How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

unknownuser

Don't worry too much about this nonsense.

LOL Ayman, back to your old trick when you face a damn simple yet complicated question you resort to your rants, I can see how intelligent you are bro

Any intelligent person can see that Westerners such as in "Why is Mecca the Religious Center of Islam? By Lisa Federico '02" were simply reporting what Muslims believe.

Thanks for making my point that the westerners are nothing but a bunch of dumb bums

This is no different than reporting that Muslims believe that Al Mahdy will return to save them.

And what the Mahdi has to do with it?

Well that is another technique you have which is when cornered with a damn simple question you resort to confusing the subject

It doesn't mean that Westerners believe this and it certainly doesn't make it true.

So all the western encyclopaedias put stuff in there about Mecca that is wrong or not been confirmed?

Who you are trying to fool exactly bro?

I know, you are trying to fool the fools, LOL

I think that Ahmed is just suffering from a case of the well known "Westerner complex" (Arabic "3uqdat Alkhawajat&quot.

LOL, that was funny bro, so I guess I need to see a Doctor?

It is a kind of inferiority complex that some people in the Middle East have and as a result appeal to Westerners as proof for anything.

Haha, wrong guess mister smart, donlt you know that I donlt live in the middle east no more, Haha that was funny

But please tell me, you are an Egyptian like me and live abroad like me, why I have this disorder and you don?t?

This is why in places like Saudi Arabia, Westerners get 10 times more money as Middle Easterners who have the same exact qualifications as per their labor laws. ;D

But I don?t live in SA, sorry however, what that has to do with it?

Oh I know

Confusing the subject

You are a professional bro

progod

Orientalists of the past respected the historical works and apparent historical rigor applied to the Hadeeths and Islamic history. They didn't conspire. They were overwhelmed with respect and just accepted. Remember that in the era of the orientalists Europeans didn't have a well founded idea of the science of history, etc. etc. It was through studying Islamic law systems and the Islamic historical sciences, through the orientalists, and then applying them without the Islamic bias that the Western world became so good at the Academic and Legal Sciences. Of course now they are subject to Western biases which limits them, but they took the foundations of the first Islamic sciences and applied them without the Islamic biases or hang ups that had developed in the Islamic Academic world and haulted its progression. Even then you had some orientalists who pointed out the inconsistencies and doubt in the Islamic histories and sciences, but Orientalism soon became known for its enfatuation with the Islamic world, not its scrutiny and analysis of the Islamic world and its sciences. That's why now you have two extreme camps, the traditonalist ones who believe everything in Islamic Histories and the ones who try to undermine Islamic history and sciences at all costs. The Judeo-centric orientalists even take it to such an extreme to veiw Aramaic and Hebrew as valid ways to interpret Arabic words, which is pure none-sense.

As for words in the Quran being taken to name later constructed things, like Masjid al-Aqsaa, which is truth's smoking gun, we have evidence that this mosque was built in the 8th century. So even though we know that there were cases like this here and I'm sure in other situations, it is not intellectually honest or just to assume that because someone stole once from one store that they are guilty of stealing at another store, when there is no evidence to point to that. Just because it was done with one doesn't mean that it was done with the other. It's possible, but the thief has an aliby that fits and there is no evidence, you have to believe the alliby. Anything is possible in this world but that is why following God and his guidance will lead us right. God tells us to use our logic and intelligence and to be just. That means being intellectual just as well. The right way(arrushd) will stand out clearly (tabayyana) from error(al-ghayy). Tabayyun (the noun of tabayyana) is based on bayyinat which is evidence.

Godbless,
Anwar

phoenix1

peace ProGod,

I think you're missing the point.
Rumors can be correct. But "can" isn't enough. There has to be evidence backing up those rumors, and there is NONE.
Also, these rumors about Mecca come from the same people who distorted many other words in the quran to fit their own beliefs (majid al aqsa, kaaba, etc).
When we look at all those other thing's they have twisted, why couldn't have they done this with mecca?

I don't think it's a coincidence put in there by God. I think the people who started those rumors very cleverly used that word from the quran to support their views. To make people worship their false gods.

It becomes even clearer when we find no evidence (except those rumors) that the prophet was in Mecca during his life.

