How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)
-
Peace Danish,
ALL names, whether proper or common, have their significance and none are meaningless. That is just an outcry in disbelief to support the venerated and fantasized "holy book" of an imagined Allah who sent a winged angel named Gabrael to Muhammad in a secret cave in lonesome mode. I like Alladin and his majic lamp, Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, The Swarn Princess, Three Little Pigs, and many other such fantastic bedtime fairy tales to merry-make kids and even adult illiterates and ignorants, to shut them up and put them to sleep.
The fact that proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the reality of what is being named is indisputable. You are obviously ignorant of this simple logical fact. Maybe you think that every guy whose proper name is John is really a "Yahweh is gracious" (which is the meaning of John). I explained this before many times on this thread so ignorance cannot be your only issue but also slooooowness.
Maybe your mind would work faster if you focused on the subject instead of constantly losing your attention to go on your soap box and make your dogmatic missionary speeches.
If you can't get this simple fact about the difference between proper names and common nouns through your head then I doubt that you can get deeper concepts.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Danish,
The fact that proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the reality of what is being named is indisputable. You are obviously ignorant of this simple logical fact. Maybe you think that every guy whose proper name is John is really a "Yahweh is gracious" (which is the meaning of John). I explained this before many times on this thread so ignorance cannot be your only issue but also slooooowness.
Maybe your mind would work faster if you focused on the subject instead of constantly losing your attention to go on your soap box and make your dogmatic missionary speeches.
If you can't get this simple fact about the difference between proper names and common nouns through your head then I doubt that you can get deeper concepts.
Peace,
Ayman
Salaam Ayman,
What is your expert opinion of the following aya translated by Free-Minds from this site http//yaqb.org/
Free-Minds The camel and goat heavy with milk are amongst God's decrees. So whosoever makes Pilgrimage to the sanctuary, or is merely passing through, commits no error that he should partake of them. And whoever donates for goodness, then God is Appreciative, Knowledgeable.
Do you beleive that the above aya is correctly translated in your expert opinion and if it is not then how would you translate the above aya.
If you agree with the above translation, then a "yes" is sufficient. If you don't then just give your translation as you see fit in your expert opinion.
I am really not looking for a big discussion on how you translated the above aya. Just your expert translation of the above aya only. It is unnecessary for me, for you to explain me how you arrived at your translation of the above aya.
Thanks in advance.
Mohamed
-
The fact that proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the reality of what is being named is indisputable.
What about
- White House
- United States Constitution
- Statue of Liberty
- Human Rights ?
A proper name does not need to be meaningless.
What makes a name a proper name is that it names a specific person, place, thing or idea.
http//www.mcwdn.org/grammar/nouncomprop.html
http//people.emich.edu/tseely/N&NP.htmSometimes the same word can function as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special. For example "There can be many gods, but there is only one God."
http//www.answers.com/topic/nounPeace
-
Peace JM,
I think what you are saying is correct.
But the word 'kaaba' isn't the only example. There are several. And facing a cube and bowing down to it makes no sense within the message of the quran and using our own logic.Peace Aladdin (Yar!),
The House of People!
Made of dark rough stones laid in a very simple manner with white chalk filling the fissures, the Kaaba is an empty cube - nothing else. You cannot but shiver and wonder about what you see Here ... There is no one! There is nothing to view! An empty room (cube) is visible. Is that all?!! Is this the center of our faith, prayers, love, life and death?
Questions and doubts arise in your mind. Where am I? What is here? What you see is the antithesis of your visual imaginations of the Kaaba. You might have perceived it as an architectural beauty (like a palace) whose ceilings covered a spiritual silence. Another possible portrayal was that of a high tomb housing the grave of an important human being - a hero, genius, imam or prophet! No - instead it is an open square, an empty room. It reflects no architectural skill, beauty, art, inscription, nor quality; and no graves are found there. There is nothing and nobody there to whom you can direct your attention, feelings and memories.
You will realize that there is nothing and nobody there to disturb your thoughts and feelings about God. The Kaaba, which you want to fly over to come into contact with the "absolute" and "eternal", is the roof for your feelings. This is something you were unable to achieve in your world of fragmentation and relativity. You could only be philosophical, but now you can see the "absolute", the one who has no direction - Allah! He is every where.
How good it is to see the Kaaba empty! It reminds you that your presence is for the sake of performing Hajj. It is not your destination. Moreover, it is a guide to show the direction.
