Baccata and Haj
-
You're always invited to join my fast Freedomstands. It's funny at the same time of year some shia muslims fast as well. For all the wrong historical reasons but still, overlapping that same time of year.
Peace
-
That's your understanding not mine. I dont identify the remote house as temple mount. Even historically this understanding is flawed. Jerusalem was never the most remote house. Neither was there a mosque called al-aqsa at that time. In my understanding "al aqsa" is not a place on earth.
Well I don't dispute the location of Medina. I do however dispute a lot of other stuff you claim here. You date this "turning on their heels" in Muhammads lifetime. I don't. It took several decades if not centuries for Mecca to become an established focal point. Muhammad never witnessed any of that. Neither was Mecca ever the capital of the first caliphs. So your reasoning here is built on misconceptions. There is another fallacy in your reasoning you say it's improbable there would have not been protest concerning the change in qibla. That would be true if the majority of them wouldn't be more than happy to return to a pagan/Arabic focal point they were used to. Would it be strange for a majority of Arabs to change the focal point from Jewish/Christian land to an arabic region. I doubt it would cause much resistance.
I'm sorry for not addressing all of the points you raised. I will try to answer them in more detail soon. Atm of writing I'm too tired to respond with an answer you deserve. One of them is I dispute the hills Safa and Marwa to be original Hijaz landmark names. I suggest you take a look at some pictures, maps of the modern safa and marwa in Mecca and tell me if by your standards they are considered hills.
Also check some old arabian maps and tell me if even one of them predating/concurrent with Qurans revelation mentions those landmarks as safa and marwa. I will tell you my understanding of those hills.
The deities you mention (Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza) are not attested for by historical account as south-arabian deities but rather northern arabic deities. Evidence of them has been found in places as far north as Syria. Furthermore they aren't entirely unknown to Christians or Jews, if not originated from a Christian, Jewish heresy
I think it would help you to apply some nuance when using categories like Jews, Christians and polytheists. Many of the Jews were practicing in effect polytheism. Just to give an example of how they are often overlapping and by no means whatsoever speak about the integrity of their monotheistic beliefs. It's quranically a mistake to interprete them as homogeneous religious groups.
This one of the reasons Quran eg NEVER calls any of the previous messengers christian or jewish.
Peace
"That's your understanding not mine."
No, it isn't really, honestly, I was asking you though. I don't have much of an opinion on what the "remote house" refers to necessarily.
"I dont identify the remote house as temple mount."
Ok. Though it is far from Mecca.
"Even historically this understanding is flawed. Jerusalem was never the most remote house. Neither was there a mosque called al-aqsa at that time. In my understanding "al aqsa" is not a place on earth."
Ok. So an earthly place is mentioned, then an unearthly place was mentioned. Maybe the ends of the Universe? Perhaps that is not remote enough.
"Well I don't dispute the location of Medina. I do however dispute a lot of other stuff you claim here."
What exactly did I claim? I was wondering where Medina was, and if it was where the mainstream academics say it was, and that Muhammed was present there, and that Nassara and Yahudi are present in these stories, what is going on? The references are just flying all over the place? These are not claims, these are questions.
"You date this "turning on their heels" in Muhammads lifetime."
Wow, I'm doing so much more than I am aware of. Haha. No, I am asking you things. It is within my range of possibilities that every bit of the story is a lie, just as anyone's imagination regarding it may also be false and may even said to be likely to be false unless Allah has granted them some vision of the past accurately, except they would have no way to know it for certain even if it were accurate. Perhaps that is too mystical for your tastes though.
"I don't. It took several decades if not centuries for Mecca to become an established focal point."
Why did they do that, in your thoughts?
"Muhammad never witnessed any of that."
Yet the practice of praying to Jerusalem was within his lifetime, right? There were many Muslims within his lifetime, right? These were the points being brought up carefully, they are questions too.
"Neither was Mecca ever the capital of the first caliphs. So your reasoning here is built on misconceptions."
There is no "reasoning" going on really. I am saying why if the practice of the majority was to pray towards Jerusalem did they, when the capital was not even Mecca, turn everyone to pray to some arbitrary point, and how is it so many who had known it, did not simply kill the one individual telling them to turn away from what they and their father's had apparently been all doing as the majority of Muslims? These are questions, not assertions of anything.
"There is another fallacy in your reasoning you say it's improbable there would have not been protest concerning the change in qibla. That would be true if the majority of them wouldn't be more than happy to return to a pagan/Arabic focal point they were used to."
Yeah? So all those people who fought and died and their families had been doing a particular thing, and they were all more than happy on the command of some individual less than Muhammed in rank to turn towards it? Interesting.
"Would it be strange for a majority of Arabs to change the focal point from Jewish/Christian land to an arabic region. I doubt it would cause much resistance."
It would be strange if their capital was somewhere else and this was the practice everyone saw them doing and they had been doing, yet all the people they had encountered by this point failed to report any shift away from Jerusalem or any towards Jerusalem in the first place. Monks had written about them, they said they are dogs and hell beasts, but didn't seem to mention "yet they face Jerusalem when they pray" or "Now they have turned away from Jerusalem when they pray, back to their pagan shrine!" The Muslims did not have control over the writings of these people, that is why there are anti-Muslim things written down from early in Islamic history.
"I'm sorry for not addressing all of the points you raised. I will try to answer them in more detail soon."
Its ok, take it easy, you should relax and enjoy nice meals and laugh and watch funny stuff and feel good. I don't care too much about these things so you don't need to get stressed at all (I understand if you're not stressed by it and I'm glad if you're not).
"Atm of writing I'm too tired to respond with an answer you deserve."
So far what we gathered from the response are some of your opinions, which is why I was asking the questions in the first place, so you didn't fail in that regard. We learned that in your opinion the remote mosque is very likely not Earthly (we can ask more on what you think about that when you feel like it) and we learned that you believe there was some switch from the habitual praying to Jerusalem even after the death of Muhammed to a switch to Mecca and that people were happy to switch to Mecca.
"One of them is I dispute the hills Safa and Marwa to be original Hijaz landmark names."
Ok yeah, I was just bringing up those points to find out where you might think those are or the Kaba, and I had wanted to find out if you had a different location of Medina too. How about a location for Muhammed? Was he in Mecca and Medina?
"I suggest you take a look at some pictures, maps of the modern safa and marwa in Mecca and tell me if by your standards they are considered hills.
I think there were "hills" available there that they could have chosen instead, if they were freely chosen whatever at all they wanted. Why would they make it so difficult for themselves? Just stupid I guess?
"Also check some old arabian maps and tell me if even one of them predating/concurrent with Qurans revelation mentions those landmarks as safa and marwa. I will tell you my understanding of those hills."
Can you show any of these "old arabian maps" that would mention something apparently significant to the people of Medina and Mecca?
"The deities you mention (Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza) are not attested for by historical account as south-arabian deities but rather northern arabic deities. Evidence of them has been found in places as far north as Syria."
Alright, so Muhammed was not in Mecca and Medina, and the Kabah is a Syrian site? This is what I want to get clear on, where is this all taking place, what exactly is going on, who is saying what and to who is it being said? I am not making statements about it is this way or it is that way, I am asking you for your story on it. I don't even care about "proofs" we are not at that point yet, I don't even know where you're saying this is all happening or why or where these locations are. I am aware of what the mainstream academics think, that is why I brought it up, I can't just automatically know what you are saying though, you have to tell me exactly and in detail, you don't even have to worry about proving it, just say this this this.
""Furthermore they aren't entirely unknown to Christians or Jews, if not originated from a Christian, Jewish heresy
I think it would help you to apply some nuance when using categories like Jews, Christians and polytheists. Many of the Jews were practicing in effect polytheism. Just to give an example of how they are often overlapping and by no means whatsoever speak about the integrity of their monotheistic beliefs. It's quranically a mistake to interprete them as homogeneous religious groups."The Yahudi are made somewhat distinct from the Nassara, and again somewhat distinct from the Polytheists, but I agree they may have all been sharing in various aspects of polytheism, but where? If you agree with the site of Mecca and Medina, then why is it talking to far away Syrians when Muhammed is in Medina and apparently talking to present Yahudi and Nassara? How can it be said "None in the Hijaz" when he is apparently talking to them, and they are right across in Ethiopia and right below in Southern Arabia?
