How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)
-
Peace Phoenix,
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.Thank you for your intelligent observations.
The most important evidence for people who have faith in the great reading is the fact that the common noun fits in 4824. On the other hand, for people who don't really have faith in the great reading but instead have faith in some town, this is not enough.
JM already admitted that there is no proof that Mecca existed. Unfortunately for him, Mecca gets its significance from people assuming that it is the unquestionable truth but he fails to see the implications of his own admission. It is not surprising that JM didn't and never will be able to really answer my question
Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Ayman,
You are quick to get things twisted. What Pheonix and I have been saying is that what you are saying is not absolutely true. When you get something in your head, no one can tell you different and to you its 100% truth. To the point that when one of us points out to you that there is still a possbility even though it is unlikely you think we are trying to defend the point, when we aren't trying to defend the point at all. We really tend towards your conclusion but the way you get to your conclusion and the conviction you have to your logic, as if it were flawless, is what we disagree with.
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.Pheonix said all this just so you could prove that you don't understand what he is really trying to say when you respond with;
Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?
He never said that he believe that Mecca was even really a town, he just said that despite the lack of evidence there is still a possiblity. But you deny even the possiblity which is absurd on your part and shows your lack of a ability to understand and use logic. Or better yet question your own conclusions. If that is not the case, you sure make it seem like that. But I've never known you to be someone who is very conscioius, or who even cares for that matter about what the people who are having these discussion with you think about you.
It's hard to respond to you when you tell people that there just 'blabbering' and when you speak with such agressive passion about your conclusion but you can't understand the basic logic behind simple things that I and, in this case pheonix has said.
You calle me out about the use of the word 'extremism' and 'christian' and what I was pretty sure they would mean to you, but that still does not take the truth out of my statement. It is a truth that you do not want to see. I have brother like you and it is very hard to have even a very simple conversations with him because he abuses his intelligence, damages the productivity of conversations and justifies himself in everything, whether he has a good point or not. Those who disagree must be defending what he is arguing against, even if that is not the case. I hate arguing with him and I want to punch him in his mouth when we do get into an indepth discussion because he is damaging the conversation with his maniacal style of arguing. When I have discussion with you on the forum its like I'm talking to him all over again. And I know that even comparing him to you will not fly with you, if you think that the comparison intends some criticism of you.
Now I know everything I said might not have had 100 percent intellectual value and you can go ahead and throw what I said ealier in my face like you did in your response to me, but it has alot to do with the abilty for people to have meaningful discussion and come up with meaningful resolutions to problems.
I spelled Macaroba in all those crazy ways to emphasize that the sound of word is what was important just in case you looked a Makkah and Maca and two distinct words completely, which I saw you hinting at in one of your posts. Secondly, when you are talking about foreign corruptions of words your trying to base a corruption on an Arabic root (Mkk as opposed to Krb) will not work, which is why I gave you all of those other examples of corrupted names of places. I stated that there is a possiblity that Macaroba could still be a corruption of Makkat.
As far as voweling and functional load, you might as well review our old conversations. I will never agree with you on that, and in my mind your are ignoring and invalidating valid aspects of the old Arabic langauge. i think you ignore these things more because you can't deal with them than because of logical reasons. Showing me textual archeological evidence for a language which has almost never written vowels, even voweling that you would consider crucial, that they have always pronounced is not proof for your conclusion that case endings have low functional in Classical Arabic and it never will be. There will be hundreds of contexts where a blank word can be replaced with hundreds of options, which is why guessing from context is not 100 percent accurate especially when it comes to writings whose meanings you can't necessarily guess. Guessing from context teachings fluency and social functionality not meanings of words.
As for Macaraba, please refer me the information about its location acording to those sources.
As for Makkah It could existed or not, that is not the point. Depending on the information you give me I will be able to make that decision but I also do not believe in the complete historical invalidity of Pre-islamic poetry and at the extreme even all hadeeth (depending). Maybe it didn't exist. If it didn't no skin off my back. But there is still always the possiblity that it did even if evidence lacks.
