Kaba Corruption
-
Peace.
Of Cake.
With Custard.
I said earlier...
My conclusions are now that the "kaba" of arabia is infact a shivan idol, and the black stone is meant to represent vishnu's navel from which another God was created, forming the Trimurti, (The hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva please see "http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_trinity"). Perhaps this may explain why the christians try so hard to turn God into God, and Jesus and the 'holy spirit', the latter of which is often said to be hard to explain or understand. So it appears that the God's comanded way of life was also corrupted by hindu influence at the time of the bible as well! Not just the Quran! I think I might write an article on this in the near future, watch this space people...!
I was thinking, may be our christian friend Apple Pie might be able to help us out here. Can he help give us an understanding of the 'holy spirit'? I'll PM him and we'll see where that takes this thread... idea
And remember people, any fresh info or controversial concepts you come up with or come across on the kaba/kubaba/kuba/kube, (or indeed evidence to support the concept of the kaba as part of islam) - this is the thread to splash out on.
-
Even with all this evidence, you guys still have to prove that the Kabaa is not a Shrine for God. Sure it might have been made as an idol and was probably not built by Abraham, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rededicated to God by Muhammad.
If you guys really want to prove that the Kabaa came into Islam at a later date after Muhammad, then you guys have a lot to prove. There is nothing recorded whatsoever of the Kabaa being rebuilt from scratch after Muhammad. If Muhammad destroyed all the idols in Mecca, and if the Kabaa is/was also an idol, then he would have destroyed the kabaa as well. If he didn't, clearly he must have not considered it an idol. Now, there is NO recorded event in which the Kabaa is rebuilt. Muawiyya did reconstruction on it, but it was never rebuilt. Just repair work.
The way you guys are going, it would then make sense that the story of Abraham and Sarah actually comes from the Hindu myth of Brahma and Sarasvati. Ofcourse this isn't true. The Hindus probably knew of Abraham and Sarah and later deified them.
Was kabaa built by abraham? Probably not as the first shrine for God was built by Abraham at Becca. Becca is definetly not Mecca. Who knows where this shrine is. Thats probably why the Qurans says we should go there if we can find the path. However as the Quran says, the Kabaa was made the Shrine. Now, do I agree with bowing down to this Kabaa, no. There is no command from God to bow down to a man made object.
Point is, Kabaa was known to Muhammad and he didn't destroy it for a reason. There is no evidence proving other wise. If any of you can bring forth proof that the Kabaa was built again after Muhammad, then you have a case. Otherwise, no one is going to believe or follow all of these theories.
As a note, I myself have been looking for evidence that the Kabaa was rebuilt after Muhammad, that perhaps Muwaya did more than just repair work on the Kabaa, but I have to face the facts, there is no such evidence.
-
Greetings All,
Yes?this is an interesting thread, a subject which I have studied previously?
As with the vast majority of Koranic concepts (such as heaven, hell, eschatology, jinn, etc.), the ?kabba? has its genesis in the Holy Bible, in particular, the Book of Revelation (via the summation of Ezekiel & Isaiah).
It is quite clear that the ?kabba? is a representation of the cubical New Jerusalem as described in the Book of Revelation.
Here is a brief summary?
