A Miraculous Conspiracy Theory about Mecca

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

claurianta

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.

unknownuser

Duplicate Deleted

unknownuser

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

unknownuser

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

savage_carrot

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.

unknownuser

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 takfuroona

Their 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.

ayman

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

Edip_Yuksel

Dear Tanveer

The translation of free-minds, in my opinion, reflects the meaning well. I liked your reasoning and the attention to the subtle differences.

Peace,
Edip

ayman

Peace Myr,

Brother, we are not studying "hebrew" or "ancient Egyptian" but Arabic and more precisely the Arabic in Quran-). Let's say we agree to disagree-) as your sources of info definetely differ from mine. I try to study the Quran from within the Quran. I am very very skeptical toward any approach that would borrow from other selective sources to make sense of what came in the Quran-)

But Moses and Maryam certainly didn't speak Arabic. The fact is that this Arabic "quran"/reading or even the Arabic language itself for that matter didn't exist at the time of Moses. So names like Moses and Maryam cannot certainly be Arabic.

Brother, I have never trusted any translation but the Quran in its original language and that what had me study the arabic language for many years. Most of the translations are incorrect and at the core of all these nonsense reasoning we see nowadays and thus the booming in Quran translations!!!. How "misr" meaning can be city or town or country when we know that in other verses in this same Arabic Quran, different words are mentioned for city, country, and town?

So what makes you think that Misr was Egypt's name at the time of Moses?

Brother, History is not a divine revelation or scripture-)

This is good advice that you should heed ). It is a fact that your ONLY source for Makkat is Islamic history.

History is nothing else then what men have reported and noted and by the way not without holes, flaws, and discrepencies at different points in time-).

Exactly. This is why my source is not "history" and I never even mentioned the word "history". On the other hand, history and Hadith is YOUR ONLY SOURCE for the proper name Makka.

My source is physical archeological evidence that we are encouraged to look at in the great reading. I am simply heeding The God's advice in passages such as 309 to look in the earth and see the physical evidence of the people that came before us. If you study physical evidence from pre-quranic inscriptions and manuscripts, you will see the facts that I am talking about.

Also, by having names pre-existed prior to the Quran revelation does not make them immune from changes and the proof even the first revelations (scriptures) were altered.

That is exactly what I am saying. Given the fact that The God protected the great reading from changes, the only thing corrupters could do is change common nouns into meaningless proper names.

My point is you seem to be so confident and entirely relying on history based on the "facts" you are outlining in your explanation above that I wonder why therefore you don't consider the narrations of ahadeeths as part of history, after all these are also men narrations and reporting on their time?-).

You are the one entirely relying on history and Hadith for Mecca being the name of a town. If you disagree then please tell us, where did you get the meaning of Mecca as the name of the present day location in Saudi?

Plus, why do you consider Makka to be absolutly a "town"?

It is you who does not me. )

what is a town after all? did not Abraham settle in a no-man land that became LATER a community? My point is what started maybe as a small village or just few dwellings may have evolved to what became much later known as a "town".

But The God clearly tells us that this town is "umm al-qura". This is an expression that literally means "mother of all urban settlements". I am sorry but unlike you, I do not think that The God is exaggerating and He really meant a small unheard of town.

The expression "umm al-qura" is something akin to "cradle of civilization". It is a fact that the area along western Mesopotamia is considered to be the cradle of civilization by everyone in the world.

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.

Brother, the understanding of the contexts may also be wrong-) and not the meaning of the Arabic noun.

Then instead of just criticizing, start adding value by giving a better alternative. Tell us your right understanding of how the Arabic noun "moosa" (Arabic shaving blade) fits in the context of any passage where the word occurs in the great reading. Pick any passage.

Come on Brother! "emotionally attached"?? is this the only thing you can say to those who disagree with your approach? -) I am just trying to tell you that your "complete absence of any reference to a town called Mecca" depends on what you want to see and accept as "reference"-) that's why for me to a certain extent, we are even not debating the Quran or Makka as such but your approach with the literature you are using to prove with certainty your claims.

I know that the name Mecca is absent from the physical archeological record. On the other hand, you certainly got the name Mecca from Hadiths and dubious history. If you disagree, then please tell us WHERE DID YOU GET THE NAME MECCA FROM?

