Kaaba at Jerusalem and not at Mecca
-
Let?s recap the author understanding before I represent the major flaw in it
- Mohammad was living in Jerusalem and was taking Jerusalem as the Qiblah
- Mohammad was forced to migrate from Jerusalem to Yathrib but he kept taking Jerusalem as the Qiblah for sometime 2142
- Mohammad then ordered to change the Qiblah from Jerusalem to another location as a test to the believers 2142-2143
- At almost the end of Mohammad mission, he was ordered to set the Qiblah back to Jerusalem where it suppose to be ?The City of God? 2144
What I noticed clearly that the author SKIPPED 2145 (He never talked about it despite forms of the word Qiblah was mentioned 3 TIMES, let me bring it here along with 2144)
144- Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like; turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it, and those who have been given the Book most surely know that it is the truth from their Lord; and Allah is not at all heedless of what they do.
145- And even if you bring to those who have been given the Book every sign they would not follow your qiblah, nor can you be a follower of their qiblah, neither are they the followers of each other's qiblah, and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust.
(144)
(145)-> As we can see the prophet was not happy with current Qiblah he was pointing to?Indeed We see the turning of your face to heaven, so We shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like;?, according to the history, the existing Qiblah that the prophet didn?t like was Jerusalem and according to the author of the article it has to be whatever was the new direction that was set as a test when he migrated to Yatherib but not Jerusalem, then came the order to change the Qiblah to Al Masjid Al Haram, a place suppose to be liked by the Prophet ? turn then your face towards the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it,?, now according to the history that change is from Jerusalem to Mecca and according to The author it was from whatever it was pointing back to Jerusalem
-> Here comes the verse The author totally ignored where the form of the word Qiblah is mentioned 3 times it starts by telling us a surprising reality ? ?, ?And even if you bring to those who have been given the Book every sign they would not follow your qiblah,?, SEE, the people of the book (the Jews and Christians) will never follow the newly assigned Qiblah mentioned in 2144, how come then it is Jerusalem, if the people of the book suppose to be already using Jerusalem (the city of God) as a Qiblah?,
-> It gets even better, ? ?, ?nor can you be a follower of their qiblah,?, SEE, an order from Allah to the prophet NOT TO FOLLOW the Qiblah of the people of the book (The Jews and Christians), their Qiblah is Jerusalem as the author stated, but here is something vital that the author missed a clear cut order from Allah NOT TO FOLLOW THE QIBLAH OF THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK, and it even gets better ? ?, ?neither are they the followers of each other's qiblah,?, a clear indication that even the people of the book have different Qiblahs to each other that they should be following, i.e. there is no way that there is one Qiblah for them which suppose to be Jerusalem as the author claimed otherwise Allah will never tell us this ? neither are they the followers of each other's qiblah?, and finally the confirmation not to follow their Qiblah as they surely would have desired for Mohammad to do?and if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, then you shall most surely be among the unjust.?
What else I can say bro?
One verse refutes pages and pages of a newly unfounded concept, it was an interesting read for me but for the author to skip 2145 which clearly telling us the following
- The people of the book will never follow the newly assigned Qiblah in 2144 regardless every sign the prophet showed them
- The prophet was ordered NOT to follow the Qiblah of the people of the book
- The people of the book have different Qiblahs between them
Is very questionable indeed
Nothing else to say bro other than if anyone interested to refute back, I only take Quran verses as evidences, for me, the possibly corrupt historical/ archaeology evidences are not admissible in my books
Also you have to be aware that even if I was a bit confused regarding the author understanding of 2143-2144, whatever way I understand it, 2145 clearly refute the article by confirming that the Sacred Mosque is in anywhere but Jerusalem, because if it was, then 2145 is a clear contradiction in the Quran because, again it tells us the following- The people of the book will never follow the newly assigned Qiblah in 2144 regardless every sign the prophet showed them
- The prophet was ordered NOT to follow the Qiblah of the people of the book (Jerusalem)
- The people of the book have different Qiblahs between them
I.E. our current Qiblah CAN?T be in Jerusalem
Take care bro
-
Not at all D Did I say anything about not believing in the Jerusalem theory? I did not. I just said that there are too many posts with too little references
Salam brother
I believe 2145 should make you not to ever believe it
Take care
-
Salam akhi, of course I do have more of a belief in the one at the Kaba, it's quite a relief to see at least one person here backing up their views with facts.