"This one of the reasons Quran eg NEVER calls any of the previous messengers christian or jewish.
Peace"Also because they literally weren't Christian or Jewish perhaps?
It does call a nameless one in the story of Saul "their prophet" "prophet of theirs".
-
You're always invited to join my fast Freedomstands. It's funny at the same time of year some shia muslims fast as well. For all the wrong historical reasons but still, overlapping that same time of year.
Peace
I find there to be no harm in a well intended practice or deed. Would you consider yourself Jewish or Muslim or neither? I am not saying they are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a Jew and a Muslim and a Christian, I don't have an issue with those designations, the beliefs remain the same. I'll throw in Hindu, Buddhist, and whatever else too without much difficulty, because I can explain each of them in a way that has the same message being given.
-
I find there to be no harm in a well intended practice or deed. Would you consider yourself Jewish or Muslim or neither? I am not saying they are mutually exclusive. I consider myself a Jew and a Muslim and a Christian, I don't have an issue with those designations, the beliefs remain the same. I'll throw in Hindu, Buddhist, and whatever else too without much difficulty, because I can explain each of them in a way that has the same message being given.
You can call me christian, jewish or muslim. I don't mind any of those labels. I'm not a buddhist however. But I admit I know very little about the original format of that faith. It's possible my objections towards it require reconsideration.
Peace
-
You can call me christian, jewish or muslim. I don't mind any of those labels. I'm not a buddhist however. But I admit I know very little about the original format of that faith. It's possible my objections towards it require reconsideration.
Peace
I've found certain areas of Buddhism to be fine. To me the intentions of the Buddhist or even the authors of Buddhism is not important to me. It is just that they are words, and I've found words and sentences that can be effectively used to give the same message as the others. One example where I recently used Buddhist talk was in a post in the drfazl battle somewhere on page 74 and the same re-quoted on page 75.
What are all your practices? Can you give a detailed account of your religion?
Mine is generally mainstream Islam minus the Hadith and beard obsession type stuff.
-
"That's your understanding not mine."
No, it isn't really, honestly, I was asking you though. I don't have much of an opinion on what the "remote house" refers to necessarily.
"I dont identify the remote house as temple mount."
Ok. Though it is far from Mecca.
"Even historically this understanding is flawed. Jerusalem was never the most remote house. Neither was there a mosque called al-aqsa at that time. In my understanding "al aqsa" is not a place on earth."
Ok. So an earthly place is mentioned, then an unearthly place was mentioned. Maybe the ends of the Universe? Perhaps that is not remote enough.
In my understanding well beyond the boundaries of this Universe.
"Well I don't dispute the location of Medina. I do however dispute a lot of other stuff you claim here."
What exactly did I claim? I was wondering where Medina was, and if it was where the mainstream academics say it was, and that Muhammed was present there, and that Nassara and Yahudi are present in these stories, what is going on? The references are just flying all over the place? These are not claims, these are questions.
My bad.
"You date this "turning on their heels" in Muhammads lifetime."
Wow, I'm doing so much more than I am aware of. Haha. No, I am asking you things. It is within my range of possibilities that every bit of the story is a lie, just as anyone's imagination regarding it may also be false and may even said to be likely to be false unless Allah has granted them some vision of the past accurately, except they would have no way to know it for certain even if it were accurate. Perhaps that is too mystical for your tastes though.
"I don't. It took several decades if not centuries for Mecca to become an established focal point."
Why did they do that, in your thoughts?
My apologies I confused your statements as being your opinion. My bad again. They did so for political reasons, cultural reasons, they were building an empire and the places of importance shifted a lot during that time. It seems the Hijaz culture prevailed in that history eventually.
"Muhammad never witnessed any of that."
Yet the practice of praying to Jerusalem was within his lifetime, right? There were many Muslims within his lifetime, right? These were the points being brought up carefully, they are questions too.
Correct.
"Neither was Mecca ever the capital of the first caliphs. So your reasoning here is built on misconceptions."
There is no "reasoning" going on really. I am saying why if the practice of the majority was to pray towards Jerusalem did they, when the capital was not even Mecca, turn everyone to pray to some arbitrary point, and how is it so many who had known it, did not simply kill the one individual telling them to turn away from what they and their father's had apparently been all doing as the majority of Muslims? These are questions, not assertions of anything.
This is explained by how the meaning of caliph shifted. Originally it was a status that meant high commander of the believers. Having no authority on religious matters whatsoever. Gradually this shifted to include religious authority allowing them to implement a lot of new stuff into the faith that was never there originally. Their power position made this possible. The same mechanism can be seen with the fatwa's of modern mullahs.
"There is another fallacy in your reasoning you say it's improbable there would have not been protest concerning the change in qibla. That would be true if the majority of them wouldn't be more than happy to return to a pagan/Arabic focal point they were used to."
Yeah? So all those people who fought and died and their families had been doing a particular thing, and they were all more than happy on the command of some individual less than Muhammed in rank to turn towards it? Interesting.
See history of caliphs authority in religious matters.
"Would it be strange for a majority of Arabs to change the focal point from Jewish/Christian land to an arabic region. I doubt it would cause much resistance."
It would be strange if their capital was somewhere else and this was the practice everyone saw them doing and they had been doing, yet all the people they had encountered by this point failed to report any shift away from Jerusalem or any towards Jerusalem in the first place. Monks had written about them, they said they are dogs and hell beasts, but didn't seem to mention "yet they face Jerusalem when they pray" or "Now they have turned away from Jerusalem when they pray, back to their pagan shrine!" The Muslims did not have control over the writings of these people, that is why there are anti-Muslim things written down from early in Islamic history.
The capital argument is contradicted by history. Damascus was the capital for some time. It never had any religious significance. There are very little critical jewish writings about the muslims dating from that time in Jerusalem. And there is a very logic reason for this thanks to muslims Jews were able to access Jerusalem again. They even collaborated in many of their early battles with the byzantines. Another valid reason for the Jewish to not be bothered by a meccan qibla is it gave them more opportunity to raise their Third Temple again which is impossible under Islamic control of Jerusalem. They were happy to see them turn. This argument is still very relevant in 2015. The traditional historical and hadith account of Jerusalem totally undermines the Islamic and Palestine claims on that territory. Zionists are ready to exploit the weaknesses in that fictional history the first chance they get. Remember that what I'm discussing here were relevant arguments used by both sides in the historical camp david talks.
"I'm sorry for not addressing all of the points you raised. I will try to answer them in more detail soon."
Its ok, take it easy, you should relax and enjoy nice meals and laugh and watch funny stuff and feel good. I don't care too much about these things so you don't need to get stressed at all (I understand if you're not stressed by it and I'm glad if you're not).
"Atm of writing I'm too tired to respond with an answer you deserve."
So far what we gathered from the response are some of your opinions, which is why I was asking the questions in the first place, so you didn't fail in that regard. We learned that in your opinion the remote mosque is very likely not Earthly (we can ask more on what you think about that when you feel like it) and we learned that you believe there was some switch from the habitual praying to Jerusalem even after the death of Muhammed to a switch to Mecca and that people were happy to switch to Mecca.
I agree. Thanks for understanding.
"One of them is I dispute the hills Safa and Marwa to be original Hijaz landmark names."
Ok yeah, I was just bringing up those points to find out where you might think those are or the Kaba, and I had wanted to find out if you had a different location of Medina too. How about a location for Muhammed? Was he in Mecca and Medina?
As I understand it Medina, though if that was a fixed home for him I really don't know.
"I suggest you take a look at some pictures, maps of the modern safa and marwa in Mecca and tell me if by your standards they are considered hills.
I think there were "hills" available there that they could have chosen instead, if they were freely chosen whatever at all they wanted. Why would they make it so difficult for themselves? Just stupid I guess?