Mecca could've been a small town in arabia, but it even more easily could've been a town called something else, renamed Mecca after those rumors started.

phoenix1

progod, it seems like you just don't want to believe Ayman because you think his position is too extreme.
Why not deny the history when it has gotten so many things wrong. People have purposefully distorted the words of the quran to promote their beliefs. And the words of those people is part of Islamic history.

peace.

unknownuser

Peace All

Most scientists today agree with the theory of evolution. However, there are missing links that have not fully explained the process homo sapiens as well as other creatures undertook. By this premise we cannot believe in evolution because there is no physical evidence of the crucial missing link.

In Egyptology, scientists still have yet to understand the mystery of the pyramid. There are several theories but none fully explain how the Great Pyramids of Giza were built. By this premise, we must believe that the Egyptians couldn't have built it, and instead create a new story that would sound less extraordinary than ancient people with no advanced technology building such a giant feat.

Da Vinci led an otherwise uninteresting life. Sure, he drew beautiful paintings but he was considered an outcast in the Fine Arts realm. Sadly, he only found fame after his death. Since nobody really cared for Da Vinci in his time and only decades later did they take notice of his artwork, by your premise, we can say he may not have lived during the era the history books record today. Instead it was his apprentice and others just hated the apprentice more than Da Vinci so they gave him the claim to fame.

Yesterday, I went to New York. Since there is no evidence I was there i.e., I didn't tell anyone, didn't leave any paper trail of receipts, and others thought I was at the park, - by your premise - I never went to New York.

When we make a claim, we need evidence to prove it. The extraordinary claim my friend, is that the history we've known for 100s of years is fake. The burden of evidence lies on you. If you claim this, you can't just state that there is no evidence to prove OTHERWISE. You must state that there is evidence to prove that you are right and history is wrong. This is practically impossible. Unless you physically find some artifact or ancient text that proves that the area was uninhabited until the 8th century.The fact that nobody mentioned it just proved that (a) it went by a different name, (b) scientists haven't found something that shows that YET (c) there was no reason to mention it because more significant things were happening elsewhere, nothing significant was happening there, or the person who wrote it has seen other cities but not that one. I've been to Egypt many times. I've never seen half the towns there. If you ask me to write about my thoughts on Egypt, I'll most likely tell you about the places I've personally seen. Not finding anything that says Mecca on it is very weak evidence. People simply didn't feel the need to record and file as we do today.

But my question is why is this so important to those of you who believe that Mecca is an innovation? What will it prove and how will it benefit me?

Peace All

progod

To truth,

People have purposefully distorted the words of the quran to promote their beliefs. And the words of those people is part of Islamic history.

Truth this is where we are different. You say distort, and I say misunderstand. Those misunderstandings later become cemented into the way people think and wala, there you have it. You'd call it a big conspiracy, I call it an institutionalized misunderstanding. The Al-Aqsaa mosque could have built and named after the one in the Quran, not a purposefull distortion. The word Ka'bah means cube too. When God revealed the Quran we weren't dealing with people who came together like here to discuss the meanings of words. This book was revealed at first to simple people. Most people incline to their biases without even knowing it. Take a proud Arab who grew up in Mecca and knew about the shrine in his town called the Ka'bah. If you put this word in a non-religious context or some other context he will understand this word as great honor, but he does this automatically without realizing it after years up years of using his language. He associates his religion with this shrine and here comes a book talking about religion and mentions this word Ka'abah. If he had thought and been logical and thought about how this message applies to all men he would have concluded that it meant great honor here, not this little old shrine. But the shrine is more apart of his life than all of mankind, and naturally he's going to look for how this book applies to his life. So he understands it as his shrine. That is natural for simple people caught up in their own world. We have to remember that this conciousness and ability to logically analyze is something that has been cultured in us. It is a product of the development that has stemmed from the Quran and other logical thought. They had to sit down and think about the Quran too, their ability to do that was most likely very limited except for the occasional true thinker here and there who probably knew more about the world. It's no wonder the the centers of Islamic sciences took root in what used to be Roman and Persian territories, where people had been more exposed to the world and he many ideas in it. So don't look at it as purposefull distortions. Most people then and today just blow with the winds. They might have come to respect Muhammad and the message he brought but that does not mean that all of them sat and thought about it. Even great thinkers are subject to skip over general understandings that they just take for granted.