And one question for some of these people who do endorse some of the more, how shall I say, controversial issues - Are you guys going to completely ignore history and take every signle thing out of context?
Brother Ahmed, please, I need to know that there is at least one other rational individual here - do you think it is unreasonable to answer that first rediculous post with
Salam,
This is not enough to prove your suspicions...
Your argument is flawed in the fact that you have offered no evidence to purport the validity of Jerusalem being the Qiblah in the first place. All you have are theories backed up with no evidence, so perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is, why have the suspicion in the first place?
And if you mean to reply to this with evidence then you are surely contradicting your original post.
And, why all the Hindu connotations?
brickwall
-
Brother Arnold,
A few verses that may help you
649 But as for those who deny Our revelations, torment will afflict them for that they used to disobey.
2511-13 Nay, but they deny (the coming of) the Hour, and for those who deny (the coming of) the Hour We have prepared a flame. When it seeth them from afar, they hear the crackling and the roar thereof. And when they are cast into a narrow place in it, bound, they shall there call out for destruction.
2536 Then We said Go together unto the folk who have denied Our revelations. Then We destroyed them, a complete destruction.
And the last one
3220 And as for those who do evil, their retreat is the Fire. Whenever they desire to issue forth from thence, they are brought back thither. Unto them it is said Taste the torment of the Fire which ye used to deny.
-
Peace dear bro Ahmed
The evidence you gave 2 145 is indeed devastating. So therefore there is no way Jerusalem is the Qibla...
The issue with me that since I got this health problem, my attention span is like that of a mosquito, and my judgment like that of a toddler D
Thank you for helping me to see the light again.
I hope the author of the article will respond as I wonder what his argument will be, otherwise he ought to remove the article from the web-site...
I clearly can see that it was Allah who guided you to give such a decisive truth in the matter...
Jazak Allah Alfa Khaireen
Salam WR WB
Noble -
Brother Arnold,
A few verses that may help you
649 But as for those who deny Our revelations, torment will afflict them for that they used to disobey.
2511-13 Nay, but they deny (the coming of) the Hour, and for those who deny (the coming of) the Hour We have prepared a flame. When it seeth them from afar, they hear the crackling and the roar thereof. And when they are cast into a narrow place in it, bound, they shall there call out for destruction.
2536 Then We said Go together unto the folk who have denied Our revelations. Then We destroyed them, a complete destruction.
And the last one
3220 And as for those who do evil, their retreat is the Fire. Whenever they desire to issue forth from thence, they are brought back thither. Unto them it is said Taste the torment of the Fire which ye used to deny.
Peace,
Al-Quraishy, you have missed the previous discussions where i already discussed these verses. Please see the Djenna and Gehenna thread. You don't understand my view and my arguments so it is not wise to just jump in and think you can prove your point. Fire has more implications and meanings then the literal approach, my view is even worse then the literal view but you need to look wider then the normal approach, please go to the appropiate thread.
-
Peace,
Interesting discussion.
To clear some information which seemed to be skipped
- The place of the Restricted Temple is called
Baca(not Mecca). - The Temple at Baca has the
maqam of Ibrahiminside it (not outside as the footprints in Mecca). - The place where the Temple is located known to have olives and fig trees (not native to Mecca).
- Abraham first called people to the pilgrimage at Baca (no known history for Mecca before Mohammed)
- Mohammed was known to be living at one point around the area of Lot`s town (reported near Dead Sea, not Arabia).
- Muslims fought a war with Rome, and lost, around the Dead Sea (lowest part of the earth).
- Rome would be fought again in a few years and defeated.
- Rome is known by its records to have occupied the area of Syria/Lebanon/Palestine, but not the area as far south as Medina or Mecca.
Now, on to the major find brother Ahmed has pointed out in 2145 which
supposedlydestroys the notion of the Temple being in Jerusalem while supporting Mecca (keep in mind, we have to ignore verses upon verses of information to keep Mecca alive with this one argument)....The answer is simply that the Qibla in question is the Restricted Temple and not the city of Jerusalem as a geographic area (which is what has been missed in this general discussion).
The Jews have not to this day accepted the Temple Mount as their Qibla (in-fact, it is forbidden to them by their Rabbi`s) and they keep to the wailing wall as their focal point...
The Nazarenes also do not take the Temple Mount as their Qibla, but rather it is the mount of olives which they focus on as being the last place where Jesus spent his time on Earth (according to them).
As for Sunnis and Shia, they take between them the place of Mecca as a Qibla.
