Bakka/Mecca
-
Peace Hawk.
You and I know that ,no matter what you say, even if it is backed up by Qoran, others are going to claim you are " using hadith"?
Let me explain this " fallacy/applies to you,not to me...etc" argument,logic...
They come up with history/internet/... which they claim as "fact, because hadith does not contain their history".But they accuse you of using hadith just because your history part happens to be mentioned in hadith?
Should the same rule apply to all? i.e using any "men s word" is hadith and should be checked and backed up by Qoran?
If the history contained in "Hadith" should be checked and validated by GOD s word, then all history written by men should forgo the same test!!!
Of course you and I know that GOD does better than leaving us to go in "every direction" confused. HE sends messengers to "clarify" for us.
That is the real problem, some refuse to listen to or follow "human messengers". These human messengers that GOD sends and backs up with "Bayinat" are liars,use hadith,eat food, make mistakes,go to the market...
Same argument as the past generations, same arrogance as the past generations,same trial by GOD as the past generations, same...You and I know these things happen. The message gets delivered and people have the choice.
GOD bless you.
Peace. -
peace gl, all,
I think it's actually more simple than that. Quite simply, a number of students of Quran have no robust and falsifiable method/approach when it comes to their understanding of Quran.
For example, if they think a Quranic word (or their understanding of a subject) means X - they do not apply a robust/falsifiable system of checks to test whether it may or may not mean X.
Ironically, it is similar to the Traditional system, where I have never found a consistent/robust/falsifiable approach.
In such a system, pretty much anything goes, hence the variance. For example, seeming contradictions are explained away by simply adopting an inconsistent approach. Some may find this approach acceptable.
Sometimes I say to people who mention to me there is so much variance amongst those following Quran based islam on salat, hajj, etc I ask of the variant views they have read, which of them has put them to the test using a stated robust/falsifiable method? You will soon find the answer is zero, or almost zero. Once this is looked at, the variance is dramatically reduced.
To get an idea, or a good starting point, I recommend
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.htmlAnd with regard to this subject of "qiblah"
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html -
Peace runninglikezebras the above is simply not true please read below.
God bless you from your schizophrenic forum member.
Peace hawk99,
My apologies for missing that post. So you do admit there was a shared tradition once, confirmed by the mosque of the two qiblas. You seemed to deny this earlier.
Please answer these questions
Who built the shrine at mecca?
How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?
What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?
Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?
Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?
Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?
If you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?
Thank you.
Peace
-
peace gl, all,
I think it's actually more simple than that. Quite simply, a number of students of Quran have no robust and falsifiable method/approach when it comes to their understanding of Quran.
For example, if they think a Quranic word (or their understanding of a subject) means X - they do not apply a robust/falsifiable system of checks to test whether it may or may not mean X.
Ironically, it is similar to the Traditional system, where I have never found a consistent/robust/falsifiable approach.
In such a system, pretty much anything goes, hence the variance. For example, seeming contradictions are explained away by simply adopting an inconsistent approach. Some may find this approach acceptable.
Sometimes I say to people who mention to me there is so much variance amongst those following Quran based islam on salat, hajj, etc I ask of the variant views they have read, which of them has put them to the test using a stated robust/falsifiable method? You will soon find the answer is zero, or almost zero. Once this is looked at, the variance is dramatically reduced.
To get an idea, or a good starting point, I recommend
http//www.quran434.com/study-method.htmlAnd with regard to this subject of "qiblah"
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.htmlWell we have all seen what your methodology has rendered Quran into Wakas. Gibberish. Your article about masjid al haram completely conceals the pre-Quranic occurence of the word qibla in older scriptures. Totally concealing the aramaic root of the word. Ultimately rendering it into some version of English that is not even valid to English standards.
Not only your article about masjid al haram suffers from the above. 434 is rendered to citing! Lmao, cite your wife boys! Whatever that means. I wonder if Wakas ever gets confronted with a situation applicable to 434 how he would react. Imagine his partner living with him from his income, murders her own child. Will Wakas ultimately just cite her and not part ways with her? I wonder...
Peace
-
Peace Hawk.
You and I know that ,no matter what you say, even if it is backed up by Qoran, others are going to claim you are " using hadith"?
Let me explain this " fallacy/applies to you,not to me...etc" argument,logic...