I think you're missing the point.
Rumors can be correct. But "can" isn't enough

But 'can' is enough. When you are talking about logic, you are talking about the most possible likelihood that something is true. You can never know anything 100 percent. But the more likely something is true the more you "know" that it is true. We give paper statements more credit then rumors because we know that they are less likely to be corrupted, once they are preserved they are preserved. It's possible that the written statement is a lie from the beginning but that would be an unjust doubt if we have no indications of that. Innocent until proven guilty. As for rumors we know that they are subject to change and not as reliable as written statements. However, histories can be handed down in tact by rumors as well. Just because it is a rumor doesn't mean that it is not true, but by nature of being a rumor it is more possible that it was corrupted than an original written statement or by classes of people who memorized things and then constantly scrutinized each other's memorization of that story or record.

Knowing the nature of 'evidence', from rumors to original statements helps us weigh the likelihood of these evidences being authentic. Rumor has less authenticity then written or canonized/standardized statements which is why the Quran and other written statements like that of the Greek and Roman surveyors holds more sway than the Hadeeth when they contradict each other. To deny rumor altoghether just because it is rumor means denying what could possibly be true, and rumor is more authentic then conjured up conjectures, because rumor is at its root based on an eye-witnesses account (unless this can be proven otherwise) even though it can be subject to corruption, as all evidences are subject to corruption on different levels and in different ways.

Saying that Mecca didn't exist is a conjecture that goes against the evidence that all rumors agree to the fact that Mecca didn't exist and that these rumors at their base are based on what someone saw with their own eyes. If 50 people come to you and say they saw a purple monster, and there is no evidence that contradicts that then it must be assumed that there is some minimal truth to this statement. Whether you think it is outrageous or not. If it is proven that there is no such things as monsters then it has to be assumed that they saw something purple that could have resembled what they would have called a monster. The answer could be that all of them were on PCP or it could be that there is really some monster out there, but that is the way that logical deduction works. So the conclusion that Mecca didn't exist is less credible than even the Hadeeths because, rumors at their base are based on eye witness accounts, and artefactual evidence still allows for the existence of a city called Mecca, as long as it was not an important city. Whereas saying that it just didn't exist is based on nothing.

Godbbless,
Anwar

progod

I meant

"to the fact that Mecca did exist"

Godbless,
Anwar

phoenix1

how is it more likely that Mecca existed when it's only evidence is hadith which we KNOW have distorted many words in the quran. Doesn't that make it LESS likely?
I don't get your logic.
how is saying that Mecca did not exist because there is no evidence of it's existence and we can see how the Hadith makers used the word mecca in that verse which fits perfectly with other things in their story when mecca is used as a name of a town Conjecture?
please excuse my horrible grammer.

I just want you to give me a couple of things that don't fit or leave doubt about mecca's non existence besides the hadith. If the hadith is the only evidence, then it's just a matter of faith on your part and any further debate is useless.

progod

To ipostmanure,

Did the Hadeeth really distort these words? Do you know what the hadeeth really did do? The Hadeeth have been misinterpreted as well, based on scholars' biases and limited linguistic knowledge. Yes even the rumors have been misinterpreted. Before you jump to try to say that the Hadeeth is the root of all evils, understand that it is the position that Islamic schools of thought have taken on the Hadeeth that is really the root of all of Islam's evils. It is not the Hadeeth that are to be blamed but the positions that have been taken on the hadeeth and their role in building our faith and beliefs. I am just looking at the hadeeth from the same perspective that I would consider any body of rumor that claims to tell a story. When I deal with the Hadeeth I am dealing with the nature of Rumor. You may feel that the Hadeeth are the root of all evil and may want to reject everything that they have to say, just because they are hadeeths, just because they are rumor. And that is your choice. But hearsay can still be true and in everyday life with events that don't really matter we don't have to consider them. But when it comes to history even rumors count as evidence unless contradicted. That is just the science of history. I'll try to look up an article or something for you so that you can understand where I'm coming from. You say that what I'm saying is a matter of faith, and if you mean that it is anti-logic or anti-science then you are dead wrong. But if you understand that anything that we conclude on is in essence a matter of faith (be it well-founded faith or baseless faith), then yes I agree with you. It is a matter of faith, and I believe my faith is well-founded.

