How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

[wildguest1956]

• Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet, but it was a small town with a shrine. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and some irrational stories have been fabricated to turn it into a holy Islamic town.
  Clearly, one of these 2 claims is more extraordinary than the other, isn?t it ?

No. This is not a possible scenario. Either way, a town named Mecca didn't exist at the time of the prophet. You need to revise the above to read

• There was a small insignificant town with a shrine in that location but it was not named Mecca. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and renamed to Mecca and some irrational stories have been fabricated to turn it into a holy Islamic town.

This is possible, but you have provided no evidence that no town named Mecca was existing at this place at the time of the prophet.

It is true that the common noun Mecca meaning destruction fits in (assuming the case endings are not a cosntraint).
So, in it can be either the proper name ?Mecca?, or the common noun ?destruction?. Both are possible.
It is also possible that the right translation of is with the common noun ?destruction? even though Mecca was an existing town.

If you, I or any human wrote 4824 then this would be a highly unlikely remote possibility. But it is The God who gave us 4824 so if you have faith in The God and in the great reading you should know that this is an impossibility. JM, if you don't know why then this whole discussion and even nothing in the world can help you.

I can explain in more details but I don't want to waste an opportunity for the readers of this discussion who have faith in the great reading to see why for themselves and get the amazing feeling that comes with absolute faith in The God and absolute certainty about His truth.

I have faith in the Quran, and I don?t understand how the Quran makes impossible the existence of the town Mecca at the time of the prophet.
If the real understanding of is with the word ?destruction?, then the name of the town ?Mecca? would be absent from the Quran. But this would not entail that this town didn?t exist.
Towns like ?Hegra? or ?Hira? are not mentioned in the Quran, yet nobody claims that, as a consequence, they were not existing at the time of the prophet.

ii) As I have already showed it to you, you cannot state that that the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet is as unlikely as the existence of giants or other mythological things (see my previous posts).
You definitely have a severe problem with logic.

Copying and pasting from Wikipedia is not exactly proof or logic.

I don?t see what the problem is.

i) As I have already showed it to you, it is not true that all the followers of Jesus agree that Jesus is the son of God (see my previous posts).
I suggest you avoid referring to refuted arguments. This would save your time and mine.

All followers of Jesus agreed that he is the son of god. Even Ebionites agree that he is the son of god. The only difference is that they emphasize his humanity. So they say he is a human son of god not a "god" son of god like monophysites say. Roman Catholics are in the middle.

According to Wikipedia, the ebionites hold that Jesus was the human son of Mary and Joseph, and the adopted son of God. Adoptionism can be seen as an intermediary step between roman Catholicism and the pure messenger view that should have been the one of the first followers of Jesus.

The Ebionites emphasized the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph, who was 'adopted' as a son of God when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

But I am not sure it is really the opinion of the ebionites (or of all the ebionites), because this is absent for the site of the modern ebonites, whose creed is

This man, Yeshua, the son of Yosef and Miryam, was a prophet who proclaimed God and His way to save us from a planet outside of a relationship with God was embraced by many of the exploited poor ('evyonim) crying out for God's justice.
http//ebionite.org/

ii) It is far easier for people to agree on false stories about a man or a town they idolize than to agree to fabricate together a new town out of nothing (which would certainly need a vast conspiration).

Actually fabricating a remote town is easier. All that needed to be done is to rename it to Mecca. That is it.

It is much tougher to fabricate a shrine in well known and heavily populated Jerusalem. Yet we know for sure that sectarians did it. All they had to do was to name it Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. Now everyone (including you perhaps) thinks that this is Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa talked about in the great reading when it is a fact that it was built by the Ummayads long after the revelation of Chapter 17.

The example of Masjid al aqsa is a false analogy because no sectarian has ever claimed it was built by the prophet ; it is a well-accepted fact it was built by the Ummayads.

Cf http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

Peace

[ayman]

Peace JM,

I have faith in the Quran, and I don?t understand how the Quran makes impossible the existence of the town Mecca at the time of the prophet.
If the real understanding of is with the word ?destruction?, then the name of the town ?Mecca? would be absent from the Quran. But this would not entail that this town didn?t exist.
Towns like ?Hegra? or ?Hira? are not mentioned in the Quran, yet nobody claims that, as a consequence, they were not existing at the time of the prophet.

Your implying that it is coincidental that the common noun in 4824 happens to also be the name of the "most holy city" of sectarians betrays your lack of faith in the great reading.

Surely, had you believed in The God The Knowledgeable and in that He gave us the great reading then it wouldn't take much intelligence to see that He certainly knew that sectarians would claim that this common noun "mecca" is the name of a certain city.

So why would The God use the name of what is supposedly the most "holy city in Islam" as a common noun? Is it a coincidence as you think?

I don't think so. The God KNEW that sectarians would later hijack this common noun.

It is a trial to see who really have faith in The God and the great reading. Those who only claim but don't really have faith in the great reading will take it as a coincidence similar to those that can happen with any human author.

As for those who have faith in the great reading they know that nothing is a coincidence in there and that The God was not out to confuse us by using a common noun that matches some "holy city" but He knew very well that people would later claim that this clear common noun is the proper name of some pagan town. They see that it is not a coincidence and get an amazing feeling of certainty when they see this. Such certainty wouldn't be possible without also empirically seeing the behavior of those who are lost. The God can accomplish a purpose even from the misguidance of those who are lost. Indeed, rejecters schemed but The God is the best schemer.

An intelligent observer can see this trial right here on this discussion.

