How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

[wildguest1956]

Peace JM,

Peace ayman,

Thanks for your response

There is a reply from asimmehm you have not responded to
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/c6ffc72857338f63?fwc=1
asimmehm had made some good points

Ayman, but there is no FULL MANUSCRIPT OF THE QURAN prior to after the
death of the Prophet (S). SO, according to the orientalists such as
Margolioth, it was FABRICATED after his (S) death. Their logic is
based upon your same faulty logic. And the logical corollary to this
is you have to accept this proposition of Margolioth. And if you do
not, you are BEING A HYPOCRITE.

I want to see evidence, according to your own standards, of a WHOLE
QURAN immediately after the death of the Prophet (S), upto the point of
Uthman (R). I do not want partial fragments, because according to your
standards regarding the existence of Mecca, these fall short. I do not
want you to say that the Arabs were RECITING THE QURAN, and that they
were primarily an ORAL CULTURE, because you would than be a hyprocrite
according to your own standards,

We have hardly ANY MANUSCRIPTS about anything in the pre-Islamic hijaz.
The evidence your demanding for as proof is such that, if we followed
your hyporcitical standards, the pre-Quranic word count would amount to
a few hundred words. NOTHING MORE. does that mean we reject every
word of the Arabic language that is not found on a tablet of stone?

Please be aware that I am not claiming that the quran has been fabricated after the death of the prophet.
My contention is that archeological findings are too scarce and poor to prove definitely anything.

This is false. Archeological findings from the pre-quranic period are not rare. It is only manuscripts from that region that are rare. There are plenty of inscriptions and Asim knows that very well. This is why he carefully uses the word "manuscripts" so that someone who is not careful while reading makes a hasty generalization from "manuscripts are scarce" to "archeological findings are too scarce".

The fact is that unlike stone inscriptions, it is hard for fragile manuscripts to survive. Thus, the fact that we have many early manuscripts of the great reading (although they are incomplete and fragmented) indicates that they came from a much larger population, given the low probability of their survival.

Asim knows he doesn't have anything to stand on except blind faith in Mecca. You need to try to read "between the lines" of his response.

My goal is to show that your logic (claiming that the manuscripts and inscriptions sufficient to draw conclusions about Islamic history) does not work.

Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved since its revelation to Muhammad.
See http//www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
Despite this, your belief is that it has been fully preserved.
So, this proves that your logic may lead to wrong conclusions.

There are many words we find in the quran that do not appear on the the pre-quranic inscriptions. Using your logic, we would conclude that these words did not exist, and have been fabricated by some conspirators.
This is the second proof that your logic (relying on inscriptions and manuscripts) may not lead to the right conclusion.

I am OK to use manuscripts and inscriptions to study history. But we should be far more cautious as you are in drawing conclusions.

Let?s look at the history of life? How many theories had been drawn based on some skeletons, and were later questioned by new ones?

Does it mention all the towns that were existing at that time ?

It mentions the towns and valleys that Abraha passed during his expidition. No town or valley named Mecca.

Here his what you have written earlier

The nearest place to present day Makka described (Halban) is at least 100 Kilometers west-northwest of Mekka and separated from it by a mountain range. Since Abraha was coming from the south, one can retrace a northwest direction totally bypassing Mekka and heading northwest, while Mekka is to the northeast. Also, the date mentioned converts to 552AD, which is approximately 20 years prior to the traditional birth date given to the prophet.

Why do you not conclude that is inscription is not about the expedition of Abraha against Mecca, but about another, earlier, one ?

Are we sure that Mecca is not mentioned into another name ?

Yes. Eveyone is sure. You can examine the inscription too and make sure for yourself
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean_img.htm

umm al qura simply means "the center of villages".
It is not sure that, as the sunnis claim, it refers to the place where the prophet lived.

I am not sure what you mean. The term "umm" has to do with "origin" or "mother".

You and the sunnis claim that umm al qura refers to the town where the prophet lived.
But it is only speculation.
umm al qura may mean "the cradle of civilization", and so, refer to the entire region, isn?t it?

What about the spring named Zamzam ?
Is it not true that towns were often build around such springs ?

There is no spring named Zamzam. There is a deep well named zamzam that people have manually dug. You would get water if you dig deep enough in the desert. Unlike what people believe, the water of Zamzam is actually pumped out from inside the desert ground. See

http//www.sgs.org.sa/index.cfm?sec=311&page=

Here is where this "holy" water actually comes from

http//www.sgs.org.sa/content/images/zam_pumping_system_of-_zamz.jpg

Quoted from the Saudi Geological survey site
"In order to manage demand water from Zamzam well is pumped, treated and stored in underground storage tanks a continual basis. Before distribution to consumers and transportation to Madinah Zamzam water is treated by a series of sand filters, micro filters and ultraviolet disinfection. Zamzam Studies and Research Center is engaged in design of upgrading the treatment system. Already, two phases of upgrading have been completed and the third phase is in active consideration. Moreover, the Center strictly follow these activities and ensures strict quality assurance measures."

In the same site, we can read

The area around the spring, which was later converted to a well, became a resting place for caravans, and eventually grew into the trading city of Makkah, birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The common noun Mecca has other meanings that "destruction".

All are similarly not flattering.

?Insistence on the adversary? is somewhat neutral.
Anyway, claiming that a name is not fitting for a place because of one of the meanings of the common noun is not very scientific.
In France, there is a village called Anus (it is the same word in English), and another one is called Gland (in English, glans).
I have already seen a street named ?rue de la guerre?? (street of war), and another one ?rue d?enfer? (street of hell).
So, everything is possible.

I am glad you use the term "most probable", in place of "only possible".
Indeed, the archeological findings can only give possible scenarios. They are to poor to provide the truth.
Your scenario may be the most likely given the present archeological findings or the Christians accounts, but it is a hardly improbable scenario to the extent that none of the sects that have fought each other in the first centuries after the death of Muhammad rejects Mecca as the place where the prophet lived.

The archeological evidence is better at providing the truth than any blind faith in a town just because sectarians have faith in it.

Assuming Mecca was not the place where the prophet lived, you are unable to explain when the creed in Mecca did arose, and why we have no trace of any sect rejecting it.

Good example.
But I am not sure it can be easily transposed in Arabic.
Is there any such example in the quran ?

The logic is similar in any language.

Not in French.
Are you unable to provide such an example from the quran ?

Idol-worship is not the only form of shirk. Priesthood is another one.
But, let?s assume there have been a revert back to idolatry?
Why the need of building a new town called Mecca for that ?
Why have they not done that in the town where the prophet lived (from which you have still not given the name and location) ?

It is for the same reason a town like Petra was built from scratch. Idolaters need to have holy towns. This has happened many times in history so it is hardly unusual.

Do you have evidence that Petra was built from scratch?
Your account of history is like ?hey, as idolaters, we need to build a town? let?s go there to build one?
Personally, I don?t think it worked like that?

Anyway?let?s assume that the prophet lived in Hira, and that, after his death, everyone reverted back to idolatry... Why would they not have built the holy temple there? Would it not have been far more easy than to go and build it from scratch in Mecca ?

Do you really think that all the companions of the prophet have reverted back to idolatry a few days after his death ?

Who are those companions you talk about? Do you know them? I personally don't.

Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves. You see them kneeling and prostrating, they seek God's blessings and approval. Their distinction is in their faces, as a result of prostrating. Such is their example in the Torah. And their example in the Injeel is like a plant which shoots out and becomes strong and thick and it stands straight on its trunk, pleasing to the farmers. That He may enrage the rejecters with them. God promises those among them who believe and do good works a forgiveness and a great reward.

For the immigrants who are poor and were driven out of their homes and deprived of their properties, they sought God's grace and pleasure, and they supported God and His messenger. They are the truthful ones.
And those who provided them with shelter, and were believers before them; they love those who immigrated to them, and they find no hesitation in their hearts in helping them, and they readily give them priority over themselves, even when they themselves need what they give away. Indeed, those who overcome their desires are the successful ones.

O prophet, God is sufficient for you, and whoever followed you from the believers.

Do you really think these honorable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

Do you have evidences for that ?
And for that ?
And for that ?

I will have to research further, but as far as I know the destruction of Mecca at the hand of the Qaramitah was reported in writings from the era itself.

Looking forward for your findings?

Anyway, I fear you have not answered my question.
Did the shia, sunni and kharadji, while fighting each other, conspired together to create Mecca ?

We don't know what they originally fought about. We also don't know if there were other sects and ideas.

Yet, what we can reasonably be sure about is that they fought each other (maybe for power).
Did it left time to them to make a temporary peace to conspire about the fabrication from scratch of a new town with an idolatrous temple (an the belief that the prophet lived there) ?
I am sorry I can?t believe that.

Really?
But why would the fabrication of a new town plus the blatant lie that Muhammad have lived in this town not have been political suicide?

Because people would say "look it is in the quran". So this would silence opposition.

This would have been too much easy.
Let?s imagine you had been among the companions of the prophet.
Would you not, after his death, have narrated many stories about him to your children and grandchildren?
Do you really think that you, or your children, or your grandchildren would have believed in the story according to which, actually, the prophet had lived en Mecca (i.e. at many kilometers from Hira) even if the leaders say it is written in the quran ?
Do you think everybody would have forgotten that the word Makkat actually means ?destruction? ?
This is impossible?

I agree I have enough of the message to have faith.
But if applying your logic (manuscripts, inscriptions, etc?) may lead to the conclusion that the Quran was fabricated after the death of Muhammad (i.e. something you deem to be false), why would this logic lead to the right conclusion about the history of Mecca ?

My faith (and I hope yours too) is not blind faith in the great reading. It is faith based on understanding and logic. Anyone who has faith in so-called Mecca is doing it based on blind faith. Also, please show me a single passage in the great reading that tells us that it is our obligation to have faith in a town.

Peace,

Ayman

There is no obligation in the Quran to have faith in the existence of Mecca.
But we should be more cautious in drawing conclusions about historical facts than you are, and we should not hold a belief only because it widens the gap between ?traditional Muslims? and us.

Peace

[ayman]

Peace JM,

My goal is to show that your logic (claiming that the manuscripts and inscriptions sufficient to draw conclusions about Islamic history) does not work.

This is not a good goal. Firstly, our only goal should be the truth not assumptions about what I claim. Secondly, showing what logic works and what doesn't work depends on what it is working to do.

I never claimed that the manuscripts and inscriptions are sufficient to draw conclusions about Islamic history. History is merely the subjective point of view of a historian. So I am only concerned with the great reading and things that we can verify as per 1736. The great reading doesn't promote spinning seven times around some stones and kissing and waving at them. What goes on in Mecca is against the very basic tenets of the great reading and against our God-given common sense. This should be enough for people who have faith in the great reading.

For people who don't really have faith in the great reading, this is not enough. Since they can't bring any evidence for their beloved stones from the great reading, they are the ones who bring up subjective history. So for those people I lowered the standard of evidence from the word of The God to physical archeological evidence. Physical evidence is any manuscripts and inscriptions that, unlike historical hearsay legends and pious fictional stories, can be verified and dated. Unfortunately for them, even using this lowered standard of evidence, there is no support for their illogical shrines and rituals and in fact the evidence further discredits them as purely pagan.

Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved since its revelation to Muhammad.

Please do not repeat this old and tired false analogy used by sectarians. This same exact line of argument that you are using to defend Mecca and its shrines the Sunnis use to defend their Hadiths. They attack the great reading and compare its preservation to those of Hadiths. They also say "using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved." There is a sign in this for you that hopefully you are not too arrogant to see.

Read my earlier responses on this matter. The preservation of the great reading has nothing to do with inscriptions or manuscripts. If someone reads the great reading for the first time without knowing anything about the history or physical archeological evidence of this book, they will believe in it or reject it based solely on its contents.

We have Greek manuscripts of the Bible that predate the great reading. Does this mean that the Bible is preserved and conveys the truth? Of course not! We similarly have many manuscripts and inscriptions of religious texts of other ancient cultures such as ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc. The only thing that physical archeological evidence proves is that there were people who lived in this location at this time and who used this language and communicated this information. This has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the contents. The only thing that has bearing on the truth of the contents is the logic (or lack thereof) of the contents.

Since the rituals that go on in Mecca are completely illogical, people have blind faith in them based only on subjective history. When we look at the physical evidence (which as I said can only be used to date the beginning of the town of Mecca and the shrines and rituals in it), what we find is that the shrines and rituals date back to pagan Nabataean times but Mecca only dates to the 8th century CE. This is exactly what one would expect as traditional Nabataean Arab pagan traditions are integrated with the new religion and reestablished in a new remote and secluded religious town much like what happened in Petra. The same thing happened to Christianity under Constantine. He united the empire by creating a state religion that combines paganism and Christianity.

