How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

[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

[phoenix1]

peace Danish,

I'll answer your question. Look at Ayman's evidence, and look at your evidence.
His was archeological facts. Not historical rumors.

[ayman]

Peace IPM,

I'll answer your question. Look at Ayman's evidence, and look at your evidence.
His was archeological facts. Not historical rumors.

As can be clearly seen in this discussion, everyone here who believes in Mecca from Anwar to JM to Danish to whoever believes in it on the basis of the pious fiction of Hadith and Sira.

I am not going back to discussing why Hadith and Sira are not real evidence. I've had those discussions a few years ago. The Hadith and Sira falsehoods have been beaten to death and we have progressed greatly since then. Now when people such as Anwar, Danish and JM try to put their cart in front of this Hadith/Sira dead horse, we should not waste our time in beating it again when it is already dead. Even Sunnis on newsgroups where I post such soc.religion.islam don't dare bringing up Hadiths into such discussions. This is not out of their kind hearts but they have learned the hard way that Hadiths are indefensible as evidence. At best they only give a distorted picture about the discussions going on at the time when they were cannonized (the late Abbassid era).

Peace,

Ayman

[unknownuser]

Peace Ayman,

I've been browsing and studying this entire thread along with the links you'd provided. At this moment, I will present some of your earlier statements and a few concerns to begin with.

There is no evidence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca and the evidence shows that the common noun "mecca" (destruction) in 4824 was appropriated after the great reading was revealed.

The problem is that you consistently baffle around about ?pre-quranic? but when faced with a question as to when the Quran was revealed, you coughed it out as being not important. Now then, how do you figure something out from "pre-quranic" not knowing when it was actually compiled to begin with; meaning what evidence do you have about the year or century that is ?pre-quranic? in order to understand and support your claim whether Mecca (Makkah) existed or not before that time?

We know from the great reading that the people of the prophet venerated idols called Allat, Aluzza and Manat (5319-20) and this is confirmed by archeological evidence.

Could you please provide the name of this archeologist/s (or a link) who examined the idols in bold above? I?d like to witness the PROOFS of what's cookin?

12106. And the majority of them do not have faith in The God except while they are idolaters.

If we believe in 12106, then we must know that the majority of people who have faith in The God are idolaters who associate idols such as Allat with The God as we saw above.

Actually ?Allah? at the Kaba is The God, The Supreme/The Almighty and Allat, Uzza and Manat were the goddesses (daughters of Allah) of which Allat was the chief goddess, including but not limited to idols such as Harut, Marut, Hubel, etc., and numerous other idols present at Kaba during Muhammad?s time. Muhammad destroyed almost all the idols leaving behind The Almighty Supreme along with few others; the angels and children of Allah.

Taken from Smithsonian National Museum (http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_islamic/islamic.htm)
"The first school of Arabic writing and calligraphy developed in the two Holy cities of Makkah and Medinah. The two well known scripts which were developed in Makkah and Medina were known as Makki and Madani scripts. These appeared long before the Kufi script and during the first century Hegra; the Arabic was written in two different styles known as Hard Kufi and Soft Kufi. The present form of Arabic writing with dots and signs developed around 2nd century Hegra (8th century AD).

From the above, can you figure out the existence/period of Mecca (Makkah)?

That's all for now. Thanks.

[truth]

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.

I'm not asking for proof that a settlement in what is now called "Mecca" and any shrine did not exist pre-Islam at their present sites. So the claim is not about the existence of places but rather about the wording, meaning and grammar of the use of the word 'mecca'.

Ayman's argument is decisive in showing that the word "mecca" in the reading is not a proper noun. Let's examine this a bit further with an example.

"...the man stumbled around in darkness..."

Ignoring the fact it's presented in lowercase; from that sentence is "darkness" an adjective or a proper noun?

It is clear from the fact that the man is stumbling and context that the darkness is an adjective. What the "Mecca is a place/proper noun" proponents are arguing is equivalent to saying that in the sentence above, that darkness is actually "Darkness" a little known town in Scotland (a made up town).

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.

These are non-issues to the matter at hand.

The ultimate problem is in the truth of the accepted histories. Someone naive to the city of Brisbane where I live may not know the history of its roads etc. They may read modern accounts and consulting current street directories come to believe the wrong things. An example is in the very areas where I live...

Originally closer to Brisbane, what is now Wynnum Road was called Bulimba Road, and further out it was called Wynnum Road or Lytton Road. When the bridge was built over the mouth of Norman Creek in 1856, Wynnum Road became a faster route to Cleveland and so became known as the Cleveland Road. In 1863, a Parliamentary report declared the road was impassable and people had to travel by private land. Wynnum Road was known as Cleveland Road until the 1950s.

