Is AL-HARAM THE FORBIDDEN OR THE SACRED ? Please say why
-
Neither did a Quran exist before 650 (in the Uthmanic format we know today). Here is a testminoy of Arculf the Frankish Bishop who visited Jerusalem during the time of Muawiya - https//archive.org/details/libraryofpalesti03paleuoft
http//i.imgur.com/aweZPlN.png
Why would Muawiya raise a cubic structure there? Does that cube ring a Quranic bell?
He describes a structure raised on Temple Mount that could house 3000 people "reconstructed" under Muawiya. The presence of a structure there is quite irrelevant, since the ruins of Temple of Jerusalem are being referred to, as explained earlier. The reconstruction in place under Muawiya was a first primitive attempt of rebuilding the temple there, a judeonazarene ambition.
Second, your concept of astronomical orientations of early mosques is totally laughable, it only shows your ignorance about how their qibla was changed from Jerusalem to Syria, and ultimately to Mecca.
Clearly "Muawiya" has made use of the ayah indicating the "change in direction ayah" which he found in the quran, so to make use of that he made the second qibla - surely that is obvious from your own information!
The quran was memorised by thousands of people i think and written down as well , as that couldn't be changed they did what was feasible to make people prey to the cube in mecca, change from one thing to another.
Vow! cunning man.
Muawiya's father was the biggest enemy of prophet Muhammad, Muawiya was the enemy of Hazrat Ali, and the son of Muawiya was Yazid who then annihilated the family of Muhammad.
-
it is very obvious that Al-masjid Al-Haram is a physical place, and the Qiblah is a physical direction you turn towards to pray.
...Why do these people misunderstand almost everything?
Perhaps it is because those who advocate your view have little reply to the various objections raised? Stated here for all to see and check
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.html'The Sacred Mosque' fares most poorly in 171, 2142-150, 2217, 928, and relatively poorly in 2196, 2225, 919. Also, please note that traditional commentators (e.g. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas) frequently switch their understanding of AMAH depending on verse, e.g. it can mean 'the sacred site/area of prostration' in 171, 'kaaba (cuboid)' in 2144/2149/2150, 'the sanctuary / Mecca' in 2196, 2217, 2225, 928. Usually, when one forces an incorrect understanding into AQ it will result in inconsistency/variance/contradiction, see the important test of 482. If the problems discussed in this work can be answered then it recommended for those advocating such a view to put forth their answers.
For example, if I held your view I'd simply look at the possible objections and tackle them one by one (with Quranic evidence, logic etc).
From my experience, most prefer to remain silent in reply.To be fair though, the objections are not listed all in one place in that article (one would have to read the analysis of each verse to see what the objections were). Perhaps I may return to it in future and provide a simplified summary list so people can check it more easily then reply. The reason I didn't do this is I'd expect a sincere truthseeker to actually check it themselves regardless if I made a summary list or not.
I did begin one, just with 171 in reply to rlz, he didn't reply to them however. The interesting thing is this is only objections for one verse and tackling it is already difficult if someone held your view. Don't take my word for it though, try it. It's the part below #####
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.msg375129#msg375129 -
Perhaps it is because those who advocate your view have little reply to the various objections raised? Stated here for all to see and check
http//mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-masjid-al-haram-Quran.htmlFor example, if I held your view I'd simply look at the possible objections and tackle them one by one (with Quranic evidence, logic etc).
From my experience, most prefer to remain silent in reply.To be fair though, the objections are not listed all in one place in that article (one would have to read the analysis of each verse to see what the objections were). Perhaps I may return to it in future and provide a simplified summary list so people can check it more easily then reply. The reason I didn't do this is I'd expect a sincere truthseeker to actually check it themselves regardless if I made a summary list or not.
I did begin one, just with 171 in reply to rlz, he didn't reply to them however. The interesting thing is this is only objections for one verse and tackling it is already difficult if someone held your view. Don't take my word for it though, try it. It's the part below #####
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.msg375129#msg375129It seems very logical to me that Al-masjid Al-Haram is a physical place, and the Qiblah is a physical direction, its not that i 'prefer to remain silent in reply.' but quite frankly i cant be bothered, if you could sum it up it like a max of 3 sentances i might be more interested, however i will put it on my checklist of things to look further into
-
Thanks for your honest reply.
