A Miraculous Conspiracy Theory about Mecca
-
=/ no need to start a flame war. If one is to claim much of what progressive Muslims claim about corruption of the religion, then traditional Islamic history is hard to accept. Ayman put up his idea of how things could have gone wrong, and for that I applaud him. There is no reason to condemn his theory or make him sound like someone trying to mislead everyone.
-
Dear Riz
If an absurd conspiracy theory is produced, it is better to call it absurd. I cited my reasons why I found it to be such.
Ayman is coming up with an extraordinary claim and he could not even provide an ordinary evidence for it.
For instance, WHEN did the real town Mecca change hats with the fake one? Which king started this switch?
As I wrote, I appreciate Ayman's zeal and articulate language; but his logic has so many holes, it is worse than a strainer.
Peace,
Edip -
congratulations edip on showing yourself yet again to be a shining beacon of ignorance for all idiots, imbeciles and morons of the world.
is having your head up your ass the reason for your objection to the claims of the kissing of the black stone being akin to kissing the head of an infant as it emerges from a vulva?
i get it, stick your head up one orifice at a time, right?
the following is not for your benefit, as i think you are beyond help.
but in case anyone else was interested
sun day
moon day
tiw's day
woden's day
thor's day
frigg's day
saturn's daythese are the pagan origins of the present english names for the days of the week.
open a dictionary once in a while.
it should be no surprise to anyone that pagan rituals and ideologies across the world share commonalities.
-
Looks like this is going to be a fist fight... -(
Shanthi Shanthi Shanthi chaps and chapesses...
Regards,
-
.eerrr lets try to keep this clean eh? I agree wtih Edip in that it is hard to come up with evidence for such claims, but at the same time the accepted history also seems to be full of holes and unreliable narrators = /
Yes...keep it clean macho chaps -)
Ring side seat anyone? wink
Regards,
-
but in case anyone else was interested
sun day
moon day
tiw's day
woden's day
thor's day
frigg's day
saturn's daythese are the pagan origins of the present english names for the days of the week.
AaRoN
You obviously did not get my point. What is the relationship of this information with Mecca being a fake city? I have no problem in accepting that the the names of weekdays and months in English originated from pagan religions. But, as I said, Ayman and his supporters are connecting the unrealeted dots. Yes, these are some of the dots, but please tell me how you connect them to the geographic and historic conspiracy Ayman is promoting?
If one cannot answer the simple questions such as
WHEN did it occur?
WHO led the conspiracy?
HOW was it succeeded?
WHY was it done?in relation to your conspiarcy theory, then it is better to stay silent.
Peace,
Edip -
The first qibla was located where the Dome of the Rock is today, in Jerusalem. Why was it moved to Mecca?
-
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. 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!
Peace Edip,
The naming of the modern town as "Mecca" is not being advanced as 'coincidental', rather it was far from coincidental and a deliberate attempt at misguiding people into believing that the town known as "Mecca" is a city mentioned in the reading.
It might be like someone naming an obscure town in Europe "Valhalla" and developing it into the focus for a Norse religion for example.
"Mecca" meaning 'destruction' is contextually correct in the verse it appears in the reading. Why would a town be named 'destruction' or 'destroyed' ?
Where the messengers lived and taught is actually quite irrelevant in the scheme of things except to those whose hearts must hang on to relics and stories to give them an identity; a way of differentiating themselves and excluding others.
A universal way or path does not depend, nor need a single geographic location on the earth or anywhere else in the universe.
If there were extra-terrestrials, would they also orient themselves to a so called cuboid 'house of god' on our earth?
This is an important question - by choosing to anchor a way to a single place, one is inadvertently doing as pagans and primitive people have done for aeons, and creating 'sacred sites' which can have absolutely ZERO benefit for us when we return to the God.
Regards.