Godbless,
Anwar

wildguest1956

Saying that Mecca didn't exist is a conjecture that goes against the evidence that all rumors agree to the fact that Mecca didn't exist and that these rumors at their base are based on what someone saw with their own eyes. If 50 people come to you and say they saw a purple monster, and there is no evidence that contradicts that then it must be assumed that there is some minimal truth to this statement.

I do agree with that.

Yes, the hadiths have no place in the deen, and should never be considered reliable. They should be ignored when they contradict the qurn.
However, they should not be disregarded as a tool to explore history. Something that is mentioned in many hadith with independent isnad can be considered to have some likelihood of truth.

Here are 2 examples of the way we could deal with the hadith
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm

To me, this kind of approach is far more scientific than baseless conjectures.

Peace

unknownuser

Peace,

After researching and examining several websites mentioned below among others including Muslim websites, my final thoughts are that Mecca EXISTED even prior to Muhammad?s reign. It would be an illogical and fetish argument to claim that Mecca and/or Kaba never existed during pre-Islam and therefore several ancient words in the Quran simply become descriptive terms as perceived TODAY just to reform the religion and that Islam simply popped out of no where, when even the opponents such as the Jews, Christians and Hindus agree upon. I have searched many websites from both Muslims and non-Muslims perspectives, and have yet to find anyone defying the legitimacy of Mecca?s and Kaba?s pre-Islamic non-existence. Study the following sites carefully about Muhammad, Mecca, Kaba and the emergence of Islam.

The earliest biography of Muhammad
http//web.archive.org/web/20040625103910/http//www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html#The%20earliest%20biography%20of%20Muhammad,%20by%20ibn%20Ishaq

Muhammad, Mahomet, Mahmud, Mehmet
http//31.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MAHOMET.htm

Islam, Mecca and Kaba
http//www.therefinersfire.org/mecca.htm

The origins of Mecca and historic Arabia
http//www.mideastweb.org/arabiahistory.htm

http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/M/ME/MECCA.htm

http//www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa51

Ancient accounts of Arabia (430 BCE ? 550 CE)
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/arabia1.html

http//islamreview.org/KoranKafir/appendix4.html

Pre-Islamic hanged poems (before 622 CE)
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/640hangedpoems.html

Arabs in fifth century
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/shahid.html

Muhammad as portrayed in Answers.com which includes dictionary, encyclopedias, literature, WorldNet, Wikipedia, etc.
http//www.answers.com/topic/muhammad

Historicity of Kaba (hajj)
http//www.crystalinks.com/blackstone.html

http//www.archiveeditions.co.uk/Leafcopy%5C430-2.htm

Kaba, a Hindu temple
http//www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

http//www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0002/ET21-5523.html

http//www.islamreview.com/articles/inventionofislam.shtml

http//www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-philosophy/307-interesting-history-kaaba-originallya-hindu-temple.html

wildguest1956

How have you learnt that ? Did God reveal it to you last night ? ? ?

Yes, but not last night. The God did reveal it to me as He revealed things for other people on this forum and indeed for all people who know.

...then it is for Us its revelation.
...and We will surely reveal it for people who know.
... you shall REVEAL it to people and do not CONCEAL it...

I am sorry if The God never revealed anything to you.

I am sorry, but I don?t get your point.
Why do you translate these verses with the word ?to reveal? ? It seems the word means ?to make clear, distinct? but not ?to reveal?.

Well, to copy/paste Progod?
Ayman with comments like these I see you subtly trying to tie belief in your opinion to belief in the Quran and faith in God with certainty. I certainly and completely believe in the Quran and in God and don't have to believe what you believe for this to be true.

This has nothing to do with my opinion. YOU and ANWAR admitted that the word "mecca" in 4824 is a common noun. It is not my problem that you are not forethoughful enough to see the implications of your own admission.

I admitted that it could be the common noun, not that is was a common noun for sure.

I wonder what will be the next step?
Are you going to call me a kuffar and declare me an apostate ? ? ?