The example of Masjid al aqsa is a false analogy because no sectarian has ever claimed it was built by the prophet ; it is a well-accepted fact it was built by the Ummayads.
Cf http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

You see, this is the problem with copying and pasting stuff without understanding. You think that just because you can copy and paste some material on logic, you are logical.

No sectarian has ever claimed that Mecca was built by the prophet either.

Also, it is not a well-accepted fact that it was built by the Ummayads. The very article that you provided the link to claims that it and the one in Mecca were built by Adam

"From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-Jawzi who have discussed the issue. They have shown that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the duty of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries."

By not using terms such as "false analogy" judiciously, you demonstrated time and time again that anyone can mindlessly use logical fallacies definitions from Wikipedia without proving anything except that he can copy and paste.

Peace,

Ayman

[progod]

Peace Ayman,

I can explain in more details but I don't want to waste an opportunity for the readers of this discussion who have faith in the great reading to see why for themselves and get the amazing feeling that comes with absolute faith in The God and absolute certainty about His truth.

As I said, the proof in (2) requires faith in the great reading. I can't help you there.

Ayman with comments like these I see you subtley trying to tie belief in your opinion to belief in the Quran and faith in God with certainty. I certainly and completely believe in the Quran and in God and don't have to believe what you believe for this to be true. I don't agree with your logic although I do agree with your conclusion as you stated in the following post

From Adley,
As far as I can read this thread, what I can infer from what bro Ayman is trying to convey is (please CMIIW) the present day Mecca has no significance whatsoever with the quran's teachings or message (in its relation to the diin of course). And I have no problem with that.

Yes brother, this is all that matters.

THis is all that matters. It is the logic that you use to "prove" this that is faulty, and just because the Quran really means destruction when it uses the word Mecca doesn't mean
that Mecca as a town didn't exist. Why you make this a necessary belief, I don't know. The way you responded to JM to me indicates that you don't want to understand what he is saying. Because even though he may agree that Mecca, as a town in the Quran is not ultimately what the Quran really meant, he is just pointing out to you the faultiness in your logic, NOT that this conclusion is wrong.

The conclusion that you have made which is extreme is that Mecca didn't exist, and you have not and can't prove that. You can prove that Mecca was not a renown or important religious town, but you can't prove that there was no shrine there. As a matter of fact you say that this is quite possible when you say
(as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.

So you are right. The claims of sectarians about Mecca are extraodinary. I don't think that anyone here who is actively engaged in this discussion is disagreeing with you about the importance of Mecca. We all think that this city and the shrine in it have no real Quranic significance.

But when you say
There was a small insignificant town with a shrine in that location but it was not named Mecca. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and renamed to Mecca
, With the emphasis on renamed as you put it in your post that is where we all say, hold up wait a minute. How can you prove that?! And the fact is that you can't prove that it was renamed. The more logical conclusion is to let it have its name and just understand that this was coincidence (a coincidence that God intended).

We all know that Arabic words have more than one meaning and that a sentence in Arabic, if desired, can say a number of things. In my opinion God used this multifaceted aspect of the language to open up the book's possible application. That is why the Quran stipulates that the righteous read the book and pick the best meanings. That means that the Quran could possibly say some really wrong things because of the possible meanings in this human Classical Arabic language, but the above stipulation ensures that we won't pick the possible bad meanings and will stick with what is best, more logical and more in line with what we know the book says.

That is the reason why the Quran leads the wicked astray and the righteous along the right path. The wicked look for these possible distortions, like Muslim scholars who have interpreted that verse in the Quran that they use to say that the Quran abrogates itself, etc. etc. , as there are plenty examples of this in Muslim scholarship. But understanding logic and this principle helps us get past this. So as I see it God gave the Arabs of that time and the people who know the difference today to choice to pick the universal logical meaning of 'destruction' for that passage or to view it as 'Mecca', (not to mention the other possible meanings that can be found on my site in the article Pilgrimage.)

So what matters as you admitted and as we all agree on is that the city of Mecca is not important for us and has nothing to do with this passage. We all understand that if Mecca was brought to fame, it was not through the Quran and the occurrence of this word in the Quran and the fact that it shared the same name as this small town, which as far as we know is the brith place of Muhammad (God bless him) but more imporantly a later center for the Arabs who came to rule Arabia and the rest of the middle east, and in the heart of Ancient Arab territory, gave these Arabs a seeming justification for the religious importance of their town. They also tried to miscontrue the word 'bakkah' to mean 'makkah' which is the real reason why this town has become the 'awwal baitin' or best house of the muslim world.

We can agree with you on this, Ayman, but when you say that this town's name really wasn't Mecca and that it was renamed that, you have no proof for that. And it is just as possible that this town's name was mecca then and it is the more likely story.

It is a more logical story as it concerns the truth of this town that it wasn't founded until after the 1st century, so that is why the Greek and Roman historians missed it, if their surveys were that thorough. It got the name Mecca by the local Arabs because of its dryness, as mecca can also mean 'sucking dry.' but it was still a suitable settlement for whatever reason. And from the 1st century on it started to gain importance. That is a more likely story than that the city was renamed Mecca, or invented after the advent of the Quran, and he passing of Muhammad.

Godbless,
Anwar

[progod]

Sorry I found some typos after editing it 6 times. They are main just where the word "choice " is mentioned and at the end 'the passing of Muhammad' instead of 'he passing . . " So here it is again.