Pilgrimage is not economic centers. The pilgrimage was not set up to take the place of economic centers and its goal is as a huge community centers. Community is all the time, but not everyone can make it to community functions all the time. That is what conventions are for and that is the purpose of the Hajj. I disagree with you about the economic center aspect but hopefully we can get these first issues straight and then talk about this.
Godbless,
Anwar -
i wanna right this over again.
Ayman,
You are quick to get things twisted. What Pheonix and I have been saying is that what you are saying is not absolutely true. When you get something in your head, no one can tell you different, and to you its 100% truth. To the point that when one of us points out to you that there is still a possbility for a town like Mecca to have existed, even though it is unlikely, you think we are trying to defend the point, when we aren't trying to defend the point at all. We really tend towards your conclusion but the way you get to your conclusion and the conviction you have to your logic, as if it were flawless, is what we disagree with.
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.Pheonix said all this just so you could prove that you don't understand what he is really trying to say to you when you respond with;
Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?
And its in bold on top of that and big as day! That is amazing Ayman. Truly Amazing. bravo
He never said that he believes that Mecca was even really a town, he just said that despite the lack of evidence there is still a possiblity. But you deny even the possiblity which is absurd on your part and shows your lack of ability to understand and use logic. Or better yet question your own conclusions. If that is not the case, you sure make it seem like that. But I've never known you to be someone who is very conscioius, or who even cares for that matter about what the people who are having these discussions with you think about you.
It's hard to respond to you when you tell people that there just 'blabbering' when they make good points and you fail to understand them. And when you speak with such agressive passion about your conclusion but you can't understand the basic logic behind simple things that I and, in this case, pheonix have said.
You called me out about the use of the word 'extremism' and 'christian' and what I was pretty sure they would mean to you. You were right. But that still does not take the truth away from my statement. It is a truth that you do not want to see. I have a brother like you and it is very hard to have even a very simple conversation with him because he abuses his intelligence, damages the productivity of conversations and justifies himself in everything, whether he has a good point or not. Those who disagree must be defending what he is arguing against, even if that is not the case. I hate arguing with him and I want to punch him in his mouth when we do get into an indepth discussion because he is damaging the conversation with his maniacal style of arguing. When I have a discussion with you on the forum its like I'm talking to him all over again. And I know that even comparing him to you will not fly with you, if you think that the comparison intends some criticism of you.
Now I know everything I said might not have had 100 percent intellectual value and you can go ahead and throw what I said ealier in my face like you did in your response to me, but it has alot to do with the abilty for people to have meaningful discussions and come up with meaningful resolutions to problems.
I spelled Macaroba in all those crazy ways to emphasize that the sound of word is what was important just in case you looked at Makkah and Maca as two distinct words completely, which I saw you hinting at in one of your posts. Secondly, when you are talking about foreign corruptions of words you cannot base a corruption of an Arabic word on Arabic roots (Mkk as opposed to Krb). That will not work because the language that is corrupting the word doesn't follow the same grammar and Greek definitely doesn't have the same roots system. So why would you try to invalidate my linguistic analysis with something which on the outside might seem like you know what you are talking about but when you really look at the whole picture doesn't apply at all. That is why I gave you all of those other examples of corrupted names of places so that you would avoid doing this. With all that said there is a possiblity that Macaroba could still be a corruption of Makkat. But honestly I like your Machorba suggeston 10 times better. (you see I'm not always against you try to understand what I'm really saying here).
As far as voweling and functional load, you might as well review our old conversations. I will never agree with you on that, and in my mind your are ignoring and invalidating valid aspects of the old Arabic langauge. i think you ignore these things more because you can't deal with them than because of logical reasons. Showing me textual archeological evidence for a language which has almost never written vowels, even voweling that you would be considered crucial, but have has always pronounced is not proof for your conclusion that case endings have low functional in Classical Arabic and it never will be. There will be hundreds of contexts where a blank word can be replaced with hundreds of options, which is why guessing from context is not 100 percent accurate especially when it comes to writings whose meanings you can't necessarily guess. Guessing from context teachings fluency and social functionality not meanings of words. And texts do not always correspond to spoken language, you should know that from having learned English.