-
Peace Edip,
The naming of the modern town as "Mecca" is not being advanced as 'coincidental', rather it was far from coincidental and a deliberate attempt at misguiding people into believing that the town known as "Mecca" is a city mentioned in the reading.
Then, who changed it and when? These questions are very important, since we are talking about an event that allegadly took place after the death of prophet Muhammad.
It might be like someone naming an obscure town in Europe "Valhalla" and developing it into the focus for a Norse religion for example.
How nice! Let me be naive enough to accept this senario. But, what about the real one? When the fake Mecca would be advertized what would be the real Mecca. Don't you think that millions of Muslims (if it happened several decades after Muhammad, the number of Muslims would be in millions) would object this historical and religious fraud? Again, every person would know the fraud. It is not like making up stories about dead people or attributing them certain hadith. It is like changing the name of Durham to Washington and the name of Washington to Springfild and claim that the capital city is from now on is Durham. Well, if you think the population of the USA is much bigger, then please get one of the smallest countries and try changing its capital city without leaving any trace of objection and controversy. I am going to ignore the fact that Mecca was not just any capital city, but as important as Jerusalem in the history.
"Mecca" meaning 'destruction' is contextually correct in the verse it appears in the reading. Why would a town be named 'destruction' or 'destroyed' ?
Where did you get this meaning for Mecca?
Where the messengers lived and taught is actually quite irrelevant in the scheme of things except to those whose hearts must hang on to relics and stories to give them an identity; a way of differentiating themselves and excluding others.
I find no logical nor scriptural problem in visiting a site where a heroic messenger of monotheism established a place for gathering of monotheists. Once a year gathering in such a place and commemorating the common history is a blessing.
A universal way or path does not depend, nor need a single geographic location on the earth or anywhere else in the universe.
None said it "depends." But, urging believers of various colors and nations to meet each other in a place, especially in a place of a monotheist who was forced to leave his people and country and start life in the middle of desert... Yes, this is very meaninful and has practical benefits for corporal creatures like you and me.
If there were extra-terrestrials, would they also orient themselves to a so called cuboid 'house of god' on our earth?
Most likely no. But, I assume that you are not one of those.
This is an important question - by choosing to anchor a way to a single place, one is inadvertently doing as pagans and primitive people have done for aeons, and creating 'sacred sites' which can have absolutely ZERO benefit for us when we return to the God.
You did not deal with my objection. All what you communicated to me is your overreaction to Muhammadans and your extreme desire to eliminate any commonality between you and them.
Again
WHEN?
WHO?
HOW?
WHY?Peace,
Edip -
Edip, I know what you're saying and I agree that these questions definetly have to be addressed if the theory of Muhammads origin being different from Mecca is to be considered, but there is also a great lack of evidence of a town named Mecca before Islamic times. In fact the evidence points to the fact that this town didn't exist anywhere close to the time of Abraham = /.
"There is no mention of Mecca in the writings of any classical writer or geographer. This fact is an important argument against Islam's claim that Mecca has existed since the time of Abraham. We have complete records of Greek and Roman writers, as well as many geographers who visited Arabia from the end of the 5th century B.C. through the 3rd century A.D. Some of these people drew maps of Arabia telling us about every city, village, mountain, and temple existing there, yet none mentioned Mecca. If Mecca did indeed exist at the time of any of these geographers and writers, surely someone would have told us about this city."
http//religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/classical.htmWhat do you think of this article?
http//religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/construction.htm -
Peace all
there is no way on earth Mecca in verse means destruction within the context
YUSUFALI And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makka, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
PICKTHAL And He it is Who hath withheld men's hands from you, and hath withheld your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca, after He had made you victors over them. Allah is Seer of what ye do.
SHAKIR And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca after He had given you victory over them; and Allah is Seeing what you do.
