arabic keyboard you can use this quran search engine keyboard to write it then copy it and paste it here
http//quran.muslim-web.com/
cheers
-
Peace,
the arabic sentences you posted as an example, can you please post it in Arabic NOT IN ENGLISH, so I understand it properly
I am sorry but I don't have time to retype things.
also Be can have many thing after it but in the context of 4824 IT REQUIRS A PLACE and that place is expressed by two words a location and the name of the city
The above is another common error made by non-native Arabic speakers. They don't know that "Be" DOESN'T require "two words a location and the name of the city". For example
Askun be-Beirut.
I live in Beirut.One can take any similar non-city denoting word and put it in 4824 or similar sentences and the meaning will be perfectly OK. For example, one can say
Kuntu be-qalb 7adithat.
I was in the middle of an accident.Kuntu be-batn nakbat.
I was in the midst of disaster.This is elementary Arabic and there are thousands of similar examples but non-native Arabic speakers that read 4824 from translations and don't really understand Arabic think that "be" requires a place.
and the example you showed clearly had Al "the" after the Be, Be Al Haqq, and that is another use for Ba "word", but in 4824 Battn does not have Al and the other example I posted "Be Ganib" also does not have the Al and gramatically speaking the context in both requires a place and as far as I know in the langugae it is called "Zarf Makan", a place
This is another error regularly committed by non-native Arabic speakers. They think that the definite article "al" has bearing on whether the "be" is attached to a place or not.
I was in the kitchen
Above the kitchen is a place despite having the defnite article "al".
I was in support of the innocent
The messeneger is more truthworthy of the word of forethought
Above "word" is not a place despite not having the defnite article "al".
Again, all this is easy stuff for native-Arabic speakers but non-Arabic speakers who don't know the intricacies of the language make ridiculous claims such as a certain word is a place "because it is preceded by "Be" and it does not have Al". lol
In fact, all of this is easy stuff even for native English speakers. In English, like Arabic "in" can have a place attached to it or not. The number of words or the definite article in English has no bearing on whether what comes after "in" is a place or not. Even my daughter who is in 1st grade knows that.
So what is next?
First, it was ""be" means that anything after it is a place".
Then, it was ""be" and two words is a place".
Then, it was ""be" and no definite article is a place".What is all this fumbling of simple Arabic concepts that are easy even to non-native Arabic speakers?
What I see is a desperate attempts to justify an illogical preconception inherited from the forefathers.
It also shows that the expression "native Arabic speaker" is a meaningless claim that is grossly overrated. lol
I will respond in details to the rest of yuor comment when i go home, but please write down the arabic examples in arabic so I can respond to it, if you don't have an arabic keyboard you can use this quran search engine keyboard to write it then copy it and paste it here
http//quran.muslim-web.com/Thanks for the link. This was the most helpful part of the post.
Peace,
Ayman
-
One question. Is it not possible that the valley that the Qur'an is referring to was actually called the "valley of Mecca" at the time of Muhammad. To me there seems to be no reason why we need to dispute about this point. Whether there was a valley by that name or not has no bearing on whether there was a city there or not. Even today we have plenty of valleys in the world that have names, but are not close to cities (Death valley comes to mind as a prime example). So even if we can consider Mecca to be a name, we still haven't established the existence of a city, or anything else except for a valley where something happened as per 4824. And to think of it, if the valley was already called Mecca, it would have been a lot easier to set up a city there afterwards and call it Mecca without anyone complaining too much.
Is there any Qur'anic evidence to refute this hypothesis? -
Thank you brother Ayman
The problem with you that you severely lack the Arabic grammar and what the words in Arabic should be, what I will do with the other members here, I will post 3 arabic grammar books that explain what the arabic words are and this will refute your claim fair and square, the Ba is a very important WORD in arabic like many other words that consist of one letter and has many uses each is controlled by the context and sure you know nothing about those one letter arabic words like the Ba, you even tried to manipulate what I said, lol by saying first it was such and such then I made it such and such then I will made it such and such, see, you missed the plot, I was only talking about the that very specific use as it appears from the context and showed you a similar context from the Quran that clearly show it must be a place for an inttellect sentence, not a sentence you say for kids that wars brings destruction, see if 4824 means that Allah saved humanity from the destruction
it has to be like this
"Min Batn Mecca"
NOT
"Be Batn Mecca"
you may have a look at those grammar lessons when they will be posted soon inshalllah
peace be with you and glad you enjoyed the quran url i posted
-
Peace claurianta,
One question. Is it not possible that the valley that the Qur'an is referring to was actually called the "valley of Mecca" at the time of Muhammad.
The word "batn" doesn't necessarily mean "valley". The word "wadi" more closely means valley. The word "batn" simply means "midst/inside". However, you bring a good point.
To me there seems to be no reason why we need to dispute about this point. Whether there was a valley by that name or not has no bearing on whether there was a city there or not. Even today we have plenty of valleys in the world that have names, but are not close to cities (Death valley comes to mind as a prime example).
You bring a good a example. If I tell you "During war, I saved you in the midst of death", do any of the following interpretations come to mind?