They come up with history/internet/... which they claim as "fact, because hadith does not contain their history".But they accuse you of using hadith just because your history part happens to be mentioned in hadith?
Should the same rule apply to all? i.e using any "men s word" is hadith and should be checked and backed up by Qoran?
If the history contained in "Hadith" should be checked and validated by GOD s word, then all history written by men should forgo the same test!!!
Of course you and I know that GOD does better than leaving us to go in "every direction" confused. HE sends messengers to "clarify" for us.
That is the real problem, some refuse to listen to or follow "human messengers". These human messengers that GOD sends and backs up with "Bayinat" are liars,use hadith,eat food, make mistakes,go to the market...
Same argument as the past generations, same arrogance as the past generations,same trial by GOD as the past generations, same...You and I know these things happen. The message gets delivered and people have the choice.
GOD bless you.
Peace.I'd still like to see that quranic proof for Mecca locating masjid al haram. So far I have those in support of mecca only seen avoiding precise questions.
Peace
-
Well we have all seen what your methodology has rendered Quran into Wakas. Gibberish. Your article about masjid al haram completely conceals the pre-Quranic occurence of the word qibla in older scriptures. Totally concealing the aramaic root of the word. Ultimately rendering it into some version of English that is not even valid to English standards.
As I have said to you before, do not mistake your reasoning for sound reasoning. Readers can see from this post when we previously discussed this subject
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.msg367433#msg367433And will note how you re-interpreted multiple issues regarding the verses, in order to make your view fit. Not that I think your view actually fits.
How about you start your own thread with a detailed review of the verses in question presenting your view, then we can all see if it works or not. Or will you run like a zebra from such a simple request?
Not only your article about masjid al haram suffers from the above. 434 is rendered to citing! Lmao, cite your wife boys! Whatever that means. I wonder if Wakas ever gets confronted with a situation applicable to 434 how he would react. Imagine his partner living with him from his income, murders her own child. Will Wakas ultimately just cite her and not part ways with her? I wonder...
I think this comment demonstrates well your reasoning. Not only do you seemingly lack the logic to connect "cite them" with authority involvement in the very next verse, you bring up a wrong/crime such as murder when the verses do not even discuss this.
In my years of experience in having discussions on this forum, I have often noted that when people have little or no substance to their arguments, they often resort to comments like yours.
When you have something of substance to say, I may respond. Peace out.
-
You can lead a zebra to water but you can't make him drink it.
runninglikezebras you say that
"The reader can establish I raised this question 3 times AND that you still avoid answering who those christians in Mecca were of which historians say there weren't any? The historical record of Baca is the Old Testament itself.
Quran http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=140"
In order to prove your point you link a verse of the Quran. Do you even understand what it means?
I would love to have your opinion on the verse that you just quoted to prove that there were never any Christians in the Hijaz.
Btw you still failed to prove that bekka in the old testament was ever a historical city in Jerusalem.
Good luck with that.
Peace
-
In order to prove your point you link a verse of the Quran. Do you even understand what it means?
It is a direct reference to http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136
Say, , "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him."
This confirms what was given to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants. If you distinct a jewish qibla from an islamic qibla and a christian qibla, then you are no longer believing in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants.
This verse does not prove there were no christians in the Hijaz region - that is your misunderstanding. It proves the qibla spoken of in Quran is known to the christians and Jews - christians of which there is no trace of in the Hijaz region by all archaelogical and historical evidence. Jewish of which there is no record of them acknowledging any shrine in the Hijaz region ever.
@hawk99 how do you interprete http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136 - Dont you think it's directly contradicting what you say here
Peace runninglikezebras, yes Ibrahim is Abraham, Ishmail is Ishmael,
Ishaq is Isaac, Yaqub is Jacob. Like I said in my earlier post, fasting
Hajj, prayer and other rites and rituals exist around the world and
predate Islam, we do not "share" a qibla, or sacred masjid we have our way
and they have theirs.Peace
-
Who built the shrine at mecca?
How old is the masjid al haram in mecca?
What source do you have proving who built the masjid al haram in mecca and when?
Do you claim there was christian influence in the hijaz region?
Where in Quran do you see Mecca named as the qibla?
Do you agree Quran says hindering access to masjid al haram is a great injustice?
If you do, how do you justify that with the practice of only allowing muslims at Mecca?
