Baccata and Haj
-
If you agree God makes Manifest. Then how do you interprete the manifestation when God says these words in 2125
http//www.everyayah.com/data/images_png/2_125.png
Don't you agree it manifests one such place in this reality?
Don't you agree it manifests only one such House?
Where are similar instructions for every other messenger to build such a House?
In the followup of that verse (2129) manifests the messenger that is to bring Quran. Making this House constructed by Abraham as old as the first submission to the One God.
2130 And who will turn away from millati Ibrahima except who fooled himself?
Peace
-
"And when We made the House a place of return for mankind and (a place o) security and (said), "Take (the) standing place (of) Ibrahim, (as) a place of prayer." And We made a covenant with Ibrahim and Ismail , " purify My House for those who circumambulate and those who seclude themselves for devotion and prayer and those who bow down and those who"
When I say "God manifests" I do not mean "such and such becomes present", sorry for the confusion in words, I meant "God makes things appear, generates, creates".
Like manifesting or conjuring something.
For me, God is also perpetually "manifest" as in "actively present" "everywhere", the "place" happens to be Allah always.
1 Kings 827
"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!We are contained within God, God is Vishnu (pervading), but dimension can be considered an "illusion", there is just information, such as "information about dimension" and whatever we experience, which is within God. Everywhere we turn we see the "face of God".
Acts 749
"'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?Acts 1724
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.2 Chronicles 26
But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?Psalm 1397
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?Jeremiah 2324
Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?" declares the LORD. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD. -
"And when We made the House a place of return for mankind and (a place o) security and (said), "Take (the) standing place (of) Ibrahim, (as) a place of prayer." And We made a covenant with Ibrahim and Ismail , " purify My House for those who circumambulate and those who seclude themselves for devotion and prayer and those who bow down and those who"
When I say "God manifests" I do not mean "such and such becomes present", sorry for the confusion in words, I meant "God makes things appear, generates, creates".
Like manifesting or conjuring something.
For me, God is also perpetually "manifest" as in "actively present" "everywhere", the "place" happens to be Allah always.
1 Kings 827
"But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!We are contained within God, God is Vishnu (pervading), but dimension can be considered an "illusion", there is just information, such as "information about dimension" and whatever we experience, which is within God. Everywhere we turn we see the "face of God".
Acts 749
"'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be?Acts 1724
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands.2 Chronicles 26
But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?Psalm 1397
Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?Jeremiah 2324
Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?" declares the LORD. "Do not I fill heaven and earth?" declares the LORD.I don't disagree with those verses nor do I feel contradicted by them. The place of return for mankind/security is not originally a place for worship - it was Abrahams standing place, the start of a progeny. Prayer and communal worship are not synonyms to me. Though you can easily deduct from 2125 God has terms for those who desire to worship in such a communal fashion. The purification of the House I understand as protecting this place from practices of polytheism/shirk or hindering those visiting it. Does God not make faith easy to us? Would that be true if God did not facilitate us with an authorized house for those "who circumambulate and those who seclude themselves for devotion and prayer".
Peace
-
I don't disagree with those verses nor do I feel contradicted by them. The place of return for mankind/security is not originally a place for worship - it was Abrahams standing place, the start of a progeny. Prayer and communal worship are not synonyms to me. Though you can easily deduct from 2125 God has terms for those who desire to worship in such a communal fashion. The purification of the House I understand as protecting this place from practices of polytheism/shirk or hindering those visiting it. Does God not make faith easy to us? Would that be true if God did not facilitate us with an authorized house for those "who circumambulate and those who seclude themselves for devotion and prayer".
Peace
Oh those verses weren't meant to contradict you at all, its just those were some about about God is everywhere and not in a particular place or anything of course, which most people probably agree with in some sense at all, you too of course.
-
I do agree with God being everywhere. But I don't see how that's an argument for or against the existence of a focal point, symbolically denoting the start of the Abrahamic progeny.
Peace
-
I do agree with God being everywhere. But I don't see how that's an argument for or against the existence of a focal point, symbolically denoting the start of the Abrahamic progeny.
Peace
There is a now world famous focal point. I'm not trying to be hostile at all, but I'm wondering what you believe about all those worshipers and their prayers directed to that focal point. Like the actual dynamics, do you think that it isn't accepted because it is towards modern Mecca instead of modern Jerusalem?
