How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

ayman

Peace JM,

OK, you are acknowledging that umm al qura does not necessarily refer to a town, and can refer to a region.
That?s enough for me.

You obviously don't know what a settlement means. The word "qaryat" means an town/urban settlement (i.e., a place where PEOPLE settled TOGETHER). Thus, it can't be seperated by largely uninhabited areas as in the case of a region. This is why it means town.

If the part of the article I have quoted is not reliable, then the entire article should be regarded as unreliable.

No. The part where the geologists spoke from the point of view of geology NOT Sunnism is certainly reliable.

Anyway, do you know when was zam-zam discovered?

No. All we know is that it is a deep well. How about you, do you know when it is discovered?

Ayman, you cannot say that a town named Mecca is a fabrication because of the meanings of the common noun.
The link between the proper name of a place and the associated common noun is far from being evident.
See below an example of English place names
http//www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/name/placenames/?view=print
You are still confused. The earliest source for the word "mecca" is the great reading and in 4824 the common noun fits perfectly. So it cannot be the name of a place in 4824.

A question why did the corruptors of Islam not choose for their fabricated town the name Bacca ? Would it not have been better ?

Because the word "bacca" was already well known to the people of the book and they understood it symbolically and not as the name of place.

The history of the fabrication of Christmas is well known and well documented.
But there is absolutely no evidence for the history of the fabrication of Mecca.

The history of the fabrication of the Hajj festival that goes on in Mecca is as well known and well documented as the fabrication of Christmas. We have manuscripts describing both pagan rituals.

Your example is false because

Citro?n is a proper name ; you should have used a common name.
You have forgotten the definite article ?la? in "tu dois achet?e (la) Citro?n"
A sentence like "La premi?re voiture a ?t? fabriqu?e en France ; tu dois acheter la voiture. " is meaningless.

L'article d?fini s'emploie avec les noms qui d?signent une chose ou un ?tre d?j? connu (La voiture est accident?e. Il retourne ? la maison. La chaise du salon est bancale, etc.).
http//www.synapse-fr.com/manuels/ART_DEFI.htm

In English the definite article applies to something already known.
See also http//faculty.washington.edu/helenev/description/grammar/artdef.html
It is the same in the English language

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.
http//owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

?And in the Arabic language

The definite article in arabic is used to introduce and talk about a known subject. See the lesson about determination of nouns for detail.
http//www.mesiti.it/arabic/grammar/lessons/lesson2/definite_article.html

So, albayt in is very probably referring to the bayt defined in the preceding verse.

The first house established for people is the one with competition ("bakka&quot blessed and a guidance for the worlds. In it are clear signs of the status/position of Abraham and whoever enters is was safe and to The God on the people is the debate of the house whoever can find a way to it.

It is definitely possible that "albayt" refers to the first house. However, here are the things that we know for sure

There is a second, third, fourth, etc... similar houses and thus it is also possible that the command refers to any subsequent house.
The people of the book understood "bakka" as symbolic.
If the first house is an actual physical building built during the time of Abraham that we are supposed to go to then this house is certainly destroyed or in ruins.

Could you please expatiate?

See 241 where the command applies to all of the descendants of Israel to this day and not only the first ones to reject the great reading.

According to the following article, Petra were not a purely religious town
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra

There is nothing there that says that it was not a purely religious city. You need to research this properly so that you can know what I am saying and not just look on Wikipedia. Even from the little info on Wikipedia, you can see that all they talk about as far as archeology are temples and tombs, not average people houses. So far, no one found any residential houses in Petra. They did find lots of broken utensils, cups, etc. in the ground layers but those were not within the walls of houses. Thus, many archeologists concluded that the people who left those things lived in temporary tents and not in built houses. This is in line with the annual pilgrimages for the festival of Dushara and Allat that was happening annually at Petra.

Such a story is very hard to believe.

It is as hard to believe as 80 meter tall humans never existed.

I don?t agree.
It is evident that the verses I have quoted refer to the companions of the prophet. I do not know for sure their names, but I see no problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions.
Anyway, you have not answered my question Do you really think these honourable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

I already explained the people called "sahabat" (companions) clearly based on the great reading. You are free to believe in it or not. I don't know who reverted to idolatry and who didn't. If they didn't then good for them.

When did the fabrication of mecca arise ?
10 years after the death of the prophet ? 50 years ? 100 years ? 200 years ?

Probably about a 100 years.

This is not true
All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite

Ebionites went extinct long time ago. Surprisingly, their last mention is by Arabs. So most likely, they just submitted to the lord of the universe and stopped calling themselves Ebionites. Similarly, those who would not go on a pagan pilgrimage to Mecca or acknowledge Mecca for anything are not going to be heard of because they didn't belong to any sect as per The God's commandment. We only hear about sects as you admit.

So, you have still not answered my question how did the sunni and the shia, who were fighting each other, manage to conspire together the fabrication from scratch of Mecca ?

In the same way that Sunni, shia and all the sects agree on the fabrication that there were 80 meter tall humans and woman was created from man's rib.

No, I wouldn't. No more than I would narrate about Layth, Kyle, you or any of my companions here. However, I do convey the lessons learned. We have a perfect example in the great reading. Notice that 2133, the only thing that Jacob conveys to his descendents is not serving anyone other than The God. He doesn?t recount nostalgic stories about Abraham or the 40 best Hadiths that Abarham told him.

You are not an ordinary guy, brother Ayman.
Your description of what you would have done does not fit with your description of what people have actually done.

It fits what those who have faith and take Abraham and Jacob as examples in their lives. As for the other people, it is not about them.

People believe all sorts of nonsensical things. If a modern person such as you who has access to far more resources and information than anyone a few centuries ago would have dreamed of believes in such things then what makes you think that a few centuries ago people were smarter and better than us?

Your explanation is not convincing to me.

This is fine by me.

In fact, it is natural that the following generations lose what they learned from The God's message (1959).

There are many ways this could have happened.
As an example, they could have progressively idolized Muhammad, depicting him with the characteristics of a hero of their times (ability to do physical miracles, great sexual power, etc?). Such an evolution is confirmed by the hadiths.

Why limit it to what you want?

We are OK that there is no obligation to believe in the existence of Mecca qt the time of the prophet, but we should also be OK that there is no obligation to believe in its non-existence.
And there is no need to believe in the non-existence of Mecca to reject the rituals that are done today in Mecca in the name of Islam.
What you are failing to understand is that your baseless claim that Mecca did not exist globally discredits your stance.
This is saddening for the sunnis who won?t open their eyes to the truth because of that.

People are free to believe in Mecca and Hadith. The problem is when they claim to do it because The God told them so in the great reading and then fail to provide evidence for both.

My stance has nothing to do with guiding people. Even the great reading can't guide those who are not already from the forethoughtful ("motaqin&quot. So if people don't already feel uncomfortable about having faith in a city and revering a bunch of stones then nothing can help them open their eyes to the truth. So please don't be saddened by what you have no control over. Instead focus on what you can control.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace brother Anwar,

I agree with the end point of what you are saying but I do not think you are being fully honest or open minded with the way you get there. I do believe that makkat is a noun in the Quran, that means destruction in that context but that does not mean that people conspired to call a town that wasn't called Makkah, Makkah in order to give it credit through the Quran. The early early greek manuscripts mention a town called Macaroba, and this is easily a corruption of Makka. If you look at the names of cities from one language to another you will get all sorts of stuff. Constaninople and Istanbul, in Arabic, Sicily is Siqiliya in Arabic or how the heck is Greece, Yunaan in modern Arabic? Mithriam (Biblical) and Misr for Egypt. Egypt for a land that its people called Khemet? It actually comes from the corruption of a long name for a city Ht-Ki-Pth (hay-gip-Toh), "The Temple of Ptoh's Essence," to Aigyptos. It is the same as Westerners calling China, "China," after the original Qin dynasty emperor ("Tschina" in Indo-European). I grabbed this quote of the net about China.