Peace Ayman,

I can explain in more details but I don't want to waste an opportunity for the readers of this discussion who have faith in the great reading to see why for themselves and get the amazing feeling that comes with absolute faith in The God and absolute certainty about His truth.

As I said, the proof in (2) requires faith in the great reading. I can't help you there.

Ayman with comments like these I see you subtley trying to tie belief in your opinion to belief in the Quran and faith in God with certainty. I certainly and completely believe in the Quran and in God and don't have to believe what you believe for this to be true. I don't agree with your logic although I do agree with your conclusion as you stated in the following post

From Adley,
As far as I can read this thread, what I can infer from what bro Ayman is trying to convey is (please CMIIW) the present day Mecca has no significance whatsoever with the quran's teachings or message (in its relation to the diin of course). And I have no problem with that.

Yes brother, this is all that matters.

THis is all that matters. It is the logic that you use to "prove" this that is faulty, and just because the Quran really means destruction when it uses the word Mecca doesn't mean
that Mecca as a town didn't exist. Why you make this a necessary belief, I don't know. The way you responded to JM to me indicates that you don't want to understand what he is saying. Because even though he may agree that Mecca, as a town in the Quran is not ultimately what the Quran really meant, he is just pointing out to you the faultiness in your logic, NOT that this conclusion is wrong.

The conclusion that you have made which is extreme is that Mecca didn't exist, and you have not and can't prove that. You can prove that Mecca was not a renown or important religious town, but you can't prove that there was no shrine there. As a matter of fact you say that this is quite possible when you say
(as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.

So you are right. The claims of sectarians about Mecca are extraodinary. I don't think that anyone here who is actively engaged in this discussion is disagreeing with you about the importance of Mecca. We all think that this city and the shrine in it have no real Quranic significance.

But when you say
There was a small insignificant town with a shrine in that location but it was not named Mecca. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and renamed to Mecca
, With the emphasis on renamed as you put it in your post that is where we all say, hold up wait a minute. How can you prove that?! And the fact is that you can't prove that it was renamed. The more logical conclusion is to let it have its name and just understand that this was coincidence (a coincidence that God intended).

We all know that Arabic words have more than one meaning and that a sentence in Arabic, if desired, can say a number of things. In my opinion God used this multifaceted aspect of the language to open up the book's possible application. That is why the Quran stipulates that the righteous read the book and pick the best meanings. That means that the Quran could possibly say some really wrong things because of the possible meanings in this human Classical Arabic language, but the above stipulation ensures that we won't pick the possible bad meanings and will stick with what is best, more logical and more in line with what we know the book says.

That is the reason why the Quran leads the wicked astray and the righteous along the right path. The wicked look for these possible distortions, like Muslim scholars who have interpreted that verse in the Quran that they use to say that the Quran abrogates itself, etc. etc. , as there are plenty examples of this in Muslim scholarship. But understanding logic and this principle helps us get past this. So as I see it God gave the Arabs of that time and the people who know the difference today the choice to pick the universal logical meaning of 'destruction' for that passage or to view it as 'Mecca', (not to mention the other possible meanings that can be found on my site in the article Pilgrimage.)

So what matters as you admitted and as we all agree on is that the city of Mecca is not important for us and has nothing to do with this passage. We all understand that if Mecca was brought to fame, it was not through the Quran and the occurrence of this word in the Quran and the fact that it shared the same name as this small town, which as far as we know is the brith place of Muhammad (God bless him) but more imporantly a later center for the Arabs who came to rule Arabia and the rest of the middle east, and in the heart of Ancient Arab territory, gave these Arabs a seeming justification for the religious importance of their town. They also tried to miscontrue the word 'bakkah' to mean 'makkah' which is the real reason why this town has become the 'awwal baitin' or best house of the muslim world.

We can agree with you on this, Ayman, but when you say that this town's name really wasn't Mecca and that it was renamed that, you have no proof for that. And it is just as possible that this town's name was mecca then and it is the more likely story.

It is a more logical story as it concerns the truth of this town that it wasn't founded until after the 1st century, so that is why the Greek and Roman historians missed it, if their surveys were that thorough. It got the name Mecca by the local Arabs because of its dryness, as mecca can also mean 'sucking dry.' but it was still a suitable settlement for whatever reason. And from the 1st century on it started to gain importance. That is a more likely story than that the city was renamed Mecca, or invented after the advent of the Quran, and the passing of Muhammad.

Godbless,
Anwar

[truth]

Peace,

The emergence of towns and cities is a remarkable thing in history. So is the emergence of ideas that sweep the world all of a sudden - witness the rise of Google for instance. It takes one good idea together with the right environment for something to be an explosive success.

I believe that the emergence of Mecca is one of these things. How many cities have a name that means 'destruction' or something else that is negative like it?

Jerusalem = heritage of peace.

Cairo = victorious.

Damascus = well watered place.

Why then the odd negative term of "destruction" for the "holy city" of this religion?

It seems obvious that the town Mecca was fabricated and achieved the traction it needed to mislead and seduce the people off the path.

[wildguest1956]

Peace JM,

I have faith in the Quran, and I don?t understand how the Quran makes impossible the existence of the town Mecca at the time of the prophet.
If the real understanding of is with the word ?destruction?, then the name of the town ?Mecca? would be absent from the Quran. But this would not entail that this town didn?t exist.
Towns like ?Hegra? or ?Hira? are not mentioned in the Quran, yet nobody claims that, as a consequence, they were not existing at the time of the prophet.

