Bakka/Mecca
-
It has its own alphabet. As shown in the inscription and shown in the inscriptions found in Yemen.
So why are you comparing it to the Quran? Are you saying no other languages existed in south arabia at that time?
-
It seems to me you have some reading to do (i.e. historical literature).
A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true. Not only that he would most likely build his church in the Hijaz he conquered. But in contrary we find Abraha built his church at Sanaa (Yemen) not the Hejaz. All indicators point towards Mecca being non-existing or insignificant to Abraha, wouldn't you agree?
Are you saying the southern arabs at the time of Qurans revelation used the aramaic alphabet? Please provide evidence of it we can show to the world. As far as I know the only scripture using Aramaic alphabet are the Qurans they kept at eg Sanaa. Using a northern arab (aramaic) alphabet. None of which can be dated to the Qurans time of revelation but post-quranic revelation.
On top of this Mecca was never the capital of the early caliphs. Damascus was for a long time their base of operation.
Peace
-
All this stuff is so basic. Claiming the Quran was written in southern arabic alphabet is like saying Mao wrote his red book using the Russian alphabet.
For reference see here
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet
It has a table listing the examples of the different alphabets used, timeframe and location.
Peace
-
It seems to me you have some reading to do (i.e. historical literature).
A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true. Not only that he would most likely build his church in the Hijaz he conquered. But in contrary we find Abraha built his church at Sanaa (Yemen) not the Hejaz. All indicators point towards Mecca being non-existing or insignificant to Abraha, wouldn't you agree?
Are you saying the southern arabs at the time of Qurans revelation used the aramaic alphabet? Please provide evidence of it we can show to the world. As far as I know the only scripture using Aramaic alphabet are the Qurans they kept at eg Sanaa. Using a northern arab alphabet. None of which can be dated to the Qurans time of revelation but post-quranic revelation.
Peace
"It seems to me you have some reading to do (i.e. historical literature)".
A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true. Not only that he would most likely build his church in the Hijaz he conquered. But in contrary we find Abraha built his church at Sanaa (Yemen) not the Hejaz. All indicators point towards Mecca being non-existing or insignificant to Abraha, wouldn't you agree?"
Lets both do some reading ... you can read about the the hadith story of abraha (year of the elephant) and how he died before getting back to yemen. Hence no church in Hijaz. His church in saana as per the hadith was built before he came to conquer Mecca.
"Are you saying the southern arabs at the time of Qurans revelation used the aramaic alphabet? Please provide evidence of it we can show to the world. As far as I know the only scripture using Aramaic alphabet are the Qurans they kept at eg Sanaa. Using a northern arab alphabet. None of which can be dated to the Qurans time of revelation but post-quranic revelation."
Yes not only the Quran but the actual emergence of Islam, brought a mostly vocal society into the realms of written literature pretty quickly. Whether they established it based on aramaic, or hindi or martian. Fact remains that when they created it they became its custodians. You may not like what they say, but you cannot deny their authority for saying it.
-
Lets both do some reading ... you can read about the the hadith story of abraha (year of the elephant) and how he died before getting back to yemen. Hence no church in Hijaz. His church in saana as per the hadith was built before he came to conquer Mecca.
This perfectly sums up the authority you attribute to hadith even if it contradicts historical facts.
Peace
-
This perfectly sums up the authority you attribute to hadith even if it contradicts historical facts.
Peace
Lol .. you assume that abraha only ever conducted one military expedition in his life and this rock inscription is actually relating the story of his attack on Mecca.
-
I'm not assuming any such thing. How could I be assuming such thing when I'm clearly saying Mecca wasn't on the map in that era. Nor did the hijaz region use the aramaic alphabet at that time.
-
All this quibbling about the qibla... one might start to think the Quran was right saying not one of you is agreeing on the qibla. I'm outside all this quibbling about the qibla a really nice person according to most.
Peace
-
I'm not assuming any such thing. How could I be assuming such thing when I'm clearly saying Mecca wasn't on the map in that era. Nor did the hijaz region use the aramaic alphabet at that time.
Did you not say ... and I quote
"A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true."