Just because the name of a town contains an M and a K doesn't mean that it is Mecca. The Ptolemies mapping of Arabia must be looked at as a whole and not just pick a name that sounds vaguely and remotely related to Mecca. Please see a summary of the Ptolemies' writings about the geography of Arabia here

http//religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htm

We agree that "mecca" is a common noun in the great reading because the meaning fits. This is what matters. Now for those who (unlike you) don't have faith in the great reading, this will not be enough so the lack of archeological evidence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca defeats what they deeply desire.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman,

This site is very biased and of course it tries to say that Muhammad, God bless him, was the one who tried to divert attention to Mecca. Now, first of all the conclusions of this site, they never mention Macaraba, is that there could have not been a Mecca before the 300's AD, or 4th century. Taking into account that Macaroba (Makkaroba) did exist and that it could have been Makkah the only thing that we can fairly assume is that Macca was no famous or religious city until at least after 300 AD. 200 years is enough if for a city to be settle along a trade route (arid doesn't mean fully uninhabitable and there is , even as you know a rainy season in Makkah. But that is not the issue.)

Just because the name of a town contains an M and a K doesn't mean that it is Mecca

Don't try to defend your point to the point of extremism like the Christians whose site you referred to. Makkaroba and Makka are close enough to make the association. Now Makka may not have been a city as famous as the Arabs make it out to be, that can be agreed upon. There could have been a shrine there, that is fine and the Arabs in that area could have made a pilgrimage to it. All that is fine. You should be trying to disprove the existence of Mecca or a shrine in it, because that is not the point. The point is that the best understanding of that passage, whether Muhammad (God bless him) had a battle in Makkat and was about to lose or not, is in the belly of destruction because it is a meaning that applies to all people and that is how we should try to understand the Quran.

Secondly, you did not deal with the issue of the case endings. If you are really trying to solve the problem here, be honest, don't try to win your way by with-holding important aspects of this problem, information and, trying to intimidate or project the power of your knowledge of Arabic to gain the prominent position intellectually without actually dealing with the intellectual issues. On top of that you get very agressive and it seems like you are just trying to win through brute force. That is intellectual dishonesty. This forum is not here to prove who has the strongest personality and can intellectually dominate others through aggressive and dishonest debating tactics. That is the problem with trying to make a virtue out of debate. Have you ever been on a debate team, have you ever seen that many times debating is just about who can manipulate the topics and dumbfound the other person, through slicker words or through provoking emotional responses that cloud one's logic. That is not discussion and problem solving which is 1000 times more valuable then any debate.

I hope you can deal with this issue in an honest way. I agree with some of what that Christian site said, but it was put there to undermine even the prophet Muhammad, and it didn't even mention Makkaroba (macaroba) which it seems you know about. Don't you agree with the following points, and tell me why you don't

Makka was a city that did exist in the time before Muhammad but that doesn't matter because when it comes to the Quran if Makkah is also a noun that makes universal sense in its context. It is up to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.
Makka was not a well known religious city like Muslims claim.
Makka might have had a shrine, and it might have been called a ka'bah but what does that mattter if the word
has universal Arabic meaning. It is up to to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.
If Makkah wasn't famous up until the 300's AD, it is possible that it could have gained some more fame in 200 years, especially if those savage tribes united. But the fact that it was a temple that Abraham built is obvioulsy a lie, but even if he had built it , which seems false, he built alot of others too, according to the bible.
We should take the example of Abraham and build houses of God's, declare pilgrimage (hajj) to them, organize their activities according to the Quran, and maintain them as a centers of the community in their respective areas (making them accessible) where people during 4 of the months of the year have an opportunity to visit them and benefit spritually from visiting these places as well, as through establishing connections (arafaat) in these places. In my opinion arafaat includes, registering, introducing, recognizing and honoring each other for forming apart of Abraham's house, a place where God's signs and works are heard, and gathering in God's houses.

Our commitment to God is a personal deal . . . one on one with God. But for us to join and develop as a godly community we have to have a stage to come together, connect, communicate and grow. That is the point of the success of a community. The success of a community is based on organization, bunyaanun marsoosun, an organization that takes God's works and words as guidelines and that believes in growth and betterment, Zakaat. But there has to be a common ground and that common ground for this exchange is the pilgrimage.

Godbless,
Anwar

wildguest1956

Peace JM,

Peace ayman,

Are you going into reverse ?
You have claimed that the inscriptions and manuscripts we have today were enough to state that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

You are confused about what I am saying because you don't seem to know the difference between history and archeology. Read my previous post again carefully to know the difference.

Could you elaborate?
I do not understand the relevancy of your response with respect to my remark.

That?s wrong.
When we say to a sunni that it is more easy to preserve the speech of someone when it is recorded immediately (or a few years) after his death than 3 centuries later, he cannot respond "using this logic, we cannot conclude that the Quran has been fully preserved.".

If a Hadith is logical and doesn't have a chain of transmission then there is nothing wrong with accepting it as I would accept any good saying by you or anyone here.

I do agree, but what is the pertinence of this comment relating to what I was stating?

The point isn?t about the truthfulness of the Quran or his godly origin.
The point is about the quality of the preservation of the speech of Muhammad called AlQuran, and whether it can be proved it has been 100% preserved with physical evidences (inscriptions, manuscripts) or not.
Please stay in the topic.
And since physical evidences cannot prove it has been 100% preserved, you are obliged to acknowledge that physical evidences are not sufficient to prove anything about Islamic history.

No the point IS about the truthfulness of the great reading and the fact that it is from The God. This is the criteria for its preservation since it is The God who preserved it NOT any concious human action.

Since you seem to be completely lost, I am going to remind you what is the matter at hand.

You are claiming that the physical evidences (manuscripts, inscriptions?) are enough to prove that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

So, I was trying to prove you that your conclusion is wrong, because physical evidences were not enough to establish that the Quran has been fully preserved.

Since the physical evidences cannot prove that the Quran has been fully preserved, your logic (according to which the physical evidences are enough to prove facts about Islamic history) is wrong, and therefore your conclusion that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet because of no physical evidences is wrong too.

The question is not whether the Quran has been fully preserved or not; it is about whether physical evidence is enough as a proof or not.

Are you getting my point?

The physical evidences about Mecca prove that this town existed in the 8th century.
But they don?t prove that this town were created at this moment.
They tell us nothing about the creation of Mecca.

The lack of evidence before that period tells us that it didn't exist before the 8th century. If the impossible happens and some other evidence comes up then we can reexamine this in the same way that we would reexamine that woman was created from a man's rib if the impossible happens and we find the skeleton of a man with a half formed woman attached to his rib cage. o

Ayman, your logic is blatantly faulty.

You have only proof of my existence since 2 years.

Does it mean that I were created in 2004 ?
Obviously not !

When was I created?
You don?t know it.
You can only estimate it by giving likelihood to the possible scenarios.
As I am able to write, there is reasonable likelihood that I am more than 10 (that I was created before 1996).
And, since I am a human being, you can conclude that there is 99% of likelihood that I am less than 100 years old (that I was created after 1906).

We can apply a similar logic to our case.

We have proof That Mecca was existing in the 8th century.

Was Mecca existing in the 7th century? We don?t know.
We have to ask an archeologist to estimate it. The archeologist may conclude that there is a likelihood of 80% that Mecca was existing at that time.

Was Mecca existing in the 6th century? Same logic?

Do you comprehend?

