How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

progod

Hmmmm . . .

How do I respond to you so you understand me? First let me say peace.
Second, I am a believer in God and I don't find the idea of holy places repugnant at all, but i do understand your point. What you said reminds me of the Hadeeth that says that all of the earth is a masjid. But don't take that as an insult if you don't exactly favor the hadeeth.

So let me put the practical side to you. All places are different, and they serve a different purpose. That is why it is important sometimes to understand why we view things as holy. The Old Arabic sense of holy has to do with acting disciplined (with restriction) in that particular place.

So let me say that although I do believe in holy places I believe they are holy for practical reasons, because they serve as a places especially dedicated to the worship of God, because they serve as a places where believers gather, communication, recognize each other, worship together and create stronger bonds among each other.

That is the purpose of the holy houses of God. I hope you don't find that repugnant.

Godbless,
Anwar

Very strong word by the way.

truth

I do believe in holy places I believe they are holy for practical reasons, because they serve as a places especially dedicated to the worship of God, because they serve as a places where believers gather, communication, recognize each other, worship together and create stronger bonds among each other.

Peace,

There are two things there that raise an eyebrow. Firstly you acknowledge that these places are "especially dedicated" or 'consecrated' ie. declared holy or sacred by people. Thus a building or a place can fulfil the role of an idolised thing - in effect by showing dedication or special consideration for a particular place the people have idolised it.

Secondly, you state the purpose as involving "worship" whereas the God demands service and good deeds not empty rituals. Whether you do it alone or in numbers does not make it right.

2014

I am the God; there is no other beside Me. Serve only Me and establish the duty to remember Me.

Innanee ana Allahu la ilaha illa ana faoAAbudnee waaqimi alssalata lithikree

You don't need "holy" places for that.

Regards.

JHamza

Assalam Alaikum all!
First let me say that I am enjoying this discussion and the main post..

See my other post on what I believe about Hajj,Prayer and Mecca.
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=73440#73440

I found these to be interesting
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4682

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4768

Bekaa lies between the two parallel mountain ranges in Lebanon http//www.libanmall.com/main/bekaa.htm
this would be a Valley....

wildguest1956

Peace JM,

OK, it is surprising there is no mention of Mecca on the inscription about Abraha.

Why is it surprising? Is it because it contradicts traditional pious fiction and dogma? This is hardly surprising. MANY MANY truths in the great reading and in the world around us contradict traditional fiction and dogma. In fact, quite the opposite, I would be surprised if I find anything that confirms such traditional fiction and dogma because so far I have found none. You might be surprised because this is the first time you realize this but you will probably get used to it.

It is difficult for me to believe that ALL has been invented.
If one claims some history has been invented, one should also explain how and when it took place.

What do you think of that http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/kaaba.html ?

I have had many debates with Mr. M.S.M. Saifullah and from my experience he excels in circular arguments and hiding the truth by partial quoting or misquoting. The article that you linked to provides ample examples (emphasis mine)

The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked,
BETWEEN THE THAMUDITES AND THE SABEANS, A FAMOUS TEMPLE, WHOSE SUPERIOR SANCTITY WAS REVERED BY ALL THE ARABIANS; THE LINEN OF SILKEN VEIL, WHICH IS ANNUALLY RENEWED BY THE TURKISH EMPEROR, WAS FIRST OFFERED BY THE HOMERITES, WHO REIGNED SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE TIME OF MOHAMMAD."

Diodorus Siculus lived in the 1st century BC so perhaps you might want to ask Mr. Saifullah the following questions

How did Diodorus Siculus mention in his remark the Turkish Empire, which didn't even exist until at least 1400 years later!?
How did Diodorus Siculus mention in his remark Mohammad who lived 700 years later!?

Perhaps Mr. Saifullah thinks that Diodorus Siculus had foreknowledge of the future or perhaps he deliberately misquoted or perhaps he didn't read properly what he blindly wrote or copied because he was obsessed with getting any information (true or not) to prove the historicity of his beloved Mecca. This is why the only people who believe Mr. Saifullah are people who are equally as eager to justify their dogmatic preconceptions about Mecca.

The fact is that Diodorus Siculus doesn't mention the name Mecca at all. He only mentions a temple in Arabia. He gives its location as somewhere between the THAMUDITES AND THE SABEANS. This would include places like Hegra and Teima that WE KNOW had famous temples and several hundred other possible places. Even with his misquoting, one can get this fact with a proper educated reading of Mr. Saifullah's article.

It is interesting to know that Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, mathematician and astronomer, flourishing about a century after Pliny, undertook to make an atlas of the habitable world. He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps. He enumerated some hundred and fourteen cities or villages in Arabia Felix.
"For example, Dumaetha, placed by Ptolemy just outside the northern boundary of Arabia Felix, must be the mediaeval Arabian Daumet, which is today the chief village of the great oasis of Jauf. Hejr, famous in the "times of ignorance" as the seat of a kingdom, and now Medayin Salih, is Ptolemy's Egra. His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC. It is the Tema of Job. In Lathrippa, placed inland from Iambia (Yambo), we recognize the Iathrippa of Stephan of Byzantium, the Yathrib of the early Arab traditions, now honoured as El Medina, the City of Cities."