Your implying that it is coincidental that the common noun in 4824 happens to also be the name of the "most holy city" of sectarians betrays your lack of faith in the great reading.

Surely, had you believed in The God The Knowledgeable and in that He gave us the great reading then it wouldn't take much intelligence to see that He certainly knew that sectarians would claim that this common noun "mecca" is the name of a certain city.

So why would The God use the name of what is supposedly the most "holy city in Islam" as a common noun? Is it a coincidence as you think?

I don't think so. The God KNEW that sectarians would later hijack this common noun.

It is a trial to see who really have faith in The God and the great reading. Those who only claim but don't really have faith in the great reading will take it as a coincidence similar to those that can happen with any human author.

As for those who have faith in the great reading they know that nothing is a coincidence in there and that The God was not out to confuse us by using a common noun that matches some "holy city" but He knew very well that people would later claim that this clear common noun is the proper name of some pagan town. They see that it is not a coincidence and get an amazing feeling of certainty when they see this. Such certainty wouldn't be possible without also empirically seeing the behavior of those who are lost. The God can accomplish a purpose even from the misguidance of those who are lost. Indeed, rejecters schemed but The God is the best schemer.

An intelligent observer can see this trial right here on this discussion.

God KNEW that sectarians would later hijack this common noun ? ? ?
Really ???

How have you learnt that ? Did God reveal it to you last night ? ? ?

Well, to copy/paste Progod?
Ayman with comments like these I see you subtly trying to tie belief in your opinion to belief in the Quran and faith in God with certainty. I certainly and completely believe in the Quran and in God and don't have to believe what you believe for this to be true.

I wonder what will be the next step?
Are you going to call me a kuffar and declare me an apostate ? ? ?

The example of Masjid al aqsa is a false analogy because no sectarian has ever claimed it was built by the prophet ; it is a well-accepted fact it was built by the Ummayads.
Cf http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

You see, this is the problem with copying and pasting stuff without understanding. You think that just because you can copy and paste some material on logic, you are logical.

No sectarian has ever claimed that Mecca was built by the prophet either.

Also, it is not a well-accepted fact that it was built by the Ummayads. The very article that you provided the link to claims that it and the one in Mecca were built by Adam

"From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-Jawzi who have discussed the issue. They have shown that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the duty of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries."

Ayman, what are you trying to prove ?
The sectarians of Islamic-awareness have done their best to explain that a masjid is not necessarily a mosque, so as to explain that that the temple which were at Jerusalem could have been called a masjid.
Everybody among the sectarians know that the so-called masjid-al-aqsa has been built after the death of the prophet, and that there were no mosque in Jersusalem at the time of the prophet (even if they also pretend that this mosques has been built for the first time by Adam).
So, you have to find another analogy?

By not using terms such as "false analogy" judiciously, you demonstrated time and time again that anyone can mindlessly use logical fallacies definitions from Wikipedia without proving anything except that he can copy and paste.

Peace,

Ayman

Hope you will at your turn demonstrate that you have learnt to distinguish the logical fallacies in our arguments, so that our debates can become more fruitful and more beneficial to the quest of truth.

Peace

[progod]

Truth,

It got the name Mecca by the local Arabs because of its dryness, as mecca can also mean 'sucking dry.'

Arabic words can mean alot of things, not just one thing, and he popular meaning can change depending on the era. We can assume that the meaning
of sucking dry was the most popular one at the time for when this town was given this name. Supposedly after the 1st century. I cannot explain when words gain meaning and etc, but by the time of the Quran early 7th century the word had several meanings namely Mecca Meem, kaf, kaf, Sucking, Sucking up, Absorbing, drinking up, Destruction/Destroying, Diminishing/Diminution, Failing/Failure, to cast, to throw away, to discard, to straighten/tighten or impede/restrict, to beseech/ask/accept, crowding, competition(izdihaam) Source Translated from the above entries from Lisaanul &Arabi and Mu'jam matnil-lughat

Like the word New York you don't think of the old york and then think this is the New York. There are other names like this too. People know what they mean or can mean but they only refer to it as the city, whereas they will use the same word in different contexts to communicate the ideas that they mean, and not even realize it.

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

Peace,

What is/are the difference/s between 396 and 4824 in relations to 'bakka' and 'mecca' respectively when analyzing these verses? And where was Muhammad born according to historical information?

[ayman]

Peace JM,

God KNEW that sectarians would later hijack this common noun ? ? ?
Really ???

Yes.

How have you learnt that ? Did God reveal it to you last night ? ? ?

Yes, but not last night. The God did reveal it to me as He revealed things for other people on this forum and indeed for all people who know.

7519. ...then it is for Us its revelation.
7520. ...and We will surely reveal it for people who know.
7521. ... you shall REVEAL it to people and do not CONCEAL it...

I am sorry if The God never revealed anything to you.

Well, to copy/paste Progod?
Ayman with comments like these I see you subtly trying to tie belief in your opinion to belief in the Quran and faith in God with certainty. I certainly and completely believe in the Quran and in God and don't have to believe what you believe for this to be true.

This has nothing to do with my opinion. YOU and ANWAR admitted that the word "mecca" in 4824 is a common noun. It is not my problem that you are not forethoughful enough to see the implications of your own admission.

I wonder what will be the next step?
Are you going to call me a kuffar and declare me an apostate ? ? ?

The word "kafir" means "rejecter/unappreciative". It doesn't mean apostate.