-
There is a now world famous focal point. I'm not trying to be hostile at all, but I'm wondering what you believe about all those worshipers and their prayers directed to that focal point. Like the actual dynamics, do you think that it isn't accepted because it is towards modern Mecca instead of modern Jerusalem?
I don't think it matters much. Of course I can only guess, I'm not God. But what I do know is that using a wrong focal point is usually going hand in hand with a lot of other ignorance and misunderstanding. To what degree such things are forgivable is not for me to judge. On a personal level I'm not willing to take any risk considering the qibla. You wont find me doing communal prayers like sunni's nor shia's. I'm less in disagreement with their ritual format of communal prayer (which I find permissible for purposes of uniformity) and addressal of Muhammad in their prayers than with their meccan qibla.
I prefer not to be associated with those no longer acknowledging or being confused about the fundamental roots of their faith. If they think it's okay to do so, that's fine and not my responsibility I can only witness what I see them do.
Peace
-
The verse in quran saying "to God belongs the East and the West" has a very strong resonance in the historical mizrah of the jewish people.
"Initially, the mizrah wall in synagogues was on the side of the entrance. However, the remains of the Dura-Europos synagogue on the Euphrates reveal that by the 3rd century C.E. the doors were on the eastern side and the opposite wall, in which a special niche had been made to place the scrolls during worship, faced Jerusalem. In Eretz Israel, the wall facing the Temple site was changed from the side of the entrance to the side of the Ark in the 5th or 6th century. This change is found in synagogues at Naaran, near Jericho, and Beit Alfa. Worshipers came through the portals and immediately faced both the scrolls and Jerusalem."
Only in this historical context will one understand what Quran refers to with "And from wherever you go out". It was a dispute about whether the entrance/exit or the wall should face Jerusalem.
Peace
-
There is a now world famous focal point.
If that's a reference to mecca I couldn't help thinking of disneyland. If we should listen to what the majority thinks is correct we are all doomed.
Peace
-
If that's a reference to mecca I couldn't help thinking of disneyland. If we should listen to what the majority thinks is correct we are all doomed.
Peace
2143
Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.So when it says this, the qiblah which ye formerly observed, was it Mecca, and they were being asked to turn towards Jerusalem instead? Or was it Jerusalem, and they were being asked to turn somewhere other than Jerusalem?
I'm not trying to trick you, I'm just wondering what you're saying about that.
It seems to indicate there was some switch going on which differentiated the Muslims.
Was it that the Muslims turned away from Mecca and turned towards Jerusalem like the Jews and Christians, or was it that the Muslims were distinguished from the Jews and Christians by turning elsewhere than where they turned?
If this story took place in Jerusalem, was it that they were in Jerusalem turning away from the temple "formerly" and being asked to turn to it now, or were they being asked to turn away from it?
Wasn't the "former" certainly Jerusalem, at least for the Jews and the Christians, and wouldn't it be incredibly hard for them to turn away from it?
Was it that Mecca because a focal point only long after the death of Muhammed, and the many believers at the time were unable to stop the Empire from suddenly deciding on a practically arbitrary point deep in the dessert?
Maybe these questions aren't interesting to you at all, but I'd like to understand what exactly you're thinking.
The traditional interpretation is that the monotheists had historically been turned towards Jerusalem, and that being asked to turn to Pagan shrine seemed incredibly blasphemous and thus the true believers were filtered or sorted from the ones who said "do not leave your religion!", those being the Jews and the Christians, who continued to face Jerusalem and were thus distinguished.
"What has turned them". We expect that that the Jews and the Christians who represented the monotheists, were not turned towards Mecca but towards Jerusalem, so no question would have been asked of their turning to the place they always turned to.
If the Polytheists are not Meccan at all but Magi at Jerusalem who were turning towards some other place, were the first Muslims who "turned from their former qiblah" Zoroastrians?
Are these just absurd questions or are they bringing up any points?
Zoroastrians have a particular title in the Qur'an and are not referred to necessarily as Polytheists, and though their religion may seem polytheistic, they were also supposed to be Monotheists, and spoke a tongue which is different from Arabic from a different language family altogether, and Zoroastrians were praised at times in the Bible and respected at times. The Qur'an showing that it can use the word for Zoroastrians, did not seem to explicitly use it except once, and talks about bringing a message in Arabic.