See http//www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
Despite this, your belief is that it has been fully preserved. So, this proves that your logic may lead to wrong conclusions.

I explained in my last post why this is false.

There are many words we find in the quran that do not appear on the the pre-quranic inscriptions. Using your logic, we would conclude that these words did not exist, and have been fabricated by some conspirators.
This is the second proof that your logic (relying on inscriptions and manuscripts) may not lead to the right conclusion.

Even if all the words in the great reading were in pre-quranic inscriptions, this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the message. Had all those words conveyed illogical nonsensical ideas then them being present in manuscripts is irrelevant.

We actually see many examples of fabricated popular meanings of certain words in the great reading that when used convey an illogical message that is inconsistent with the rest of the book. When we see that using those meanings leads to falsehoods, we reexamine the word to try to get to a better meaning and in all cases that I have encountered, I found that the popular meaning (usually a meaningless proper name) was indeed fabricated.

I am OK to use manuscripts and inscriptions to study history. But we should be far more cautious as you are in drawing conclusions.

The study of manuscripts and inscriptions is part of the study of archeology NOT history. Those are two different areas.

Let?s look at the history of life? How many theories had been drawn based on some skeletons, and were later questioned by new ones?

Anthropology (not "history of life&quot is a good example. Applying your logic, we would conclude that women were created from a man's rib and that early humans were 80 meters tall. This is what the majority of Sunnis believe and they claim that this is what The God told them through the prophet and it is supported by their history and Hadith. I hope that you are a logical person who is focused on the truth and don't believe such nonsense, otherwise there is really no point in continuing this discussion. If you are a logical person who is focused on the truth, you have to ask yourself "What would you tell to a Sunni about why you don't believe in their crap?"

Here is how you would respond to his/her extraordinary claims

1. The first extraordinary claim is that they say that this is what The God promoted to them. You will of course say "there is no mention of such things in the great reading".
2. They will of course respond that this is confirmed by history and Hadiths. Since obviously the great reading argument is not enough for them, now you have to lower the standard of evidence to archeological evidence. You then explain to them the fact that Hadiths haven't been created until long after the death of the prophet and the word Hadith as referring to "religious writings" is not even mentioned in epistles until about 150 years after the prophet's time and even then they are not mentioned in a good light but are described as fabrications. You will also tell them that there is a complete lack of physical evidence in the form of ancient bones and skeletons of 80 meters tall humans.
3. They will reply by saying "Your logic doesn't work. Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved."

Now let's apply the same logic to the extraordinary claims sectarians make about Mecca

1. The first extraordinary claim is that they say that the shrines and rituals in Mecca is what The God promoted to them. I of course say "there is no mention of such things in the great reading".
2. They will of course respond that this is confirmed by history and Hadiths. Since obviously the great reading argument is not enough for them, now I have to lower the standard of evidence to archeological evidence. I explain to them the same thing you explained above. I will also tell them that there is complete lack of physical evidence in the form of inscriptions, manuscripts, trade routes, monuments, etc. of an important pre-quranic town called Mecca.
3. They will reply by saying "Your logic doesn't work. Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved."

It sounds familiar, doesn't it?

JM, you are making ALL the extraordinary claims. For example, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that The God told us to go to a place called Mecca to perform some illogical rituals despite the absence of such things in the great reading. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that an important and famous town that people FROM ALL RELIGIONS supposedly continuously made pilgrimages to from the time of Abraham is completely absent from any inscriptions and manuscripts prior to the mid 8th century CE.

Why do you not conclude that is inscription is not about the expedition of Abraha against Mecca, but about another, earlier, one ?

It is for the same reason we do not conclude that there are winged monkeys or 80 meter tall early humans. It is because there is no evidence of such things. Again, you are making extraordinary claims without providing any evidence.

You and the sunnis claim that umm al qura refers to the town where the prophet lived.
But it is only speculation.
umm al qura may mean "the cradle of civilization", and so, refer to the entire region, isn?t it?

We clearly hear in the great reading that the prophet was sent to warn "umm al-qura" and what is around it. The word "qaryat" means town/urban settlement. I agree that "umm" has the implication of "cradle/origin" so "cradle of urban settlements" is indeed akin to "cradle of civilization". All archeologists will agree that the cradle of civilization is along Mesopotamia and NOT in Central Arabia. So you are actually negating your own arguments for Mecca.

In the same site, we can read The area around the spring, which was later converted to a well, became a resting place for caravans, and eventually grew into the trading city of Makkah, birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The geological survey team spoke the truth when they spoke about the geology of Zamzam (it is a deep well not a spring) in what I quoted (their subject matter expertise). What does Muhammed have to do with Geology? Clearly, in the part that you quoted, they are giving their subjective opinions as Sunnis not as Geologists. If you are not careful enough to read between the lines and know this then you might as well believe in winged-monkeys and 80 meter tall humans.

?Insistence on the adversary? is somewhat neutral.
Anyway, claiming that a name is not fitting for a place because of one of the meanings of the common noun is not very scientific. In France, there is a village called Anus (it is the same word in English), and another one is called Gland (in English, glans). I have already seen a street named ?rue de la guerre?? (street of war), and another one ?rue d?enfer? (street of hell). So, everything is possible.

By your logic everything is possible, including "winged-monkeys" and "80 meter tall humans".

You also forgot the other meanings of "being worn out"/"having everything sucked out". The name being non-flattering only further lowers what was already an extremely low probability of the existence of such town. The added fact that all the common noun meanings fit perfectly in the context of 4824 brings the probability down to zero (i.e., it becomes an impossibility).

For example, if I tell you "Les arm?es ce tu?es dans le rue de la guerre", you wouldn't understand it as the name of the street but as a common noun since it fits in the context.

Assuming Mecca was not the place where the prophet lived, you are unable to explain when the creed in Mecca did arose, and why we have no trace of any sect rejecting it.

There is no evidence of any sect rejecting the fairytale of 80 meter tall humans either. The burden is not on me to prove the non-existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca or the non-existence of past 80 meter tall humans or the non-existence of flying monkeys. The burden is on those who make extraordinary claims as I explained above.

The creed in Mecca didn't arise no more than Christmas arose out of the Vatican. It is simply a pre-existing pagan creed where the rituals and symbols were renamed to match common concepts in the great reading. So in the same way that a pagan holiday was renamed to "Christ-mas" to make it "Christ-ian", a pagan shrine was renamed to Kaaba and a pagan ritual was renamed to Hajj to make them Islamic.

Anyway, it shouldn't come as a surprise that sects don't reject falsehood given what the great reading tells us about sectarians.

Not in French.

Ce n'est pas vrai. En Fran?ais quand on dit "la premi?re Citro?n est fabriqu? en France" et puis on dit "tu dois achet?e Citro?n" ca ne signifie pas que tu dois achet?e la premi?re Citro?n!

Are you unable to provide such an example from the quran ?

You can see a somewhat similar example where as far as I remember the descendents of Israel are told not to be the "first" rejecters of The God's message. Certainly, the passage still applies to the descendents of Israel even today despite them not being the first rejecters.

Do you have evidence that Petra was built from scratch?
Your account of history is like ?hey, as idolaters, we need to build a town? let?s go there to build one? Personally, I don?t think it worked like that?

Petra was certainly built from scratch as a purely religious town. There is no evidence that Petra was ever inhabited by actual people all year around. It has not houses, only temples. There is evidence of people making an annual pilgrimage there and living in temporary facilities such as tents but not houses. So if the Arabs did it before in the case of Petra, then why not again?

Anyway?let?s assume that the prophet lived in Hira, and that, after his death, everyone reverted back to idolatry... Why would they not have built the holy temple there? Would it not have been far more easy than to go and build it from scratch in Mecca ?

Like Petra, the location of Mecca is remote and not easily accessible. Religious clergy prefer such places because it adds a sense of mystique and gives them more autonomy. Think about it, if you are going to gradually reinvigorate paganism then this is an ideal place.

Do you really think these honorable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

That 4829, 598-9 and 864 talk about the companions of the prophet is a sectarian baseless assumption. There is nothing in 4829, 598-9 and 864 about the companions of the prophet. The few times the companions ("sahabat&quot of the prophet are mentioned, we are told that they thought the prophet is crazy (8122).

You are confusing those who have faith with the prophet with those that people later claimed to have been of the entourage of the prophet. For all we know, people like Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, and all those guys never met the prophet (if they even existed). Ali Ibn Abi Talib is referred to by external sources to Islam as "Abu Turab" not "Abu Talib". In fact, the only early independent documented description we have of Umar is from a Jewish Rabbi and it describes him as part of or at least highly sympathetic to the Zionist movement that is focused on rebuilding the Jewish temple at all costs.

If I was one of the people who lived at the time of the prophet and is mentioned in the passages that you quote, why should I care if someone 100 years after my death builds a pagan shrine in the middle of the desert? Firstly, I am already dead. Secondly, there are many pagan shrines all over the world, if I go after each one and fight everyone who takes one then I would certainly be violating The God's commands against fighting innocent people who haven't attacked me.

Yet, what we can reasonably be sure about is that they fought each other (maybe for power).
Did it left time to them to make a temporary peace to conspire about the fabrication from scratch of a new town with an idolatrous temple (an the belief that the prophet lived there) ?
I am sorry I can?t believe that.

Christian sects who fought each other similarly agree on the lie about Jesus being the son of god. But I guess you can't believe that either so you might as well start defending this Christian belief.

This would have been too much easy.
Let?s imagine you had been among the companions of the prophet.
Would you not, after his death, have narrated many stories about him to your children and grandchildren?

No, I wouldn't. No more than I would narrate about Layth, Kyle, you or any of my companions here. However, I do convey the lessons learned. We have a perfect example in the great reading. Notice that 2133, the only thing that Jacob conveys to his descendents is not serving anyone other than The God. He doesn?t recount nostalgic stories about Abraham or the 40 best Hadiths that Abarham told him.

Do you really think that you, or your children, or your grandchildren would have believed in the story according to which, actually, the prophet had lived en Mecca (i.e. at many kilometers from Hira) even if the leaders say it is written in the quran ?

People believe all sorts of nonsensical things. If a modern person such as you who has access to far more resources and information than anyone a few centuries ago would have dreamed of believes in such things then what makes you think that a few centuries ago people were smarter and better than us?

In fact, it is natural that the following generations lose what they learned from The God's message (1959).

Do you think everybody would have forgotten that the word Makkat actually means ?destruction? ? This is impossible?

People are just ignorant and are blindly having faith in a town. The meaning was not forgotten as evident by the fact that it is well documented in all Classical Arabic dictionaries. But if you don't make a small effort to look it up and you just be happy with ignorantly having blind faith in a town and the stupid rituals and shrines in it then indeed it will be impossible for you to know the truth.

There is no obligation in the Quran to have faith in the existence of Mecca.

OK. This is good enough for me. Unfortunately, it is not good enough for sectarians.

But we should be more cautious in drawing conclusions about historical facts than you are, and we should not hold a belief only because it widens the gap between ?traditional Muslims? and us.

I don't hold any belief in Mecca at all. The only people who need to believe in Mecca are those who are desperate to justify going against the great reading in favor of their pagan shrines and rituals. If this makes a gap between us then be it. There is certainly a very wide gap between those going to heaven and those going to hell. So as long as I am on The God's side of the gap and not on some town's side, perhaps I will be saved by His mercy.

Peace,
Ayman

[wildguest1956]

Peace JM,

Peace Ayman

My goal is to show that your logic (claiming that the manuscripts and inscriptions sufficient to draw conclusions about Islamic history) does not work.

I never claimed that the manuscripts and inscriptions are sufficient to draw conclusions about Islamic history. History is merely the subjective point of view of a historian.

Are you going into reverse ?
You have claimed that the inscriptions and manuscripts we have today were enough to state that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

So I am only concerned with the great reading and things that we can verify as per 1736. The great reading doesn't promote spinning seven times around some stones and kissing and waving at them. What goes on in Mecca is against the very basic tenets of the great reading and against our God-given common sense. This should be enough for people who have faith in the great reading.

For people who don't really have faith in the great reading, this is not enough. Since they can't bring any evidence for their beloved stones from the great reading, they are the ones who bring up subjective history. So for those people I lowered the standard of evidence from the word of The God to physical archeological evidence. Physical evidence is any manuscripts and inscriptions that, unlike historical hearsay legends and pious fictional stories, can be verified and dated. Unfortunately for them, even using this lowered standard of evidence, there is no support for their illogical shrines and rituals and in fact the evidence further discredits them as purely pagan.

