Bakka/Mecca
-
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 -
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
"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."
He might have attacked the Hijaz at some time and then died doing it. But you referenced these rock inscriptions to prove that they were referencing his attack on the Hejaz. I have yet to see any proof.
Although to help you with the rock inscriptions .... some of the references we get from this rock inscription include names like "kinda" and "Qahtani".
The kindom of Kindah was located in the Nejad Rejion who later converted to Islam.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindah
Qahtani reference
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Islamic_Arabia
This rock inscription is not talking about the Hejaz region.
-
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!1s0x15e9893a08f77bad0x8de4c1f9f2c6c901I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Please clarify.
-
Of course those identifications are only assumptions.
But I don't understand your logic OnlyOneGod.
Which of these facts do you dispute?
- Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia
- Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca
- South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance.
Peace
-
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. Please clarify.
They are possible candidates of Turban as mentioned in the inscriptions. One is very close to Mecca.
-
Modern day Halban is in between Mecca and Riyadh.
-
Of course those identifications are only assumptions.
But I don't understand your logic OnlyOneGod.
Which of these facts do you dispute?
- Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia
- Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca
- South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance.
Peace
"1) Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia"
I have nothing to prove or disprove that
"2) Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca"
According to what? Your reference to the rock inscription? They are talking of places in the Nejad and hence no mention of Mecca.
"3) South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance."
Please elaborate. Which south arabian places being mentioned and where are they mentioned that defy Mecca as the Qibla?
-
"1) Abraha trying to establish a hegemony in Arabia"
I have nothing to prove or disprove that
"2) Abraha's epigraphy nowhere mentioning Mecca"
According to what? Your reference to the rock inscription? They are talking of places in the Nejad and hence no mention of Mecca.
"3) South-arabian places being mentioned that according to the hadith based Meccan qibla theory are inferior to Mecca in significance."
Please elaborate. Which south arabian places being mentioned and where are they mentioned that defy Mecca as the Qibla?
- That's the academic (non-Islamic) consensus. But you will have to consult specialized literature to find out. I dont have any online links for them.
- See my previous posts. Halban, Turban.
-
They are possible candidates of Turban as mentioned in the inscriptions. One is very close to Mecca.
So now a public hospital called turbah is the site of Abrahas attack? What about kinda? Like he says in the inscription and which is historically verified?
-
Modern day Halban is in between Mecca and Riyadh.
How does that prove the non-existence of mecca?