A Miraculous Conspiracy Theory about Mecca

unknownuser

Salaamun alaikum Ayman,

The focal point was only changed once, from physical to non-physical.

Thank you for the clarification. Upon pondering further on the signs 2142-145, I agree with your understanding regarding focal point being changed only once.

Regarding bibatni makkata, I am still not clear if it means "in the midst of destruction" as per your understanding or the alternative possible "in the valley of makkah". Does the sign 4824 say "after that he gave you victory over them" or does it say "after he gave you victory on them" ?

Following translators have translated as "AFTER THAT"

4824

Literal And He is who prevented/stopped their hands from you, and your hands from them with inside Mecca from after that He gave you victory/triumph on them, and God was/is with what you make/do seeing/knowing .
Yusuf Ali And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
Arberry It is He who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the hollow of Mecca, after that He made you victors over them. God sees the things you do.
George Sale It was He who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca; after that He had given you the victory over them And God saw that which ye did.
Malik It is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca, after that He had given you victory over them, and Allah was watching all your actions.

The following majority of translators translate as "AFTER"

Free-Minds And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.
Rashad Khalifa He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you do.
Shakir And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had given you victory over them; and Allah is Seeing what you do.
Pickthal And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.
Hilali/Khan And He it is Who has withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makkah, after He had made you victors over them. And Allah is Ever the All-Seer of what you do.
Maulana Ali And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Makkah after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is ever Seer of what you do.
QXP And He it is Who has withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the Valley of Makkah after He has given you victory over them. And Allah was indeed Watcher over all your actions.
Sarwar It is He who kept peace between you and the people of the valley of Mecca after having given you a victory over them. God is Well Aware of what you do.

The first meaning of "after that" would imply that Allah withheld their hands against each other FIRST and then AFTER THAT granted believers victory. If that meaning is true then "in the midst of destruction" meaning is more appropriate for "bibatni makkata".

The second meaning would imply that Allah withheld their hands from each other AFTER he had already given believers victory, and if that is true then the withholding of hands would be AFTER the war, and could be in a time of peace, making the meaning "in valley of makkah" more appropriate.

Interestingly 8/13 of the above translators translate "bibatni makkata" as "the VALLEY of makkah" !!!! and this translation in no way implies presence of CITY of makkah.

Everyone's comments on the above will be much appreciated.

Best regards,

Tanveer

ayman

Peace Myr,

From the search above, it is obvious "batni" has a meaning or a sense of "inside", "core" "heart" "belly" of something/place. I could not see in these verses any meaning of "destruction" as such. And God the All-Mighty knows best.

I think that you misunderstood. It the word "makkat" not "batn" that is the problem. Everyone pretty much agrees that "batn" means "inside a place" or "in the midst of something". The question is inside/in the midst of what? "destruction", which is the meaning of the common noun "makkat" or a place whose proper name is Makkat?

So the choice is between understanding and translating the word "makkat" or taking it as a meaningless label.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

de

ayman

Peace tanveermd,

Regarding bibatni makkata, I am still not clear if it means "in the midst of destruction" as per your understanding or the alternative possible "in the valley of makkah". Does the sign 4824 say "after that he gave you victory over them" or does it say "after he gave you victory on them" ?

I think that simply "after" is the correct one.

When one reads the passage, one gets the impression of something out of the ordinary happening. The picture one gets is of two warring parties whose hands were almost getting one another. One also gets the impression from the next part (4825) that those who have faith were going to win anyway regardless of whether there was a cease fire just before the hand to hand fighting or not. One also gets the impression that this was an urban situation that would involve street fighting NOT a desert valley because of the presence of non-combatant men and women as clear from 4825.

So the picture we get from the passage is of a war in an urban area (a city). Such urban area would have been heavily fortified against external attacks as is normal for all cities in ancient times, especially when there is war going on. Since there was a cease right at the time when hand-to-hand combat was almost starting, this means that the city's various layers of fortifications, walls, defenses, etc. have already been breached and destroyed and the city defendants were cornered.

