A Miraculous Conspiracy Theory about Mecca
-
Peace tanveermd,
"Batnun" can indeed mean valley (Dictionary of Holy Qur'aan by Abdul Mannan Omar) and "bibatni makkata" in 4824 could also mean in the valley of Makkah as claurianta has been suggesting. That meaning would fit in the context of 4824 and still does not prove the existence of the city of Makkah but would just prove the existence of the valley of Makkah as per claurianta. Brother Ayman and brother Ahmad, what do you think of that alternative meaning ?
Classical Arabic dictionaries give the following as one of the meanings of "batn"
Batn In its middle and in its midst
This is why Yusuf Ali correctly used "midst" for "batn" in his translation.
From a linguistic point of view, the common meaning "in the midst of destruction" perfectly fits in the context of war from the passage.
From a logical point of view, if the clear common meaning perfectly fits, then why take the dubious proper name meaning instead?
Add to this all the facts about the complete absence of any reference to Mecca prior to the 8th century CE and really the only reason why people are advocating the proper name is dogmatic attachment to what they blindly inherited from their forefathers.
The pagan temple (Chobar) must have been in that valley of Makkah. Maybe the city of Makkah was later constructed in the valley of Makkah and the pagan temple in Makkah (Chobar) was then renamed as the Kaaba. Maybe that is how the pagans of valley of Makkah were able to deceive the millions of muslims as to the location of Kaaba without arousing much suspicion, especially when there was already confusion among them as to what the real qiblah (focal point) was, because of the change in qiblah from a physical place to another physical place for the purpose of testing the believers and then the final change to a mental qiblah of the institution of hearing and obeying the forbidden (al-masjid al-haram). That would explain the scarcity of the physical and historical evidence of the change of Kaaba from Bakkah to Makkah after the death of Prophet Muhammad, especially if the final qiblah was set up just before the death of Prophet Muhammad.
The focal point was only changed once, from physical to non-physical.
This is why in 2142 the foolish people wonder why people "turned away/rejected" the original focal point, they are answered that the reason is that The God guides whom He wills to a straight path. Of course, the straight path is not physical.
Peace,
Ayman
-
two English teachers, native English speakers, say the article is needed to express the second meaning you propose. It has to be "I am in the sunshine"
I say it because maybe it changes the meaning of your example.It was just an example which makes sense to a native speaker. But for correctness sake let's use
"I AM IN TROUBLE"
instead.
-
Add to this all the facts about the complete absence of any reference to Mecca prior to the 8th century CE and really the only reason why people are advocating the proper name is dogmatic attachment to what they blindly inherited from their forefathers.
While I do understand and respect your strong attachment to this point of view, and while I accept it as a possibility, I think you should realise that it is in fact possible that the aya refers to a physical place. This acknowledgement doesn't really change your argument. If there was a valley or area that was commonly known as Mecca, it would not show up on historical record unless there was actually something significant there. If it was just a barren valley for example, the locals would know of it, but there would have been no reason for historians to note it down.
Now, for all of those who want to find the location of the house of Abraham, perhaps you should follow 396 and search for Bakka, not Mecca. I trust you will find it in the vicinity of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The physical masjid al haram would then most likely be the Temple Mount.
I think that the most preposterous thing about this whole Mecca thing is that the traditionalists use 396 to point to Mecca, while it clearly states Bakka. It isn't logical to call a place Bakka in one place and Mecca in another. If both are physical places, they cannot be the same place. At Bakka we have the House of Abraham, and at Mecca we have, well, a valley and not much more. So as far as the pilgrimage (hajj) is concerned, it seems to be either the Temple Mount (today al-Aqsa Mosque) or somewhere in that vicinity. Btw, remark that the pilgrimage is to be made to the House at Bakka, and not to masjid al haram.Another question. The arabic for what is translated as House, I see beit. Now, is this house actually a physical location? If I remember correclty, in the Torah there is a figurative use of the word house... as in the "House of Israel". Could it somehow refer to a people(=the monotheists), or the land (=Palestine), or a city (=all of Jerusalem)? Does the arabic beit have to be a house - I mean what if someone knocks down the house - where are people supposed to make a pilgrimage to?