So the mainstream academics seem to think for the most part that indeed the Qur'an is contemporary to the time of Muhammed, that it refers to Arabia and came from Arabia which had the presence of groups like Jews (like the famous Southern Arabian Jews) and Christian sects like the Nestorians and others who were prone to some ascetic practices and would be in the dessert sometimes for that purpose as well.
That the practices of Islam developed around the lifetime of Muhammed and were continued by those from the region and spread elsewhere, modifying over time with each culture it encountered but still remaining essentially in its original form which resembled an old form of Judeo-Christian practices, including prostrations and other things which used to be common to the Jews and Christians as well as others in the world.
That is what the mainstream majority of academics seem to think, and that includes the generally accepted non-Muslim and Muslim academics, not all of whom place too much credence in all the Hadith or consider it definitely a trustworthy transmission.
The early Non-Muslim accounts of Muslims seem to also identify Arabia and Arabs as the group spreading.
-
Is God a real entity to you? The problem with using "physical" as an attribute has many problems. That's why I prefer real. Our definition of physical is restricted to a space time continuum that does not apply to God. Our definition of physical has many problems as science points out in their search for the smallest of the smallest.
This however does not mean God is not real or only metaphysical. I find proof in God being able to manifest in this physical reality by the quranic examples of God talking to Musa.
This question was related to the usage of definite articles. I agree a definite article can still point to a metaphysical concept even, on condition that it is identifiable and exact.
We can look at other examples of hell and paradise. None of which are physically visible to us at the moment, only by our imagination - but in my understanding this does not render them 'unreal'. It seems to me when God uses definite articles in Quran it always points to something real, exact and identifiable. Time and space are not always a factor in their usage as they would be for us mortals.
Peace
Salam.
Yes God is real and so is Becca real as a spiritual refuge. Neither is physical. Just like a physical entity cannot be omnipresent and omnipotent, a physical house cannot be blessing for the universe, or guarantee security to whoever enters it.
To answer your other question about abrogation - I do not believe Qur'an verses to be subject to abrogation but I do believe messengers were authorizes to bring changes to certain "prescriptions" for their communities like food restrictions, Qibla, recommended days for Siam etc with the authorization of Allah. Abraham introduced new practices, so did Moses, so did Jesus and so did Muhammad - peace upon all of them. These prescriptions do not change the fundamentals - they just customize the practices to match the need of their communities.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards
Arman -
2143
Thus We have appointed you a middle nation, that ye may be witnesses against mankind, and that the messenger may be a witness against you. And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels. In truth it was a hard (test) save for those whom Allah guided. But it was not Allah's purpose that your faith should be in vain, for Allah is Full of Pity, Merciful toward mankind.So when it says this, the qiblah which ye formerly observed, was it Mecca, and they were being asked to turn towards Jerusalem instead? Or was it Jerusalem, and they were being asked to turn somewhere other than Jerusalem?
I'm not trying to trick you, I'm just wondering what you're saying about that.
Don't worry I don't feel like you are trying to trick me. But there is something wrong with your translation. I don't know where you got it, or if you crosschecked it at all but it doesn't say
"And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels."
The correct translation is
"And NOT We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels."
My understanding of this verse is as follows the early followers of the messenger were gentile. They did not have a qibla in Jerusalem. Most of them were polytheists in my understanding before they accepted the message. The messenger asks them to accept a qibla that is known as Jewish. As such it is a test.
It seems to indicate there was some switch going on which differentiated the Muslims.
Was it that the Muslims turned away from Mecca and turned towards Jerusalem like the Jews and Christians, or was it that the Muslims were distinguished from the Jews and Christians by turning elsewhere than where they turned?
Muslims are asked to accept the qibla of the jewish which is totally foreign to them. Moreover, this qibla was 'abandoned' by Jews 'while they were on it'. Of course 'abandoned' in reality means, they were expelled from it. The early followers of the messenger most likely had many qiblas. Pagan ones. They are asked to abandon those and accept with the messenger the Jewish qibla in Jerusalem. Making evident who follows and is turning back on their heels. Consider that at the time those verses were revealed muslims did not have access to the Qibla. Making it even more a test. I find evidence in Quran of this reasoning when you look at the question naming the previous messengers asking whether they were jewish or christian? If they are not, if they are muslim, then one cannot use the argument to refuse this Jerusalem qibla by saying it's a jewish or christian qibla.
