Who Was the Pharoah of Moses
-
He did not drown in a "sea" of any kind. The event took place inland.
Find here how erroneous is your conclusion
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/7.138.gif
And We led Bani Iesraa'eela safely cross over the Al Bahr;Did they come back inland? No
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/007.%20Al%20Airaaf/7.138a.gif
then they reached/passed by a people who devotedly surrounded their statues .What do you think, is this information, Allah forbids, incorrect and what you suggest "inland activity" is the truth?
-
4- The land in which Joseph lived depended on rain for its agriculture. This does not fit with the geography nor the climate of the Nile Valley, a land that sees very little rain and relies on the Nile itself (irrigation canals). In fact, heavy rains often caused flooding of the river, which proved catastrophic for their crops.
5- The rivers in Joseph's land dried up after several years drought, because they were not the type of rivers that were permanent. The Nile of Egypt has never dried up.
Salaam Pazuzu
When doing a research of this magnitude, it is always advisable to read counter arguments in order to, at least, be ready to refute them.
Since you concluded that "the Nile of Egypt has never dried up", I would like to read your opinion on this inscription found in Egypt. This English translation of part of it
For seven years the Nile has not risen.
The fields are dry, no man buries his neighbor?.
Children weep?. All Egypt perishes.is from this site http//www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200603/the.last.nile.flood.htm
And here is the ancient inscription that dates to the third dynasty
http//www.egyptianmyths.net/images/famine.jpg
http//www.egyptianmyths.net/mythfamine.htm
Whether it refers to the story of Joseph or not is another matter.
-
And here is the ancient inscription that dates to the third dynasty
http//www.egyptianmyths.net/mythfamine.htm
Whether it refers to the story of Joseph or not is another matter.
Salam Samia,
This site is telling - The Afterward
It is not said whether Khnemu kept his promise to Tscher, but we may assume he did. The form of the narrative of the Seven Years' Famine summarized above is not older than the Ptolemaic period,
This proves Pazuzu's Theory that this conspiracy of changing name of Misr to Egyptos happened during Ptolemaic period.
-
Salaam Pazuzu
When doing a research of this magnitude, it is always advisable to read counter arguments in order to, at least, be ready to refute them.
Since you concluded that "the Nile of Egypt has never dried up", I would like to read your opinion on this inscription found in Egypt. This English translation of part of it
is from this site http//www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200603/the.last.nile.flood.htmAnd here is the ancient inscription that dates to the third dynasty
http//www.egyptianmyths.net/images/famine.jpg
http//www.egyptianmyths.net/mythfamine.htm
Whether it refers to the story of Joseph or not is another matter.
The text does not say that the Nile dried up, it didn't flood, which is tragic enough, but dry up it didn't.
But I do not think anybody in the thread has said that the Nile did flood evry single year without failure or that there was not famine at all in ancient Egypt. That has not been any of the contentions, as far as I have seen.
Salaam
-
The text does not say that the Nile dried up, it didn't flood, which is tragic enough, but dry up it didn't.
But I do not think anybody in the thread has said that the Nile did flood evry single year without failure or that there was not famine at all in ancient Egypt. That has not been any of the contentions, as far as I have seen.
Salaam
Did the qur'aan say the river dried up? Where in the story of Joseph is there any mention of a river drying up?
Or is it that brother Pazuzu is bringing up any statement for the sake of refuting it?
What he says is that Egypt depends on the Nile not the rain,. When the Nile does not rise, it is because of lack of rain...simple knowledge.Again, no mention of rain falling in Egypt. I am aware of your discussion with Ndp where you insist that the verb "yughath" means to have rain. This is wrong. It means (they are relieved), and the official title of the UNRWA in Arabic is . I do not think that you expect the UN to make rain fall over the refugees.
In the qur'aan the verb is used in this meaning too
In 89 people ask for help (ن from God and he descended malaika to them, not rain.
In DD the criminals ask for relief of their torture ( ا and they get "hot water" pouring on their faces, 1829
In the story of Musa in 2815, somone from his clan ask for help (ه
...etc...etc -
Salam Samia,
This site is telling - The Afterward
It is not said whether Khnemu kept his promise to Tscher, but we may assume he did. The form of the narrative of the Seven Years' Famine summarized above is not older than the Ptolemaic period,
This proves Pazuzu's Theory that this conspiracy of changing name of Misr to Egyptos happened during Ptolemaic period.