You have demonstrated through your own words your lack of appreciation of the fact that The God certainly knows everything. Here is an example where you make fun of this fact

"God KNEW that sectarians would later hijack this common noun ? ? ? Really ???"

My only advice to you is that you need to appreciate The God more. If you take only one thing from this discussion then I hope that this would be it.

Ayman, what are you trying to prove ?
The sectarians of Islamic-awareness have done their best to explain that a masjid is not necessarily a mosque, so as to explain that that the temple which were at Jerusalem could have been called a masjid.
Everybody among the sectarians know that the so-called masjid-al-aqsa has been built after the death of the prophet, and that there were no mosque in Jersusalem at the time of the prophet (even if they also pretend that this mosques has been built for the first time by Adam).
So, you have to find another analogy?

So you think that "the best" is to deceive people and "pretend" something. This explains your behavior.

Next time you see a sectarian who tells you that Abraham built the so-called Kaaba tell him the fact that it is the Saudis who built it in 1996 and watch the blank look on his face. Just recently I was talking to a Palestinian guy I know and you should see the stupified look on his face when I told him the fact that the Ummayads are the ones who built Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa long after the prophet's death. It is a good analogy even down to the point of view of the reaction one gets from sectarians.

Hope you will at your turn demonstrate that you have learnt to distinguish the logical fallacies in our arguments, so that our debates can become more fruitful and more beneficial to the quest of truth.

I know how to distinguish logical fallacies and I don't need to copy and paste definitions from Wikipedia to show that I do.

Peace,

Ayman

[ayman]

Peace Danish,

What is/are the difference/s between 396 and 4824 in relations to 'bakka' and 'mecca' respectively when analyzing these verses?

There is no relation.

And where was Muhammad born according to historical information?

Nobody knows where or when he was born. Either way, this doesn't matter because there is nothing in the great reading that says that its truth is dependent on somehow knowing those irrelevant things.

Peace,

Ayman

[progod]

This has nothing to do with my opinion. YOU and ANWAR admitted that the word "mecca" in 4824 is a common noun. It is not my problem that you are not forethoughful enough to see the implications of your own admission
.

Ayman you have a sick heart. You cannot approach either me or JM on the logical field to really come to a real understanding. And we really have been trying to reach out and help you understand where we are coming from. You only respond with accusations of how we are narrow-minded, misguided, don't have faith in God or the Quran or how we are ignoring truth. And through these comments you hide away from having to deal with the logic of what you are saying. To the point that you said
I know how to distinguish logical fallacies and I don't need to copy and paste definitions from Wikipedia to show that I do.
He copied and pasted something that you shoudl have learned from it but you just hid behind your arrogance and with this comment showed how you didn't listen to what he had to say the first time he said it. So for your sake Ayman and for everyone else who migh think I'm just attacking you I'm going to post what he said again

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial

Just because he posted it from Wikepedia doesn't mean that he doesn't know what it implies. This definition was for you, to show you that there is a name for your false logic and he put it in front of your face that you could recognize it, and say "OOOHH! maybe he is right" not reject it and then undermine what he was trying to tell you, just becuase he copied and pasted it from Wikepedia for you.

All in all, you have something to say to JM just say it to him. If you didn't answer my post when I wrote it, then don't use my name when JM is just pointing out something to you that you should have seen before. I would appreciate it if you didn't mentioned even my name, because you are not keen enough to argue with me, and for that reason I don't want to discuss this with you anymore. Take it as arrogance if you want to, but what it really is is merited frustration. You are just here to argue your points to the end, you are not willing to deal with the logic of them and honestly it is making me sick. Your words are poisonous and accusing for anyone who doesn't agree with you and all you know how to do is point the finger not discuss the intracacies of the issue at hand. It is people like you that halt the true progression of thought.

I've said all that I can say, so from now on if you haven't understood by now what has been said to you then I am going to opt out. Especially since you keep missing the point, not addressing it and then trying to say that JM and I are wrong. It's really annoying me (and I'm trying to use polite words for what I really want to say). God hasn't blessed me with the patience to deal with you, unfortunately. I hope He'll forgive me for not wanted to deal with a sick heart like yours when I have seen that you are not capable of indepth thought and meaningful mutual exchange. laa takun min al-fajarati, ud min al-fasaadati, wa takhasha& min arrijaa'i

Godbless,
Anwar

[unknownuser]

Peace Ayman,

What is/are the difference/s between 396 and 4824 in relations to 'bakka' and 'mecca' respectively when analyzing these verses?

There is no relation.

Bakka and mecca are mentioned once, I believe, in the entire Quran; and as per your understanding both of them are descriptive terms and not cities, am I correct?

And where was Muhammad born according to historical information?

Nobody knows where or when he was born. Either way, this doesn't matter because there is nothing in the great reading that says that its truth is dependent on somehow knowing those irrelevant things.

There's not a single passage on the entire NET that defines Muhammad to be born elsewhere other than Mecca and around 570 CE and I suppose you don't believe that, simply because its not mentioned in the Quran and besides its not important, right? For a person to claim a book from 'Allah', don't you think the world would like to know who that person is and his background? Ok, lets assume that no one knows where and when Muhammad was born, then would you know where and when the Quran was revealed or do you think that is not important either? Would you deny that Muhammad wasn't the one who revealed the Quran and the name is also descriptive?

[phoenix1]

Ayman you have a sick heart.