Kaaba is only a cornerstone, a sign to show the road.
Having decided to move toward eternity, you begin the Hajj. It is an eternal movement toward Allah not toward the Kaaba. The Kaaba is the beginning and not the end - when no more can be done. It is the place where Allah, Ibrahim, Mohammed and people will meet. You will be present there only if your mind is not preoccupied with self-centered thoughts. You must be one of the people! Everyone is dressed in special garments. Being Allah's chastity and family you are honored by him . He has more enthusiasm toward this family than any one else. However, the Kaaba, His property and His house is called the "house of people".
This article is contradicting itself.
Moreover, it does not explain any of what it's saying. Why is kaaba a guide? why does God have to have a house in the first place if it's only purpose is to be ignored? If hajj is a movement toward Allah, then why spend all that money, risk your dear life and the lives of loved ones, and travel all the way to Mecca?
How is the kaaba the beginning and not the end?
All this fake philosophizing does nothing to support the cube.
On the other hand, I can post a few verses that completely contradict the idea of a sacred shrine that God wants us to pray toward. -
Peace JM,
- White House
It is a meaningless label. My neighbour has a house that is whiter than the white house. Does this mean that his house is the real White House? If the White House was painted orange for Halloween, it can still be referred to as the White House. Why? Because it is a meaningless label.
- United States Constitution
The word constitution is NOT a proper name. If it were a proper name like in say Constitution Avenue, then it would be meaningless. When you drive down Constitution Avenue you don't really drive on the constitution.
- Statue of Liberty
Meaningless. When I visited the Statue of Liberty, I didn't really find liberty inside. I am also certain that if the Statue of Liberty was shipped to Iraq, its people wouldn't suddenly be really liberated.
- Human Rights ?
The term human rights is not a proper name. If it was to be used as a proper name then I am sure that there are some dictators who have established a department of Human Rights in their government while they actually supress rights.
A proper name does not need to be meaningless.
Any meaning is brought about by looking at its common meaning, i.e., transforming it into a common noun. Otherwise, it remains a meaningless label.
People, this is all indisputable. For some people to be still stuck and not be able to understand this most basic of notions about the difference between common nouns and proper names is inexcusable. Com'on people let's progress here.
JM, to be arguing that names like the Statue of Liberty REALLY has anything to do with bringing liberty shows that if in this day and age supposedly educated people are so easily tricked by proper names then it is no wonder that 8th century people were so easily tricked without the need for a large scale conspiracy.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hello Ayman,
Your persistence to claim that proper nouns/names are meaningless, outwardly defies its very existence in which any name of any kind is brought about by its host. Language, by virtue of thought, plays a key role in expressing and defining a subject by a word or combination of words and thus, may differ in meanings of the same word within the same language and as well as in other language usage, be it proper or common. A proper name can also be dignified by choosing a specific meaning from the several meanings of any given word from its language standpoint. Proper names are also chosen and identified to give a ?sense? and ?reference? to any thing so as to distinguish from the rest and/or from the same order of commonality. Most words can be traced out to as far back as humanly possible and some can never be known. The etymology and lexicography of a proper name (including common nouns) in one language can also be found originated from other language/s or combination of languages and can take a drastic orientation in spelling, pronunciation, understanding and eventually its meaning. If everything was based on common names in its strict designations, it would be impossible to communicate and one hell to live.
At this moment, I?d like to ask you if Allah is a proper name?
-
In the quran both common names and proper names are used. While in English proper names are differentiated from common names using capital letters, in Arabic there is no such mechanism. The Arabic word that denotes "proper name" is "ism" (plural "asma'a".
peace Ayman,
so is kaaba denoted with an "ism" or not? -
Quote from Danish on October 18, 2006, 052625 AM
At this moment, I?d like to ask you if Allah is a proper name?It is not. This is why I translate it. On the other hand, proper names are not translated because they are meaningless.
Okay, according to you, Allah is not a proper name. Translating or interpreting a word or combination of words, be it common or proper, can be very tricky and can mislead if not understood from its original conception or conveyance. What does Allah precisely translate into English and are there other connotations?
Phoenix1, in his previous post, made a good point towards one of your statements in your article "What's in the name". Can you briefly touch on that quote please? And while you are at it, can you mention a few proper names in the Quran as you stated and whether any of the proper names in the Quran are meaningless? Thanks.