Salaam Faruk
Pazuzu's theory is not that! He does not believe that the name Misr was ever given to Egypt, let alone be changed in any era whatsoever!
And what does this have to do with my post? -
Salam Mazhar,
7136
Is there any difference between 'bahar' and 'yam'? Why Allah uses two different words to describe the same thing?Salaam Faruk
Allow me to reply to you
yam is the body of water
bahr is the body of water, bed and shores, all included.
This is why the qur'aan says (We drowned them in the yam the verse above) and (We took the Children of Israel across the sea 7138 ). -
Salam Mazhar,
7136
Is there any difference between 'bahar' and 'yam'? Why Allah uses two different words to describe the same thing?It was kind of Sister Samia that she attended your querry, which I had missed noticing.
Qur'aan tells that they were all drowned, altogether. Is it not strange that army of a nation who has all time river in the middle of their country and sea on their two sides could drown in water with not even one escaping?
It was not water that caused their submersion within the Yamm/body of water. Something esle forcibly drowned them.
-
Did the qur'aan say the river dried up? Where in the story of Joseph is there any mention of a river drying up?
Or is it that brother Pazuzu is bringing up any statement for the sake of refuting it?What he says is that Egypt depends on the Nile not the rain,. When the Nile does not rise, it is because of lack of rain...simple knowledge.
Again, no mention of rain falling in Egypt.
I am aware of your discussion with Ndp where you insist that the verb "yughath" means to have rain. This is wrong. It means (they are relieved), and the official title of the UNRWA in Arabic is . I do not think that you expect the UN to make rain fall over the refugees.
In the qur'aan the verb is used in this meaning too
In 89 people ask for help (ن from God and he descended malaika to them, not rain.
In DD the criminals ask for relief of their torture ( ا and they get "hot water" pouring on their faces, 1829
In the story of Musa in 2815, somone from his clan ask for help (ه
...etc...etcNo, Samia, you are barking at the wrong tree. I am not quoting Pazuzu, I am quoting YOU, where you say
Salaam Pazuzu
When doing a research of this magnitude, it is always advisable to read counter arguments in order to, at least, be ready to refute them.
Since you concluded that "the Nile of Egypt has never dried up", I would like to read your opinion on this inscription found in Egypt. This English translation of part of it
Quote
For seven years the Nile has not risen.
The fields are dry, no man buries his neighbor?.
Children weep?. All Egypt perishes.is from this site http//www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200603/the.last.nile.flood.htm
you acuse Pazuzu of cluncluding that the "the Nile of Egypt has never dried up".
So neither I nor Pazuzu that I know of, never, ever, occurred to us to say anything like that, but it is you who first suggested that the Nile did had dried up, since you accuse Pazuzu of saying that it had never dried up and you tell him to red the link you give before making affirmations like that. So the article does not say that it dried up, but you suggest that it does when you contradict Pazuzu as if with that link you were going to prove that the Nile indeed had dried up. Pazuzu never said anything of the kind that I know of, nor did I, nor does the Qur'an. You did, or implied that you thought so.
So, as you say
Or is it that brother Pazuzu is bringing up any statement for the sake of refuting it?
If somebody is bring up an statement for the sake of refuting it, in this case it it certainly not Pazuzu, nor I.
You say
What he says is that Egypt depends on the Nile not the rain,. When the Nile does not rise, it is because of lack of rain...simple knowledge.
Who is bringing up statements for the sake of refuting them or playing games? What, do you really think? We do not know what we are talking about and that rivers fill up because of rain somewhere within their basins? If people say that having the field flooded depends on the Nile, they are not ever negating that it is because somewhere upstream there have been rains nor anybody would bother stating that, because it is like saying that if we breath it is because air exists. We breath because WE have air. So the rain statement is quite to the point.
I know that you are a great expert in Arabic and I have a lot of respect for you and have learnt a lot from you, but that does not mean that you are always right, for whatever reason which I am sure it is not lack of knowledge, that would be rather my case, but some other reason.