Your logic is ?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) => No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later?.
Applied to Mecca, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later?.
Applied to a word in the quran (say X) we have no physical evidence of, it gives
?No physical evidence for the existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => No existence of X (at the time of the prophet) => X were fabricated later?.
Since you cannot contend that all the word of the Quran we have no physical evidence of have been created later, the immediate conclusion is that your logic is false.
?No physical evidence for the existence of a thing (at time t) ? does not imply ?No existence of this thing (at time t) => this thing were fabricated later ?.
Since this logic is false, your contention that there were ?No existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet) => Mecca were fabricated later? because of ?No physical evidence for the existence of Mecca (at the time of the prophet)? is false too.

?No physical evidence for the existence of 80 meter tall men since the advent of homosapiens => No existence of 80 meter tall homosapiens => this thing were fabricated later

Archeology and anthropology use the same scientific method of examining ancient things. The validation of the great reading is not based on examining ancient things. This is why my analogy is correct while your analogy is false and meaningless.

As I have explained you above, the point is not whether the Quran is truthful, the point is whether we can conclude it has been fully preserved or not, give the physical evidences.

This is wrong.
Your logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does imply no existence of this thing?.
My logic is ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does not imply no existence of this thing?.
Let?s assume 5 years ago, Y was (with no physical evidence) alleging that hobbits (a species of hominids, about a meter tall and with a small brain size of 380cc), can have existed.
Using your logic, you would have contended that no such species could have ever existed.
Using my logic, I would have answered ?Perhaps, we don?t know?. I would have weighted the allegation of Y using current theories, and I may have concluded that his allegation had a likelihood of p% (0 < p <100) to be true.
In 2004, a skull were founded that corroborated the allegations of Y.
See http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html
So, using your logic, you were wrong, and, using my logic, I was right.
And your logic has been proved wrong at every new discovery ever made (see http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html).
And please do not assign to me beliefs I have never held. I don?t claim that women were created from a man's rib and that early humans were 80 meters tall.
Using my logic, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood.

Believing in the existence of Mecca prior to the 8th century CE is currently exactly like believing in 80 meter tall early humans and believing that the oue ancestor woman was created from a man's rib. All those beliefs share the fact that they are completely baseless (i.e., there is ZERO evidence to support them).

As you said, these allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood. For example, if we find a skeleton of an 80 meter tall homosapien tomorrow then I will revise my view on this matter. Similarly, if we find archeological evidence for the existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca in Arabia then I will revise my view on this matter. Until then, the likelihood that a pre-quranic town named Mecca existed is the same as the likelihood of 80 meter tall humans. It is highly unlikely (for those who are not biased by their sectarian preconceptions).

No, Ayman, you are wrong again.

Let?s assume we are back in year 2000.

Allegation 1 80 meters tall human (giants) have existed.
Allegation 2 1 meter tall hominids with a small brain size of 380cc (hobbits) have existed.

With your faulty logic, you would have falsely stated that ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does imply no existence of this thing?. You would have been proved wrong in 2004, when the evidence of the existence of the hobbits was discovered.

In 2000, a scientist could have said the same thing about these 2 allegations ?No physical evidence of the existence a thing does not imply no existence of this thing. These allegations have to be weighted using current scientifically theories, and then given a likelihood ?.
Since the hominids that have been discovered were generally small, the probability of the existence of the hobbits could have been estimated to 60%.
And since no big hominid was ever discovered, this scientist could have stated that the probability of the existence of the giants were near to 0%.

What I am aiming to show you is that 2 unproven allegations do not necessary have no probability of been true.

I agree with you that the probability of the existence of giants is nearly 0. But this does not imply that the probability of any unproven allegation is 0 too.

The fact that the probability of existence of the giants is nearly 0 does not imply that the probability of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet is 0. These 2 allegations are independent.

Hope I have been clear.

Again, you are assigning to me beliefs I don?t hold.
Here is what I am saying

The physical evidences (manuscripts, inscriptions) cannot prove whether Mecca existed at the time of the prophet or not.
There are no evidences that Mecca has been fabricated later
So, the most probable scenario (given the evidences we have today) is that Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet.
And the one who is making the extraordinary claim is you.

Your extraordinary claim about Mecca is exactly like the extraordinary claim about woman being created from a man's rib. Your logic is exactly like the following

The physical evidences cannot prove whether woman was created from man's rib or not.
There are no evidences that woman being created from man's rib has been fabricated later.

In fact, unlike Mecca we do have evidence that this theory predates Hadiths and even the great reading because it can be found in the older Hebrew books.

When it comes to weight the allegation that women was created from man?s rib using current scientifically theories, the fact that this allegation can be found in the older Hebrew books is totally irrelevant.

Your logic is ?There were an expedition by Abraha in other towns that Mecca in 552 => there has been no expedition of Abraha to Mecca in 570. ?
But this logic is 100% faulty.
Would you claim that there were no war by the USA to Iraq in 2003 because there were one war against VietNam some years before ?
OK, there is no inscription to prove that there were really an expedition to Mecca in 570. But were all war expeditions of these times recorded in inscriptions?

This is like saying

OK, there is no skeleton to prove that there were really an 80 meter tall human. But were all 80 meter tall humans who lived at these times preserved as skeletons?

Again, you are using bad logic.

This would rather be like saying

OK, there is no skeleton to prove that there were really an 80 meter tall human. But were all 80 meter tall humans who lived at these times preserved as skeletons?

The scientists know that all skeletons have not been preserved, and they are able to take it into account to estimate the probability that these giants have existed.

If you are going to have a logical scientific discussion then bring your evidence of your extraordinary claim of the existence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca, otherwise you might as well believe in all the other extraordinary claims that sectarians make.

Ayman,
I am only stating that, given physical evidences, Mecca is not unlikely to have been existing at the time of the prophet.

Again, you are using wrong logic.

You have used against me (at least) 3 logical fallacies

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php

You are using this logical fallacy when you are claiming that, given Mecca has not been proven to exist at the time of the prophet, it did not exist.

False Analogy

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php

You are using this logical fallacy when you claim that, because the allegation that giants have existed is very likely to be false, the allegation that Mecca have existed shall be false too.

straw man

The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php

You are using this logical fallacy when you are asking me to bring physical evidences that Mecca has existed at the time of the prophet whereas I have only stated that (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

So, if, like me, you are willing to have a logical scientific discussion, you should avoid arguing with logical fallacies.

wildguest1956

OK, you are acknowledging that umm al qura does not necessarily refer to a town, and can refer to a region.
That?s enough for me.

You obviously don't know what a settlement means. The word "qaryat" means an town/urban settlement (i.e., a place where PEOPLE settled TOGETHER). Thus, it can't be seperated by largely uninhabited areas as in the case of a region. This is why it means town.

In your previous post, you have stated that umm al qura could refer to Mesopotamia, which is a region.
Have you already changed your mind?

If the part of the article I have quoted is not reliable, then the entire article should be regarded as unreliable.

No. The part where the geologists spoke from the point of view of geology NOT Sunnism is certainly reliable.

Anyway, do you know when was zam-zam discovered?

No. All we know is that it is a deep well. How about you, do you know when it is discovered?

No, I don?t.
ZamZam is mentioned in some hadith, so we can think that it was known when the hadith were written.
Since such edible water (be it from a spring or a well) was of great value in the desert, it should have attracted people and made them settle in Mecca since it has been discovered.
Therefore, knowing the true story of ZamZam can help for knowing the true story of Mecca.

Ayman, you cannot say that a town named Mecca is a fabrication because of the meanings of the common noun.
The link between the proper name of a place and the associated common noun is far from being evident.
See below an example of English place names
http//www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/name/placenames/?view=print
You are still confused. The earliest source for the word "mecca" is the great reading and in 4824 the common noun fits perfectly. So it cannot be the name of a place in 4824.