-
Can you please explain which Masjid Al Haram God is referring in the following verse and which city it was located. My understanding is that it is Mecca and Masjid Al Haram is the present day kaba.
928 O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will God enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for God is All-knowing, All-wise.
Ahmed Baghat your explantaion will also be helpful to understand this verse.
Peace Brother
I actually responded to a member on Faith Freedom regarding this verse, I managed to find it so I will paste it here, but because it is a long one and may not be answering your question directly, I may say something first, it is hard to believe that all these years we have been deceived without a trace and when the traces appear they look like dust in thin air without any compelling merit but conjecture and assumptions, 4824 clearly told us it was a state of peace between the two, it also told us that it was after a Muslim victory, further more by looking at the grammatical components of the Arabic sentence that suppose to be a perfect sentence by Allah we see one single letter (it is considered a word in the Arabic language) that clearly shows us that Batn Mecca is a place , because if it is suppose to mean ?from the midst of destruction? THEN IT HAS TO BE MIN BATN MECCA, now we know from the history that the Muslims took Mecca without a single fight with the infidels, they just gave it to them peacefully, the whole sura actually is named to indicate this incident of the peaceful conquering of Mecca, the names of the suras were put down during Uthman which is a mere 20 years after the prophet death,, i.e. the Sura names were created during Uthman time not during Bukhari time and it will be total non sense to assume that Uthman deceived us all, this peaceful conquering of Mecca is actually mentioned in verse 4824, it is the bit where it says ? after He had given you victory over them? and the victory is ?the conquering of Mecca peacefully without any fight from the two and this again was mentioned in the same verse?, based on the historical evidences as extracted from the Quran and trusted sources the Masjid Al Haram must be Al Kabba in S A and should be near a city called Mecca
Here is my comment on Faith freedom, sorry if it is a bit off topic but I guess it will be good to read especially it is used by our enemies to attack and defame our religion and say our religion suggest all infidels are dirty
The verses you posted are related to a very well known incident regarding the Kabba, you know, the Kabba was was a place for all to come to worship God and also for trading, even the Kafiroon used to go there and do whatever, most of them used to go around the kabba as method of worship God, the Kafiroon also used to do a very indecent act, they used to do the Tawaf (going around the Kabba NAKED), exactly like the filthy scenes we see in the Mardi Gras and this is when these verses in Sura 9 was revealed (this is the last sura that was revealed which means was at the last days of Mohammad, you will also notice that it does not have the Bismillah (in the name of Allah??.)?, some say that it does not have the Bismillah because it is full of threats to those Kafiroon and their filthy acts around the Kabba, but somehow I can?t buy this, anyway the objective and the message is clear and was to reclaim the Kabba ?the house of Allah?, looking at all the verses that I brought in here we will see the picture crystal clear, I will list the verses in English then the original language in Arabic, and my walkthrough will follow
1- (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.