If I knew how to copy paste from the Lane dictionnary I would put the whole article on gh-y-th, because it seems that I am inventing something, and I am not. Please, readers, if you have not done so, verify that article, Lane, root gh-y-th. I have other dictionnaries too, and invariably, without knowing that these days I would be searching for that root in order to decidee whether it was in Egypt or somewhere else where this happened, they all have confabulated to say in general it means rain and that its form I means to rain,
that it means rain, or as quoted underneath.It is not my invention. Underneath I copy the entry in Project root list
Gh-Ya-Thal = watered (with rain), rained upon, rain; search, seek; became fat
ghatha vb. (1)
impf. pass. 1249, 1829ghayth n.m. 3134, 4228, 5720
istaghatha vb. (10) 1829
Lane?s Lexicon, Volume 6, pages 98
That means at least five dictionnaries I have consulted.
You say
Again, no mention of rain falling in Egypt.
Well, that is what Pazuzu has been saying all along, and that is why Qur'an speaks about rain, but it does not speak about Egypt.
I am aware of your discussion with Ndp where you insist that the verb "yughath" means to have rain. This is wrong. It means (they are relieved), and the official title of the UNRWA in Arabic is . I do not think that you expect the UN to make rain fall over the refugees.
Whatever you say, but
w (UNRWA) cannot be a proof of anything because which you put as proof, is root gh-w-th and not gh-y-th, and I have repeatedly pointed out that they are two different roots, and the derived verbs and words are also different. And I am very surprised, if you have read the exchange between Noon and me, that now you bring that up and you do not clarify anything at all why it should be relevant when it is not the root nor the word which is the subject of the discussion and does nothing here.
In 89 people ask for help (ن from God and he descended malaika to them, not rain.
In DD the criminals ask for relief of their torture ( ا and they get "hot water" pouring on their faces, 1829
In the story of Musa in 2815, somone from his clan ask for help (ه
...etc...etcFine, that is not form I of the verb, that is form X, and as I suggested before, it might be understood as an extension of the primary meaning, like when we pray God to shower His blessings, or to shower His bounty. But the verbs for rain are no form X, and the hel and socour are root gh-w-th, not gh-y-th.
Salaam
-
Salaam All
Since we have quite a few experts on Arabic on this forum I would like them to comment if my understanding is wrong;
1091 "Now you say this? While before you disobeyed and were of the corrupters!"
1092 "This day, We will preserve your body, so that you become a sign for those after you." But most of the people are unaware of Our signs!
As I understand here Allah is saying it to one person titled Fir3an that He will preserve his body. In the case of Egypt's mummies it was not just one body preserved but many, and they were preserved by the Egyptains themselves as mummyfying was a common practice then.
Secondly the whole world knows about the preserved bodies of "Pharoahs" whereas Allah says But most of the people are unaware of Our signs!
Could it be that the body of Fir3an is preserved somewhere(under water?), but hidden from most of us. Perhaps one day it may emerge as a result of some search. hmm -
Salaam Huruf
I just hope that next time you do not include your response within the quote. It makes it difficult to read and more to quote to respond to. This is a request not an order, of course.
you acuse Pazuzu of cluncluding that the "the Nile of Egypt has never dried up".
So neither I nor Pazuzu that I know of, never, ever, occurred to us to say anything like that, but it is you who first suggested that the Nile did had dried up, since you accuse Pazuzu of saying that it had never dried up and you tell him to red the link you give before making affirmations like that. So the article does not say that it dried up, but you suggest that it does when you contradict Pazuzu as if with that link you were going to prove that the Nile indeed had dried up. Pazuzu never said anything of the kind that I know of, nor did I, nor does the Qur'an. You did, or implied that you thought so.
So, as you say
I read the whole thread together and the information are still fresh in my mind. Brother Pazuzu claims that Egyptian system of irrigation depends on the Nile, not on the rain. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go back and sift the posts to come up with a quote. But anytime I find it I will post it here.
