A Miraculous Conspiracy Theory about Mecca
-
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.
-
bmbmm wrote...
Chill out folkslolz! true! hostility is the first option for the fools -S
i dont see the connection between sun-day, moon-day and mecca/destruction either! the 'english' calendar has borrowed from perhaps the hindu calendar, how does that involve mecca? -S
again, in midst of destruction seems a bit far-fetched to me! i would like to see whether there is any derivate used in the quran which supports destruction! i say from the quran because oddly enough most of the post-quranic literature was arguably written by the conspirators (and remember the whole world seems to be a conspirator here as well, because we find no mention in any records of such a happening)!
further, i did a quick lookup of the word 'batni' and it does not seem to have the usage of 'midst'! it seems to have been used to refer to 'interior' or to describe something inside some other thing like within a group of people, or inside bellies, or within wombs! further its usage with an abstract noun has definitely escaped me!
abraham roamed in canaan? got that from bible? i dont think quran only means to exclude hadith but include bible!-S
####### seems somewhere else 'masjid' was being defined as within u rather than a seperate physical place! now v have the forbiden mosque being the dome of rock in jerusalem!
######## and yes, there are still no answers for the why, how and when! such a major schism is unlikely ot have been totally unrecorded! again, what was the name of the current mecca?
######### can v have less of ego and taunts and more of talks! -)
-
Peace
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.
two English teachers, native English speakers, say the article is needed to express the second meaning you propose. It has to be "I am in the sunshine"
I say it because maybe it changes the meaning of your example. -
Peace Elena,
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.two English teachers, native English speakers, say the article is needed to express the second meaning you propose. It has to be "I am in the sunshine"
I say it because maybe it changes the meaning of your example.I think a more relevant example is perhaps "I am walking on sunshine" idiom. But you don't even need an idiom. In english (as well as in Arabic), it is perfectly normal to say "I am in the midst of a disaster" (no definite article).
Just ask anyone how they would translate the above into Classical Arabic. Most likely, they would say
"I am in the midst of a disaster"
"Ana bi-qalb nakbat".No one would complain that like "batn" which literally means "stomach", "qalb" literally means "heart" and not "midst" or "middle". It is also interesting to note that the "wasn"/weight of the noun "nakbat" (disaster) is exactly like that of "makkat" (destruction). So this is further proof that such forms are normally used in this manner and it may only sound strange to some only due to their pre-conditioning.
Peace,
Ayman
-
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.
Thank you bro
I will try to put something together sometie today
peace
-
Peace All
The Arabic word for Destruction is common and clear, it is called ?Damar? and also ?Taddmira? ? ?, and Allah used it twice in the Quran to tell us that He meant ?Destruction?
And We command "Go ye both, to the people who have rejected our Signs" And those (people) We destroyed with utter destruction.
(36)
And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.
(16)
Peace be with all
-
Sorry brother Ayman
there is nothing as such in the Arabic language called Be Qlab Nakbah
never heard of it and you just made this sentence up
see I can put any words together insanly to make a sentence but that will never change the fact for the professional arabic speakers that I'm insane
cheers
-
Peace Claurianta,
An interesting analysis indeed. Now I think the question remains about the locations of Masjid al Haram and Masjid al Aqsa.
The more important question is what does a particular location have anything to do with our obligation to The God.
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.
What is the purpose of the temple of the Jews at that location? Did having it at this location or at any location make them more righteous? Those are more basic questions that need to be answered before people build things on invalid silent assumptions.
Naming it Masjid al Aqsa is quite a great way of masking its original name.
But originally as a common noun "aqsa" means "utmost/farthest". How is any place on earth the "utmost/farthest"? Aren't mosques in the US farthest than the distance between any two mosques in the middle east?
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
There was ample confusion about direction and most likely many congregational sites didn't even have a specific direction because early mosques are pointing in vastly different directions. In Egypt mosques such as the Fustat faced the winter sunrise. This was the common Christian practice. This was also the common practice of the pagans (this is where Chrisitians got it from). So in the original Fustat, the pre-existing direction was simply followed. This could be a result of two things
- In the absence of a direction, people simply continued with their forefathers' habits.
- The Fustat was built on a converted church and since direction was not important, nobody bothered to change it at the time.
Peace,
Ayman
-
The more important question is what does a particular location have anything to do with our obligation to The God.
The only thing we need to know is that GOD,not you,not me,not Muhammad,Not Jesus or Abraham told us to do so..Thats our obligation to GOD,TO DO WHAT HE ASKS.Its that simple.
Whats so hard to understand? Thats one reason why its called Islam or Submission to the will of Allah.
What is the purpose of the temple of the Jews at that location? Did having it at this location or at any location make them more righteous?
From what I know its where Abraham went to sacrifice his son,then later GOD told the Isrealites to build a temple there.No having the temple there or anywhere else doesnt make some one more righteous,Obeying GOD makes a person more righteous.
Sorry Claurianta and Ayman for butting in,but just wanted to make a statement...
Peace
-
Peace all,
The Arabic word for Destruction is common and clear, it is called ?Damar? and also ?Taddmira? ? ?, and Allah used it twice in the Quran to tell us that He meant ?Destruction?
And We command "Go ye both, to the people who have rejected our Signs" And those (people) We destroyed with utter destruction.
(36)
And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.(16)
Ahmed, you are obviously exaggerating when you claim to be an Arabic speaker. Maybe he forgot Arabic.
The following are some of the words that can be used to mean "destruction".
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
The same thing is true in ALL languages. There is usually more than one way to descirbe something. Hence, in English you can use the following words instead of destruction
breaking down , crush , crushing , demolishment , demolition , desolation , destruction , devastation , dilapidation , havocking , impairment , laying waste , ravage , razing , ruin , ruination , ruining , sabotage , smashing , subversion , tamping , tearing down , undermining , vandalism , wreck , wreckage , wrecking
Ahmed is blissfully unaware of such basic Arabic (and all languages) concepts.
Peace,
Ayman