2- So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
3- And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
4- Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
5- So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
6- And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.7- How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)-> Verse 1, when the incident happened Allah wanted Mohammad to make an agreement with those crazy kafiroon, by telling them that they should stop their Mardi Gras non sense and act properly around the Kabba and they will have immunity (This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Messenger towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement. , the fact about the Kabba Mardi Gras is known from the history records
-> Verse 2, - There is 4 scared months in the lunar year, humans used to come to the Kabba in these 4 months, one month of these 4 is the one when the great hajj will be performed, it is like, in the other 3 months they used to do a minor version of hajj, during this time also the Muslims are not allowed to Fight the enemy ?UNLESS IT IS A MUST?, the verse is just mentioning these months and also a warning to the Kafiroon regarding those 4 sacred months, ?So go about in the land for four months and know that you cannot weaken Allah and that Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.,
-> Verse 3, this is where I believe the warning was given to the Kafiroon not to do Tawaf naked around the Kabba on the day of the great Hajj ? And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters;, we can see straight after the warning that repenting from this evil act was on the offer for them, ?therefore if you repent, it will be better for you?, but of they insist of this evil act ? and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve. ? similar warning to the one in 92
-> Verse 4, here is things will become a bit clearer, sure some Kafiroon are intelligent enough to understand what they were doing is crazy, especially after the great warning was given accompanied with an offer to repent,- ?Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty). , see how clear it is, you have to also know that the words ? fulfill their agreement to the end of their term? means that no Muslim should fight during these 4 months, but if they want to fight us to take the Kabba ?for example to do the naked Tawaf? then the agreement is to wait after the end of these 4 months then bring it on Kafiroon
-> Verse 5, and if the 4 sacred months finished and the kafiroon want to bring it on and fight and kill us then we should fight and kill them ?So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush,?, then if they repent and stop fighting us, ?then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. , you have to know that salat and zakat mentioned in here does not really mean the Islamic salat and the Islamic zakat, in fact these practises were known to Noah and Abraham people, that is why the kafiroon were coming to the Kaaba anyway, to make salat to their Idols and pay zakat (sort of tax) that will be used to help the poor, therefore you took it as they must be Muslims otherwise they should be killed, THIS IS 100% WRONG, because the Quran word for anyone to be a Muslim is ?Aslam? or ?Aslamo?, so the above warning is only for the kafiroon to comply with the new law set by Allah after the reclaim of the Kabba and the establishment of the Strong Islam State at the end of the prophet days.
-> Verse 6, will confirm what I said about verse 5, you will see that Allah is still referring to them as idolaters but is telling the believers that they MUST PROTECT THEM if they seek protection BUT THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENT ABOVE IN VERSE 5, ?And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him?, the main reason to protect that peaceful Kafir is simply he/she may listen to the last message of our God? so that he may hear the Word of Allah,?, Mohammad must also convey him/her to his place of safety and afterward convey him to his place of safety. simply Allah want us to help these peaceful kafiroon because they lack the knowledge of Allah That is because they are a folk who know not.?
-> Verse 7, We see Allah is summing it up beautifully How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)., WHAT ELSE I CAN SAY BRO?, ? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty)?
Moving on to verse 929, I brought in verse 828 as it is required for my walk through, firstly verse is the one regarding reclaiming the kaaba, i.e. the kafiroon will not be allowed to come near it any more, this is a law from Allah regarding His house that Abraham built
28- O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
29- Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
(2
(29)-> Verse 28, Reclaiming the Kabba O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year;, don?t take it literally as they are dirty, rather they are not clean spiritually and that is what the verse means, and because after this law is forced the believers will loose a lot of trade with the kafiroon who used to come to the Kabba during these 4 scared months therefore Allah is warning the believers from worrying about loosing financially due to that new law ?and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.?
- Verse 29, is simply the same law we discussed earlier, that the Kafiroon who will not pay the Tax of the land ?you know the law of any land? then they have to be fought, and if the pay the tax the prophet must convey them to a place of safety and protect them ? Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection?
Peace be with you
-
Salaamun alaikum Ayman,
The focal point was only changed once, from physical to non-physical.
Thank you for the clarification. Upon pondering further on the signs 2142-145, I agree with your understanding regarding focal point being changed only once.
Regarding bibatni makkata, I am still not clear if it means "in the midst of destruction" as per your understanding or the alternative possible "in the valley of makkah". Does the sign 4824 say "after that he gave you victory over them" or does it say "after he gave you victory on them" ?
Following translators have translated as "AFTER THAT"
4824
Literal And He is who prevented/stopped their hands from you, and your hands from them with inside Mecca from after that He gave you victory/triumph on them, and God was/is with what you make/do seeing/knowing .