If this story took place in Jerusalem, was it that they were in Jerusalem turning away from the temple "formerly" and being asked to turn to it now, or were they being asked to turn away from it?
Wasn't the "former" certainly Jerusalem, at least for the Jews and the Christians, and wouldn't it be incredibly hard for them to turn away from it?
The story didn't take place in Jerusalem. Only after muhammad's death did muslims gain access to temple mount and were able to enter it. In this sense, no Jews or Christians are asked to abandon their qibla. The gentile group of early muslims is asked to give up their pre-muslim qiblas and accept the one in Jerusalem. No Jewish or Christians are addressed in these verses.
Was it that Mecca because a focal point only long after the death of Muhammed, and the many believers at the time were unable to stop the Empire from suddenly deciding on a practically arbitrary point deep in the dessert?
Maybe these questions aren't interesting to you at all, but I'd like to understand what exactly you're thinking.
The traditional interpretation is that the monotheists had historically been turned towards Jerusalem, and that being asked to turn to Pagan shrine seemed incredibly blasphemous and thus the true believers were filtered or sorted from the ones who said "do not leave your religion!", those being the Jews and the Christians, who continued to face Jerusalem and were thus distinguished.
"What has turned them". We expect that that the Jews and the Christians who represented the monotheists, were not turned towards Mecca but towards Jerusalem, so no question would have been asked of their turning to the place they always turned to.
If the Polytheists are not Meccan at all but Magi at Jerusalem who were turning towards some other place, were the first Muslims who "turned from their former qiblah" Zoroastrians?
Are these just absurd questions or are they bringing up any points?
Zoroastrians have a particular title in the Qur'an and are not referred to necessarily as Polytheists, and though their religion may seem polytheistic, they were also supposed to be Monotheists, and spoke a tongue which is different from Arabic from a different language family altogether, and Zoroastrians were praised at times in the Bible and respected at times. The Qur'an showing that it can use the word for Zoroastrians, did not seem to explicitly use it except once, and talks about bringing a message in Arabic.
So the mainstream academics seem to think for the most part that indeed the Qur'an is contemporary to the time of Muhammed, that it refers to Arabia and came from Arabia which had the presence of groups like Jews (like the famous Southern Arabian Jews) and Christian sects like the Nestorians and others who were prone to some ascetic practices and would be in the dessert sometimes for that purpose as well.
That the practices of Islam developed around the lifetime of Muhammed and were continued by those from the region and spread elsewhere, modifying over time with each culture it encountered but still remaining essentially in its original form which resembled an old form of Judeo-Christian practices, including prostrations and other things which used to be common to the Jews and Christians as well as others in the world.
That is what the mainstream majority of academics seem to think, and that includes the generally accepted non-Muslim and Muslim academics, not all of whom place too much credence in all the Hadith or consider it definitely a trustworthy transmission.
The early Non-Muslim accounts of Muslims seem to also identify Arabia and Arabs as the group spreading.
I disagree with a lot what you claim here. Sure there was Jewish and Christian presence in Arabia. But no christian influence in Hijaz whatsoever, I don't know any academics who say there were christians in Hijaz. The polytheists are not Jewish Magi. They are Persians controlling Temple Mount. Also most academics agree the early muslims fit North Arabia way better than the Hijaz region, it does not fit the south arabian sociological environment at all.
I'm not relocating the whole story to Jerusalem. I think you misunderstood me. I don't deny the arab origin of islam. In Quran God says to them that they will enter it. God makes a promise they will enter the masjid al haram in Jerusalem. This is fully backed up by history. Moreover Jerusalem was conquered without shedding any blood by all historical accounts.
In my understanding the test is still valid. I see many of you having major problems accepting a qibla in Jerusalem. If you do you most likely consider Ibrahim and the whole progeny as christian and jewish as well. Which is a mistake.
I hope you can also take some information from this post and use it to test your own thesis? Eg who was on a supposed qibla in Mecca and abandoned it while they were on it? Did Arabs not have access to Mecca? Why would God promise they will enter it when it was always freely accessible to anyone arab? How is appointing an arab qibla to an arab a test in loyalty?