So here is what is out of the ordinary and amazing about the situation. The invading army that has already won sure victory was pouring into the destroyed city and hand-to-hand combat was about to erupt since despite surely losing the defenders had no where to go. Suddenly, in the midst of all this destruction cool heads prevail on the part of the invading army and the fighting is stopped.

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Myr,

I think that you misunderstood. It the word "makkat" not "batn" that is the problem. Everyone pretty much agrees that "batn" means "inside a place" or "in the midst of something". The question is inside/in the midst of what? "destruction", which is the meaning of the common noun "makkat" or a place whose proper name is Makkat?

So the choice is between understanding and translating the word "makkat" or taking it as a meaningless label.

I was replying to Tanveer's comment and question on whether it is a "valley". I quoted part of his message. Please re-read it.

I thought that you were questioning the meaning of "makkat"/destruction because of what you said here

I could not see in these verses any meaning of "destruction" as such

Peace,

Ayman

claurianta

Peace tanveermd,

Regarding bibatni makkata, I am still not clear if it means "in the midst of destruction" as per your understanding or the alternative possible "in the valley of makkah". Does the sign 4824 say "after that he gave you victory over them" or does it say "after he gave you victory on them" ?

I think that simply "after" is the correct one.

When one reads the passage, one gets the impression of something out of the ordinary happening. The picture one gets is of two warring parties whose hands were almost getting one another. One also gets the impression from the next part (4825) that those who have faith were going to win anyway regardless of whether there was a cease fire just before the hand to hand fighting or not. One also gets the impression that this was an urban situation that would involve street fighting NOT a desert valley because of the presence of non-combatant men and women as clear from 4825.

So the picture we get from the passage is of a war in an urban area (a city). Such urban area would have been heavily fortified against external attacks as is normal for all cities in ancient times, especially when there is war going on. Since there was a cease right at the time when hand-to-hand combat was almost starting, this means that the city's various layers of fortifications, walls, defenses, etc. have already been breached and destroyed and the city defendants were cornered.

So here is what is out of the ordinary and amazing about the situation. The invading army that has already won sure victory was pouring into the destroyed city and hand-to-hand combat was about to erupt since despite surely losing the defenders had no where to go. Suddenly, in the midst of all this destruction cool heads prevail on the part of the invading army and the fighting is stopped.

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Ayman

Ayman, I think you might be falling into a trap that you are accusing others for...

Think of the word "victory". Does it say military victory? Or is it victory in another sense? They signed a peace agreement and therefore avoided avoidable deaths, and just for that fact they are victorious in a spiritual sense. You don't win a place in heaven by unnecessary wars, but rather by living peacefully with your neighbours - so the Muslims were victorious because they were able to avoid a war. In this sense, AFTER THAT which in the literal translation makes more sense. I mean look at the last part of the aya... God saw what you did... because you kept your head cool and chose not to fight when it wasn't necessary, you avoided destruction (due to fighting an unjust war) and became victorious (you did the right thing).

Again, we are finding ourselves at analysing this verse without considering the rest of the Qur'an. The only things that merit the death sentence are murder and "spreading corruption in the land". Were perhaps the Muslims about to break this rule by killing their enemies without valid reason? And then God held their hands back, and therefore because the Muslims were able to keep the peace and hold true God's law, they were victorious. So is it not very well possible that the victory is not a military one, but rather a spiritual victory?

ayman

Peace Myr,

As for Makka, it is for me a proper name as Misr is or Moses is or Mary is. Woud we still translate Mary or Maryam to mean "the one devoted to God' when translating? for me it does not make sense knowing that Quran relates the events to specific places and persons/nations. There are not several Moses or Madyan or John in Quran so what is then the purpose of knowing the meaning of "Moses" or "Madyan" or "Missr" except to claim the current makka or what is called Makka is not Makka and was something else.

Maryam doesn't mean "the one devoted to God". As far as I remember, it is supposed to mean "bitterness" in Hebrew. It also means "wished for child" or "beloved" in ancient Egyptian.