Apart from this a place called Macoraba is also shown which IS IDENTIFIED as Mecca.

Now here are the facts and as before one can even get those facts with a proper educated reading of Mr. Saifullah's article

Similar to Diodorus Siculus, Ptolemy doesn't mention the name Mecca at all.
Ptolemy mentions a small insignificant town by the name of Macoraba not Mecca.
Unlike the important towns such as Hejr and Teima Ptolemy only mentions Macoraba in the passing and doesn't associate any significance to it.
The location of the Macroba is not identified by Ptolemy or the reference as the location of present day Mecca. It is none other than Mr. Saifullah himself who does the identification and this is why he TAKES THIS MOST IMPORTANT PART OUT OF THE QUOTATION.

Now Mr. Saifullah provides some interesting information on "bacca"

Baca, The Valley Of (PLACE) , The valley of Baca (Psalms 841) is either a historical place name or a symbolical expression for "deep sorrow". The first part of Psalms 846 seems to mean that by "passing through the experience of deep sorrow, righteous ones can make it the source of life." The Septuagint translated the phrase into Greek as "the valley of weeping". The word 'emeq "valley" has the root meaning of "deep", so the expression may mean "deep sorrow".

So the word "bacca" in 396 was interpreted by the people of the book as symbolic of "deep sorrow". This also agrees with the word's only known Arabic etymology. So 396 is most likely not talking about a physical location at all.

Many thanks for these knowledgeable answers.
but 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

I have not used as a proof.
I am OK there is no definite proof of the existence of Mecca.
As well as I think there is no definite proof of the nonexistence of Mecca.

But the burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims. If people make the extraordinary claim that we should all go there to spin seven times around a rock and kiss it then they had better bring some extraordinary evidence for it. I am not the one making extraordinary claims.

What is extraordinary in your claim is that Mecca would have been invented as the town where the prophet lived without someone denouncing the lie.

I have read your response to Riz, but I did not see in it the responses to my question
"Do we have archeological evidence of a town named Yatrib ?"

We have the mention by Ptolemy of Yathrippa and we have other mentions in early post-quranic times by sources external to Islam.

This is somewhat weak.
And Lathrippa is no more Yatrib that Macoraba is Mecca.

There is no direct proof in that umm al-qura designates Mecca.

692 says that the messenger was sent to "umm al-qura" and those around it and traditionalists say that this is Mecca. If you say that there is no proof that "umm al-qura" is Mecca then we agree.

Glad we agree on one thing !
So, there is no proof that Mecca was a big town.
Still agreed ?

Which town was umm al-qura, according to you ?

I don't know.

So, how do you explain the rituals that are taking place today at Mecca ?

They were pre-existing pagan rituals.

Pre-existing where ?
At Mecca, or somewhere else ?

When did it begin ?

When did which one begin, Mecca or the rituals?

The rituals can be traced back to the 4th century CE. The symbols can be traced back much further to the 6th century BCE and some (such as venerating black stones) can be traced back even further. Attributing talismanic energy to black stones is a very ancient pagan custom. For example, a Cro-Magnon site dated at 29,000 years of age contained a black stone amulet. A black stone known as "The Phrygian Stone" was adored for over five centuries in the Roman period. The ancient Semites revered black stones. Their black stone represented a triple-aspected mother goddess to whom they made human sacrifices.

Was Mecca really created from scratch ?

All cities are either created from scratch or are transformed, renamed, and certain significance is added to them. For example, under early Islamic rule Al-Fustat was made into the capital of Egypt.

The location later called Mecca could either have been created from scratch

How could it have been created from scratch assuming the Meccan rituals can be traced back to the 4th century CE ?

or was the location of an insignificant pagan outpost where the pagans could re-establish their power under the radar and then rename it to Mecca.

Why not a small town (with pagan idols) ?

I am not trying to defend what you call the sectarian religion.
Anyway, you are right these 2 points are intermingled.
We know the Jews and the Christians do not believe in the coming of Abraham to Mecca. And you ?
Is your belief about this based on archeological evidence ? Or on "biblical evidence" ?

Here is what I know and it is based on archeological evidence

There was no town in Arabic called Mecca prior to the 8th century CE.

Since Abraham lived many centuries prior to the 8th century CE, then he couldn't have been to a town called Mecca.

As for Abraham going to any location anywhere, I don't think that the location is important so it is irrelevant to my beliefs.

Abraham could have been to Mecca, and Mecca could have, at the time of Abraham, existed into another name.

In , we learn it is a duty to make a hajj in Bakka.
How do you do it, if you don't know where it is ?