I find myself in repeat-mode; this post hardly contains one argument I haven't already made. It almost makes it look like I'm trying to convince others of my point of view. Which I'm not. I find myself totally incapable of making this evident. In contrast God makes this most evident (who follows and who doesn't) and my understanding is it is supposed to be this way.
Peace
-
Salam.
Yes God is real and so is Becca real as a spiritual refuge. Neither is physical. Just like a physical entity cannot be omnipresent and omnipotent, a physical house cannot be blessing for the universe, or guarantee security to whoever enters it.
To answer your other question about abrogation - I do not believe Qur'an verses to be subject to abrogation but I do believe messengers were authorizes to bring changes to certain "prescriptions" for their communities like food restrictions, Qibla, recommended days for Siam etc with the authorization of Allah. Abraham introduced new practices, so did Moses, so did Jesus and so did Muhammad - peace upon all of them. These prescriptions do not change the fundamentals - they just customize the practices to match the need of their communities.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards
ArmanSo according to Arman Ibrahim, Ishmael, and the whole progeny were christians and jews. This demonstrates my point that those who reject the qibla (Jerusalem) also reject the Abrahamic progeny. In my understanding it is a muslim progeny. Not a christian or jewish one.
Lo! As for those who sunder their religion and become schismatics, no concern at all hast thou with them. Their case will go to Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.
Knowing this verse how can anyone be promoting a divide in religion and at the same time call themselves muslim? If you think that verse only applies to Islamic sectarianism, you should think twice before Allah will deal with your case.
Peace
-
The terms ?Muslim? and ?Islm? (as identifiers of a distinct religion) only appear in the arch?ological record after 691 C.E, during the Marwn era.
Hoyland, Seeing Islam (p.414, f.8 notes that the Zuqnin Chronicle (wr. c. 775 C.E) ?contains the first non-Muslim literary reference to the term ?Muslim,? written mshlamn; before this the term only features in an inscription of AH 123/741 and as the name of a governor (Meslem) in the late seventh century.? Also see Hoyland, ?The Content and Context of Early Arabic Inscriptions?, pp.86-87 ?The term ?Islam? features in inscriptions from a very early date, but its nature or content is never explained. It is simply stated that ?Religion with God is Islam? (Dome of the Rock, 72/691), ?our religion is Islam? (Mosque of Medina, 87/706), ?my religion is Islam? (Jabal Usays, 119/737). One thing is clear, however, namely that Islam is closely connected with Muhammad. It is ?the religion of truth? entrusted to him by God, it is what he guided his community to and what he described. The associated term ?Muslim? does not seem to appear until 123/741 (inscription at Ayn al-Jarr), the word ?believer? being preferred before this. Thereafter it becomes more common and testifies to a greater sense of communal feeling among Muslims, evidenced also by such expressions as ?the greatest calamity for the people of Islam is what befell them with (the death of) the prophet Muhammad.?? Hoyland (?The Content?, p.87, f.65) notes that the tombstone upon which the phrase ?the greatest calamity for the people of Islam is what befell them with (the death of) the prophet Muhammad? has been dated to 691 C.E., although this date ?should possibly be read 171/788, since the script is elaborate and this phrase is not otherwise seen until 190/806.?
Gerald R. Hawting, The First Dynasty of Islam The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, Second Edition (London, U.K Routledge, 2000), p.61 ?Whatever the significance of the Dome of the Rock at the time when it was built, it stands out as one of the earliest surviving concrete expressions of the new religion and civilisation of Islam which was beginning to emerge in the lands which had been conquered by the Arabs. Apart from its innovative architecture (which is not to say, of course, that it is unrelated to previous architecture), two things in particular are noteworthy. First, the inscriptions in the Dome contained passages which may be recognised, in spite of one or two minor variants from the Koran as we know it, as Koranic. These are the earliest securely datable examples of Koranic texts to have survived. Secondly, the texts refer to Islam as ?the religion of truth?, and this is the first certain evidence of Islam as the name of the religion of the Arabs; earlier non-Muslim literary texts do not call the Arabs Muslim or refer to their religion as Islam.?
I posted this information to back up my claim that Islam was originally never intended as a new religion and muslims as some new religious group. The whole idea of a seperate Islam coincides historically with the first caliphs who were trying to build an empire. Nothing more useful than to highjack religion to solidify the feeling of nationality with as we all know (see modern Israel, Saudi Arabia). This religion of truth was literally exploited politically to build the foundations of a caliphate with. For it to be efficient it needed to firstly distinct them from other communities (thus be a seperate religion entirely) and secondly bind communities together that are vastly different having a history of tribal wars. Et voila, political Islam was born.