As for Macaroba, please refer me the information about its location acording to those sources. Imagine that peopel called Makkah Makkaturrabbi, that would definitely change thing wouldn't it. And don't try to say that Makkat only means destruction because it has other meanings as well which are on my site for those of you who don't know them (www.progod.org, under pilgrimage). There is still a possibility. But like I said I like Machorba better.
As for Makkah It could have existed or not. But that is not the point. Depending on the information you give me I will be able to make that decision but I also do not believe in the complete historical invalidity of Pre-islamic poetry and at the extreme even all hadeeth (depending). Maybe it didn't exist. If it didn't no skin off my back. But there is still always the possiblity that it did even if evidence lacks.
I got 300 BC from the article statement of 4th century, which starts at 300 BC. As for AD, if I use the word lord like sayyid in Arabic which is what it really means, and which is what domini means then because I do veiw Jesus, God bless him, as one of my sayyids or good sirs then I will continue to use AD. Take that, smarty pants!! elektro
Pilgrimage is not economic centers. The pilgrimage was not set up to take the place of economic centers and its goal is as a huge community centers. Community is all the time, but not everyone can make it to community functions all the time. Moroever when a community gets big or is really spread out, or even scarce that is the purpose of the Hajj. Pilgrimage is common-ground. That is what conventions in our modern day are for and that is the purpose of the Hajj. I disagree with you about the economic centers aspect but hopefully we can get these first issues straight and then talk about this.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace progod,
I have a brother like you and it is very hard to have even a very simple conversation with him because he abuses his intelligence, damages the productivity of conversations and justifies himself in everything, whether he has a good point or not. Those who disagree must be defending what he is arguing against, even if that is not the case. I hate arguing with him and I want to punch him in his mouth when we do get into an indepth discussion because he is damaging the conversation with his maniacal style of arguing. When I have a discussion with you on the forum its like I'm talking to him all over again. And I know that even comparing him to you will not fly with you, if you think that the comparison intends some criticism of you.
I don't understand the need for such statements as 'punching someone in his mouth', it damages the productivity of discussions. If someone is getting frustrated with the debate, it's best to leave it. The last line is borderline peculiar. Why would you bring in a brother like ayman and then tell us you would like to punch this person in the face and yet comparing him to ayman will not fly IF ayman might think that the comparision intends some criticism of him. What exactly then might this comparision bring to the discussion? I hope you see what I'm saying here? Please leave these things aside and carry on with the excellent discussion. Thank you.
-
Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?
Peace Ayman,
First, there is no point to shout. Let?s take it easy...
Yes, I admit that, 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.
What do I base my belief on ?
Well? Which belief ???On this issue, I consider I have not yet found the truth.
And I am sorry to tell you that, with your flawed and tricky arguments, you have discredited yourself, and you appear to me as biased as the sunni are.
Peace
-
Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?
Peace Ayman,
Yes, I admit that, 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.
Peace JM.
How exaclty does one go about proving a nonexistence?
-
Salaam all,
Well, this is a truly interesting discussion.
Perhaps we should include a time period/range regarding the issue of existense or non-existence for the town we now know as Mecca/Makkah? I'm not sure if this will change anything though.
For example, is there a specific time period where it is correct to say "There is no such thing as the town Mecca because there is zero evidence for its existense"?
Or we can ask "Since when that the town currently known as Mecca/Makkah became famous or important, especially for the Muslims?" to gather as much info as possible for the rise of current-day Mecca to fame.
As far as I can read this thread, what I can infer from what bro Ayman is trying to convey is (please CMIIW) the present day Mecca has no significance whatsoever with the quran's teachings or message (in its relation to the diin of course). And I have no problem with that.
=adley=
-
Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?
Peace Ayman,
Yes, I admit that, 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.
Peace JM.
How exaclty does one go about proving a nonexistence?
Given the knowledge se have, nothing can be concluded about the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet.
There is some likelihood it did exist, and there is some likelihood it did not exist.I don?t know what have exactly been excavated In Mecca (and dated to the 8th century); the only thing I know about that is that archeological research is currently not allowed in Mecca.
As long as the archeologists cannot do their job in that town, we will not be able to draw any definite conclusion.