Why are you saying that to me ?
I am only slating you for your claim that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved since its revelation to Muhammad.

Please do not repeat this old and tired false analogy used by sectarians. This same exact line of argument that you are using to defend Mecca and its shrines the Sunnis use to defend their Hadiths. They attack the great reading and compare its preservation to those of Hadiths. They also say "using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved." There is a sign in this for you that hopefully you are not too arrogant to see.

That?s wrong.
When we say to a sunni that it is more easy to preserve the speech of someone when it is recorded immediately (or a few years) after his death than 3 centuries later, he cannot respond "using this logic, we cannot conclude that the Quran has been fully preserved.".

Read my earlier responses on this matter. The preservation of the great reading has nothing to do with inscriptions or manuscripts. If someone reads the great reading for the first time without knowing anything about the history or physical archeological evidence of this book, they will believe in it or reject it based solely on its contents.

We have Greek manuscripts of the Bible that predate the great reading. Does this mean that the Bible is preserved and conveys the truth? Of course not! We similarly have many manuscripts and inscriptions of religious texts of other ancient cultures such as ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc. The only thing that physical archeological evidence proves is that there were people who lived in this location at this time and who used this language and communicated this information. This has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the contents. The only thing that has bearing on the truth of the contents is the logic (or lack thereof) of the contents.

The point isn?t about the truthfulness of the Quran or his godly origin.
The point is about the quality of the preservation of the speech of Muhammad called AlQuran, and whether it can be proved it has been 100% preserved with physical evidences (inscriptions, manuscripts) or not.
Please stay in the topic.
And since physical evidences cannot prove it has been 100% preserved, you are obliged to acknowledge that physical evidences are not sufficient to prove anything about Islamic history.

Since the rituals that go on in Mecca are completely illogical, people have blind faith in them based only on subjective history. When we look at the physical evidence (which as I said can only be used to date the beginning of the town of Mecca and the shrines and rituals in it), what we find is that the shrines and rituals date back to pagan Nabataean times but Mecca only dates to the 8th century CE. This is exactly what one would expect as traditional Nabataean Arab pagan traditions are integrated with the new religion and reestablished in a new remote and secluded religious town much like what happened in Petra. The same thing happened to Christianity under Constantine. He united the empire by creating a state religion that combines paganism and Christianity.

The physical evidences about Mecca prove that this town existed in the 8th century.
But they don?t prove that this town were created at this moment.
They tell us nothing about the creation of Mecca.

See http//www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/quran1.html
Despite this, your belief is that it has been fully preserved. So, this proves that your logic may lead to wrong conclusions.

I explained in my last post why this is false.

There are many words we find in the quran that do not appear on the the pre-quranic inscriptions. Using your logic, we would conclude that these words did not exist, and have been fabricated by some conspirators.
This is the second proof that your logic (relying on inscriptions and manuscripts) may not lead to the right conclusion.

Even if all the words in the great reading were in pre-quranic inscriptions, this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the message. Had all those words conveyed illogical nonsensical ideas then them being present in manuscripts is irrelevant.

We actually see many examples of fabricated popular meanings of certain words in the great reading that when used convey an illogical message that is inconsistent with the rest of the book. When we see that using those meanings leads to falsehoods, we reexamine the word to try to get to a better meaning and in all cases that I have encountered, I found that the popular meaning (usually a meaningless proper name) was indeed fabricated.

You are out of the topic (See above).
Your logic is ?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) => No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later?.
Applied to Mecca, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later?.
Applied to a word in the quran (say X) we have no physical evidence of, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => X were fabricated later?.

Since you cannot contend that all the word of the Quran we have no physical evidence of have been created later, the immediate conclusion is that your logic is false.

?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) ? does not imply ?No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later ?.

Since this logic is false, your contention that there were ?No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later? because of ?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet)? is false too.

QED

I am OK to use manuscripts and inscriptions to study history. But we should be far more cautious as you are in drawing conclusions.

The study of manuscripts and inscriptions is part of the study of archeology NOT history. Those are two different areas.

Let?s look at the history of life? How many theories had been drawn based on some skeletons, and were later questioned by new ones?

Anthropology (not "history of life&quot is a good example. Applying your logic, we would conclude that women were created from a man's rib and that early humans were 80 meters tall.

This is wrong.
Your logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does imply no existence of this thing?.
My logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does not imply no existence of this thing?.

Let?s assume 5 years ago, Y was (with no physical evidence) alleging that hobbits (a species of hominids, about a meter tall and with a small brain size of 380cc), can have existed.

Using your logic, you would have contended that no such species could have ever existed.
Using my logic, I would have answered ?Perhaps, we don?t know?. I would have weighted the allegation of Y using current theories, and I may have concluded that his allegation had a likelihood of p% (0 < p <100) to be true.

In 2004, a skull were founded that corroborated the allegations of Y.
See http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html

So, using your logic, you were wrong, and, using my logic, I was right.
And your logic has been proved wrong at every new discovery ever made (see http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html).

And please do not assign to me beliefs I have never held. I don?t claim that women were created from a man's rib and that early humans were 80 meters tall.
Using my logic, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood.

This is what the majority of Sunnis believe and they claim that this is what The God told them through the prophet and it is supported by their history and Hadith. I hope that you are a logical person who is focused on the truth and don't believe such nonsense, otherwise there is really no point in continuing this discussion. If you are a logical person who is focused on the truth, you have to ask yourself "What would you tell to a Sunni about why you don't believe in their crap?"

Here is how you would respond to his/her extraordinary claims

1. The first extraordinary claim is that they say that this is what The God promoted to them. You will of course say "there is no mention of such things in the great reading".
2. They will of course respond that this is confirmed by history and Hadiths. Since obviously the great reading argument is not enough for them, now you have to lower the standard of evidence to archeological evidence. You then explain to them the fact that Hadiths haven't been created until long after the death of the prophet and the word Hadith as referring to "religious writings" is not even mentioned in epistles until about 150 years after the prophet's time and even then they are not mentioned in a good light but are described as fabrications. You will also tell them that there is a complete lack of physical evidence in the form of ancient bones and skeletons of 80 meters tall humans.
3. They will reply by saying "Your logic doesn't work. Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved."

Now let's apply the same logic to the extraordinary claims sectarians make about Mecca

1. The first extraordinary claim is that they say that the shrines and rituals in Mecca is what The God promoted to them. I of course say "there is no mention of such things in the great reading".
2. They will of course respond that this is confirmed by history and Hadiths. Since obviously the great reading argument is not enough for them, now I have to lower the standard of evidence to archeological evidence. I explain to them the same thing you explained above. I will also tell them that there is complete lack of physical evidence in the form of inscriptions, manuscripts, trade routes, monuments, etc. of an important pre-quranic town called Mecca.
3. They will reply by saying "Your logic doesn't work. Using this logic, we cannot conclude that the quran has been fully preserved."

It sounds familiar, doesn't it?

JM, you are making ALL the extraordinary claims. For example, you are the one making the extraordinary claim that The God told us to go to a place called Mecca to perform some illogical rituals despite the absence of such things in the great reading. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that an important and famous town that people FROM ALL RELIGIONS supposedly continuously made pilgrimages to from the time of Abraham is completely absent from any inscriptions and manuscripts prior to the mid 8th century CE.

Again, you are assigning to me beliefs I don?t hold.

Here is what I am saying

1. The physical evidences (manuscripts, inscriptions) cannot prove whether Mecca existed at the time of the prophet or not.
2. There are no evidences that Mecca has been fabricated later

So, the most probable scenario (given the evidences we have today) is that Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet.
And the one who is making the extraordinary claim is you.

Why do you not conclude that is inscription is not about the expedition of Abraha against Mecca, but about another, earlier, one ?

It is for the same reason we do not conclude that there are winged monkeys or 80 meter tall early humans. It is because there is no evidence of such things. Again, you are making extraordinary claims without providing any evidence.

Your comparison is not valid. I have explained my logic above.
Your logic is ?There were an expedition by Abraha in other towns that Mecca in 552 => there has been no expedition of Abraha to Mecca in 570. ?
But this logic is 100% faulty.

Would you claim that there were no war by the USA to Iraq in 2003 because there were one war against VietNam some years before ?

OK, there is no inscription to prove that there were really an expedition to Mecca in 570. But were all war expeditions of these times recorded in inscriptions?

[wildguest1956]

You and the sunnis claim that umm al qura refers to the town where the prophet lived.
But it is only speculation.
umm al qura may mean "the cradle of civilization", and so, refer to the entire region, isn?t it?

We clearly hear in the great reading that the prophet was sent to warn "umm al-qura" and what is around it. The word "qaryat" means town/urban settlement. I agree that "umm" has the implication of "cradle/origin" so "cradle of urban settlements" is indeed akin to "cradle of civilization". All archeologists will agree that the cradle of civilization is along Mesopotamia and NOT in Central Arabia. So you are actually negating your own arguments for Mecca.

OK, you are acknowledging that umm al qura does not necessarily refer to a town, and can refer to a region.
That?s enough for me.

In the same site, we can read The area around the spring, which was later converted to a well, became a resting place for caravans, and eventually grew into the trading city of Makkah, birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The geological survey team spoke the truth when they spoke about the geology of Zamzam (it is a deep well not a spring) in what I quoted (their subject matter expertise). What does Muhammed have to do with Geology? Clearly, in the part that you quoted, they are giving their subjective opinions as Sunnis not as Geologists. If you are not careful enough to read between the lines and know this then you might as well believe in winged-monkeys and 80 meter tall humans.

If the part of the article I have quoted is not reliable, then the entire article should be regarded as unreliable.
Anyway, do you know when was zam-zam discovered?

?Insistence on the adversary? is somewhat neutral.
Anyway, claiming that a name is not fitting for a place because of one of the meanings of the common noun is not very scientific. In France, there is a village called Anus (it is the same word in English), and another one is called Gland (in English, glans). I have already seen a street named ?rue de la guerre?? (street of war), and another one ?rue d?enfer? (street of hell). So, everything is possible.

By your logic everything is possible, including "winged-monkeys" and "80 meter tall humans".

You also forgot the other meanings of "being worn out"/"having everything sucked out". The name being non-flattering only further lowers what was already an extremely low probability of the existence of such town. The added fact that all the common noun meanings fit perfectly in the context of 4824 brings the probability down to zero (i.e., it becomes an impossibility).

For example, if I tell you "Les arm?es ce tu?es dans le rue de la guerre", you wouldn't understand it as the name of the street but as a common noun since it fits in the context.

Ayman, you cannot say that a town named Mecca is a fabrication because of the meanings of the common noun.
The link between the proper name of a place and the associated common noun is far from being evident.
See below an example of English place names

In fact all these names have original meanings that are not at all apparent from their modern forms. That is because most place-names today are what could be termed ?linguistic fossils?. Although they originated as living units of speech, coined by our distant ancestors as descriptions of places in terms and their topography, appearance, situation, use, ownership, or other association, most have become, in the course of time, mere labels, no longer possessing a clear linguistic meaning. This is perhaps not surprising when one considers that most place-names are a thousand years old or more, and are expressed in vocabulary that might have evolved differently from the equivalent words in the ordinary language, or that may now be completely extinct or obscure.
http//www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/name/placenames/?view=print

A question why did the corruptors of Islam not choose for their fabricated town the name Bacca ? Would it not have been better ?

Assuming Mecca was not the place where the prophet lived, you are unable to explain when the creed in Mecca did arose, and why we have no trace of any sect rejecting it.

There is no evidence of any sect rejecting the fairytale of 80 meter tall humans either. The burden is not on me to prove the non-existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca or the non-existence of past 80 meter tall humans or the non-existence of flying monkeys. The burden is on those who make extraordinary claims as I explained above.

The creed in Mecca didn't arise no more than Christmas arose out of the Vatican. It is simply a pre-existing pagan creed where the rituals and symbols were renamed to match common concepts in the great reading. So in the same way that a pagan holiday was renamed to "Christ-mas" to make it "Christ-ian", a pagan shrine was renamed to Kaaba and a pagan ritual was renamed to Hajj to make them Islamic.

Anyway, it shouldn't come as a surprise that sects don't reject falsehood given what the great reading tells us about sectarians.

The history of the fabrication of Christmas is well known and well documented.
But there is absolutely no evidence for the history of the fabrication of Mecca.

Not in French.

Ce n'est pas vrai. En Fran?ais quand on dit "la premi?re Citro?n est fabriqu? en France" et puis on dit "tu dois achet?e Citro?n" ca ne signifie pas que tu dois achet?e la premi?re Citro?n!