Ad hominem?

anyway, this is what I understand so far

There is no evidence for a town named Mecca before the 8th century.
The only reason people would believe in Mecca is because it is mentioned in the quran. Since 'mecca' in the quran is a common noun and not a Proper name of a city, we conclude that there was no town called Mecca during the time of the prophet and the sectarians later renamed a town (whether it had a shrine or not) after a common noun found in the quran. People fell for it and that's how Mecca became the center of Islam today.
The opposing argument to the above is
Although there is no evidence that Mecca did exist, there is no evidence that it did not exist. Even if it is not mentioned in any document, it still COULD have existed.
But they do agree that what the sectarians claim about Mecca is wrong. It's probably not mentioned in the quran and we aren't supposed to face it or anything like that.
But my question to the opposition is... why call a town "destruction?"
i know that when names of old cities are established, people don't think of the meaning of the name anymore, but people who establish the town do name it for a reason. New England was named New England by the puritans because they wanted to create a new England in the New World. There is always a reason for naming towns. Even the town Nameless, Tennessee.

The only thing that was doubtful about Ayman's argument was that the non-existence of Mecca could not be PROVEN. But when we look at the MEANING of Mecca (along with the meaning of masjid, masjid al haraam, kaaba, etc), it becomes pretty clear that this was a conspiracy of some sort. After that, there is no reason to BELIEVE that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's life.

[unknownuser]

Here is another conspirer

The word Mecca, used in a figurative sense, is first recorded in English in 1850. The figurative meaning is "a place which one regards as supremely sacred, or which is the aspiration of one's life to be able to visit" (from the OED). English uses it in such a figurative sense because Mecca is the birthplace of Muhammed, making it the ultimate pilgrimage place of Muslims. There are two thoughts about the name of the city. The first has it coming from Phoenician maqaq "ruined", suggesting that the site was home to a city that was destroyed in battle or by some cataclysm. The second derivation suggests that Mecca derives from Arabic mahrab "sanctuary", a reference to the town being an ancient site of worship which became popular in the 7th century as the birthplace of Muhammad (570?-632).

With a lower case m, mecca today means "a place that is regarded as a center of activity or interest; a place visited by many people" as in "Take Our Word For It is a mecca for logophiles" .

*As an aside, this usage of why dates from the early 16th century and is defined as "an expression of surprise (sometimes only momentary or slight; sometimes involving protest), either in reply to a remark or question, or on perceiving something unexpected". We were simply curious about that one and thought you might be, as well.

Taken from http//www.takeourword.com/TOW170/page2.html

[unknownuser]

and another

http//www.takeourword.com/TOW170/page2.html

Mecca 1st - 6th century AD
The town of Mecca, in a rocky valley with no agricultural resources, develops into a place of considerable prosperity. There are two good reasons. It is a trading post on the caravan route from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. And it is Arabia's most important place of pilgrimage.

During the centuries before Islam, large numbers of pilgrims arrive in Mecca to perform a ritual act of walking seven times round a small square building known as the Kaaba (Arabic for 'cube&#039. The building is full of idols, which are the objects of worship. It also includes a sacred black stone, possibly in origin a meteorite.

The Muslims and Mecca AD 624-630
Relations with Mecca deteriorate to the point of pitched battles between the two sides, with Muhammad leading his troops in the field. But in the end it is his diplomacy which wins the day.

He persuades the Meccans to allow his followers back into the city, in 629, to make a pilgrimage to the Kaaba and the Black Stone.

An important element in Mecca's peaceful acceptance of the change has been Muhammad's promise that pilgrimage to the Kaaba will remain a central feature of the new religion.

So Mecca becomes, as it has remained ever since, the holy city of Islam. And Muslim tradition locates in Mecca many of the events described first in the biblical book of Genesis.

The preaching of Muhammad and the founding of Islam turn Mecca from a local place of pilgrimage to one of world-wide significance - though only Muslims are allowed to enter the city. Where pagan pilgrims once walked seven times round a Kaaba filled with idols, Muslims now walk seven times round the same Kaaba - but empty now, and sacred to the one God ('Allah' is God in Arabic).

it seems there is a lot or those conspirers out there, but what is shocking that many of them are not Muslims, LOL

[unknownuser]

Possibly they need to talk to Lisa

Why is Mecca the Religious Center of Islam?
By Lisa Federico '02

Mecca is an important city for Muslims because it is the holy city of Islam. It is the religious center of Islam because it is home to the Kaaba and the Great Mosque, the birthplace of Muhammad, the first capital of caliphate, and the center of present day mosques. It is also the destination of the Hajj, one of the five pillars of Islamic faith. Mecca is home to significant events in Islamic history, as well as being an important present day center for the Islamic faith.

The history of Mecca goes back as early as the fifth century. It was an independent and powerful city in pre-Islamic times. Mecca was an important trade center because it was a main stop on the north-south track for Iranians (Mackey 42). It even competed against Byzantine and Persian empires, which were very wealthy in those times. To see a timeline of important events in early Islamic history, please go to