(24)
is 100% a location in Mecca
destruction can never fit in the verse in any way
peace to all
-
Peace all,
YUSUFALI And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction, after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
Hmm... this fits pretty perfectly, especially considering the context of war from the passage.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Hello
I'm not really sure where brother Ayman got his YusufAli translation, I got it from this url and clearly it says "The midst of Makka"
http//www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/048.qmt.html
cheers
-
Hello All
It is clear in the arabic language that Batn Mecca is a name for a place, it never meant destruction, the verse actually does not talk about war it talks about a peace period between the conflicting parties (a peace treaty), that is why the verse says both honored it and didn't fight, now I don't really understand how the midst of destruction fits?, it is like they were in middle of a war then all of a sudden it stopped and everyone went with their life lol , and what destruction exactly?, is it the believers destruction, the unbelievers destruction or both?, it does not add up at all
peace to all
-
Peace all,
It is clear in the arabic language that Batn Mecca is a name for a place, it never meant destruction,
The people who developed Classical Arabic dictionaries would not agree with such absolute false statement.
According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down", among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK.
Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 4824. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 4824.
Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".
Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.
Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.
It would help if people educate themselves and look up the meaning in a Classical Arabic dictionary before making clearly false statements that include absolute words such as "never".
the verse actually does not talk about war it talks about a peace period between the conflicting parties (a peace treaty), that is why the verse says both honored it and didn't fight, now I don't really understand how the midst of destruction fits?, it is like they were in middle of a war then all of a sudden it stopped and everyone went with their life lol
Yeah right... when the verse talks about "restraining their hands from you and your hands from them", it wasn't about war and fighting it was about peace and showering them with roses and kisses. lol
and what destruction exactly?, is it the believers destruction, the unbelievers destruction or both?, it does not add up at all
It is the destruction that happens as a result of two armies meeting one another as walls and fortifications are breached and their hands almost reach one another. This is normal.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace all,
It is clear in the arabic language that Batn Mecca is a name for a place, it never meant destruction,
The people who developed Classical Arabic dictionaries would not agree with such absolute false statement.
Bro, I don?t really care about what these people put in their dictionaries, the years I spent learning Arabic I was never taught that Mecca means destruction and even if it does mean that, it has nothing to do with interpreting it as a town name from the context
For example, Cairo city in egypt is called ?Al Qahira? and Qahira means ?The one who wins, in fact it is a name of the names of Allah, ?Al Qahir?, now when Cairo was translated to English it was translated as Cairo, not the Winner, same with a city in Egypt called ?Mansoorah? which means the Victories, but when it appears in any context it will be translated as Mansoora, therefore Mecca has to be Mecca as any other city, town, village name
According to classical Arabic dictionaries, the word "maka(t)" mainly means "destruction/wearing down",
among other meanings. It is listed in classical Arabic dictionaries under either MKK or MK.
I was never taught as such, I?m not saying it is wrong, but what I?m saying that the word ?mainly? you used is not accurate because the info you are promoting is hardly known by the native arab people, that is why you needed a dictionary by some people you don?t know to base your concept upon it
Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 4824. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 4824.
Bro, the context of 4824 does not need in the midst of destruction, it should be in the midst of War if what you say is true, because Allah has always encouraged us to destroy the enemy who fight us and never be lazy to go to war, now let?s look at the verse again bit by bit
(24)
? ?, ? And He it is Who held back their hands from you?, very clear bro, Allah made the enemy to honour the peace treaty
? ?, ? and your hands from them?, again very clear, Allah did the same with the believers, I guess all humans can easily be deceivers and break the peace treaties but Allah made sure that non of the conflicting parties breaks that peace treaty which btw has a name in history that is called ?Solh Mecca? or ?the peace treaty of Mecca?