In the meantime, we can try to assess the likelihood of some alternates theories, like the one of Ayman (according to which the prophet lived in Hegra), or the one of Layth (according to which the prophet lived in Jerusalem).
But these theories have many weaknesses. In particular, in the case of the one of Ayman, it should be explained how, when, and by whom the town of Mecca was fabricated, and how the new story of Islam Mecca has gained acceptance among all ?islamic? sects.
Anyway, we should strive to be honest and neutral, not letting our discomfort with what is done today in the name of Islam in Mecca by the Saudis bias our judgment.
Peace
-
Let me summarize the facts of this discussion so that they don't get lost in the middle of all the kicking and screaming made by people who can't let go of their emotional attachment to Mecca.
(1) The present day town named Mecca gets its legitimacy from two things
a. People claim that it is mentioned by The God in 4824.
b. People claim that it existed from the time of Abraham and people from all over continuously performed pilgrimages to it from the time of Abraham until now. Of course the implication of this is that it is a famous place that was well known to all pre-quranic people.Anything that disproves the above two points makes the whole question about Mecca moot. So for example, even if archeological evidence is discovered in Mecca that is older than the 8th century that proves the existence of a small insignificant pagan shrine in that location (as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.
(2) The primary proof that the town named Mecca in (1) didn't exist in the fact that the only time the word "mecca" is mentioned in the great reading it is clearly a common noun whose meaning fits in the context of 4824. For those who have faith in the great reading this evidence is complete and sufficient and there is no reason to read beyond this point. On the other hand, those who don't have faith in the great reading will always have doubts in their hearts no matter what.
(3) For those who don't have faith in the great reading, the logical proof in (2) is not enough. They appeal to history and they conjecture that humans wouldn't utter such lies. However, even according to historical physical evidence, there is no proof that a town named Mecca existed prior to the 8th century CE. They counter-argue that there is zero proof of its "nonexistence" and forget that according to the same logic there is zero proof for the nonexistence of dragons, unicorns, 80 meter tall humans, and all mythological things. This is their trial. Had (2) been sufficient for them then they would reach certainty. They will always have doubts in their hearts.
(4) Another fact we know very well and everyone here admits is that sectarians lied about Mecca. Even the people here who argued against (2) and (3) admit that sectarians lied about the significance of Mecca and this explains the lack of evidence for it. So everyone agrees that sectarians lied about it. Yet all sects completely agree on such lies. So it is a fact that sectarian agreement has nothing to do with something being true or not. In fact, the more outrageous the lie, the more they agree on it. For example, they all agree to set up the prophet as a partner who will intercede for them in the same way that all Christian sects agree that Jesus is the son of god. In the case of Mecca as in the case of the prophets' intercession and the case of god taking a son (725), people are in denial that humans and their imagination would concoct such lies.
I am not sure how to put it in words but this whole thing is not just proof for the non-existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca but for me it is also empirical proof of the truth in the great reading.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Haha "all the kicking and screaming made by people who can't let go of their emotional attachment to Mecca."
I like it, thanks for the laugh, now Mecca for me means really nothing and as far as I believe all the muslims I know "sunni or not" it means nothing to them
that was just load of non sense
but thanks for the laugh I should say, LOL
Salam
-
Savage Carrot,
I was just telling my experience. I'm not really sorry if you don't like it. But if you didn't see the point of why I said it there is nothing I can do. I will continue the conversations but please look at what I am saying, not what you think I am implying. The story about my brother wasn't a made up story to say that I want to punch Ayman in the mouth. Not at all. So put that inference back where you got it from. The story is exactly as I have it. I've learned not to argue with my brother because despite his intellectual prowess he is not out to solve problems but to show off, and abuse that prowess and to flex it. It's not about logical honesty and integrity. I can't help it if intellectual abuse upsets me, and honestly I don't want to help it. I believe I have that right and I follow the Quran's guidance to not let my hate take me a way from justice. What I said was appropriate whether you agree or not. Ayman in his mind knows. But thank you for caring about this subject and trying to keep us all, (in this case me) on track.