397 clearly says that the "hajj"/debate is to the house NOT to Bakka. 396 only says that the first house was in Bakka. Inherent in this statement is that there are SUBSEQUENT houses. Thus, there can be two alternative understandings

If the word "bakka" is taken as the proper name Bakka of some place then the place is only the location of the first house, while the "hajj"/debate is to "the house" NOT necessarily the first one.

"THE house" is not like "A house". "THE" is a definite article. When one says "THE house", it implies that the house has been formerly defined. So, it is very likely that "THE house" refers to the house in Bakka.

If the word "bakka" is taken as the common noun "deep sorrow" then it is symbolic of the kind of feelings that are felt by those who repent and their feeling of sorrow for crimes that have been falsely committed in the name of The God. As we saw above, this is how the people of the book most likely understood the term.

Refuted by Progod.

You have missed my point.
In your article "language barrier", you have sensed the need to give the theory to explain how the pre-quranic poetry could have been invented after the revelation of the quran.
You have explained that Jahiliya poetry could have been invented without the need of a conspiration because there were demand for this kind of tales.
Was there a demand for a creation of a new town called Mecca to replace the town where the quran had really been revealed ?

Yes, there was demand because people across the ages and places are always attached to the past traditions. Even those who oppose such traditions are not likely to voice their objections. For example, how many times while walking on the street you met a Christian friend who tells you "Merry Christmas" or "Joyeux No?l" and you responded by grilling them that this is a pagan tradition? How many times did you meet a sectarian on the street or even a family member who tells you "happy Eid" and you responded that there is no such thing as a religious festival called Eid and that decreeing such falsehood as part of our obligation is idolatry and quoted 4221?

Here, you are explaining how false beliefs are kept up ; not how they come into existence

And why did none of the "islamic" sects (sunni, shia, kharadji) oppose this lie ?

You forget that such religious sects started out as political parties. The Shia and Kahrijites started out as political parties opposed to the Umayyad. The Sunni started out as a political party to support the Abbasid theocracy and only became the official state dogma under the Abbasid ruler Al-Mutawakil.

Why doesn't any major political party in the US oppose the lie of Scientology, a new religion that has gained millions of followers in the past 20 years?

Why doesn't any political party or politician in the world whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim oppose the obvious lie that the present building named Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa is the "al-masjid al-aqsa" talked about in the great reading?

Politicians are only interested in more power not is opposing lies at the expense of their popularity.

Your responses are not convincing.

Today, all "muslims" do endorse Mecca as the town where the prophet lived. But not all American politicians do endorse the beliefs of scientology. And here, in France, all politicians are against it.
About al-masjid al-aqsa, a masjid is not necessarily a mosque ; see http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

Had the prophet lived in Hegra instead of Mecca, creating a new town named Mecca, and stating it was the place where the prophet lived could not have been done without some people opposing it, and without a political group appearing and fighting the obvious lie.
The sunni, shia, and kharadji were fighting each other to prove their truthness ; the shia and kharadji could not have let the sunni contrive such a lie without accusing them of being liars.

Please forgive me if I have misunderstood your articles, but I see 2 differences between your 2 articles (A) "Language Barrier" (cf http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm) and (B) "HOW DID IT COME TO THIS? (PART 1)" (cf http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm).

In (A), you explain that the 2 languages did mix in the same areas (but there were not used by the same kind of people ; Nabataean were used by the elite, and Arabic by common people)
"On the other hand, in the same areas of Arabia where those informal Arabic graffiti are found, thousands of Nabataean inscriptions can be found. "

in (B), you explain that these 2 languages did not mix in the same area (there were an area where the Arabic script was the script of prestige, and another area where the nabatean script was the script of prestige)
"Arabic writers simply used the script of prestige of the geographic area where it was written."

In the above you answered your own misunderstanding. How can I see that it is the "same area" when " there were an area where the Arabic script was the script of prestige, and another area where the nabatean script was the script of prestige". Obviously, in B, I said that there were two areas, Northern Arabia on one hand and Central and South Arabia on the other.

In (A), you say that the quran was revealed in the Musnad script (called "Arabic", as opposed to "nabatean", because it was the language of common people)
"How is it that the great reading being in Arabic contributes to logical and reasonable as opposed to unreasonable understanding? "

I NEVER say that the great reading was revealed in Musnad script. I say that the great reading was reveled in the Arabic language. Your confusion is the result of the common error amongst most people of confusing script and language. They are two different things. Script is irrelevant to language. The word "salam" is in Arabic language despite it being in English script. Do you get what I mean?

In (B), you say that the quran was revealed in the Nabataean Aramaic script (for geographical causes).
" So this completely negates that the great reading was originally written in a central Arabian town such as present-day Mecca otherwise it would have been written in the far more suitable Musnad script, which was the script of prestige for that region."

No, I say that it was revealed in Arabic language but recorded using the Nabataean Aramaic script.

It is exactly like "Bism Allah AlRahman AlRahim" is in the Arabic language but is recorded in the English script. So the great reading that we have is in an Arabic "lisan" (tongue/language) but is written in a foreign script exactly like "Bism Allah AlRahman AlRahim".