? ?, now this is where we have a problem, you say it means ?The midst of destruction? and most Muslims and the history records says ?it is a place in Mecca?, here is a strong argument against your claim bro, the Arabic word is clear ?Bi Battn? , can you see the Bi bro?, it is the Ba before the words Battn and is attached to it and appears as the first letter in the word ? ?, and that Ba requires a place for the sentence to make sence, the place called ?Makan? in the labguage i.e. a place, there is no way the place can be the destruction because destruction is not a place but a status, just one letter in the quran demolished your argument, now please ask any Arabic speaker and I?m sure you will be told that in this sentence where the Be appears we must have a place after it, here is an example from the Quran
Nor wast thou at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur when we called (to Moses). Yet (art thou sent) as Mercy from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom
(46)
-> In 2846 we read, Allah is telling Mohammad that he was not at the side of the mountain of Tur when Allah spoke to Moses, this is expressed by that letter Ba which requires a name of a place attached to it, ? ?, can you see the attached Be in it bro?, and what was attached to it is a name of a place ?the side of (the Mountain of) Tur?
now let?s go back to 4824
? ?, ? after He had given you victory over them?, bro, here is another strong argument against your claim, this bit clearly says it was AFTER THE WAR and AFTER THE MUSLIM WON, come on bro, please give me a break here, it was not a status of war in any way as the verse clearly tells us
Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning of MK(t) is given as "destruction" and TMK as "destroy".
Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.
Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.
Fine bro but that does not mean you translate a town name into what it means, what do you call Al Qahira in English bro?, and let me ask you a silly question as well, what do you understand Al Qahira as when you hear it in Arabic
Bro, do you think anyone who is named Ayman, will be always using their right hand to write or do things?, ok another question bro, what do you call your name Ayman in English?
It would help if people educate themselves and look up the meaning in a Classical Arabic dictionary before making clearly false statements that include absolute words such as "never".
we hardly need to do as such bro, as the Quran is enough to explain itself, however I agree for the non Arabic speakers it will be important, but not with the solid Arabic speakers who have knowledge about the language and the Arabic words already
the verse actually does not talk about war it talks about a peace period between the conflicting parties (a peace treaty), that is why the verse says both honored it and didn't fight, now I don't really understand how the midst of destruction fits?, it is like they were in middle of a war then all of a sudden it stopped and everyone went with their life lol
Yeah right... when the verse talks about "restraining their hands from you and your hands from them", it wasn't about war and fighting it was about peace and showering them with roses and kisses. lol
here it is again bro from the verse
? ?, ? after He had given you victory over them?, bro here is another strong argument against your claim, this bit clearly says it was AFTER THE WAR and AFTER THE MUSLIM WON
and what destruction exactly?, is it the believers destruction, the unbelievers destruction or both?, it does not add up at all
It is the destruction that happens as a result of two armies meeting one another as walls and fortifications are breached and their hands almost reach one another. This is normal.
really bro, I thought that is very easy to figure out by my child that wars bring destructions to humanity hey, LOL
Peace,
Ayman
Peace be with you Ayman
PS can you please confirm wher you got Yusuf Ali translation from?, thanks
-
Dear Ahmad
If Ayman believes that a conspiracy or "naturally" occurring event in this magnitude can remain a secret, without great uproar or many fake Meccas rather than only one, he will care less about Arabic grammar.
He is missing much bigger thing than Arabic grammar it is called, logic or reason.
Peace,
Edip -
Dear Ahmad
If Ayman believes that a conspiracy or "naturally" occurring event in this magnitude can remain a secret, without great uproar or many fake Meccas rather than only one, he will care less about Arabic grammar.
He is missing much bigger thing than Arabic grammar it is called, logic or reason.
Peace,
EdipPeace brother Edip
I agree with you in here, it is impossible to believe that in all these years Allah left all the muslims deceived without a single trace of uproar by one
peace be with you mate
-
Peace,
Bro, I don?t really care about what these people put in their dictionaries, the years I spent learning Arabic I was never taught that Mecca means destruction and even if it does mean that, it has nothing to do with interpreting it as a town name from the context
Yes, I agree, you were not taught many things about Arabic.