Cube, Koran (2125-127, 396-97, 595, 597, 1437)
Cube, Book of Revelation (2110-20)
Cube, Koran
And when We put The House (as) a reward/replacement/compensation to the people, and (a) safety/security, and they took from Abraham's place a prayer place, and We entrusted/recommended to Abraham and Ishmael "That purify/clean/wash My House for the circlers/walkers around, and the devoting/dedicating, and the bowing, the prostrating." And when Abraham said "My Lord, make this a safe/secure country/place, and provide for its people from the fruits, who believed from them, by Allah and the Day the Last/Resurrection Day." He said "And who disbelieved, so I give him long life/make him enjoy a little, then I force him to the fire's torture, and how bad (is) the end/destination." And when Abraham raises the foundations/bases from The House, and Ishmael "Our Lord accept from us, that you are the hearing/listening the knowledgeable." (2125-127)
That (the) first House/Home was raised to the people, (is) which (is) with (in) Bekka, blessed and guidance, to the creations altogether/(universes). In it (are) signs/verses/evidences evidences (in) Abraham's place/position, and who entered it, was/is/became safe/secure, and to Allah on the people performing pilgrimage (to) the House/Home who was/is able (to find) a way/method to it, and who disbelieved, so that Allah (is) rich from (not in need to) the creations altogether/(universes). (396-97)
You, you those who believed, do not kill the hunt/trapping, and you are forbidden/respecting for pilgrimage, and who intentionally/purposely killed it from you, so a reimbursement equal/similar (to) what he killed from the properties/livestock (the animals/birds), (two) of justice/equality from you judges/rules with it (as) an offering reaching/delivered (to) the Kaaba, or substitution (of) feeding (the) poorest of poor/poor oppressed, or redemption (of) that (is) fasting, to taste/experience his matter's/affair's severity/bad consequences/evil results, Allah forgave/pardoned on what preceded, and who returned (again), so Allah revenges from Him, and Allah (is) glorious/mighty, (owner) of revenge. (595)
Allah put/made the Kaaba, the House/Home the Respected/Sacred standing to (for) the people and the forbidden/sacred the month and the offering and the necklaces, that to know that Allah knows what (is) in the skies/space and what (is) in the earth/Planet Earth, and that Allah (is) with every thing knowledgeable. (597)
"Our Lord, that I resided/inhabited from my descendants at a valley of no plants/crops at Your House/Home, the Forbidden/Respected/Sacred. Our Lord to stand/keep up the prayers, so make hearts from the people fall/drop to them, and provide for them, from the fruits, perhaps they thank/be grateful." (1437)
Cube, Book of Revelation
And he carried me in spirit onto a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, holy Jerusalem, coming down out of Heaven from God, having the glory of God. And its light was like a very precious stone, as a jasper stone, being clear as crystal, and having a great and high wall, having twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates and names having been inscribed, which are of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. From the east, three gates; from the north, three gates; from the south, three gates; and from the west, three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And he speaking with me had a golden reed, that he may measure the city, and its gates, and its wall. And the city lies four cornered, even its length as much as the width also. And he measured the city with the reed at twelve thousand stadia; its length and width and height are equal. And he measured its wall, a hundred and forty four cubits, a measure of a man, which is of an angel. And the structure of its wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like pure glass. And the foundation of the wall of the city having been adorned with every precious stone The first foundation, jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprasus; the eleventh, hyacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. (Rev 2110-20)
Summary
- Sacred Cubic structure described?...Revelation, yes?Koran, yes
- What is the cubic structure?...Revelation, New Jerusalem?Koran, Kabba - which means cube
- The Kabba is a small shrine located near the center of the great Mosque in Mecca, and is considered by Muslims to be the most sacred spot on earth.
- Does the structure have foundations?....Revelation, yes?Koran, yes
- What are the foundations?...Revelation, Twelve Tribes of the sons of Israel?Koran, Abraham raises the foundations, Tribes of Israel via Isaac
- Note that the wall of the Cube (New Jerusalem) has twelve foundations, being the names of the twelve apostles of Jesus.
- What is the structure for?...Revelation, the ones overcoming?Koran, reward/compensation to the people
Hope this helps?.
-
hmmm.... yeeesssss......thats verrryy interesting..... roll ..... looks like you missed the point of my invitation. We've seen all this already, (thanks for the christian slant on the issue though, its much appreciated).
We would like to know whether you can give us an understanding of the 'holy spirit' component of the christian trinity theory. (As seen in your avatar, I believe). In just the same way you can say God is God, and the messenger Isa is the "son of God", can you tell us in a few sentences what the "holy spirit" is? Thanks D .