It is as I said, since there is very little response from those who hold your view, forgive me (and others) if we dont also share your view. Personally, I prefer evidence-based discussion. I have presented mine (albeit in a lengthy article).
In my view the lack of replies is likely a combination of
insincerity - it's actually quite rare to meet a sincere truthseeker who reads things that actually questions their own views.
lazyness - can't be bothered reading such an article
genuinely limited time - rare
credibility - aware of article but does not put much stock in my analysis thus not worthy of reading
intellectual capability - some may read it but not understand it, or some parts of it, hence do not reply
blind following - prefer to remain ignorant, makes for an easy life they like to think
intellectual dishonesty - read it, knows the view they hold is weak, hence prefer not to answerYou asked for a sum up in 3 sentences, which is probably not possible BUT I did provide a link with a simplified list to answer for 171 only. Go on, try it. ;D
Enjoy
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9604467.msg375129#msg375129 -
First of all, the night journey is a fairy tale which Wakas' article seems to accept as absolute historical fact while it is only supported by hadith. Not only is this true, he furthermore fails to understand 171 is not speaking about Muhammad whatsoever but is speaking about Moses receiving the Torah (Wakas understanding for this to be speaking about Muhammad is again derived from hadith and tafsir). From this failed understanding, Wakas sticks the label to the understanding of Masjid al Haram as a placename "to fair poorly". One could say this is no surprise if the rational thinking of the analyst is fairing poorly to begin with.
@Wakas, how do you expect me to debate your article in much more detail if you refuse to consider the above? How about your intellectual honesty which should be admitting to the fact you interpret 171 based on traditional tafsir and hadith? You don't admit to these facts, you rather keep pretending you are using Quran alone.
These are some of the reasons I have not debated at length your article. Next to the above, I repeat you show lack of respect for the etymological roots especially of borrowed words in the Quran (Wakas is prohibited to look at those because they are not part of Quran, still he uses hadith to identify Muhammad in 171).
Not one word is mentioned in the entire length of the article on the Aramaic roots of the word masjid. Not one critical question is raised about the identification of the "servant" in 171. Blindly following the tradition and shouting "quran alone". Utter hypocrisy if you ask me.
If you consider 171 in the correct historical and quranic perspective, not one of the issues raised in your article remains valid. Your error can be easily summed up as wrong identification of place, time and person, from that erroneous assumption you make a conclusion it can't be a place for it didn't exist. It's so obvious I feel I have already wasted to many words on it.
PS I also feel you are abusing your status as a moderator to propagate your articles and understanding as a Quranic standard to this forum. The truth is your reasoning is heavily hadith contaminated possibly because you grew up in the tradition.
Moses because Quran explicitly details it watayn ms l-kitba (172)
-
References to the assumption of Moses to heaven can be found in "The transfiguration" - Luke 9, Mark 9, Rev 1112 (btw notice the parallel with the assumption of Elijah!)
This profoundly judeo-christian understanding has been manipulated and distorted in the Islamic discourse to attribute an assumption into heaven to Muhammad and thus give him the status of prophethood. The night journey is a pretty late addition in the Muslim discourse, established after the Quranic text was already fixed. This explains why surah 172 still explicitly mentions Moses, not Muhammad - contradicting the traditional Muslim discourse for all to see (even though the majority of Muslims still doesn't know how to read the Quran removed from the traditional discourse obscuring it).
-
First of all God tells us the Quran is clear and easy to understand.
?A.L.R. these are the signs of the clear book? 121
?We have made it (the Quran) easy to understand and in your own tongue (language) may you take heed.? 4458Throughout the Quran, it tells us repeatedly that it is Clear, without contradiction. That it is written in Clear arabic language.
God would not give us this wonderfull book, full of clear words, with clear meanings and then expect us to somehow devise the 'hidden meaning' and alternative definitions of words to decipher the true meaning of his verses.