You are not responding to my point.

A question why did the corruptors of Islam not choose for their fabricated town the name Bacca ? Would it not have been better ?

Because the word "bacca" was already well known to the people of the book and they understood it symbolically and not as the name of place.

Really?
What is your proof for that ?

The history of the fabrication of Christmas is well known and well documented.
But there is absolutely no evidence for the history of the fabrication of Mecca.

The history of the fabrication of the Hajj festival that goes on in Mecca is as well known and well documented as the fabrication of Christmas. We have manuscripts describing both pagan rituals.

We may have manuscripts describing the pagans rituals, but we have nothing to assert that the town Mecca has been fabricated after the death of the prophet.

Your example is false because

Citro?n is a proper name ; you should have used a common name.
You have forgotten the definite article ?la? in "tu dois achet?e (la) Citro?n"
A sentence like "La premi?re voiture a ?t? fabriqu?e en France ; tu dois acheter la voiture. " is meaningless.

L'article d?fini s'emploie avec les noms qui d?signent une chose ou un ?tre d?j? connu (La voiture est accident?e. Il retourne ? la maison. La chaise du salon est bancale, etc.).
http//www.synapse-fr.com/manuels/ART_DEFI.htm

In English the definite article applies to something already known.
See also http//faculty.washington.edu/helenev/description/grammar/artdef.html
It is the same in the English language

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.
http//owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

?And in the Arabic language

The definite article in arabic is used to introduce and talk about a known subject. See the lesson about determination of nouns for detail.
http//www.mesiti.it/arabic/grammar/lessons/lesson2/definite_article.html

So, albayt in is very probably referring to the bayt defined in the preceding verse.

The first house established for people is the one with competition ("bakka&quot blessed and a guidance for the worlds. In it are clear signs of the status/position of Abraham and whoever enters is was safe and to The God on the people is the debate of the house whoever can find a way to it.

It is definitely possible that "albayt" refers to the first house. However, here are the things that we know for sure

There is a second, third, fourth, etc... similar houses and thus it is also possible that the command refers to any subsequent house.
The people of the book understood "bakka" as symbolic.
If the first house is an actual physical building built during the time of Abraham that we are supposed to go to then this house is certainly destroyed or in ruins.

Could you expatiate the points (1) and (2) ? What does ?the house with competition? mean ?

Could you please expatiate?

See 241 where the command applies to all of the descendants of Israel to this day and not only the first ones to reject the great reading.

There is no possible analogy between verse and .
The problem in is that the definite article al in albayt implies that the bayt should be specified.

According to the following article, Petra were not a purely religious town
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra

There is nothing there that says that it was not a purely religious city. You need to research this properly so that you can know what I am saying and not just look on Wikipedia. Even from the little info on Wikipedia, you can see that all they talk about as far as archeology are temples and tombs, not average people houses. So far, no one found any residential houses in Petra. They did find lots of broken utensils, cups, etc. in the ground layers but those were not within the walls of houses. Thus, many archeologists concluded that the people who left those things lived in temporary tents and not in built houses. This is in line with the annual pilgrimages for the festival of Dushara and Allat that was happening annually at Petra.

I have done some research on Petra, and I have found no indication that Petra had been created from scratch for only religious purposes.

Archaeological excavations have revealed a rock shelter of the Upper Paleolithic period, dating to around 10,000 BC, and a Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC.
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/jordan/petra_ruins.htm

So, there have been habitations in Petra.

I don?t agree.
It is evident that the verses I have quoted refer to the companions of the prophet. I do not know for sure their names, but I see no problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions.
Anyway, you have not answered my question Do you really think these honourable people have reverted back to idolatry en masse after the death of the prophet?

I already explained the people called "sahabat" (companions) clearly based on the great reading. You are free to believe in it or not. I don't know who reverted to idolatry and who didn't. If they didn't then good for them.

What is the problem with calling those who had faith with the prophet his companions?

When did the fabrication of mecca arise ?
10 years after the death of the prophet ? 50 years ? 100 years ? 200 years ?

Probably about a 100 years.

Who did it ? The Umayyad or the Abbasids ?

What is the place for your theory in the official Islamic history ?
http//www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/umayyads.htm
http//www.princeton.edu/~batke/itl/denise/abbasids.htm

This is not true
All these sources within mainstream Christianity agree that the Ebionites denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and the death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite

Ebionites went extinct long time ago. Surprisingly, their last mention is by Arabs. So most likely, they just submitted to the lord of the universe and stopped calling themselves Ebionites. Similarly, those who would not go on a pagan pilgrimage to Mecca or acknowledge Mecca for anything are not going to be heard of because they didn't belong to any sect as per The God's commandment. We only hear about sects as you admit.

What should they have done, as per Gods commandment?
Should they have let the sectarians corrupt God?s message without reacting?

So, you have still not answered my question how did the sunni and the shia, who were fighting each other, manage to conspire together the fabrication from scratch of Mecca ?

In the same way that Sunni, shia and all the sects agree on the fabrication that there were 80 meter tall humans and woman was created from man's rib.

It is far more easy to agree on some unverifiable claims about the history of life that on the fabrication from scratch of a new town and the lie that the prophet have lived in this town.

In fact, it is natural that the following generations lose what they learned from The God's message (1959).

There are many ways this could have happened.
As an example, they could have progressively idolized Muhammad, depicting him with the characteristics of a hero of their times (ability to do physical miracles, great sexual power, etc?). Such an evolution is confirmed by the hadiths.

Why limit it to what you want?

The fact that the following generations lose what they have learnt from God?s message does not imply that Mecca has been fabricated around 1 century after the death of the prophet.

We are OK that there is no obligation to believe in the existence of Mecca qt the time of the prophet, but we should also be OK that there is no obligation to believe in its non-existence.
And there is no need to believe in the non-existence of Mecca to reject the rituals that are done today in Mecca in the name of Islam.
What you are failing to understand is that your baseless claim that Mecca did not exist globally discredits your stance.
This is saddening for the sunnis who won?t open their eyes to the truth because of that.

People are free to believe in Mecca and Hadith. The problem is when they claim to do it because The God told them so in the great reading and then fail to provide evidence for both.

My stance has nothing to do with guiding people. Even the great reading can't guide those who are not already from the forethoughtful ("motaqin&quot. So if people don't already feel uncomfortable about having faith in a city and revering a bunch of stones then nothing can help them open their eyes to the truth. So please don't be saddened by what you have no control over. Instead focus on what you can control.

Peace,

Ayman

What your are failing to understand is that your illogical and baseless claim that Mecca did not exists at the time of the prophet is discrediting your whole stance.

Peace

ayman

Peace JM,

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php
You are using this logical fallacy when you are claiming that, given Mecca has not been proven to exist at the time of the prophet, it did not exist.

Since you are bringing this fallacy up, you are implicitly admitting that there is zero proof for the existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca. This is all that needed to be admitted. The entire raison d'etre of Mecca is to serve as a religious place that people believe in as true. Mecca gets its significance from misplaced claims to the truth. Therefore, all that was needed to prove it false is the fact that there is ZERO proof that Mecca existed prior to the 8th century CE (WHICH YOU JUST ADMITTED).

How many people will spend thousands of dollars on a pilgrimage to Mecca if the Saudi government and all the Islamic authorities announce the INDISPUTABLE fact that YOU ADMITTED. "Hey everyone, despite all our ramblings for the last thirteen centuries, a pre-quranic town named Mecca is actually not proved true!" Hardly anyone will go there and the Saudi tourist industry that sells tickets to heaven will suffer. The only reason sectarians die to go is that they are told "Mecca is the truth".