You are also wrong that "misr" means Egypt. It simply means "the large urban area" or "country". Hence, here is how all translators (except Khalifa) translated it in 261

002.061
YUSUFALI And remember ye said "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.
PICKTHAL And when ye said O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
SHAKIR And when you said O Musa! we cannot bear with one food, therefore pray Lord on our behalf to bring forth for us out of what the earth grows, of its herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions. He said Will you exchange that which is better for that which is worse? Enter a city, so you will have what you ask for. And abasement and humiliation were brought down upon them, and they became deserving of Allah's wrath; this was so because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly; this was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.
KHALIFA Recall that you said, "O Moses, we can no longer tolerate one kind of food. Call upon your Lord to produce for us such earthly crops as beans, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions." He said, "Do you wish to substitute that which is inferior for that which is good? Go down to Egypt, where you can find what you asked for." They have incurred condemnation, humiliation, and disgrace, and brought upon themselves wrath from GOD. This is because they rejected GOD's revelations, and killed the prophets unjustly. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed.

Those that are actually names that you mentioned were already pre-existing before the great reading was revealed. On the other, it is an easily verifiable fact that there was no known town called Mecca before the 8th century CE, long after the revelation of the great reading.

Also, for those that are actually names, the Arabic common noun meaning doesn't fit in the context. For example, as an Arabic common noun "moussa (moses)" means "shaving blade" and this doesn't fit in any of the contexts.

Logically, the complete absence of any reference to a town called Mecca prior to the 8th century CE plus the fact that unlike the proper names that you quoted, the common noun "makkat" perfectly fits in the context indicates that the word is a common noun for certain. The only people who would have doubts are those who are still emotionally attached to the city presently named Mecca.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Claurianta,

Ayman, I think you might be falling into a trap that you are accusing others for...

Think of the word "victory". Does it say military victory? Or is it victory in another sense?

It could be both. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that 4825 clearly indicates that there were non-combatant faithful women and men that could have been harmed indicates that there was some kind of force (i.e. military) involved.

They signed a peace agreement and therefore avoided avoidable deaths, and just for that fact they are victorious in a spiritual sense. You don't win a place in heaven by unnecessary wars, but rather by living peacefully with your neighbours - so the Muslims were victorious because they were able to avoid a war. In this sense, AFTER THAT which in the literal translation makes more sense. I mean look at the last part of the aya... God saw what you did... because you kept your head cool and chose not to fight when it wasn't necessary, you avoided destruction (due to fighting an unjust war) and became victorious (you did the right thing).

Again, we are finding ourselves at analysing this verse without considering the rest of the Qur'an. The only things that merit the death sentence are murder and "spreading corruption in the land". Were perhaps the Muslims about to break this rule by killing their enemies without valid reason? And then God held their hands back, and therefore because the Muslims were able to keep the peace and hold true God's law, they were victorious. So is it not very well possible that the victory is not a military one, but rather a spiritual victory?

So please help us by analyzing this passage in light of the rest of the great reading and sharing your findings. As far as I know from the other passages in the great reading, there is definitely mention of fighting in self-defense those who have breached their treaty and attacked you first (912-13). This passage in chapter 48 can be seen as a conclusion to the same conflict in those other passages and not as a different conflict. Again, if you see different things then please do share your findings in light of the rest of the great reading.

Peace,

Ayman

claurianta

So please help us by analyzing this passage in light of the rest of the great reading and sharing your findings. As far as I know from the other passages in the great reading, there is definitely mention of fighting in self-defense those who have breached their treaty and attacked you first (912-13). This passage in chapter 48 can be seen as a conclusion to the same conflict in those other passages and not as a different conflict. Again, if you see different things then please do share your findings in light of the rest of the great reading.

Peace,

Ayman

Peace ayman...