Yusuf Ali 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.
Arberry It is He who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the hollow of Mecca, after that He made you victors over them. God sees the things you do.
George Sale It was He who restrained their hands from you, and your hands from them, in the valley of Mecca; after that He had given you the victory over them And God saw that which ye did.
Malik It is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Mecca, after that He had given you victory over them, and Allah was watching all your actions.The following majority of translators translate as "AFTER"
Free-Minds And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.
Rashad Khalifa He is the One who withheld their hands of aggression against you, and withheld your hands of aggression against them in the valley of Mecca, after He had granted you victory over them. GOD is Seer of everything you 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.
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.
Hilali/Khan And He it is Who has withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makkah, after He had made you victors over them. And Allah is Ever the All-Seer of what you do.
Maulana Ali And He it is Who held back their hands from you and your hands from them in the valley of Makkah after He had given you victory over them. And Allah is ever Seer of what you do.
QXP And He it is Who has withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the Valley of Makkah after He has given you victory over them. And Allah was indeed Watcher over all your actions.
Sarwar It is He who kept peace between you and the people of the valley of Mecca after having given you a victory over them. God is Well Aware of what you do.The first meaning of "after that" would imply that Allah withheld their hands against each other FIRST and then AFTER THAT granted believers victory. If that meaning is true then "in the midst of destruction" meaning is more appropriate for "bibatni makkata".
The second meaning would imply that Allah withheld their hands from each other AFTER he had already given believers victory, and if that is true then the withholding of hands would be AFTER the war, and could be in a time of peace, making the meaning "in valley of makkah" more appropriate.
Interestingly 8/13 of the above translators translate "bibatni makkata" as "the VALLEY of makkah" !!!! and this translation in no way implies presence of CITY of makkah.
Everyone's comments on the above will be much appreciated.
Best regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace Myr,
From the search above, it is obvious "batni" has a meaning or a sense of "inside", "core" "heart" "belly" of something/place. I could not see in these verses any meaning of "destruction" as such. And God the All-Mighty knows best.
I think that you misunderstood. It the word "makkat" not "batn" that is the problem. Everyone pretty much agrees that "batn" means "inside a place" or "in the midst of something". The question is inside/in the midst of what? "destruction", which is the meaning of the common noun "makkat" or a place whose proper name is Makkat?
So the choice is between understanding and translating the word "makkat" or taking it as a meaningless label.
Peace,
Ayman
-
de
-
Peace tanveermd,
Regarding bibatni makkata, I am still not clear if it means "in the midst of destruction" as per your understanding or the alternative possible "in the valley of makkah". Does the sign 4824 say "after that he gave you victory over them" or does it say "after he gave you victory on them" ?
I think that simply "after" is the correct one.
When one reads the passage, one gets the impression of something out of the ordinary happening. The picture one gets is of two warring parties whose hands were almost getting one another. One also gets the impression from the next part (4825) that those who have faith were going to win anyway regardless of whether there was a cease fire just before the hand to hand fighting or not. One also gets the impression that this was an urban situation that would involve street fighting NOT a desert valley because of the presence of non-combatant men and women as clear from 4825.
So the picture we get from the passage is of a war in an urban area (a city). Such urban area would have been heavily fortified against external attacks as is normal for all cities in ancient times, especially when there is war going on. Since there was a cease right at the time when hand-to-hand combat was almost starting, this means that the city's various layers of fortifications, walls, defenses, etc. have already been breached and destroyed and the city defendants were cornered.
So here is what is out of the ordinary and amazing about the situation. The invading army that has already won sure victory was pouring into the destroyed city and hand-to-hand combat was about to erupt since despite surely losing the defenders had no where to go. Suddenly, in the midst of all this destruction cool heads prevail on the part of the invading army and the fighting is stopped.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Myr,
I think that you misunderstood. It the word "makkat" not "batn" that is the problem. Everyone pretty much agrees that "batn" means "inside a place" or "in the midst of something". The question is inside/in the midst of what? "destruction", which is the meaning of the common noun "makkat" or a place whose proper name is Makkat?