The people who have been desperately trying to find any straw to hang to so that they prove the existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca are not stupid. They know that by laying claim to the truth, the fact that pre-quranic Mecca has not been proven true (AS YOU IMPLICITLY ADMIT) proves them false and this logical fallacy is completely irrelevant to their claims. Therefore, they will hang desperately at straws such as Macoraba because they know that there is no proof of Mecca.

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on? It seems that you just want to be like sectarians. This is all. My sincere advice is to try to approach this from a neutral point of view that doesn't presume any significance to Mecca.

False Analogy
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php
You are using this logical fallacy when you claim that, because the allegation that giants have existed is very likely to be false, the allegation that Mecca have existed shall be false too.

Both claims about the giants and Mecca are made by the same people and both claims are unproven by physical evidence either from anthropology or archeology. It is a good analogy.

straw man
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php
You are using this logical fallacy when you are asking me to bring physical evidences that Mecca has existed at the time of the prophet whereas I have only stated that (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

This is just babbling nonsense.

You are saying that your best argument is (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

But then when I ask you to bring those given physical evidences that Mecca is likely to have existed, you don't provide anything. Instead you provide this gibberish about me building a straw man for asking you for the very same thing that you claim to be "given".

It sounds like you invented some new logical fallacies. Perhaps when you are able to think logically and not be blinded by your emotional attachment to Mecca you can look back at this discussion and give them appropriate names like "argumentum ad confusedIam" and "argumentum ad desperateIam".

As for the rest of this post and the next one, I will not repeat what I already made clear in previous posts. Let me just give a statement that exemplify the kind of faulty logic you use

Archaeological excavations have revealed a rock shelter of the Upper Paleolithic period, dating to around 10,000 BC, and a Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC.
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/jordan/petra_ruins.htm
So, there have been habitations in Petra.

This demonstrates your confusion about archeology and how one can interpret archeological findings. I was talking about the Nabataean establishing Petra as a religious town. Clearly 10,000-7,000 BC predates the Nabataean by thousands of years. Let me repeat it slowly, there is no evidence of average people houses in Nabataean Petra.

I suggest that you try to gain more knowledge and do some real unbiased research before making hasty silly comments such as the above.

What your are failing to understand is that your illogical and baseless claim that Mecca did not exists at the time of the prophet is discrediting your whole stance.

Thanks for the heartwarming concern but somehow I get the sense that your motivation is not that you are worried about poor me getting discredited. Besides, I don't worry about it or even mind it if its serves the truth so why should anyone else?

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Anwar,

This site is very biased and of course it tries to say that Muhammad, God bless him, was the one who tried to divert attention to Mecca. Now, first of all the conclusions of this site, they never mention Macaraba, is that there could have not been a Mecca before the 300's AD, or 4th century.

All I said is that the article provides a good summary of the Ptolemies, Greeks, Romans, etc. writings on the geography of Arabia and the relative locations of various ancient regions and towns. A careful reader would only take that part and disregard the author's baseless commentaries on religious matters. Also, Ptolemy's information on Macoraba is given near the end of the article.

Taking into account that Macaroba (Makkaroba) did exist and that it could have been Makkah the only thing that we can fairly assume is that Macca was no famous or religious city until at least after 300 AD. 200 years is enough if for a city to be settle along a trade route (arid doesn't mean fully uninhabitable and there is , even as you know a rainy season in Makkah. But that is not the issue.)

Where was this Macoraba, Macaroba, Makkaroba, etc.? Do you even know how to spell it? It is sad to watch you readjust the spelling haphazardly to force it to match (in English, I might add) with your spelling of "Makkah/Makka/etc". I think that you ought to pause for a moment of honest self reflection and step back to see things from the point of a neutral observer.

From the available evidence, we know that Macoraba was somewhere in Arabia other than the location of present day Mecca. The classical geographers who described the area of present day Mecca said that the area was uninhabited. In fact, Ptolemy places Macoraba at approximately 73 East longitude and Yathrib at 71 East longitude. In terms of latitude, Ptolemy places it south of Carna in Southern Arabia. Present day Mecca on the other hand is West of Yathrib and North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy himself, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was somewhere in Southern Arabia hundreds of miles away to the southeast of Mecca. A likely candidate is a port city called Mochorba on the Hadramawt shore in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny). Moreover, there is no evidence that the location of present day Mecca fell on any trade route so you can add this to your other conjectures.

Also, what did you base the 300CE date on? If you are going to throw dates around, then you had better come up with some kind of basis. The author of the article gave the 300-400 CE date because despite all his religious ramblings, he actually believes sectarian fictional stories that talk about the Jahiliya period. In reality we find that there is no reference to Mecca before the 8th century AD, long after the death of the prophet. However, stating this fact would rob the author of a chance to attack "Mohamed" as a liar. Ironically, you have no problem falling into his trap and accepting his dating of the creation of Mecca and thus implicitly supporting his biased view.

Quote
Just because the name of a town contains an M and a K doesn't mean that it is Mecca

Don't try to defend your point to the point of extremism like the Christians whose site you referred to. Makkaroba and Makka are close enough to make the association.

This is what you desire to be true but you know very well that it is not the truth. Anwar, I am not intimidated easily by this sort of appeal to emotions that doesn't deal intellectually with the issues.

If it was JM or any other participant in this thread who is linguistically less knowledgeable than you then such blunders would have been understandable. You know very well that if one examines the closeness of the words "Macoraba, Macaroba, Makkaroba" (or however haphazard way you want to denote it in English) and "Mecca, Makka" or whatever, then the English comparison is completely useless. In order to compare in terms of closeness, we need to examine the words as they would have been originally written in Arabic. When we do this, we see that in Arabic the Kaf, Raa, and Baa are in fact the strong consonants that form the root. On the other hand, the Mim and presumably a final Taa Marbuta would have been weak letters that are added to the root. So the root would be KRB and this is completely different from the root MKK from which the town name Makka is derived. So linguistically there is no basis for your conjecture except your personal bias.

I am not sure about the reason of your personal bias. I know that you don't care much for present day Mecca so maybe it is just that you like to disagree with me on some things. I don't mind but please don't get carried away and forget about the truth that unites us.

Now Makka may not have been a city as famous as the Arabs make it out to be, that can be agreed upon. There could have been a shrine there, that is fine and the Arabs in that area could have made a pilgrimage to it. All that is fine. You should be trying to disprove the existence of Mecca or a shrine in it, because that is not the point. The point is that the best understanding of that passage, whether Muhammad (God bless him) had a battle in Makkat and was about to lose or not, is in the belly of destruction because it is a meaning that applies to all people and that is how we should try to understand the Quran.

I agree with the underlined part. For those who have faith in the great reading, the fact that the common noun fits in the passage is enough proof that present day Mecca is a fraud. I only raise the fact of the complete lack of evidence for a pre-quranic town called Mecca when people for whom the above is not enough claim that a pre-quranic so-called Mecca "historically" existed.

Secondly, you did not deal with the issue of the case endings.

The argument on case endings is moot since given the evidence there were no case endings in the great reading and even the significance of the later added case endings is sometimes doubtful (as you know well). In fact, even people who argue for case endings admit that they carry very low functional load and the proper meaning can be figured out from the context. Anwar, you know very well that I dealt many times with this "case endings" issue. In fact, you and I had many discussions about this and you never can bring a single piece of evidence to show that they are necessary. Just do a search on the forum.

If you are really trying to solve the problem here, be honest, don't try to win your way by with-holding important aspects of this problem, information and, trying to intimidate or project the power of your knowledge of Arabic to gain the prominent position intellectually without actually dealing with the intellectual issues. On top of that you get very agressive and it seems like you are just trying to win through brute force. That is intellectual dishonesty. This forum is not here to prove who has the strongest personality and can intellectually dominate others through aggressive and dishonest debating tactics. That is the problem with trying to make a virtue out of debate. Have you ever been on a debate team, have you ever seen that many times debating is just about who can manipulate the topics and dumbfound the other person, through slicker words or through provoking emotional responses that cloud one's logic. That is not discussion and problem solving which is 1000 times more valuable then any debate.