I did do a quick analysis, by talking of the two legal cases of taking someone's life - a murderer, and someone causeing "corruption in the land" (that's how my Qur'an translates it). As I have said elsewhere, fighting in self-defence would go under the "corruption in the land" exemption. But again, any self defence most be proportional.
As for the passage in chapter 48, I don't doubt that there was not a threat of a real military conflict. But tell me, what is a greater victory a military victory crushing and killing your opponents, or showing mercy upon you opponents and making peace, therefore avoiding unnecessary death and destruction? (the destruction they were in the midst of perhaps?) I think that if you have the option of making peace on acceptable terms, you should NEVER resort to war. So personally I think God is telling us that the man who makes peace is more victorious than he who wins a war.

unknownuser

Duplicate Deleted

unknownuser

Thank you Myr

very well said

there are a couple of notes that I put on 19.org, I hope brother Ayman read them and give a reasonable answer instead of accusing me of following "Asatir Al Awalin" i.e. "The trditions and tales of the past",

My notes are simply

there is suggestion by brother Layth "I believe" that 301-3 were understood wrong due to the wrong pronounciation of the vowels in the sentence, the majority of the Muslims understand it as the Romans were defeated then then won later, while the allegation suggests that the Romans won first then they lost second, they also say that the two battles were between the Romans and the Muslims, that is why they rejoiced when the Muslims won later, while the majority of Muslims say the Muslims has nothing to do with these two battles and were only a watching audeince

they suggested that the two battles between the Roman and the Muslims are the Battle of Mu'tha and the Battle of Tabouk,

now we have a problem in hand, the verses said the two battles must be at least 3 years apart and possibly even more , the two battles (Mu'tha and Tabouk) however were a year apart or two years the max.

another problem we have in hand, if the Muslims were part of the two battles mentioned in 301-3, why Allah said it that the Romans will win first then loose second instead of the Muslims loosing first then winning second?

peace

unknownuser

Salaamun alaikum brother Ayman,

If believers had already been given victory, why would there still be fighting going on necessitating withholding of the hands from each other ? That would seem very unbeliever like. After victory there is no need to kill the opposing army soldiers or the innocent people. Armies fight until one is victorious upon the other and then the fighting ceases. The only case where fighting continues after victory would be when the prevailing army continues to plunder and loot and kill innocent people or opposing army soldiers even after the victory, and if the believers were trying to do that, it does not fit their nature. If the believers were still about to fight only for defensive purposes because the rejecters were still about to attack them, then that does not imply a victorious situation for the believers. So maybe the victory was given after the withholding of hands making "after that" the correct translation in 4824. "After that" would also support the translation of "bibatni makkata" being "in midst of destruction".

The context as I understand, clearly implies that the victory was not before withholding of the hand but after it. Please look at the following signs

4821 And the other group which you could not vanquish, God took care of them. And God was capable of all things.
4822 And if the rejecters had fought you, they would have turned and ran, then they would have found neither an ally nor a victor.

In 4821 "which you could not vanquish" means there is still no victory. In 4822 "if the rejecters had fought you" means there was still no hand to hand combat. So the withholding of hands in 4824 can only be before the victory and not after it and that also supports "makkata" meaning "destruction".

However sister Myr has a point that "ABSENCE OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHEOLOGICAL reference to a town called Makkah prior to 8th century AD" does not preclude the presence of a very small town by the name of Makkah which not many people were familiar with, which later grew into a big city. The lack of archeological evidence of reference to a town named Makkah cannot be used to prove CONCLUSIVELY that makkata can only mean destruction in 4824 and that there was NO town at all by the name of Makkah in the pre qur'aanic or peri qur'aanic times.

I do not have any emotional attachment to the city of Makkah so the above points are of a purely logical and intellectual nature as far as I am concerned.

Best regards,

Tanveer

savage_carrot

Peace,

I have to admit that the presence of a 'town' called 'makka' existing in prequranic times is doubtful given the history that it has in various literature. Also, as explained, the common meaning fits quite well in the context. If there was a 'town' present by another name before having been named 'makka' after the quran, that would be irrelevant in understanding the verse itself.

It is to be noted that it is a series of deductions based on what we know as of now and the different variations of what makka/kaba/hajj can be/are taken to mean. One can say, just because it doesn't have a history doesn't mean it didn't exist. That is, as I mentioned, doubtful as it was allegedly quite 'famous/noteworthy'. It is however important, as the city has an alleged focal point that causes concern, mayhap even alarm, if it isn't being referred to in the quran as it is presently known.