Your example is false because

1. Citro?n is a proper name ; you should have used a common name.
2. You have forgotten the definite article ?la? in "tu dois achet?e (la) Citro?n"

A sentence like "La premi?re voiture a ?t? fabriqu?e en France ; tu dois acheter la voiture. " is meaningless.

L'article d?fini s'emploie avec les noms qui d?signent une chose ou un ?tre d?j? connu (La voiture est accident?e. Il retourne ? la maison. La chaise du salon est bancale, etc.).
http//www.synapse-fr.com/manuels/ART_DEFI.htm

In English the definite article applies to something already known.
See also http//faculty.washington.edu/helenev/description/grammar/artdef.html

It is the same in the English language

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.
http//owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

?And in the Arabic language

The definite article in arabic is used to introduce and talk about a known subject. See the lesson about determination of nouns for detail.
http//www.mesiti.it/arabic/grammar/lessons/lesson2/definite_article.html

So, albayt in is very probably referring to the bayt defined in the preceding verse.

Are you unable to provide such an example from the quran ?

You can see a somewhat similar example where as far as I remember the descendents of Israel are told not to be the "first" rejecters of The God's message. Certainly, the passage still applies to the descendents of Israel even today despite them not being the first rejecters.

Could you please expatiate?

Do you have evidence that Petra was built from scratch?
Your account of history is like ?hey, as idolaters, we need to build a town? let?s go there to build one? Personally, I don?t think it worked like that?

Petra was certainly built from scratch as a purely religious town. There is no evidence that Petra was ever inhabited by actual people all year around. It has not houses, only temples. There is evidence of people making an annual pilgrimage there and living in temporary facilities such as tents but not houses. So if the Arabs did it before in the case of Petra, then why not again?

According to the following article, Petra were not a purely religious town
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra

Anyway?let?s assume that the prophet lived in Hira, and that, after his death, everyone reverted back to idolatry... Why would they not have built the holy temple there? Would it not have been far more easy than to go and build it from scratch in Mecca ?

Like Petra, the location of Mecca is remote and not easily accessible. Religious clergy prefer such places because it adds a sense of mystique and gives them more autonomy. Think about it, if you are going to gradually reinvigorate paganism then this is an ideal place.

Such a story is very hard to believe.

Do you really think these honorable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

That 4829, 598-9 and 864 talk about the companions of the prophet is a sectarian baseless assumption. There is nothing in 4829, 598-9 and 864 about the companions of the prophet. The few times the companions ("sahabat&quot of the prophet are mentioned, we are told that they thought the prophet is crazy (8122).

You are confusing those who have faith with the prophet with those that people later claimed to have been of the entourage of the prophet. For all we know, people like Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, and all those guys never met the prophet (if they even existed). Ali Ibn Abi Talib is referred to by external sources to Islam as "Abu Turab" not "Abu Talib". In fact, the only early independent documented description we have of Umar is from a Jewish Rabbi and it describes him as part of or at least highly sympathetic to the Zionist movement that is focused on rebuilding the Jewish temple at all costs.

I don?t agree.
It is evident that the verses I have quoted refer to the companions of the prophet. I do not know for sure their names, but I see no problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions.
Anyway, you have not answered my question Do you really think these honourable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

If I was one of the people who lived at the time of the prophet and is mentioned in the passages that you quote, why should I care if someone 100 years after my death builds a pagan shrine in the middle of the desert? Firstly, I am already dead. Secondly, there are many pagan shrines all over the world, if I go after each one and fight everyone who takes one then I would certainly be violating The God's commands against fighting innocent people who haven't attacked me.

When did the fabrication of mecca arise ?
10 years after the death of the prophet ? 50 years ? 100 years ? 200 years ?

Yet, what we can reasonably be sure about is that they fought each other (maybe for power).
Did it left time to them to make a temporary peace to conspire about the fabrication from scratch of a new town with an idolatrous temple (an the belief that the prophet lived there) ?
I am sorry I can?t believe that.

Christian sects who fought each other similarly agree on the lie about Jesus being the son of god. But I guess you can't believe that either so you might as well start defending this Christian belief.

This is not true
All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite
So, you have still not answered my question how did the sunni and the shia, who were fighting each other, manage to conspire together the fabrication from scratch of Mecca ?

This would have been too much easy.
Let?s imagine you had been among the companions of the prophet.
Would you not, after his death, have narrated many stories about him to your children and grandchildren?

No, I wouldn't. No more than I would narrate about Layth, Kyle, you or any of my companions here. However, I do convey the lessons learned. We have a perfect example in the great reading. Notice that 2133, the only thing that Jacob conveys to his descendents is not serving anyone other than The God. He doesn?t recount nostalgic stories about Abraham or the 40 best Hadiths that Abarham told him.

You are not an ordinary guy, brother Ayman.
Your description of what you would have done does not fit with your description of what people have actually done.

Do you really think that you, or your children, or your grandchildren would have believed in the story according to which, actually, the prophet had lived en Mecca (i.e. at many kilometers from Hira) even if the leaders say it is written in the quran ?

People believe all sorts of nonsensical things. If a modern person such as you who has access to far more resources and information than anyone a few centuries ago would have dreamed of believes in such things then what makes you think that a few centuries ago people were smarter and better than us?

Your explanation is not convincing to me.

In fact, it is natural that the following generations lose what they learned from The God's message (1959).

There are many ways this could have happened.
As an example, they could have progressively idolized Muhammad, depicting him with the characteristics of a hero of their times (ability to do physical miracles, great sexual power, etc?). Such an evolution is confirmed by the hadiths.

There is no obligation in the Quran to have faith in the existence of Mecca.

OK. This is good enough for me. Unfortunately, it is not good enough for sectarians.

But we should be more cautious in drawing conclusions about historical facts than you are, and we should not hold a belief only because it widens the gap between ?traditional Muslims? and us.

I don't hold any belief in Mecca at all. The only people who need to believe in Mecca are those who are desperate to justify going against the great reading in favor of their pagan shrines and rituals. If this makes a gap between us then be it. There is certainly a very wide gap between those going to heaven and those going to hell. So as long as I am on The God's side of the gap and not on some town's side, perhaps I will be saved by His mercy.

Peace,
Ayman

We are OK that there is no obligation to believe in the existence of Mecca qt the time of the prophet, but we should also be OK that there is no obligation to believe in its non-existence.
And there is no need to believe in the non-existence of Mecca to reject the rituals that are done today in Mecca in the name of Islam.
What you are failing to understand is that your baseless claim that Mecca did not exist globally discredits your stance.
This is saddening for the sunnis who won?t open their eyes to the truth because of that.

Peace

[ayman]

Peace JM,

Are you going into reverse ?
You have claimed that the inscriptions and manuscripts we have today were enough to state that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

You are confused about what I am saying because you don't seem to know the difference between history and archeology. Read my previous post again carefully to know the difference.

That?s wrong.
When we say to a sunni that it is more easy to preserve the speech of someone when it is recorded immediately (or a few years) after his death than 3 centuries later, he cannot respond "using this logic, we cannot conclude that the Quran has been fully preserved.".

If a Hadith is logical and doesn't have a chain of transmission then there is nothing wrong with accepting it as I would accept any good saying by you or anyone here.

The point isn?t about the truthfulness of the Quran or his godly origin.
The point is about the quality of the preservation of the speech of Muhammad called AlQuran, and whether it can be proved it has been 100% preserved with physical evidences (inscriptions, manuscripts) or not.
Please stay in the topic.
And since physical evidences cannot prove it has been 100% preserved, you are obliged to acknowledge that physical evidences are not sufficient to prove anything about Islamic history.

No the point IS about the truthfulness of the great reading and the fact that it is from The God. This is the criteria for its preservation since it is The God who preserved it NOT any concious human action.

The physical evidences about Mecca prove that this town existed in the 8th century.
But they don?t prove that this town were created at this moment.
They tell us nothing about the creation of Mecca.

The lack of evidence before that period tells us that it didn't exist before the 8th century. If the impossible happens and some other evidence comes up then we can reexamine this in the same way that we would reexamine that woman was created from a man's rib if the impossible happens and we find the skeleton of a man with a half formed woman attached to his rib cage. o

Your logic is ?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) => No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later?.
Applied to Mecca, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later?.
Applied to a word in the quran (say X) we have no physical evidence of, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => X were fabricated later?.
Since you cannot contend that all the word of the Quran we have no physical evidence of have been created later, the immediate conclusion is that your logic is false.
?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) ? does not imply ?No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later ?.
Since this logic is false, your contention that there were ?No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later? because of ?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet)? is false too.

?No physical evidence for the existence of 80 meter tall men since the advent of homosapiens => No existence of 80 meter tall homosapiens => this thing were fabricated later

Archeology and anthropology use the same scientific method of examining ancient things. The validation of the great reading is not based on examining ancient things. This is why my analogy is correct while your analogy is false and meaningless.

This is wrong.
Your logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does imply no existence of this thing?.
My logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does not imply no existence of this thing?.
Let?s assume 5 years ago, Y was (with no physical evidence) alleging that hobbits (a species of hominids, about a meter tall and with a small brain size of 380cc), can have existed.
Using your logic, you would have contended that no such species could have ever existed.
Using my logic, I would have answered ?Perhaps, we don?t know?. I would have weighted the allegation of Y using current theories, and I may have concluded that his allegation had a likelihood of p% (0 < p <100) to be true.
In 2004, a skull were founded that corroborated the allegations of Y.
See http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html
So, using your logic, you were wrong, and, using my logic, I was right.
And your logic has been proved wrong at every new discovery ever made (see http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html).
And please do not assign to me beliefs I have never held. I don?t claim that women were created from a man's rib and that early humans were 80 meters tall.
Using my logic, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood.

Believing in the existence of Mecca prior to the 8th century CE is currently exactly like believing in 80 meter tall early humans and believing that the oue ancestor woman was created from a man's rib. All those beliefs share the fact that they are completely baseless (i.e., there is ZERO evidence to support them).

As you said, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood. For example, if we find a skeleton of an 80 meter tall homosapien tomorrow then I will revise my view on this matter. Similarly, if we find archeological evidence for the existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca in Arabia then I will revise my view on this matter. Until then, the likelihood that a pre-quranic town named Mecca existed is the same as the likelihood of 80 meter tall humans. It is highly unlikely (for those who are not biased by their sectarian preconceptions).

Again, you are assigning to me beliefs I don?t hold.
Here is what I am saying

1. The physical evidences (manuscripts, inscriptions) cannot prove whether Mecca existed at the time of the prophet or not.
2. There are no evidences that Mecca has been fabricated later
   So, the most probable scenario (given the evidences we have today) is that Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet.
   And the one who is making the extraordinary claim is you.

Your extraordinary claim about Mecca is exactly like the extraordinary claim about woman being created from a man's rib. Your logic is exactly like the following

1. The physical evidences cannot prove whether woman was created from man's rib or not.
2. There are no evidences that woman being created from man's rib has been fabricated later.

In fact, unlike Mecca we do have evidence that this theory predates Hadiths and even the great reading because it can be found in the older Hebrew books.

Your logic is ?There were an expedition by Abraha in other towns that Mecca in 552 => there has been no expedition of Abraha to Mecca in 570. ?
But this logic is 100% faulty.
Would you claim that there were no war by the USA to Iraq in 2003 because there were one war against VietNam some years before ?
OK, there is no inscription to prove that there were really an expedition to Mecca in 570. But were all war expeditions of these times recorded in inscriptions?

This is like saying

OK, there is no skeleton to prove that there were really an 80 meter tall human. But were all 80 meter tall humans who lived at these times preserved as skeletons?

If you are going to have a logical scientific discussion then bring your evidence of your extraordinary claim of the existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca, otherwise you might as well believe in all the other extraordinary claims that sectarians make.

Peace,

Ayman

[progod]

Brother Ayman,

I agree with the end point of what you are saying but I do not think you are being fully honest or open minded with the way you get there. I do believe that makkat is a noun in the Quran, that means destruction in that context but that does not mean that people conspired to call a town that wasn't called Makkah, Makkah in order to give it credit through the Quran. The early early greek manuscripts mention a town called Macaroba, and this is easily a corruption of Makka. If you look at the names of cities from one language to another you will get all sorts of stuff. Constaninople and Istanbul, in Arabic, Sicily is Siqiliya in Arabic or how the heck is Greece, Yunaan in modern Arabic? Mithriam (Biblical) and Misr for Egypt. Egypt for a land that its people called Khemet? It actually comes from the corruption of a long name for a city Ht-Ki-Pth (hay-gip-Toh), "The Temple of Ptoh's Essence," to Aigyptos. It is the same as Westerners calling China, "China," after the original Qin dynasty emperor ("Tschina" in Indo-European). I grabbed this quote of the net about China.