Therefore, to answer the question of 2145, none of the people of the Scripture have followed the Qibla of the Restricted Temple, nor did the prophet follow any Qibla of the idolitars.
- The place of the Restricted Temple is called
-
Peace Bros
And here goes Bro Ahmed's interpretation and theory down the drain...
Oh well, at least you tried hard Bro Ahmed unlike me (
Facts are facts... so until proven otherwise I am back with Bro Layth's proofs (ping pong hehe)...Peace bro
LOL man, you made it (my interpretation)?, did I add anything to 2145?
Well, can you see how I was right regarding the conclusion rush you suffer from?, this can?t be healthy mate, more for you than to any one else
Brother Layth responded to my comment as follow
Now, on to the major find brother Ahmed has pointed out in 2145 which
supposedlydestroys the notion of the Temple being in Jerusalem while supporting Mecca (keep in mind, we have to ignore verses upon verses of information to keep Mecca alive with this one argument)....The answer is simply that the Qibla in question is the Restricted Temple and not the city of Jerusalem as a geographic area (which is what has been missed in this general discussion).
The Jews have not to this day accepted the Temple Mount as their Qibla (in-fact, it is forbidden to them by their Rabbi`s) and they keep to the wailing wall as their focal point...
The Nazarenes also do not take the Temple Mount as their Qibla, but rather it is the mount of olives which they focus on as being the last place where Jesus spent his time on Earth (according to them).
As for Sunnis and Shia, they take between them the place of Mecca as a Qibla.
Therefore, to answer the question of 2145, none of the people of the Scripture have followed the Qibla of the Restricted Temple, nor did the prophet follow any Qibla of the idolitars.
Not sure if this answer has merit in any way, I guess brother Layth is mixed up between, ?visiting a place? and ?taking a place as a focal point?
Now let me ask you bro, aren?t we talking about taking a certain place as a religious focal point or are we talking about visiting a religious place?
There is no doubt that we are talking about taking a place as a focal point regardless where you are on earth
Now the temple mount is surely the religious focus of the jews, this is the case since its existence, in 1967 Mosha Dayan as a peace gesture he handed the Temple Mount to the Muslims and created new legistlation that prevent any jew from setting a foot on it, however they still stand outside the western wall and surely are pointing to the temple from that position, i.e. the temple is the jews religious focal point, let me bring some info in here
The 137th Psalm, a hymn of the exiles of Jerusalem during the Babylonian captivity, eloquently expresses the yearnings of the Jewish people for their homeland, their city and their temple - then and now.
Jerusalem, "City of Peace" has known nearly two dozen wars and destructions since its existence was first known to us from the Biblical record. Abraham's meeting with Melchizedek about 2000 BC reveals that there was in the city (known then as "Salem", even at that early date. A righteous Gentile king, Melchizedek, ruled there as "priest of God Most High" (El Elyon). Abraham's family had lapsed into idolatry living in Babylon (Ur of the Chaldees), in spite of his legitimacy of his being in the line of Noah's son, Shem. It is possible that Melchizedek was Abraham's teacher and spiritual mentor who gave Abraham additional information, and possibly even ancient documents, concerning the God of the land of Israel who had called him there.
As a religious center Jerusalem remains sacred to (and fought over by) all three monotheistic religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is an open secret that the Pope aspires to set up his world headquarters there, having claimed for many years that the Holy Land has all along really been under Roman Catholic "stewardship." UN debates, Arab neighbours, and the PLO urge the "internationalization" of this modest city, though it is no secret that the actually want the city all to themselves without any Jews. All the while, religious pilgrims from all nations continue to flock to the Holy City in droves numbering millions per year.
Thus all the eyes of the world are upon Jerusalem, City of Peace, today as never before. This is a city that has been besieged about forty different times and destroyed (at least partially) on thirty-two different occasions. The rulership of Jerusalem has changed hands some twenty-six times. Since 1948 Jerusalem has experienced four wars.
From the time of the establishment of the State of Israel in May of 1948 until 1967, the city was divided. Walls, barbed-wire fences and a desolated strip of non-man's land cut through the very heart of the city, especially excluding the Jews from the Old City and the Temple Mount. During that time the Jewish Quarter was levelled and its synagogues burned. Jewish graves and monuments were desecrated or turned into latrines.
