How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

progod

Peace Anwar,

progod wrote
You shouldn't look at it like that. Even in English, in the modern and ancient mind any place deserving of respect is holy. People still use the word holy in this sense even in English when they want to give emphasis to the importance of something. They say that it is holy. Some people would say dancing is holy, others business, others 'the family' but what they mean is that that thing should be highly respected, and that is what ih-tiraam means. Through the course of time and through certain perceptions Arabic has come to use it in a negative sense, but it has the sense of respect and reservation more than it has the sense of negative prohibition or 'mana&a' (I think it is because the Quran used haraam with pig's meat and then said it is a rijz or abomination.'

But in the great reading it is always used in the negative sense of restriction. Also, people make all sorts of things holy, holy cow, holy this, holy that. This is not reality.

But it is real and you can use the word in that sense. Holy cow is a baqarah haraam, your wife is your haram or hurmah. I would start saying how the Quran uses its words. We are examining the Quran through language we can't assume what the Quran means when it uses its words without consulting sources for the language that the Quran is in. If you want to talk about some general attitude that the Quran has with words that it uses I will not participate in that conversation.

Submission is an obligation/"deen" for all humans, not a religion.

Submission to what? Deen has alot of meanings and religion is one of them. If Submission is a deen, then it can also be a religion. I don't know what your idea of religion is but a religion is also a way of life, and entails beliefs and actions that are in accordance with those beliefs.

progod wrote
Then why is the pilgrimage for only a small group when everything that the Quran promotes is for all people?

It is not. I have been saying that it is for all people. You are the one who wants to restrict it to the "believers".

The Quran is for all people to follow also. So with that said so is everthing that the Quran says. So if the Quran says that there is a pilgrimage how can you say that I'm restricting it only to believers when I'm only restricting it to all of those who are to follow the Quran I am only restricting to all of mankind. Markets, whose basis is capitalism is not the pilgrimage and I really don't see why that would be the basis of why humanity should (not does) come together for a higher cause. Markets, and money are important but so is organization, and organization means more than money and trade, any day.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

But it is real and you can use the word in that sense. Holy cow is a baqarah haraam

So when The God says that the pig is made "haraam" for us, this means that the pig is made holy for us!

Actually, our wives are the ONLY women who are not "haram" for us.

In fact, even in modern coloquial Arabics, the term "hurmah" still means a woman who is restricted.

You see the term can mean "respect" but it is a "restrict" kind of respect. It is a "keep your hands to yourself" or "control yourself" kind of respect NOT adore/revere/venerate kind of respect.

I would start saying how the Quran uses its words. We are examining the Quran through language we can't assume what the Quran means when it uses its words without consulting sources for the language that the Quran is in.

There is no source saying that "7aram" is a synonym of "qudoos" (which as far as I know is the closest Arabic word to the meaning of "holy").

If you want to talk about some general attitude that the Quran has with words that it uses I will not participate in that conversation.

It is the attitude of the Arabic language in general for the word "7aram". Even modern colloquials continued with that attitude.

Submission is an obligation/"deen" for all humans, not a religion.

Submission to what?

There can only be submission to The ONE. You can't submit to anything else EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO.

EVERYTHING submits to HIM alone, willingly or UNWILLINGLY.

So there is no need to specify to whom.

If I tell you "submit!" without specifying to whom, then the only way you can always obey this order correctly is by submitting to the Lord of the worlds.

Deen has alot of meanings and religion is one of them.

No, this is a post-quranic meaning not a pre-quranic one. Pre-quranic "religions" such as Nasara and Yahood are never described as "deen". They are described as "millat".

If Submission is a deen, then it can also be a religion. I don't know what your idea of religion is but a religion is also a way of life, and entails beliefs and actions that are in accordance with those beliefs.

ALL religions are manmade EVEN Monotheism is manmade. Thus, it is called "millat Ibrahim (a man)". It is never called "millat Allah".

The Quran is for all people to follow also. So with that said so is everthing that the Quran says. So if the Quran says that there is a pilgrimage how can you say that I'm restricting it only to believers when I'm only restricting it to all of those who are to follow the Quran

But the debate/bargain was happening before the great reading descended. There is certainly nothing in the great reading itself that suggests that the debate/bargain is only for the its followers.

I am only restricting to all of mankind. Markets, whose basis is capitalism is not the pilgrimage and I really don't see why that would be the basis of why humanity should (not does) come together for a higher cause. Markets, and money are important but so is organization, and organization means more than money and trade, any day.

You are the one saying that capitalism is the basis and then refuting your own word. I didn't say capitalism or communism or any-ism. Markets existed before capitalism and even before money itself. A safe free market is the only way to invite ALL people to witness benefits. If that safe free market happens at a place where no partners are set with The God then people who come will also be reminded of The God.

Peace,

Ayman

Edip_Yuksel

I will post my response as a new chain.

ayman

Peace Edip,

I will post my response as a new chain.

After reading your response, I can see why you want to do that.