"Misr" and "Mizraim" Semitic Corruptions

British Egyptologist E.A.W. Budge was one of the first to remark that "The name Mizraim may have been given Egypt (by foreigners) in respect of its double wall."
The name Misr is indeed a Semiticized form of Ancient Egyptian
Medjr = walled district
Medjre = tower, fortress
These Ancient Egyptian words became Meetsrayeem (Egypt) and Meetsree (Egyptian) in Hebrew, and in Arabic; Misr and Masri respectively

So I say all that to say that Macaroba is a very probably corruption of Makkat + some name that might sound somewhat like Roba.

So Ayman I agree with your end conclusion that Makkat is a noun in the Quran, but it could also have very well been the name of the city we know as Makkah even back then. The problem is that the Arabs of that time to put themselves on the map big time chose to prefer their city instead of what it was really saying.

As well, you say that it perfectly fits in this context as a noun but you don't talk about the case endings, which is what makes it dificult to understand the word as a noun. I know that you would rather reject all case endings which is not a fair or just method to go about it either, but following standard grammar rules for the language don't allow you to look at that word just as a common noun. So you have to deal with the grammar issue first instead of just ignoring it.

the "mistakes" in the Quran help us deal with this and knowing how old school Arabic uses and understands the nasb case or the case that transforms the last vowel of a word into an 'a' or an 'an'. The word used there is 'bi batni-makkata' and according to the grammarian rule it is makkata because it is a name and it will not take 'i'. But the grammarians didn't seem to understand the use of nasb in its true sense of accusative and that it actually is used for emphasis and that emphasic branches out into adverb, command and direct and indirect object. That that it can also over power the jarr, like in the evocatives. That explains the mistakes in the Quran and the difference between laa ilaahun illa allaah and la ilaaha illa allah. And 'an'= 'a' in old school arabic which explains the tajweez phenomena.

So your conclusion is right but you have not been very honest about how you got there. I hope you can see where I'm coming from and we can promotes this on a righteous level.

Godbless,
Anwar

[ayman]

Peace JM,

OK, you are acknowledging that umm al qura does not necessarily refer to a town, and can refer to a region.
That?s enough for me.

You obviously don't know what a settlement means. The word "qaryat" means an town/urban settlement (i.e., a place where PEOPLE settled TOGETHER). Thus, it can't be seperated by largely uninhabited areas as in the case of a region. This is why it means town.

If the part of the article I have quoted is not reliable, then the entire article should be regarded as unreliable.

No. The part where the geologists spoke from the point of view of geology NOT Sunnism is certainly reliable.

Anyway, do you know when was zam-zam discovered?

No. All we know is that it is a deep well. How about you, do you know when it is discovered?

Ayman, you cannot say that a town named Mecca is a fabrication because of the meanings of the common noun.
The link between the proper name of a place and the associated common noun is far from being evident.
See below an example of English place names
http//www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/name/placenames/?view=print
You are still confused. The earliest source for the word "mecca" is the great reading and in 4824 the common noun fits perfectly. So it cannot be the name of a place in 4824.

A question why did the corruptors of Islam not choose for their fabricated town the name Bacca ? Would it not have been better ?

Because the word "bacca" was already well known to the people of the book and they understood it symbolically and not as the name of place.

The history of the fabrication of Christmas is well known and well documented.
But there is absolutely no evidence for the history of the fabrication of Mecca.

The history of the fabrication of the Hajj festival that goes on in Mecca is as well known and well documented as the fabrication of Christmas. We have manuscripts describing both pagan rituals.

Your example is false because

1. Citro?n is a proper name ; you should have used a common name.
2. You have forgotten the definite article ?la? in "tu dois achet?e (la) Citro?n"
   A sentence like "La premi?re voiture a ?t? fabriqu?e en France ; tu dois acheter la voiture. " is meaningless.

L'article d?fini s'emploie avec les noms qui d?signent une chose ou un ?tre d?j? connu (La voiture est accident?e. Il retourne ? la maison. La chaise du salon est bancale, etc.).
http//www.synapse-fr.com/manuels/ART_DEFI.htm

In English the definite article applies to something already known.
See also http//faculty.washington.edu/helenev/description/grammar/artdef.html
It is the same in the English language

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.
http//owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

?And in the Arabic language

The definite article in arabic is used to introduce and talk about a known subject. See the lesson about determination of nouns for detail.
http//www.mesiti.it/arabic/grammar/lessons/lesson2/definite_article.html

So, albayt in is very probably referring to the bayt defined in the preceding verse.

The first house established for people is the one with competition ("bakka&quot blessed and a guidance for the worlds. In it are clear signs of the status/position of Abraham and whoever enters is was safe and to The God on the people is the debate of the house whoever can find a way to it.

It is definitely possible that "albayt" refers to the first house. However, here are the things that we know for sure

1. There is a second, third, fourth, etc... similar houses and thus it is also possible that the command refers to any subsequent house.
2. The people of the book understood "bakka" as symbolic.
3. If the first house is an actual physical building built during the time of Abraham that we are supposed to go to then this house is certainly destroyed or in ruins.

Could you please expatiate?

See 241 where the command applies to all of the descendants of Israel to this day and not only the first ones to reject the great reading.

According to the following article, Petra were not a purely religious town
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra

There is nothing there that says that it was not a purely religious city. You need to research this properly so that you can know what I am saying and not just look on Wikipedia. Even from the little info on Wikipedia, you can see that all they talk about as far as archeology are temples and tombs, not average people houses. So far, no one found any residential houses in Petra. They did find lots of broken utensils, cups, etc. in the ground layers but those were not within the walls of houses. Thus, many archeologists concluded that the people who left those things lived in temporary tents and not in built houses. This is in line with the annual pilgrimages for the festival of Dushara and Allat that was happening annually at Petra.

Such a story is very hard to believe.

It is as hard to believe as 80 meter tall humans never existed.

I don?t agree.
It is evident that the verses I have quoted refer to the companions of the prophet. I do not know for sure their names, but I see no problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions.
Anyway, you have not answered my question Do you really think these honourable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

I already explained the people called "sahabat" (companions) clearly based on the great reading. You are free to believe in it or not. I don't know who reverted to idolatry and who didn't. If they didn't then good for them.

When did the fabrication of mecca arise ?
10 years after the death of the prophet ? 50 years ? 100 years ? 200 years ?

Probably about a 100 years.

This is not true
All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite

Ebionites went extinct long time ago. Surprisingly, their last mention is by Arabs. So most likely, they just submitted to the lord of the universe and stopped calling themselves Ebionites. Similarly, those who would not go on a pagan pilgrimage to Mecca or acknowledge Mecca for anything are not going to be heard of because they didn't belong to any sect as per The God's commandment. We only hear about sects as you admit.

So, you have still not answered my question how did the sunni and the shia, who were fighting each other, manage to conspire together the fabrication from scratch of Mecca ?

In the same way that Sunni, shia and all the sects agree on the fabrication that there were 80 meter tall humans and woman was created from man's rib.

No, I wouldn't. No more than I would narrate about Layth, Kyle, you or any of my companions here. However, I do convey the lessons learned. We have a perfect example in the great reading. Notice that 2133, the only thing that Jacob conveys to his descendents is not serving anyone other than The God. He doesn?t recount nostalgic stories about Abraham or the 40 best Hadiths that Abarham told him.

You are not an ordinary guy, brother Ayman.
Your description of what you would have done does not fit with your description of what people have actually done.

It fits what those who have faith and take Abraham and Jacob as examples in their lives. As for the other people, it is not about them.

People believe all sorts of nonsensical things. If a modern person such as you who has access to far more resources and information than anyone a few centuries ago would have dreamed of believes in such things then what makes you think that a few centuries ago people were smarter and better than us?

Your explanation is not convincing to me.

This is fine by me.

In fact, it is natural that the following generations lose what they learned from The God's message (1959).

There are many ways this could have happened.
As an example, they could have progressively idolized Muhammad, depicting him with the characteristics of a hero of their times (ability to do physical miracles, great sexual power, etc?). Such an evolution is confirmed by the hadiths.

Why limit it to what you want?

We are OK that there is no obligation to believe in the existence of Mecca qt the time of the prophet, but we should also be OK that there is no obligation to believe in its non-existence.
And there is no need to believe in the non-existence of Mecca to reject the rituals that are done today in Mecca in the name of Islam.
What you are failing to understand is that your baseless claim that Mecca did not exist globally discredits your stance.
This is saddening for the sunnis who won?t open their eyes to the truth because of that.

People are free to believe in Mecca and Hadith. The problem is when they claim to do it because The God told them so in the great reading and then fail to provide evidence for both.

My stance has nothing to do with guiding people. Even the great reading can't guide those who are not already from the forethoughtful ("motaqin&quot. So if people don't already feel uncomfortable about having faith in a city and revering a bunch of stones then nothing can help them open their eyes to the truth. So please don't be saddened by what you have no control over. Instead focus on what you can control.

Peace,

Ayman

[ayman]

Peace brother Anwar,

I agree with the end point of what you are saying but I do not think you are being fully honest or open minded with the way you get there. I do believe that makkat is a noun in the Quran, that means destruction in that context but that does not mean that people conspired to call a town that wasn't called Makkah, Makkah in order to give it credit through the Quran. The early early greek manuscripts mention a town called Macaroba, and this is easily a corruption of Makka. If you look at the names of cities from one language to another you will get all sorts of stuff. Constaninople and Istanbul, in Arabic, Sicily is Siqiliya in Arabic or how the heck is Greece, Yunaan in modern Arabic? Mithriam (Biblical) and Misr for Egypt. Egypt for a land that its people called Khemet? It actually comes from the corruption of a long name for a city Ht-Ki-Pth (hay-gip-Toh), "The Temple of Ptoh's Essence," to Aigyptos. It is the same as Westerners calling China, "China," after the original Qin dynasty emperor ("Tschina" in Indo-European). I grabbed this quote of the net about China.

Just because the name of a town contains an M and a K doesn't mean that it is Mecca. The Ptolemies mapping of Arabia must be looked at as a whole and not just pick a name that sounds vaguely and remotely related to Mecca. Please see a summary of the Ptolemies' writings about the geography of Arabia here

http//religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htm

We agree that "mecca" is a common noun in the great reading because the meaning fits. This is what matters. Now for those who (unlike you) don't have faith in the great reading, this will not be enough so the lack of archeological evidence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca defeats what they deeply desire.

Peace,

Ayman

[progod]

Ayman,

This site is very biased and of course it tries to say that Muhammad, God bless him, was the one who tried to divert attention to Mecca. Now, first of all the conclusions of this site, they never mention Macaraba, is that there could have not been a Mecca before the 300's AD, or 4th century. Taking into account that Macaroba (Makkaroba) did exist and that it could have been Makkah the only thing that we can fairly assume is that Macca was no famous or religious city until at least after 300 AD. 200 years is enough if for a city to be settle along a trade route (arid doesn't mean fully uninhabitable and there is , even as you know a rainy season in Makkah. But that is not the issue.)

Just because the name of a town contains an M and a K doesn't mean that it is Mecca

Don't try to defend your point to the point of extremism like the Christians whose site you referred to. Makkaroba and Makka are close enough to make the association. Now Makka may not have been a city as famous as the Arabs make it out to be, that can be agreed upon. There could have been a shrine there, that is fine and the Arabs in that area could have made a pilgrimage to it. All that is fine. You should be trying to disprove the existence of Mecca or a shrine in it, because that is not the point. The point is that the best understanding of that passage, whether Muhammad (God bless him) had a battle in Makkat and was about to lose or not, is in the belly of destruction because it is a meaning that applies to all people and that is how we should try to understand the Quran.

Secondly, you did not deal with the issue of the case endings. If you are really trying to solve the problem here, be honest, don't try to win your way by with-holding important aspects of this problem, information and, trying to intimidate or project the power of your knowledge of Arabic to gain the prominent position intellectually without actually dealing with the intellectual issues. On top of that you get very agressive and it seems like you are just trying to win through brute force. That is intellectual dishonesty. This forum is not here to prove who has the strongest personality and can intellectually dominate others through aggressive and dishonest debating tactics. That is the problem with trying to make a virtue out of debate. Have you ever been on a debate team, have you ever seen that many times debating is just about who can manipulate the topics and dumbfound the other person, through slicker words or through provoking emotional responses that cloud one's logic. That is not discussion and problem solving which is 1000 times more valuable then any debate.

