How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)

progod

Savage Carrot,

I was just telling my experience. I'm not really sorry if you don't like it. But if you didn't see the point of why I said it there is nothing I can do. I will continue the conversations but please look at what I am saying, not what you think I am implying. The story about my brother wasn't a made up story to say that I want to punch Ayman in the mouth. Not at all. So put that inference back where you got it from. The story is exactly as I have it. I've learned not to argue with my brother because despite his intellectual prowess he is not out to solve problems but to show off, and abuse that prowess and to flex it. It's not about logical honesty and integrity. I can't help it if intellectual abuse upsets me, and honestly I don't want to help it. I believe I have that right and I follow the Quran's guidance to not let my hate take me a way from justice. What I said was appropriate whether you agree or not. Ayman in his mind knows. But thank you for caring about this subject and trying to keep us all, (in this case me) on track.

Godbless,
Anwar

zeljko67

Peace to all,

Ayman,

May The God keep blessing you with the eyes to see.

In other words, keep up the excellent (excellent!!!) work.

Peace.

savage_carrot

I was just telling my experience. I'm not really sorry if you don't like it. But if you didn't see the point of why I said it there is nothing I can do.
Okay.

I will continue the conversations but please look at what I am saying, not what you think I am implying.
I did.

The story about my brother wasn't a made up story to say that I want to punch Ayman in the mouth. Not at all. So put that inference back where you got it from.
I didn't say it's a made up story.

The story is exactly as I have it. I've learned not to argue with my brother because despite his intellectual prowess he is not out to solve problems but to show off, and abuse that prowess and to flex it. It's not about logical honesty and integrity. I can't help it if intellectual abuse upsets me, and honestly I don't want to help it. I believe I have that right and I follow the Quran's guidance to not let my hate take me a way from justice. What I said was appropriate whether you agree or not. Ayman in his mind knows.
I see.

But thank you for caring about this subject and trying to keep us all, (in this case me) on track.
My pleasure.

wildguest1956

Let me summarize the facts of this discussion so that they don't get lost in the middle of all the kicking and screaming made by people who can't let go of their emotional attachment to Mecca.

Peace Ayman,

It is good news you are trying to restart the debate, but it would have been better you had not resorted to a logical fallacy in the first sentence

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

(1) The present day town named Mecca gets its legitimacy from two things
a. People claim that it is mentioned by The God in 4824.
b. People claim that it existed from the time of Abraham and people from all over continuously performed pilgrimages to it from the time of Abraham until now. Of course the implication of this is that it is a famous place that was well known to all pre-quranic people.

Anything that disproves the above two points makes the whole question about Mecca moot. So for example, even if archeological evidence is discovered in Mecca that is older than the 8th century that proves the existence of a small insignificant pagan shrine in that location (as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.

My goal is not to defend what you are calling ?the extraordinary claims by the sectarians?.

Let?s look at the 2 following claims

Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet, and it was fabricated ex nihilo about 1 century after his death.
Mecca did exist at the time of the prophet, but it was a small town with a shrine. It has gained importance after the death of the prophet, and some irrational stories have been fabricated to turn it into a holy Islamic town.

Clearly, one of these 2 claims is more extraordinary than the other, isn?t it ?

(2) The primary proof that the town named Mecca in (1) didn't exist in the fact that the only time the word "mecca" is mentioned in the great reading it is clearly a common noun whose meaning fits in the context of 4824. For those who have faith in the great reading this evidence is complete and sufficient and there is no reason to read beyond this point. On the other hand, those who don't have faith in the great reading will always have doubts in their hearts no matter what.

It is true that the common noun Mecca meaning destruction fits in (assuming the case endings are not a cosntraint).

So, in it can be either the proper name ?Mecca?, or the common noun ?destruction?. Both are possible.

It is also possible that the right translation of is with the common noun ?destruction? even though Mecca was an existing town.

(3) For those who don't have faith in the great reading, the logical proof in (2) is not enough. They appeal to history and they conjecture that humans wouldn't utter such lies. However, even according to historical physical evidence, there is no proof that a town named Mecca existed prior to the 8th century CE. They counter-argue that there is zero proof of its "nonexistence" and forget that according to the same logic there is zero proof for the nonexistence of dragons, unicorns, 80 meter tall humans, and all mythological things. This is their trial. Had (2) been sufficient for them then they would reach certainty. They will always have doubts in their hearts.

i) Nothing has been proved in (2).

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

You definitely have a severe problem with logic.

(4) Another fact we know very well and everyone here admits is that sectarians lied about Mecca. Even the people here who argued against (2) and (3) admit that sectarians lied about the significance of Mecca and this explains the lack of evidence for it. So everyone agrees that sectarians lied about it. Yet all sects completely agree on such lies. So it is a fact that sectarian agreement has nothing to do with something being true or not. In fact, the more outrageous the lie, the more they agree on it. For example, they all agree to set up the prophet as a partner who will intercede for them in the same way that all Christian sects agree that Jesus is the son of god. In the case of Mecca as in the case of the prophets' intercession and the case of god taking a son (725), people are in denial that humans and their imagination would concoct such lies.

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

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

Yet, this problem highlights one of the weaknesses of the free-minds stance the lack of a study of the process of distortion of Islam.
We all agree Islam has been distorted, but we have no precise idea of how, when and by whom it has been done.

I suggest you to have a look on the works of Ahmed Shaffat http//www.islamicperspectives.com.
I like the way he uses the hadith to show how they have been fabricated, like for the example of the 7 ahruf (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm), or for the example of the verse of stoning (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm).
He also addresses the origin of Christianity (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/DisappearanceOfJesus.htm).
This is the kind of scholarly works I need to be fully convinced of historical claims.