Brother Ayman in his recent article, "How Did it Come to This? (I)" uses several maps and pictures, speculations over speculations to justify a miraculously perfect major conspiracy. (Taken from http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5178 )

It is good to hear from you too Edip ).

I would greatly appreciate it if you quote for us the part where I used the word "conspiracy" in the article.

Edip is the one mentioning a "conspiracy" and then refuting his own straw man.

One does not need to come up with a new history and map in order to notice and condemn the idol worship practiced by Sunni and Shiite masses. To sweeten his speculative conspiracy theories, Ayman cleverly uses some of the sad truth about those who claim to be muslims.

So tell us the "sad truth". The "sad truth" is that you are likely to find most Code 19 promoters (including their "messenger") side by side with "those who claim to be muslims" fantasizing to be facing a black stone cube, spinning seven times around it, waving at the Black Stone when they can't kiss it, and perhaps even kissing it if they get a chance by stampeding over old ladies. The "sad truth" is that this is empirical proof that Code 19 is completely useless and doesn't guide anyone.

Though I enjoyed his speculations on the origin of some rituals during pilgrimage, such as his likening the black stone to vulva, I found his main reasoning and inferences to be weak and mostly ridiculous.

Please quote a specific passage from the article where the "main reasoning and inferences are weak and mostly ridiculous".

His basic premise that we have the "orthographic evidence" of the original text of the Quran is flatly wrong, since the original manuscripts were burned and destroyed during the Umayyad dynasty.

Please quote where the article says that the basic premise is that "we have the orthographic evidence of the original text of the Quran".

In addition to speculations on calligraphy of the Quran, Ayman employs a few false reasoning, such as that the pagan rituals prevalent in modern practice of Hajj in Mecca must have come from somewhere else. He hopes us that we will dislike the number seven because a pagan tribe reportedly had considered it a holy number in their rituals.

Edip, unlike you I don't like or dislike any particular number. I don't like or dislike the number 3 because Trinitarians idolize a trinity no more than I like or dislike the number 19 because Code 19ers are obsessed with it nor 7 because sectarians spin seven times around their idol.

He roams the vast universe of pagan rituals to find connections. For instance he goes north, way up to Germany to find fault with the Friday prayers; he successfully turns them to Frigedaegs! (Though he is right regarding the meaning of the word yawm ul-juma, which means the "the day of assembly").

So why can't you see that "the day of assembly" can be ANY day/time when people are assembled and not just Friday? Why your particular attachment to Friday?

I have no doubt that with his clever scholarly style, dexterity to speculate, appetite to come up with bizarre claims and mixing them with some truth like mixing eggs with apricot jelly for sunny side up, yes with all these gifts, if brother Ayman wished so, he could have doomed all the days of our week. Monday comes from Moonday of that pagan tribe worshipping the Moon! Fine, so what? What is the connection? After all, he has under his disposal all the mythologies in the world, and he feels no problem in connecting unrelated dots.

If you take any particular day of the week and make it a special religious "holy" day then you are implicitly following a pagan religion since the present week is pagan in origin. I am fine with Friday or any day as long as people do not take it as a "holy" day. There are no "holy" days no more than there are "holy" shrines or "holy" numbers.

He seriously expects us to trade Mecca with the dubious small towns of Lakhmid provinces, ironically because Mecca, according to his imagination, does not befit the title "ummul qura," that is the capital city of the region.

Several of the towns in southwest Mesopotamia/north Arabia were famous and well known as major trading towns long before the 8th century CE when people first heard of Mecca. Thus, they are more likely candidates for the cosmopolitan, multi-faith town where the prophet originally lived. In fact, this general area of Mesopotamia is described as the cradle of civilization by everyone in the world.

He wants us to believe that the word Mecca in the Quran just coincidentally sounds like the name of the city of Mecca in the south of today's Medina!

No, the common noun "mecca" (destruction) was taken from the great reading to give the place legitimacy. It is NOT a coincidence that the common noun fits perfectly in 4824.

With his false assumptions, unsubstantiated claims, confused facts, baby heads in vaginas, journey to Germany, Fried eggs, and great coincidences, brother Ayman tries too hard to peddle a miraculous conspiracy in human history. A conspiracy in such a magnitude that did not even left a trace of any objection or confusion when it was first conjured. If the conspiracy was related to abstract ideas or easily changeable cultural affairs, then we could have accepted.

ALL the people of the previous books object to Mecca and haven't heard of it prior to the 8th century CE. Late 7th - 8th century CE congregational sites that had an apse facing a certain direction were not facing present day Mecca. In writings from the time, Christians describing the direction where Muslims prayed said that they were facing West from Hira. This is 90 degrees away from Mecca. There were indeed many civil wars and, in fact, even according to the sectarians, the Kaaba was completely destroyed during those wars. Unfortunately, history is only heard from the point of view of the victorious.