I hope you can deal with this issue in an honest way. I agree with some of what that Christian site said, but it was put there to undermine even the prophet Muhammad, and it didn't even mention Makkaroba (macaroba) which it seems you know about. Don't you agree with the following points, and tell me why you don't

1. Makka was a city that did exist in the time before Muhammad but that doesn't matter because when it comes to the Quran if Makkah is also a noun that makes universal sense in its context. It is up to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.

2. Makka was not a well known religious city like Muslims claim.

3. Makka might have had a shrine, and it might have been called a ka'bah but what does that mattter if the word
   has universal Arabic meaning. It is up to to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.

4. If Makkah wasn't famous up until the 300's AD, it is possible that it could have gained some more fame in 200 years, especially if those savage tribes united. But the fact that it was a temple that Abraham built is obvioulsy a lie, but even if he had built it , which seems false, he built alot of others too, according to the bible.

5. We should take the example of Abraham and build houses of God's, declare pilgrimage (hajj) to them, organize their activities according to the Quran, and maintain them as a centers of the community in their respective areas (making them accessible) where people during 4 of the months of the year have an opportunity to visit them and benefit spritually from visiting these places as well, as through establishing connections (arafaat) in these places. In my opinion arafaat includes, registering, introducing, recognizing and honoring each other for forming apart of Abraham's house, a place where God's signs and works are heard, and gathering in God's houses.

Our commitment to God is a personal deal . . . one on one with God. But for us to join and develop as a godly community we have to have a stage to come together, connect, communicate and grow. That is the point of the success of a community. The success of a community is based on organization, bunyaanun marsoosun, an organization that takes God's works and words as guidelines and that believes in growth and betterment, Zakaat. But there has to be a common ground and that common ground for this exchange is the pilgrimage.

Godbless,
Anwar

Godbless,
Anwar

[wildguest1956]

Peace JM,

Peace ayman,

Are you going into reverse ?
You have claimed that the inscriptions and manuscripts we have today were enough to state that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

You are confused about what I am saying because you don't seem to know the difference between history and archeology. Read my previous post again carefully to know the difference.

Could you elaborate?
I do not understand the relevancy of your response with respect to my remark.

That?s wrong.
When we say to a sunni that it is more easy to preserve the speech of someone when it is recorded immediately (or a few years) after his death than 3 centuries later, he cannot respond "using this logic, we cannot conclude that the Quran has been fully preserved.".

If a Hadith is logical and doesn't have a chain of transmission then there is nothing wrong with accepting it as I would accept any good saying by you or anyone here.

I do agree, but what is the pertinence of this comment relating to what I was stating?

The point isn?t about the truthfulness of the Quran or his godly origin.
The point is about the quality of the preservation of the speech of Muhammad called AlQuran, and whether it can be proved it has been 100% preserved with physical evidences (inscriptions, manuscripts) or not.
Please stay in the topic.
And since physical evidences cannot prove it has been 100% preserved, you are obliged to acknowledge that physical evidences are not sufficient to prove anything about Islamic history.

No the point IS about the truthfulness of the great reading and the fact that it is from The God. This is the criteria for its preservation since it is The God who preserved it NOT any concious human action.

Since you seem to be completely lost, I am going to remind you what is the matter at hand.

You are claiming that the physical evidences (manuscripts, inscriptions?) are enough to prove that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

So, I was trying to prove you that your conclusion is wrong, because physical evidences were not enough to establish that the Quran has been fully preserved.

Since the physical evidences cannot prove that the Quran has been fully preserved, your logic (according to which the physical evidences are enough to prove facts about Islamic history) is wrong, and therefore your conclusion that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet because of no physical evidences is wrong too.

The question is not whether the Quran has been fully preserved or not; it is about whether physical evidence is enough as a proof or not.

Are you getting my point?

The physical evidences about Mecca prove that this town existed in the 8th century.
But they don?t prove that this town were created at this moment.
They tell us nothing about the creation of Mecca.

The lack of evidence before that period tells us that it didn't exist before the 8th century. If the impossible happens and some other evidence comes up then we can reexamine this in the same way that we would reexamine that woman was created from a man's rib if the impossible happens and we find the skeleton of a man with a half formed woman attached to his rib cage. o

Ayman, your logic is blatantly faulty.

You have only proof of my existence since 2 years.

Does it mean that I were created in 2004 ?
Obviously not !

When was I created?
You don?t know it.
You can only estimate it by giving likelihood to the possible scenarios.
As I am able to write, there is reasonable likelihood that I am more than 10 (that I was created before 1996).
And, since I am a human being, you can conclude that there is 99% of likelihood that I am less than 100 years old (that I was created after 1906).

We can apply a similar logic to our case.

We have proof That Mecca was existing in the 8th century.

Was Mecca existing in the 7th century? We don?t know.
We have to ask an archeologist to estimate it. The archeologist may conclude that there is a likelihood of 80% that Mecca was existing at that time.

Was Mecca existing in the 6th century? Same logic?

Do you comprehend?

Your logic is ?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) => No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later?.
Applied to Mecca, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later?.
Applied to a word in the quran (say X) we have no physical evidence of, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => X were fabricated later?.
Since you cannot contend that all the word of the Quran we have no physical evidence of have been created later, the immediate conclusion is that your logic is false.
?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) ? does not imply ?No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later ?.
Since this logic is false, your contention that there were ?No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later? because of ?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet)? is false too.

?No physical evidence for the existence of 80 meter tall men since the advent of homosapiens => No existence of 80 meter tall homosapiens => this thing were fabricated later

Archeology and anthropology use the same scientific method of examining ancient things. The validation of the great reading is not based on examining ancient things. This is why my analogy is correct while your analogy is false and meaningless.

As I have explained you above, the point is not whether the Quran is truthful, the point is whether we can conclude it has been fully preserved or not, give the physical evidences.

This is wrong.
Your logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does imply no existence of this thing?.
My logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does not imply no existence of this thing?.
Let?s assume 5 years ago, Y was (with no physical evidence) alleging that hobbits (a species of hominids, about a meter tall and with a small brain size of 380cc), can have existed.
Using your logic, you would have contended that no such species could have ever existed.
Using my logic, I would have answered ?Perhaps, we don?t know?. I would have weighted the allegation of Y using current theories, and I may have concluded that his allegation had a likelihood of p% (0 < p <100) to be true.
In 2004, a skull were founded that corroborated the allegations of Y.
See http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html
So, using your logic, you were wrong, and, using my logic, I was right.
And your logic has been proved wrong at every new discovery ever made (see http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html).
And please do not assign to me beliefs I have never held. I don?t claim that women were created from a man's rib and that early humans were 80 meters tall.
Using my logic, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood.

Believing in the existence of Mecca prior to the 8th century CE is currently exactly like believing in 80 meter tall early humans and believing that the oue ancestor woman was created from a man's rib. All those beliefs share the fact that they are completely baseless (i.e., there is ZERO evidence to support them).

As you said, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood. For example, if we find a skeleton of an 80 meter tall homosapien tomorrow then I will revise my view on this matter. Similarly, if we find archeological evidence for the existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca in Arabia then I will revise my view on this matter. Until then, the likelihood that a pre-quranic town named Mecca existed is the same as the likelihood of 80 meter tall humans. It is highly unlikely (for those who are not biased by their sectarian preconceptions).

No, Ayman, you are wrong again.

Let?s assume we are back in year 2000.

Allegation 1 80 meters tall human (giants) have existed.
Allegation 2 1 meter tall hominids with a small brain size of 380cc (hobbits) have existed.

With your faulty logic, you would have falsely stated that ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does imply no existence of this thing?. You would have been proved wrong in 2004, when the evidence of the existence of the hobbits was discovered.

In 2000, a scientist could have said the same thing about these 2 allegations ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does not imply no existence of this thing. These allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood ?.
Since the hominids that have been discovered were generally small, the probability of the existence of the hobbits could have been estimated to 60%.
And since no big hominid was ever discovered, this scientist could have stated that the probability of the existence of the giants were near to 0%.

What I am aiming to show you is that 2 unproven allegations do not necessary have no probability of been true.

I agree with you that the probability of the existence of giants is nearly 0. But this does not imply that the probability of any unproven allegation is 0 too.

The fact that the probability of existence of the giants is nearly 0 does not imply that the probability of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet is 0. These 2 allegations are independent.

Hope I have been clear.

Again, you are assigning to me beliefs I don?t hold.
Here is what I am saying

1. The physical evidences (manuscripts, inscriptions) cannot prove whether Mecca existed at the time of the prophet or not.
2. There are no evidences that Mecca has been fabricated later
   So, the most probable scenario (given the evidences we have today) is that Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet.
   And the one who is making the extraordinary claim is you.

Your extraordinary claim about Mecca is exactly like the extraordinary claim about woman being created from a man's rib. Your logic is exactly like the following

1. The physical evidences cannot prove whether woman was created from man's rib or not.
2. There are no evidences that woman being created from man's rib has been fabricated later.

In fact, unlike Mecca we do have evidence that this theory predates Hadiths and even the great reading because it can be found in the older Hebrew books.

When it comes to weight the allegation that women was created from man?s rib using current scientifically theories, the fact that this allegation can be found in the older Hebrew books is totally irrelevant.

Your logic is ?There were an expedition by Abraha in other towns that Mecca in 552 => there has been no expedition of Abraha to Mecca in 570. ?
But this logic is 100% faulty.
Would you claim that there were no war by the USA to Iraq in 2003 because there were one war against VietNam some years before ?
OK, there is no inscription to prove that there were really an expedition to Mecca in 570. But were all war expeditions of these times recorded in inscriptions?

This is like saying

OK, there is no skeleton to prove that there were really an 80 meter tall human. But were all 80 meter tall humans who lived at these times preserved as skeletons?

Again, you are using bad logic.

This would rather be like saying

OK, there is no skeleton to prove that there were really an 80 meter tall human. But were all 80 meter tall humans who lived at these times preserved as skeletons?

The scientists know that all skeletons have not been preserved, and they are able to take it into account to estimate the probability that these giants have existed.

If you are going to have a logical scientific discussion then bring your evidence of your extraordinary claim of the existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca, otherwise you might as well believe in all the other extraordinary claims that sectarians make.

Ayman,
I am only stating that, given physical evidences, Mecca is not unlikely to have been existing at the time of the prophet.

Again, you are using wrong logic.

You have used against me (at least) 3 logical fallacies

1. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php

You are using this logical fallacy when you are claiming that, given Mecca has not been proven to exist at the time of the prophet, it did not exist.

2. False Analogy

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php

You are using this logical fallacy when you claim that, because the allegation that giants have existed is very likely to be false, the allegation that Mecca have existed shall be false too.

3. straw man

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php

You are using this logical fallacy when you are asking me to bring physical evidences that Mecca has existed at the time of the prophet whereas I have only stated that (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

So, if, like me, you are willing to have a logical scientific discussion, you should avoid arguing with logical fallacies.

[wildguest1956]

OK, you are acknowledging that umm al qura does not necessarily refer to a town, and can refer to a region.
That?s enough for me.

You obviously don't know what a settlement means. The word "qaryat" means an town/urban settlement (i.e., a place where PEOPLE settled TOGETHER). Thus, it can't be seperated by largely uninhabited areas as in the case of a region. This is why it means town.

In your previous post, you have stated that umm al qura could refer to Mesopotamia, which is a region.
Have you already changed your mind?

If the part of the article I have quoted is not reliable, then the entire article should be regarded as unreliable.

No. The part where the geologists spoke from the point of view of geology NOT Sunnism is certainly reliable.

Anyway, do you know when was zam-zam discovered?

No. All we know is that it is a deep well. How about you, do you know when it is discovered?

No, I don?t.
ZamZam is mentioned in some hadith, so we can think that it was known when the hadith were written.
Since such edible water (be it from a spring or a well) was of great value in the desert, it should have attracted people and made them settle in Mecca since it has been discovered.
Therefore, knowing the true story of ZamZam can help for knowing the true story of Mecca.

Ayman, you cannot say that a town named Mecca is a fabrication because of the meanings of the common noun.
The link between the proper name of a place and the associated common noun is far from being evident.
See below an example of English place names
http//www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/name/placenames/?view=print
You are still confused. The earliest source for the word "mecca" is the great reading and in 4824 the common noun fits perfectly. So it cannot be the name of a place in 4824.

You are not responding to my point.

A question why did the corruptors of Islam not choose for their fabricated town the name Bacca ? Would it not have been better ?

Because the word "bacca" was already well known to the people of the book and they understood it symbolically and not as the name of place.

Really?
What is your proof for that ?

