How Did it Come to This? (Part 1)
-
This has nothing to do with my opinion. YOU and ANWAR admitted that the word "mecca" in 4824 is a common noun. It is not my problem that you are not forethoughful enough to see the implications of your own admission
.Ayman you have a sick heart. You cannot approach either me or JM on the logical field to really come to a real understanding. And we really have been trying to reach out and help you understand where we are coming from. You only respond with accusations of how we are narrow-minded, misguided, don't have faith in God or the Quran or how we are ignoring truth. And through these comments you hide away from having to deal with the logic of what you are saying. To the point that you said
I know how to distinguish logical fallacies and I don't need to copy and paste definitions from Wikipedia to show that I do.
He copied and pasted something that you shoudl have learned from it but you just hid behind your arrogance and with this comment showed how you didn't listen to what he had to say the first time he said it. So for your sake Ayman and for everyone else who migh think I'm just attacking you I'm going to post what he said againAd 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_circumstantialJust because he posted it from Wikepedia doesn't mean that he doesn't know what it implies. This definition was for you, to show you that there is a name for your false logic and he put it in front of your face that you could recognize it, and say "OOOHH! maybe he is right" not reject it and then undermine what he was trying to tell you, just becuase he copied and pasted it from Wikepedia for you.
All in all, you have something to say to JM just say it to him. If you didn't answer my post when I wrote it, then don't use my name when JM is just pointing out something to you that you should have seen before. I would appreciate it if you didn't mentioned even my name, because you are not keen enough to argue with me, and for that reason I don't want to discuss this with you anymore. Take it as arrogance if you want to, but what it really is is merited frustration. You are just here to argue your points to the end, you are not willing to deal with the logic of them and honestly it is making me sick. Your words are poisonous and accusing for anyone who doesn't agree with you and all you know how to do is point the finger not discuss the intracacies of the issue at hand. It is people like you that halt the true progression of thought.
I've said all that I can say, so from now on if you haven't understood by now what has been said to you then I am going to opt out. Especially since you keep missing the point, not addressing it and then trying to say that JM and I are wrong. It's really annoying me (and I'm trying to use polite words for what I really want to say). God hasn't blessed me with the patience to deal with you, unfortunately. I hope He'll forgive me for not wanted to deal with a sick heart like yours when I have seen that you are not capable of indepth thought and meaningful mutual exchange. laa takun min al-fajarati, ud min al-fasaadati, wa takhasha& min arrijaa'i
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace Ayman,
What is/are the difference/s between 396 and 4824 in relations to 'bakka' and 'mecca' respectively when analyzing these verses?
There is no relation.
Bakka and mecca are mentioned once, I believe, in the entire Quran; and as per your understanding both of them are descriptive terms and not cities, am I correct?
And where was Muhammad born according to historical information?
Nobody knows where or when he was born. Either way, this doesn't matter because there is nothing in the great reading that says that its truth is dependent on somehow knowing those irrelevant things.
There's not a single passage on the entire NET that defines Muhammad to be born elsewhere other than Mecca and around 570 CE and I suppose you don't believe that, simply because its not mentioned in the Quran and besides its not important, right? For a person to claim a book from 'Allah', don't you think the world would like to know who that person is and his background? Ok, lets assume that no one knows where and when Muhammad was born, then would you know where and when the Quran was revealed or do you think that is not important either? Would you deny that Muhammad wasn't the one who revealed the Quran and the name is also descriptive?
-
Ayman you have a sick heart.
Ad hominem?
anyway, this is what I understand so far
There is no evidence for a town named Mecca before the 8th century.
The only reason people would believe in Mecca is because it is mentioned in the quran. Since 'mecca' in the quran is a common noun and not a Proper name of a city, we conclude that there was no town called Mecca during the time of the prophet and the sectarians later renamed a town (whether it had a shrine or not) after a common noun found in the quran. People fell for it and that's how Mecca became the center of Islam today.
The opposing argument to the above is
Although there is no evidence that Mecca did exist, there is no evidence that it did not exist. Even if it is not mentioned in any document, it still COULD have existed.
But they do agree that what the sectarians claim about Mecca is wrong. It's probably not mentioned in the quran and we aren't supposed to face it or anything like that.