However, the conspiracy is about one of the great events in history of mankind. His conspiracy totally eliminates a city, not any city, but a capital city supposedly located in the north, a city that became the cradle of one of the biggest modern civilizations, and replaces that city with an insignificant city in the south!

The fact is that even according to sectarian history, the cradle of the Islamic kingdom was NEVER Mecca. It was always in the north. The writings of the Romans and the Persians talk about the cradle of the early Arab Kingdom being Hira.

Like magicians who work with rabbits, our conspirators somehow vaporized a prominent city and replaced it with a fake one. Furthermore, the conspirators hushed all the dissent and eliminated all the traces of those who should or could have been normally fighting against the hijacking of the honor of their city! A perfect crime involving two cities, and millions of people.

Any particular "city" being religiously important is only for the pagans and those who want a place to idolize. I don't see you taking up arms and fighting against the making of the Vatican a holy city or against any of the "holy" shrines that pop up allover the world and in Turkey in honor of saints.

Ayman does not answer the following simple yet crucial questions in relation to his conspiarcy theory
WHEN did it occur?
WHO led the conspiracy?
HOW did it become so successful?
WHY was it done?
WHY there is no smoke?

Your questions are meaningless because I didn't propose a conspiracy theory. The natural law of supply and demand negates the need for a conspiracy. As long as there is demand by people for "holy" shrines, then there will be a supply of shrines for people to venerate. The majority of people make some kind of place "holy", if those who do not serve anyone other than The God kill all those people then there would hardly be anyone left in the world. )

If you rephrase your questions to address what I am actually proposing in the article instead of your imagined conspiracy, then I can answer.

Now, with an article imitating the language of scholarly work, he wishes to reverse that conspiracy. The sad part is, he does neither have a hat nor a rabbit! For his conspiracy theory about Mecca, I nominate Ayman for Ignoble prize. He really deserves the "most imaginative" award.

I would gladly accept the award and change the article when it is logically proved that I am wrong. You can help me by logically shredding the actual article to pieces NOT by building a convenient straw man and shredding it.

To make sure that you don't waste more of everyone's time in building another straw man, please quote a specific part of the article and ask questions about it or demonstrate that it is wrong. This is why I am posting this response on the article's thread.

Peace on who followed the guidance,

Ayman

progod

You see the term can mean "respect" but it is a "restrict" kind of respect. It is a "keep your hands to yourself" or "control yourself" kind of respect NOT adore/revere/venerate kind of respect.

I agree with this.

There can only be submission to The ONE. You can't submit to anything else EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO.

EVERYTHING submits to HIM alone, willingly or UNWILLINGLY.

So there is no need to specify to whom.

If I tell you "submit!" without specifying to whom, then the only way you can always obey this order correctly is by submitting to the Lord of the worlds.

If I followed your advice I would fall into some serious moral corruption. Because I can submit to whatever and I will be submitting to God. If I am submissive to my mom, I am submissive to God, even if she tells me to worship a statue instead of God. If I submit to my lower desires and commit infidelity to my wife or commit fornication I am still submissive to God. Your logic comes at a very time for me too. I hope I don't take what you say as my logic in anything I do in the future.

No, this is a post-quranic meaning not a pre-quranic one. Pre-quranic "religions" such as Nasara and Yahood are never described as "deen". They are described as "millat".

I agree that millat is more specific and appropriate to the word religion in
Classical Arabic. You are right in that sense. Deen is more encompassing and includes "philosophies, rule of laws, and ways of life' And millat can fall under that and even encompass that if the religion has a set of philosophies, a rule of law and a preconcieved concept of a way of life.' So deen can mean religion but for religions that are not as complex the sense of deen is bigger than that millat. You get me? Because of the complexity of Islam it grew to be understood as a 'deen' and the complexity of the large religions now also. And millat adds the personal particularities and aspects within a complex system which is why it is known more as denomination now. But this modern evolution could owe itself to influences of similar lanuages like the Aramaic dialects, who affected Arabic first.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

There can only be submission to The ONE. You can't submit to anything else EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO.
EVERYTHING submits to HIM alone, willingly or UNWILLINGLY.
So there is no need to specify to whom.
If I tell you "submit!" without specifying to whom, then the only way you can always obey this order correctly is by submitting to the Lord of the worlds.

If I followed your advice I would fall into some serious moral corruption. Because I can submit to whatever and I will be submitting to God. If I am submissive to my mom, I am submissive to God, even if she tells me to worship a statue instead of God. If I submit to my lower desires and commit infidelity to my wife or commit fornication I am still submissive to God. Your logic comes at a very time for me too. I hope I don't take what you say as my logic in anything I do in the future.

Well, we can submit willingly now or eventually (in the hereafter) we will submit unwillingly. If a mother tells her son to have trust in The God and he submits to that, then that is in reality willing submission to The God. When one let rebellious fantasies have power over him then he will in reality submit unwillingly to The God. In your example, if he doesn't repent and submit willingly then he will go to hell for eternity in the hereafter and submit unwillingly. Either way, he will submit. So the only difference is that we need to submit willingly for our own good.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

Ayman,

You have not responded to my post here
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=74655#74655

Are you fed up with me ?