In June of 1967 the Jews were involved in a war that resulted in the liberation of the Old City of Jerusalem. On the third day of the Six Day War, Israeli paratrooper Motta Gur, mounted on a half-track, announced that the Temple Mount has been regained. On June 7 of that year the Israeli troops moved into the Old City and stood at the Western Wall (Wailing Wall) for prayer. Rabbi Shlomo Goren declared
"We have taken the city of God. We are entering the Messianic era for the Jewish people, and I promise to the Christian world that what we are responsible for we will take care of."
The Temple Mount Restored to Muslim Control
On Saturday June 17, 1967, shortly after the end of the Six Day War, Defense minister Moshe Dayan entered the Al-Aksa Mosque for a historic meeting. In a gesture of good will, Dayan sat down on the prayer carpet with five leaders of the Supreme Muslim Council (the Waqf) of what had been Jordanian-controlled Jerusalem. That discussion fixed Israel's policy regarding the Temple Mount, a policy that remains unchanged to this day.Dayan had ordered the Israeli flag removed from on top of the Dome of the Rock on the afternoon of the Old City's liberation. His discussion with the Muslims led to further concessions. The administrative control over the Temple Mount was to be the sole responsibility of the Supreme Muslim Council - the (Jordanian) Waqf. Though the Jews would be permitted free access to the Mount, prayer by Jews was prohibited. Dayan refused to permit any Jewish identification with Judaism's holiest site. To him, the Temple Mount held only historic interest. He said
"I have no doubt that because the power is in our hands we must take a stand based on yielding. We must view the Temple Mount as a historic site relating to past memory."
The government of Israel then allocated responsibility of the Temple Mount area to different groups. Israel's Department of Antiquities were given the south, southeast, and southwest area of the Temple Mount to explore archaeologically. The top of the Temple Mount, however, site of the First and Second Temples, was given over to the Muslims to administrate. To the present day, the PLO Muslim Waqf allows tourists to visit the Mount a few hours per day - but they do not allow any freedom of worship or any non-Muslim archaeological activity there. The entire area is treated as if it were a gigantic outdoor mosque. To this day, visitors who stroll out of very limited areas - to view over the wall at the Pinnacle of the Temple, or to see the interior of the Golden Gate, for example - will be quickly restrained by an Arab guard.
Shortly after the Temple Mount was recaptured, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, then chief chaplain of the Israeli army, and one of the leading advocates for the rebuilding of the Temple, attempted to establish a Jewish identity on the Mount. The Western Wall below the Mount was all Israel actually possessed and to Goren that was not enough. He believed regaining Jewish presence on the Mount would be a major step towards Israel's long-awaited redemption. On August 15, 1967, Goren led demonstrative Jewish prayers on the Temple Mount compound. His actions caused shockwaves and much apprehension among Muslims as to the fate of their sacred sites.
Goren prayed within the Temple Mount courtyard, but this was contrary to the newly agreed arrangement with the Israeli government. The Waqf responded by locking the entrance gate above the Western Wall that leads to the Temple Mount. The keys to that gate were confiscated soon thereafter by the government of Israel and Jewish military police have been on duty at the entrance gate ever since.
The two chief Rabbis of Israel (Sephardic and Askenazi) then compiled a joint statement forbidding Jews to visit the Temple Mount. There position was that the Jewish people were ceremonially unclean and might accidentally tread on the place where the holy of holies stood in the Temple.
Now a Political Issue
The Temple Mount had become a political issue as far back as 1930 when Mufti Haj Arain El-Husseini turned Solomon's Stables into a shooting range and whipped up a frenzy over Jewish prayer at the Western Wall. The current PLO-controlled Supreme Muslim Council looks to a 1931 decision that the Temple Mount is exclusive Waqf property. The Waqf - who nomimally owe their allegiance to Jordan - do not accept the reunification of Jerusalem. Islamic preachers during the regular Friday day of prayer on the Mount regularly and routinely denounce Israel the right of the Jews to exist, frequently delivering inflammatory polemics designed to foster Arab hatred towards the Jews.Prior to 1967 the central structure on the Mount for the Muslims was the Al-Aksa Mosque. After the city was recaptured in 1967, the Waqf began to term the entire Temple Mount as Al-Aksa. In effect, they annexed the entire Mount.