But my question to the opposition is... why call a town "destruction?"
i know that when names of old cities are established, people don't think of the meaning of the name anymore, but people who establish the town do name it for a reason. New England was named New England by the puritans because they wanted to create a new England in the New World. There is always a reason for naming towns. Even the town Nameless, Tennessee.The only thing that was doubtful about Ayman's argument was that the non-existence of Mecca could not be PROVEN. But when we look at the MEANING of Mecca (along with the meaning of masjid, masjid al haraam, kaaba, etc), it becomes pretty clear that this was a conspiracy of some sort. After that, there is no reason to BELIEVE that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's life.
-
Here is another conspirer
The word Mecca, used in a figurative sense, is first recorded in English in 1850. The figurative meaning is "a place which one regards as supremely sacred, or which is the aspiration of one's life to be able to visit" (from the OED). English uses it in such a figurative sense because Mecca is the birthplace of Muhammed, making it the ultimate pilgrimage place of Muslims. There are two thoughts about the name of the city. The first has it coming from Phoenician maqaq "ruined", suggesting that the site was home to a city that was destroyed in battle or by some cataclysm. The second derivation suggests that Mecca derives from Arabic mahrab "sanctuary", a reference to the town being an ancient site of worship which became popular in the 7th century as the birthplace of Muhammad (570?-632).
With a lower case m, mecca today means "a place that is regarded as a center of activity or interest; a place visited by many people" as in "Take Our Word For It is a mecca for logophiles" .
*As an aside, this usage of why dates from the early 16th century and is defined as "an expression of surprise (sometimes only momentary or slight; sometimes involving protest), either in reply to a remark or question, or on perceiving something unexpected". We were simply curious about that one and thought you might be, as well.
Taken from http//www.takeourword.com/TOW170/page2.html
-
and another
http//www.takeourword.com/TOW170/page2.html
Mecca 1st - 6th century AD
The town of Mecca, in a rocky valley with no agricultural resources, develops into a place of considerable prosperity. There are two good reasons. It is a trading post on the caravan route from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. And it is Arabia's most important place of pilgrimage.During the centuries before Islam, large numbers of pilgrims arrive in Mecca to perform a ritual act of walking seven times round a small square building known as the Kaaba (Arabic for 'cube'. The building is full of idols, which are the objects of worship. It also includes a sacred black stone, possibly in origin a meteorite.
The Muslims and Mecca AD 624-630
Relations with Mecca deteriorate to the point of pitched battles between the two sides, with Muhammad leading his troops in the field. But in the end it is his diplomacy which wins the day.He persuades the Meccans to allow his followers back into the city, in 629, to make a pilgrimage to the Kaaba and the Black Stone.
An important element in Mecca's peaceful acceptance of the change has been Muhammad's promise that pilgrimage to the Kaaba will remain a central feature of the new religion.
So Mecca becomes, as it has remained ever since, the holy city of Islam. And Muslim tradition locates in Mecca many of the events described first in the biblical book of Genesis.
The preaching of Muhammad and the founding of Islam turn Mecca from a local place of pilgrimage to one of world-wide significance - though only Muslims are allowed to enter the city. Where pagan pilgrims once walked seven times round a Kaaba filled with idols, Muslims now walk seven times round the same Kaaba - but empty now, and sacred to the one God ('Allah' is God in Arabic).
it seems there is a lot or those conspirers out there, but what is shocking that many of them are not Muslims, LOL
-
Possibly they need to talk to Lisa
Why is Mecca the Religious Center of Islam?
By Lisa Federico '02Mecca is an important city for Muslims because it is the holy city of Islam. It is the religious center of Islam because it is home to the Kaaba and the Great Mosque, the birthplace of Muhammad, the first capital of caliphate, and the center of present day mosques. It is also the destination of the Hajj, one of the five pillars of Islamic faith. Mecca is home to significant events in Islamic history, as well as being an important present day center for the Islamic faith.
The history of Mecca goes back as early as the fifth century. It was an independent and powerful city in pre-Islamic times. Mecca was an important trade center because it was a main stop on the north-south track for Iranians (Mackey 42). It even competed against Byzantine and Persian empires, which were very wealthy in those times. To see a timeline of important events in early Islamic history, please go to
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chronology/
Mecca was home to the Kaaba, which Muslims now believe is the place of worship that Allah, the Islamic God, ordered Ishmael and Abraham to build in the 2000?s BC, which is another reason Mecca was an important trading stop. The Kaaba is supposedly built at a holy sight established by Adam ("In the Name of Allah" par.1). The Kaaba is a black stone that Muslims believe Allah sent. The Kaaba lies in the center of a stone building, the Great Mosque, which has large beautiful arches and pillars. But the Kaaba wasn?t always a center for Islam because before Muhammad came, the people worshipped false idols and the Kaaba was a symbol of that.