Peace

ayman

Peace JM,

You have not responded to my post here
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=74655#74655

Are you fed up with me ?

I am not fed up with you

You asked me to deal with the refutations of Asim and Denis on SRI and I still haven't had a chance to. Asim and Dennis are not high on my priority list right now. So this has delayed my response to you.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

There can only be submission to The ONE. You can't submit to anything else EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO.

This is what I was responding to Ayman, that is very different then what you said later

Well, we can submit willingly now or eventually (in the hereafter) we will submit unwillingly. . . So the only difference is that we need to submit willingly for our own good.

Are you admiting that the first thing that you said is not what you meant? Or will you stick to this seeming contradiction?

Godbless,
Anwar

unknownuser

Salaamun alaikum brothers Layth and Ayman,

I have a question for both of you.

1437 "Our Lord, I have resided part of my progeny in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Lord, so that they may uphold the contact-method. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks."

According to this sign the valley near bayt al-haram is uncultivated. According to the Qur'aanic and archeological and physical evidence, the bayt-alharam mentioned in the great reading is not in Makkah but in Bakkah which has been proposed to be in Jerusalem. The valley of Bakkah in Jerusalem, is it cultivated or is it uncultivated ?

It appears from the pictures that the proposed valley of Bakkah near the Dome of the Rock is cultivated. Maybe it was not cultivated back then ??

Regards,

Tanveer

unknownuser

Peace,

I have a question for both of you.

1437 "Our Lord, I have resided part of my progeny in an uncultivated valley near your Restricted Sanctuary. My Lord, so that they may uphold the contact-method. So let the hearts of the people incline towards them and give provisions to them of the fruits that they may give thanks."

I have another question to ask pertaining to the above verse (and several similar ones) and that is Are the above GOD's Words and if so, is GOD revealing (a revelation) the above verse to Muhammad in reverse speech?

progod

This is the story of Abraham and his children who have passed away. We are to take his example in setting up holy houses of God where we dwell and inviting the people to make pilgrimages to them. It would be to our benefit if we could also organize these houses of God, like the Masons organize their lodges and visit each one whenever they can, ensuring their Unity. Abraham's story is not telling us to go find the house that he built and visit it but to build houses of God on our own and visit it, to get to known and recognize each other (arafaat), to award each other (qalaaid) and in essence to worship and follow God's instructions (has he would guide us) even in the houses of God. These houses are definitely a place for the unity of His Ummah and the places where we can fulfill this passage

"God's loyalists! Why do you talk about things that you don't do? It is seriously hateful to God that you would talk about something and not be about it! God likes those who make an organized and determined effort in His way as if they were some sort of solidly cemented structure." 612-4

Godbless,
Anwar

wildguest1956

Peace JM,

You have not responded to my post here
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=74655#74655

Are you fed up with me ?

I am not fed up with you

You asked me to deal with the refutations of Asim and Denis on SRI and I still haven't had a chance to. Asim and Dennis are not high on my priority list right now. So this has delayed my response to you.

Peace,

Ayman

Peace Ayman,

Did your response to my post (Posted on February 07, 2006, 123629 PM) advance in your priority list ?

Thanks !

ayman

Peace JM,

I apologize for the late response and thanks for the reminder.

OK, thank you
How do you deal with the refutations of Denis Giron and Asimmehm here ?
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_thread/thread/783540f26de114a0/2a42085a49ad9a9a?lnk=raot#2a42085a49ad9a9a

You can see the responses that I posted on the thread above. So far, I haven't got a response back from Asim on my last reply. I have also found some additional information that I haven't posted yet.

Diodorus statements were actually taken out of context by Gibbons and Dr. Saifullah as well as Asim of course. There are other writings from Diodorus and others from that era such as Nonnosus, Photius and Strabo that point to the temple being in Hegra or its vacinity along the northwest coast of Arabia, not even close to present day Mecca.

Although one can easily now demolish all their arguments about the evidence from Diodorus somehow supporting the historicity of Mecca, I am not going to do that since the discussion is going in the direction that I want it anyway by shifting to what the great reading is actually saying.

But if Yathrippa is not Yathrib, then we have definitely no historical proof of the existence of Yathrib before the advent of Muhammad.
Since the existence of Yatrib is backed by the Quran, it implies that no historical proof of the existence of a town does not entails its nonexistence.

There is archeological evidence for the existance of Yathrib.

For example there is a 6th century BC inscription which comemorates king Nabonidus's conquers of Arabian cities. The inscription is in the city of Harran and lists all the major ancient Arabian cities in the area of Hijaz including Yathrib and Khaybar but no Mecca.

OK.
But the absence of Mecca on the inscription about Abraha does not imply that there was not a small or medium town called Mecca.
It would become problematic if we assume Mecca had been a big town.