When I was younger, I liked the concept in islam as I knew it then of having no intermediaries, no 'priests' granting salvation, no physical 'church' to go to to be saved. It made sense to me as it is inherently personal in a way, salvation that is, not social laws. While growing up I came to realise that while conceptually people use that as comparision to other religions, this 'religion' still has priests, churches and intermediaries. After having read and researched the quran a lot more, I go back to the previous 'uncorrupted/intuitive' side of things. It is purer and less liable to the greed/machinations of people as it's just you and God then. Your salvation depends on you, not how many times you go to the 'endorsed' iron chef kitchen and baste a turkey, and/or if you start the basting clockwise or widdershins.

unknownuser

Hi Br. Ayman,

if you don't miss this post , would apreciate an answer.Thanks.

Maka = to whistle with ones mouth, pg 73 quranic dictionary.

835
35.
Wama kana salatuhumAAinda albayti illa mukaan watasdiyatan fathooqooalAAathaba bima kuntum takfuroona

Their salat at the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands (Its only answer can be), "Taste ye the penalty because ye blasphemed."

Makat = pronoun postfixed to the verb to indicate feminine persons of the past.

Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahumAAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi anathfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahubima taAAmaloona baseeran

And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.

So can?t it be simply just whistling/shouting e.t.c as no hands where involved?

Peace.

ayman

Peace Claurianta,

I did do a quick analysis, by talking of the two legal cases of taking someone's life - a murderer, and someone causeing "corruption in the land" (that's how my Qur'an translates it). As I have said elsewhere, fighting in self-defence would go under the "corruption in the land" exemption. But again, any self defence most be proportional.
As for the passage in chapter 48, I don't doubt that there was not a threat of a real military conflict. But tell me, what is a greater victory a military victory crushing and killing your opponents, or showing mercy upon you opponents and making peace, therefore avoiding unnecessary death and destruction? (the destruction they were in the midst of perhaps?) I think that if you have the option of making peace on acceptable terms, you should NEVER resort to war. So personally I think God is telling us that the man who makes peace is more victorious than he who wins a war.

Although, the meaning of "destruction" is the one most given by Classical Arabic dictionaries, there are other meanings which are more in line with your understanding. I totally agree that we could reach a better understanding by looking at the possible common meanings in light of all of the great reading. The one thing that is sure is that we can't improve our understanding by taking the word Makkat as the meaningless proper name of some 8th century CE city.

The other meanings given by Classical Arabic dictionaries are "wearing down" and "insisting with demands on the adversary".

The meaning of "wearing down" would also fit the context because it would imply a kind of siege and wearing down of the adversary.

The meaning of insistence with demands on the adversary would also fit and would imply a kind of intense negotiations going on where the parties are not yielding in their demands. This would also be consistent in light of 4826 where it is said that those who had faith upheld the "word of forethought".

However, "destruction" also fits in light of the fact that the verse clearly said "after He had given you victory", which could be a military victory.

So there are three possible translations

And it is He who has stopped their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of insistence on the adversary after He gave you the victory over them and The God sees well all that you do.
And it is He who has stopped their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of wearing down after He gave you the victory over them and The God sees well all that you do.
And it is He who has stopped their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after He gave you the victory over them and The God sees well all that you do.

I think that one can then do as you said and pick the meaning that fits best with the rest of the great reading. On the other hand, picking a meaningless post-quranic label attached to a city only fits best with people preconceptions.

Peace,

Ayman

Edip_Yuksel

Dear Tanveer

The translation of free-minds, in my opinion, reflects the meaning well. I liked your reasoning and the attention to the subtle differences.

Peace,
Edip

ayman

Peace Myr,

Brother, we are not studying "hebrew" or "ancient Egyptian" but Arabic and more precisely the Arabic in Quran-). Let's say we agree to disagree-) as your sources of info definetely differ from mine. I try to study the Quran from within the Quran. I am very very skeptical toward any approach that would borrow from other selective sources to make sense of what came in the Quran-)

But Moses and Maryam certainly didn't speak Arabic. The fact is that this Arabic "quran"/reading or even the Arabic language itself for that matter didn't exist at the time of Moses. So names like Moses and Maryam cannot certainly be Arabic.