So the choice is between understanding and translating the word "makkat" or taking it as a meaningless label.
I was replying to Tanveer's comment and question on whether it is a "valley". I quoted part of his message. Please re-read it.
I thought that you were questioning the meaning of "makkat"/destruction because of what you said here
I could not see in these verses any meaning of "destruction" as such
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace tanveermd,
Regarding bibatni makkata, I am still not clear if it means "in the midst of destruction" as per your understanding or the alternative possible "in the valley of makkah". Does the sign 4824 say "after that he gave you victory over them" or does it say "after he gave you victory on them" ?
I think that simply "after" is the correct one.
When one reads the passage, one gets the impression of something out of the ordinary happening. The picture one gets is of two warring parties whose hands were almost getting one another. One also gets the impression from the next part (4825) that those who have faith were going to win anyway regardless of whether there was a cease fire just before the hand to hand fighting or not. One also gets the impression that this was an urban situation that would involve street fighting NOT a desert valley because of the presence of non-combatant men and women as clear from 4825.
So the picture we get from the passage is of a war in an urban area (a city). Such urban area would have been heavily fortified against external attacks as is normal for all cities in ancient times, especially when there is war going on. Since there was a cease right at the time when hand-to-hand combat was almost starting, this means that the city's various layers of fortifications, walls, defenses, etc. have already been breached and destroyed and the city defendants were cornered.
So here is what is out of the ordinary and amazing about the situation. The invading army that has already won sure victory was pouring into the destroyed city and hand-to-hand combat was about to erupt since despite surely losing the defenders had no where to go. Suddenly, in the midst of all this destruction cool heads prevail on the part of the invading army and the fighting is stopped.
I hope this helps.
Peace,
Ayman
Ayman, I think you might be falling into a trap that you are accusing others for...
Think of the word "victory". Does it say military victory? Or is it victory in another sense? They signed a peace agreement and therefore avoided avoidable deaths, and just for that fact they are victorious in a spiritual sense. You don't win a place in heaven by unnecessary wars, but rather by living peacefully with your neighbours - so the Muslims were victorious because they were able to avoid a war. In this sense, AFTER THAT which in the literal translation makes more sense. I mean look at the last part of the aya... God saw what you did... because you kept your head cool and chose not to fight when it wasn't necessary, you avoided destruction (due to fighting an unjust war) and became victorious (you did the right thing).
Again, we are finding ourselves at analysing this verse without considering the rest of the Qur'an. The only things that merit the death sentence are murder and "spreading corruption in the land". Were perhaps the Muslims about to break this rule by killing their enemies without valid reason? And then God held their hands back, and therefore because the Muslims were able to keep the peace and hold true God's law, they were victorious. So is it not very well possible that the victory is not a military one, but rather a spiritual victory?
-
Peace Myr,
As for Makka, it is for me a proper name as Misr is or Moses is or Mary is. Woud we still translate Mary or Maryam to mean "the one devoted to God' when translating? for me it does not make sense knowing that Quran relates the events to specific places and persons/nations. There are not several Moses or Madyan or John in Quran so what is then the purpose of knowing the meaning of "Moses" or "Madyan" or "Missr" except to claim the current makka or what is called Makka is not Makka and was something else.
Maryam doesn't mean "the one devoted to God". As far as I remember, it is supposed to mean "bitterness" in Hebrew. It also means "wished for child" or "beloved" in ancient Egyptian.
You are also wrong that "misr" means Egypt. It simply means "the large urban area" or "country". Hence, here is how all translators (except Khalifa) translated it in 261
002.061
YUSUFALI And remember ye said "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.