The word "kafir" means "rejecter/unappreciative". It doesn't mean apostate.

You have demonstrated through your own words your lack of appreciation of the fact that The God certainly knows everything. Here is an example where you make fun of this fact

"God KNEW that sectarians would later hijack this common noun ? ? ? Really ???"

My only advice to you is that you need to appreciate The God more. If you take only one thing from this discussion then I hope that this would be it.

Thanks for the advice.
But, for me, the hijacking to the common noun Mecca is a possibility, not a certainty.

Ayman, what are you trying to prove ?
The sectarians of Islamic-awareness have done their best to explain that a masjid is not necessarily a mosque, so as to explain that that the temple which were at Jerusalem could have been called a masjid.
Everybody among the sectarians know that the so-called masjid-al-aqsa has been built after the death of the prophet, and that there were no mosque in Jersusalem at the time of the prophet (even if they also pretend that this mosques has been built for the first time by Adam).
So, you have to find another analogy?

So you think that "the best" is to deceive people and "pretend" something. This explains your behavior.

It was ironical.

Next time you see a sectarian who tells you that Abraham built the so-called Kaaba tell him the fact that it is the Saudis who built it in 1996 and watch the blank look on his face. Just recently I was talking to a Palestinian guy I know and you should see the stupified look on his face when I told him the fact that the Ummayads are the ones who built Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa long after the prophet's death. It is a good analogy even down to the point of view of the reaction one gets from sectarians.

The ?kaaba? was not built in 1996. It was only repaired.

Hope you will at your turn demonstrate that you have learnt to distinguish the logical fallacies in our arguments, so that our debates can become more fruitful and more beneficial to the quest of truth.

I know how to distinguish logical fallacies and I don't need to copy and paste definitions from Wikipedia to show that I do.

Peace,

Ayman

That?s good news !
Anyway, do not hesitate to copy/paste definitions from Wikipedia so that your readers can increase in knowledge.

The last word will be for you, unless something new in your posts.

Peace

Alen

As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.

I think this happened so we can be further tested. Our life is one big test, right? We need to be tested all the time.
In the early age they had smaller tests, according to theri own intelligence and time and space but now we made progress on so many levels that we are tested on them.

I hope Allah Most Powerful will guide us all to the Right Path.
God bless you all.
As salamu alaykum.

truth

To truth,

People have purposefully distorted the words of the quran to promote their beliefs. And the words of those people is part of Islamic history.

Truth this is where we are different. You say distort, and I say misunderstand. Those misunderstandings later become cemented into the way people think and wala, there you have it. You'd call it a big conspiracy, I call it an institutionalized misunderstanding. The Al-Aqsaa mosque could have built and named after the one in the Quran, not a purposefull distortion. The word Ka'bah means cube too. When God revealed the Quran we weren't dealing with people who came together like here to discuss the meanings of words. This book was revealed at first to simple people. Most people incline to their biases without even knowing it. Take a proud Arab who grew up in Mecca and knew about the shrine in his town called the Ka'bah. If you put this word in a non-religious context or some other context he will understand this word as great honor, but he does this automatically without realizing it after years up years of using his language. He associates his religion with this shrine and here comes a book talking about religion and mentions this word Ka'abah. If he had thought and been logical and thought about how this message applies to all men he would have concluded that it meant great honor here, not this little old shrine. But the shrine is more apart of his life than all of mankind, and naturally he's going to look for how this book applies to his life. So he understands it as his shrine. That is natural for simple people caught up in their own world. We have to remember that this conciousness and ability to logically analyze is something that has been cultured in us. It is a product of the development that has stemmed from the Quran and other logical thought. They had to sit down and think about the Quran too, their ability to do that was most likely very limited except for the occasional true thinker here and there who probably knew more about the world. It's no wonder the the centers of Islamic sciences took root in what used to be Roman and Persian territories, where people had been more exposed to the world and he many ideas in it. So don't look at it as purposefull distortions. Most people then and today just blow with the winds. They might have come to respect Muhammad and the message he brought but that does not mean that all of them sat and thought about it. Even great thinkers are subject to skip over general understandings that they just take for granted.