I am glad that you brought this up. Here is a statement that perfectly exemplifies the intimidating "provocation of emotional responses without actually dealing with the intellectual issues"

"Don't try to defend your point to the point of extremism like the Christians whose site you referred to. Makkaroba and Makka are close enough to make the association."

Notice how it appeals to the emotions of the readers of this forum (for whom "extremism" and "Christians" carry negative connotation). On the other hand, it did not provide any intellectually honest argument for "Makkaroba and Makka" being "close enough". I don't think that subtly playing on the English spelling counts as an intellectually honest argument.

I hope you can deal with this issue in an honest way. I agree with some of what that Christian site said, but it was put there to undermine even the prophet Muhammad, and it didn't even mention Makkaroba (macaroba) which it seems you know about.

As I said above, one can agree with what the ancient geographers said without agreeing with the views of the author who collected their surveys.

Don't you agree with the following points, and tell me why you don't

Makka was a city that did exist in the time before Muhammad but that doesn't matter because when it comes to the Quran if Makkah is also a noun that makes universal sense in its context. It is up to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.

I don't agree. There is no evidence of a pre-quranic town called Mecca or Mekka in Arabia.

I do agree that it is up to the intelligent to see the truth of the common noun and this is enough for those who have faith in the great reading. On the other hand, those who promote the historicity of Mecca do it based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

Makka was not a well known religious city like Muslims claim.

Makka was not known period (religiously or otherwise).

Makka might have had a shrine, and it might have been called a ka'bah but what does that mattter if the word has universal Arabic meaning. It is up to to the intelligent to see the truth of the issue.

This is conjecture based on conjecture. The only sensible thing you said and I agree with is the universal common Arabic meaning that the intelligent person will see as the truth. If you really believe that this is what matters then why do you go to extraordinary lengths in making up all those conjectures and trying to force wishful linguistic associations.

If Makkah wasn't famous up until the 300's AD, it is possible that it could have gained some more fame in 200 years, especially if those savage tribes united. But the fact that it was a temple that Abraham built is obvioulsy a lie, but even if he had built it , which seems false, he built alot of others too, according to the bible.

You are blindly copying the dating from the author. The author conjured up this date to make it look as if "Mohamed" invented Mecca and not the post-quranic sectarians who lived 100 years after the prophet.

We should take the example of Abraham and build houses of God's, declare pilgrimage (hajj) to them, organize their activities according to the Quran, and maintain them as a centers of the community in their respective areas (making them accessible) where people during 4 of the months of the year have an opportunity to visit them and benefit spritually from visiting these places as well, as through establishing connections (arafaat) in these places. In my opinion arafaat includes, registering, introducing, recognizing and honoring each other for forming apart of Abraham's house, a place where God's signs and works are heard, and gathering in God's houses.
Our commitment to God is a personal deal . . . one on one with God. But for us to join and develop as a godly community we have to have a stage to come together, connect, communicate and grow. That is the point of the success of a community. The success of a community is based on organization, bunyaanun marsoosun, an organization that takes God's works and words as guidelines and that believes in growth and betterment, Zakaat. But there has to be a common ground and that common ground for this exchange is the pilgrimage.

The community centers are a good idea that should be done all year around since "community" is all year round. But "hajj" is not about your community. It is about inviting all people, including those from other communities who may not believe as you do or may not even believe at all. This can only be accomplished through something that can be non-discriminatory and beneficial to everyone. The only places where you will find people from all over and from different religions getting together peacefully are markets. No one can argue otherwise.

Peace,

Ayman

PS I don't think that you take Jesus as your lord so you really ought to use CE, Common Era, instead of AD, Anno Domini, which means "year of our lord (Jesus)". This is of course unless you happen to be a teacher in Kentucky where a Christian school board Demotheocracy recently made it law to use AD in teaching. D

savage_carrot

Peace all,

Just wanted to thank bro Ayman for this quote below

You know very well that if one examines the closeness of the words "Macoraba, Macaroba, Makkaroba" (or however haphazard way you want to denote it in English) and "Mecca, Makka" or whatever, then the English comparison is completely useless. In order to compare in terms of closeness, we need to examine the words as they would have been originally written in Arabic. When we do this, we see that in Arabic the Kaf, Raa, and Baa are in fact the strong consonants that form the root. On the other hand, the Mim and presumably a final Taa Marbuta would have been weak letters that are added to the root. So the root would be KRB and this is completely different from the root MKK from which the town name Makka is derived.

I'm learning a lot from this excellent thread )

wildguest1956

Peace JM,

Peace Ayman,

Argument from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php
You are using this logical fallacy when you are claiming that, given Mecca has not been proven to exist at the time of the prophet, it did not exist.

Since you are bringing this fallacy up, you are implicitly admitting that there is zero proof for the existence of a pre-quranic town named Mecca.

Yes, given physical evidences, there is zero proof of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet, as well as there is zero proof of its nonexistence.

The physical evidences we have today are not sufficient to conclude anything about its existence at the time of the prophet.

How many people will spend thousands of dollars on a pilgrimage to Mecca if the Saudi government and all the Islamic authorities announce the INDISPUTABLE fact that YOU ADMITTED. "Hey everyone, despite all our ramblings for the last thirteen centuries, a pre-quranic town named Mecca is actually not proved true!" Hardly anyone will go there and the Saudi tourist industry that sells tickets to heaven will suffer. The only reason sectarians die to go is that they are told "Mecca is the truth".

Ayman, I am not intimidated easily by this sort of appeal to emotions that doesn't deal intellectually with the issues.

An appeal to Emotion is a fallacy with the following structure

Favorable emotions are associated with x (or unfavorable emotions with not x).
Therefore, x is true.
http//www.esgs.org/uk/log14.htm

My sincere advice is to try to approach this from a neutral point of view, pushing aside your negative bias against the Saudis.

False Analogy
In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.php
You are using this logical fallacy when you claim that, because the allegation that giants have existed is very likely to be false, the allegation that Mecca have existed shall be false too.

Both claims about the giants and Mecca are made by the same people and both claims are unproven by physical evidence either from anthropology or archeology. It is a good analogy.

When it comes to scientifically assessing an allegation, the issue of who said it is irrelevant.

This kind of fallacy is called argumentum ad hominem

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

straw man
The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
http//www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.php
You are using this logical fallacy when you are asking me to bring physical evidences that Mecca has existed at the time of the prophet whereas I have only stated that (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

This is just babbling nonsense.

You are saying that your best argument is (given physical evidences) Mecca is likely to have existed.

But then when I ask you to bring those given physical evidences that Mecca is likely to have existed, you don't provide anything. Instead you provide this gibberish about me building a straw man for asking you for the very same thing that you claim to be "given".

You have requested me an evidence of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet.
But I was not claiming that (given physical evidence) Mecca was 100% sure to be existing at that time.
Hence the straw man.

It sounds like you invented some new logical fallacies. Perhaps when you are able to think logically and not be blinded by your emotional attachment to Mecca you can look back at this discussion and give them appropriate names like "argumentum ad confusedIam" and "argumentum ad desperateIam".

This kind of fallacy is a subtype of argumentum ad hominem

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.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial

As for the rest of this post and the next one, I will not repeat what I already made clear in previous posts.

I understand it would be difficult to your ego to acknowledge your claims have been proven baseless.