I have to admit it is weak. It reminds me the study on "Petra" and how at the time on this forum, anybody who was skeptical (including myself) was accused of being "emotional" and "attached to tradition"-) But once again, let us agree to disagree and leave the rest to God the All-Mighty. May HE show us and guide us to the truth. HE knows best.

I never proposed an alternate town. So I am not attached to any particular town. Even if I knew the location, I wouldn't share it because I know that some people will end up getting emotionally attached to it and idolize it. The only thing I know is that by stealing the common noun and attaching it to a location that was unheard of in pre-quranic physical archeological evidence, the present location called Mecca cannot be the truth.

If you disagree, that you are emotionally attached to Mecca, then tell us WHERE DID YOU GET THAT THE WORD "MEKKAT" IN 4824 REFERS TO THE NAME OF A CITY IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION IN SOUTHWEST CENTRAL ARABIA?

I hope that you can answer.

Peace,

Ayman

claurianta

Hmmm... thinking about this and the whole concept of Masjid al Haram, which according to Sunni mythology is located in Mecca. I think we might be able to use an outside source to possibly have a better understand the concept. What if Masjid al Haram is the Ark of the Covenant? The inner sanctum of the Jerusalem Temple was forbidden to all but the guardians of the temple (and even they had strict protocols of when and how they could enter) because it housed the Ark of the Covenant. Even while the Ark was being transported to Jerusalem by Moses, only Moses was allowed to be in its presence.
Now, the appointed place for the Ark is the Temple at Jerusalem, so I think both the Temple and the Ark could be synonymous. Therefore, as legend goes, Muhammed first prayed toward Jerusalem, but eventually changed his direction toward the South. Now, assuming he was in Medina or even somewhere in Northern Arabia, South is the general direction where you find modern-day Mecca. But go a little further, you will find Axum, Ethiopia, where it is claimed that the Ark of the Covenant exists today, and existed during the time of Muhammad.
So, if we take Masjid al Haram to be something physical, is it not very possible that it refers to two entities? The temple at Jerusalem, and that which made it forbidden or restricted the Covenant of the Ark.
Jews prayed toward the Jerusalem temple because it housed the Ark. Could it not be possible that Muhammad got some kind of information about the real direction the Ark lay (Axum, Ethiopia), and therefore changed his prayer direction, as per legend? And afterward people set out in that direction and found the Kabba and thought that that must be the Sacred Mosque.

I know what I am saying is at the moment conjecture, but I think it is a direction of research that should be undertaken. In this case, the whole thing about Mecca would become less of a deception and more of a huge mistake, which I think would be more of a possibility for those closest to Muhammad.
This theory of course assumes that the Ark of the Covenant is in Ethiopia, which has yet to be proven. But I think it will make for an interesting line of research.

ayman

Peace Tanveermd,

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.

If the losers refuse to give up and are still fighting then this is possible.

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.

This is not always the case. Some losing soldiers continue to fight because they don't want to surrender and think that they can still win. They even use civilians as human shields in this case.

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".

I think that the Arabic is clear in that victory had already happened. See my reponse above on the other meanings of "makkat" and perhaps you can help us figure out if others fit better.

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".

"Destruction" can happen without death and hand-to-hand combat. For example, it happens when the walls of the city are breached. You can help us by looking at my response to Claurianta above and see which of the meanings fits best.

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.

But this only proves that sister Myr is unaware of the difference between history, which is hearsay and not real evidence, and physical archeological evidence left by those before us, which The God tells us to examine in the great reading (for example, 309). I asked her what is her source for the name Mecca and I hope that she will answer.

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.

Unfortunately, what you are saying contradicts the reality of the descriptions given in the great reading of the town where the prophet lived. In the great reading, the descriptions give the impression of a commercial and cosmopolitan town with a diverse multi-faith population where people came to trade from all around the ancient world. It is also clearly described as being "umm al-qura"/the mother of settlements not some unknown small town.

In fact, the name Makkat is absent even in inscriptions from the area around present day Makkat. For example, it is absent from the famous 550CE Abraha inscription, which talks about several towns and VALLEYS in central Arabia but doesn't mention anything called Makkat. This despite traditional Islamic history contending that the reason Abraha invaded Arabia was to conquer Makkat.