-
Some fresh kit for our man Apple Pie, from...
http//www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/1/1hindu96.html
Christianity and Hindu Influence
Jim Dew
I very much enjoyed reading Stephen Van Eck's "Hare Jesus Christianity's Hindu Heritage" (TSR, Summer 1994, pp. 8-9). Twenty years ago, I was a member of a fundamentalist Hindu sect, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, aka the Hare Krishnas. I have continued a critical interest in Hindu literature and philosophy and more recently a similar interest in Christianity. It seems to me that Van Eck makes a good initial case for the incorporation of Hindu ideas into early Christian writings. There are very many doctrinal similarities between Christianity and Hinduism that help substantiate the theory of religious borrowing. A great many of these can be found in Christ and Krishna The Path of Pure Devotion (Moundsville WV Palace Publishing, 1987) written by Kirtananda Swami Baktipada (who may still be serving time for racketeering). However, we must remember that deep down, members of these two religions believe that the other religion has got it all wrong!
I do wish Van Eck had better documented the specific verses from the Upanishads that correspond to the biblical verses he cited. Also, some of Van Eck's scriptural comparisons seem to stretch the limits of confirmatory reasoning. For example, he compared the Hindu belief that the soul is smaller than a "mustard seed" to the mustard-seed-of- faith reference in Matthew 1720, and he compared the notion of man's not living by bread alone but by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 44) to the Hindu claim that "man does not live by breath alone, but by him in whom is the power of breath."
It should be obvious to those who have knowledge of both religions that the doctrinal and scriptural differences far outweigh the similarities, even if one compares the modern "monotheistic" Vaisnava literature of Krishna with Christianity. Consider other comparisons Van Eck makes. First, he states that Revelation 18 ("I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty") is extremely similar to the Bhagavad Gita verse 1021 ("I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings"). I've cited more of the verses than did Van Eck to show that although there are similarities, there are also some notable differences. A major difference not evident in the verses is the Bible's singular and linear view of time with a definite beginning and end versus the Hindu spiral view of time that involves a recurring creation and destruction.
Second, consider the comparison Van Eck makes between the Biblical assertions that "God is no respecterof persons" (Rom. 211) and the Bhagavad Gita verse(929) where Krishna states, "I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all." Yes, there is a similarity but a crucial difference lies in Krishna's impartiality to "sarvabhutesu," that is "to all living entities," not just humans! Hindus believe that all animals and plants have souls containing the quality but not quantity of God. Certainly, Christianity did not borrow this concept. Finally, consider Van Eck's comparison between 2 Peter 38, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," and the BG 817 verse, "By human calculation, a thousand ages taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day. And such also is the duration of his night." The difference is that the BG verse doesn't say 1000 years are one day for God; it says 1000 millenniums are one day!
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that some transfer of ideas, analogies, and practices occurred between these cultures. It is clear that the Bible is a conglomeration of myths (see Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions, Buffalo, NY Prometheus, 1989), but the source of these myths is still open to scholarly debate. While it is appealing to attribute Biblical ideas to Hinduism, it becomes circular only if, as Stephen Van Eck's article promotes, we try to confirm that the persons who wrote the Bible borrowed some of their ideas from Hinduism. This possibility deserves further attempts at both confirmation and falsification.
Some functional similarities between Judeo-Christian and Eastern religions exist and may facilitate the involvement of Americans in Eastern religions or "cults." In both traditions, there is a general opposition to drug and alcohol use, except in religiously prescribed rituals. They both promote a general attitude that makes sex a sinful focus. Western religious sects have many similar rituals such as chanting and praying that seem equally effective in turning off the rational mind in order to attain some "higher state of being."
These religions prescribe the separation of oneself psychologically, if not physically, from both the material world and the nonbelievers in it, and they prescribe and proscribe certain thoughts and behaviors.Finally, there are the doctrinal similarities, such as the valid ones mentioned by Van Eck and Baktipada, as well as many stories that offend common sensibility and describe God's violation of natural laws and sane human ethics. Thus, if one believes that some god will solve the problems of the world and that the prevailing religions or philosophies are ineffective, then one may "discover the Truth" from some imported religious cult. The result of such conversions is that one's own problems and the problems of the world are inverted into blessings or magically erased by the unconscious (see Edmund Cohn's The Mind of the Bible- Believer and John Schumaker's Wings of Illusion The Origin, Nature and Future of Paranormal Beliefs, both published by Prometheus Books, 1988 and 1990). One final note I'd like to compliment Van Eck on his criticism of the assertions made by some authors about the similarities between Krishna and Jesus. For example, some have said Krishna was "crucified," but the Upanishads say he "disappeared" and is waiting for us in a spiritual abode that appears as boring as heaven. I'd like to add my criticism to those writers who perpetuate the myth that Krishna was born on December 25th. This is not Krishna's birthday according to scripture, nor is it when Hindus celebrate Krishna's "appearance." This is the birthday that Christians stole from the Persian sun god, Mythra, and adopted for Jesus! It seems that some authors, in their attempt to show a common origin for religious myths, tenaciously adopt misinformation to make their case. We must remember to be critical and always check our sources.