-
As for the "call him Allah or not"
17110
So call Him Allah, call Him Rahman, call Him Raheem, whatever it is, as long as its the most beautiful names.
hope this helps aleviate the "call him Allah or not" peice.
Wa Salam.
-
Peace Phoenix,
so is kaaba denoted with an "ism" or not?
The Arabic word "ism" simply means "noun/name". Therefore this can be a common noun or a proper name. So, for example, in Arabic grammar we hear of "jumla ismiya", which means a noun sentence (one without a verb). We also hear about "asmaa" being "the attributes" of The God not His "proper names".
The article "What's in The Name?" has been written a few years back so it needs to be revised. I was in the process of revising the article when, with The God's help, I reached a new better understanding on a key concept. So instead of this process taking a few days as I originally anticipated, it is now taking a few weeks. In addition to revising the article, I am currently in the process of writing a new article to elaborate on this new understanding. The process is taking longer than expected because I have been very busy at home and especially at work as The God has provided me from His favor. Unless The God wills otherwise I hope to be done with revising What's in The Name and the new article in the near future.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Danish,
What does Allah precisely translate into English and are there other connotations?
"the god"
This has many implications for you. It is not Allah (a meaningless proper name) of Muslims (another meaningless proper name) that you are opposing. You have chosen to oppose and be hateful at the god. I hope that you can see the difference and seek peacefulness at Him.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
Quote from Danish on Today at 092408 AM
What does Allah precisely translate into English and are there other connotations?"the god"
This has many implications for you. It is not Allah (a meaningless proper name) of Muslims (another meaningless proper name) that you are opposing. You have chosen to oppose and be hateful at the god. I hope that you can see the difference and seek peacefulness at Him.
Allah means The God (emphasized) and differentiates from al-ilah which means ?the god? (singular male form) in contrast to al-lat (singular female form) and alihatun meaning ?the gods? (plurality). When you capitalize ?the? and ?god? to become The God, then the ?The? signifies a rank in high esteem from the rest of ?the gods?. This then tells us there are/were many gods from which one god stands out, thus becoming The God. Pagan history tells us that were many idols representing gods that were worshipped in various cults, each having a supreme one or highest in ranking among other gods to become The God.
Each god (male or female) were then given a proper name and attributes respectively and as imagined. In the Quran, the statement, ?Bism Allah Arahman Arahim? reads as ?In the name of The God, most merciful, most gracious?. Here, the question then follows, that what was the name of that one particular god who is most merciful and most gracious among all other merciful and gracious gods who became The God. Once again, historical facts tell us that the name of The God was Hubal, who was raised to stand on top of the roof of Kaba (the cuboid structure) to attain the throne. The names of all such stone idols along with their attributes are given in the links I had provided earlier.
Looking from another angle, Arahman and Arahim could possibly be the names of gods themselves. Ahriman, which comes closest to the name Arahman, was the name of an evil idol deity countering Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda was also known as Aramazd, the exalted, which comes closest to the name Arahman. We know that the Judaism, Christianism and Islamism, in part if not wholly, are descendents of Zoroastrianism.
Are all names in the Quran, such as Muhammad, Essa, Dawood, Jabrael, Abu Lahab and so forth, common names and that these named individuals never existed?
-
Peace Danish,
Allah means The God (emphasized) and differentiates from al-ilah which means ?the god? (singular male form)
Both "allah" and "al-ilah" mean the same thing, "the god". In fact, the term "allah" is used in the great reading in passages such as 63, "and he is the god (allah) in the heavens and the earth..." where the meaning intended is "al-ilah".
in contrast to al-lat (singular female form)
The female form is "al-ilahat" not Al-Lat. In Chapter 53 we can see that the "T" at the end of the Al-Lat is an archaic form of the feminine taken from Nabataean. So this is the Nabataean name adopted without translation into Arabic. The same thing goes for Al-Uzza and Manat. Notice that similar archaism from Nabataean can be seen in the case of Manat with the medial "W". So unlike "allah" all those are names that were taken untranslated from Nabataean into Arabic.
and alihatun meaning ?the gods? (plurality).
Yes. Notice that the three letters of the Arabic root (A, L, H) are present in the Arabic singular (allah/al-ilah, al-ilahat, al-alihat) but not in the foreign Nabataean proper name Allat, which as a proper name was not translated.
When you capitalize ?the? and ?god? to become The God, then the ?The? signifies a rank in high esteem from the rest of ?the gods?.