Peace
-
Don't worry I don't feel like you are trying to trick me. But there is something wrong with your translation. I don't know where you got it, or if you crosschecked it at all but it doesn't say
"And We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels."
The correct translation is
"And NOT We appointed the qiblah which ye formerly observed only that We might know him who followeth the messenger, from him who turneth on his heels."
My understanding of this verse is as follows the early followers of the messenger were gentile. They did not have a qibla in Jerusalem. Most of them were polytheists in my understanding before they accepted the message. The messenger asks them to accept a qibla that is known as Jewish. As such it is a test.
Muslims are asked to accept the qibla of the jewish which is totally foreign to them. Moreover, this qibla was 'abandoned' by Jews 'while they were on it'. Of course 'abandoned' in reality means, they were expelled from it. The early followers of the messenger most likely had many qiblas. Pagan ones. They are asked to abandon those and accept with the messenger the Jewish qibla in Jerusalem. Making evident who follows and is turning back on their heels. Consider that at the time those verses were revealed muslims did not have access to the Qibla. Making it even more a test. I find evidence in Quran of this reasoning when you look at the question naming the previous messengers asking whether they were jewish or christian? If they are not, if they are muslim, then one cannot use the argument to refuse this Jerusalem qibla by saying it's a jewish or christian qibla.
The story didn't take place in Jerusalem. Only after muhammad's death did muslims gain access to temple mount and were able to enter it. In this sense, no Jews or Christians are asked to abandon their qibla. The gentile group of early muslims is asked to give up their pre-muslim qiblas and accept the one in Jerusalem. No Jewish or Christians are addressed in these verses.
I disagree with a lot what you claim here. Sure there was Jewish and Christian presence in Arabia. But no christian influence in Hijaz whatsoever, I don't know any academics who say there were christians in Hijaz. The polytheists are not Jewish Magi. They are Persians controlling Temple Mount. Also most academics agree the early muslims fit North Arabia way better than the Hijaz region, it does not fit the south arabian sociological environment at all.
I'm not relocating the whole story to Jerusalem. I think you misunderstood me. I don't deny the arab origin of islam. In Quran God says to them that they will enter it. God makes a promise they will enter the masjid al haram in Jerusalem. This is fully backed up by history. Moreover Jerusalem was conquered without shedding any blood by all historical accounts.
In my understanding the test is still valid. I see many of you having major problems accepting a qibla in Jerusalem. If you do you most likely consider Ibrahim and the whole progeny as christian and jewish as well. Which is a mistake.
I hope you can also take some information from this post and use it to test your own thesis? Eg who was on a supposed qibla in Mecca and abandoned it while they were on it? Did Arabs not have access to Mecca? Why would God promise they will enter it when it was always freely accessible to anyone arab? How is appointing an arab qibla to an arab a test in loyalty?
I find myself in repeat-mode; this post hardly contains one argument I haven't already made. It almost makes it look like I'm trying to convince others of my point of view. Which I'm not. I find myself totally incapable of making this evident. In contrast God makes this most evident (who follows and who doesn't) and my understanding is it is supposed to be this way.
Peace
To make it easier on yourself, you can simply link back to this post now instead of re-typing, and can say "please read this post which explains what I am saying very clearly).
I'm not sure the polytheists had a "qiblah" type practice of their own, I think they used to have personal idols probably which they prayed to, in the manner that the Hindus do today at times, I think the practice of "turning towards Mecca as a qibla" was not something they were doing, but I don't know. It was generally the Jews and the Christians who might have had a practice of turning.
I posted earlier the historical stuff about the possibility of Christians in the region of Southern Arabia or whatever, I think academics do generally accept there to have been a presence and the references to Christians in the Qur'an being references to real Christians in the Mecca area. The majority of academics anyway, but of course, "Disneyworld", so the majority of academics having an opinion might not be important like you said.
I think you answered pretty clearly what you are presenting and thinking so you can just direct people now to that post to make it easy for yourself if you want.
-
To make it easier on yourself, you can simply link back to this post now instead of re-typing, and can say "please read this post which explains what I am saying very clearly).