Let me just give a statement that exemplify the kind of faulty logic you use

Archaeological excavations have revealed a rock shelter of the Upper Paleolithic period, dating to around 10,000 BC, and a Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC.
http//www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/jordan/petra_ruins.htm
So, there have been habitations in Petra.

This demonstrates your confusion about archeology and how one can interpret archeological findings. I was talking about the Nabataean establishing Petra as a religious town. Clearly 10,000-7,000 BC predates the Nabataean by thousands of years. Let me repeat it slowly, there is no evidence of average people houses in Nabataean Petra.

I suggest that you try to gain more knowledge and do some real unbiased research before making hasty silly comments such as the above.

Is it the only question of mine you are able to respond something to ?

Anyway, I suggest that you expose as precisely as possible what you are claiming about Petra, and then bring evidences.

What your are failing to understand is that your illogical and baseless claim that Mecca did not exists at the time of the prophet is discrediting your whole stance.

Thanks for the heartwarming concern but somehow I get the sense that your motivation is not that you are worried about poor me getting discredited. D Besides, I don't worry about it or even mind it if its serves the truth so why should anyone else?

Peace,

Ayman

It does not serve the truth to overuse logical fallacies like you are doing.

Peace

phoenix1

peace all,

i don't get it.

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence, so mecca does not exist
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence but mecca still exists.

If there is no evidence for Mecca, why isn't it possible that it just didn't exist?

wildguest1956

peace all,

i don't get it.

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence, so mecca does not exist
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence but mecca still exists.

If there is no evidence for Mecca, why isn't it possible that it just didn't exist?

Here is the correct version

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet, and A concludes from it that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet but B disagrees with A that this lack of physical evidence is enough to prove that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.
For B, Mecca may have existed, or may have not existed; the physical evidences are too poor to conclude anything.

argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true.

The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator prove that it isn't.

This is just simple logic.

Do you get it, now?

Peace

unknownuser

A says there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet, and A concludes from it that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.
B agrees with A that there is no physical evidence of Mecca's existence at the time of the prophet but B disagrees with A that this lack of physical evidence is enough to prove that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet.

For B, Mecca may have existed, or may have not existed; the physical evidences are too poor to conclude anything.
This is just simple logic.

Peace

and I agree 100% with B

Peace

phoenix1

peace

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?

If nothing, the lack of evidence does prove the Sunnis wrong. Mecca might have existed, but it was so insignificant, that no one ever cared to mention it.

And since no written document ever mentions Mecca, it's probable that Mecca is never mentioned in the Quran.
If it holds no significance to the scripture, to the prophet, to our spiritual guidance, then why mention it at all? unless the name holds some symbolic significance.

wildguest1956

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?

Maybe it was not such an important city as what the Sunni claim.
There are nearly no archeological findings in Mecca. Archeologist research is not allowed there.
If Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet, then it should have been fabricated later. Unless you are able to tell when it was fabricated, by whom, and how it has gained acceptance among all sects, the claim that Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet remains unfounded.

Peace

ayman

Peace Phoenix,

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?
If nothing, the lack of evidence does prove the Sunnis wrong. Mecca might have existed, but it was so insignificant, that no one ever cared to mention it.
And since no written document ever mentions Mecca, it's probable that Mecca is never mentioned in the Quran.
If it holds no significance to the scripture, to the prophet, to our spiritual guidance, then why mention it at all? unless the name holds some symbolic significance.

Thank you for your intelligent observations.

The most important evidence for people who have faith in the great reading is the fact that the common noun fits in 4824. On the other hand, for people who don't really have faith in the great reading but instead have faith in some town, this is not enough.

JM already admitted that there is no proof that Mecca existed. Unfortunately for him, Mecca gets its significance from people assuming that it is the unquestionable truth but he fails to see the implications of his own admission. It is not surprising that JM didn't and never will be able to really answer my question

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman,

You are quick to get things twisted. What Pheonix and I have been saying is that what you are saying is not absolutely true. When you get something in your head, no one can tell you different and to you its 100% truth. To the point that when one of us points out to you that there is still a possbility even though it is unlikely you think we are trying to defend the point, when we aren't trying to defend the point at all. We really tend towards your conclusion but the way you get to your conclusion and the conviction you have to your logic, as if it were flawless, is what we disagree with.

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?
If nothing, the lack of evidence does prove the Sunnis wrong. Mecca might have existed, but it was so insignificant, that no one ever cared to mention it.
And since no written document ever mentions Mecca, it's probable that Mecca is never mentioned in the Quran.
If it holds no significance to the scripture, to the prophet, to our spiritual guidance, then why mention it at all? unless the name holds some symbolic significance.

Pheonix said all this just so you could prove that you don't understand what he is really trying to say when you respond with;

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?

He never said that he believe that Mecca was even really a town, he just said that despite the lack of evidence there is still a possiblity. But you deny even the possiblity which is absurd on your part and shows your lack of a ability to understand and use logic. Or better yet question your own conclusions. If that is not the case, you sure make it seem like that. But I've never known you to be someone who is very conscioius, or who even cares for that matter about what the people who are having these discussion with you think about you.

It's hard to respond to you when you tell people that there just 'blabbering' and when you speak with such agressive passion about your conclusion but you can't understand the basic logic behind simple things that I and, in this case pheonix has said.

You calle me out about the use of the word 'extremism' and 'christian' and what I was pretty sure they would mean to you, but that still does not take the truth out of my statement. It is a truth that you do not want to see. I have brother like you and it is very hard to have even a very simple conversations with him because he abuses his intelligence, damages the productivity of conversations and justifies himself in everything, whether he has a good point or not. Those who disagree must be defending what he is arguing against, even if that is not the case. I hate arguing with him and I want to punch him in his mouth when we do get into an indepth discussion because he is damaging the conversation with his maniacal style of arguing. When I have discussion with you on the forum its like I'm talking to him all over again. And I know that even comparing him to you will not fly with you, if you think that the comparison intends some criticism of you.

Now I know everything I said might not have had 100 percent intellectual value and you can go ahead and throw what I said ealier in my face like you did in your response to me, but it has alot to do with the abilty for people to have meaningful discussion and come up with meaningful resolutions to problems.

I spelled Macaroba in all those crazy ways to emphasize that the sound of word is what was important just in case you looked a Makkah and Maca and two distinct words completely, which I saw you hinting at in one of your posts. Secondly, when you are talking about foreign corruptions of words your trying to base a corruption on an Arabic root (Mkk as opposed to Krb) will not work, which is why I gave you all of those other examples of corrupted names of places. I stated that there is a possiblity that Macaroba could still be a corruption of Makkat.

As far as voweling and functional load, you might as well review our old conversations. I will never agree with you on that, and in my mind your are ignoring and invalidating valid aspects of the old Arabic langauge. i think you ignore these things more because you can't deal with them than because of logical reasons. Showing me textual archeological evidence for a language which has almost never written vowels, even voweling that you would consider crucial, that they have always pronounced is not proof for your conclusion that case endings have low functional in Classical Arabic and it never will be. There will be hundreds of contexts where a blank word can be replaced with hundreds of options, which is why guessing from context is not 100 percent accurate especially when it comes to writings whose meanings you can't necessarily guess. Guessing from context teachings fluency and social functionality not meanings of words.

As for Macaraba, please refer me the information about its location acording to those sources.

As for Makkah It could existed or not, that is not the point. Depending on the information you give me I will be able to make that decision but I also do not believe in the complete historical invalidity of Pre-islamic poetry and at the extreme even all hadeeth (depending). Maybe it didn't exist. If it didn't no skin off my back. But there is still always the possiblity that it did even if evidence lacks.