I think you're missing the point.
Rumors can be correct. But "can" isn't enough

But 'can' is enough. When you are talking about logic, you are talking about the most possible likelihood that something is true. You can never know anything 100 percent. But the more likely something is true the more you "know" that it is true. We give paper statements more credit then rumors because we know that they are less likely to be corrupted, once they are preserved they are preserved. It's possible that the written statement is a lie from the beginning but that would be an unjust doubt if we have no indications of that. Innocent until proven guilty. As for rumors we know that they are subject to change and not as reliable as written statements. However, histories can be handed down in tact by rumors as well. Just because it is a rumor doesn't mean that it is not true, but by nature of being a rumor it is more possible that it was corrupted than an original written statement or by classes of people who memorized things and then constantly scrutinized each other's memorization of that story or record.

Knowing the nature of 'evidence', from rumors to original statements helps us weigh the likelihood of these evidences being authentic. Rumor has less authenticity then written or canonized/standardized statements which is why the Quran and other written statements like that of the Greek and Roman surveyors holds more sway than the Hadeeth when they contradict each other. To deny rumor altoghether just because it is rumor means denying what could possibly be true, and rumor is more authentic then conjured up conjectures, because rumor is at its root based on an eye-witnesses account (unless this can be proven otherwise) even though it can be subject to corruption, as all evidences are subject to corruption on different levels and in different ways.

Saying that Mecca didn't exist is a conjecture that goes against the evidence that all rumors agree to the fact that Mecca didn't exist and that these rumors at their base are based on what someone saw with their own eyes. If 50 people come to you and say they saw a purple monster, and there is no evidence that contradicts that then it must be assumed that there is some minimal truth to this statement. Whether you think it is outrageous or not. If it is proven that there is no such things as monsters then it has to be assumed that they saw something purple that could have resembled what they would have called a monster. The answer could be that all of them were on PCP or it could be that there is really some monster out there, but that is the way that logical deduction works. So the conclusion that Mecca didn't exist is less credible than even the Hadeeths because, rumors at their base are based on eye witness accounts, and artefactual evidence still allows for the existence of a city called Mecca, as long as it was not an important city. Whereas saying that it just didn't exist is based on nothing.

Godbbless,
Anwar

To Anwar,

Neither of those quotes is actually from me. I hope you can modify the post to reflect the error you have made.

Best wishes.

truth

Peace All

Most scientists today agree with the theory of evolution. However, there are missing links that have not fully explained the process homo sapiens as well as other creatures undertook. By this premise we cannot believe in evolution because there is no physical evidence of the crucial missing link.

In Egyptology, scientists still have yet to understand the mystery of the pyramid. There are several theories but none fully explain how the Great Pyramids of Giza were built. By this premise, we must believe that the Egyptians couldn't have built it, and instead create a new story that would sound less extraordinary than ancient people with no advanced technology building such a giant feat.

Da Vinci led an otherwise uninteresting life. Sure, he drew beautiful paintings but he was considered an outcast in the Fine Arts realm. Sadly, he only found fame after his death. Since nobody really cared for Da Vinci in his time and only decades later did they take notice of his artwork, by your premise, we can say he may not have lived during the era the history books record today. Instead it was his apprentice and others just hated the apprentice more than Da Vinci so they gave him the claim to fame.

Yesterday, I went to New York. Since there is no evidence I was there i.e., I didn't tell anyone, didn't leave any paper trail of receipts, and others thought I was at the park, - by your premise - I never went to New York.

When we make a claim, we need evidence to prove it. The extraordinary claim my friend, is that the history we've known for 100s of years is fake. The burden of evidence lies on you. If you claim this, you can't just state that there is no evidence to prove OTHERWISE. You must state that there is evidence to prove that you are right and history is wrong. This is practically impossible. Unless you physically find some artifact or ancient text that proves that the area was uninhabited until the 8th century.The fact that nobody mentioned it just proved that (a) it went by a different name, (b) scientists haven't found something that shows that YET (c) there was no reason to mention it because more significant things were happening elsewhere, nothing significant was happening there, or the person who wrote it has seen other cities but not that one. I've been to Egypt many times. I've never seen half the towns there. If you ask me to write about my thoughts on Egypt, I'll most likely tell you about the places I've personally seen. Not finding anything that says Mecca on it is very weak evidence. People simply didn't feel the need to record and file as we do today.