http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/

Mecca was home to the Kaaba, which Muslims now believe is the place of worship that Allah, the Islamic God, ordered Ishmael and Abraham to build in the 2000?s BC, which is another reason Mecca was an important trading stop. The Kaaba is supposedly built at a holy sight established by Adam ("In the Name of Allah" par.1). The Kaaba is a black stone that Muslims believe Allah sent. The Kaaba lies in the center of a stone building, the Great Mosque, which has large beautiful arches and pillars. But the Kaaba wasn?t always a center for Islam because before Muhammad came, the people worshipped false idols and the Kaaba was a symbol of that.
Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Muttalib ibn Hashim, better known as Muhammad the prophet of Islam, was born in 570 in Mecca (Mackey 42). He had a hard childhood, being orphaned at the age of six and his family had little power or money. He grew up disobeying the ways of Meccan society. Muhammad escaped the daily drudgery of his life and went to the desert to meditate. One night in 610, he slept alone on Mount Hira, and was visited by the angel Gabriel, who said, "Recite in the name of the Lord who created all things, who created man from the clots of blood." (Mackey 43) This is when Muhammad began to state his belief to abandon idolatrous practices and to accept Allah as the creator of the universe, the everlasting (Mackey 43). Muhammad believed in Jihad, or holy struggle, against polytheism, heresy, and idolatry. Muhammad also believed that if you live for Allah, then you would be rewarded, and if you didn?t, then you would be punished. To learn more about Muhammad and his teachings please go to http//www.muhammad.net/
It took a while for Mecca to become the first capital of caliphate because not everyone shared Muhammad?s beliefs. Many people thought his teachings were a threat to religious and material order. They thought he was making up the angel Gabriel and they weren?t interested in changing their ways. His first support came from the poor and the young who didn?t feel they were treated equally. Since Muhammad couldn?t get the support he wanted, he went to Medina with his few followers in 622. They got more support there, and later returned to Mecca in 630. There was an eight-year battle, but Muhammad conquered Mecca and converted the people to Islam. Muhammad wasn?t just a religious leader, but also a political leader in Mecca.
Mecca is still a very important city for Muslims. There are five pillars in the Islamic faith including praying five times a day, salat, make a pilgrimage to Mecca, hajj, and giving to the poor and homeless. If you want to learn more about daily prayer in the Islamic religion, please click here http//www.ummah.net/kianyit/pray.htm. The pilgrimage to Mecca is called the hajj, bringing together many Muslims for religious rituals. It is very important to Muslims, and they are supposed to perform the hajj at least once in their lifetime. The hajj alone brings the city one hundred million dollars yearly (World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 13, 352). It takes place every year between the seventh and tenth days of the month of Dhu?l-Hijja (Lewis 231). There are three types of the hajj hajj at-Tamattu?, Hajj al-Qiren, and Hajj allf rad (Hajj Journey par 1). The most common type of the hajj is hajj at-Tamattu?. First, the Muslim arrives at Mecca and takes a shower to purify himself, puts perfume on, and puts on two-pieces of clothing with no headgear. Then, they say, "Labbayka Allahumma Labbayk. Labbayka La Shareeka Laka Labbayk. Inna-alhamda Wan-ntimata Laka Walmulk. La Shareek Lak," which means, "Here I am at your service. O my Lord, here I am. Here I am. No partner do You have. Here I am. Truly, the praise and the provisions are Yours, and so is the dominion. No partner do You have" (Hajj Journey par 4). Then, the Muslim performs Tawaf. This is when they start at the black stone and circle the Kaaba seven times in the counterclockwise direction. The next thing they do is the Sa?i. They go up the Safa and praise Allah three times. Then the Muslim comes back down and ends by shaving their heads. To hear real readings from the Quran about the hajj journey please click here http//ISLAM.ORG/mosque/quran//22htm#36.
Mecca is still an important present day city. In 1924 an Arab leader conquered it and made it part of Saudi Arabia. The government is trying to modernize Mecca, but the people won?t give up their very important history. Mecca is still the center for present day mosques. In a mosque there is a structure at the front known as a mihrab. The mihrab in a mosque is always facing Mecca, because it is the holy city.
Mecca has a very important Islamic history, but it hasn?t been forgotten in the present day. Some Muslims still consider Mecca the holiest spot on earth. The Mihrabs in churches that face Mecca and the hajj pilgrimage show Mecca?s importance. Also, Islam is still a great religion and the Great Mosque and the Kaaba are still standing, all important features of present day Mecca. Mecca is modernizing and changing, but will always be remembered for starting one of the most important religions in the world.

[phoenix1]

peace Ahmed,

what evidence are all those articles based on?
oh yes, the Muslim texts, what they call the Hadith (the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad).

[ayman]

Peace Danish,

Bakka and mecca are mentioned once, I believe, in the entire Quran; and as per your understanding both of them are descriptive terms and not cities, am I correct?

Yes.

There's not a single passage on the entire NET that defines Muhammad to be born elsewhere other than Mecca and around 570 CE and I suppose you don't believe that, simply because its not mentioned in the Quran and besides its not important, right?

This is false. There are several articles on the Free-minds site and on this forum (all are on the NET) that challenge those notions.

If you go to the Smithsonian's online exhibits (also on the NET) you will see a Pre-Islamic Arabian exhibit that displays a bunch of inscriptions, including one that commemorates the expedition of Abraha. The date on the inscription converts to 550CE (and of course it makes no mention of Mecca). According to sectarians, the prophet was born in the same year as the expedition of Abraha. So the dates are problematic and the prophet could have potentially lived much earlier than we think (perhaps some 20 years earlier). Writings describing the Arabs at the time of the Ummayyads give the image that the men on average died in their forties. Given that the present average age of Middle Eastern men with all the advancement in health care is in the low 60s, this is not surprising. On the other hand, for some reason the majority of the companions seem to have miraculously lived for a very long time (some well over a hundred years) and seem to have been very active well into their later years. So the trend that one sees is that the supposed companions' date of birth is pushed back. So by the same token, the prophet's date of birth is likely to have been pushed forward so that they can overlap. So all those guys that people claimed later that they were companions might have been either not born or babies during the prophet's time.