There is no capitalization in Arabic. In English, I capitalize out of respect not because it is a proper name. It is the same reason why I capitalize "He" when I refer in the third person to The God. It is not because "He" is a proper name but it is because I do it out of respect. I am just as comfortable writing "the god" as I write "The God". It is a common noun. Had it been a proper name then like Allat was not translated from Nabataean to Arabic, I wouldn't have translated it from Arabic to English and kept it as Allah.
This then tells us there are/were many gods from which one god stands out, thus becoming The God. Pagan history tells us that were many idols representing gods that were worshipped in various cults, each having a supreme one or highest in ranking among other gods to become The God.
As I explained above, this only tells us that you don't know that there is no capitalization in Arabic. As for the definite article it does add special emphasis. This is why we hear in the great reading "there is no god except the god". It is to negate exactly the kind of argument that you are making.
Each god (male or female) were then given a proper name and attributes respectively and as imagined. In the Quran, the statement, ?Bism Allah Arahman Arahim? reads as ?In the name of The God, most merciful, most gracious?. Here, the question then follows, that what was the name of that one particular god who is most merciful and most gracious among all other merciful and gracious gods who became The God.
There is no proper name "given" to the god. A proper name is by definition a "given" name. The god, the truth doesn't need to be given a name by people as he doesn't need a proper name. The god is not an Arab who needs an Arabic name.
Once again, historical facts tell us that the name of The God was Hubal, who was raised to stand on top of the roof of Kaba (the cuboid structure) to attain the throne. The names of all such stone idols along with their attributes are given in the links I had provided earlier.
These are typical atheist Sunni arguments that rely completely on Sunni mythology. There is no evidence in any of the stone blocks in Arabia of an idol of Hubal on top of any of them. In all those instances, the stone block itself was the idol.
Looking from another angle, Arahman and Arahim could possibly be the names of gods themselves. Ahriman, which comes closest to the name Arahman, was the name of an evil idol deity countering Ahura Mazda in Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda was also known as Aramazd, the exalted, which comes closest to the name Arahman. We know that the Judaism, Christianism and Islamism, in part if not wholly, are descendents of Zoroastrianism.
This is false and this can be seen in your confusion about Zoroastrian mythology and hanging at straws. We can see on several South Arabian Abraha inscriptions the description "rahmanan" referring to the god. Abraha was an Abassynian Christian and Abassynians were the enemies of the Persians. Moreover, by blindly copying and pasting from those links you are exposing your ignorance and lack of critical thinking. Had you thought objectively about the word "al-rahman", you would have seen that in fact the word of interest is "rahman" because you need to take away the definite article, which doesn't factor in the etymology. So Aramazd and "rahman" are completely different words that are not even close. Also, their meaning is entirely different since "rahman" doesn't mean "exalted".
Are all names in the Quran, such as Muhammad, Essa, Dawood, Jabrael, Abu Lahab and so forth, common names and that these named individuals never existed?
It is easy.
The words "quran/reading" and "muhamed/one who praises", "abu lahab/one with the flame" are common nouns.
On the other hand, words that are untranslated from the other foreign languages that they originally came from into Arabic such as Essa, Dawood, Jabrael, Adam, Ibrahim are proper names.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Ayman,
I have two questions for you based on your last reply
Firstly, in 4829 "muhammed" could be translated as "one who praises" as the meaning fits but how would you translate 3340 and 472 keeping "muhammed" as the common name ? According to context of those verses and the overall meaning it can only be a proper name in those verses. For the benefit of all the readers I will quote the free-minds translation of all the three verses
4829 Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves..............
Here I agree with you that "mohammed" can be translated as "one who praises" also, so the meaning would be "the messenger of the god is one who praises..........."
3340 Mohammed was not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
472 And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Mohammed, for it is the truth from their Lord, He cancels for them their sins, and relieves their concern.In these two verses, according to the full meaning and the context "muhammed" can obviously only mean the name of the prophet and not "one who praises".
Secondly, in 616 is "ahmed" common name or proper name ?
616 And when Jesus, son of Mary, said "O children of Israel, I am God's messenger to you, authenticating what is present with me of the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be "ahmed"." But when he showed them the clear proofs, they said "This is clearly magic."
Looking forward to your reply,
Peace,
Asad
-
Peace brother Asad,
Thank you for you excellent questions.