PICKTHAL And when ye said O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
SHAKIR And when you said O Musa! we cannot bear with one food, therefore pray Lord on our behalf to bring forth for us out of what the earth grows, of its herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions. He said Will you exchange that which is better for that which is worse? Enter a city, so you will have what you ask for. And abasement and humiliation were brought down upon them, and they became deserving of Allah's wrath; this was so because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and killed the prophets unjustly; this was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.
KHALIFA Recall that you said, "O Moses, we can no longer tolerate one kind of food. Call upon your Lord to produce for us such earthly crops as beans, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions." He said, "Do you wish to substitute that which is inferior for that which is good? Go down to Egypt, where you can find what you asked for." They have incurred condemnation, humiliation, and disgrace, and brought upon themselves wrath from GOD. This is because they rejected GOD's revelations, and killed the prophets unjustly. This is because they disobeyed and transgressed.Those that are actually names that you mentioned were already pre-existing before the great reading was revealed. On the other, it is an easily verifiable fact that there was no known town called Mecca before the 8th century CE, long after the revelation of the great reading.
Also, for those that are actually names, the Arabic common noun meaning doesn't fit in the context. For example, as an Arabic common noun "moussa (moses)" means "shaving blade" and this doesn't fit in any of the contexts.
Logically, the complete absence of any reference to a town called Mecca prior to the 8th century CE plus the fact that unlike the proper names that you quoted, the common noun "makkat" perfectly fits in the context indicates that the word is a common noun for certain. The only people who would have doubts are those who are still emotionally attached to the city presently named Mecca.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Claurianta,
Ayman, I think you might be falling into a trap that you are accusing others for...
Think of the word "victory". Does it say military victory? Or is it victory in another sense?
It could be both. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that 4825 clearly indicates that there were non-combatant faithful women and men that could have been harmed indicates that there was some kind of force (i.e. military) involved.
They signed a peace agreement and therefore avoided avoidable deaths, and just for that fact they are victorious in a spiritual sense. You don't win a place in heaven by unnecessary wars, but rather by living peacefully with your neighbours - so the Muslims were victorious because they were able to avoid a war. In this sense, AFTER THAT which in the literal translation makes more sense. I mean look at the last part of the aya... God saw what you did... because you kept your head cool and chose not to fight when it wasn't necessary, you avoided destruction (due to fighting an unjust war) and became victorious (you did the right thing).
Again, we are finding ourselves at analysing this verse without considering the rest of the Qur'an. The only things that merit the death sentence are murder and "spreading corruption in the land". Were perhaps the Muslims about to break this rule by killing their enemies without valid reason? And then God held their hands back, and therefore because the Muslims were able to keep the peace and hold true God's law, they were victorious. So is it not very well possible that the victory is not a military one, but rather a spiritual victory?
So please help us by analyzing this passage in light of the rest of the great reading and sharing your findings. As far as I know from the other passages in the great reading, there is definitely mention of fighting in self-defense those who have breached their treaty and attacked you first (912-13). This passage in chapter 48 can be seen as a conclusion to the same conflict in those other passages and not as a different conflict. Again, if you see different things then please do share your findings in light of the rest of the great reading.
Peace,
Ayman
-
So please help us by analyzing this passage in light of the rest of the great reading and sharing your findings. As far as I know from the other passages in the great reading, there is definitely mention of fighting in self-defense those who have breached their treaty and attacked you first (912-13). This passage in chapter 48 can be seen as a conclusion to the same conflict in those other passages and not as a different conflict. Again, if you see different things then please do share your findings in light of the rest of the great reading.
Peace,
Ayman
Peace ayman...
I did do a quick analysis, by talking of the two legal cases of taking someone's life - a murderer, and someone causeing "corruption in the land" (that's how my Qur'an translates it). As I have said elsewhere, fighting in self-defence would go under the "corruption in the land" exemption. But again, any self defence most be proportional.