In his latest post he claims that the river Nile never dried up. What would one understand? And why such a statement? I understood that there was no famine. Hence my post. I did not stop much at "the River Nile never dried up" literally, but I understood what he was alluding at. Was there any other explanation to the purpose of his sentence?If I knew how to copy paste from the Lane dictionnary I would put the whole article on gh-y-th, because it seems that I am inventing something, and I am not. Please, readers, if you have not done so, verify that article, Lane, root gh-y-th. I have other dictionnaries too, and invariably, without knowing that these days I would be searching for that root in order to decidee whether it was in Egypt or somewhere else where this happened, they all have confabulated to say in general it means rain and that its form I means to rain,
that it means rain, or as quoted underneath.It is not my invention. Underneath I copy the entry in Project root list
Gh-Ya-Thal = watered (with rain), rained upon, rain; search, seek; became fat
ghatha vb. (1)
impf. pass. 1249, 1829ghayth n.m. 3134, 4228, 5720
istaghatha vb. (10) 1829
Lane?s Lexicon, Volume 6, pages 98
I wish you continued copying the meaning of the verb "istagatha", because it is a verb that was used, not a noun. I did not claim that "ghayth" did not mean rain. In fact "ghayth" and these verbs you are copying do not even share the same root. ghayth = rain (gh/y/th) and the verb which means to relief (gh/wau/th). I gave you examples from the qur'aan where the VERB is used. The verse in the chapter of Yousuf uses a verb, not the noun "ghayth". So please go and check in Lane's the meaning of the verb. The noun from the verb is (ghawth) not (ghayth) as I mentioned before for the UNRWA
Well, that is what Pazuzu has been saying all along, and that is why Qur'an speaks about rain, but it does not speak about Egypt.
There is a difference between what I say and what Pazuzu says, even if it seems to you they are similar. Pazuzu builds his claim how the famine was "relieved" . He believes, like you, that the people were saved by rain, not just "saved" as the verse puts it. He then concludes that this is not gypt, since they do not depend on rain. And I say there is no mention of rain in Egypt". Do you see the difference now?
Fine, that is not form I of the verb, that is form X, and as I suggested before, it might be understood as an extension of the primary meaning, like when we pray God to shower His blessings, or to shower His bounty. But the verbs for rain are no form X, and the hel and socour are root gh-w-th, not gh-y-th.
The verb used in the verse is of form IV. Interestingly, I gave you verse 18 29 where both forms are used (X and IV) in the form when they X (yastgheethuun) they are IV (yughathuu). Form X to form IV in this verb is like an active and a passive tense in English or like saying they (ask for help) and they are (helped).
As for the relation of rain to the root, as I mentioned above, there is none. The root for (ghayth) is a completely different one.
-
Salam,
I have put together a chronology of events from the Quran regarding the Children of Israel to establish both time-line and location of events.
http//free-minds.org/kingdom-israel
Salaam Layth
I am aware of your article and I am sorry to say it did not convice me as much as Pazuzu did, even if he did put his findings "haphazardly".
I would not say that I would always agree with Pazuzu nor that he is some kind of authority but in this case he has used the Quran to apply the facts whereas yours is just your theory based on common perception.
I will ask you again to reflect on this
1091 "Now you say this? While before you disobeyed and were of the corrupters!"
1092 "This day, We will preserve your body, so that you become a sign for those after you." But most of the people are unaware of Our signs!
As I understand it here Allah is saying to person titled Fir3an that He will preserve his body. In the case of Egypt's mummies it was not just one body preserved but many, and they were preserved by the Egyptains themselves as mummyfying was a common practice then.
Secondly the whole world knows about the preserved bodies of "Pharoahs", whereas Allah points out But most of the people are unaware of Our signs! yes -
Dear Imho,
The article was not written to convince you or anyone else who wants to have their own theories about events - it was meant to bring Quranic verses and cohesion into what was otherwise becomming a chaotic subject.
My own view is that some people who have been promoting this line of thinking are mainly doing so to go against the establishment (a sort of rebellion) and are not really after facts.
As for your question on Pharaoh - the obvious answer is that his body should not have been found (let alone preserved) as it was drowned in the sea with thousands of his troops. Yet, in a miracle, the body of Pharaoh is washed ashore - within a short period where the body is still fresh - and his followers still manage to perform mumification and then tomb the body - which is not vandalized or robbed for 3,000 years, and is found preserved centuries later as a "sign for mankind".
-
The verb used in the verse is of form IV. Interestingly, I gave you verse 18 29 where both forms are used (X and IV) in the form when they X (yastgheethuun) they are IV (yughathuu). Form X to form IV in this verb is like an active and a passive tense in English or like saying they (ask for help) and they are (helped).
As for the relation of rain to the root, as I mentioned above, there is none. The root for (ghayth) is a completely different one.
Salaam Samia,
Perhaps you can explain why classification using separate roots; is this an error by Lane's et al?
When reading Qur'an in context and cross reference most the translators got these verses wrong...
?root ghayn y th
?root ghayn ww th ? why different root?