There are reasons these were chosen for proximity and compatibility with the Hagarite account in the older Scriptures.
"Also check some old arabian maps and tell me if even one of them predating/concurrent with Qurans revelation mentions those landmarks as safa and marwa. I will tell you my understanding of those hills."
Can you show any of these "old arabian maps" that would mention something apparently significant to the people of Medina and Mecca?
Nope I can't. Mecca simply wasn't on the map in those days. Jerusalem however has some hills around it that were effectively used for circumambulation.
"The deities you mention (Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza) are not attested for by historical account as south-arabian deities but rather northern arabic deities. Evidence of them has been found in places as far north as Syria."
Alright, so Muhammed was not in Mecca and Medina, and the Kabah is a Syrian site? This is what I want to get clear on, where is this all taking place, what exactly is going on, who is saying what and to who is it being said? I am not making statements about it is this way or it is that way, I am asking you for your story on it. I don't even care about "proofs" we are not at that point yet, I don't even know where you're saying this is all happening or why or where these locations are. I am aware of what the mainstream academics think, that is why I brought it up, I can't just automatically know what you are saying though, you have to tell me exactly and in detail, you don't even have to worry about proving it, just say this this this.
Again, I don't dispute him being in Medina. Mecca I dispute. The Kabah is not a Syrian site. But neither is it a Meccan site. What I'm saying is these deities where known as far north as Syria. One can assume they were also known in Jerusalem as those two are not so far removed. I'm not even convinced however these verses about other deities have anything to do with the Kabah. That's not what I get from the quranic text. It's what one would get from hadith.
""Furthermore they aren't entirely unknown to Christians or Jews, if not originated from a Christian, Jewish heresy
I think it would help you to apply some nuance when using categories like Jews, Christians and polytheists. Many of the Jews were practicing in effect polytheism. Just to give an example of how they are often overlapping and by no means whatsoever speak about the integrity of their monotheistic beliefs. It's quranically a mistake to interprete them as homogeneous religious groups."The Yahudi are made somewhat distinct from the Nassara, and again somewhat distinct from the Polytheists, but I agree they may have all been sharing in various aspects of polytheism, but where? If you agree with the site of Mecca and Medina, then why is it talking to far away Syrians when Muhammed is in Medina and apparently talking to present Yahudi and Nassara? How can it be said "None in the Hijaz" when he is apparently talking to them, and they are right across in Ethiopia and right below in Southern Arabia?
"This one of the reasons Quran eg NEVER calls any of the previous messengers christian or jewish.
Peace"Also because they literally weren't Christian or Jewish perhaps?
It does call a nameless one in the story of Saul "their prophet" "prophet of theirs".
Quran is not talking about far away syrians. To me it seems logical someone living in Medina being a trader would have known quite a lot about what was happening a bit up north in the Levant. See also the verse where Quran talks about the battle of persians versus the byzantines. This was evenly far removed from Medina yet it was relevant enough in Quran to mention to the audience of followers.
Peace
-
I've found certain areas of Buddhism to be fine. To me the intentions of the Buddhist or even the authors of Buddhism is not important to me. It is just that they are words, and I've found words and sentences that can be effectively used to give the same message as the others. One example where I recently used Buddhist talk was in a post in the drfazl battle somewhere on page 74 and the same re-quoted on page 75.
What are all your practices? Can you give a detailed account of your religion?
Mine is generally mainstream Islam minus the Hadith and beard obsession type stuff.
Well you know I fast with the Jews during the period of rosh hashanah/yom kippur. I differ a lot from most mainstream muslims. In qibla, in understanding of Islam. I think schism is a bad thing. I try to pray three times a day but I'm not claiming to achieve that always. I believe Hell to be a physical real place. Paradise to be a real place. This life is nothing but a prelude to what's to come. I try to be one of the patient ones. My Hajj will be to Temple Mount and I truly hope to realize that some day. If God wills. I'm not a reformer of Islam. That's not my intention and not my concern.
I feel different even from the majority of quranists in this forum. In my appraisal most of them still use hadith, either by calendar system, qibla, code 19 or whatever. It's very easy to say one is free from hadith. But I've noticed especially with ex-sunni's there is always some cognitive aspect of it remaining. Which is understandable because often it also affected the semantics of their current language.
To me the word muslim does not denote followers of a new religion. To me it denotes an abrahamic supergroup that can witness and be a balanced community within the existing abrahamic faiths. In this sense whether you are jewish, christian does not exclude one from being able to be a muslim. Muslims are diplomats in the progeny of Abraham if you will. The samurai among the warrior class. Respecting a precise code and pact of honour and righteousness. Those promoting divide are ninja honouring no codes and throwing pointy steel stars in your back without any shame while hiding behind a bush.
I'm also kind of a hermit. I spend a lot of time in solitude.
I'm someone who tries not to attach much value to material things in my life. With one exception italian motorcycles.
Peace
-
Well you know I fast with the Jews during the period of rosh hashanah/yom kippur. I differ a lot from most mainstream muslims. In qibla, in understanding of Islam. I think schism is a bad thing. I try to pray three times a day but I'm not claiming to achieve that always. I believe Hell to be a physical real place. Paradise to be a real place. This life is nothing but a prelude to what's to come. I try to be one of the patient ones. My Hajj will be to Temple Mount and I truly hope to realize that some day. If God wills. I'm not a reformer of Islam. That's not my intention and not my concern.
I feel different even from the majority of quranists in this forum. In my appraisal most of them still use hadith, either by calendar system, qibla, code 19 or whatever. It's very easy to say one is free from hadith. But I've noticed especially with ex-sunni's there is always some cognitive aspect of it remaining. Which is understandable because often it also affected the semantics of their current language.
To me the word muslim does not denote followers of a new religion. To me it denotes an abrahamic supergroup that can witness and be a balanced community within the existing abrahamic faiths. In this sense whether you are jewish, christian does not exclude one from being able to be a muslim. Muslims are diplomats in the progeny of Abraham if you will. The samurai among the warrior class. Respecting a precise code and pact of honour and righteousness. Those promoting divide are ninja honouring no codes and throwing pointy steel stars in your back without any shame while hiding behind a bush.
I'm also kind of a hermit. I spend a lot of time in solitude.
I'm someone who tries not to attach much value to material things in my life. With one exception italian motorcycles.
Peace
Were you brought up in a Muslim family? I mean the usual definition of the word. Most of what you said I agree with as similar to my own beliefs. I have found you also relying somewhat recently on Hadith histories it seems, for example I don't really trust they are certain that Muhammed is a trader yet still an illiterate, I think both could be a lie, or one could be a lie, and I prefer to think that he was not a trader, but an ordinary person considered an illiterate fool. One could be illiterate and a trader too, but I don't like the whole "trader" story. Especially considering that Medina is not even a major trading place according to you maybe, and it puts a little question on the whole miraculous nature of the Qur'an that he is observing so much in his travels. Rather it seems at least to make more sense with the accusations in the Qur'an about him "learning from a foreigner" that they did not simply say "he learned it in his travels" but was dependent on someone who was not considered an illiterate local goomba.
When did you develop an attachment or like for the Jewish stuff, if you have any? Why do you seem to have a Jewish inclination? Yes, it was before Islam, but is there any background story to why you might lean more towards it?
-
Were you brought up in a Muslim family? I mean the usual definition of the word. Most of what you said I agree with as similar to my own beliefs. I have found you also relying somewhat recently on Hadith histories it seems, for example I don't really trust they are certain that Muhammed is a trader yet still an illiterate, I think both could be a lie, or one could be a lie, and I prefer to think that he was not a trader, but an ordinary person considered an illiterate fool. One could be illiterate and a trader too, but I don't like the whole "trader" story. Especially considering that Medina is not even a major trading place according to you maybe, and it puts a little question on the whole miraculous nature of the Qur'an that he is observing so much in his travels. Rather it seems at least to make more sense with the accusations in the Qur'an about him "learning from a foreigner" that they did not simply say "he learned it in his travels" but was dependent on someone who was not considered an illiterate local goomba.