As for the passage in chapter 48, I don't doubt that there was not a threat of a real military conflict. But tell me, what is a greater victory a military victory crushing and killing your opponents, or showing mercy upon you opponents and making peace, therefore avoiding unnecessary death and destruction? (the destruction they were in the midst of perhaps?) I think that if you have the option of making peace on acceptable terms, you should NEVER resort to war. So personally I think God is telling us that the man who makes peace is more victorious than he who wins a war. -
Duplicate Deleted
-
Thank you Myr
very well said
there are a couple of notes that I put on 19.org, I hope brother Ayman read them and give a reasonable answer instead of accusing me of following "Asatir Al Awalin" i.e. "The trditions and tales of the past",
My notes are simply
there is suggestion by brother Layth "I believe" that 301-3 were understood wrong due to the wrong pronounciation of the vowels in the sentence, the majority of the Muslims understand it as the Romans were defeated then then won later, while the allegation suggests that the Romans won first then they lost second, they also say that the two battles were between the Romans and the Muslims, that is why they rejoiced when the Muslims won later, while the majority of Muslims say the Muslims has nothing to do with these two battles and were only a watching audeince
they suggested that the two battles between the Roman and the Muslims are the Battle of Mu'tha and the Battle of Tabouk,
now we have a problem in hand, the verses said the two battles must be at least 3 years apart and possibly even more , the two battles (Mu'tha and Tabouk) however were a year apart or two years the max.
another problem we have in hand, if the Muslims were part of the two battles mentioned in 301-3, why Allah said it that the Romans will win first then loose second instead of the Muslims loosing first then winning second?
peace
-
Salaamun alaikum brother Ayman,
If believers had already been given victory, why would there still be fighting going on necessitating withholding of the hands from each other ? That would seem very unbeliever like. After victory there is no need to kill the opposing army soldiers or the innocent people. Armies fight until one is victorious upon the other and then the fighting ceases. The only case where fighting continues after victory would be when the prevailing army continues to plunder and loot and kill innocent people or opposing army soldiers even after the victory, and if the believers were trying to do that, it does not fit their nature. If the believers were still about to fight only for defensive purposes because the rejecters were still about to attack them, then that does not imply a victorious situation for the believers. So maybe the victory was given after the withholding of hands making "after that" the correct translation in 4824. "After that" would also support the translation of "bibatni makkata" being "in midst of destruction".
The context as I understand, clearly implies that the victory was not before withholding of the hand but after it. Please look at the following signs
4821 And the other group which you could not vanquish, God took care of them. And God was capable of all things.
4822 And if the rejecters had fought you, they would have turned and ran, then they would have found neither an ally nor a victor.In 4821 "which you could not vanquish" means there is still no victory. In 4822 "if the rejecters had fought you" means there was still no hand to hand combat. So the withholding of hands in 4824 can only be before the victory and not after it and that also supports "makkata" meaning "destruction".
However sister Myr has a point that "ABSENCE OF HISTORICAL OR ARCHEOLOGICAL reference to a town called Makkah prior to 8th century AD" does not preclude the presence of a very small town by the name of Makkah which not many people were familiar with, which later grew into a big city. The lack of archeological evidence of reference to a town named Makkah cannot be used to prove CONCLUSIVELY that makkata can only mean destruction in 4824 and that there was NO town at all by the name of Makkah in the pre qur'aanic or peri qur'aanic times.
I do not have any emotional attachment to the city of Makkah so the above points are of a purely logical and intellectual nature as far as I am concerned.
Best regards,
Tanveer
-
Peace,
I have to admit that the presence of a 'town' called 'makka' existing in prequranic times is doubtful given the history that it has in various literature. Also, as explained, the common meaning fits quite well in the context. If there was a 'town' present by another name before having been named 'makka' after the quran, that would be irrelevant in understanding the verse itself.