(Jim Dew, 138 lakewood Gardens, Madison, WI 53704-4661; e-mail [email protected])
BTW Mr. Pie, your not expected to write an essay justifying this now, it is accepted that there is a lot of false conjecture out there. But what we would love you to do would be to explain to us the 'holy spirit' component of the christian trinity theory. Cheers bruv.
-
Greetings Natu,
Thanks for your reply?
hmmm.... yeeesssss......thats verrryy interesting..... ..... looks like you missed the point of my invitation. We've seen all this already, (thanks for the christian slant on the issue though, its much appreciated).
First of all?.I doubt that you have come across a response like mine, to the theme of your thread?
If you have, then I would like to see the link?
Secondly, I have to ask; why do you want to change the theme of your very own thread?.?
If you wanted to discuss the Holy Spirit (instead of the kabba), then why not start a dedicated thread?
We would like to know whether you can give us an understanding of the 'holy spirit' component of the christian trinity theory. (As seen in your avatar, I believe). In just the same way you can say God is God, and the messenger Isa is the "son of God", can you tell us in a few sentences what the "holy spirit" is? Thanks .
Pleasure?
Jesus is God.
Father is God.
Spirit is God.
Each is simultaneously, the ONE God.
Thanks?
-
Secondly, I have to ask; why do you want to change the theme of your very own thread.?
If you wanted to discuss the Holy Spirit (instead of the kabba), then why not start a dedicated thread?
I only asked not to change the theme of my thread, but to have a greater understanding of the christian trinity theory, to help me when i write an article in the near furutre, God willing. Thanks for the invitation, but I don't want to debate the holy spirit, cos I really want to say anything against it.
Jesus is God.
Father is God.
Spirit is God.
Each is simultaneously, the ONE God.
Jesus is God, OK, I can appreciate that, but could you please elaborate on the other two, if jesus is the son, and God is the father, then who is the spirit?
-
Greetings Natu,
Thanks for your reply?
Jesus is God, OK, I can appreciate that, but could you please elaborate on the other two, if jesus is the son, and God is the father, then who is the spirit?
I?m glad to hear that you can appreciate Jesus being God!
Repeating myself?..I stated the following?
Jesus is God.
Father is God.
Spirit is God.
Each is simultaneously, the ONE God.
The Creator of the Universe has chosen to reveal Himself as a uniplural entity.
He is simultaneously singular and plural.
This is the entity which is revealed to us throughout the Holy Bible and which Christians worship.
Hope this helps?
-
Peace Pie
I can appreciate the concept, but that doesn't mean I accept the theory, but thats your view and I'm not going to say your wrong. You say there's one God - just hold that tight by that and you'll be buzzin.
I've still got more to understand. What is the difference between the 'Father' and 'the holy spirit', is the father not a holy spirit?
-
Greetings Natu,
Thanks for your comments?
I can appreciate the concept, but that doesn't mean I accept the theory, but thats your view and I'm not going to say your wrong. You say there's one God - just hold that tight by that and you'll be buzzin.
Feel free to reference your objections?
I've still got more to understand. What is the difference between the 'Father' and 'the holy spirit', is the father not a holy spirit?
The ?tri? from trinity means three.
The one God of the Holy Bible reveals Himself in three manifestations.
Each manifestation is the same one God.
Both the Koran and the Holy Bible reveal the concept of the Holy Trinity.
Since the Creator revealed in the Holy Bible exists independent of time itself, I would say that the ?difference? between the Holy Spirit and the Father, is derived from our relative frame of reference to that of the Creator Himself.