When did you develop an attachment or like for the Jewish stuff, if you have any? Why do you seem to have a Jewish inclination? Yes, it was before Islam, but is there any background story to why you might lean more towards it?
No muslims in my family as far as I'm aware. I agree about Muhammad I can't claim to know if he was a trader. But outside hadith there is plenty of evidence he was a man of this time and world. I can't imagine him to not have known the important places in the Levant. It wouldn't make sense seeing the many hebrew imports in Quran. All I know about Muhammad is he was gentile. I have no proof for him being illiterate whatsoever. Nor of the contrary.
I never was into Jewish tradition. This is entirely because of Quran. I never knew the history of Jerusalem before I started reading Quran. The trigger was the language used in Quran which is riddled with imports that almost require you to dig into that stuff in some way or the other.
Also learning about fasting, hajj, zakat all pointed me towards the Jewish tradition. If I take the islamic traditional account a lot of their understanding goes straight in against my critical thinking. How can I fast in a month of ramadhan when there never was a month of ramadhan during the time of Qurans revelation. This is just an example. There are many more. Eventually when digging to the core of those essential concepts, its inevitable to consider the Jewish tradition. There is still so much similarity despite the established schism.
Considering the qibla, I initially understood the verses as such when I first read them masjid al-haram to me meant Jerusalem, more specifically Temple Mount. I've never read them otherwise. Don't ask me why I had this cognitive association with Jerusalem it just was there. Similarly the most far removed mosque meant to me on initial reading, Gods proximity (beyond time and space). A mosque in the hereafter if you will. I still think this to be true. Neither did I ever understand the verses to include a change in qibla authorized by God. On further examination of the traditional story I was even more convinced my reading was correct.
Peace
-
Ok, to delineate and clarify what we have so far and would like to know about your opinions
- The "remote house" may be beyond the Universe.
- Muhammed may have at least visited Medina.
- Medina is the location where it is known today.
- Medina is in the Hijaz.
Now for some questions.
What is Kaba?
Why is Jerusalem not mentioned in the Qur'an at all in any clear cut fashion, why is it not simply stating things clearly regarding this when other locations are mentioned by popular names? Is there any record of people not being able to simply just say "Jerusalem!"?
Did Muhammed take a pilgrimage or multiple pilgrimages to Jerusalem of that time? Why is this historical Jerusalem pilgrimage of the Arabs or Ishmaelites or whatever not apparently recorded anywhere, and the Qur'an can't simply mention it to clarify?
Where was Muhammed? Why is Muhammed talking about Medina and Medina people?
Is Muhammed in Syria? Why is there no record of this being a Syrian incident but is instead credited to others than the Syrians directly?
Why would the later generation turn towards Mecca if it was known to the present that it is Jerusalem that they pray towards and even take pilgrimage towards? Instituting this was easy and everyone was ready to celebrate it but also make no mention of this celebration? This is probably why historians tend to think there was no such change but the basis of these customs were from the time of Muhammed and after and no major switch occurred requiring such a massive population to adopt such a major change having known their parents to do otherwise as well and no trace of another practice left anywhere.
Did Muhammed preach in Jerusalem? Why so much focus on Jerusalem and it isn't mentioned at all? Even when it talks about turning qibla, it never said "from this to this" specifying clearly anything about Jerusalem.
Why are there totally no administrative records if these things were occurring anywhere in "civilization"? This is probably why Historians think it is accurate that this stuff is occurring around Medina, practically in the middle of nowhere, having no records, but suddenly springing up as a huge population only when it came into contact with those who write things down.
The Arabs flooding in pilgrimage to Jerusalem is not mentioned at all, and there were administrators in Jerusalem and many people who could write.
Why are these things really important to you? Would you feel comfortable being a full blown Jew and letting go of the Qur'an or do you think the Qur'an is a miraculous revelation? Do you take the whole of the Torah of today to be true? Do you take the whole of the Qur'an to be true?
I personally hate much of the Torah, I find it a filthy and odious text. That is not out of ignorance for it, but having actually read it many times. I also am not great fan of the New Testament. The Qur'an is my favorite.
I also have no great affection for the Jews, the characters in the Bible and their actions and cultural tendencies to have written these things, and their actions historically up until this day. I believe among the Jews were some few good and honorable people but that the Bible is even evidence of their vileness.
I do not find, as many mad liars seem to, that the Qur'an is anywhere comparable in vulgarity or hideousness to the Bible. So I generally don't consider this thing being called the Torah to be the real authentic and ancient Torah.
-
Ok, to delineate and clarify what we have so far and would like to know about your opinions
- The "remote house" may be beyond the Universe.
- Muhammed may have at least visited Medina.
- Medina is the location where it is known today.
- Medina is in the Hijaz.
Now for some questions.
What is Kaba?
What I find in etymological resources is this
ka?b
cube Per ka?b borrowed from Ara
ka?b
heel
kaba
trouble, pain Per kabe borrowed from Ara
ka?ba cube Hin kaba, Ind kaabah, Per ka?be borrowed from AraRelating this back to Quran
56 l-kabayni - genitive masculine dual noun
The noun being dual leaves no doubt what it is speaking about, next to its context it must mean ankles.
595
l-kabati - genitive feminine proper noun
This is not a dual noun making it next to the context unlikely to be speaking about ankles. It's definitely describing a hunting/butchering situation, the normal recompense for such a thing can only be measured by the grief done. The size of the animal is not relevant, besides ankles have never been a measure for anything as far as I know (in contrary to eg elbows). Most likely this meaning is related to the hebrew aqeb whereas kaba is related to hebrew kaab. Kaab is mostly translated as pain, be it physical or non-physical. Aqeb means heel, ankle. When one violates the rules given to us for Ihram, we damage inflict pain/sorrow to ourselves.
My understanding summarized if you kill an animal during Ihram - the recompense is an animal or expiation by feeding the needy or fasting. If the physical recompense is chosen over expiation, the offered recompense is judged wether it's sufficient to recompense the grief/pain/trouble being caused.
What is interesting here is Quran encourages the expiation over material recompense by making the material recompense more difficult. It has to pass the approval of judges, who judge if the recompense stands up to the grief it caused. There is no such process when expiation is chosen. This shows God is fully aware a material recompense does not guarantee any remorse of realization of the damage one has done oneself.
597 to me also speaks about the 'sorrows' rather then some cubic stone. Although I must admit I do not fully understand yet what is referred to with l-bayta. I have a feeling it may refer to the sorrows and the virtues (blessings and burdens) but so far I have no evidence for this.
I understand these verses only speak about what God expects if you commit the mistake of killing an animal during Ihram. 597 only defines this recompense to be a just one just like the other burdens one bears during Ihram are just. It's nowhere near an expectation to go butcher an animal. In contrary.
Why is Jerusalem not mentioned in the Qur'an at all in any clear cut fashion, why is it not simply stating things clearly regarding this when other locations are mentioned by popular names? Is there any record of people not being able to simply just say "Jerusalem!"?
Would the true qibla then still be a test if it is named explicitly? I don't think so. To me it's not mentioned by name for good reason outside the becca reference.
Did Muhammed take a pilgrimage or multiple pilgrimages to Jerusalem of that time? Why is this historical Jerusalem pilgrimage of the Arabs or Ishmaelites or whatever not apparently recorded anywhere, and the Qur'an can't simply mention it to clarify?
He did. It is mentioned in the Qur'an but confused with a Meccan pilgrimage.
Where was Muhammed? Why is Muhammed talking about Medina and Medina people?
One can assume when talking about Medina he was in Medina.
Is Muhammed in Syria? Why is there no record of this being a Syrian incident but is instead credited to others than the Syrians directly?
I'm not claiming he ever was in Syria.
Why would the later generation turn towards Mecca if it was known to the present that it is Jerusalem that they pray towards and even take pilgrimage towards? Instituting this was easy and everyone was ready to celebrate it but also make no mention of this celebration? This is probably why historians tend to think there was no such change but the basis of these customs were from the time of Muhammed and after and no major switch occurred requiring such a massive population to adopt such a major change having known their parents to do otherwise as well and no trace of another practice left anywhere.