OK, I have confused the Nabatean langage you spoke about in (A), and the Nabatean script you spoke about in (B).
I still have 2 questions.

You wrote in (A) "On the other hand, in the same areas of Arabia where those informal Arabic graffiti are found, thousands of Nabataean inscriptions can be found. "
There were informal Arabic graffiti in southern Arabic, does it imply there were also Nabatean inscriptions in this area ?
You wrote in (A) "When the subject of the inscription changed from formal religious/royal matters to the common people's explanation of why they loved their king, so did the language. It shifted from Nabataean to Arabic. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there weren't two people living in the same region who were using two different languages. They were one people all along who simply used two languages for different purposes. They used Arabic as an informal language for common everyday matters and Nabataean as a language for religious and formal affairs."

Does it imply that the Arabic inscriptions written in the Nabatean script were used by common people ?
What was the script used in the Arabic inscription at Negev ?

Can you expatiate what is "the reminder in it" ?

The reminder is explained in 4141-42. It is a book that falsehood doesn't enter. So you will find some minor differences in the text of the great reading but those differences have in reality no bearing on the meaning. For example, 19ers have taken 9128-129 out but falsehood has not entered it. Any other attempt to insert falsehood will be easily recognized and defeated.

When you want to remember something, you write it in your notes. When you want to remember an appointment, you write it in your calendar. It is irrelevant what script you write it in as long as you understand what it means in your language.

If the meaning of the great reading was to be preserved, how do you explain that so much falsehood have replaced truth in its today's understandings ?

You have refuted the claim that the quran has been written in 8th century, but you have not brought proof that the quran (or the reminder in it) has being fully preserved.

The claim that the great reading was written in 8th century was the claim made by the Christian polemist that you quoted. So I refuted it. I didn't realize that you needed proof that the reminder in the great reading has been fully preserved.

I don't need such proof because I verified the criteria that the great reading sets for itself, namely internal consistency and the content of its message.

If the quran has been fully preserved, it implies that there has been some trustable people who have fully transmitted it. Why did these trustable people transmit well the quran (without adding or removing nothing to it), and did nothing against the "Mecca" lie ?

No, the reminder of the great reading was preserved because The God promised to preserve it NOT because of any people, trustable or otherwise. If you put your trust in "trustable people" instead of The God then it is no wonder that you need proof that the reminder in the great reading has been fully preserved. Stop putting your trust in people and trust in The God and you will not need such proof.

OK, but how did God concretely preserve the (reminder of) great reading ?

Peace,

Ayman

Peace and thanks for your responses,

JM

truth

What is extraordinary in your claim is that Mecca would have been invented as the town where the prophet lived without someone denouncing the lie.

Peace,

The above assumption that people might denounce lies is naive. Witness the many alleged burial places for people of importance; they can't be at all the places and each would call the other's claims lies.

There are inventions in history. I watched a documentary recently where the bones of a certain "St. Nicholas" were examined in Italy and in Turkey where the fragments are said to be. It turned out that the bones kept at Turkey, namely the jawbone is duplicated - both skeletons have that piece - so one must be a fabrication.

Don't be surprised by such manipulations. They are done for what are believed good reasons at the time. And remember Lenin's quote on the matter which I'll paraphrase - "A lie told often enough becomes truth".

Regards.

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Two issues; because I don't think you really answered them. Zakaat and Salaat are also spelled with the medial w. Don't you think that this could have also been a dialiectical issue(along with manwt)? I think that is the original reason why Salaat and Zakaat were written like this because they were dialectly salaat or salawat, Zakaat or zakawat or the plurals zakawaat or salawaat.

I am not sure if it is a dialectical issue with "zakat" (zkwt) and "salat" (slwt). We have to be careful because proper names such as Manat can sometimes have strange spelling anyway that doesn't follow the regular rules, especially, if the proper name is borrowed, as in this case, from a foreign language.

What would help is if we can study a pre-quranic inscription mentioning "zakat" and "salat". I have seen the verb form "zky" in a Musnad pre-quranic south Arabian Sabaic inscription but not the noun form which carries the medial waw.

As for becca. The root in Arabic is not bakaa which is to cry. It is obvious that is is the female version of bakk, from baa, kaf, kaf. So the reasoning of the biblical scholars is wrong. I can't speak about the Hebrew, but Bakkah in Arabic is not from the root to cry which takes about the meaning of sorrow. Don't you think? Did you check out my points about Mecca and Hajj in my article on my website? The word hajj has the meaning of pilgrimage also, but not just pilgrimage to Mecca, but any pilgrimage to any "holy" site because pilgrimages by nature of the word are to holy places not to markets or for shopping. I think it was right to take the concept of pilgrimage and establish it for the holy houses of God that are constructed for the unity of people who believe in God and the Quran. But I'm not going to argue about the origin of the word before the epoca of the language of the Quran.