No Exploration or Excavation
The rabbinical prohibition against Jews walking around on the Temple Mount has now been extended. The rabbis next declared that there was to be no exploration, excavation, or even prayer on the Temple Mount. Yet they continued to acknowledge that the Temple Mount is the center of Jerusalem
The Temple Mount is the red-hot heart of the city. This doesn't mean that everyone who lives here turns up there in the course of a day, a week, a month or a year, or even turns his mind to it. He may go through years without giving it a thought, just as a Roman might not think of St. Peter's. Some young Jerusalemites, who can't remember a time when Jews couldn't freely and safely go to the Wall, do take it for granted. Yet even they know that Jerusalem, unlike Rome, is contested. They believe too that whoever holds the Holy Places, and especially the Temple Mount, possesses the upper hand in city, and therefore the country.
(Primary reference source The Coming Temple. By Don Stewart and Chuck Missler (1991) available from Koinonia House. 1. Ed Grossman, Symbol and Madness, The Jerusalem Post, Local Supplement, September 30, 1983.)Orthodox Jews and the Temple Mount
In their attempts to minimize tensions between Jew and Arab concerning the Temple Mount a ban on Jewish entry was formally posted at the entrance gate by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.NOTICE AND WARNING
Entrance to the area of the Temple Mount is forbidden to everyone
by Jewish Law owing to the sacredness of the place.---The Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
Jews were thus officially banned from setting foot on the Temple platform. In practice many Orthodox Jews observe the ban while other Jews do not. The stated reason for the ban is that gentiles, as well as Jews, are regarded as "unclean" today and are thus unfit to walk on the sacred mount. The Mount is considered so sacred that one is forbidden even to fly over it because the holiness of the site extends into the heavens. Therefore the Orthodox Jew is allowed only to admire the mount from a distance. This ban will stay in effect, many believe, until the Messiah comes. Because of the ban the Jews pray and celebrate at the Western wall, an area in earlier times known as the "Wailing" wall.
Other devout Jews have disputed the reasons for the Rabbinical ban claiming that the Temple Mount foundations are indeed defiled and must be ceremonially cleansed. Until the new temple is completed and ready to be placed into service it is permissible for unclean persons to visit there and even to work on the building of the Third Temple. First the temple must be cleansed - then the people - is their argument.
Sorry bro it is the weekend and I have to take my son for a ride and he is mad right now and wants to go out, but from the above it is clear that the Jews still focus on the temple mount from the side of the western wall
The issue is not stepping a foot on it, the issue I?m discussing is taking the temple mount as a religious focal point
Talk to you soon bro, there will be a lot to say in this thread, here is what i'm planning to do
- continue to show how the temple mount is the religious focus of the jews
- show that it is also the focus of the christian faith
- show further quran evidences that Al Masjid Al Haram can't be in Jerusalem
To be continued?
-
Peace Bro Ahmed
But this does not answer the following logical statementsThe Jews have not to this day accepted the Temple Mount as their Qibla (in-fact, it is forbidden to them by their Rabbi`s) and they keep to the wailing wall as their focal point...
The Nazarenes also do not take the Temple Mount as their Qibla, but rather it is the mount of olives which they focus on as being the last place where Jesus spent his time on Earth (according to them).
As for Sunnis and Shia, they take between them the place of Mecca as a Qibla.
This is getting very confusing...
Take care Bro
-
Peace Bro Ahmed
But this does not answer the following logical statementsThe Jews have not to this day accepted the Temple Mount as their Qibla (in-fact, it is forbidden to them by their Rabbi`s) and they keep to the wailing wall as their focal point...
The Nazarenes also do not take the Temple Mount as their Qibla, but rather it is the mount of olives which they focus on as being the last place where Jesus spent his time on Earth (according to them).
As for Sunnis and Shia, they take between them the place of Mecca as a Qibla.
This is getting very confusing...
Take care Bro
Peace bro
The question is clealy answered, this was only a political move to ease tension after they won the 1967 war, i.e. it is only recent but all of them still focus on it from whereever they are and not allowed to step a foot in it, many of them still do to that day
but please do not dodge my point we are talking focusing on the temple not visting it, we are talking QIBLAH bro A Direction", so if they stand on the western wall looking at the temple means that they are facing the temple NOT the western wall, like when you pray in your bed room for example I guess it is quite possible that you are facing the TV, would the TV be your Qiblah? or what you are intending to be your Qiblah in your mind?
yes I agree it is confusing that is why I avoided this subject for months but now it is the time for me to have a say at it and I will continuue researching and provide the evidences as I see them coming, I already have a whole heap of evidences that need some time to put it in a non confusing manner, however give me 5 minutes I will have a samdwitch then I will show you a very quick logical point that can't be missed and I hope you have a clear mind when i come back
Cheers
-
Peace Ahmed
To be honest, I just want to be on the safe side. I think to have now a clear idea why the scholars two centuries after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) decided to collect and catalogue hadiths, under Imam Shafi'i's scrutiny...