These questions are still to be answered by the stone worshippers.
-
Btw you still failed to prove that bekka in the old testament was ever a historical city in Jerusalem.
Good luck with that.
Peace
I never claimed baca was a historical city. I never claimed any such thing. Baca is an area inside Jerusalem. Referred to in old scriptures jewish and christian manuscripts. You show me one scripture mentioning mecca predating Quran. If this was such an important place, historical records of it predating Quran shouldn't be hard to find.
Peace
-
It is a direct reference to http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136
Say, , "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims to Him."
This confirms what was given to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants. If you distinct a jewish qibla from an islamic qibla and a christian qibla, then you are no longer believing in what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants.
This verse does not prove there were no christians in the Hijaz region - that is your misunderstanding. It proves the qibla spoken of in Quran is known to the christians and Jews - christians of which there is no trace of in the Hijaz region by all archaelogical and historical evidence. Jewish of which there is no record of them acknowledging any shrine in the Hijaz region ever.
@hawk99 how do you interprete http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=2&verse=136 - Dont you think it's directly contradicting what you say here
Peace
Who says that I don't agree that these messengers also brought the message of Islam. But what the bible and torah of today are promoting as the message of the messengers is not true.
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
Do you believe that God intended Jesus to be declared a "son" of God? Do you believe that the whole of the torah has been retained as per when it was revealed to the Prophet Moses (PBUH)?
Do you believe that Quran is the final reminder to those who believe?
What sort of "archeological" and "historical" evidence would prove that Christians ever lived in the Hijaz? And obviously by association you are implying that Muhammad (PBUH) never lived in the hijaz. Do you have any counter historical proof for that?
-
Who says that I don't agree that these messengers also brought the message of Islam. But what the bible and torah of today are promoting as the message of the messengers is not true.
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
Do you believe that God intended Jesus to be declared a "son" of God? Do you believe that the whole of the torah has been retained as per when it was revealed to the Prophet Moses (PBUH)?
Do you believe that Quran is the final reminder to those who believe?
What sort of "archeological" and "historical" evidence would prove that Christians ever lived in the Hijaz? And obviously by association you are implying that Muhammad (PBUH) never lived in the hijaz. Do you have any counter historical proof for that?
Quran tells us Jesus is not the son of God. However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong. I believe Quran is a reminder. That's why I only accept one Qibla, One Abraham.
Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc. I'm not making claims about the ethnicity of Muhammad. I'm making claims about the qibla however.
Please consider the following
According to the Qur?an, the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624 A.D. 1.
Yet, the earliest evidence from outside Muslim tradition regarding the direction in which Muslims prayed, and by implication the location of their sanctuary, points to an area much further north than Mecca, in fact somewhere in north-west Arabia 2. Consider the archaeological evidence which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the seventh century
According to archaeological research carried out by Creswell and Fehervari on ancient mosques in the Middle East, two floor-plans from two Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built at the beginning of the 8th century by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit (noted by Creswell as, ?the oldest mosque in Islam of which remains have come down to us? ? Creswell 198941), and the other attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblas (the direction which these mosques are facing) which do not face Mecca, but are oriented too far north 3. The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque is off by 30 degrees 4.
This agrees with Baladhuri?s testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 A.D. 5, also lay to the west, when it should have pointed almost directly south 6.
The original ground-plan of the mosque of Amr b. al As, located in Fustat, the garrison town outside Cairo, Egypt shows that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected later under the governorship of Qurra b. Sharik 7. Interestingly this agrees with the later Islamic tradition compiled by Ahmad b. al-Maqrizi that Amr prayed facing slightly south of east, and not towards the south 8.
If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north, in fact closer possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem. If, as some Muslims now say, one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques even today have misdirected Qiblas, then one must wonder why, if the Muslims back then were so incapable of ascertaining directions, they should all happen to be pointing to a singular location; to an area in northern Arabia, and possibly Jerusalem?
We find further corroboration for this direction of prayer by the Christian writer and traveller Jacob of Edessa, who, writing as late as 705 A.D. was a contemporary eye-witness in Egypt. He maintained that the Mahgraye? (Greek name for Arabs) in Egypt prayed facing east which was towards their Ka?ba 9. His letter (which can be found in the British Museum) is indeed revealing. Therefore, as late as 705 A.D. the direction of prayer towards Mecca had not yet been canonized.