Gh-Ya-Thal = watered (with rain), rained upon, rain; search, seek; became fat
ghatha vb. (1)
impf. pass. 1249, 1829 (what?s this doing here if it?s a different root and rain doesn't fit in these verses?)1249 furthermore comes from after like that Aam (season) in it y-gh--th will be given relief
1829 and if yastaghth they call for relief y-gh--th-w-a they will be given relief
ghayth n.m. 3134, 4228, 5720
3134 and sent down the relief
4228 and He The One Who sent down the relief from after what they despaired
istaghatha vb. (10) 1829?
Lane?s Lexicon, Volume 6, pages 98
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000098.pdfGod watered the country, or countries with rain?
And He (God) sent down rain upon us?
The people were rained upon; rain fell upon the people or upon their land
We were rained upon as much as we desired?
...and the phrase properly signifies a rain that give aid, or succour.-- root ghayn ww th
Gh-Waw-Thal = cry for aid, succor, desiring aid; implore for assistance, traveling provision; food to give aid; waters; to assist/help/relieve/rescue.
yaghuth n. 7123
istaghatha vb. (10)
perf. act. 2815
impf. act. 89, 1829, 46172815 fa-is'taghthahu so called him for help
89 when tastaghthna you were seeking help your Lord
1829 and if yastaghth they call for relief y-gh--th-w-a they will be given relief
4617 and they both seek help The God
Lane?s Lexicon, Volume 6, pages 89, 90
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000089.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000090.pdf -
Salaam Layth,
The article was not written to convince you or anyone else who wants to have their own theories about events - it was meant to bring Quranic verses and cohesion into what was otherwise becomming a chaotic subject.
I am sorry but, if you don't mind me saying so, this article seems, not so much the application of Quranic verses, but more an illustrated children's fairy tale, going back and forth from one land to another to fill in the blanks.
My own view is that some people who have been promoting this line of thinking are mainly doing so to go against the establishment (a sort of rebellion) and are not really after facts.
I can say this much for myself that I am only promoting what appears to me to be in line with the Qur'an, and yes there are some people who are too scared of rebelling against the establishment; may Allah guide them to the right path
Then there are others, who are not willing to accept that they or their parents could be going to the wrong places for Hajj and they are sure that the overwhelming feelings they had during Hajj confirms that that was the right place. However Allah had knowledge of this deception so that is why you read in the Qur'an that the meat of the animal that you sacrifice does not reach Allah but your taqwa does the the overwhelming emotions are as a result of love for Allah and feeling of acheivement that one have responded to the call for Hajj.As for your question on Pharaoh - the obvious answer is that his body should not have been found (let alone preserved) as it was drowned in the sea with thousands of his troops. Yet, in a miracle, the body of Pharaoh is washed ashore - within a short period where the body is still fresh - and his followers still manage to perform mumification and then tomb the body - which is not vandalized or robbed for 3,000 years, and is found preserved centuries later as a "sign for mankind".
Could you please provide the source of the above scenario.
peace -
Salaam Huruf
I just hope that next time you do not include your response within the quote. It makes it difficult to read and more to quote to respond to. This is a request not an order, of course.
I read the whole thread together and the information are still fresh in my mind. Brother Pazuzu claims that Egyptian system of irrigation depends on the Nile, not on the rain. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go back and sift the posts to come up with a quote. But anytime I find it I will post it here.
In his latest post he claims that the river Nile never dried up. What would one understand? And why such a statement? I understood that there was no famine. Hence my post. I did not stop much at "the River Nile never dried up" literally, but I understood what he was alluding at. Was there any other explanation to the purpose of his sentence?Precisaely, that is what Pazuzu meant that it never dried up not that there was never any famine, and with a good reason, because what he claims, and he is right is that in many countries rivers do dry up, not the Nile, but rivers dry up, and when they dry up it is because there is a draght for lack of rain there. Tehrefore, yes, you misunderstood completely what he said, but since he has been already pronnounced guilty, never mind.