It is to be noted that it is a series of deductions based on what we know as of now and the different variations of what makka/kaba/hajj can be/are taken to mean. One can say, just because it doesn't have a history doesn't mean it didn't exist. That is, as I mentioned, doubtful as it was allegedly quite 'famous/noteworthy'. It is however important, as the city has an alleged focal point that causes concern, mayhap even alarm, if it isn't being referred to in the quran as it is presently known.
When I was younger, I liked the concept in islam as I knew it then of having no intermediaries, no 'priests' granting salvation, no physical 'church' to go to to be saved. It made sense to me as it is inherently personal in a way, salvation that is, not social laws. While growing up I came to realise that while conceptually people use that as comparision to other religions, this 'religion' still has priests, churches and intermediaries. After having read and researched the quran a lot more, I go back to the previous 'uncorrupted/intuitive' side of things. It is purer and less liable to the greed/machinations of people as it's just you and God then. Your salvation depends on you, not how many times you go to the 'endorsed' iron chef kitchen and baste a turkey, and/or if you start the basting clockwise or widdershins.
-
Hi Br. Ayman,
if you don't miss this post , would apreciate an answer.Thanks.
Maka = to whistle with ones mouth, pg 73 quranic dictionary.
835
35.
Wama kana salatuhumAAinda albayti illa mukaan watasdiyatan fathooqooalAAathaba bima kuntum takfuroonaTheir salat at the House is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands (Its only answer can be), "Taste ye the penalty because ye blasphemed."
Makat = pronoun postfixed to the verb to indicate feminine persons of the past.
Wahuwa allathee kaffa aydiyahumAAankum waaydiyakum AAanhum bibatni makkata min baAAdi anathfarakum AAalayhim wakana Allahubima taAAmaloona baseeran
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.
So can?t it be simply just whistling/shouting e.t.c as no hands where involved?
Peace.
-
Peace Claurianta,
I did do a quick analysis, by talking of the two legal cases of taking someone's life - a murderer, and someone causeing "corruption in the land" (that's how my Qur'an translates it). As I have said elsewhere, fighting in self-defence would go under the "corruption in the land" exemption. But again, any self defence most be proportional.
As for the passage in chapter 48, I don't doubt that there was not a threat of a real military conflict. But tell me, what is a greater victory a military victory crushing and killing your opponents, or showing mercy upon you opponents and making peace, therefore avoiding unnecessary death and destruction? (the destruction they were in the midst of perhaps?) I think that if you have the option of making peace on acceptable terms, you should NEVER resort to war. So personally I think God is telling us that the man who makes peace is more victorious than he who wins a war.Although, the meaning of "destruction" is the one most given by Classical Arabic dictionaries, there are other meanings which are more in line with your understanding. I totally agree that we could reach a better understanding by looking at the possible common meanings in light of all of the great reading. The one thing that is sure is that we can't improve our understanding by taking the word Makkat as the meaningless proper name of some 8th century CE city.
The other meanings given by Classical Arabic dictionaries are "wearing down" and "insisting with demands on the adversary".
The meaning of "wearing down" would also fit the context because it would imply a kind of siege and wearing down of the adversary.
The meaning of insistence with demands on the adversary would also fit and would imply a kind of intense negotiations going on where the parties are not yielding in their demands. This would also be consistent in light of 4826 where it is said that those who had faith upheld the "word of forethought".
However, "destruction" also fits in light of the fact that the verse clearly said "after He had given you victory", which could be a military victory.
So there are three possible translations
-
And it is He who has stopped their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of insistence on the adversary after He gave you the victory over them and The God sees well all that you do.
-
And it is He who has stopped their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of wearing down after He gave you the victory over them and The God sees well all that you do.
-
And it is He who has stopped their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after He gave you the victory over them and The God sees well all that you do.
I think that one can then do as you said and pick the meaning that fits best with the rest of the great reading. On the other hand, picking a meaningless post-quranic label attached to a city only fits best with people preconceptions.
Peace,
Ayman
-