But the inscription does mention the small town of Halban. So Mecca would have deserved a mention even if it was small as you say. Besides when we read the great reading, the impressions we get from the term "umm al qura" and the presence of a diverse multi-faith population suggests a well-known famous town.

So, your point now is that Mecca has been created from scatch ?

There are two possibilities. Either it was created from scratch or it was a small insignificant shrine in the middle of the desert named something else and then a town was built around it and it was renamed to Mecca to match the common noun in the great reading. Such shrines that pop up in the middle of the desert are common place even today. I have come across a couple when hiking in the desert in the Middle East.

A town can have several names.

There aren't any towns named "destruction" in the world for good reason. It is not a good name for a town. Also, how come this supposed name fits perfectly in 4824 as a common noun. If this is not enough, then add this to the complete absence of the name Mecca and any reference to a town in that location. I think that we have to look at all the evidence and then see what is the most probable scenario without being influenced by what we were programmed with.

I agree a definite article does not always imply that the noon is definite.
Yet, in , it is difficult to me to figure that al bayt would be undefined, without referring to the bayt in .

The first airplane was made by Wright brothers. It is great to fly the airplane.

Does the above mean that I am necessarily talking about flying the first airplane? Of course not.

I don't agree.
According to your theory, Muhammad has lived in another town than Mecca (maybe Hegra, Hira, or another one). And we all know he has, with the help of God, fought idolatry.
Today, we are witnessing pagan rituals in Mecca, done in the name of the prophet, who is now said to have lived there.
Such a radical movement cannot be left unexplained.
Furthermore, the only way it could have happened, in my mind, is that the idolaters Muhammad had fought have eventually got their revenge after his death.
But you have never proposed such a theory.

There is no need for drama and revenge. The natural course of things is that the majority of people revert back to idolatory shortly after their prophets die. There is not a single example in the great reading where this hasn't happened. Besides, the prophet did not fight idolatory and there is no indication that he did. From the great reading, we can see that he only fought in self-defense. The idea of a "religious" war is unfounded based on the great reading.

It is true that most of the politicians are more interested in power than in truth.
But nonetheless, there are always some people who are ready to fight for the sake of truth.

Are you ready to fight? What for? to force people to give up idolatory? You might as well fight 99.99% of the people of the world. We are only to fight for self-defense. We can only say the truth. I personally don't care if some people put up a shrine in the middle of nowhere and people who are eager to idolize anything started going on pilgrimages there. Perhaps if I happen to run into one of those people, I would advise him or her not to do that if they are willing to listen (which is doubtful).

Besides, who said that there weren't fights? There were many fights and civil wars but those had nothing to do with the truth.

al-masjid al-aqsa could have been a proper name for a specific place (like "far west" in the US).
Also remember that people of these times did neither have car nor planes to travel. So, something that is nearby for us today could have seemed far for them.

But since Ghoneim et al. know very well that there was no place named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, their whole argument centers on this being a common noun that The God used instead of the name of something that was already known. I don't think that The God needs cars or airplanes to know that the present location is not "farthest" in a common sense.

It is right that " History is always written from the point of view of the victorious ".
But who were the victorious, then ?
The sunni, shia and kharadji (who have fought each other after the death of the prophet) all claim that the prophet lived in Mecca.

But there were many disputes about Mecca being the correct location for Hajj. As late as the 10th century AD, sects such as the Qaramitah completely destroyed Mecca. So no matter what others and later people say, surely they didn't think much of it. In fact, Mecca and Kaaba have been destroyed many times in Islamic history more than any other so-called Islamic shrine.

Yes, but let's assume the sunni did contrive a lie against Muhammad. Then, we can imagine that immediately, the shia or the kharadji would have exploited it to accuse the sunni of being liars and then increase their political power.

This is why the common noun "mecca" was hijacked to silence opposition as attacks on what the great reading is saying. A perceived attack on the great reading would have been political suicide by any of the political parties.

The wahabi have fought a good many of these pagan gatherings.
However, explaining how beliefs are kept up is not like explaining how they are born.
Once a belief is born, I agree it can be very easy to keep it up.

The beliefs and rituals around the stone cube and the Black Stone are all pre-existing pagan Arab beliefs. All that needed to make them "Islamic" is renaming them. This is simular to Christianity where pre-existing pagan beliefs and rituals associated with a pagan festival were kept up. All that was needed to make the festival "Christian" is renaming it to Christ-mas.

Maybe the preservation of the reminder only avails for the time where the prophet lived ? i.e the verse about it is only referring to the scribes honorable, pious, and just mentioned in .
But, if the work of honorable, pious, and just scribes was necessary at the time of the prophet, no doubt honorable, pious, and just people were also necessary to transmit the reminder to us without corruption.