I think I answered this before. Internal political disputes in the early caliphates entirely reveal how and why this happened. The shift is attested for by a lot of ancient mosques are you contesting these ancient mosques did have a Jerusalem qibla?
Did Muhammed preach in Jerusalem? Why so much focus on Jerusalem and it isn't mentioned at all? Even when it talks about turning qibla, it never said "from this to this" specifying clearly anything about Jerusalem.
I think I've answered in the above. How is this qibla to be a test and to be recognized like your sons when you would have a nametag for them. What kind of father needs an explicit nametag to recognize his son? It serves the purpose of making evident those following the messenger from those turning on their heels. This is intended to happen. Gods will. Making the deviators evident. I don't know if he was able to preach in Jerusalem. If you reread the account of what you relate to his Meccan pilgrimage and the outcome, and test the Jerusalem hypothesis, one might possibly find out.
Why are there totally no administrative records if these things were occurring anywhere in "civilization"? This is probably why Historians think it is accurate that this stuff is occurring around Medina, practically in the middle of nowhere, having no records, but suddenly springing up as a huge population only when it came into contact with those who write things down
Hmm. I'm not saying what happened in Medina happened in Jerusalem. What happened in Medina happened in Medina. What happened in Jerusalem happened in Jerusalem. In my understanding Muhammad only briefly visited Jerusalem. The place was not freely accessible to them because of the Sassanid Byzantine war going on. Which by the way is mentioned in Quran. Predicting the Persian conquer of Jerusalem and losing it again to the Byzantines. Why would Quran mention such an event if it were not for the sole reason this was affecting their hajj.
The Arabs flooding in pilgrimage to Jerusalem is not mentioned at all, and there were administrators in Jerusalem and many people who could write.
Understandably pilgrimage was practically impossible at that time because of the Sassanid Byzantine war. Also, do you expect them to be described as muslims visiting Jerusalem. That term for religious followers is not used in that era. They would be just pilgrims, like any other pilgrim to Temple Mount being hindered by Byzantines and Sassanids along the way. If there was any reference in historical accounts of muslims in Jerusalem it would be the only and first ever in history to be found. In reality the first usage of this word to denote a religious group of followers is post-Muhammads death by a long stretch.
Why are these things really important to you? Would you feel comfortable being a full blown Jew and letting go of the Qur'an or do you think the Qur'an is a miraculous revelation? Do you take the whole of the Torah of today to be true? Do you take the whole of the Qur'an to be true?
If I was a full blown Jew I would reject the messenger which I do not. How can I still be muslim while being a full blown jew? How can I be muslim while being a full blown mainstream muslim? Questions. Questions.
I personally hate much of the Torah, I find it a filthy and odious text. That is not out of ignorance for it, but having actually read it many times. I also am not great fan of the New Testament. The Qur'an is my favorite.
Oh don't get me wrong their scripture is heavily corrupted. Some polytheism in it as well.
I also have no great affection for the Jews, the characters in the Bible and their actions and cultural tendencies to have written these things, and their actions historically up until this day. I believe among the Jews were some few good and honorable people but that the Bible is even evidence of their vileness.
I try not to judge except explicit formats of polytheism and shirk.
I do not find, as many mad liars seem to, that the Qur'an is anywhere comparable in vulgarity or hideousness to the Bible. So I generally don't consider this thing being called the Torah to be the real authentic and ancient Torah.
Neither do I. But don't forget where you come from, brother. Losing your roots is losing a large part of your soul.
Peace
-
I very much liked the questions btw.
Peace
-
As you can read from my answer why Jerusalem is not explicitly mentioned in Quran, you can understand I have a strong feeling that what I'm doing right now is entirely against Gods will. I know it will only burn me out talking about it and end up with everyone thinking I'm even more of a weirdo lmao.
Peace
-
And, when We designated for Abraham the site of the House, "Do not associate anything with Me and purify My House for those who perform Tawaf and those who stand and those who bow and prostrate.
And proclaim to the people the Hajj; they will come to you on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every distant pass
That they may witness benefits for themselves and mention the name of Allah on known days over what He has provided for them of animals. So eat of them and feed the miserable and poor.
Then let them end their untidiness and fulfill their vows and perform Tawaf around the ancient House.
ps these are not my translations, you are advised to crosscheck them
The site of the House designated to Abraham by all traditional accounts is Jerusalem.
The Scriptural history of Jerusalem begins when Abraham meets "Melek Tzedek", king of Salem - around 2110 BC/BCE (Genesis 1417-20). This is following Abraham's defeat of Chedorlaomer after he had captured Abraham's nephew, Lot. A peculiar aspect of this meeting is that Abraham had bread and wine with "Melek Tzedek" and then gave him a tenth of all he had. The Scriptures reveal that "Melek Tzedek" is a priest of the God Most High.
Several years later (approx. 2082 BC/BCE), following a command from God, Abraham took Isaac, his only begotten son, to Mount Moriah in order to offer him as a sacrifice to the Lord (Genesis 221-1. Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 1117-19). As he was about to kill Isaac, the Lord intervened and supernaturally provided a sacrifice in the place of Isaac. Abraham called that place of sacrifice, "The Place Where God Will Be Seen" (Genesis 2214). This is usually wrongfully interpreted as "The Lord Will Provide" or "The Lord Who Provides" since God provided a sacrifice in place of Isaac. However, the Hebrew word no Hebrew fonts means "will be seen" (future tense). By this we can see that the Lord had already chosen Jerusalem as the place where He would establish Himself.
Around 1405 BC/BCE, "The sons of Judah fought against Jerusalem and captured it" (Judges 18 ). It was the dividing line between Judah and Benjamin, on Benjamin's side. It is said that the sons of Benjamin could not drive out the Jebusites so they lived together (Judges 121).
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
I have been reading your posts with interest and it seems like you are sincere in your efforts to discover the truth based on al-quran. Your last post seems to indicate you are getting closer to the truth
As you can read from my answer why Jerusalem is not explicitly mentioned in Quran, you can understand I have a strong feeling that what I'm doing right now is entirely against Gods will.
Therefore I would like to appeal to your logic and present the following possibility as to what al-masjid al-haram is according to al-quran and hope you take that into consideration.
-
Nowhere is an explicit location mentioned for al-masjid al-haram in al-quran.
-
2144 indicates that the prophet was not comfortable facing a physical direction because he was looking up towards the sky rather than face a physical direction. What direction that was is irrelevant. Therefore the qibla appointed must not have been physical but mental. Masjid is not necessarily a physical place but can also be a mental concept such as "institution of obedience" or "time of obedience". Qibla can also mean "focal point", and not necessarily a physical direction.
2144 We see the shifting of your face towards the heaven; we will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the book know it is the truth from their lord. And allah is not unaware of what you do.
Here al-quran clearly defines what "al-masjid al-haram" is IT IS THE TRUTH FROM THEIR LORD.
Now, can a physical building or a physical place be the truth from your lord? Or is the message from the lord "the truth from your lord"?
- 2149 clearly tells us to set ourselves towards al-masjid al-haram from "wherever you go out". "Wherever you go out" includes a far away galaxy also by definition. My question to you is If qibla is a physical direction, then how will you face a physical direction towards a physical building or place from a colony of humans residing in a glass domed city on the dark side of the moon?
2149 And from wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid; it is the truth from your lord; and allah is not unaware of what you do.
Again al-quran is clearly telling you what al-masjid al-haram is IT IS THE TRUTH FROM YOUR LORD.
Once again, can a physical building or a physical place be the truth from your lord? Or is the message from your lord "the truth from your lord"? You can set yourself towards the message from your lord from "wherever you go out" or "wherever you may be" as in 2144.
- If a physical place is not explicitly mentioned in al-quran as being location of al-masjid al-haram, and if you try to convince others about it being a particular physical location, then they will always have room for debate with you. But if you try to convince that al-masjid al-haram is THE TRUTH FROM YOUR LORD, i.e. the message from your lord, then there will be no room for debate with you (from the intellectually and logically sound of course).