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.

Absent of any archeological evidence for a pre-quranic city called Makkah and given that the common noun fits in the context, then your only source is Hadith, history, and your forefathers (all of which are nothing more than hearsay). Since, I know that you don't believe in those three sources then why the attachment to Mecca? It must be some kind of emotional familiarity attachment. It is normal we all tend to get emotionally attached to what we are familiar with and grew up knowing. If you start with a blank sheet of paper, without Mecca, Petra, Jerusalem, or anywhere and try to put down based on real hard evidence which town the prophet lived in then you will see what I am talking about.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace Ahmed,

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",

I don't recall accusing you of such thing. I remember telling you that you like to follow fairy tales such as the one about Khodr who turns everything that he touches green.

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

The real question is why would those who have faith rejoice over the victory of the Romans who are trinitarians. We are told in no uncertain terms in verse 573 that those who say that The God is part of a trinity are rejecters/"kuffar". Why would they rejoice when the rejecters/"kuffar" win?

If you can answer that then maybe we can see what you are talking about.

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.

I am not sure where you are getting info about those alleged battles from. Can you please tell us?

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?

We know from their physical manuscripts of the time that the Romans were intolerant towards other faiths and fought all those who differed with them. Thus, they fought against Jews and even fought other Christian sects that they viewed as heretic. All those gorups took refuge in the Lakhmid areas of Arabia and this is well documented in archeological evidence. So the Romans had many enemies. When we hear the story from the Roman side they never mention the word Muslim in their manuscripts when describing the event of the Arab conquests. They wrote that it was an alliance formed of a group they called "muhagareyye" (which is likely "muhajireen") and the Jews and other Christians who aided the "muhajireen" that invaded them.

Peace,

Ayman

ayman

Peace brother,

if you don't miss this post , would apreciate an answer.Thanks.

Maka = to whistle with ones mouth, pg 73 quranic dictionary.

Wama kana salatuhumAAinda albayti illa mukaan watasdiyatan fathooqooalAAathaba bima kuntum takfuroona
Their 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?

I think that you make an interesting observation. The answer to your question depends on whether we consider "MaKa(T)" in 4824 and "MiKa'A" in 835 to be derived from three letter or two letter roots.

Most (including myself) see the meanings as probably unrelated because I consider the roots to be three letters ("MaKa(T)" MKK and "MiKa'A" MKW).

On the other hand, some lexicographers and Arabic linguists think that there are two letter roots in Arabic and hence consider "MaKa(T)" to be derived from the two letter root "MK". Thus one could use the two letter root theory to propose that "MaKa(T)" and "MiKa'A" have their origin in a two letter root "MK" and thus the meanings could be related. Now if we look at the various meanings, we find that the "MaKa(T)" meaning of "insistence on the adversary" (which would perhaps involve screaming and shouting at each other) could be related to the "MiKa'A" meaning of making noise/shouting. If the two letter root theory is correct, then maybe etymologically this was the original common meaning but then each word specialized further and more meanings evolved in different directions and it became necessary to further classify them using three letter roots instead of two letters.

However, I have no more solid evidence from my study of the roots and hence at this stage I still consider the meanings separate until proven otherwise. As an interesting side note, the same theory can apply to SLW and WSL. They could have started out from a common ancestor two letter root SL and then branched out while maintaining a small relationship.

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Ayman

unknownuser

Salaamun alaikum Ayman,

Unfortunately, what you are saying contradicts the reality of the descriptions given in the great reading of the town where the prophet lived. In the great reading, the descriptions give the impression of a commercial and cosmopolitan town with a diverse multi-faith population where people came to trade from all around the ancient world. It is also clearly described as being "umm al-qura"/the mother of settlements not some unknown small town.

I am not at all proposing that Makkah is where the prophet lived. Even if "bibatni makkata" in 4824 is translated as "the valley of Makkah" it still is clearly not where the prophet lived according to the great reading as per your reasoning/understanding. I was just trying to figure out what "bibatni makkata" meant according to the context and whether the victory was given after withholding of the hands or before.

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".