The history of the fabrication of Christmas is well known and well documented.
But there is absolutely no evidence for the history of the fabrication of Mecca.

The history of the fabrication of the Hajj festival that goes on in Mecca is as well known and well documented as the fabrication of Christmas. We have manuscripts describing both pagan rituals.

We may have manuscripts describing the pagans rituals, but we have nothing to assert that the town Mecca has been fabricated after the death of the prophet.

Your example is false because

1. Citro?n is a proper name ; you should have used a common name.
2. You have forgotten the definite article ?la? in "tu dois achet?e (la) Citro?n"
   A sentence like "La premi?re voiture a ?t? fabriqu?e en France ; tu dois acheter la voiture. " is meaningless.

L'article d?fini s'emploie avec les noms qui d?signent une chose ou un ?tre d?j? connu (La voiture est accident?e. Il retourne ? la maison. La chaise du salon est bancale, etc.).
http//www.synapse-fr.com/manuels/ART_DEFI.htm

In English the definite article applies to something already known.
See also http//faculty.washington.edu/helenev/description/grammar/artdef.html
It is the same in the English language

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.
http//owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

?And in the Arabic language

The definite article in arabic is used to introduce and talk about a known subject. See the lesson about determination of nouns for detail.
http//www.mesiti.it/arabic/grammar/lessons/lesson2/definite_article.html

So, albayt in is very probably referring to the bayt defined in the preceding verse.

The first house established for people is the one with competition ("bakka&quot blessed and a guidance for the worlds. In it are clear signs of the status/position of Abraham and whoever enters is was safe and to The God on the people is the debate of the house whoever can find a way to it.

It is definitely possible that "albayt" refers to the first house. However, here are the things that we know for sure

1. There is a second, third, fourth, etc... similar houses and thus it is also possible that the command refers to any subsequent house.
2. The people of the book understood "bakka" as symbolic.
3. If the first house is an actual physical building built during the time of Abraham that we are supposed to go to then this house is certainly destroyed or in ruins.

Could you expatiate the points (1) and (2) ? What does ?the house with competition? mean ?

Could you please expatiate?

See 241 where the command applies to all of the descendants of Israel to this day and not only the first ones to reject the great reading.

There is no possible analogy between verse and .
The problem in is that the definite article al in albayt implies that the bayt should be specified.

According to the following article, Petra were not a purely religious town
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra

There is nothing there that says that it was not a purely religious city. You need to research this properly so that you can know what I am saying and not just look on Wikipedia. Even from the little info on Wikipedia, you can see that all they talk about as far as archeology are temples and tombs, not average people houses. So far, no one found any residential houses in Petra. They did find lots of broken utensils, cups, etc. in the ground layers but those were not within the walls of houses. Thus, many archeologists concluded that the people who left those things lived in temporary tents and not in built houses. This is in line with the annual pilgrimages for the festival of Dushara and Allat that was happening annually at Petra.

I have done some research on Petra, and I have found no indication that Petra had been created from scratch for only religious purposes.

Archaeological excavations have revealed a rock shelter of the Upper Paleolithic period, dating to around 10,000 BC, and a Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC.
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/jordan/petra_ruins.htm

So, there have been habitations in Petra.

I don?t agree.
It is evident that the verses I have quoted refer to the companions of the prophet. I do not know for sure their names, but I see no problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions.
Anyway, you have not answered my question Do you really think these honourable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

I already explained the people called "sahabat" (companions) clearly based on the great reading. You are free to believe in it or not. I don't know who reverted to idolatry and who didn't. If they didn't then good for them.

What is the problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions?

When did the fabrication of mecca arise ?
10 years after the death of the prophet ? 50 years ? 100 years ? 200 years ?

Probably about a 100 years.

Who did it ? The Umayyad or the Abbasids ?

What is the place for your theory in the official Islamic history ?
http//www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/umayyads.htm
http//www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/abbasids.htm

This is not true
All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite

Ebionites went extinct long time ago. Surprisingly, their last mention is by Arabs. So most likely, they just submitted to the lord of the universe and stopped calling themselves Ebionites. Similarly, those who would not go on a pagan pilgrimage to Mecca or acknowledge Mecca for anything are not going to be heard of because they didn't belong to any sect as per The God's commandment. We only hear about sects as you admit.

What should they have done, as per Gods commandment?
Should they have let the sectarians corrupt God?s message without reacting?

So, you have still not answered my question how did the sunni and the shia, who were fighting each other, manage to conspire together the fabrication from scratch of Mecca ?

In the same way that Sunni, shia and all the sects agree on the fabrication that there were 80 meter tall humans and woman was created from man's rib.

It is far more easy to agree on some unverifiable claims about the history of life that on the fabrication from scratch of a new town and the lie that the prophet have lived in this town.

In fact, it is natural that the following generations lose what they learned from The God's message (1959).

There are many ways this could have happened.
As an example, they could have progressively idolized Muhammad, depicting him with the characteristics of a hero of their times (ability to do physical miracles, great sexual power, etc?). Such an evolution is confirmed by the hadiths.

Why limit it to what you want?

The fact that the following generations lose what they have learnt from God?s message does not imply that Mecca has been fabricated around 1 century after the death of the prophet.

We are OK that there is no obligation to believe in the existence of Mecca qt the time of the prophet, but we should also be OK that there is no obligation to believe in its non-existence.
And there is no need to believe in the non-existence of Mecca to reject the rituals that are done today in Mecca in the name of Islam.
What you are failing to understand is that your baseless claim that Mecca did not exist globally discredits your stance.
This is saddening for the sunnis who won?t open their eyes to the truth because of that.

People are free to believe in Mecca and Hadith. The problem is when they claim to do it because The God told them so in the great reading and then fail to provide evidence for both.

My stance has nothing to do with guiding people. Even the great reading can't guide those who are not already from the forethoughtful ("motaqin&quot. So if people don't already feel uncomfortable about having faith in a city and revering a bunch of stones then nothing can help them open their eyes to the truth. So please don't be saddened by what you have no control over. Instead focus on what you can control.

Peace,

Ayman

What your are failing to understand is that your illogical and baseless claim that Mecca did not exists at the time of the prophet is discrediting your whole stance.

Peace

[ayman]

Peace JM,

1. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
   Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)
   http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php
   You are using this logical fallacy when you are claiming that, given Mecca has not been proven to exist at the time of the prophet, it did not exist.

Since you are bringing this fallacy up, you are implicitly admitting that there is zero proof for the existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca. This is all that needed to be admitted. The entire raison d'etre of Mecca is to serve as a religious place that people believe in as true. Mecca gets its significance from misplaced claims to the truth. Therefore, all that was needed to prove it false is the fact that there is ZERO proof that Mecca existed prior to the 8th century CE (WHICH YOU JUST ADMITTED).

How many people will spend thousands of dollars on a pilgrimage to Mecca if the Saudi government and all the Islamic authorities announce the INDISPUTABLE fact that YOU ADMITTED. "Hey everyone, despite all our ramblings for the last thirteen centuries, a pre-quranic town named Mecca is actually not proved true!" Hardly anyone will go there and the Saudi tourist industry that sells tickets to heaven will suffer. The only reason sectarians die to go is that they are told "Mecca is the truth".

The people who have been desperately trying to find any straw to hang to so that they prove the existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca are not stupid. They know that by laying claim to the truth, the fact that pre-quranic Mecca has not been proven true (AS YOU IMPLICITLY ADMIT) proves them false and this logical fallacy is completely irrelevant to their claims. Therefore, they will hang desperately at straws such as Macoraba because they know that there is no proof of Mecca.

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on? It seems that you just want to be like sectarians. This is all. My sincere advice is to try to approach this from a neutral point of view that doesn't presume any significance to Mecca.

2. False Analogy
   In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
   http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php
   You are using this logical fallacy when you claim that, because the allegation that giants have existed is very likely to be false, the allegation that Mecca have existed shall be false too.

Both claims about the giants and Mecca are made by the same people and both claims are unproven by physical evidence either from anthropology or archeology. It is a good analogy.

3. straw man
   The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
   http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php
   You are using this logical fallacy when you are asking me to bring physical evidences that Mecca has existed at the time of the prophet whereas I have only stated that (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

This is just babbling nonsense.

You are saying that your best argument is (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

But then when I ask you to bring those given physical evidences that Mecca is likely to have existed, you don't provide anything. Instead you provide this gibberish about me building a straw man for asking you for the very same thing that you claim to be "given".

It sounds like you invented some new logical fallacies. Perhaps when you are able to think logically and not be blinded by your emotional attachment to Mecca you can look back at this discussion and give them appropriate names like "argumentum ad confusedIam" and "argumentum ad desperateIam".

As for the rest of this post and the next one, I will not repeat what I already made clear in previous posts. Let me just give a statement that exemplify the kind of faulty logic you use

Archaeological excavations have revealed a rock shelter of the Upper Paleolithic period, dating to around 10,000 BC, and a Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC.
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/jordan/petra_ruins.htm
So, there have been habitations in Petra.

This demonstrates your confusion about archeology and how one can interpret archeological findings. I was talking about the Nabataean establishing Petra as a religious town. Clearly 10,000-7,000 BC predates the Nabataean by thousands of years. Let me repeat it slowly, there is no evidence of average people houses in Nabataean Petra.

I suggest that you try to gain more knowledge and do some real unbiased research before making hasty silly comments such as the above.

What your are failing to understand is that your illogical and baseless claim that Mecca did not exists at the time of the prophet is discrediting your whole stance.

Thanks for the heartwarming concern but somehow I get the sense that your motivation is not that you are worried about poor me getting discredited. Besides, I don't worry about it or even mind it if its serves the truth so why should anyone else?

Peace,

Ayman

[ayman]

Peace Anwar,

This site is very biased and of course it tries to say that Muhammad, God bless him, was the one who tried to divert attention to Mecca. Now, first of all the conclusions of this site, they never mention Macaraba, is that there could have not been a Mecca before the 300's AD, or 4th century.

All I said is that the article provides a good summary of the Ptolemies, Greeks, Romans, etc. writings on the geography of Arabia and the relative locations of various ancient regions and towns. A careful reader would only take that part and disregard the author's baseless commentaries on religious matters. Also, Ptolemy's information on Macoraba is given near the end of the article.

Taking into account that Macaroba (Makkaroba) did exist and that it could have been Makkah the only thing that we can fairly assume is that Macca was no famous or religious city until at least after 300 AD. 200 years is enough if for a city to be settle along a trade route (arid doesn't mean fully uninhabitable and there is , even as you know a rainy season in Makkah. But that is not the issue.)

Where was this Macoraba, Macaroba, Makkaroba, etc.? Do you even know how to spell it? It is sad to watch you readjust the spelling haphazardly to force it to match (in English, I might add) with your spelling of "Makkah/Makka/etc". I think that you ought to pause for a moment of honest self reflection and step back to see things from the point of a neutral observer.

From the available evidence, we know that Macoraba was somewhere in Arabia other than the location of present day Mecca. The classical geographers who described the area of present day Mecca said that the area was uninhabited. In fact, Ptolemy places Macoraba at approximately 73 East longitude and Yathrib at 71 East longitude. In terms of latitude, Ptolemy places it south of Carna in Southern Arabia. Present day Mecca on the other hand is West of Yathrib and North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy himself, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was somewhere in Southern Arabia hundreds of miles away to the southeast of Mecca. A likely candidate is a port city called Mochorba on the Hadramawt shore in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny). Moreover, there is no evidence that the location of present day Mecca fell on any trade route so you can add this to your other conjectures.

Also, what did you base the 300CE date on? If you are going to throw dates around, then you had better come up with some kind of basis. The author of the article gave the 300-400 CE date because despite all his religious ramblings, he actually believes sectarian fictional stories that talk about the Jahiliya period. In reality we find that there is no reference to Mecca before the 8th century AD, long after the death of the prophet. However, stating this fact would rob the author of a chance to attack "Mohamed" as a liar. Ironically, you have no problem falling into his trap and accepting his dating of the creation of Mecca and thus implicitly supporting his biased view.

Quote
Just because the name of a town contains an M and a K doesn't mean that it is Mecca

Don't try to defend your point to the point of extremism like the Christians whose site you referred to. Makkaroba and Makka are close enough to make the association.

This is what you desire to be true but you know very well that it is not the truth. Anwar, I am not intimidated easily by this sort of appeal to emotions that doesn't deal intellectually with the issues.