2150 And wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid. And wherever you may be you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no room for debate with you, except those of them who are wicked. You shall not be concerned by them, but be concerned by me; so that I may complete my blessings upon you and that you may be guided.
- The people of the book also know the message from their lord as they know their children (that is why they are the people of the book/the message), so 2146 does not contradict with the understanding of al-masjid al-haram as the message from their lord.
2146 Those to whom we have given the book know it as they know their own children; and a group of them hides the truth while they know.
- 2145 also does not contradict with qibla being "the message from your lord".
2145 And if you come to those who have been given the book with every sign they will not follow your focal point (al-quran/the truth from your lord), nor will you follow their focal point (the physical temples), nor will some of them even follow each others focal point (they all have various differing physical temples). And if you were to follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you would be one of the wicked.
-
Those who still continue to face a particular physical direction will be "turning on their heels" as per 2143 and can be very easily spotted!
-
Qibla is not associated with salat as per al-quran. So if it is facing a physical direction, then facing a physical direction FOR WHAT?
-
If you believe that the Earth is round, then if qibla is a physical direction towards a physical temple, it is an empiric fact that after some miles distance from any physical temple you will not be able to face it physically due to Earth's curvature. You will instead be facing the sky, tangential to the curvature instead of facing a physical temple. So you will not be able to face a physical temple "from wherever you may be".
All of this proves that al-masjid al-haram is not a physical temple, and qibla is not facing a physical direction, instead it is making "the truth from your lord"/the message your "focal point", "wherever you may be", without contradicting al-quran and known astronomical facts.
Please ponder and reflect on this before rejecting it, but if the idea still doesn't resonate with you, then feel free to discard it.
May the infinite creator guide us all to the truth.
-
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
I have been reading your posts with interest and it seems like you are sincere in your efforts to discover the truth based on al-quran. Your last post seems to indicate you are getting closer to the truth
Let me address this part first I don't feel contradicted by logic but by a strong sensation I'm not supposed to be revealing this.
I will now take your post into consideration and fabricate my reply. It will require me to focus however, so please be patient with me.
Peace
-
Peace runninglikezebras,
I have been reading your posts with interest and it seems like you are sincere in your efforts to discover the truth based on al-quran. Your last post seems to indicate you are getting closer to the truth
Therefore I would like to appeal to your logic and present the following possibility as to what al-masjid al-haram is according to al-quran and hope you take that into consideration.
- Nowhere is an explicit location mentioned for al-masjid al-haram
There is not a placename used for it that's correct. We only get some pointers that hint towards it's identification. Making it a place where people prostrate however makes me quite convinced it is a real place/geolocation.
- 2144 indicates that the prophet was not comfortable facing a physical direction because he was looking up towards the sky rather than face a physical direction. What direction that was is irrelevant. Therefore the qibla appointed must not have been physical but mental. Masjid is not necessarily a physical place but can also be a mental concept such as "institution of obedience" or "time of obedience". Qibla can also mean "focal point", and not necessarily a physical direction.
Saying the place had to be mental and can not be physical is not proven by that verse. Turning your gaze towards the sky is often an act of desperation. Looking towards God for answer. I take no more from it but that. This does not exclude the place being both physical and metaphysical. Both apply in my understanding to the Temple Mount qibla. It's geolocation needs no explanation, it's metaphysical significance is that of a place of return. The return to Abrahamic ancestry. Where it all started. See my previous post.
2144 We see the shifting of your face towards the heaven; we will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the book know it is the truth from their lord. And allah is not unaware of what you do.
Here al-quran clearly defines what "al-masjid al-haram" is IT IS THE TRUTH FROM THEIR LORD.
Now, can a physical building or a physical place be the truth from your lord? Or is the message from the lord "the truth from your lord"?
The question is not whether a building can be the truth from your lord. The question is whether a focal point can be the truth from your lord, both in geolocation as in symbolism Temple Mount is conforming those requirements. The buildings on temple mount don't mean anything to me. The place itself removed of all buildings on it will not make it less significant. It never did when the temples where destroyed in contrary.
- 2149 clearly tells us to set ourselves towards al-masjid al-haram from "wherever you go out". "Wherever you go out" includes a far away galaxy also by definition. My question to you is If qibla is a physical direction, then how will you face a physical direction towards a physical building or place from a colony of humans residing in a glass domed city on the dark side of the moon?
Well you can't explain that verse unless you understand the Jewish mizrah has a history in which the Jewish weren't sure wether the entrance/exit of their synagogues should face Jerusalem or rather the qiblah wall. The answer in this verse is perfectly clear the entrance/exit. This is what is referred to with "wherever you go out". I explained this before.
2149 And from wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid; it is the truth from your lord; and allah is not unaware of what you do.
Again al-quran is clearly telling you what al-masjid al-haram is IT IS THE TRUTH FROM YOUR LORD.
I see no contradiction. God is telling us Temple Mount/masjid al haram is the focal point, and this message is the truth from your Lord. Leaving no doubt the abrahamic roots at Temple Mount are those designated froim God to Abraham.
Once again, can a physical building or a physical place be the truth from your lord? Or is the message from your lord "the truth from your lord"? You can set yourself towards the message from your lord from "wherever you go out" or "wherever you may be" as in 2144.
I never claimed those buildings matter, nor do I attach value to them. Although I do think the dome of the rock is gorgeous it is human made. That does not take away any significance to the place.
- If a physical place is not explicitly mentioned in al-quran as being location of al-masjid al-haram, and if you try to convince others about it being a particular physical location, then they will always have room for debate with you. But if you try to convince that al-masjid al-haram is THE TRUTH FROM YOUR LORD, i.e. the message from your lord, then there will be no room for debate with you (from the intellectually and logically sound of course).
I'm not trying to convince anyone.
2150 And wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the inviolable masjid. And wherever you may be you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no room for debate with you, except those of them who are wicked. You shall not be concerned by them, but be concerned by me; so that I may complete my blessings upon you and that you may be guided.
- The people of the book also know the message from their lord as they know their children (that is why they are the people of the book/the message), so 2146 does not contradict with the understanding of al-masjid al-haram as the message from their lord.
2146 Those to whom we have given the book know it as they know their own children; and a group of them hides the truth while they know.
- 2145 also does not contradict with qibla being "the message from your lord".
Of course it doesn't it is both a message and a place. The message being the first message Abraham received from a malaika at Temple Mount. Can't you see it keeps reiterating it is the truth from the Lord, the truth being a message first relayed to Abraham in that exact spot?
2145 And if you come to those who have been given the book with every sign they will not follow your focal point (al-quran), nor will you follow their focal point (the physical temples), nor will some of them even follow each others focal point (they all have various differing physical temples). And if you were to follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you would be one of the wicked.
- Those who still continue to face a particular physical direction will be "turning on their heels" as per 2143 and can be very easily spotted!
Exactly how easy is it to spot them at mecca?
- Qibla is not associated with salat as per al-quran. So if it is facing a physical direction, then facing a physical direction FOR WHAT?
See Abraham.
- If you believe that the Earth is round, then if qibla is a physical direction towards a physical temple, it is an empiric fact that after some miles distance from any physical temple you will not be able to face it physically due to Earth's curvature. You will instead be facing the sky, tangential to the curvature instead of facing a physical temple.
All of this proves that al-masjid al-haram is not a physical temple, and qibla is not facing a physical direction, instead it is making "the truth from your lord"/the message your "focal point", "wherever you may be", without contradicting al-quran and known astronomical facts.
Clearly ancient architecture disagrees with you. Everyone of the early mosques had a qibla. So did every synagogue (mizrah).
Please ponder and reflect on this before rejecting it, but if the idea still doesn't resonate with you, then feel free to discard it.
May the infinite creator guide us all to the truth.
I wish you the same. Please ponder.