No one knows how the great reading was preserved against all odds. The only people that are commanded to remember The God's signs that are being recited are the prophet's wives (3334) so they could be the scribes. But we can't be sure if they were and even if we were, we don't know who they are so no one knows who those scribes were and it is immaterial. The truth of the promise is in the substance of the message of the great reading itself. If you need other proof then I am sorry for you.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman you wrote in an earliear post

But in the great reading it is always used in the negative sense of restriction. Also, people make all sorts of things holy, holy cow, holy this, holy that. This is not reality.[/i
Check out 2791

It's not good to make absolute statements like always.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Ayman you wrote in an earliear post
But in the great reading it is always used in the negative sense of restriction. Also, people make all sorts of things holy, holy cow, holy this, holy that. This is not reality.[/i
Check out 2791

It's not good to make absolute statements like always.

Thank you for pointing my attention to recheck my understanding. I rechecked 2791 and there is nothing there that indicates that "haram" means "holy". The restricted town is similar to the restricted house in that it should be kept safe for all (1435, 2125-126, 397). This is the restriction.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

OK, thank you
How do you deal with the refutations of Denis Giron and Asimmehm here ?
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_thread/thread/783540f26de114a0/2a42085a49ad9a9a?lnk=raot#2a42085a49ad9a9a

You can see the responses that I posted on the thread above. So far, I haven't got a response back from Asim on my last reply. I have also found some additional information that I haven't posted yet.

Peace Ayman,

There is a reply from asimmehm you have not responded to
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/c6ffc72857338f63?fwc=1

asimmehm had made some good points

Ayman, but there is no FULL MANUSCRIPT OF THE QURAN prior to after the
death of the Prophet (S). SO, according to the orientalists such as
Margolioth, it was FABRICATED after his (S) death. Their logic is
based upon your same faulty logic. And the logical corollary to this
is you have to accept this proposition of Margolioth. And if you do
not, you are BEING A HYPOCRITE.

I want to see evidence, according to your own standards, of a WHOLE
QURAN immediately after the death of the Prophet (S), upto the point of
Uthman (R). I do not want partial fragments, because according to your
standards regarding the existence of Mecca, these fall short. I do not
want you to say that the Arabs were RECITING THE QURAN, and that they
were primarily an ORAL CULTURE, because you would than be a hyprocrite
according to your own standards,

We have hardly ANY MANUSCRIPTS about anything in the pre-Islamic hijaz.
The evidence your demanding for as proof is such that, if we followed
your hyporcitical standards, the pre-Quranic word count would amount to
a few hundred words. NOTHING MORE. does that mean we reject every
word of the Arabic language that is not found on a tablet of stone?

Please be aware that I am not claiming that the quran has been fabricated after the death of the prophet.
My contention is that archeological findings are too scarce and poor to prove definitely anything.

But if Yathrippa is not Yathrib, then we have definitely no historical proof of the existence of Yathrib before the advent of Muhammad.
Since the existence of Yatrib is backed by the Quran, it implies that no historical proof of the existence of a town does not entails its nonexistence.

There is archeological evidence for the existance of Yathrib.

For example there is a 6th century BC inscription which comemorates king Nabonidus's conquers of Arabian cities. The inscription is in the city of Harran and lists all the major ancient Arabian cities in the area of Hijaz including Yathrib and Khaybar but no Mecca.

OK, one point for you

OK.
But the absence of Mecca on the inscription about Abraha does not imply that there was not a small or medium town called Mecca.
It would become problematic if we assume Mecca had been a big town.

But the inscription does mention the small town of Halban. So Mecca would have deserved a mention even if it was small as you say.

Does it mention all the towns that were existing at that time ?
Are we sure that Mecca is not mentioned into another name ?

Besides when we read the great reading, the impressions we get from the term "umm al qura" and the presence of a diverse multi-faith population suggests a well-known famous town.

umm al qura simply means "the center of villages".
It is not sure that, as the sunnis claim, it refers to the place where the prophet lived.

So, your point now is that Mecca has been created from scatch ?

There are two possibilities. Either it was created from scratch or it was a small insignificant shrine in the middle of the desert named something else and then a town was built around it and it was renamed to Mecca to match the common noun in the great reading. Such shrines that pop up in the middle of the desert are common place even today. I have come across a couple when hiking in the desert in the Middle East.

What about the spring named Zamzam ?
Is it not true that towns were often build around such springs ?

A town can have several names.

There aren't any towns named "destruction" in the world for good reason. It is not a good name for a town. Also, how come this supposed name fits perfectly in 4824 as a common noun. If this is not enough, then add this to the complete absence of the name Mecca and any reference to a town in that location.

The common noun Mecca has other meanings that "destruction".

I think that we have to look at all the evidence and then see what is the most probable scenario without being influenced by what we were programmed with.

I am glad you use the term "most probable", in place of "only possible".
Indeed, the archeological findings can only give possible scenarios. They are to poor to provide the truth.
Your scenario may be the most likely given the present archeological findings or the Christians accounts, but it is a hardly improbable scenario to the extent that none of the sects that have fought each other in the first centuries after the death of Muhammad rejects Mecca as the place where the prophet lived.