So a number of the roads in my area were called completely different things only 50-100 years ago; not only that but the actual roads in existence today share those names but are located in places different to what the history records.

Not many people alive today could tell you any of those things and would believe that the modern day roads have been that way from the time they were built.

I hope these things have illuminated the issue a little more.

Regards.

[unknownuser]

Ha Ha truth

you actually dimmed the subject by your example of "In Darkness", ironically I agree with you however you talking about totally something else that is equivelent to "Fi" not "Be"

the letter in front of Mecca that we have is "Be Mecca", not "Fi Mecca"

I hope that you see where you got it wrong

Regards

[truth]

Ha Ha truth

you actually dimmed the subject by your example of "In Darkness", ironically I agree with you however you talking about totally something else that is equivelent to "Fi" not "Be"

the letter in front of Mecca that we have is "Be Mecca", not "Fi Mecca"

I hope that you see where you got it wrong

Regards

Dear Ahmed,

My example was purely an English one that I constructed to illustrate the point; not to create an exact analogy. And no, it wasn't an Arabic lesson, nor did it purport to be.

Regards.

[unknownuser]

Ha Ha truth

you actually dimmed the subject by your example of "In Darkness", ironically I agree with you however you talking about totally something else that is equivelent to "Fi" not "Be"

the letter in front of Mecca that we have is "Be Mecca", not "Fi Mecca"

I hope that you see where you got it wrong

Regards

Dear Ahmed,

My example was purely an English one that I constructed to illustrate the point; not to create an analogy. And no, it wasn't an Arabic lesson, nor did it purport to be.

Regards.

Bro

but you were using this example to explain the arabic words "Be Batn Mecca"

now if it means what you mean it should be "Fi Makka" and that is what destrection mean Makka not Mekka

Salam

[truth]

Ha Ha truth

you actually dimmed the subject by your example of "In Darkness", ironically I agree with you however you talking about totally something else that is equivelent to "Fi" not "Be"

the letter in front of Mecca that we have is "Be Mecca", not "Fi Mecca"

I hope that you see where you got it wrong

Regards

Dear Ahmed,

My example was purely an English one that I constructed to illustrate the point; not to create an analogy. And no, it wasn't an Arabic lesson, nor did it purport to be.

Regards.

Bro

but you were using this example to explain the arabic words "Be Batn Mecca"

now if it means what you mean it should be "Fi Makka" and that is what destrection mean Makka not Mekka

Salam

Ahmed,

The example was designed to show the ambiguity that can exist due to how we treat the word - ie. as an adjective or as a noun.

It is clear from the context that the sentence I quoted has "darkness" as an adjective - but someone might create a town called "Darkness" and suddenly the man is now stumbling around in a town and not in blackness.

[unknownuser]

ok truth

salam mate

[unknownuser]

Peace Oben,

I am sorry I can't buy the terminology of a city named Mecca to become destruction, because, as per 4824, the city was victored, not destroyed. Secondly, Mecca was never destroyed prior to, during and after "pre-quranic" times. Thirdly, assuming mecca meant destruction, then what city are you and Ayman talking about that bought destruction? Please provide your famous "archeological" evidence? If you notice, the verse also gives victory to "them" as well, which is a bit unclear and inconsistent.

[truth]

Peace Oben,

I am sorry I can't buy the terminology of a city named Mecca to become destruction, because, as per 4824, the city was victored, not destroyed. Secondly, Mecca was never destroyed prior to, during and after "pre-quranic" times. Thirdly, assuming mecca meant destruction, then what city are you and Ayman talking about that bought destruction? Please provide your famous "archeological" evidence? If you notice, the verse also gives victory to "them" as well, which is a bit unclear and inconsistent.

Going with that reasoning, the cities of Berlin and London should be in ruins still. Other cities which have been sacked should also be non-existent. The fact is that the destruction of war whether it be to buildings or other things is passing. People rebuild the structures, institutions and social bonds.

Regards.

BTW No one is arguing that the modern city "Mecca" was destroyed etc. You're still convinced that the word "mecca" in the reading pertains to what the people have accepted it to mean. Does it really matter where it was? Could you not be who you are if it all happenned at the North Pole?

[ayman]

Peace Danish,

The problem is that you consistently baffle around about ?pre-quranic? but when faced with a question as to when the Quran was revealed, you coughed it out as being not important. Now then, how do you figure something out from "pre-quranic" not knowing when it was actually compiled to begin with; meaning what evidence do you have about the year or century that is ?pre-quranic? in order to understand and support your claim whether Mecca (Makkah) existed or not before that time?