Peace
-
What I find in etymological resources is this
ka?b
cube Per ka?b borrowed from Ara
ka?b
heel
kaba
trouble, pain Per kabe borrowed from Ara
ka?ba cube Hin kaba, Ind kaabah, Per ka?be borrowed from AraWould the true qibla then still be a test if it is named explicitly? I don't think so. To me it's not mentioned by name for good reason outside the becca reference.
are you contesting these ancient mosques did have a Jerusalem qibla?
I think I've answered in the above. How is this qibla to be a test and to be recognized like your sons when you would have a nametag for them. What kind of father needs an explicit nametag to recognize his son? It serves the purpose of making evident those following the messenger from those turning on their heels. This is intended to happen. Gods will. Making the deviators evident. I don't know if he was able to preach in Jerusalem. If you reread the account of what you relate to his Meccan pilgrimage and the outcome, and test the Jerusalem hypothesis, one might possibly find out.
Why would Quran mention such an event if it were not for the sole reason this was affecting their hajj.
Understandably pilgrimage was practically impossible at that time because of the Sassanid Byzantine war. Also, do you expect them to be described as muslims visiting Jerusalem. That term for religious followers is not used in that era. They would be just pilgrims, like any other pilgrim to Temple Mount being hindered by Byzantines and Sassanids along the way. If there was any reference in historical accounts of muslims in Jerusalem it would be the only and first ever in history to be found. In reality the first usage of this word to denote a religious group of followers is post-Muhammads death by a long stretch.
If I was a full blown Jew I would reject the messenger which I do not. How can I still be muslim while being a full blown jew? How can I be muslim while being a full blown mainstream muslim? Questions. Questions.
Oh don't get me wrong their scripture is heavily corrupted. Some polytheism in it as well.
I try not to judge except explicit formats of polytheism and shirk.
Neither do I. But don't forget where you come from, brother. Losing your roots is losing a large part of your soul.
Peace
""ka?b
cube Per ka?b borrowed from Ara
ka?b
heel
kaba
trouble, pain Per kabe borrowed from Ara
ka?ba cube Hin kaba, Ind kaabah, Per ka?be borrowed from Ara"So where is this cube? Where is it known to be to the people of Medina?
"Would the true qibla then still be a test if it is named explicitly? I don't think so. To me it's not mentioned by name for good reason outside the becca reference."
What exactly is the purpose of God being ambiguous in this regard? Creating trouble as usual?
"are you contesting these ancient mosques did have a Jerusalem qibla?"
The Mosque of the two qiblahs or what? It could be there were buildings which the non-existence Christians and Jews of the Hijaz were sharing with the Muslims later.
"I think I've answered in the above. How is this qibla to be a test and to be recognized like your sons when you would have a nametag for them."
Why would Jerusalem be recognized to the people of Medina or where Muhammed was preaching as their own sons, when there were no Jews and Christians in the Hijaz according to you? What they would recognize as their own sons would be something close to them in Arabia, because like their sons it is near to their location, they see it often. If Muhammed is mainly preaching in the Hijaz, in Medina and the vicinity, and there are no Jews and Christians there, then why would the people he is preaching to recognize Jerusalem? If it was Jews and Christians he was preaching to, was he not in the Hijaz at this time since there were none whatsoever in the Hijaz according to you and he was preaching perhaps in or near Jerusalem, having left Medina behind for all those times he is apparently interacting with Jewish and Christian people so much? This is probably one of the many reasons the mainstream academics would not agree to the complete lack of existence of Jews and Christians in the Hijaz and Medina in particular.
"What kind of father needs an explicit nametag to recognize his son?"
Who was being told that they will recognize it as their own sons? The Polytheist Arabs of Medina, or the Non-Existent Jews and Christians of the Hijaz? or the people of Jerusalem while Muhammed was there, when there is no record of any pilgrimages to a valley there at that time apparently, of Jews and Christians from Jerusalem itself going on pilgrimage to any particular House there?
What is the Cube?
"It serves the purpose of making evident those following the messenger from those turning on their heels. This is intended to happen. Gods will. Making the deviators evident."
It is a little strange then perhaps that the Qur'an says the Jews and the Christians would love if the Muslims followed their form of religion, especially considering the Jews and the Christians were turned towards Jerusalem. They seemed to be the ones who were being contentious about this shift occurring towards some Cube they didn't recognize which was familiar to them though.
"I don't know if he was able to preach in Jerusalem."
Did he ever talk to Christians and Jews like the Qur'an seems to depict? He did not have those encounters within the Hijaz since there were no Christians and Jews anywhere in the Hijaz?
"Why would Quran mention such an event if it were not for the sole reason this was affecting their hajj."
Well apparently God as described earlier likes to be totally ambiguous as part of some weird and rather unfair seeming "Testing" going on, but besides that, maybe because it was a major event in the history for where the Muslim Empire would find their opportunities soon as well. They were well known and renowned Empires. One could say "the pilgrimage was effected" to many places, not necessarily Jerusalem. There seems to be no mention at all of Rome involved with the pilgrimage activities, only locals which were perhaps around Medina if Muhammed was at Medina. It talks about various battles, yet Rome and Persia did not fight them later, and did not have stories of being involved in combat regarding a Cube anywhere and vehemently defending it or considering it sacred or a sacred sanctuary as the polytheists seemed to also believe in the Qur'an thus honoring the various laws and rules which were sacred to it except in cases of transgression.
No, but I think some mention of "Arabs" suddenly coming in hordes practicing Jewish rites might get a little News among Jews and Christians at least. No news of such ever occurring at all until way late in the game, yet the Muslim population grew quite large apparently even within the lifetime of Muhammed, also there did not seem to be a practice of garlands and the other things called "pagan" in the Qur'an which are permitted by God regarding the practices around the Kabah, no record of those things happening apparently and being considered pagan in Jerusalem at that time. The ancient arabs might have been, like some of the tribes to this day, into flowers (check out the "flower people" of Arabia).
The garlands fell out of practice later on apparently, but do not seem to be a long recorded thing in Jerusalem, which the Medina people would probably not know about anyway. Anything practiced in Jerusalem might not be called "pagan" or "polytheist" either, as these were particular practices that the polytheists did which Allah said are fine.
My roots would be "pagan" then, going back into ancient religions of Asia, and Abraham was luckily not a polytheist (and neither were the ancient Vedic people or anyone else until later, since Islam was always presently available and not exclusive to the Jews or their private religion) and not a Jew or a Christian either. In other words, the whole world are our roots.
Now I'm not really arguing with you but questioning, where was the big event of lots of Arabs coming to pilgrimage in Jerusalem and battling around Jerusalem for pilgrimage rights or any of that and the defense of polytheists who considered it special too (Sassanids, who were Zoroastrians and Zoroastrians had been mentioned by name separately and are also generally monotheistic in the belief of Ahura Mazda and had been praised in the Bible at times, were not particular in considering Jerusalem sacred or honoring ancient pacts regarding it.
-
Double post
-
""ka?b
cube Per ka?b borrowed from Ara
ka?b
heel
kaba
trouble, pain Per kabe borrowed from Ara
ka?ba cube Hin kaba, Ind kaabah, Per ka?be borrowed from Ara"So where is this cube? Where is it known to be to the people of Medina?
I suggest you read my answer again. It states in my opinion that is a wrong translation. I translate it as recompense in the context of the verse it is used.
"Would the true qibla then still be a test if it is named explicitly? I don't think so. To me it's not mentioned by name for good reason outside the becca reference."
What exactly is the purpose of God being ambiguous in this regard? Creating trouble as usual?
This answer is inside Quran to make evident those turning back on their heels from those following the messenger. This was also answered in my post.
"are you contesting these ancient mosques did have a Jerusalem qibla?"
The Mosque of the two qiblahs or what? It could be there were buildings which the non-existence Christians and Jews of the Hijaz were sharing with the Muslims later.
I linked you a timeline showing the qibla of ancient mosques. Did it only list the mosque of the two qiblas? Did you click that link at all?
"I think I've answered in the above. How is this qibla to be a test and to be recognized like your sons when you would have a nametag for them."