Brother, I have never trusted any translation but the Quran in its original language and that what had me study the arabic language for many years. Most of the translations are incorrect and at the core of all these nonsense reasoning we see nowadays and thus the booming in Quran translations!!!. How "misr" meaning can be city or town or country when we know that in other verses in this same Arabic Quran, different words are mentioned for city, country, and town?

So what makes you think that Misr was Egypt's name at the time of Moses?

Brother, History is not a divine revelation or scripture-)

This is good advice that you should heed ). It is a fact that your ONLY source for Makkat is Islamic history.

History is nothing else then what men have reported and noted and by the way not without holes, flaws, and discrepencies at different points in time-).

Exactly. This is why my source is not "history" and I never even mentioned the word "history". On the other hand, history and Hadith is YOUR ONLY SOURCE for the proper name Makka.

My source is physical archeological evidence that we are encouraged to look at in the great reading. I am simply heeding The God's advice in passages such as 309 to look in the earth and see the physical evidence of the people that came before us. If you study physical evidence from pre-quranic inscriptions and manuscripts, you will see the facts that I am talking about.

Also, by having names pre-existed prior to the Quran revelation does not make them immune from changes and the proof even the first revelations (scriptures) were altered.

That is exactly what I am saying. Given the fact that The God protected the great reading from changes, the only thing corrupters could do is change common nouns into meaningless proper names.

My point is you seem to be so confident and entirely relying on history based on the "facts" you are outlining in your explanation above that I wonder why therefore you don't consider the narrations of ahadeeths as part of history, after all these are also men narrations and reporting on their time?-).

You are the one entirely relying on history and Hadith for Mecca being the name of a town. If you disagree then please tell us, where did you get the meaning of Mecca as the name of the present day location in Saudi?

Plus, why do you consider Makka to be absolutly a "town"?

It is you who does not me. )

what is a town after all? did not Abraham settle in a no-man land that became LATER a community? My point is what started maybe as a small village or just few dwellings may have evolved to what became much later known as a "town".

But The God clearly tells us that this town is "umm al-qura". This is an expression that literally means "mother of all urban settlements". I am sorry but unlike you, I do not think that The God is exaggerating and He really meant a small unheard of town.

The expression "umm al-qura" is something akin to "cradle of civilization". It is a fact that the area along western Mesopotamia is considered to be the cradle of civilization by everyone in the world.

Also, for those that are actually names, the Arabic common noun meaning doesn't fit in the context. For example, as an Arabic common noun "moussa (moses)" means "shaving blade" and this doesn't fit in any of the contexts.

Brother, the understanding of the contexts may also be wrong-) and not the meaning of the Arabic noun.

Then instead of just criticizing, start adding value by giving a better alternative. Tell us your right understanding of how the Arabic noun "moosa" (Arabic shaving blade) fits in the context of any passage where the word occurs in the great reading. Pick any passage.

Come on Brother! "emotionally attached"?? is this the only thing you can say to those who disagree with your approach? -) I am just trying to tell you that your "complete absence of any reference to a town called Mecca" depends on what you want to see and accept as "reference"-) that's why for me to a certain extent, we are even not debating the Quran or Makka as such but your approach with the literature you are using to prove with certainty your claims.

I know that the name Mecca is absent from the physical archeological record. On the other hand, you certainly got the name Mecca from Hadiths and dubious history. If you disagree, then please tell us WHERE DID YOU GET THE NAME MECCA FROM?

I have to admit it is weak. It reminds me the study on "Petra" and how at the time on this forum, anybody who was skeptical (including myself) was accused of being "emotional" and "attached to tradition"-) But once again, let us agree to disagree and leave the rest to God the All-Mighty. May HE show us and guide us to the truth. HE knows best.

I never proposed an alternate town. So I am not attached to any particular town. Even if I knew the location, I wouldn't share it because I know that some people will end up getting emotionally attached to it and idolize it. The only thing I know is that by stealing the common noun and attaching it to a location that was unheard of in pre-quranic physical archeological evidence, the present location called Mecca cannot be the truth.