If it was JM or any other participant in this thread who is linguistically less knowledgeable than you then such blunders would have been understandable. You know very well that if one examines the closeness of the words "Macoraba, Macaroba, Makkaroba" (or however haphazard way you want to denote it in English) and "Mecca, Makka" or whatever, then the English comparison is completely useless. In order to compare in terms of closeness, we need to examine the words as they would have been originally written in Arabic. When we do this, we see that in Arabic the Kaf, Raa, and Baa are in fact the strong consonants that form the root. On the other hand, the Mim and presumably a final Taa Marbuta would have been weak letters that are added to the root. So the root would be KRB and this is completely different from the root MKK from which the town name Makka is derived. So linguistically there is no basis for your conjecture except your personal bias.

I am not sure about the reason of your personal bias. I know that you don't care much for present day Mecca so maybe it is just that you like to disagree with me on some things. I don't mind but please don't get carried away and forget about the truth that unites us.

Now Makka may not have been a city as famous as the Arabs make it out to be, that can be agreed upon. There could have been a shrine there, that is fine and the Arabs in that area could have made a pilgrimage to it. All that is fine. You should be trying to disprove the existence of Mecca or a shrine in it, because that is not the point. The point is that the best understanding of that passage, whether Muhammad (God bless him) had a battle in Makkat and was about to lose or not, is in the belly of destruction because it is a meaning that applies to all people and that is how we should try to understand the Quran.

I agree with the underlined part. For those who have faith in the great reading, the fact that the common noun fits in the passage is enough proof that present day Mecca is a fraud. I only raise the fact of the complete lack of evidence for a pre-quranic town called Mecca when people for whom the above is not enough claim that a pre-quranic so-called Mecca "historically" existed.

Secondly, you did not deal with the issue of the case endings.

The argument on case endings is moot since given the evidence there were no case endings in the great reading and even the significance of the later added case endings is sometimes doubtful (as you know well). In fact, even people who argue for case endings admit that they carry very low functional load and the proper meaning can be figured out from the context. Anwar, you know very well that I dealt many times with this "case endings" issue. In fact, you and I had many discussions about this and you never can bring a single piece of evidence to show that they are necessary. Just do a search on the forum.

If you are really trying to solve the problem here, be honest, don't try to win your way by with-holding important aspects of this problem, information and, trying to intimidate or project the power of your knowledge of Arabic to gain the prominent position intellectually without actually dealing with the intellectual issues. On top of that you get very agressive and it seems like you are just trying to win through brute force. That is intellectual dishonesty. This forum is not here to prove who has the strongest personality and can intellectually dominate others through aggressive and dishonest debating tactics. That is the problem with trying to make a virtue out of debate. Have you ever been on a debate team, have you ever seen that many times debating is just about who can manipulate the topics and dumbfound the other person, through slicker words or through provoking emotional responses that cloud one's logic. That is not discussion and problem solving which is 1000 times more valuable then any debate.

I am glad that you brought this up. Here is a statement that perfectly exemplifies the intimidating "provocation of emotional responses without actually dealing with the intellectual issues"

"Don't try to defend your point to the point of extremism like the Christians whose site you referred to. Makkaroba and Makka are close enough to make the association."

Notice how it appeals to the emotions of the readers of this forum (for whom "extremism" and "Christians" carry negative connotation). On the other hand, it did not provide any intellectually honest argument for "Makkaroba and Makka" being "close enough". I don't think that subtly playing on the English spelling counts as an intellectually honest argument.

I hope you can deal with this issue in an honest way. I agree with some of what that Christian site said, but it was put there to undermine even the prophet Muhammad, and it didn't even mention Makkaroba (macaroba) which it seems you know about.

As I said above, one can agree with what the ancient geographers said without agreeing with the views of the author who collected their surveys.

Don't you agree with the following points, and tell me why you don't

1. Makka was a city that did exist in the time before Muhammad but that doesn't matter because when it comes to the Quran if Makkah is also a noun that makes universal sense in its context. It is up to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.

I don't agree. There is no evidence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca or Mekka in Arabia.

I do agree that it is up to the intelligent to see the truth of the common noun and this is enough for those who have faith in the great reading. On the other hand, those who promote the historicity of Mecca do it based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

2. Makka was not a well known religious city like Muslims claim.

Makka was not known period (religiously or otherwise).

3. Makka might have had a shrine, and it might have been called a ka'bah but what does that mattter if the word has universal Arabic meaning. It is up to to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.

This is conjecture based on conjecture. The only sensible thing you said and I agree with is the universal common Arabic meaning that the intelligent person will see as the truth. If you really believe that this is what matters then why do you go to extraordinary lengths in making up all those conjectures and trying to force wishful linguistic associations.

4. If Makkah wasn't famous up until the 300's AD, it is possible that it could have gained some more fame in 200 years, especially if those savage tribes united. But the fact that it was a temple that Abraham built is obvioulsy a lie, but even if he had built it , which seems false, he built alot of others too, according to the bible.

You are blindly copying the dating from the author. The author conjured up this date to make it look as if "Mohamed" invented Mecca and not the post-quranic sectarians who lived 100 years after the prophet.

5. We should take the example of Abraham and build houses of God's, declare pilgrimage (hajj) to them, organize their activities according to the Quran, and maintain them as a centers of the community in their respective areas (making them accessible) where people during 4 of the months of the year have an opportunity to visit them and benefit spritually from visiting these places as well, as through establishing connections (arafaat) in these places. In my opinion arafaat includes, registering, introducing, recognizing and honoring each other for forming apart of Abraham's house, a place where God's signs and works are heard, and gathering in God's houses.
   Our commitment to God is a personal deal . . . one on one with God. But for us to join and develop as a godly community we have to have a stage to come together, connect, communicate and grow. That is the point of the success of a community. The success of a community is based on organization, bunyaanun marsoosun, an organization that takes God's works and words as guidelines and that believes in growth and betterment, Zakaat. But there has to be a common ground and that common ground for this exchange is the pilgrimage.

The community centers are a good idea that should be done all year around since "community" is all year round. But "hajj" is not about your community. It is about inviting all people, including those from other communities who may not believe as you do or may not even believe at all. This can only be accomplished through something that can be non-discriminatory and beneficial to everyone. The only places where you will find people from all over and from different religions getting together peacefully are markets. No one can argue otherwise.

Peace,

Ayman

PS I don't think that you take Jesus as your lord so you really ought to use CE, Common Era, instead of AD, Anno Domini, which means "year of our lord (Jesus)". This is of course unless you happen to be a teacher in Kentucky where a Christian school board Demotheocracy recently made it law to use AD in teaching. D

[savage_carrot]

Peace all,

Just wanted to thank bro Ayman for this quote below

You know very well that if one examines the closeness of the words "Macoraba, Macaroba, Makkaroba" (or however haphazard way you want to denote it in English) and "Mecca, Makka" or whatever, then the English comparison is completely useless. In order to compare in terms of closeness, we need to examine the words as they would have been originally written in Arabic. When we do this, we see that in Arabic the Kaf, Raa, and Baa are in fact the strong consonants that form the root. On the other hand, the Mim and presumably a final Taa Marbuta would have been weak letters that are added to the root. So the root would be KRB and this is completely different from the root MKK from which the town name Makka is derived.

I'm learning a lot from this excellent thread )

[wildguest1956]

Peace JM,

Peace Ayman,

1. Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
   Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)
   http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php
   You are using this logical fallacy when you are claiming that, given Mecca has not been proven to exist at the time of the prophet, it did not exist.

Since you are bringing this fallacy up, you are implicitly admitting that there is zero proof for the existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca.

Yes, given physical evidences, there is zero proof of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet, as well as there is zero proof of its nonexistence.

The physical evidences we have today are not sufficient to conclude anything about its existence at the time of the prophet.

How many people will spend thousands of dollars on a pilgrimage to Mecca if the Saudi government and all the Islamic authorities announce the INDISPUTABLE fact that YOU ADMITTED. "Hey everyone, despite all our ramblings for the last thirteen centuries, a pre-quranic town named Mecca is actually not proved true!" Hardly anyone will go there and the Saudi tourist industry that sells tickets to heaven will suffer. The only reason sectarians die to go is that they are told "Mecca is the truth".

Ayman, I am not intimidated easily by this sort of appeal to emotions that doesn't deal intellectually with the issues.

An appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure

• Favorable emotions are associated with x (or unfavorable emotions with not x).
• Therefore, x is true.
  http//www.esgs.org/uk/log14.htm

My sincere advice is to try to approach this from a neutral point of view, pushing aside your negative bias against the Saudis.

2. False Analogy
   In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
   http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php
   You are using this logical fallacy when you claim that, because the allegation that giants have existed is very likely to be false, the allegation that Mecca have existed shall be false too.

Both claims about the giants and Mecca are made by the same people and both claims are unproven by physical evidence either from anthropology or archeology. It is a good analogy.

When it comes to scientifically assessing an allegation, the issue of who said it is irrelevant.

This kind of fallacy is called argumentum ad hominem

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.
   http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

3. straw man
   The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
   http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php
   You are using this logical fallacy when you are asking me to bring physical evidences that Mecca has existed at the time of the prophet whereas I have only stated that (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

This is just babbling nonsense.

You are saying that your best argument is (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

But then when I ask you to bring those given physical evidences that Mecca is likely to have existed, you don't provide anything. Instead you provide this gibberish about me building a straw man for asking you for the very same thing that you claim to be "given".

You have requested me an evidence of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet.
But I was not claiming that (given physical evidence) Mecca was 100% sure to be existing at that time.
Hence the straw man.

It sounds like you invented some new logical fallacies. Perhaps when you are able to think logically and not be blinded by your emotional attachment to Mecca you can look back at this discussion and give them appropriate names like "argumentum ad confusedIam" and "argumentum ad desperateIam".

This kind of fallacy is a subtype of argumentum ad hominem

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial

As for the rest of this post and the next one, I will not repeat what I already made clear in previous posts.

I understand it would be difficult to your ego to acknowledge your claims have been proven baseless.

Let me just give a statement that exemplify the kind of faulty logic you use

Archaeological excavations have revealed a rock shelter of the Upper Paleolithic period, dating to around 10,000 BC, and a Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC.
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/jordan/petra_ruins.htm
So, there have been habitations in Petra.

This demonstrates your confusion about archeology and how one can interpret archeological findings. I was talking about the Nabataean establishing Petra as a religious town. Clearly 10,000-7,000 BC predates the Nabataean by thousands of years. Let me repeat it slowly, there is no evidence of average people houses in Nabataean Petra.

I suggest that you try to gain more knowledge and do some real unbiased research before making hasty silly comments such as the above.

Is it the only question of mine you are able to respond something to ?

Anyway, I suggest that you expose as precisely as possible what you are claiming about Petra, and then bring evidences.

What your are failing to understand is that your illogical and baseless claim that Mecca did not exists at the time of the prophet is discrediting your whole stance.

Thanks for the heartwarming concern but somehow I get the sense that your motivation is not that you are worried about poor me getting discredited. D Besides, I don't worry about it or even mind it if its serves the truth so why should anyone else?

Peace,

Ayman

It does not serve the truth to overuse logical fallacies like you are doing.

Peace

[phoenix1]

peace all,

i don't get it.

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence, so mecca does not exist
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence but mecca still exists.

If there is no evidence for Mecca, why isn't it possible that it just didn't exist?

[wildguest1956]

peace all,

i don't get it.

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence, so mecca does not exist
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence but mecca still exists.

If there is no evidence for Mecca, why isn't it possible that it just didn't exist?

Here is the correct version

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet, and A concludes from it that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet but B disagrees with A that this lack of physical evidence is enough to prove that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.
For B, Mecca may have existed, or may have not existed; the physical evidences are too poor to conclude anything.

argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true.

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't.

This is just simple logic.

Do you get it, now?

Peace

[unknownuser]

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet, and A concludes from it that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet but B disagrees with A that this lack of physical evidence is enough to prove that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

For B, Mecca may have existed, or may have not existed; the physical evidences are too poor to conclude anything.
This is just simple logic.

Peace

and I agree 100% with B

Peace

[phoenix1]

peace

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?

If nothing, the lack of evidence does prove the Sunnis wrong. Mecca might have existed, but it was so insignificant, that no one ever cared to mention it.

And since no written document ever mentions Mecca, it's probable that Mecca is never mentioned in the Quran.
If it holds no significance to the scripture, to the prophet, to our spiritual guidance, then why mention it at all? unless the name holds some symbolic significance.

[wildguest1956]

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?

1. Maybe it was not such an important city as what the Sunni claim.

2. There are nearly no archeological findings in Mecca. Archeologist research is not allowed there.

3. If Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet, then it should have been fabricated later. Unless you are able to tell when it was fabricated, by whom, and how it has gained acceptance among all sects, the claim that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet remains unfounded.

Peace