"During war, I saved you in the Valley of Death"
"During war, I saved you in the midst of a city named Death"Of course not. The ONLY reason why people interpret 4824 to be talking about a city is because of their preconceptions.
So even if we can consider Mecca to be a name, we still haven't established the existence of a city, or anything else except for a valley where something happened as per 4824. And to think of it, if the valley was already called Mecca, it would have been a lot easier to set up a city there afterwards and call it Mecca without anyone complaining too much.
Is there any Qur'anic evidence to refute this hypothesis?The way the city was given importance was by hijacking the common noun and turning it into a meaningless proper name. This is not surprising. We are told in the great reading that the way people idolize things is by inventing proper names
-
These are but names that you named, you and your forefathers. The God never authorized such. They follow conjecture and what the selves fantasize, while the guidance has come to them from their Lord.
-
"What you serve besides The God is nothing but names that you have named you and your fathers, The God did not send down any authority for such. The judgment is for none but The God. He ordered that none be served but He. That is the true obligation, but most of humankind do not know."
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman
-
-
One question. Is it not possible that the valley that the Qur'an is referring to was actually called the "valley of Mecca" at the time of Muhammad. To me there seems to be no reason why we need to dispute about this point. Whether there was a valley by that name or not has no bearing on whether there was a city there or not. Even today we have plenty of valleys in the world that have names, but are not close to cities (Death valley comes to mind as a prime example). So even if we can consider Mecca to be a name, we still haven't established the existence of a city, or anything else except for a valley where something happened as per 4824. And to think of it, if the valley was already called Mecca, it would have been a lot easier to set up a city there afterwards and call it Mecca without anyone complaining too much.
Is there any Qur'anic evidence to refute this hypothesis?peace bro
beased on the above and regardloess where it is, it is a place NOT a destruction as brother Ayman is suggesting
so a valley is fine to me, in fact I take it as the Valley of Mecca or Mecca Valley, i.e. a Valley near a place called Mecca, or a Valley named Mecca
cheers
-
Peace Ayman
here is a question bro
do you consider the Kabba to be the Masjid Al Haram?, and consequently what do you think the Haj to al Masjid Al Haram (as we know it now) represent? "very briefly please"
cheers
-
An interesting article about the preposition Bi http//quranicteachings.co.uk/bi.htm
-
An interesting article about the preposition Bi http//quranicteachings.co.uk/bi.htm
Thank you JM, that was very interesting to read about it in english
cheers
-
Peace
Here is the case of 4824 from the URL posted by brother JM
- It is also syn. with ?fi? before a noun signifying a place or a time.
Fi (in) shows that one thing is actually in the midst of another, surrounded by it on all sides; whereas bi indicates that one is close by the other or in contact with it.
cheers
-
The arguments of grammar given are very easily dismissed. The prepositions in languages are invariably used in a broader way than a simple rule can give.
In English if I said...
"I AM IN SUNSHINE"
There could be a place called 'Sunshine' or I might be actually standing where the sun was shining.
The phrase that we are discussing in 4824 could also be an idiomatic use meaning that the situation was of destruction and being worn down - that one was amongst it or close to it.
When I say...
"I AM CLOSE TO RUIN"
It does not mean that I am close to a place called "Ruin" though it could be if there was a place called such. The closeness does not always imply physical place. This should be patently clear to sensible people.
Facile minded people will always try to limit the scope of the word to their own preconceived ideas and deny the obvious broader meaning. Trying to pin down meanings by simple minded 'bi' 'fi' comparisons and rules does not refute this argument.
Neither does ridicule or incredulity, which is the stance being taken by the opponents in this matter.
-
Peace Ahmed,
do you consider the Kabba to be the Masjid Al Haram?, and consequently what do you think the Haj to al Masjid Al Haram (as we know it now) represent? "very briefly please"
Thanks, finally, some serious discussions.
It depends what you mean by Kaaba. Are you talking about the proper name or the common noun?
As a common noun, "kaaba" means "base". There is no relation between it and "al-masjid al-haram. There is only a relation to "al-bayt al-haram". Thus, we are told in 597
- The God has made the base, the restriction house, a stand for humankind...
The word "qyam" can mean "stand" (4103, 3191). Thus, according to 597 the restriction house is the base where we take a stand. The example of Abraham tells us that he took a stand against idolatry in any shape or form.
On the other hand as a proper name, the word Kaaba is a meaningless label that anyone can slap on anything. Abraham certainly didn't speak Arabic so he couldn't have named anything Kaaba. Even if he somehow did, then the object that he named Kaaba has long been destroyed and the present object named Kaaba was actually built in 1996 by the Saudis. You see, the problem with the proper names of physical objects is that they are attached to the object not to the concept. There are many pre-quranic cube structures like the one in Mecca and none has the name Kaaba associated with them in inscriptions or manuscripts. Those cubes are only associated with pagan idols. Thus, we only find idol names such as Dushara and Allat associated with them in pre-quranic inscriptions and manuscripts.