Thank you for correcting my mistake. Yes, the Arabic root is different to Hebrew. I rechecked the Classical Arabic dictionaries for "bakka" and it seems that its Arabic etymology has more closely to do with competition. This would perhaps be further confirmation of the "7ajj" being something akin to the annual market.

I read the article on your site in the past and I just reread it and the major thing I disagree with is that don't think that there is an association of anything "holy" with the "7ajj". The word "7aram" doesn?t mean "holy" by any measure so linguistically there is no basis for that.

Also, from a more empirical point of view, one cannot invite all people to a "holy pilgrimage". Such "holy pilgrimages" are always the domain of the adherent to a certain religious dogma. Hence, Jews and Christians do not go to the Muslim "holy pilgrimage" in Mecca and vice versa Muslims don't go to their shrines on a "holy pilgrimage". However, people from all creeds in pre-quranic times (and in modern times) traveled to partake in the annual market. Safety, tolerance, and freedom have always been essential for the success of such markets.

Therefore, I am in agreement with you with the meaning of makkah, and I don't think you have really considered all of the meanings of bakkah. But the pilgrimage is to create a season where we can organize, reunite and recognize each other.

This all sounds nice but those reasons (except perhaps recognize or get to know each other ("3arafat")) are not mentioned in relation to the "7ajj" in the great reading. The first and primary purpose clearly stated is for people to witness benefits. This cannot be achieved by any "holy pilgrimage". It can only be achieved by a non-discriminatory tolerant venue such as a free, open and competitive annual market.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace JM,

Can we read those debates online ?

You can read them here

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam

This is somewhat weak.
And Lathrippa is no more Yatrib that Macoraba is Mecca.

I don't have a problem with Yathrippa being Yathrib or not.

Glad we agree on one thing !
So, there is no proof that Mecca was a big town.
Still agreed ?

There is no proof of a pre-quranic town named Mecca, big or small.

Pre-existing where ?
At Mecca, or somewhere else ?

Pre-existing in the Arabian Peninsula, especially the north.

How could it have been created from scratch assuming the Meccan rituals can be traced back to the 4th century CE ?

The rituals are not tied to Mecca. Those same rituals were performed at other locations such as Petra.

Why not a small town (with pagan idols) ?

Could be, but it was not named Mecca.

Abraham could have been to Mecca, and Mecca could have, at the time of Abraham, existed into another name.

He could have been there as he could have been to Ethiopia or many other places all over the ancient world. But there is no evidence that Abraham or anyone invited people to go there. In fact, there is no evidence of any significant number of people going there until the 8th century CE.

"THE house" is not like "A house". "THE" is a definite article. When one says "THE house", it implies that the house has been formerly defined. So, it is very likely that "THE house" refers to the house in Bakka.

There are endless examples in the Arabic language and in the great reading of the definite article not implying that something has been formerly defined. In fact it can sometimes mean something indefinite. Try "al-ba7r" (the sea) in 2164. Is it a specific sea/body of water or any sea/body of water? In this case we can see that it clearly is indefinite despite having the definite article. This is hardly amazing or new and we see the same phenomena in almost all languages. For example, in the sentence "the submarine goes under the sea", neither "the submarine" nor "the sea" are specific.

Here, you are explaining how false beliefs are kept up ; not how they come into existence

That is all that needed to be explained. Remember that those pagan rituals and beliefs were already in existence.

Your responses are not convincing.
Today, all "muslims" do endorse Mecca as the town where the prophet lived. But not all American politicians do endorse the beliefs of scientology. And here, in France, all politicians are against it.

None of the politicians in America oppose or endorse it. They just let it be. If later they find that it is in their best interest to endorse it then they certainly will. If politicians in France are against it, then it is for political reasons, not for the sake of truth as they are happy to endorse other lies. Again generally politicians are not interested in the truth, they are interested in popularity and power.

About al-masjid al-aqsa, a masjid is not necessarily a mosque ; see http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

Ghoniem et al. argument centers around the fact that "masjid" is not a proper name but a common noun (the difference should be familiar to you by now). Let me quote from the article

"The Arab grammarians classify masjid as "ism makan", i.e., "name of location"; it indicates the place where an action takes place. Masjid being derived from the root sa-ja-da (to prostrate), it means "place of prostration". Since a place of worship is a place where believers prostrate to God, "masjid" is a general term to designate any place of worship without any religious distinction. Later, this word was used to designate Islamic places of worship in particular, i.e., the mosques."

Please note that in their haste to justify their illogical shrine, the authors conveniently ignore the other half of the expression "al-masjid al-aqsa" and they are completely silent on how "Arab grammarians" classify "aqsa". This is for the simple reason that they know very well that their common noun explanation creates even more difficulties for the illogical traditional view. As a common noun, "al-aqsa" means farthest or utmost. As a common description, "al-aqsa" is not a fitting description for the Temple Mount location by any measure.

It is difficult for me to believe that ALL has been invented.
If one claims some history has been invented, one should also explain how and when it took place.

What is extraordinary in your claim is that Mecca would have been invented as the town where the prophet lived without someone denouncing the lie.