We don't know exactly when the great reading was descended and as I said pin pointing the date is not important from the point of view of the message. Academically, one can probably estimate late 6th - early 7th century CE (580's-610's). But this is only an estimate. Now for someone like you who thinks that the great reading is manmade, you are actually forced to admit this dating. Certainly a manmade book would have attempted to deal with the many significant events of the middle of the 7th century or at least show some bias towards those events. Had it been manmade, then the fact that the great reading doesn't mention any events of the Arab conquests or civil wars gives it a terminus ante quem date of no later than the 620s CE, which is when the Kingdom of the Arabs began and they started the rapid expansion into Persian and Byzantine territory. At any rate, as I said many times, the great reading must be judged not based on dating but based on the criteria that it sets for itself, namely internal consistency and the message it is conveying.

We know from the great reading that the people of the prophet venerated idols called Allat, Aluzza and Manat (5319-20) and this is confirmed by archeological evidence.

Could you please provide the name of this archeologist/s (or a link) who examined the idols in bold above? I?d like to witness the PROOFS of what's cookin?

Just look for yourself in the web site of the Saudi Antiquities. For example, you will see an invocation to Allat in this north Arabian inscription

http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig22-safaitic09.htm

There are many such invocations to those idols in inscriptions in Arabia.

Actually ?Allah? at the Kaba is The God, The Supreme/The Almighty and Allat, Uzza and Manat were the goddesses (daughters of Allah) of which Allat was the chief goddess, including but not limited to idols such as Harut, Marut, Hubel, etc., and numerous other idols present at Kaba during Muhammad?s time. Muhammad destroyed almost all the idols leaving behind The Almighty Supreme along with few others; the angels and children of Allah.

This is false. The word "allah/al-ilah" is not the proper name of a deity. It is a generic noun meaning "the god". Similarly the word "kaaba" is not the proper name of a structure. It is a common noun that means "base". Thus, in Arabic "kaab al-wadi" means "the base of the valley". The cube idol was never called Kaaba and we never see the name Kaaba inscribed on one of those cubes. On the other hand, we find named of idols such as Allat and Dushara inscribed on those cubes and even sometimes those cube blocks were enhanced with an eye and a nose. Such blocks are commonly referred to as "jinn" blocks because they are ABSTRACT (imaginary) representations of the idols. This is probably relevant to the discussions going on about the translation of "jinn" (imagination/fantasy) on another thread on this forum.

Taken from Smithsonian National Museum (http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_islamic/islamic.htm)
"The first school of Arabic writing and calligraphy developed in the two Holy cities of Makkah and Medinah. The two well known scripts which were developed in Makkah and Medina were known as Makki and Madani scripts. These appeared long before the Kufi script and during the first century Hegra; the Arabic was written in two different styles known as Hard Kufi and Soft Kufi. The present form of Arabic writing with dots and signs developed around 2nd century Hegra (8th century AD).

From the above, can you figure out the existence/period of Mecca (Makkah)?

You are wrong. This is taken from the Saudi Department of Antiquities. Read the top right-hand side of the web page. Such nonsense taken from pious fiction can be easily dismissed. Just look at all the inscriptions that they have on the site starting from the pre-Islamic all the way to the Islamic ones. You will not find a single example of this supposed Makkah and Medinah script. In fact, you will never find a single such example anywhere. In the area of central Arabia where Mecca is, the script used was the Musnad script, which is completely different to the Nabataean Aramaic script that evovled into the Kufic script. By the way, as an interesting side note, Kufa is another name for the city of Hira. When the city of Hira grew it became named Kufa. So unlike central Arabia where Musnad was the script used, Kufa is a natural setting for the development of the Arabic script as per the evidence in the article.

Peace,

Ayman

[unknownuser]

Peace Oben,

I am sorry I can't buy the terminology of a city named Mecca to become destruction, because, as per 4824, the city was victored, not destroyed. Secondly, Mecca was never destroyed prior to, during and after "pre-quranic" times. Thirdly, assuming mecca meant destruction, then what city are you and Ayman talking about that bought destruction? Please provide your famous "archeological" evidence? If you notice, the verse also gives victory to "them" as well, which is a bit unclear and inconsistent.

Going with that reasoning, the cities of Berlin and London should be in ruins still. Other cities which have been sacked should also be non-existent. The fact is that the destruction of war whether it be to buildings or other things is passing. People rebuild the structures, institutions and social bonds.

With your reasoning based upon mine, you should be at Carnaby Lane in Oxford Street selling and buying cheesecloth.

BTW No one is arguing that the modern city "Mecca" was destroyed etc.

Neither am I or Ayman.

You're still convinced that the word "mecca" in the reading pertains to what the people have accepted it to mean.

Why, you don't believe in people....err...I mean humans?

Does it really matter where it was? Could you not be who you are if it all happenned at the North Pole?

Certainly, I could be at North Pole. But can you be at Mecca 1500 years ago?