The only reason why sectarians cling at the one straw of Macroba is that they know very well that there is absolutely no evidence of a town named Mecca prior to the 8th century CE.

At any rate, you are right that it is not important.

For a person to claim a book from 'Allah', don't you think the world would like to know who that person is and his background?

No. Unlike sectarians, The God doesn't use the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".

Ok, lets assume that no one knows where and when Muhammad was born, then would you know where and when the Quran was revealed or do you think that is not important either?

It is not important.

Would you deny that Muhammad wasn't the one who revealed the Quran and the name is also descriptive?

From the great reading, we know that the name of the prophet was actually Ahmed. Roman writings describe the Arab conquests in Palestine as being led by a man called "mohamed" well into the middle of the 7th century CE. So from those writings, it seems that "mohamed" was more of a title that could have been assumed by his successor rather than the name of the prophet.

It is The God who reveals the great reading (7519) to everyone of us who is not blind.

Peace,

Ayman

[truth]

Peace Ayman,

What is/are the difference/s between 396 and 4824 in relations to 'bakka' and 'mecca' respectively when analyzing these verses?

There is no relation.

Bakka and mecca are mentioned once, I believe, in the entire Quran; and as per your understanding both of them are descriptive terms and not cities, am I correct?

And where was Muhammad born according to historical information?

Nobody knows where or when he was born. Either way, this doesn't matter because there is nothing in the great reading that says that its truth is dependent on somehow knowing those irrelevant things.

There's not a single passage on the entire NET that defines Muhammad to be born elsewhere other than Mecca and around 570 CE and I suppose you don't believe that, simply because its not mentioned in the Quran and besides its not important, right? For a person to claim a book from 'Allah', don't you think the world would like to know who that person is and his background? Ok, lets assume that no one knows where and when Muhammad was born, then would you know where and when the Quran was revealed or do you think that is not important either? Would you deny that Muhammad wasn't the one who revealed the Quran and the name is also descriptive?

Peace,

The difficulty in dating of historical people is not unique.

Dating of Zoroaster

Estimates for the lifetime of Zoroaster vary widely, depending upon the sources used. 1400 BC?1000 BC is cited by Mary Boyce in her A History of Zoroastrianism (1989), representing the current scholarly consensus. "before 458 BC" is cited by H.S. Nyberg in Die Religionen des Alten Iran (193. The Bundahi?n or Creation, an important text within the religion, cites the time of Zoroaster as 258 years before Alexander's conquest of Persia, i.e., 588 BC. This "Traditional Date of Zoroaster" was accepted by many 19th century scholars, among them Taghizadeh and W. B. Henning.
Other scholars have been arguing even later dates, now widely-rejected, Darmesteter reporting 100 BC. Persian mythological dates are very early indeed, reaching into what is today known as the Neolithic.

Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher of the ancient Indian subcontinent and the historical founder of Buddhism. He is universally recognised by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha of our age. The time of his birth and death are unclear, but most modern scholars have him living between approximately 563 BCE and 483 BCE.

There's nothing new in this. Just because the Arabs have thought up and then forced this story down the throats of the world doesn't mean any of it is cannonically true.

The dates of "Muhammad" are unknown and likely unknowable. They are unimportant and a distraction for those who wish to be distracted.

[ayman]

Peace IPM

There is no evidence for a town named Mecca before the 8th century.
The only reason people would believe in Mecca is because it is mentioned in the quran. Since 'mecca' in the quran is a common noun and not a Proper name of a city, we conclude that there was no town called Mecca during the time of the prophet and the sectarians later renamed a town (whether it had a shrine or not) after a common noun found in the quran. People fell for it and that's how Mecca became the center of Islam today.
The opposing argument to the above is
Although there is no evidence that Mecca did exist, there is no evidence that it did not exist. Even if it is not mentioned in any document, it still COULD have existed.
But they do agree that what the sectarians claim about Mecca is wrong. It's probably not mentioned in the quran and we aren't supposed to face it or anything like that.
But my question to the opposition is... why call a town "destruction?"
i know that when names of old cities are established, people don't think of the meaning of the name anymore, but people who establish the town do name it for a reason. New England was named New England by the puritans because they wanted to create a new England in the New World. There is always a reason for naming towns. Even the town Nameless, Tennessee.
The only thing that was doubtful about Ayman's argument was that the non-existence of Mecca could not be PROVEN. But when we look at the MEANING of Mecca (along with the meaning of masjid, masjid al haraam, kaaba, etc), it becomes pretty clear that this was a conspiracy of some sort. After that, there is no reason to BELIEVE that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's life.

Thank you for your excellent summary. You are exactly right. There is no reason to believe that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's time no more than there is reason to believe that there were shrines called Al-Masjid Al-Haram or Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa or Kaaba. Those are all common nouns that were hijacked and given to things that sectarians built themselves long after the prophet's time.

I disagree about the need for a sort of conspiracy. I think that the natural law of supply and demand negates the need for a conspiracy. People demand shrines/idols to gather around and socialize (2925). Such shrines ranging from the cross to the stone cube and any such symbol is liked and demanded by superficial people because it brings them together. So when there is demand, this will create the supply. Similarly, when people demanded Hadiths, their number multiplied. When people later demanded Isnad (chains of transmission) for those Hadiths, perfect Isnads magically appeared. It is demand and supply. It is why as long as there are drug users there will be drug dealers. It is not a conspiracy.

Peace,

Ayman