Had the prophet lived in Hegra instead of Mecca, creating a new town named Mecca, and stating it was the place where the prophet lived could not have been done without some people opposing it, and without a political group appearing and fighting the obvious lie.

Why not? Where the prophet lived was likely not as important back then as it is now.

Besides there were indeed many civil wars and conflicts. History is always written from the point of view of the victorious. Even in modern times with instant information access it is the lies of the victorious that take hold and other versions are soon forgotten. Why do you expect the situation to be better in ancient times when information took weeks or months to travel and there was very little means to verify it? Or do you think that ancient people were any better than modern ones?

We know from sources external to Islam such as the Romans and the Persians that the center of the early Islamic kingdom was Hira (present day Southwestern Iraq), not some unknown place called Mecca or even the known Yathrib.

The sunni, shia, and kharadji were fighting each other to prove their truthness; the shia and kharadji could not have let the sunni contrive such a lie without accusing them of being liars.

No, they were not fighting each other to prove anything of the truth. They were fighting each other over political leadership and power. This is the same situation today.

Politicians in Egypt fight and imprison the opposition but they do not fight people because they go on the increasingly popular holy pilgrimage to the Sufi shrine of Sidi Tantawi. None of the opposition parties in Egypt accuses the government of being liars for supporting the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of Sidi Tantawi. In fact, the majority of Egypt's 70 million people (who are not Sufi by the way) do not object to such festivals and if they don't attend them, then they happily watch them on state TV, and consider Sufis to be pious and truthful. The government even sends official delegations to the gathering. I am sure that the entire Arab population in the early 8th century was far less than 70 million and such falsehoods were much easier to take hold then in the case of the present information-age Egyptian population.

OK, I have confused the Nabatean langage you spoke about in (A), and the Nabatean script you spoke about in (B).
I still have 2 questions.

You wrote in (A) "On the other hand, in the same areas of Arabia where those informal Arabic graffiti are found, thousands of Nabataean inscriptions can be found. "
There were informal Arabic graffiti in southern Arabic, does it imply there were also Nabatean inscriptions in this area ?

There are some Nabataean inscriptions in Southern and Central Arabia from the time when the Nabataeans traded there but they are not in the Arabic language. They are in the Nabataean language.

You wrote in (A) "When the subject of the inscription changed from formal religious/royal matters to the common people's explanation of why they loved their king, so did the language. It shifted from Nabataean to Arabic. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there weren't two people living in the same region who were using two different languages. They were one people all along who simply used two languages for different purposes. They used Arabic as an informal language for common everyday matters and Nabataean as a language for religious and formal affairs."
Does it imply that the Arabic inscriptions written in the Nabatean script were used by common people ?

I am not sure what you mean by "used". Inscriptions are used for communication or to make a point. In this case, the switch from the Nabataean language to the Arabic language was to make the point that this was the people's explanation of why they loved their king.

What was the script used in the Arabic inscription at Negev ?

Nabataean script.

If the meaning of the great reading was to be preserved, how do you explain that so much falsehood have replaced truth in its today's understandings ?

The reminder is not preserved for those who forget The God. It is only preserved for those who remember The God. Unfortunately, most people remember their fantasies or the fantasies of others about a character named Mohammed more than they remember The God.

OK, but how did God concretely preserve the (reminder of) great reading ?

He didn't say how, so I don't know. Perhaps, you can ask him when you meet Him but meanwhile I don't advise you to assume that He couldn't have preserved it without the "pious" Sunnis or the "pious" of any sect or people.

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Ayman,

Two things

How can you say that haraam doesn't mean holy in any way?

It can only be achieved by a non-discriminatory tolerant venue such as a free, open and competitive annual market.

Why can't the hajj be viewed in a more modern sense, or better said a more practical sense? WHy can it be a free open, annual convention?
Why must it be a market? You eliminate the valid meaning of haraam to mean holy and add an invalid meaning to hajj as 'market?'

Why?

You don't view God as holy? You don't view God's causes as holy? You don't view places dedicated to house people who gather together to do what God wants them to do as holy places? You know that from the root harama comes the word 'ihtiraam' or respect. And that is what haraam is, it is holy in the sense that the thing that is haraam is to be respected.

You don't think that a place where believers in God can gather together to support each other will make it so we visit the benefits that you mention. Besides Arafaat, what about all of the meanings of collective Zakaat (betterment) and collective Salaat(not just prayer but also blessing each other through wealth and approval of each other)? How is it that a convetion where believers would come together and get active(al-&umrah), organizing to benefit each other, wouldn't bear witness to those benefits mentioned in the Quran? Believers who gather together and work(saari&oo) for the good (al-khairaat) of this community.

You honestly don't see the benefit of a pilgrimage purified of the ignorant ways, empowering believers on local and international levels by providing sanctuaries that they can visit wherever they go, and making the sanctuaries centers(qiblah) of unity and collective power of this Quranic community?