Firstly, in 4829 "muhammed" could be translated as "one who praises" as the meaning fits but how would you translate 3340 and 472 keeping "muhammed" as the common name ? According to context of those verses and the overall meaning it can only be a proper name in those verses. For the benefit of all the readers I will quote the free-minds translation of all the three verses
4829 Mohammed is the messenger of God, and those who are with him are severe against the rejecters, but merciful between themselves..............
Here I agree with you that "mohammed" can be translated as "one who praises" also, so the meaning would be "the messenger of the god is one who praises..........."
3340 Mohammed was not the father of any man among you, but he is the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
I don't think that 3340 is an issue. It can be rendered as follows
3340 One who praises was not the father of any man among you, but the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets (is). And God is fully aware of all things.
3340 The father of any man among you was not one who praises, but the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
472 And those who believe and do good works, and believe in what was sent down to Mohammed, for it is the truth from their Lord, He cancels for them their sins, and relieves their concern.
In these two verses, according to the full meaning and the context "muhammed" can obviously only mean the name of the prophet and not "one who praises".
Now you are right that in 472 it seems like it is a proper name. This is because of the absence of the definite article, i.e., it should have been "...and believe in what was sent down to the one who praises." So because of the absence of "the/al" in 472 and unless we are translating it wrongly, the word could very well be a proper name and I am perfectly OK with that. The criteria for proper name are as follows
- It is an untranslated foreign name that doesn't fit in the context.
- It is an Arabic word that doesn't fit in the context.
Secondly, in 616 is "ahmed" common name or proper name ?
616 And when Jesus, son of Mary, said "O children of Israel, I am God's messenger to you, authenticating what is present with me of the Torah and bringing good news of a messenger to come after me whose name will be "ahmed"." But when he showed them the clear proofs, they said "This is clearly magic."
I am not sure if it is a proper name or a common noun. What was the language of Jesus? If it was Aramaic and there is a proper name Ahmed in Aramaic then it could be a proper name. Otherwise, it would be a common noun for certainly Jesus would not have told them a name that would have sounded as gibberish to them as "bla bla bla".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace brother Ayman,
Thank you for the reply.
I don't think that 3340 is an issue. It can be rendered as follows
3340 One who praises was not the father of any man among you, but the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets (is). And God is fully aware of all things.
3340 The father of any man among you was not one who praises, but the messenger of God and the seal of the prophets. And God is fully aware of all things.
I think in 3340, similar to 472, "muhammed" can be a common noun only if the article "the/al" was present making it "THE one who praises was not the father of any man among you, but........."; otherwise it would mean that
a. ANY/EVERY person who praises is the messenger of God and the seal of prophets !
b. ANY/EVERY person who praises cannot have sons !The second rendering would be logically inaccurate, as then it would mean that
a. No one with sons could be one who praises !
b. ANY/EVERY father of ANY/EVERY man is messenger of God and seal of prophets !Now you are right that in 472 it seems like it is a proper name. This is because of the absence of the definite article, i.e., it should have been "...and believe in what was sent down to the one who praises." So because of the absence of "the/al" in 472 and unless we are translating it wrongly, the word could very well be a proper name and I am perfectly OK with that.
Agreed !
I am not sure if it is a proper name or a common noun. What was the language of Jesus? If it was Aramaic and there is a proper name Ahmed in Aramaic then it could be a proper name. Otherwise, it would be a common noun for certainly Jesus would not have told them a name that would have sounded as gibberish to them as "bla bla bla".
I am not familiar with the Aramaic language. Do you or anyone else on this forum happen to know or can do research if there is a proper name Ahmed in Aramaic ?
Actually, there does not have to be a proper name "Ahmed" in Aramaic for it to be a proper name. A proper name is a proper name in any language even if it sounds gibberish to the speaker. For example, Asad would be a proper name in the Chinese language when used by a Chinese person in a sentence talking about the person named Asad, even if "Asad" sounds gibberish to the Chinese and even if there is no proper name "Asad" in Chinese !
Regards and Peace,
Asad
-
Peace brother Asad,
I think in 3340, similar to 472, "muhammed" can be a common noun only if the article "the/al" was present making it "THE one who praises was not the father of any man among you, but........."; otherwise it would mean that
a. ANY/EVERY person who praises is the messenger of God and the seal of prophets !
b. ANY/EVERY person who praises cannot have sons !The second rendering would be logically inaccurate, as then it would mean that
a. No one with sons could be one who praises !
b. ANY/EVERY father of ANY/EVERY man is messenger of God and seal of prophets !Keeping in mind that the passage addresses the people of the prophet and is in the past tense, the above doesn't present the kind of difficulties that generalization would imply. Many passages in the great reading such as 2170, 5104, etc. condemn the "fathers". I am sure that this doesn't mean that all fathers are bad!