I also suggest you to read the book of AbdelMajid Charfi Al-Islam, bayna Ar-Risala wa At-Tarikh (in French L?islam, entre message et histoire, not available in English).
In this book, he tries to exhibit the trends in the distortion of Islam legalism, ritualism, idolization of the prophet, insertion of biblical beliefs and so on?
See http//www.nawaat.org/portail/article.php3?id_article=168

You can also have a look at the works of S Ahmed (http//www.ourbeacon.com/truehistory.pdf) or GA Parwez, but I don?t find them rigorous enough.

Anyway, you don?t need to claim that Mecca has been fabricated 1 century after the death of the prophet to argue that what is done today in Mecca in the name of Islam are pagan rituals that have been instated in Islam after the death of the prophet. One of the well-known trends in the distortion of Islam is the insertion in it of biblical beliefs (maybe by the fresh Jews or Christians converts), so why not pagan beliefs too?
The insertion (or re-insertion) of pagan beliefs or rituals to be done in Mecca is far much probable than the fabrication from scratch of this town.

Hope my stance is clearer now.

Peace

SwedenMajidah

Peace,

JM says 2) There are nearly no archeological findings in Mecca. Archeologist research is not allowed there.

Well I could have figured that out, the saudis don't want the truth to be revealed.

Maria

wildguest1956

Peace,

JM says 2) There are nearly no archeological findings in Mecca. Archeologist research is not allowed there.

Well I could have figured that out, the saudis don't want the truth to be revealed.

Maria

Maybe...

The fact is that, without archeological research in Mecca, we can only make conjectures...

Peace

progod

JM,

Very good job. Clear and concise. I don't think you should be misunderstood after that. As a matter of fact I pray to God that you are not misunderstood after that post.

Godbless,
Anwar

ayman

Peace JM,

(1) The present day town named Mecca gets its legitimacy from two things
a. People claim that it is mentioned by The God in 4824.
b. People claim that it existed from the time of Abraham and people from all over continuously performed pilgrimages to it from the time of Abraham until now. Of course the implication of this is that it is a famous place that was well known to all pre-quranic people.
Anything that disproves the above two points makes the whole question about Mecca moot. So for example, even if archeological evidence is discovered in Mecca that is older than the 8th century that proves the existence of a small insignificant pagan shrine in that location (as there are many such shrines that were built for saints and jinn to this day all over the desert), this will prove nothing about the above extraordinary claims by sectarians.

My goal is not to defend what you are calling ?the extraordinary claims by the sectarians?.

You don't have a choice. You know that you can't defend the indefensible. Therefore although you disagree with me by saying "what you are calling the extraordinary claims", you are forced not address the above facts.

Let?s look at the 2 following claims

Mecca did not exist at the time of the prophet, and it was fabricated ex nihilo about 1 century after his death.

This is not a claim. This is one logical scenario that results from the FACTS above that you can't address.

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

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

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

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

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

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

i) Nothing has been proved in (2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, this problem highlights one of the weaknesses of the free-minds stance the lack of a study of the process of distortion of Islam.
We all agree Islam has been distorted, but we have no precise idea of how, when and by whom it has been done.

I suggest you to have a look on the works of Ahmed Shaffat http//www.islamicperspectives.com.
I like the way he uses the hadith to show how they have been fabricated, like for the example of the 7 ahruf (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation5.htm), or for the example of the verse of stoning (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Stoning3.htm).
He also addresses the origin of Christianity (http//www.islamicperspectives.com/DisappearanceOfJesus.htm).
This is the kind of scholarly works I need to be fully convinced of historical claims.

I also suggest you to read the book of AbdelMajid Charfi Al-Islam, bayna Ar-Risala wa At-Tarikh (in French L?islam, entre message et histoire, not available in English).
In this book, he tries to exhibit the trends in the distortion of Islam legalism, ritualism, idolization of the prophet, insertion of biblical beliefs and so on?
See http//www.nawaat.org/portail/article.php3?id_article=168

You can also have a look at the works of S Ahmed (http//www.ourbeacon.com/truehistory.pdf) or GA Parwez, but I don?t find them rigorous enough.

Thanks for the links, I will look at them when I have time.

Anyway, you don?t need to claim that Mecca has been fabricated 1 century after the death of the prophet to argue that what is done today in Mecca in the name of Islam are pagan rituals that have been instated in Islam after the death of the prophet. One of the well-known trends in the distortion of Islam is the insertion in it of biblical beliefs (maybe by the fresh Jews or Christians converts), so why not pagan beliefs too?
The insertion (or re-insertion) of pagan beliefs or rituals to be done in Mecca is far much probable than the fabrication from scratch of this town.

As I indicated above, it comes down to whether or not you believe that The God knew about this when He gave us 4824.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Zeljko,

May The God keep blessing you with the eyes to see.

In other words, keep up the excellent (excellent!!!) work.

Thank you for your kindness. All that is good comes from The God's blessings. May The God pour on us patience and guide us the straight path and not make us a trial for people who are unjust.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Salam Adley,

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

Yes brother, this is all that matters.

Peace,

Ayman

wildguest1956

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don?t see what the problem is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace

ayman

Peace JM,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,

Ayman

progod

Peace Ayman,

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

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

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

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

Yes brother, this is all that matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Godbless,
Anwar

progod

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

Peace Ayman,

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

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

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

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

Yes brother, this is all that matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Godbless,
Anwar

truth

Peace,

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

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

Jerusalem = heritage of peace.

Cairo = victorious.

Damascus = well watered place.

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

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

wildguest1956