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

Why can't the hajj be viewed in a more modern sense, or better said a more practical sense? WHy can it be a free open, annual convention?
Why must it be a market? You eliminate the valid meaning of haraam to mean holy and add an invalid meaning to hajj as 'market?'
Why?

An annual convention will only attract "believers" in a particular creed, not all people.

The only thing that can attract all people to witness benefits and remind them of The God is something that is non-discriminatory based on creed or any other basis. The only "conventions" that all people came too throughout human history without regards to creed are markets.

Such markets are attested to by all creeds in ancient and modern times as the only thing bringing Jews, Christians, pagans, etc. together to witness benefits.

The added requirement for "7ajj" is that such markets takes place somewhere where partners are not set up with The God.

You don't view God as holy?

I do because The God is "qudoos" and as far as I know for now, that means "holy".

You don't view God's causes as holy?

No. They are never described as "qudoos" in the great reading.

You don't view places dedicated to house people who gather together to do what God wants them to do as holy places?

No. In fact, empirically we can verify that people who take any kind of places as "holy" end up idolizing them.

You know that from the root harama comes the word 'ihtiraam' or respect. And that is what haraam is, it is holy in the sense that the thing that is haraam is to be respected.

I could be wrong, but the word "i7tiram" is probably the act of restriction. It is kind of like "m7n" to test and "imti7an" the act of testing. Also, strictly speaking respect is different to holy.

You don't think that a place where believers in God can gather together to support each other will make it so we visit the benefits that you mention. Besides Arafaat, what about all of the meanings of collective Zakaat (betterment) and collective Salaat(not just prayer but also blessing each other through wealth and approval of each other)? How is it that a convetion where believers would come together and get active(al-&umrah), organizing to benefit each other, wouldn't bear witness to those benefits mentioned in the Quran? Believers who gather together and work(saari&oo) for the good (al-khairaat) of this community.

I agree that all this is very noble and worth doing. In fact, I think that it is what those who have faith in The God should be doing ALL THE TIME and not just in a certain time of the year or at a convention.

As you said, what you described above are activities of the "believers" NOT all people. On the other hand, "7ajj" is for all people.

You honestly don't see the benefit of a pilgrimage purified of the ignorant ways, empowering believers on local and international levels by providing sanctuaries that they can visit wherever they go, and making the sanctuaries centers(qiblah) of unity and collective power of this Quranic community?

As you said "they (believers) can visit wherever" and I would like to add "whenever". On the other hand, "7ajj" is for all people not just believers and at a specific time of the year not continuous.

I hope this helps you see where I am coming from.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

Peace JM,

Can we read those debates online ?

You can read them here

http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam

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

This is somewhat weak.
And Lathrippa is no more Yatrib that Macoraba is Mecca.

I don't have a problem with Yathrippa being Yathrib or not.

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.

Glad we agree on one thing !
So, there is no proof that Mecca was a big town.
Still agreed ?

There is no proof of a pre-quranic town named Mecca, big or small.

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.

Pre-existing where ?
At Mecca, or somewhere else ?

Pre-existing in the Arabian Peninsula, especially the north.

How could it have been created from scratch assuming the Meccan rituals can be traced back to the 4th century CE ?

The rituals are not tied to Mecca. Those same rituals were performed at other locations such as Petra.

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

Why not a small town (with pagan idols) ?

Could be, but it was not named Mecca.

A town can have several names.

Abraham could have been to Mecca, and Mecca could have, at the time of Abraham, existed into another name.

He could have been there as he could have been to Ethiopia or many other places all over the ancient world. But there is no evidence that Abraham or anyone invited people to go there. In fact, there is no evidence of any significant number of people going there until the 8th century CE.

"THE house" is not like "A house". "THE" is a definite article. When one says "THE house", it implies that the house has been formerly defined. So, it is very likely that "THE house" refers to the house in Bakka.

There are endless examples in the Arabic language and in the great reading of the definite article not implying that something has been formerly defined. In fact it can sometimes mean something indefinite. Try "al-ba7r" (the sea) in 2164. Is it a specific sea/body of water or any sea/body of water? In this case we can see that it clearly is indefinite despite having the definite article. This is hardly amazing or new and we see the same phenomena in almost all languages. For example, in the sentence "the submarine goes under the sea", neither "the submarine" nor "the sea" are specific.

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 .

Here, you are explaining how false beliefs are kept up ; not how they come into existence

That is all that needed to be explained. Remember that those pagan rituals and beliefs were already in existence.

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.

Your responses are not convincing.
Today, all "muslims" do endorse Mecca as the town where the prophet lived. But not all American politicians do endorse the beliefs of scientology. And here, in France, all politicians are against it.

None of the politicians in America oppose or endorse it. They just let it be. If later they find that it is in their best interest to endorse it then they certainly will. If politicians in France are against it, then it is for political reasons, not for the sake of truth as they are happy to endorse other lies. Again generally politicians are not interested in the truth, they are interested in popularity and power.

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.