Godbless,
Anwar -
I was just telling my experience. I'm not really sorry if you don't like it. But if you didn't see the point of why I said it there is nothing I can do.
Okay.I will continue the conversations but please look at what I am saying, not what you think I am implying.
I did.The story about my brother wasn't a made up story to say that I want to punch Ayman in the mouth. Not at all. So put that inference back where you got it from.
I didn't say it's a made up story.The story is exactly as I have it. I've learned not to argue with my brother because despite his intellectual prowess he is not out to solve problems but to show off, and abuse that prowess and to flex it. It's not about logical honesty and integrity. I can't help it if intellectual abuse upsets me, and honestly I don't want to help it. I believe I have that right and I follow the Quran's guidance to not let my hate take me a way from justice. What I said was appropriate whether you agree or not. Ayman in his mind knows.
I see.But thank you for caring about this subject and trying to keep us all, (in this case me) on track.
My pleasure. -
Let me summarize the facts of this discussion so that they don't get lost in the middle of all the kicking and screaming made by people who can't let go of their emotional attachment to Mecca.
Peace Ayman,
It is good news you are trying to restart the debate, but it would have been better you had not resorted to a logical fallacy in the first sentence
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. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial(1) The present day town named Mecca gets its legitimacy from two things
a. People claim that it is mentioned by The God in 4824.
b. People claim that it existed from the time of Abraham and people from all over continuously performed pilgrimages to it from the time of Abraham until now. Of course the implication of this is that it is a famous place that was well known to all pre-quranic people.Anything that disproves the above two points makes the whole question about Mecca moot. So for example, even if archeological evidence is discovered in Mecca that is older than the 8th century that proves the existence of a small insignificant pagan shrine in that location (as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.
My goal is not to defend what you are calling ?the extraordinary claims by the sectarians?.
Let?s look at the 2 following claims
- Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet, and it was fabricated ex nihilo about 1 century after his death.
- Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet, but it was a small town with a shrine. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and some irrational stories have been fabricated to turn it into a holy Islamic town.
Clearly, one of these 2 claims is more extraordinary than the other, isn?t it ?
(2) The primary proof that the town named Mecca in (1) didn't exist in the fact that the only time the word "mecca" is mentioned in the great reading it is clearly a common noun whose meaning fits in the context of 4824. For those who have faith in the great reading this evidence is complete and sufficient and there is no reason to read beyond this point. On the other hand, those who don't have faith in the great reading will always have doubts in their hearts no matter what.
It is true that the common noun Mecca meaning destruction fits in (assuming the case endings are not a cosntraint).
So, in it can be either the proper name ?Mecca?, or the common noun ?destruction?. Both are possible.
It is also possible that the right translation of is with the common noun ?destruction? even though Mecca was an existing town.
(3) For those who don't have faith in the great reading, the logical proof in (2) is not enough. They appeal to history and they conjecture that humans wouldn't utter such lies. However, even according to historical physical evidence, there is no proof that a town named Mecca existed prior to the 8th century CE. They counter-argue that there is zero proof of its "nonexistence" and forget that according to the same logic there is zero proof for the nonexistence of dragons, unicorns, 80 meter tall humans, and all mythological things. This is their trial. Had (2) been sufficient for them then they would reach certainty. They will always have doubts in their hearts.
i) Nothing has been proved in (2).
ii) As I have already showed it to you, you cannot state that that the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet is as unlikely as the existence of giants or other mythological things (see my previous posts).
You definitely have a severe problem with logic.
(4) Another fact we know very well and everyone here admits is that sectarians lied about Mecca. Even the people here who argued against (2) and (3) admit that sectarians lied about the significance of Mecca and this explains the lack of evidence for it. So everyone agrees that sectarians lied about it. Yet all sects completely agree on such lies. So it is a fact that sectarian agreement has nothing to do with something being true or not. In fact, the more outrageous the lie, the more they agree on it. For example, they all agree to set up the prophet as a partner who will intercede for them in the same way that all Christian sects agree that Jesus is the son of god. In the case of Mecca as in the case of the prophets' intercession and the case of god taking a son (725), people are in denial that humans and their imagination would concoct such lies.
i) As I have already showed it to you, it is not true that all the followers of Jesus agree that Jesus is the son of God (see my previous posts).