I can tell you my thoughts if you want to read them... -
Peace Ahmed
To be honest, I just want to be on the safe side.Peace mate
Of course bro who doesn?t wish to be on the safe side, do you think I want to be on the danger side?
Well the danger side as far as I?m concerned is to change the Arabic quran to suits invented concepts and in the process it creates many contradictions in the Quran, though I?m not totally against new quran invention, I will only accept it if it does not create any contradiction somewhere else, if it does then that invention failed
I think to have now a clear idea why the scholars two centuries after the death of Muhammed (pbuh) decided to collect and catalogue hadiths, under Imam Shafi'i's scrutiny...
Great and I also believe I know why, but the problem here is this, we are not discussing hadith whatsoever we are only discussing Quran
Look at the matter of Al Masjid Al Haram for example, so far we never mentioned any hadith regarding it, now let me ask you, do you consider all the hadith regarding Al Masjid Al Haram are nothing but a con job?, do you know how many hadith that talks about Al Masjid Al Haram and the Kaaba?
However bro, please let?s try and stick to the subject in hand then we can move on to any other subject you wish, the subject we have in hand is the Qiblah, the Kabba, Al Masjid Al Haram and Al Masjid Al Aqsa
I can tell you my thoughts if you want to read them...
Sure you can go ahead if you wish but I?d rather finish what we discussing first because it is more important, now let me discuss this simple logic with you
And when Ibrahim said My Lord, make it a secure town and provide its people with fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the last day. He said And whoever disbelieves, I will grant him enjoyment for a short while, then I will drive him to the chastisement of the fire; and it is an evil destination.
(126)
-> Obviously Ibrahim asked Allah ? My Lord, make it a secure town and provide its people with fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the last day?, then clealy Allah granted Ibrahim wish regarding that (Balad) town to be a secure place ? He said And whoever disbelieves, I will grant him enjoyment for a short while, then I will drive him to the chastisement of the fire; and it is an evil destination.?
Now would you consider Jerusalem a secure and city of of peace despite of the followings
- Jerusalem has known nearly two dozen wars and destructions since its existence.
- Jerusalem has been besieged about forty different times and destroyed (at least partially) on thirty-two different occasions.
- The rulership of Jerusalem has changed hands some twenty-six times.
- Since 1948 Jerusalem has experienced four wars.
Would Jerusalem be a secured Balad (City) as Allah made it to be after granting Ibrahim wish (2126?
Thanks bro
-
Peace Bro Ahmed
Another good piece of evidence against Jerusalem...Now very briefly about Hadith Compilation I believe scholars were faced with many blasphemous interpretations from the new cultures embracing Islam, and as a weapon against this, in those circumstances, they agreed to try and salvage as much information as they could from what they knew of the Prophet to make sure that the cultural filters of the new converts will not pollute the understanding of the Message, and also considering that the sayings of the Prophet will have more weight than their own.
Of course this could also lead to abuse, this is why Imam Shafi'i restricted the doors to Ijtihad, and introduced the idea of consensus (Shuura agrrement and implementation) among scholars for decision making...
Salam Bro, I will communicate with you later... -
Brother Ahmed, please, I need to know that there is at least one other rational individual here - do you think it is unreasonable to answer that first rediculous post with
Salam,
This is not enough to prove your suspicions...
Your argument is flawed in the fact that you have offered no evidence to purport the validity of Jerusalem being the Qiblah in the first place. All you have are theories backed up with no evidence, so perhaps the question you should be asking yourself is, why have the suspicion in the first place?
And if you mean to reply to this with evidence then you are surely contradicting your original post.
And, why all the Hindu connotations?
Salam Brother
your answer sounds very reasonable to me, well, for the hindu thingy, all I can say that Mohammad was mentioned in their Veda
Take care bro
-
Peace Bro Ahmed
Another good piece of evidence against Jerusalem...Now very briefly about Hadith Compilation I believe scholars were faced with many blasphemous interpretations from the new cultures embracing Islam, and as a weapon against this, in those circumstances, they agreed to try and salvage as much information as they could from what they knew of the Prophet to make sure that the cultural filters of the new converts will not pollute the understanding of the Message, and also considering that the sayings of the Prophet will have more weight than their own.