I wish you continued copying the meaning of the verb "istagatha", because it is a verb that was used, not a noun. I did not claim that "ghayth" did not mean rain. In fact "ghayth" and these verbs you are copying do not even share the same root. ghayth = rain (gh/y/th) and the verb which means to relief (gh/wau/th). I gave you examples from the qur'aan where the VERB is used. The verse in the chapter of Yousuf uses a verb, not the noun "ghayth". So please go and check in Lane's the meaning of the verb. The noun from the verb is (ghawth) not (ghayth) as I mentioned before for the UNRWA
The verb used in the verse is of form IV. Interestingly, I gave you verse 18 29 where both forms are used (X and IV) in the form when they X (yastgheethuun) they are IV (yughathuu). Form X to form IV in this verb is like an active and a passive tense in English or like saying they (ask for help) and they are (helped).
As for the relation of rain to the root, as I mentioned above, there is none. The root for (ghayth) is a completely different one.
I did copy them and I did commented this
""Fine, that is not form I of the verb, that is form X, and as I suggested before, it might be understood as an extension of the primary meaning, like when we pray God to shower His blessings, or to shower His bounty. But the verbs for rain are no form X, and the hel and socour are root gh-w-th, not gh-y-th.""
Concerning the UNRWA, in fact I did not refer to the word you put to mean what you say it means, because I went directly to the name of the UNRWA such as it is and not such as you quoted it. And the name of the UNRWA as it is, is this
the word that means socour or relief in its name is not ghawth, it is ighatha, and it is root gh-w-th
And anybody can verify that going to the UNRWA website.
As to the rest concerning these two roots and the different words in Qur'an, I think interested readers (if there is any left by now) have at this time all the elements required to judge by themselves. They are free to consult whatever material they wish or have at hand and see by themselves.
There is a difference between what I say and what Pazuzu says, even if it seems to you they are similar. Pazuzu builds his claim how the famine was "relieved" . He believes, like you, that the people were saved by rain, not just "saved" as the verse puts it. He then concludes that this is not gypt, since they do not depend on rain. And I say there is no mention of rain in Egypt". Do you see the difference now?
Yes I see the difference you pretend that there is no mention of rain in Egypt and we say the same, since there is no Egypt in the mix.
Salaam
-
Salaam Pazuzu
....I would like to read your opinion on this inscription found in Egypt. This English translation of part of it
is from this site http//www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200603/the.last.nile.flood.htm
For seven years the Nile has not risen.
The fields are dry, no man buries his neighbor?.
Children weep?. All Egypt perishes.
Whether it refers to the story of Joseph or not is another matterSalaam Samia
This does not refer to Joseph(p) and is another proof that Egypt is not Msr, as in the case of Msr no such dire situation arose where all Msr perishes since Yousuff(peace be upon him) managed to store and distribute food during the famine years.
peace -
Salam,
I am sorry but, if you don't mind me saying so, this article seems, not so much the application of Quranic verses, but more an illustrated children's fairy tale, going back and forth from one land to another to fill in the blanks.
Actually that's not such a bad idea )
I can say this much for myself that I am only promoting what appears to me to be in line with the Qur'an, and yes there are some people who are too scared of rebelling against the establishment; may Allah guide them to the right path
Then there are others, who are not willing to accept that they or their parents could be going to the wrong places for Hajj and they are sure that the overwhelming feelings they had during Hajj confirms that that was the right place. However Allah had knowledge of this deception so that is why you read in the Qur'an that the meat of the animal that you sacrifice does not reach Allah but your taqwa does the the overwhelming emotions are as a result of love for Allah and feeling of acheivement that one have responded to the call for Hajj.That is good to know, but one must always apply all the sences as if the foundation is wrong, the entire structure falters. Pilgrimage has been called to by Abraham and the prophets after him for 5,000 years. To argue it is Jerusalem or Mecca as both places have become associated with Pilgrimage is one of elimination and logic - but, to jump off the cliff and say that it is in Yemen or Africa or anyother place where no support is found from the Scriptures or archeology is what I mean by "rebellion".
For example, this whole thread was begun on the false foundation that "Misr" is not the name of "egypt" and the drift to Yemen and other places began. However, a little logic and pateince would have made obvious the fact that "Misr" was the name used for the Egyptian empire during the times of Joseph and Moses (as the Quran calls it) - and that this empire (and thus its name) would not nessesarily remain in existence at the time of Mohammed nearly 2,000 years later just like the name "Yathrib" is no longer in use in our day and age and has been changed to "Medina". Thus, Quranic names must be viewed in relation to their respective timelines and not other timelines just like the title for Egypt is "King" at the time of Jospeh and "Pharaoh" at the time of Moses.
I hope that this post makes clear what I am trying to get across about the process of logical research...