I suggest you avoid referring to refuted arguments. This would save your time and mine.ii) It is far easier for people to agree on false stories about a man or a town they idolize than to agree to fabricate together a new town out of nothing (which would certainly need a vast conspiration).
Yet, this problem highlights one of the weaknesses of the free-minds stance the lack of a study of the process of distortion of Islam.
We all agree Islam has been distorted, but we have no precise idea of how, when and by whom it has been done.I suggest you to have a look on the works of Ahmed Shaffat http//www.islamicperspectives.com.
I like the way he uses the hadith to show how they have been fabricated, like for the example of the 7 ahruf (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm), or for the example of the verse of stoning (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm).
He also addresses the origin of Christianity (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/DisappearanceOfJesus.htm).
This is the kind of scholarly works I need to be fully convinced of historical claims.I also suggest you to read the book of AbdelMajid Charfi Al-Islam, bayna Ar-Risala wa At-Tarikh (in French L?islam, entre message et histoire, not available in English).
In this book, he tries to exhibit the trends in the distortion of Islam legalism, ritualism, idolization of the prophet, insertion of biblical beliefs and so on?
See http//www.nawaat.org/portail/article.php3?id_article=168You can also have a look at the works of S Ahmed (http//www.ourbeacon.com/truehistory.pdf) or GA Parwez, but I don?t find them rigorous enough.
Anyway, you don?t need to claim that Mecca has been fabricated 1 century after the death of the prophet to argue that what is done today in Mecca in the name of Islam are pagan rituals that have been instated in Islam after the death of the prophet. One of the well-known trends in the distortion of Islam is the insertion in it of biblical beliefs (maybe by the fresh Jews or Christians converts), so why not pagan beliefs too?
The insertion (or re-insertion) of pagan beliefs or rituals to be done in Mecca is far much probable than the fabrication from scratch of this town.Hope my stance is clearer now.
Peace
-
Peace,
JM says 2) There are nearly no archeological findings in Mecca. Archeologist research is not allowed there.
Well I could have figured that out, the saudis don't want the truth to be revealed.
Maria
-
Peace,
JM says 2) There are nearly no archeological findings in Mecca. Archeologist research is not allowed there.
Well I could have figured that out, the saudis don't want the truth to be revealed.
Maria
Maybe...
The fact is that, without archeological research in Mecca, we can only make conjectures...
Peace
-
Peace JM,
(1) The present day town named Mecca gets its legitimacy from two things
a. People claim that it is mentioned by The God in 4824.
b. People claim that it existed from the time of Abraham and people from all over continuously performed pilgrimages to it from the time of Abraham until now. Of course the implication of this is that it is a famous place that was well known to all pre-quranic people.
Anything that disproves the above two points makes the whole question about Mecca moot. So for example, even if archeological evidence is discovered in Mecca that is older than the 8th century that proves the existence of a small insignificant pagan shrine in that location (as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.My goal is not to defend what you are calling ?the extraordinary claims by the sectarians?.
You don't have a choice. You know that you can't defend the indefensible. Therefore although you disagree with me by saying "what you are calling the extraordinary claims", you are forced not address the above facts.
Let?s look at the 2 following claims
- Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet, and it was fabricated ex nihilo about 1 century after his death.
This is not a claim. This is one logical scenario that results from the FACTS above that you can't address.
- Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet, but it was a small town with a shrine. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and some irrational stories have been fabricated to turn it into a holy Islamic town.
Clearly, one of these 2 claims is more extraordinary than the other, isn?t it ?
No. This is not a possible scenario. Either way, a town named Mecca didn't exist at the time of the prophet. You need to revise the above to read
- There was a small insignificant town with a shrine in that location but it was not named Mecca. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and renamed to Mecca and some irrational stories have been fabricated to turn it into a holy Islamic town.
It is true that the common noun Mecca meaning destruction fits in (assuming the case endings are not a cosntraint).
So, in it can be either the proper name ?Mecca?, or the common noun ?destruction?. Both are possible.