Abu al-Qasim Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Abd al Muttalib ibn Hashim, better known as Muhammad the prophet of Islam, was born in 570 in Mecca (Mackey 42). He had a hard childhood, being orphaned at the age of six and his family had little power or money. He grew up disobeying the ways of Meccan society. Muhammad escaped the daily drudgery of his life and went to the desert to meditate. One night in 610, he slept alone on Mount Hira, and was visited by the angel Gabriel, who said, "Recite in the name of the Lord who created all things, who created man from the clots of blood." (Mackey 43) This is when Muhammad began to state his belief to abandon idolatrous practices and to accept Allah as the creator of the universe, the everlasting (Mackey 43). Muhammad believed in Jihad, or holy struggle, against polytheism, heresy, and idolatry. Muhammad also believed that if you live for Allah, then you would be rewarded, and if you didn?t, then you would be punished. To learn more about Muhammad and his teachings please go to http//www.muhammad.net/
It took a while for Mecca to become the first capital of caliphate because not everyone shared Muhammad?s beliefs. Many people thought his teachings were a threat to religious and material order. They thought he was making up the angel Gabriel and they weren?t interested in changing their ways. His first support came from the poor and the young who didn?t feel they were treated equally. Since Muhammad couldn?t get the support he wanted, he went to Medina with his few followers in 622. They got more support there, and later returned to Mecca in 630. There was an eight-year battle, but Muhammad conquered Mecca and converted the people to Islam. Muhammad wasn?t just a religious leader, but also a political leader in Mecca.
Mecca is still a very important city for Muslims. There are five pillars in the Islamic faith including praying five times a day, salat, make a pilgrimage to Mecca, hajj, and giving to the poor and homeless. If you want to learn more about daily prayer in the Islamic religion, please click here http//www.ummah.net/kianyit/pray.htm. The pilgrimage to Mecca is called the hajj, bringing together many Muslims for religious rituals. It is very important to Muslims, and they are supposed to perform the hajj at least once in their lifetime. The hajj alone brings the city one hundred million dollars yearly (World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 13, 352). It takes place every year between the seventh and tenth days of the month of Dhu?l-Hijja (Lewis 231). There are three types of the hajj hajj at-Tamattu?, Hajj al-Qiren, and Hajj allf rad (Hajj Journey par 1). The most common type of the hajj is hajj at-Tamattu?. First, the Muslim arrives at Mecca and takes a shower to purify himself, puts perfume on, and puts on two-pieces of clothing with no headgear. Then, they say, "Labbayka Allahumma Labbayk. Labbayka La Shareeka Laka Labbayk. Inna-alhamda Wan-ntimata Laka Walmulk. La Shareek Lak," which means, "Here I am at your service. O my Lord, here I am. Here I am. No partner do You have. Here I am. Truly, the praise and the provisions are Yours, and so is the dominion. No partner do You have" (Hajj Journey par 4). Then, the Muslim performs Tawaf. This is when they start at the black stone and circle the Kaaba seven times in the counterclockwise direction. The next thing they do is the Sa?i. They go up the Safa and praise Allah three times. Then the Muslim comes back down and ends by shaving their heads. To hear real readings from the Quran about the hajj journey please click here http//ISLAM.ORG/mosque/quran//22htm#36.
Mecca is still an important present day city. In 1924 an Arab leader conquered it and made it part of Saudi Arabia. The government is trying to modernize Mecca, but the people won?t give up their very important history. Mecca is still the center for present day mosques. In a mosque there is a structure at the front known as a mihrab. The mihrab in a mosque is always facing Mecca, because it is the holy city.
Mecca has a very important Islamic history, but it hasn?t been forgotten in the present day. Some Muslims still consider Mecca the holiest spot on earth. The Mihrabs in churches that face Mecca and the hajj pilgrimage show Mecca?s importance. Also, Islam is still a great religion and the Great Mosque and the Kaaba are still standing, all important features of present day Mecca. Mecca is modernizing and changing, but will always be remembered for starting one of the most important religions in the world. -
Peace Danish,
Bakka and mecca are mentioned once, I believe, in the entire Quran; and as per your understanding both of them are descriptive terms and not cities, am I correct?