About al-masjid al-aqsa, a masjid is not necessarily a mosque ; see http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

Ghoniem et al. argument centers around the fact that "masjid" is not a proper name but a common noun (the difference should be familiar to you by now). Let me quote from the article

"The Arab grammarians classify masjid as "ism makan", i.e., "name of location"; it indicates the place where an action takes place. Masjid being derived from the root sa-ja-da (to prostrate), it means "place of prostration". Since a place of worship is a place where believers prostrate to God, "masjid" is a general term to designate any place of worship without any religious distinction. Later, this word was used to designate Islamic places of worship in particular, i.e., the mosques."

Please note that in their haste to justify their illogical shrine, the authors conveniently ignore the other half of the expression "al-masjid al-aqsa" and they are completely silent on how "Arab grammarians" classify "aqsa". This is for the simple reason that they know very well that their common noun explanation creates even more difficulties for the illogical traditional view. As a common noun, "al-aqsa" means farthest or utmost. As a common description, "al-aqsa" is not a fitting description for the Temple Mount location by any measure.

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.

It is difficult for me to believe that ALL has been invented.
If one claims some history has been invented, one should also explain how and when it took place.

What is extraordinary in your claim is that Mecca would have been invented as the town where the prophet lived without someone denouncing the lie.

Had the prophet lived in Hegra instead of Mecca, creating a new town named Mecca, and stating it was the place where the prophet lived could not have been done without some people opposing it, and without a political group appearing and fighting the obvious lie.

Why not? Where the prophet lived was likely not as important back then as it is now.

Besides there were indeed many civil wars and conflicts. History is always written from the point of view of the victorious. Even in modern times with instant information access it is the lies of the victorious that take hold and other versions are soon forgotten. Why do you expect the situation to be better in ancient times when information took weeks or months to travel and there was very little means to verify it? Or do you think that ancient people were any better than modern ones?

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.

We know from sources external to Islam such as the Romans and the Persians that the center of the early Islamic kingdom was Hira (present day Southwestern Iraq), not some unknown place called Mecca or even the known Yathrib.

The sunni, shia, and kharadji were fighting each other to prove their truthness; the shia and kharadji could not have let the sunni contrive such a lie without accusing them of being liars.

No, they were not fighting each other to prove anything of the truth. They were fighting each other over political leadership and power. This is the same situation today.

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.

Politicians in Egypt fight and imprison the opposition but they do not fight people because they go on the increasingly popular holy pilgrimage to the Sufi shrine of Sidi Tantawi. None of the opposition parties in Egypt accuses the government of being liars for supporting the annual pilgrimage to the shrine of Sidi Tantawi. In fact, the majority of Egypt's 70 million people (who are not Sufi by the way) do not object to such festivals and if they don't attend them, then they happily watch them on state TV, and consider Sufis to be pious and truthful. The government even sends official delegations to the gathering. I am sure that the entire Arab population in the early 8th century was far less than 70 million and such falsehoods were much easier to take hold then in the case of the present information-age Egyptian population.

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.

If the meaning of the great reading was to be preserved, how do you explain that so much falsehood have replaced truth in its today's understandings ?

The reminder is not preserved for those who forget The God. It is only preserved for those who remember The God. Unfortunately, most people remember their fantasies or the fantasies of others about a character named Mohammed more than they remember The God.

OK, but how did God concretely preserve the (reminder of) great reading ?

He didn't say how, so I don't know. Perhaps, you can ask him when you meet Him but meanwhile I don't advise you to assume that He couldn't have preserved it without the "pious" Sunnis or the "pious" of any sect or people.

Peace,

Ayman

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.

Peace

progod

I could be wrong, but the word "i7tiram" is probably the act of restriction. It is kind of like "m7n" to test and "imti7an" the act of testing.

So you don't use the word ihtiraam to mean respect? If you don't think Ihtiraam means respect than what word means respect and how can you prove that? Ih-tiraam in the dictionary is respect.
Secondly, you take harama as 'to restrict or be restricted' and 'ihtiraam as the act of restricting. Why don't look at in the other way? That is, Ihtiraam is the act of respecting and 'harama is restricted but with a stronger senese of 'to be respected.' 'to give something its due space or treatment, letting it be, and not fumbling with it.'

Also, strictly speaking respect is different to holy.

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.'

So do you think capitalism is holy? Is it the only thing that will unite people. Is the Quran not for all men? Is the religion that it promotes and its message not for all men? Then why is the pilgrimage for only a small group when everything that the Quran promotes is for all people?

And so what if it is not going on now, that is what we are supposed to be working towards.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace Anwar,

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.

So do you think capitalism is holy? Is it the only thing that will unite people.

No and no.

Is the Quran not for all men?

The great reading is for human kind.

Is the religion that it promotes and its message not for all men?

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

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".

And so what if it is not going on now, that is what we are supposed to be working towards.

As your signature says, we have to differentiate between what is real and what we want to be real. The reality of the matter is that a religious pligrimage has never and will never be a way to invite all mankind. Markets at a safe gathering places have and will be.

Peace,

Ayman

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