But my question is why is this so important to those of you who believe that Mecca is an innovation? What will it prove and how will it benefit me?

Peace All

Peace to you soul2squeeze,

You've intelligently argued your position however you and others here have overlooked the requirement that the onus of evidence is upon the positive claimants. So those who say that the present Mecca is somehow related to the emergence of Islam must prove it.

It is not sufficient to say that it must be true because that is what everyone accepts.

Ayman's argument in my opinion is equivalent to your final questions - that it doesn't matter what present day Mecca is or has become - that it benefits no one. The argument doesn't even rely upon the status of Mecca in history. It simply proves that the "MECCA" mentione in the reading is not a reference to ANY CITY at all!

Obviously the prophet was born somewhere, and equally as obviously the reading was revealed somewhere. We say who cares where it was - they say they need the city for whatever reason. The existence of a place like Mecca as the center for an organised religion only serves to concentrate power and money in the hands of whoever controls that center. I believe that is the motive for why people care.

I myself couldn't care less.

Regards.

PS If parts of this post aren't up to my usual standard then it's probably because I've typed it at 10 words per minute using Dvorak key mapping on my keyboard.

phoenix1

Obviously the prophet was born somewhere, and equally as obviously the reading was revealed somewhere. We say who cares where it was - they say they need the city for whatever reason. The existence of a place like Mecca as the center for an organised religion only serves to concentrate power and money in the hands of whoever controls that center. I believe that is the motive for why people care.

I myself couldn't care less

me neither.
As long as everyone agrees on that...

progod

It simply proves that the "MECCA" mentione in the reading is not a reference to ANY CITY at all!

Truth, why the ultimatum? Why can't that verse be saying both Mecca and destruction? Why can't it mean both the city and destruction at the same time? In my mind that makes what is being said even more powerful, that God can use this language so that passages in the Quran can have meaning on a specific level as well as on a universal level. Why one or the other? The word here can refer to both Mecca and destruction. If we can realize that then we can see the bigger picture.

Further you said

It is not sufficient to say that it must be true because that is what everyone accepts.

Well consider the things that I, JM and others have been saying like

Knowing the nature of 'evidence', from rumors to original statements helps us weigh the likelihood of these evidences being authentic. Rumor has less authenticity then written or canonized/standardized statements which is why the Quran and other written statements like that of the Greek and Roman surveyors holds more sway than the Hadeeth when they contradict each other. To deny rumor altoghether just because it is rumor means denying what could possibly be true, and rumor is more authentic then conjured up conjectures, because rumor is at its root based on an eye-witnesses account (unless this can be proven otherwise) even though it can be subject to corruption, as all evidences are subject to corruption on different levels and in different ways.
Anwar

Yes, the hadiths have no place in the deen, and should never be considered reliable. They should be ignored when they contradict the qurn.
However, they should not be disregarded as a tool to explore history. Something that is mentioned in many hadith with independent isnad can be considered to have some likelihood of truth.

Here are 2 examples of the way we could deal with the hadith
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm
http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm

To me, this kind of approach is far more scientific than baseless conjectures
JM

think this happened so we can be further tested. Our life is one big test, right? We need to be tested all the time.
In the early age they had smaller tests, according to theri own intelligence and time and space but now we made progress on so many levels that we are tested on them.
Alen

You say distort, and I say misunderstand. Those misunderstandings later become cemented into the way people think and wala, there you have it. You'd call it a big conspiracy, I call it an institutionalized misunderstanding. The word Ka'bah means cube too. This book was revealed at first to simple people. Most people incline to their biases without even knowing it. Take a proud Arab who grew up in Mecca and knew about the shrine in his town called the Ka'bah. He associates his religion with this shrine and here comes a book talking about religion and mentions this word Ka'abah. If he had thought and been logical and thought about how this message applies to all men he would have concluded that it meant great honor here, not this little old shrine. But the shrine is more apart of his life than all of mankind, and naturally he's going to look for how this book applies to his life. So he understands it as his shrine. That is natural for simple people caught up in their own world.
Anwar

As for those quotes sorry about that. I'll look back and see who wrote them. But I hope it served to help you understand my position better as well as for the person who actually did make those statements.