You then obviously ARE assuming that this rock inscription has something to do with that expedition.
-
All this quibbling about the qibla... one might start to think the Quran was right saying not one of you is agreeing on the qibla. I'm outside all this quibbling about the qibla a really nice person according to most.
Peace
I'm sure you are a nice person. I don't recall ever saying anything related to you not being a nice person. Our debate is not personal in any way.
-
Did you not say ... and I quote
"A King conquering Mecca would most likely have made mention of it if the hadith were true."
You then obviously ARE assuming that this rock inscription has something to do with that expedition.
The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?
I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period.
-
The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?
I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period.
"The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?"
Did I say at any point that this inscription is not mentioning Abraha?
"I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period."
No .. what you are doing is making reference to a rock inscription which is mentioning ONE specific expedition of Abraha. If that expedition was not directed towards Mecca, then it would naturally not mention it. You are continuously assuming that this rock inscription is referencing the very same expedition being referenced by the Hadith. Kindly think over it a little over a second and you might understand what I am talking about.
-
"The rock inscription literally mentions Abraha, why would anyone doubt that inscription is referring to Abraha?"
Did I say at any point that this inscription is not mentioning Abraha?
"I'm not assuming anything, but showing you a piece of historical evidence of a King conquering the Hejaz to whom Mecca was either non-existing or so insignificant that it wasn't worth mentioning fitting into that time period."
No .. what you are doing is making reference to a rock inscription which is mentioning ONE specific expedition of Abraha. If that expedition was not directed towards Mecca, then it would naturally not mention it. You are continuously assuming that this rock inscription is referencing the very same expedition being referenced by the Hadith. Kindly think over it a little over a second and you might understand what I am talking about.
Nope Nope Nope...
I'm not assuming it is referencing to the hadith. I don't need to assume such thing. Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith). A king conquering Hejaz not making mention of the infamous Mecca???
Please try to read what I'm stating, not what you think I am stating.
Peace
-
Nope Nope Nope...
I'm not assuming it is referencing to the hadith. I don't need to assume such thing. Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith). A king conquering Hejaz not making mention of the infamous Mecca???
Please try to read what I'm stating, not what you think I am stating.
Peace
"Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith). "
Where in this rock inscription does it say that he conquered the Hejaz?
Lets start from there.
-
"Abraha conquered the Hejaz as historically documented (nothing to do with the hadith). "
Where in this rock inscription does it say that he conquered the Hejaz?
Lets start from there.
The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity; edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson; p. 287
-
The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity; edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson; p. 287
We'll tackle the "oxford book of late antiquity" later. You and I both have the translations of the inscription provided by the website you linked. Where in that translation do you get the idea that the tribes or places mentioned are in the Hejaz?
-
We'll tackle the "oxford book of late antiquity" later. You and I both have the translations of the inscription provided by the website you linked. Where in that translation do you get the idea that the tribes or places mentioned are in the Hejaz?
The Ma?add tribal confederacy was controlling the Hejaz at that time. Next to that Turban is identified by some as a place in the Hejaz.
Peace -
The Ma?add tribal confederacy was controlling the Hejaz at that time. Next to that Turban is identified by some as a place in the Hejaz.
Peace
Can I have some references to this? And by references I mean actual old inscriptions that validate such a view point.
-
Can I have some references to this? And by references I mean actual old inscriptions that validate such a view point.
There is historical evidence of at least one attack made by Abraha in the Hejaz. I can't link you to any source you will have to consult specialized literature to find out. But it's quite besides the point. There is no discussion Abraha tried establishing a hegemony in Arabia. It would be highly improbable Hejaz was excluded from that agenda.
Peace
-
https//www.google.be/maps/place/Turbah+Saudi-Arabi%C3%AB/@21.2070422,41.6377544,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x15ec3dd18aacb6970x4288a5e162b4856c
https//www.google.be/maps/place/Turbah,+Asharqiyyah,+Taif+26523,+Saudi-Arabi%C3%AB/@21.2787275,40.4168821,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x15e9893a08f77bad0x8de4c1f9f2c6c901