If you disagree, that you are emotionally attached to Mecca, then tell us WHERE DID YOU GET THAT THE WORD "MEKKAT" IN 4824 REFERS TO THE NAME OF A CITY IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION IN SOUTHWEST CENTRAL ARABIA?

I hope that you can answer.

Peace,

Ayman

claurianta

Hmmm... thinking about this and the whole concept of Masjid al Haram, which according to Sunni mythology is located in Mecca. I think we might be able to use an outside source to possibly have a better understand the concept. What if Masjid al Haram is the Ark of the Covenant? The inner sanctum of the Jerusalem Temple was forbidden to all but the guardians of the temple (and even they had strict protocols of when and how they could enter) because it housed the Ark of the Covenant. Even while the Ark was being transported to Jerusalem by Moses, only Moses was allowed to be in its presence.
Now, the appointed place for the Ark is the Temple at Jerusalem, so I think both the Temple and the Ark could be synonymous. Therefore, as legend goes, Muhammed first prayed toward Jerusalem, but eventually changed his direction toward the South. Now, assuming he was in Medina or even somewhere in Northern Arabia, South is the general direction where you find modern-day Mecca. But go a little further, you will find Axum, Ethiopia, where it is claimed that the Ark of the Covenant exists today, and existed during the time of Muhammad.
So, if we take Masjid al Haram to be something physical, is it not very possible that it refers to two entities? The temple at Jerusalem, and that which made it forbidden or restricted the Covenant of the Ark.
Jews prayed toward the Jerusalem temple because it housed the Ark. Could it not be possible that Muhammad got some kind of information about the real direction the Ark lay (Axum, Ethiopia), and therefore changed his prayer direction, as per legend? And afterward people set out in that direction and found the Kabba and thought that that must be the Sacred Mosque.

I know what I am saying is at the moment conjecture, but I think it is a direction of research that should be undertaken. In this case, the whole thing about Mecca would become less of a deception and more of a huge mistake, which I think would be more of a possibility for those closest to Muhammad.
This theory of course assumes that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia, which has yet to be proven. But I think it will make for an interesting line of research.

ayman

Peace Tanveermd,

If believers had already been given victory, why would there still be fighting going on necessitating withholding of the hands from each other? That would seem very unbeliever like. After victory there is no need to kill the opposing army soldiers or the innocent people.

If the losers refuse to give up and are still fighting then this is possible.

Armies fight until one is victorious upon the other and then the fighting ceases. The only case where fighting continues after victory would be when the prevailing army continues to plunder and loot and kill innocent people or opposing army soldiers even after the victory, and if the believers were trying to do that, it does not fit their nature.If the believers were still about to fight only for defensive purposes because the rejecters were still about to attack them, then that does not imply a victorious situation for the believers.

This is not always the case. Some losing soldiers continue to fight because they don't want to surrender and think that they can still win. They even use civilians as human shields in this case.

So maybe the victory was given after the withholding of hands making "after that" the correct translation in 4824. "After that" would also support the translation of "bibatni makkata" being "in midst of destruction".

I think that the Arabic is clear in that victory had already happened. See my reponse above on the other meanings of "makkat" and perhaps you can help us figure out if others fit better.

The context as I understand, clearly implies that the victory was not before withholding of the hand but after it. Please look at the following signs

4821 And the other group which you could not vanquish, God took care of them. And God was capable of all things.
4822 And if the rejecters had fought you, they would have turned and ran, then they would have found neither an ally nor a victor.

In 4821 "which you could not vanquish" means there is still no victory. In 4822 "if the rejecters had fought you" means there was still no hand to hand combat. So the withholding of hands in 4824 can only be before the victory and not after it and that also supports "makkata" meaning "destruction".

"Destruction" can happen without death and hand-to-hand combat. For example, it happens when the walls of the city are breached. You can help us by looking at my response to Claurianta above and see which of the meanings fits best.

However sister Myr has a point that "ABSENCE OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHEOLOGICAL reference to a town called Makkah prior to 8th century AD" does not preclude the presence of a very small town by the name of Makkah which not many people were familiar with, which later grew into a big city.