As for your question about what I think of the Haj to al Masjid Al Haram (as we know it now), the answer can be found in the following article on this web site
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace ayman,
An interesting analysis indeed. Now I think the question remains about the locations of Masjid al Haram and Masjid al Aqsa. Does it not make sense that Masjid al Haram would be the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, or perhaps more appopriately the temple of the Jews of the same location, which btw was forbidden (=haram..) to all but the highest rabbis, and even they could only enter on certain conditions. Naming it Masjid al Aqsa is quite a great way of masking its original name.
What about the qibla? When was this changed. I know the Great Mosque of Cordoba (finished 170AH) is officially aligned towards Damascus of all places, but considering it's location, it could be aligned toward Jerusalem (difference of a couple degrees), but not Mecca (about 20 degree difference). In which direction are other early mosques aligned? And by early mosques I mean those that can be shown to have been built before 150 AH by non-Islamic sources?Edit some more info - most ancient Sudanese mosques are oriented directly east instead of northeast towards Mecca (nor Jerusalem) - see http//archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=2541
-
go ahead and edit your post to change what you originally said edip, but i remember it enough to laugh at the fact that you conveniently edited it to try and dispel my criticism.
my post was to illustrate your false attack on ayman when you mentioned the days of the week. now you say "fine, so what?" but that is not what you originally said. change of heart? probably not. damage control? most likely.
if you can't see the connections between pagan traditions worldwide i guess that's your problem.
you ask all these "when who why and how" questions.
funny, since i thought you weren't a supporter of the ahadith. so "who what when and why" to that whole conspiracy too. oh but wait, that's something you support, so you won't use your own argument against yourself, right?
the world is full of people who have conspired to twist the truth, but somehow in your eyes mecca is beyond reproach. ha.
you make me laugh, and i think you incorrigible, i merely wanted to point out for others the error that you made by denying the pagan origins of the names for days of the week. an effort on my part to not let you get away with such a claim.
your article is essentially an attack on this theory based solely on the idea that people would not be willing to participate in such a scam. but look at the world we have today, there are plenty of scams going around being propagated by plenty of people.
oh edip, why do you insist on talking so much and saying so little?
**
Even today we have plenty of valleys in the world that have names, but are not close to cities (Death valley comes to mind as a prime example).
but we don't see millions of people flocking to death valley simply because of the line in the bible "yea though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death". therein lies the difference.
there are alot of "valleys" mentioned in this quran. people would do well to understand the metaphor of the valley.
**
it was made up, it's a scam. the word makkat has been hijacked and its true meaning has been denied. time to accept it.
**
(oh and ahmed you should get into the habit of proofreading your posts before you hit the submit button. i don't agree with most of the things you say, but at least it would not give me a headache trying to decipher gibberish. in fact everyone who does not yet have this habit should adopt it)
**
-
AaRoN
I will continue to post the way that suits my time limit, so I advice you not to read it if you find it hard to understand
-
Peace All,
I seem to agree for the most part that Hajj should be to Jerusalem..
And like Claurianta pointed out the only historical restricted temple was in Jerusalem.There's too many discrepencies for Mecca and alot more things that seem to point to Jerusalem.Abrahim lived and died in Canaan,he built the first altar of Islam there,he was going to sacrifice his son there,etc etc etc...The mystery further deepens when we look to Islamic history itself and the claim that they (the Muslims) used to assemble towards Jerusalem for a number of years and then the focal point (Qibla) was changed to Mecca. Until today, the Muslims refer to Jerusalem as the ?first of the two Qiblas? (Uwla Al-Qiblatain).
If Abraham had called people to Mecca in Arabia, and if he had established the first true monotheistic system/government in that location, then what would explain the reason that the Prophet and his early followers were facing Jerusalem and gave their backs to Mecca for many years. Even if we were to discount this history as being ?fabricated?, then why do we have Roman history recording that the man named ?Jesus? was preaching to Jerusalem and its inhabitants and not Mecca in Arabia?. Why also do we have the Jews giving priority to Jerusalem and not even recognizing or hearing of Mecca in their Scriptures (surely they were also performing Pilgrimage at one point in time, so have they forgotten?).
Now, while many of Islam?s thinkers are willing to brush aside this historical ?anomaly?, we believe it is our duty to be more meticulous using the one source we have always relied on for truth ?Quran?.
See article
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/quranic/hajj.htm -
but we don't see millions of people flocking to death valley simply because of the line in the bible "yea though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death". therein lies the difference.
there are alot of "valleys" mentioned in this quran. people would do well to understand the metaphor of the valley.
That's exactly what I was referring to. Whether Mecca is to be taken as a proper noun or not, it still doesn't prove the existence of a city or anything... just proves the exitence of a valley.
Here's another question. According to Sunni tradition which is of course questionable, the qibla was changed during Muhammad's lifetime. What kind of historical proof exists about exactly when the change was done from Jerusalem to Mecca? -
Peace Aymen
Can you please explain which Masjid Al Haram God is referring in the following verse and which city it was located. My understanding is that it is Mecca and Masjid Al Haram is the present day kaba.
928 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise.
Ahmed Baghat your explantaion will also be helpful to understand this verse.