Yes.
There's not a single passage on the entire NET that defines Muhammad to be born elsewhere other than Mecca and around 570 CE and I suppose you don't believe that, simply because its not mentioned in the Quran and besides its not important, right?
This is false. There are several articles on the Free-minds site and on this forum (all are on the NET) that challenge those notions.
If you go to the Smithsonian's online exhibits (also on the NET) you will see a Pre-Islamic Arabian exhibit that displays a bunch of inscriptions, including one that commemorates the expedition of Abraha. The date on the inscription converts to 550CE (and of course it makes no mention of Mecca). According to sectarians, the prophet was born in the same year as the expedition of Abraha. So the dates are problematic and the prophet could have potentially lived much earlier than we think (perhaps some 20 years earlier). Writings describing the Arabs at the time of the Ummayyads give the image that the men on average died in their forties. Given that the present average age of Middle Eastern men with all the advancement in health care is in the low 60s, this is not surprising. On the other hand, for some reason the majority of the companions seem to have miraculously lived for a very long time (some well over a hundred years) and seem to have been very active well into their later years. So the trend that one sees is that the supposed companions' date of birth is pushed back. So by the same token, the prophet's date of birth is likely to have been pushed forward so that they can overlap. So all those guys that people claimed later that they were companions might have been either not born or babies during the prophet's time.
The only reason why sectarians cling at the one straw of Macroba is that they know very well that there is absolutely no evidence of a town named Mecca prior to the 8th century CE.
At any rate, you are right that it is not important.
For a person to claim a book from 'Allah', don't you think the world would like to know who that person is and his background?
No. Unlike sectarians, The God doesn't use the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority".
Ok, lets assume that no one knows where and when Muhammad was born, then would you know where and when the Quran was revealed or do you think that is not important either?
It is not important.
Would you deny that Muhammad wasn't the one who revealed the Quran and the name is also descriptive?
From the great reading, we know that the name of the prophet was actually Ahmed. Roman writings describe the Arab conquests in Palestine as being led by a man called "mohamed" well into the middle of the 7th century CE. So from those writings, it seems that "mohamed" was more of a title that could have been assumed by his successor rather than the name of the prophet.
It is The God who reveals the great reading (7519) to everyone of us who is not blind.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
What is/are the difference/s between 396 and 4824 in relations to 'bakka' and 'mecca' respectively when analyzing these verses?
There is no relation.
Bakka and mecca are mentioned once, I believe, in the entire Quran; and as per your understanding both of them are descriptive terms and not cities, am I correct?
And where was Muhammad born according to historical information?
Nobody knows where or when he was born. Either way, this doesn't matter because there is nothing in the great reading that says that its truth is dependent on somehow knowing those irrelevant things.
There's not a single passage on the entire NET that defines Muhammad to be born elsewhere other than Mecca and around 570 CE and I suppose you don't believe that, simply because its not mentioned in the Quran and besides its not important, right? For a person to claim a book from 'Allah', don't you think the world would like to know who that person is and his background? Ok, lets assume that no one knows where and when Muhammad was born, then would you know where and when the Quran was revealed or do you think that is not important either? Would you deny that Muhammad wasn't the one who revealed the Quran and the name is also descriptive?
Peace,
The difficulty in dating of historical people is not unique.
Dating of Zoroaster
Estimates for the lifetime of Zoroaster vary widely, depending upon the sources used. 1400 BC?1000 BC is cited by Mary Boyce in her A History of Zoroastrianism (1989), representing the current scholarly consensus. "before 458 BC" is cited by H.S. Nyberg in Die Religionen des Alten Iran (193. The Bundahi?n or Creation, an important text within the religion, cites the time of Zoroaster as 258 years before Alexander's conquest of Persia, i.e., 588 BC. This "Traditional Date of Zoroaster" was accepted by many 19th century scholars, among them Taghizadeh and W. B. Henning.