I agree a definite article does not always imply that the noon is definite.
Yet, in , it is difficult to me to figure that al bayt would be undefined, without referring to the bayt in .

The first airplane was made by Wright brothers. It is great to fly the airplane.

Does the above mean that I am necessarily talking about flying the first airplane? Of course not.

Good example.
But I am not sure it can be easily transposed in Arabic.
Is there any such example in the quran ?

I don't agree.
According to your theory, Muhammad has lived in another town than Mecca (maybe Hegra, Hira, or another one). And we all know he has, with the help of God, fought idolatry.
Today, we are witnessing pagan rituals in Mecca, done in the name of the prophet, who is now said to have lived there.
Such a radical movement cannot be left unexplained.
Furthermore, the only way it could have happened, in my mind, is that the idolaters Muhammad had fought have eventually got their revenge after his death.
But you have never proposed such a theory.

There is no need for drama and revenge. The natural course of things is that the majority of people revert back to idolatory shortly after their prophets die. There is not a single example in the great reading where this hasn't happened.

Idol-worship is not the only form of shirk. Priesthood is another one.
But, let?s assume there have been a revert back to idolatry?
Why the need of building a new town called Mecca for that ?
Why have they not done that in the town where the prophet lived (from which you have still not given the name and location) ?

It is true that most of the politicians are more interested in power than in truth.
But nonetheless, there are always some people who are ready to fight for the sake of truth.

Are you ready to fight? What for? to force people to give up idolatory? You might as well fight 99.99% of the people of the world. We are only to fight for self-defense. We can only say the truth. I personally don't care if some people put up a shrine in the middle of nowhere and people who are eager to idolize anything started going on pilgrimages there. Perhaps if I happen to run into one of those people, I would advise him or her not to do that if they are willing to listen (which is doubtful).

Besides, who said that there weren't fights? There were many fights and civil wars but those had nothing to do with the truth.

Do you really think that all the companions of the prophet have reverted back to idolatry a few days after his death ?

It is right that " History is always written from the point of view of the victorious ".
But who were the victorious, then ?
The sunni, shia and kharadji (who have fought each other after the death of the prophet) all claim that the prophet lived in Mecca.

But there were many disputes about Mecca being the correct location for Hajj.

Do you have evidences for that ?

As late as the 10th century AD, sects such as the Qaramitah completely destroyed Mecca.

And for that ?

So no matter what others and later people say, surely they didn't think much of it. In fact, Mecca and Kaaba have been destroyed many times in Islamic history more than any other so-called Islamic shrine.

And for that ?
Anyway, I fear you have not answered my question.
Did the shia, sunni and kharadji, while fighting each other, conspired together to create Mecca ?

Yes, but let's assume the sunni did contrive a lie against Muhammad. Then, we can imagine that immediately, the shia or the kharadji would have exploited it to accuse the sunni of being liars and then increase their political power.

This is why the common noun "mecca" was hijacked to silence opposition as attacks on what the great reading is saying. A perceived attack on the great reading would have been political suicide by any of the political parties.

Really?
But why would the fabrication of a new town plus the blatant lie that Muhammad have lived in this town not have been political suicide?

Maybe the preservation of the reminder only avails for the time where the prophet lived ? i.e the verse about it is only referring to the scribes honorable, pious, and just mentioned in .
But, if the work of honorable, pious, and just scribes was necessary at the time of the prophet, no doubt honorable, pious, and just people were also necessary to transmit the reminder to us without corruption.

No one knows how the great reading was preserved against all odds. The only people that are commanded to remember The God's signs that are being recited are the prophet's wives (3334) so they could be the scribes. But we can't be sure if they were and even if we were, we don't know who they are so no one knows who those scribes were and it is immaterial. The truth of the promise is in the substance of the message of the great reading itself. If you need other proof then I am sorry for you.

Peace,

Ayman

I agree I have enough of the message to have faith.

But if applying your logic (manuscripts, inscriptions, etc?) may lead to the conclusion that the Quran was fabricated after the death of Muhammad (i.e. something you deem to be false), why would this logic lead to the right conclusion about the history of Mecca ?

Peace

ayman

Peace JM,

There is a reply from asimmehm you have not responded to
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/c6ffc72857338f63?fwc=1
asimmehm had made some good points

Ayman, but there is no FULL MANUSCRIPT OF THE QURAN prior to after the
death of the Prophet (S). SO, according to the orientalists such as
Margolioth, it was FABRICATED after his (S) death. Their logic is
based upon your same faulty logic. And the logical corollary to this
is you have to accept this proposition of Margolioth. And if you do
not, you are BEING A HYPOCRITE.

I want to see evidence, according to your own standards, of a WHOLE
QURAN immediately after the death of the Prophet (S), upto the point of
Uthman (R). I do not want partial fragments, because according to your
standards regarding the existence of Mecca, these fall short. I do not
want you to say that the Arabs were RECITING THE QURAN, and that they
were primarily an ORAL CULTURE, because you would than be a hyprocrite
according to your own standards,

We have hardly ANY MANUSCRIPTS about anything in the pre-Islamic hijaz.
The evidence your demanding for as proof is such that, if we followed
your hyporcitical standards, the pre-Quranic word count would amount to
a few hundred words. NOTHING MORE. does that mean we reject every
word of the Arabic language that is not found on a tablet of stone?