Note The mention of a Ka?ba does not necessarily infer Mecca (as so many Muslims have been quick to point out), since there were other Ka?bas in existence during that time, usually in market-towns 10. It was profitable to build a Ka?ba in these market towns so that the people coming to market could also do their pilgrimage or penitence to the idols contained within. The Ka?ba Jacob of Edessa was referring to was situated at ?the patriarchal places of their races,? which he also maintains was not in the south. Both the Jews and Arabs ( Mahgraye?) maintained a common descent from Abraham who was known to have lived and died in Palestine, as has been corroborated by recent archaeological discoveries 11. This common descent from Abraham is also corroborated by the Armenian Chronicler, Sebeos, as early as 660 A.D. 12.
According to Dr. Hawting, who teaches on the sources of Islam at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS, a part of the University of London), new archaeological discoveries of mosques in Egypt from the early 700s also show that up till that time the Muslims (or Haggarenes) were indeed praying, not towards Mecca, but towards the north, and possibly Jerusalem. In fact, Dr. Hawting maintains, no mosques have been found from this period (the seventh century) which face towards Mecca (noted from his class lectures in 1995). Hawting cautions, however, that not all of the Qiblas face towards Jerusalem. Some Jordanian mosques have been uncovered which face north, while there are certain North African mosques which face south, implying that there was some confusion as to where the early sanctuary was placed. Yet, the Qur?an tells us (in sura 2) that the direction of the Qibla was fixed towards Mecca by approximately two years after the Hijra, or around 624 A.D., and has remained in that direction until the present!
Thus, according to Crone and Cook and Hawting, the combination of the archaeological evidence from Iraq along with the literary evidence from Egypt points unambiguously to a sanctuary not in the south, but somewhere in north-west Arabia (or even further north) at least till the end of the seventh century 13.
What is happening here? Why are the Qiblas of these early mosques not facing towards Mecca? Why the discrepancy between the Qur?an and that which archaeology as well as documents reveal as late as 705 A.D.?
Some Muslims argue that perhaps the early Muslims did not know the direction of Mecca. Yet these were desert traders, caravaneers! Their livelihood was dependant on travelling the desert, which has few landmarks, and, because of the sandstorms, no roads. They, above all, knew how to follow the stars. Their lives depended on it. Certainly they knew the difference between the north and the south.
Furthermore, the mosques in Iraq and Egypt were built in civilized urban areas, amongst a sophisticated people who were well adept at finding directions. It is highly unlikely that they would miscalculate their qiblas by so many degrees. How else did they perform the obligatory Hajj, which we are told was also canonized at this time? And why are so many of the mosques facing in the direction of northern Arabia, or possibly Jerusalem? A possible answer may be found by looking at archaeology once again; this time in Jerusalem itself. -
I never claimed baca was a historical city. I never claimed any such thing. Baca is an area inside Jerusalem. Referred to in old scriptures jewish and christian manuscripts. You show me one scripture mentioning mecca predating Quran. If this was such an important place, historical records of it predating Quran shouldn't be hard to find.
Peace
Ok so now you don't claim that baca is a historical city? But didn't you claim to me earlier when I disputed it as being a historical place, that
"This is an outright lie. Historical source?
The Baca valley is a geographical feature in the Jerusalem landscape that has never been known otherwise."
Show me proof of this Jerusalem landscape always being known as beca valley.
-
According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock) (note not to be confused with the Imam, Malik b. Anas who, because he was born in 712 A.D. would have been only three years old at the time). This fact alone, according to Dr. Hawting at SOAS, points out that there was still some confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the Muhammad?s death) taking on the role as the religious centre of Islam. One can therefore understand why, according to tradition, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques (refer to ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 18694). Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Qur?an which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad some eighty to ninety years earlier
This is how they changed the qibla. Caliph Walid I ordered the demolition and enlargment of all mosques see ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 18694.
Peace
-
Ok so now you don't claim that baca is a historical city? But didn't you claim to me earlier when I disputed it as being a historical place, that
"This is an outright lie. Historical source?
The Baca valley is a geographical feature in the Jerusalem landscape that has never been known otherwise."
Show me proof of this Jerusalem landscape always being known as beca valley.