But this only proves that sister Myr is unaware of the difference between history, which is hearsay and not real evidence, and physical archeological evidence left by those before us, which The God tells us to examine in the great reading (for example, 309). I asked her what is her source for the name Mecca and I hope that she will answer.

The lack of archeological evidence of reference to a town named Makkah cannot be used to prove CONCLUSIVELY that makkata can only mean destruction in 4824 and that there was NO town at all by the name of Makkah in the pre qur'aanic or peri qur'aanic times.

Unfortunately, what you are saying contradicts the reality of the descriptions given in the great reading of the town where the prophet lived. In the great reading, the descriptions give the impression of a commercial and cosmopolitan town with a diverse multi-faith population where people came to trade from all around the ancient world. It is also clearly described as being "umm al-qura"/the mother of settlements not some unknown small town.

In fact, the name Makkat is absent even in inscriptions from the area around present day Makkat. For example, it is absent from the famous 550CE Abraha inscription, which talks about several towns and VALLEYS in central Arabia but doesn't mention anything called Makkat. This despite traditional Islamic history contending that the reason Abraha invaded Arabia was to conquer Makkat.

I do not have any emotional attachment to the city of Makkah so the above points are of a purely logical and intellectual nature as far as I am concerned.

Absent of any archeological evidence for a pre-quranic city called Makkah and given that the common noun fits in the context, then your only source is Hadith, history, and your forefathers (all of which are nothing more than hearsay). Since, I know that you don't believe in those three sources then why the attachment to Mecca? It must be some kind of emotional familiarity attachment. It is normal we all tend to get emotionally attached to what we are familiar with and grew up knowing. If you start with a blank sheet of paper, without Mecca, Petra, Jerusalem, or anywhere and try to put down based on real hard evidence which town the prophet lived in then you will see what I am talking about.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Ahmed,

there are a couple of notes that I put on 19.org, I hope brother Ayman read them and give a reasonable answer instead of accusing me of following "Asatir Al Awalin" i.e. "The trditions and tales of the past",

I don't recall accusing you of such thing. I remember telling you that you like to follow fairy tales such as the one about Khodr who turns everything that he touches green.

there is suggestion by brother Layth "I believe" that 301-3 were understood wrong due to the wrong pronounciation of the vowels in the sentence, the majority of the Muslims understand it as the Romans were defeated then then won later, while the allegation suggests that the Romans won first then they lost second, they also say that the two battles were between the Romans and the Muslims, that is why they rejoiced when the Muslims won later, while the majority of Muslims say the Muslims has nothing to do with these two battles and were only a watching audeince

The real question is why would those who have faith rejoice over the victory of the Romans who are trinitarians. We are told in no uncertain terms in verse 573 that those who say that The God is part of a trinity are rejecters/"kuffar". Why would they rejoice when the rejecters/"kuffar" win?

If you can answer that then maybe we can see what you are talking about.

they suggested that the two battles between the Roman and the Muslims are the Battle of Mu'tha and the Battle of Tabouk,

now we have a problem in hand, the verses said the two battles must be at least 3 years apart and possibly even more , the two battles (Mu'tha and Tabouk) however were a year apart or two years the max.

I am not sure where you are getting info about those alleged battles from. Can you please tell us?

another problem we have in hand, if the Muslims were part of the two battles mentioned in 301-3, why Allah said it that the Romans will win first then loose second instead of the Muslims loosing first then winning second?

We know from their physical manuscripts of the time that the Romans were intolerant towards other faiths and fought all those who differed with them. Thus, they fought against Jews and even fought other Christian sects that they viewed as heretic. All those gorups took refuge in the Lakhmid areas of Arabia and this is well documented in archeological evidence. So the Romans had many enemies. When we hear the story from the Roman side they never mention the word Muslim in their manuscripts when describing the event of the Arab conquests. They wrote that it was an alliance formed of a group they called "muhagareyye" (which is likely "muhajireen") and the Jews and other Christians who aided the "muhajireen" that invaded them.

Peace,

Ayman