Would you be willing to consider the possibility that the above context points out to victory being after withholding of hands in 4824 ? especially the phrases "which you could not vanquish" in 4821 and "if the rejectors had fought you" in 4822. This would actually support "bibatni makkata" meaning "in the midst of destruction", because usually victory is after destruction.

The sequence of events as per your understanding would be as follows

Believers could not vanquish the rejecters (4821)
Rejecters did not fight the believers (4822)
Believers were given victory (without being able to vanquish OR fighting the rejecters !!)
Hands of both parties withheld from each other AFTER the victory and the believers are STILL in the midst of destruction.

My understanding is that the sequence of events is as follows

Believers could not vanquish the rejecters (4821)
Rejecters did not fight the believers (4822)
Hands of both parties withheld from each other BEFORE the victory while they were in the midst of destruction/wearing out/insisting with demands of the adversary,
Believers were given victory eventually without any actual fighting (a mental or spiritual victory).

The alternative meanings of "wearing down" or "insisting with demands of the adversary" can also fit "makkata" and would be compatible with the above sequence of events as per my understanding. However victory being before withholding of hands seems less likely in view of 4821 and 4822.

Peace,

Tanveer

Roshan

I know the Great Mosque of Cordoba (finished 170AH) is officially aligned towards Damascus of all places,

Peace

The mosque in Cordoba is aligned in such a way because the Moors took it over from the old Visigothic cathedral. They had to use the old walls and they built it in a rush (as in one of the walls must have been in rough alignment to whatever direction they wanted it aligned to).

Although, having said that the Moors who came to Spain had fled Syria.

Roshan

unknownuser

Salaams all,

could you give evidence to this please?

you said

"They had to use the old walls and they built it in a rush"

i spoke to a guy who goes there often and said its's a complete job head to toe! a mosque nothing old about it.

Gods Blessings.

Roshan

Salaams all,

could you give evidence to this please?

you said

"They had to use the old walls and they built it in a rush"

i spoke to a guy who goes there often and said its's a complete job head to toe! a mosque nothing old about it.

Gods Blessings.

The mosque was built in many stages. Initially the Arabs bought the cathedral from the Visigoths and shared it with them. You can still see the old Visigothic parts if you go there (as I did recently). When I said, 'built it in a rush', what I meant to say is they needed a place of worship in a rush. Hence they bought a cathedral, and didn't build it from scratch. In later years they added to new parts to it. Presumably one of the walls happened to be aligned in a roughly south-east direction so they used that as their direction. When the building was extended they had to stick to the old configurations. This is why it is probably not aligned to Mecca/wherever.

As for the proof of this I don't have original documents or anything like that. The Visigothic cathedral is self evident if you go there. But the rest is what I have picked up from books I have read about the place.

When I went there, I had thought these people may have been the true Muslims. However, now I do not think so. First of all they had been ejected from Syria, they were quite racist and not as tolerant as Quran instructs us to be. My hypothesis is that the Quran made Muslims so advancd that they propelled way above the Europeans. When they rejected it, they declined, but it took (a long) time before they sunk to the level of the Europeans which is why Moorish Spain was, for a time, the most highly civilised place in Europe.

That is just an opinion though.

Roshn

unknownuser

Salaams Bro ? I think you?re a five timer and don?t want to diminish your concept of prayers! Or rather your qibla???

you said -

"You can still see the old Visigothic parts if you go there (as I did recently). When I said, 'built it in a rush', what I meant to say is they needed a place of worship in a rush. Hence they bought a cathedral, and didn't build it from scratch. In later years they added to new parts to it. Presumably one of the walls happened to be aligned in a roughly south-east direction so they used that as their direction. When the building was extended they had to stick to the old configurations. This is why it is probably not aligned to Mecca/wherever."

Now what actually happened with possible evidance/proofs/authenticity or what ever.

Mosque being built on the site of a church.

It dates back to 785 when Abd ar-Rahhman I founded the Mezquita on the site of an ancient Visigothic church which had originally been the site of a Roman temple

The Great Mosque of Cordoba was considered a wonder of the medieval world by both Muslims and Christians. Built on a Visigothic site, which was probably the site of an earlier Roman temple, the Great Mosque of Cordoba was begun between 784 and 786 during the reign of 'Abd al-Rahman I, who escaped from Syria to the Iberian Peninsula after his family was massacred by a rival political dynasty.