You can find those yourself, look for old jewish manuscripts and christian manuscripts referring to Baca. You can find the references to the verses in my previous posts. A geographic feature is not a city, you dufus.
Peace
-
To summarize we have archaelogical evidence of all 7th century mosques originally pointing to Jerusalem. We have an order of caliph Walid I to demolish all mosques. Suddenly Mecca becomes the qibla.
Do I need to say more?
Do not belong to those worshipping rocks, those turning back on their heels (starting historically 60-80 years after the death of Muhammad).
Peace
-
Quran tells us Jesus is not the son of God. However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong. I believe Quran is a reminder. That's why I only accept one Qibla, One Abraham.
Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc. I'm not making claims about the ethnicity of Muhammad. I'm making claims about the qibla however.
Please consider the following
So if Jesus is not the son of God then obviously there is something wrong with the bible. Correct? When Quran reminds the believers and sets the record straight, you believe that?
" However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong. I believe Quran is a reminder."
The Quran only corrects what needs to be corrected. What do you think the Quran says about the sabath regarding Muslims? Do you think it is still to be followed by us?
How about the stoning to death penalty in the torah? Do you believe the Quran agrees with it?
"Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc."
Why do you believe that all christian sects in the Hijaz believed in creating churches. Even if they did, why would you assume that those churches would survive for 1400 years while being in the belly of the Muslim world?
-
According to Islamic tradition, the caliph Suleyman, who reigned as late as 715-717 A.D., went to Mecca to ask about the Hajj. He was not satisfied with the response he received there, and so chose to follow abd al-Malik (i.e. travelling to the Dome of the Rock) (note not to be confused with the Imam, Malik b. Anas who, because he was born in 712 A.D. would have been only three years old at the time). This fact alone, according to Dr. Hawting at SOAS, points out that there was still some confusion as to where the sanctuary was to be located as late as the early eighth century. It seems that Mecca was only now (sixty years after the Muhammad?s death) taking on the role as the religious centre of Islam. One can therefore understand why, according to tradition, Walid I, who reigned as Caliph between 705 and 715 A.D., wrote to all the regions ordering the demolition and enlargement of the mosques (refer to ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 18694). Could it be that at this time the Qiblas were then aligned towards Mecca? If so it points to a glaring contradiction in the Qur?an which established Mecca as the sanctuary and thus direction for prayer during the lifetime of Muhammad some eighty to ninety years earlier
This is how they changed the qibla. Caliph Walid I ordered the demolition and enlargment of all mosques see ?Kitab al-?uyun wa?l-hada?iq,? edited by M. de Goeje and P. de Jong 18694.
Peace
Which Islamic tradition says all this ... make sure you quote references to your claims.
-
So if Jesus is not the son of God then obviously there is something wrong with the bible. Correct? When Quran reminds the believers and sets the record straight, you believe that?
I believe it does. But Quran doesn't tell us the jewish qibla to be wrong. Neither does Quran tell us the qibla is to be changed. The order to change the qibla came from Caliph Walid I as archaelogical evidence points out.
" However the Quran nowhere tells us the 10 commandments are wrong, nor does it say the qibla of the Jews is wrong. I believe Quran is a reminder."
The Quran only corrects what needs to be corrected. What do you think the Quran says about the sabath regarding Muslims? Do you think it is still to be followed by us?
How about the stoning to death penalty in the torah? Do you believe the Quran agrees with it?
You are going off-topic to demonstrate a point, so I'll oblige. The instructions in Quran overrule any of the older scriptures. But see above. The order to change qibla did not come from God, it came from caliph Walid I.
"Archaelogical evidence of christian influence would be a church an inscription with christian symbolism etc."
Why do you believe that all christian sects in the Hijaz believed in creating churches. Even if they did, why would you assume that those churches would survive for 1400 years while being in the belly of the Muslim world?
Well in Yemen they did find a church dating back to that era. But like I said any historical evidence is good. Inscriptions, manuscripts, etc.
Peace
-
Which Islamic tradition says all this ... make sure you quote references to your claims.
I wouldn't take Islamic tradition to hold truth, but aligns perfectly with the archaelogical evidence on the field. But it's kind of funny how some of that criminal change in qibla is even documented in their own hadith. God reveals the truth and makes evident who is lying about the qibla.
The evidence that is archaelogically backed up can't be denied.
Peace