From the perspective of a finite human?s comprehension of an infinite Creator, He is revealing Himself from different vantage points?
Thanks?
-
Both the Koran and the Holy Bible reveal the concept of the Holy Trinity.
Glad to hear more of this, but I think we'll open a new thread for this discussion. New thread to open in the Christianiy section, I'll send you the details in a PM.
Since the Creator revealed in the Holy Bible exists independent of time itself, I would say that the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Father, is derived from our relative frame of reference to that of the Creator Himself.
So the 'father' and and the 'holy spirit' are releative frames of reference to the same entity. That leaves just God the holy spirited father, and Jesus the son of God who is combined into the supreme deity. How did this turn to be a 'trinity' theory?
From the perspective of a finite humans comprehension of an infinite Creator, He is revealing Himself from different vantage points
Same in the Quran, but not by three descriptions, of the son, the father and the holy spirit, that lead to a concept of trinity, but by things like the almighty, the merciful, the benevolent, the omniscient,... which are but descriptions, not components of the divine deity.
Now Apple Pie my friend, we'll leave this post as the last on the topic of the trinity in this thread, and we'll open a new thread, in an appropriate section to discuss this, seems we're both enjoying it.
-
My conclusions are now that the "kaba" of arabia is infact a shivan idol, and the black stone is meant to represent vishnu's navel from which another God was created, forming the Trimurti, (The hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva please see "http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_trinity"). Perhaps this may explain why the christians try so hard to turn God into God, and Jesus and the 'holy spirit', the latter of which is often said to be hard to explain or understand. So it appears that the God's comanded way of life was also corrupted by hindu influence at the time of the bible as well! Not just the Quran! I think I might write an article on this in the near future, watch this space people...!
I would like to hear brother Ayman's views, with respect to his article 'language barrier'.
(This is a request repeat broadcast)
-
1+1+1=1 only in the christian world lol
peace
Noah -
Even with all this evidence, you guys still have to prove that the Kabaa is not a Shrine for God. Sure it might have been made as an idol and was probably not built by Abraham, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rededicated to God by Muhammad.
If you guys really want to prove that the Kabaa came into Islam at a later date after Muhammad, then you guys have a lot to prove. There is nothing recorded whatsoever of the Kabaa being rebuilt from scratch after Muhammad. If Muhammad destroyed all the idols in Mecca, and if the Kabaa is/was also an idol, then he would have destroyed the kabaa as well. If he didn't, clearly he must have not considered it an idol. Now, there is NO recorded event in which the Kabaa is rebuilt. Muawiyya did reconstruction on it, but it was never rebuilt. Just repair work.
To me, there is no difference between a shrine and an idol, but this is debateable. From my understanding, the Quran makes no justification for the kaba of arabia, and so we are trying to work out exactly where it came from and what it is. This thread isn't here to prove anything. We can't prove anything by pulling thngs out of history books, much like hadith books.
The way you guys are going, it would then make sense that the story of Abraham and Sarah actually comes from the Hindu myth of Brahma and Sarasvati. Ofcourse this isn't true. The Hindus probably knew of Abraham and Sarah and later deified them.
All this suggests is that abraham and sarah came and then the history books came after them (hindu scriptures, possibly originally God's word that werere corrupted), and thus Abraham became brahma. This isn't hard to do over time.
Was kabaa built by abraham? Probably not as the first shrine for God was built by Abraham at Becca. Becca is definetly not Mecca. Who knows where this shrine is. Thats probably why the Qurans says we should go there if we can find the path. However as the Quran says, the Kabaa was made the Shrine. Now, do I agree with bowing down to this Kabaa, no. There is no command from God to bow down to a man made object.
Point is, Kabaa was known to Muhammad and he didn't destroy it for a reason. There is no evidence proving other wise. If any of you can bring forth proof that the Kabaa was built again after Muhammad, then you have a case. Otherwise, no one is going to believe or follow all of these theories.
As a note, I myself have been looking for evidence that the Kabaa was rebuilt after Muhammad, that perhaps Muwaya did more than just repair work on the Kabaa, but I have to face the facts, there is no such evidence.
Fair enough.