Of course this could also lead to abuse, this is why Imam Shafi'i restricted the doors to Ijtihad, and introduced the idea of consensus (Shuura agrrement and implementation) among scholars for decision making...
Salam Bro, I will communicate with you later...I totally agree bro
now we are facing the same exact problem they faced then and I believe the problem we have now is caused by how they compiled the hadith the first time, hence all we need to do is to have a go at it for the second and final time inshallah
Salam mate
-
Peace,
Interesting discussion.
Salam bro
Sure it is, I hope it continue to be interesting and many benefit from it
To clear some information which seemed to be skipped
I didn?t really try to skip it, I didn?t respond to it for the following two reasons
-
I was not ready to debate the subject with you as I understand how hard you believe in it and consequently how hard it will be for you not to believe in it
-
I believe 2145 is strong enough to absolutely not to worry about all the other information you mentioned, however and to be honest, I noticed a couple of minor flaws in your article and deliberately didn?t discuss them because as I stated I was not ready to debate the matter with you.
- The place of the Restricted Temple is called
Baca(not Mecca).
Not a compelling evidence despite I agree that there is a place somewhere in Palestine called Beca, because Allah still may be referringto Mecca ?sounds very similar names to me?, as He did when He referred to Mohammad as Ahmad, and Za Al Nun as Yunis and possibly many other examples, therefore the evidence is not compelling enough but have a bit of merit indeed
- The Temple at Baca has the
maqam of Ibrahiminside it (not outside as the footprints in Mecca).
Actually as far as I know that Maqam Ibrahim in Mecca was inside the Kabba and they moved it outside so the people can see it, otherwise it will be concealed, I will need to confirm this info though, however why you take it that only the Kabba is Al Masjid Al Haram?, why not the Kabba and the surroundings around it?, in fact how the whole world will go inside the Kabba to perform salat?, therefore the Kabba is only the centre and the whole surrounding as required to fit as many people as possible are Al Masjid Al Haram, i.e even with the current location or Maqam Ibrahim, it is still inside Al Masjid Al Haram
- The place where the Temple is located known to have olives and fig trees (not native to Mecca).
Not sure what you mean?, however when Ibrahim dropped his wife and his baby son near Al Masjid Al Haram, he said the following
O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that they may establish regular Prayer so fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with fruits so that they may give thanks.
(37)
-> See, Ibrahim made some of his family to dewl near Al Bayt Al haram where he stated it is a valley without cultivation, in no way Jerusalem is a valley nor at at his timeit was without cultivation, I don?t think Al Masjid Al Aqsa area has to be a hill not a valley ? ?,? O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation?, see, ? ?
- Abraham first called people to the pilgrimage at Baca (no known history for Mecca before Mohammed)
Fine but a case of similar names can?t in no way be a conclusive evidence especially there are many other compelling evidences that refute it
- Mohammed was known to be living at one point around the area of Lot`s town (reported near Dead Sea, not Arabia).
He might have been living near there for some time, I don?t really know nor it can be a conclusive evidence, in fact the verse where it says that they will see Lut?s city ruins on the day and on the night in no way suggested that the same travellers who will see in the morning will see it at night, there is nothing to indicate that it was a round trip as you are trying to show us, it was just a mere fact that the people will see the ruins of Lut?s city on the day and on the night, possibly it was set times for their trips, many trips the make I would say, some on the day and others on the night, here is the verses just in case I missed that it means the SAME people will see it twice on the the day and on the night
137- And most surely you pass by them in the morning,
138- And by night will ye not understand?
(137)
(13-> Sorry I can't see anything above that indicate the travellers who will see the ruins in the morning are the same who will see it at night
- Muslims fought a war with Rome, and lost, around the Dead Sea (lowest part of the earth).
- Rome would be fought again in a few years and defeated.
- Rome is known by its records to have occupied the area of Syria/Lebanon/Palestine, but not the area as far south as Medina or Mecca.
I?m not really sure how the above is relating to the Qiblah issue? however I will need to do further researches before I can respond to this Rome issue you raised
Cheers
-
-
Peace Ahmed,
- I was not ready to debate the subject with you as I understand how hard you believe in it and consequently how hard it will be for you not to believe in it
First off, please note I have no issue debating this or any topic as...My loyalty is to God
s words and not to tradition or opinion. Hence, if Timbuktu was proven to be the location of Gods Restricted Temple, then I would be one of the first tohear & obey(God willing).- I believe 2145 is strong enough to absolutely not to worry about all the other information you mentioned, however and to be honest, I noticed a couple of minor flaws in your article and deliberately didn?t discuss them because as I stated I was not ready to debate the matter with you.