Mosque changing into a cathedral???

In the early 16th century the Bishop and Canons of the cathedral proposed the construction of a new cathedral, and proposed to demolish the mosque in order to build it. The opposition of the townspeople to the proposed destruction of the building led to the unprecedented decision, endorsed by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, to insert an entire Gothic "chapel" into the very heart of the former Great Mosque. The result is an uneasy and controversial juxtaposition the soaring forms of a Gothic cathedral rise from the very centre of the comparatively low, sprawling prayer hall whose architectural vocabulary is rooted in the forms of classical antiquity

THE CATHEDRAL
In the centre of the mosque squats a Renaissance cathedral which dates back to the early sixteenth century while, to the left is the Capilla de Villaviciosa built by Moorish craftsmen in 1371.
The Mosque was consecrated as a Christian Cathedral in the same year that Cordoba was re-conquered (1236). Alfonso X built the Villaviciosa Chapel with stunning multi lobed arches. The Capilla Real (Royal Chapel) was also built as a pantheon for Christian Kings.
In the 14th century Enrique II rebuilt the royal chapel in Mudejar style. In 1523 with the support of King Carlos V the church built a huge nave inside the mosque. The cathedral was elaborated on over the years by many of the country?s leading architects and artists. Architect Hern?n Ruiz continued working transforming the Cathedral into Gothic style.

SO THE MOSQUE WAS CHANGED INTO A CATHEDRAL PARTIALLY AFTER IT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE CHRISTIANS.

Its astonishing when people start to lie just to strengthen their points of view though.

unknownuser

Salaams Bro ? I think you?re a five timer and don?t want to diminish your concept of prayers! Or rather your qibla???

you said -

"You can still see the old Visigothic parts if you go there (as I did recently). When I said, 'built it in a rush', what I meant to say is they needed a place of worship in a rush. Hence they bought a cathedral, and didn't build it from scratch. In later years they added to new parts to it. Presumably one of the walls happened to be aligned in a roughly south-east direction so they used that as their direction. When the building was extended they had to stick to the old configurations. This is why it is probably not aligned to Mecca/wherever."

Now what actually happened with possible evidance/proofs/authenticity or what ever.

Mosque being built on the site of a church.

It dates back to 785 when Abd ar-Rahhman I founded the Mezquita on the site of an ancient Visigothic church which had originally been the site of a Roman temple

The Great Mosque of Cordoba was considered a wonder of the medieval world by both Muslims and Christians. Built on a Visigothic site, which was probably the site of an earlier Roman temple, the Great Mosque of Cordoba was begun between 784 and 786 during the reign of 'Abd al-Rahman I, who escaped from Syria to the Iberian Peninsula after his family was massacred by a rival political dynasty.

Mosque changing into a cathedral???

In the early 16th century the Bishop and Canons of the cathedral proposed the construction of a new cathedral, and proposed to demolish the mosque in order to build it. The opposition of the townspeople to the proposed destruction of the building led to the unprecedented decision, endorsed by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, to insert an entire Gothic "chapel" into the very heart of the former Great Mosque. The result is an uneasy and controversial juxtaposition the soaring forms of a Gothic cathedral rise from the very centre of the comparatively low, sprawling prayer hall whose architectural vocabulary is rooted in the forms of classical antiquity

THE CATHEDRAL
In the centre of the mosque squats a Renaissance cathedral which dates back to the early sixteenth century while, to the left is the Capilla de Villaviciosa built by Moorish craftsmen in 1371.
The Mosque was consecrated as a Christian Cathedral in the same year that Cordoba was re-conquered (1236). Alfonso X built the Villaviciosa Chapel with stunning multi lobed arches. The Capilla Real (Royal Chapel) was also built as a pantheon for Christian Kings.
In the 14th century Enrique II rebuilt the royal chapel in Mudejar style. In 1523 with the support of King Carlos V the church built a huge nave inside the mosque. The cathedral was elaborated on over the years by many of the country?s leading architects and artists. Architect Hern?n Ruiz continued working transforming the Cathedral into Gothic style.

SO THE MOSQUE WAS CHANGED INTO A CATHEDRAL PARTIALLY AFTER IT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE CHRISTIANS.