For example, Cairo city in egypt is called ?Al Qahira? and Qahira means ?The one who wins, in fact it is a name of the names of Allah, ?Al Qahir?, now when Cairo was translated to English it was translated as Cairo, not the Winner, same with a city in Egypt called ?Mansoorah? which means the Victories, but when it appears in any context it will be translated as Mansoora, therefore Mecca has to be Mecca as any other city, town, village name
But if the word "mansoorah" shows up in a sentence as follows
"al-juyush alty tujahid mansoorah"
Then does it mean?
a) The armies that strive are victorious.
b) The armies that strive the city of Mansoorah. lolClearly, from the context "victorious" is the right translation.
Bro, the context of 4824 does not need in the midst of destruction, it should be in the midst of War if what you say is true, because Allah has always encouraged us to destroy the enemy who fight us and never be lazy to go to war, now let?s look at the verse again bit by bit
(24)
? ?, ? And He it is Who held back their hands from you?, very clear bro, Allah made the enemy to honour the peace treaty
It was " " AFTER he
So there was already fighting and this was AFTER they won (ْ.
? ?, ? And He it is Who held back their hands from you?, again very clear, Allah did the same with the believers, I guess all humans and can easily be deceivers and break the peace treaties but Allah made sure that non of the conflicting parties breaks that peace treaty which btw has a name in history that is called ?Solh Mecca? or ?the peace treaty of Mecca?
The whole story about the treaty of Mecca is a fairy tale that has no basis in the great reading.
4824 clearly says that the peace happened AFTER the believers had already won ( ْ NOT as a result of some treaty.
? ?, now this is where we have a problem, you say it means ?The midst of destruction? and most Muslims and the history records says ?it is a place in Mecca?, here is a strong argument against your claim bro, the Arabic word is clear ?Bi Battn? , can you see the Bi bro?, it is the Ba before the words Battn and is attached to it and appears as the first letter in the word ? ?, and that Ba requires a place for the sentence to make sence, the place called ?Makan? in the labguage i.e. a place, there is no way the place can be the destruction because destruction is not a place but a status, just one letter in the quran demolished your argument, now please ask any Arabic speaker and I?m sure you will be told that in this sentence where the Be appears we must have a place after it, here is an example from the Quran
Only non-native Arabic speakers make such false hasty generalizations as the above because they are not familiar with the various uses of the proposition "Be" in Arabic.
For example
"al-juyush alty tujahid be-shaga3ah mansoorah"Then does it mean?
a) The armies that strive with courage are victorious.
b) The armies that strive in a place called Shaga3ah are victorious.
lolAs for you saying "most Muslims and the history records says ?it is a place in Mecca?, this is the well known logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and it doesn't prove anything. In fact, most Muslims believe many ridiculous things so this doesn't mean anything. Most Muslims believe that it is healthy to dip a fly that fell into their food and eat the food and their history tells us that the prophet did such laughable things. lol
- ...
laqad sadaqa Allah rasulah alru'ya be-alhaq
According to you be-alhaq is a place because it is preceded by "be". lol
As I said, it is common for non-native Arabic speakers to make hasty generalizations about "Be". They do not know that the proposition "Be" can have many uses. This is the same in all languages, for example, "in" can be used to mean "in a place" in English or "in trouble". wink
now let?s go back to 4824
? ?, ? after He had given you victory over them?, bro, here is another strong argument against your claim, this bit clearly says it was AFTER THE WAR and AFTER THE MUSLIM WON, come on bro, please give me a break here, it was not a status of war in any way as the verse clearly tells usExactly, AFTER THE WAR so there was already war and destruction. Or do you think that WAR doesn't normally involve destruction?
PS can you please confirm wher you got Yusuf Ali translation from?, thanks
I just took Yusuf Ali translation but while he left the word "makkat" untranslated, I simply translated it using the context from the passage and I underlined that part.
Peace,
Ayman
- ...