Also, as a proper name, this would mean that the prophet cannot have sons, which is the same logic as your 1(b) and 2(a) above.
I agree with you that it is most likely to be a proper name based on 472, unless we are translating the word wrongly.
I am not familiar with the Aramaic language. Do you or anyone else on this forum happen to know or can do research if there is a proper name Ahmed in Aramaic?
I am not familiar with the Aramaic language either. There are also several variations of the Aramaic language (such as Syriac and Nabataean Aramaic). I am not sure what language Jesus spoke but if it were Aramaic, then it must have been whatever form of Aramaic was prevelant at his time and place (another two variables that are not exactly known).
Actually, there does not have to be a proper name "Ahmed" in Aramaic for it to be a proper name. A proper name is a proper name in any language even if it sounds gibberish to the speaker. For example, Asad would be a proper name in the Chinese language when used by a Chinese person in a sentence talking about the person named Asad, even if "Asad" sounds gibberish to the Chinese and even if there is no proper name "Asad" in Chinese !
If I tell you now that in the future someone named Xyhgy will be a messenger, this will not mean anything to you. If this became a name 600 years from now in some future language and indeed someone by that name became a messenger then it would become meaningful to the people of the future but not to you.
From the passage we can see that Jesus gave this info to his followers. If this info was actually transmitted to future generations then we would have seen an explosion in babies who are named Ahmed after the time of Jesus in the hope that one of those would be the prophet. Since we don't observe such phenomenon, then this info was not propagated to the later generations, which are the people who this might have been meaningful to.
So there are two possibilities
- It is a common noun.
- It is a proper name that Jesus gave to his followers but was completely forgotten and thus served no purpose.
At this stage I don't know which it is and it can go either way.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace,
Ayman. I read over your article and I find it very logical. Naturally I am a skeptic only because there are alot of different situations that could have happened so that the North Arabic script would have been used in Central Arabia. I still believe that Mecca is Macaroba. That makes sense to me. I don't agree fully with the nasaara just being nestorians. I think they are all christians but the name may have orignally been for nestorians and evolved to mean all Christians (followers of Christ) because generalization by the old Arabs.
I also think your map is too high as the Arabs were not in those northern territories but on the southern edges of asham.
I like the analysis about the middle persian loan words which would have indicated an Arabic closer to persian territories, as well as the choice of early script which would have indicated an area dominated by Aramaic influence. I agree with your conclusions. However, I have trouble agreeing with the impossibility of Mecca being the "birthplace" of the Quran and Muhammad (God bless him). But I respect your conclusions.
My objections (though I don't oppose you) are
- Macaroba still sticks out to me as being able to be Mecca
- I don't see a need to find an alternative origin of the Quran as it does not help in the universalist approach to the Quran.
3.Early scripts may lie but you may also not know about some movement of people or influence that would have made this Aramaic influence possible even in the middle of Arabia. - I'm sure you are right about the paganistic rituals of the pilgrimage. You have known me to agree that the pilgrimage does not have to be done there.
- I believe in the multiplicity of meanings, so to me Makkat can mean Mecca and destruction, etc. etc. So it does not take away from the univeralism of the Quran that this and other words refer to places as they have meanings that can apply to these places and a message that transcends the place.
To me there were active minds and hands involved in the early days of the Muslim Arab empires that tried to make Muhammad (God bless him) the center of the Quranic religion, that tried to make Mecca the religion capital of the Quranic religion, and that tried to purify the image of the Arabs by denying the idol worship that continued there, creating an extreme contrast between pre-Quranic Arabs and post-Quranic Arabs and that even strove to eradicate non-Muslims from the Arabian peninsula.
Let me say that the Persian also invaded the south of Arabia, Yemen and the Himyarites, which would have contributed linguistically, that is why southern Arabs are not completely black. It is because of the mixing with Persians. Secondly, south Arabia had a strong Jewish and Christian influence which could have introduced this Jewish/Christian script from the south creating a rival script to the old Ethiopic script introduced long before by the old Ethiopian empires in the south of Arabia.
Just some thoughts. But I appreciate your work it is well though out.
Godbless,
Anwar