Please be aware that I am not claiming that the quran has been fabricated after the death of the prophet.
My contention is that archeological findings are too scarce and poor to prove definitely anything.

This is false. Archeological findings from the pre-quranic period are not rare. It is only manuscripts from that region that are rare. There are plenty of inscriptions and Asim knows that very well. This is why he carefully uses the word "manuscripts" so that someone who is not careful while reading makes a hasty generalization from "manuscripts are scarce" to "archeological findings are too scarce".

The fact is that unlike stone inscriptions, it is hard for fragile manuscripts to survive. Thus, the fact that we have many early manuscripts of the great reading (although they are incomplete and fragmented) indicates that they came from a much larger population, given the low probability of their survival.

Asim knows he doesn't have anything to stand on except blind faith in Mecca. You need to try to read "between the lines" of his response.

Does it mention all the towns that were existing at that time ?

It mentions the towns and valleys that Abraha passed during his expidition. No town or valley named Mecca.

Are we sure that Mecca is not mentioned into another name ?

Yes. Eveyone is sure. You can examine the inscription too and make sure for yourself
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean_img.htm

umm al qura simply means "the center of villages".
It is not sure that, as the sunnis claim, it refers to the place where the prophet lived.

I am not sure what you mean. The term "umm" has to do with "origin" or "mother".

What about the spring named Zamzam ?
Is it not true that towns were often build around such springs ?

There is no spring named Zamzam. There is a deep well named zamzam that people have manually dug. You would get water if you dig deep enough in the desert. Unlike what people believe, the water of Zamzam is actually pumped out from inside the desert ground. See

http//www.sgs.org.sa/index.cfm?sec=311&page=

Here is where this "holy" water actually comes from

http//www.sgs.org.sa/content/images/zam_pumping_system_of-_zamz.jpg

Quoted from the Saudi Geological survey site
"In order to manage demand water from Zamzam well is pumped, treated and stored in underground storage tanks a continual basis. Before distribution to consumers and transportation to Madinah Zamzam water is treated by a series of sand filters, micro filters and ultraviolet disinfection. Zamzam Studies and Research Center is engaged in design of upgrading the treatment system. Already, two phases of upgrading have been completed and the third phase is in active consideration. Moreover, the Center strictly follow these activities and ensures strict quality assurance measures."

The common noun Mecca has other meanings that "destruction".

All are similarly not flattering.

I am glad you use the term "most probable", in place of "only possible".
Indeed, the archeological findings can only give possible scenarios. They are to poor to provide the truth.
Your scenario may be the most likely given the present archeological findings or the Christians accounts, but it is a hardly improbable scenario to the extent that none of the sects that have fought each other in the first centuries after the death of Muhammad rejects Mecca as the place where the prophet lived.

The archeological evidence is better at providing the truth than any blind faith in a town just because sectarians have faith in it.

Good example.
But I am not sure it can be easily transposed in Arabic.
Is there any such example in the quran ?

The logic is similar in any language.

Idol-worship is not the only form of shirk. Priesthood is another one.
But, let?s assume there have been a revert back to idolatry?
Why the need of building a new town called Mecca for that ?
Why have they not done that in the town where the prophet lived (from which you have still not given the name and location) ?

It is for the same reason a town like Petra was built from scratch. Idolaters need to have holy towns. This has happened many times in history so it is hardly unusual.

Do you really think that all the companions of the prophet have reverted back to idolatry a few days after his death ?

Who are those companions you talk about? Do you know them? I personally don't.

Do you have evidences for that ?
And for that ?
And for that ?

I will have to research further, but as far as I know the destruction of Mecca at the hand of the Qaramitah was reported in writings from the era itself.

Anyway, I fear you have not answered my question.
Did the shia, sunni and kharadji, while fighting each other, conspired together to create Mecca ?

We don't know what they originally fought about. We also don't know if there were other sects and ideas.

Really?
But why would the fabrication of a new town plus the blatant lie that Muhammad have lived in this town not have been political suicide?

Because people would say "look it is in the quran". So this would silence opposition.

I agree I have enough of the message to have faith.
But if applying your logic (manuscripts, inscriptions, etc?) may lead to the conclusion that the Quran was fabricated after the death of Muhammad (i.e. something you deem to be false), why would this logic lead to the right conclusion about the history of Mecca ?

My faith (and I hope yours too) is not blind faith in the great reading. It is faith based on understanding and logic. Anyone who has faith in so-called Mecca is doing it based on blind faith. Also, please show me a single passage in the great reading that tells us that it is our obligation to have faith in a town.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

Peace JM,

Peace ayman,

Thanks for your response