Other scholars have been arguing even later dates, now widely-rejected, Darmesteter reporting 100 BC. Persian mythological dates are very early indeed, reaching into what is today known as the Neolithic.Gautama Buddha was a spiritual teacher of the ancient Indian subcontinent and the historical founder of Buddhism. He is universally recognised by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha of our age. The time of his birth and death are unclear, but most modern scholars have him living between approximately 563 BCE and 483 BCE.
There's nothing new in this. Just because the Arabs have thought up and then forced this story down the throats of the world doesn't mean any of it is cannonically true.
The dates of "Muhammad" are unknown and likely unknowable. They are unimportant and a distraction for those who wish to be distracted.
-
Peace IPM
There is no evidence for a town named Mecca before the 8th century.
The only reason people would believe in Mecca is because it is mentioned in the quran. Since 'mecca' in the quran is a common noun and not a Proper name of a city, we conclude that there was no town called Mecca during the time of the prophet and the sectarians later renamed a town (whether it had a shrine or not) after a common noun found in the quran. People fell for it and that's how Mecca became the center of Islam today.
The opposing argument to the above is
Although there is no evidence that Mecca did exist, there is no evidence that it did not exist. Even if it is not mentioned in any document, it still COULD have existed.
But they do agree that what the sectarians claim about Mecca is wrong. It's probably not mentioned in the quran and we aren't supposed to face it or anything like that.
But my question to the opposition is... why call a town "destruction?"
i know that when names of old cities are established, people don't think of the meaning of the name anymore, but people who establish the town do name it for a reason. New England was named New England by the puritans because they wanted to create a new England in the New World. There is always a reason for naming towns. Even the town Nameless, Tennessee.
The only thing that was doubtful about Ayman's argument was that the non-existence of Mecca could not be PROVEN. But when we look at the MEANING of Mecca (along with the meaning of masjid, masjid al haraam, kaaba, etc), it becomes pretty clear that this was a conspiracy of some sort. After that, there is no reason to BELIEVE that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's life.Thank you for your excellent summary. You are exactly right. There is no reason to believe that there was a town called Mecca during the prophet's time no more than there is reason to believe that there were shrines called Al-Masjid Al-Haram or Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa or Kaaba. Those are all common nouns that were hijacked and given to things that sectarians built themselves long after the prophet's time.
I disagree about the need for a sort of conspiracy. I think that the natural law of supply and demand negates the need for a conspiracy. People demand shrines/idols to gather around and socialize (2925). Such shrines ranging from the cross to the stone cube and any such symbol is liked and demanded by superficial people because it brings them together. So when there is demand, this will create the supply. Similarly, when people demanded Hadiths, their number multiplied. When people later demanded Isnad (chains of transmission) for those Hadiths, perfect Isnads magically appeared. It is demand and supply. It is why as long as there are drug users there will be drug dealers. It is not a conspiracy.
Peace,
Ayman
-
peace Ahmed,
Peace
what evidence are all those articles based on?
The best type of evidences, it is called the logical evidences
oh yes, the Muslim texts, what they call the Hadith (the sayings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad).
Oh come on , you made this up hey
but now give me one logical reason why those westerners are conspiring with the tradtionalist?
remember "Logical", not non sense
Salam
-
To all,
I'm convinced of the fact that Mecca was not an important site before the 8th century. However, everyone should know that Makkah doesn't only mean destruction and I've stated that twice already. It can also mean 'sucking dry' or 'one that is sucked dry.' explaining the aridness of the this region and serving as a nickname that the Arabs gave to the site. I don't see it as a contradiction at all for there to be a coincidence between the name of this town and this word being used as an adjective in the Quran (only one of its meanings is destruction). There is no need to go into the babylonian roots of the word either. To those who didn't know that Arabic came from Babylonian, now you know or atleast that is what they say. But just like explaining the origin of an English word from Old, Old English or high german doesn't explain what the word means now or even 300 years ago in English. Trying to explain Arabic through its mother language is illogical. Hey its cool and its interesting to know but it has no bearing on the meanings of Arabic words that are already explained to us. This rebellious church girl thing is really starting to get to me. brickwall fftopic
Anyway, its possible that there was some conspiracy to rename this town to Mecca because of the Quran. It is possible that Muhammad really didn't live there but the Arabs of that area who became the power of the day made it seem like that. It is possible that the prophets name wasn't even Muhammad and that this is just an adjective used in the Quran. It's possible that the Quran was fabricated and the Arabs of Muhammad's day didn't speak Arabic but Nabatean. It's possible that Muhammad was from Petra or even Jerusalem. How about Egypt or Abyssina. Millions of things are possible but if we don't have indications of these things what is the point of trying to doubt what there is already evidence for only to try to make up some alternative story. I'll tell you this, I may not think that the Hadeeths should be followed as religious guidance and I may think that they are full of rumor, but if you know anything about history, even oral traditions can be true, and even rumor can be true. Those few Hadeeths that say 'don't write anything down from me except the Quran' etc, etc. Those hadeeths that contradict themselves, and the Quran itself help us understand that we are not obligated to follow everything that any prophet did in his or her life, because that would include following their mistakes. They're examplary examples are in their fulfillment of what God wanted from them, their spreading of God's book, etc., etc. Overall, we are told that Muhammad was told to follow the Quran and he told others to do that. When he died he left the Quran, not his own opinions or a log of 'what he would do' about anything. Knowing this nullifies the power of the Hadeeth, the written rumors, to misguide us. We don't need to follow them. But there is no need to totally reject them either. THe Quran wasn't given to us to verify history, only to clear us up on what we need to be cleared up on for our guidance, historical clues are added benefits.