In fact God says
He sent down to you this scripture, containing straightforward verseswhich constitute the essence of the scriptureas well as multiple-meaning or allegorical verses. Those who harbor doubts in their hearts will pursue the multiple-meaning verses to create confusion, and to extricate a certain meaning. None knows the true meaning thereof except GOD and those well founded in knowledge. They say, "We believe in thisall of it comes from our Lord." Only those who possess intelligence will take heed.Note the word straightfoward. its pretty straightfoward.
In ragards to Qiblah
1087 'make your houses Qiblah'
-what does this mean? the next sentance mentions The Salat. The straightfoward meaning would make make your houses facing a direction.
2142 the foolish people say 'what turned them away from thier qiblah which they used to face?'
We learn from this verse that the Muslims used to face (from memory the verse litteraly says the Qiblah they were upon) a Qiblah and it changed. The people could see this as it was evident to them by them mocking the Muslims about it. So it must be something that can be physicaly observed. Next sentance mentions the east and the west. It seems this is associating the Qiblah with Physical directions.
2143 here we see that the Qiblah change Distinguished/marked/made known those who follow the Messenger. So this seems to make it an evident/observable thing.
2144 The subject of this verse was turning his face (face/course/direction/self/attention) towards the sky. the sky is a physical thing.. Then it says to 'turn in the direction of Al-Masjid Al-Haram'. turn your faces in 'That direction'So i can see from theese verses that the Qiblah is
-a direction/course one may face/turn towards/turn attention towards. Directly associated with Al-Masjid Al-Haram
-something that people can observe others doing.
-something that changed, and it was noticable.
-mentioned alongside the East and the West, PrayerNow what is Al-Masjid Al-Haram?
we learn from 97 people made a treaty near it.
we learn from 834, 2225, 2217 that certain people obstruct others from it.
we leran from 2225, 919, 834 that Certain people dwell/abide in it. that certain people maintain it, and give drink to pilgrims. That certain people Gaurd it, but they are not supposed to be its gaurdians because they are wicked.
we learn from 2191 that it is a place that people can fight atAll this seems to point to the fact that Al-Masjid Al-Haram is a physical place. It seems to me clear that The Qiblah is a Direction that one faces towards Al-Masjid Al-Haram.
Look at the previous scriptures, we find examples of people praying towards a certain direction during prayer, look at the previous religions, christianity and judaism, they both face a prayer direction towards what they consider their Sacred Temple.
Now if i am wrong about something i would like to be corrected, I am by no means an expert on Arabic language, but the Quran seems very clear to me. -
rlz,
I have noted that your replies are often rash. This post of yours was a borderline lie (assuming you read the article). You claim my identification of whom 171 is referring to is based on hadith/tafsir, yet in the article it explicitly states the Quranic evidence, and even discusses Moses as an option. Quote
Who does 171 refer to?
It can realistically only be Moses or Muhammad. Moses because he is mentioned in the next verse and it begins with "wa/and" implying a link to what was said previously. Muhammad because when AQ uses 3rd person singular delivery with the term "abd/servant" and does not explicitly name the abd addressed, it always or strongly points to the messenger of Quran, i.e. prophet Muhammad. Please see all occurrences here Our abd - 223, 841, His abd - 181, 251, 3936, 5310, 579, God's abd - 7219. Note how the start of the very next chapter, 18, and also 25 begin in a similar manner to 17. This weighs 171 in favour of referring to prophet Muhammad.
It is clear from 171 the reason given for taking His servant from A to B was to be shown some of God's signs/ayat. Hence a possible link to Moses in 172 with "and We gave Moses the decree/writ", however if so, this would make this the odd one out, as when AQ discusses revelation it does not use these terms nor describe anything similar. Unless a link and explanation can be found of course. Thus, if anything, 171 seems to imply some other kind of signs/ayat.
AMAH is NEVER mentioned along with Moses elsewhere in AQ, and in fact is exclusively mentioned along with the messenger of Quran. Taking these points into account, this weighs 171 significantly in favour of referring to prophet Muhammad.Secondly, I offered a simplified list of questions for which to check your understanding of 171 and provide a reply. You ran (like a zebra?) from it.
Please note, if future posts from you are similar I may not reply at all.
Let me make it clear what I think is going on - I know those questions are difficult for you and Timotheus (and others who hold your views) to reply to, hence the silence.