But again why the ultimatum? Why is one way or no way?

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Peace,

So those who say that the present Mecca is somehow related to the emergence of Islam must prove it.

What proofs are you looking for, Oben, other than the ones I provided earlier (see below)? Now kindly do me a fovour likewise which proves that Mecca and Kaba never existed in pre-Islam? I am not looking for Smithsonian tombstone incriptions in gibberish language which has nothing to do with the Arabic Quran. A couple of people on this forum, such as yourself and Ayman, out of the nearly 7 billion (which by the way includes the enemies of Islam), making a mighty freaky and outlandish claim in the non-existence of Mecca and Kaba on which lies the foundations of Islam (including the Quran) which Muhammad brought about, and you simply melt it down by your wishy-washy notions.

The argument doesn't even rely upon the status of Mecca in history. It simply proves that the "MECCA" mentione in the reading is not a reference to ANY CITY at all!

Amazing, and just how do you figure that one? What do you know about this "Great Reading" anyways; that it came floating down out of thin air (read and study the links provided) or perhaps a supreme god located at Kaba said so?

Obviously the prophet was born somewhere, and equally as obviously the reading was revealed somewhere. We say who cares where it was - they say they need the city for whatever reason. The existence of a place like Mecca as the center for an organised religion only serves to concentrate power and money in the hands of whoever controls that center. I believe that is the motive for why people care.

No, not just somewhere, but certainly in Mecca where Muhammad was born. And as far as the compilation of the Quran....oh, well, its a whole different chapter. Obviously you don't care where and how the Quran came about because, afterall, of whatever the heck it talks about, it just blindly says so because its written or sent down by an alleged "Allah", and that too in pure clairty, precision and detail.

Take you time and make sure you read and study the links below, all of them

The earliest biography of Muhammad
http//web.archive.org/web/20040625103910/http//www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html#The%20earliest%20biography%20of%20Muhammad,%20by%20ibn%20Ishaq

Muhammad, Mahomet, Mahmud, Mehmet, Abdallah, etc.
http//31.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MAHOMET.htm

Islam, Mecca and Kaba
http//www.therefinersfire.org/mecca.htm

The origins of Mecca and historic Arabia
http//www.mideastweb.org/arabiahistory.htm

http//www.1911encyclopedia.org/M/ME/MECCA.htm

http//www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa51

Ancients accounts of Arabia (430 BCE ? 550 CE)
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/arabia1.html

http//islamreview.org/KoranKafir/appendix4.html

Pre-Islamic hanged poems (before 622 CE)
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/640hangedpoems.html

Arabs in fifth century
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/shahid.html

Muhammad as portrayed in Answers.com which includes dictionary, encyclopedias, literature, WorldNet, Wikipedia, etc.
http//www.answers.com/topic/muhammad

Historicity of Kaba (hajj)
http//www.crystalinks.com/blackstone.html

http//www.archiveeditions.co.uk/Leafcopy%5C430-2.htm

Kaba, a Hindu temple
http//www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm

http//www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0002/ET21-5523.html

http//www.islamreview.com/articles/inventionofislam.shtml

http//www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-philosophy/307-interesting-history-kaaba-originallya-hindu-temple.html

phoenix1

peace Danish,

the above is not evidence.
I found the Kaaba being a Hindu temple thing interesting, but I don't know how that can be true. And why they would hang a hindu dish inside the kaaba in the first place, let alone how this person got to know about it. And the author makes some pretty stupid comments.
If I did miss something, please give it to me.

I do recognize the possibility that the hadith give us a true account of what went on during the prophet's life.
Maybe we can look at the arabic of some of the hadith that mention Mecca and Kaaba and reach a conclusion, because we know that they have been at least corrupted if not there to corrupt.

unknownuser

Peace,

the above is not evidence.

I'll ask you the same question which I asked Oben earlier and that is what sort of evidence/proof are you looking for exactly? The links I gave are not enough, the enemies of Islam who talk about it are not enough, Muslim websites are not enough, others here who agree are not enough, ahadiths are not enough, encyclopedias and dictionaries are not enough and finally your own book of "Allah" is not enough. elektro