Rumor can be true and except where the Hadeeth contradict the Quran I actually believe the history of the Hadeeth about Muhammad. I don't believe he was an orphan when he recieved the Quran because the Quran contradicts this hadeethic story. I don't believe that I have to make pilgrimage to Makkah because that's the Hadeeth not the Quran and the only importance that Mecca would have according to Quranic standards is that the sanctuary in it was cleansed of idolatry and dedicated to God, qualifying as a house of God and therefore a place of pilgrimage. You see, my religion is all in the Quran, and I appreciate those clues that point to the fact that the Hadeeth are rumor, and where this rumor is wrong. But God will only clear up the rumor that needs to be cleared up and I'm fine with that, because the rest is plausable and its validity is possible. So if I find more contradictions in the Quran against the Hadeeth then I will fix my understanding of the events that really went on. But I will not make up stories or imply conspiracies without real evidence. I will not defy the Hadeeth just to defy it. That is non-sense. All history is based off of rumor and conjectures. When you find a few pots in an area, you study the area and you conjure up a logical story. It may be true but it is what "most likely" happened, you'll never know what really happened because you didn't witness it. I think that alot of the things that Ayman brings up are important in helping us understand what really went on back then, but it is not up to us to conjure up stories just to try to prove the total unreliablity of the hadeeth. We already know that it is a book of rumor but there is no need to make up things to undermine it more. And our conjectures are on the same level as the conjectures of the Hadeeth. If we make up things what makes it more reliable then when they made up things in the past. It is more likely that their stories are closer to the truth as long as they don't contradict with artefactual or Quranic implications
So do I believe that Mecca was a city before the 8th century and after the 1st century and that it was called Mecca? Yup. There is no need for me to follow conjectures that are not based on the Quran and just put forth to undermine the Hadeeth and Islamic history out of rebelliousness. Do I believe that becca is mecca? No. Because this connection has to be forced, and you can see it being forced in the Hadeeth. Becca doesn't come from the root to cry and that is so obvioius I'm shocked the Muslim scholar couldn't see the mistake of the hadeeths that mention this. Even the people of the time of the Hadeeth didn't use Becca for Mecca. That was an obvious conspiracy, that failed.
The Quran didn't say that the town that Muhammad was in wasn't Mecca. THe Quran never said that the place it was revealed in wasn't Mecca. And just because the word can be understood as a noun in the Quran does't mean that Mecca didn't exist. On top of that the word can also mean the city Mecca and both meanings are just as valid. So for that reason I believe that the passage can say BOTH In the midst of Mecca and In the midst of destruction. So to me the verse is telling me that the recievers of the Quran were in a very tense situation in Mecca, and it tells me that when God's faithful find themselves surrounded by destruction that it is God that will restrain the hands of agression. So it served as a double meaning for the people in Mecca and as the universal meaning for God's believers everywhere and at anytime. I'm not as myopic to try to pidgeon hole the meaning of this passage to either extreme. It's just two sides of the same coin. So everyone can see now why I think that putting an utimatem to the Quran about the words that it uses, in this case Mecca, is unnecessary and extreme. So the issue of a conspiracy doesn't mean the wieght of an atom to me.