It is also possible that the right translation of is with the common noun ?destruction? even though Mecca was an existing town.If you, I or any human wrote 4824 then this would be a highly unlikely remote possibility. But it is The God who gave us 4824 so if you have faith in The God and in the great reading you should know that this is an impossibility. JM, if you don't know why then this whole discussion and even nothing in the world can help you.
I can explain in more details but I don't want to waste an opportunity for the readers of this discussion who have faith in the great reading to see why for themselves and get the amazing feeling that comes with absolute faith in The God and absolute certainty about His truth.
i) Nothing has been proved in (2).
As I said, the proof in (2) requires faith in the great reading. I can't help you there.
ii) As I have already showed it to you, you cannot state that that the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet is as unlikely as the existence of giants or other mythological things (see my previous posts).
You definitely have a severe problem with logic.Copying and pasting from Wikipedia is not exactly proof or logic.
i) As I have already showed it to you, it is not true that all the followers of Jesus agree that Jesus is the son of God (see my previous posts).
I suggest you avoid referring to refuted arguments. This would save your time and mine.All followers of Jesus agreed that he is the son of god. Even Ebionites agree that he is the son of god. The only difference is that they emphasize his humanity. So they say he is a human son of god not a "god" son of god like monophysites say. Roman Catholics are in the middle.
ii) It is far easier for people to agree on false stories about a man or a town they idolize than to agree to fabricate together a new town out of nothing (which would certainly need a vast conspiration).
Actually fabricating a remote town is easier. All that needed to be done is to rename it to Mecca. That is it.
It is much tougher to fabricate a shrine in well known and heavily populated Jerusalem. Yet we know for sure that sectarians did it. All they had to do was to name it Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. Now everyone (including you perhaps) thinks that this is Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa talked about in the great reading when it is a fact that it was built by the Ummayads long after the revelation of Chapter 17.
Yet, this problem highlights one of the weaknesses of the free-minds stance the lack of a study of the process of distortion of Islam.
We all agree Islam has been distorted, but we have no precise idea of how, when and by whom it has been done.I suggest you to have a look on the works of Ahmed Shaffat http//www.islamicperspectives.com.
I like the way he uses the hadith to show how they have been fabricated, like for the example of the 7 ahruf (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm), or for the example of the verse of stoning (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm).
He also addresses the origin of Christianity (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/DisappearanceOfJesus.htm).
This is the kind of scholarly works I need to be fully convinced of historical claims.I also suggest you to read the book of AbdelMajid Charfi Al-Islam, bayna Ar-Risala wa At-Tarikh (in French L?islam, entre message et histoire, not available in English).
In this book, he tries to exhibit the trends in the distortion of Islam legalism, ritualism, idolization of the prophet, insertion of biblical beliefs and so on?
See http//www.nawaat.org/portail/article.php3?id_article=168You can also have a look at the works of S Ahmed (http//www.ourbeacon.com/truehistory.pdf) or GA Parwez, but I don?t find them rigorous enough.
Thanks for the links, I will look at them when I have time.
Anyway, you don?t need to claim that Mecca has been fabricated 1 century after the death of the prophet to argue that what is done today in Mecca in the name of Islam are pagan rituals that have been instated in Islam after the death of the prophet. One of the well-known trends in the distortion of Islam is the insertion in it of biblical beliefs (maybe by the fresh Jews or Christians converts), so why not pagan beliefs too?
The insertion (or re-insertion) of pagan beliefs or rituals to be done in Mecca is far much probable than the fabrication from scratch of this town.As I indicated above, it comes down to whether or not you believe that The God knew about this when He gave us 4824.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Zeljko,
May The God keep blessing you with the eyes to see.
In other words, keep up the excellent (excellent!!!) work.
Thank you for your kindness. All that is good comes from The God's blessings. May The God pour on us patience and guide us the straight path and not make us a trial for people who are unjust.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salam Adley,
As far as I can read this thread, what I can infer from what bro Ayman is trying to convey is (please CMIIW) the present day Mecca has no significance whatsoever with the quran's teachings or message (in its relation to the diin of course). And I have no problem with that.
Yes brother, this is all that matters.
Peace,
Ayman