Why would Jerusalem be recognized to the people of Medina or where Muhammed was preaching as their own sons, when there were no Jews and Christians in the Hijaz according to you? What they would recognize as their own sons would be something close to them in Arabia, because like their sons it is near to their location, they see it often. If Muhammed is mainly preaching in the Hijaz, in Medina and the vicinity, and there are no Jews and Christians there, then why would the people he is preaching to recognize Jerusalem? If it was Jews and Christians he was preaching to, was he not in the Hijaz at this time since there were none whatsoever in the Hijaz according to you and he was preaching perhaps in or near Jerusalem, having left Medina behind for all those times he is apparently interacting with Jewish and Christian people so much? This is probably one of the many reasons the mainstream academics would not agree to the complete lack of existence of Jews and Christians in the Hijaz and Medina in particular.
You are twisting quranic words around. Quran does not say to the people of Medina will recognize it as their own sons. I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading what it says. Look up the verse. Find out who's address. Contemplate on your rebuttal again. Are you saying the people in Medina were given a Book? If so I'd like to see that book. The people of the Book are all those familiar with it christians, jews. I disagree Muhammad was preaching in the Hijaz region. I think his focus, and that of the first caliphs was rather north than south. If he was preaching I'm sure the same priority as recorded in the first islamic expansion has to correspond.
"What kind of father needs an explicit nametag to recognize his son?"
Who was being told that they will recognize it as their own sons? The Polytheist Arabs of Medina, or the Non-Existent Jews and Christians of the Hijaz? or the people of Jerusalem while Muhammed was there, when there is no record of any pilgrimages to a valley there at that time apparently, of Jews and Christians from Jerusalem itself going on pilgrimage to any particular House there?
The Jews, Christians wherever you find them. Either in Yemen, Syria, Palestine or Arabia doing their hajj. There are many records of pilgrimage in a Jerusalem located valley.
What is the Cube?
What is your fixation with cubes? It's getting on my nerves. Quran does not speak on any cube.
"It serves the purpose of making evident those following the messenger from those turning on their heels. This is intended to happen. Gods will. Making the deviators evident."
It is a little strange then perhaps that the Qur'an says the Jews and the Christians would love if the Muslims followed their form of religion, especially considering the Jews and the Christians were turned towards Jerusalem. They seemed to be the ones who were being contentious about this shift occurring towards some Cube they didn't recognize which was familiar to them though.
It was never a question of assimilating the others belief. There is only one abrahamic faith. Deviations occur among 'muslims', jews and christians. Why would the Jews and Christians have to accept a new qibla? No messenger ever came to them saying, you were wrong about your qibla here's the right one! Including Muhammad. His message never contained any such information. Even the hadith agree Muhammad rather learned from the Jews than vice versa. Many hadith even contend he even fasted with them. Not only prayed in the same direction.
"I don't know if he was able to preach in Jerusalem."
Did he ever talk to Christians and Jews like the Qur'an seems to depict? He did not have those encounters within the Hijaz since there were no Christians and Jews anywhere in the Hijaz?
Don't forget many south arabian jews made their hajj most likely passing through or in the vicinity of Medina. For the answer you will have to crosscheck Quran. But I do agree he had encounters with them.
"Why would Quran mention such an event if it were not for the sole reason this was affecting their hajj."
Well apparently God as described earlier likes to be totally ambiguous as part of some weird and rather unfair seeming "Testing" going on, but besides that, maybe because it was a major event in the history for where the Muslim Empire would find their opportunities soon as well. They were well known and renowned Empires. One could say "the pilgrimage was effected" to many places, not necessarily Jerusalem. There seems to be no mention at all of Rome involved with the pilgrimage activities, only locals which were perhaps around Medina if Muhammed was at Medina. It talks about various battles, yet Rome and Persia did not fight them later, and did not have stories of being involved in combat regarding a Cube anywhere and vehemently defending it or considering it sacred or a sacred sanctuary as the polytheists seemed to also believe in the Qur'an thus honoring the various laws and rules which were sacred to it except in cases of transgression.
There you are again with your cube! Meh! Forget about a cube. Quran does not speak about cubes. I guess you still haven't read up much on the Jerusalem history during the Sassanid Byzantine war. A lot of what you state here is factually incorrect. The battle mentioned in Quran did not involve muslim forces. It was a byzantine persian conflict. In many ways this was hugely important to the messenger because during Muhammads lifetime Temple Mount was controlled by christians, expelling jews, putting a ban on the hajj and strict rules. Then jews collaborated with Persians betraying their convenant with God. Reports of massacres. Historically masjid al haram was only secure again from religious abomination when muslims conquered it after Muhammads death. Which was promised to them in Quran. God promises they will enter masjid al haram.
No, but I think some mention of "Arabs" suddenly coming in hordes practicing Jewish rites might get a little News among Jews and Christians at least. No news of such ever occurring at all until way late in the game, yet the Muslim population grew quite large apparently even within the lifetime of Muhammed, also there did not seem to be a practice of garlands and the other things called "pagan" in the Qur'an which are permitted by God regarding the practices around the Kabah, no record of those things happening apparently and being considered pagan in Jerusalem at that time. The ancient arabs might have been, like some of the tribes to this day, into flowers (check out the "flower people" of Arabia).
I'm intrigued by your usage of Arabs in contrast to Jews. Did you never hear about Jewish Arabs? Christian Arabs? The word Arab says nothing about religion. You pretend like it does to build a case but it is utterly despicable to make such assertions. When muslims gained followership, historical record does not name them muslims. The don't call them Islamic. None of those labels are used in that period of time. No one would be surprised by an Arab who takes on jewish rites, or christian rites. Which by all accounts in my opinion they never did. They had a message for them that reminded them of an earlier convenant and showed which things were human corruptions in their practices such as making Jesus a God, making pacts with Persians etc.
The garlands fell out of practice later on apparently, but do not seem to be a long recorded thing in Jerusalem, which the Medina people would probably not know about anyway. Anything practiced in Jerusalem might not be called "pagan" or "polytheist" either, as these were particular practices that the polytheists did which Allah said are fine.
My roots would be "pagan" then, going back into ancient religions of Asia, and Abraham was luckily not a polytheist (and neither were the ancient Vedic people or anyone else until later, since Islam was always presently available and not exclusive to the Jews or their private religion) and not a Jew or a Christian either. In other words, the whole world are our roots.
Nothing pagan was going on. No monasteries were burned. No churches destroyed. None of that. The persians came and were so gentle with all the existing architecture, Heraclius felt compelled to avenge what had happened. Even go so far as too withdraw troops from areas in Europe (Balkan) that were highly needed there (Slavic invasion). Right... No paganism whatsoever folks! These sassanids were totally monotheistic! I totally disagree my friend. No jews were ever expelled from jerusalem! Byzantines never put restrictions on the hajj! I suggest you read those history links again I gave you.
Now I'm not really arguing with you but questioning, where was the big event of lots of Arabs coming to pilgrimage in Jerusalem and battling around Jerusalem for pilgrimage rights or any of that and the defense of polytheists who considered it special too (Sassanids, who were Zoroastrians and Zoroastrians had been mentioned by name separately and are also generally monotheistic in the belief of Ahura Mazda and had been praised in the Bible at times, were not particular in considering Jerusalem sacred or honoring ancient pacts regarding it.
What about the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem? Are those enough muslims for you? I disagree the Persians were at all times monotheistic, especially in that era of Quranic revelation they were highly polytheistic. This narrative you use, keeps reiterating stereotypical ideas of homogeneous religious groups. Each and everyone of them was in reality very mixed. State religion was often far removed from the reality in the streets. Polytheism is ever present in entire Palestine. How many artefacts found in Israel showing polytheistic ideas dated from a time that is supposedly Jewish do I have to show you? To any observer the muslim pilgrims would be entirely indistinguishable from jewish or christian pilgrims. What makes you think they would stick out as muslim or arab? Again, those labels are historically never attested for during that time to be used for any such religious groups. This is information I already posted including source and everything. Still you keep returning using this flawed argument. Do you think muslims had some sticker on their head saying muslim?
Peace