It just has no bearing from the way that I see this issue.With all that said you can say that I don't believe in the Quran or that I take the word of sectarians over God's word, etc. etc. Call me an infidel if you want or an apostate (like JM mentioned) and declare the spilling of my non-muslim blood legal. voodoo But I'm sure of my faith in the Quran and in God and I know the true place that the Quran and the Hadeeth really hold, how the hadeeth should be understood and its complete inferiority to the Quran. This may sound really sunni to you, but take it from someone who at one time was willing to deny identifying the Quran with Islam at all because I understand the fact that the Quran never promoted the name Islam as a religon. I only accept it now, because of what it really means to the modern world, and I hope one day that meaning changes so that I can reject it again and do my best to pull the Quran out of the grasps of the erroneous Islamc world. The intelligent, the Ulool-albaabi, the muzawwajoona bi-hoorin, and the alladheena ya'qiloona mentioned in the Quran will see the truth of what I'm saying.
And to ipostmanure, stop trying to use my arguments against me. Ad hominem doesn't work here. Thank you for pointing out the similarity, atleast I know you are a thinking man. handshake But having a sick heart means that one's ability to make good and consice arguments or to even see the point of what is being argued is corrupted or deficient. It has nothing to do with a bias about a certain opinion. But whatever I have to say to Ayman I've already said to him. You work out what seems to you to be a logical failure here. If you think hard arbout it you'll get it. confused
Godbless to all,
Anwar -
peace
I think Progod's got a point. Although we have no reason to believe that there IN FACT was a town called Mecca, we don't have much reason to believe that there was not. But...
is it just a coincidence that the word used in the quran was also a name of a town that became so important to Islam and the verse even makes sense if we use mecca as a proper noun? too much of a coincidence it seems like.
But then again, we shouldn't get carried away in degrading the sectarians and I think we should leave this whole Mecca thing at
"Mecca is not mentioned in the Quran as the name of a town and all the sectarians claim about it's importance is Horse manure." -
Peace All
Let me start off by stating I haven't followed the flow of this thread for quite some time (I stopped somewhere around page 4 of the thread). I just read Bro ProGod's last post, and I must say, very well put. I 100% agree with your analysis of this whole situation. Excellent post. Let us not delve into irrelivent arguments that will never benefit us in any way.
But those who strive against Our Signs, to frustrate them, - for such will be a Penalty - a Punishment Most humiliating.
Let us hold fast not to be like those mentioned in this aya. I don't believe anyone on this thread has a bad intention to purposely do this, but we must consciously be aware of the energy and messages we're putting out, even if it wasn't our true intentions. I believe we should focus on the unviersal messages of the quran rather than history or archaeology that mean nothing to us today in our deen, as bro ProGod rightfully mentioned.
May God Bless you all and increase you in knowledge
-
Peace Anwar,
So do I believe that Mecca was a city before the 8th century and after the 1st century and that it was called Mecca? Yup.
In all your ramblings, you never gave any evidence as to why you believe in Mecca being a city before the 8th century so it is just blind belief in what sectarians believe. But even sectarians can't give any evidence. The only reason that you kept hanging on to the self-deceiving straw of subtly changing the spelling in English of MAKKA to sound similar like MAKKAroba is that you know that this laughable conjecture is the best evidence you have. Sectarians know it too. Hence, the only reason they bring Macroba up is that they know that there is ZERO evidence for Mecca.
What is next? Are you going to claim that the rumors/hearsay in sectarian pious fiction (Hadith/Sira) is logical evidence like Ahmed Bahgat did? I am telling you man, you have really regressed. I hope that you can find your footing again soon.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hello all
we need at least one compelling evidence to why the non muslims wasterners are conspiring with the tradionalists?
just bloody one compelling evidence not loads of non sense
Salam
-
how are westerners conspiring with the traditionalists? what exactly are you talking about brother Ahmed?
what I'm talking about is simply all the westerners who wrote about Mecca as I showed above, why they took the word of the tradtionlists for granted regarding Mecca?, how they have been fooled and done like the rest of the muslims in the world?
I need a logical answer otherwise better not
Salam
-
It's because they are giving you the BELIEFs of muslims. Not archeological facts.
Haha, that's was really funny
so the westerners are just a bunch of idiots hey?
But I have to say what you said is very compelling, thanks
Cheers