I'm not sure the polytheists had a "qiblah" type practice of their own, I think they used to have personal idols probably which they prayed to, in the manner that the Hindus do today at times, I think the practice of "turning towards Mecca as a qibla" was not something they were doing, but I don't know. It was generally the Jews and the Christians who might have had a practice of turning.
I posted earlier the historical stuff about the possibility of Christians in the region of Southern Arabia or whatever, I think academics do generally accept there to have been a presence and the references to Christians in the Qur'an being references to real Christians in the Mecca area. The majority of academics anyway, but of course, "Disneyworld", so the majority of academics having an opinion might not be important like you said.
I think you answered pretty clearly what you are presenting and thinking so you can just direct people now to that post to make it easy for yourself if you want.
To me the shrines of polytheists are qiblas by themselves.
I'm not saying the majority of scholars are wrong. Please distinct the following
- I agree about Christian presence in Arabia, however there is no christian influence in the Hijaz region during time of revelation. Majority of non-islamic scholars agree on this.
- The south-arabian milieu as I posted does not fit the Quranic sociological framework. Most non-islamic scholars locate the place of revelation to be Northern Arabic rather than southern (eg Hijaz, Yemen)
Furthermore there is no archaeological evidence of Jewish or Christians turning their qibla. What we do have evidence of is early mosques all pointing to a qibla that is way more northern than mecca, next to more recent mosques suddenly being changed towards a meccan direction.
Peace
-
To me the shrines of polytheists are qiblas by themselves.
I'm not saying the majority of scholars are wrong. Please distinct the following
- I agree about Christian presence in Arabia, however there is no christian influence in the Hijaz region during time of revelation. Majority of non-islamic scholars agree on this.
- The south-arabian milieu as I posted does not fit the Quranic sociological framework. Most non-islamic scholars locate the place of revelation to be Northern Arabic rather than southern (eg Hijaz, Yemen)
Furthermore there is no archaeological evidence of Jewish or Christians turning their qibla. What we do have evidence of is early mosques all pointing to a qibla that is way more northern than mecca, next to more recent mosques suddenly being changed towards a meccan direction.
Peace
Most non-Islamic scholars seem to agree that Mecca was the place of revelation.
Only a minority have suggested places other than Mecca, the mainstream view is Mecca, this is the view of the Muslims and the Non-Muslims in the majority.
Because they accept that the place of revelation was Mecca, they accept a Christian presence in Mecca and Medina region.
There is a minority which suggests other places, that is a minority view at this time though among academics, it is not the majority view.
-
Most non-Islamic scholars seem to agree that Mecca was the place of revelation.
Only a minority have suggested places other than Mecca, the mainstream view is Mecca, this is the view of the Muslims and the Non-Muslims in the majority.
Because they accept that the place of revelation was Mecca, they accept a Christian presence in Mecca and Medina region.
There is a minority which suggests other places, that is a minority view at this time though among academics, it is not the majority view.
This is incorrect Crone, Hoyland, Hawting and many others all dispute this meccan origin. They may have been a minority but many of the issues they raised are still on the table. Even some of Luxenberg's ideas.
See http//research-islam.blogspot.be/2014/01/the-revisionist-history-of-islams.html
Peace
-
https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Hejaz-English.jpg/275px-Hejaz-English.jpg
Most Historians believe there was indeed Christian presence in this region. Furthermore, since there were Jews even in Southern Arabia, it is believed by the majority of academics that the place of revelation was Mecca and Medina, and that there was a presence of Christians and Jews already established there at the time.
I'm just saying what the majority of mainstream academics believe, they are not of the opinion in the mainstream of academia and Arab and Islamic studies that the place of revelation was anywhere other than Mecca and Medina, and thus Mecca and likewise belief that Mecca and Medina had a presence of Jewish and Christian people, and this is no surprise considering it being known that Jews and Christians were present all over there, in Ethiopa across the shore, Jews in Southern Arabia, and whatever else, including Nestorians. It is believed there were trading routes and camel trails and all sorts of things.
The mainstream academic view is that Mecca had trade and commerce, had Christians, Jews, and Polytheists before Islam, and things like that.
-
If that's the academic view, then show me one archaeological finding of the remains of a church in the hijaz region? We can find those in Yemen, none in Hijaz however.
It simply doesn't exist.
Peace