Pilgrimage is not economic centers. The pilgrimage was not set up to take the place of economic centers and its goal is as a huge community centers. Community is all the time, but not everyone can make it to community functions all the time. That is what conventions are for and that is the purpose of the Hajj. I disagree with you about the economic center aspect but hopefully we can get these first issues straight and then talk about this.

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

i wanna right this over again.

Ayman,

You are quick to get things twisted. What Pheonix and I have been saying is that what you are saying is not absolutely true. When you get something in your head, no one can tell you different, and to you its 100% truth. To the point that when one of us points out to you that there is still a possbility for a town like Mecca to have existed, even though it is unlikely, you think we are trying to defend the point, when we aren't trying to defend the point at all. We really tend towards your conclusion but the way you get to your conclusion and the conviction you have to your logic, as if it were flawless, is what we disagree with.

i think in this case lack of evidence is evidence. If Mecca really was such an important city in the past, why is there no evidence of it's existence? why is it completely absent from all archeological findings?
If nothing, the lack of evidence does prove the Sunnis wrong. Mecca might have existed, but it was so insignificant, that no one ever cared to mention it.
And since no written document ever mentions Mecca, it's probable that Mecca is never mentioned in the Quran.
If it holds no significance to the scripture, to the prophet, to our spiritual guidance, then why mention it at all? unless the name holds some symbolic significance.

Pheonix said all this just so you could prove that you don't understand what he is really trying to say to you when you respond with;

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?

And its in bold on top of that and big as day! That is amazing Ayman. Truly Amazing. bravo

He never said that he believes that Mecca was even really a town, he just said that despite the lack of evidence there is still a possiblity. But you deny even the possiblity which is absurd on your part and shows your lack of ability to understand and use logic. Or better yet question your own conclusions. If that is not the case, you sure make it seem like that. But I've never known you to be someone who is very conscioius, or who even cares for that matter about what the people who are having these discussions with you think about you.

It's hard to respond to you when you tell people that there just 'blabbering' when they make good points and you fail to understand them. And when you speak with such agressive passion about your conclusion but you can't understand the basic logic behind simple things that I and, in this case, pheonix have said.

You called me out about the use of the word 'extremism' and 'christian' and what I was pretty sure they would mean to you. You were right. But that still does not take the truth away from my statement. It is a truth that you do not want to see. I have a brother like you and it is very hard to have even a very simple conversation with him because he abuses his intelligence, damages the productivity of conversations and justifies himself in everything, whether he has a good point or not. Those who disagree must be defending what he is arguing against, even if that is not the case. I hate arguing with him and I want to punch him in his mouth when we do get into an indepth discussion because he is damaging the conversation with his maniacal style of arguing. When I have a discussion with you on the forum its like I'm talking to him all over again. And I know that even comparing him to you will not fly with you, if you think that the comparison intends some criticism of you.

Now I know everything I said might not have had 100 percent intellectual value and you can go ahead and throw what I said ealier in my face like you did in your response to me, but it has alot to do with the abilty for people to have meaningful discussions and come up with meaningful resolutions to problems.

I spelled Macaroba in all those crazy ways to emphasize that the sound of word is what was important just in case you looked at Makkah and Maca as two distinct words completely, which I saw you hinting at in one of your posts. Secondly, when you are talking about foreign corruptions of words you cannot base a corruption of an Arabic word on Arabic roots (Mkk as opposed to Krb). That will not work because the language that is corrupting the word doesn't follow the same grammar and Greek definitely doesn't have the same roots system. So why would you try to invalidate my linguistic analysis with something which on the outside might seem like you know what you are talking about but when you really look at the whole picture doesn't apply at all. That is why I gave you all of those other examples of corrupted names of places so that you would avoid doing this. With all that said there is a possiblity that Macaroba could still be a corruption of Makkat. But honestly I like your Machorba suggeston 10 times better. (you see I'm not always against you try to understand what I'm really saying here).

As far as voweling and functional load, you might as well review our old conversations. I will never agree with you on that, and in my mind your are ignoring and invalidating valid aspects of the old Arabic langauge. i think you ignore these things more because you can't deal with them than because of logical reasons. Showing me textual archeological evidence for a language which has almost never written vowels, even voweling that you would be considered crucial, but have has always pronounced is not proof for your conclusion that case endings have low functional in Classical Arabic and it never will be. There will be hundreds of contexts where a blank word can be replaced with hundreds of options, which is why guessing from context is not 100 percent accurate especially when it comes to writings whose meanings you can't necessarily guess. Guessing from context teachings fluency and social functionality not meanings of words. And texts do not always correspond to spoken language, you should know that from having learned English.

As for Macaroba, please refer me the information about its location acording to those sources. Imagine that peopel called Makkah Makkaturrabbi, that would definitely change thing wouldn't it. And don't try to say that Makkat only means destruction because it has other meanings as well which are on my site for those of you who don't know them (www.progod.org, under pilgrimage). There is still a possibility. But like I said I like Machorba better.

As for Makkah It could have existed or not. But that is not the point. Depending on the information you give me I will be able to make that decision but I also do not believe in the complete historical invalidity of Pre-islamic poetry and at the extreme even all hadeeth (depending). Maybe it didn't exist. If it didn't no skin off my back. But there is still always the possiblity that it did even if evidence lacks.

I got 300 BC from the article statement of 4th century, which starts at 300 BC. As for AD, if I use the word lord like sayyid in Arabic which is what it really means, and which is what domini means then because I do veiw Jesus, God bless him, as one of my sayyids or good sirs then I will continue to use AD. Take that, smarty pants!! elektro

Pilgrimage is not economic centers. The pilgrimage was not set up to take the place of economic centers and its goal is as a huge community centers. Community is all the time, but not everyone can make it to community functions all the time. Moroever when a community gets big or is really spread out, or even scarce that is the purpose of the Hajj. Pilgrimage is common-ground. That is what conventions in our modern day are for and that is the purpose of the Hajj. I disagree with you about the economic centers aspect but hopefully we can get these first issues straight and then talk about this.

Godbless,
Anwar

savage_carrot

Peace progod,

I have a brother like you and it is very hard to have even a very simple conversation with him because he abuses his intelligence, damages the productivity of conversations and justifies himself in everything, whether he has a good point or not. Those who disagree must be defending what he is arguing against, even if that is not the case. I hate arguing with him and I want to punch him in his mouth when we do get into an indepth discussion because he is damaging the conversation with his maniacal style of arguing. When I have a discussion with you on the forum its like I'm talking to him all over again. And I know that even comparing him to you will not fly with you, if you think that the comparison intends some criticism of you.

I don't understand the need for such statements as 'punching someone in his mouth', it damages the productivity of discussions. If someone is getting frustrated with the debate, it's best to leave it. The last line is borderline peculiar. Why would you bring in a brother like ayman and then tell us you would like to punch this person in the face and yet comparing him to ayman will not fly IF ayman might think that the comparision intends some criticism of him. What exactly then might this comparision bring to the discussion? I hope you see what I'm saying here? Please leave these things aside and carry on with the excellent discussion. Thank you.

wildguest1956

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?

Peace Ayman,

First, there is no point to shout. Let?s take it easy...

Yes, I admit that, given physical evidences, there is zero proof of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet, as well as there is zero proof of its nonexistence.

What do I base my belief on ?
Well? Which belief ???

On this issue, I consider I have not yet found the truth.

And I am sorry to tell you that, with your flawed and tricky arguments, you have discredited yourself, and you appear to me as biased as the sunni are.

Peace

CavemanDoctor

Since you ADMIT that there is no proof for Mecca then what do you base YOUR belief in it on?

Peace Ayman,

Yes, I admit that, given physical evidences, there is zero proof of the existence of Mecca at the time of the prophet, as well as there is zero proof of its nonexistence.

Peace JM.

How exaclty does one go about proving a nonexistence?