If you care not to worry about any of the other information provided on the subject, then you are not being an objective researcher...2145 has been answered clealry, yet you are refusing to go down the path that it is sufficient because it would mean you have to examine the other data on Mecca which will draw you to where I know many do not want to tread, that Mecca is a location that has nothing to do with Islam.
- The place of the Restricted Temple is called
Baca(not Mecca).
Not a compelling evidence despite I agree that there is a place somewhere in Palestine called Beca, because Allah still may be referringto Mecca ?sounds very similar names to me?
Brother, we do not deal in
may-bewhen it comes to Gods system...Either we know or we dont...God tells us the name of the location where the Restricted Temple was erected is calledBaca. That is enough of a clue to get people to re-exmine a place they all flock to. Ask yourself why, even though it has been clearly revealed in the Quran, people still insist to call the location where they think the Restricted Temple is by another nameMecca.You say the
words sound very similar, yet, I say that we are looking for perfect fit here, especially that many would argue thatMeccais already mentioned in 4824-25 as being a place where opposition to the prophet was made and where he had to subdue them before being able to make his way to the Restricted Temple (i.e. Mecca was a place which gave opposition to the prophet, but was not where his destination was).Baca = Place of the Temple (396)
Mecca = Place which was subdued due to the rejection/opposition of its people (4824-25)Now, back to my question If Mecca is the same as Bacca, then why has it not taken that name for 1,400 years?
- The Temple at Baca has the
maqam of Ibrahiminside it (not outside as the footprints in Mecca).
Actually as far as I know that Maqam Ibrahim in Mecca was inside the Kabba and they moved it outside so the people can see it, otherwise it will be concealed, I will need to confirm this info though, however why you take it that only the Kabba is Al Masjid Al Haram?, why not the Kabba and the surroundings around it?, in fact how the whole world will go inside the Kabba to perform salat?, therefore the Kabba is only the centre and the whole surrounding as required to fit as many people as possible are Al Masjid Al Haram, i.e even with the current location or Maqam Ibrahim, it is still inside Al Masjid Al Haram
God say`s the Maqam is a sign that is inside the Bayt/Temple. Yet, you say they moved the Maqam and placed it outside, thus disrupting a sign that was given from God!
Now you go on to say that it is not the Kaaba that is the Temple, but the whole area built by the Saudi government around it? How many kilometeres does the Temple extend to? What book are you using to judge by?
First Bayt = Located in Baca (396)
In theBaytare distinct signs the Maqam of Ibrahim (397)
Kaba = Bayt Al-Haram (597)The above are what God has taught us...So, unless you show me otherwise, I will continue to insist that only the Kaaba can have the Maqam and that the Maqam must be inside the Kaaba.
- The place where the Temple is located known to have olives and fig trees (not native to Mecca).
Not sure what you mean?, however when Ibrahim dropped his wife and his baby son near Al Masjid Al Haram, he said the following
O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Thy Sacred House; in order, O our Lord, that they may establish regular Prayer so fill the hearts of some among men with love towards them, and feed them with fruits so that they may give thanks.
-> See, Ibrahim made some of his family to dewl near Al Bayt Al haram where he stated it is a valley without cultivation, in no way Jerusalem is a valley nor at at his timeit was without cultivation, I don?t think Al Masjid Al Aqsa area has to be a hill not a valley ? ?,? O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring to dwell in a valley without cultivation?, see, ? ?
Uncultivated does not mean
barrenit simply means that this area was unpopulated/uncultivated at the time when Abraham got there (5,000 or so years back at least). We also know from the Quran that Abraham called the people to this location for the Hajj and that it flourished with people and trade.- Abraham first called people to the pilgrimage at Baca (no known history for Mecca before Mohammed)
Fine but a case of similar names can?t in no way be a conclusive evidence especially there are many other compelling evidences that refute it
Refute it then.
- Mohammed was known to be living at one point around the area of Lot`s town (reported near Dead Sea, not Arabia).
He might have been living near there for some time, I don?t really know nor it can be a conclusive evidence, in fact the verse where it says that they will see Lut?s city ruins on the day and on the night in no way suggested that the same travellers who will see in the morning will see it at night, there is nothing to indicate that it was a round trip as you are trying to show us, it was just a mere fact that the people will see the ruins of Lut?s city on the day and on the night, possibly it was set times for their trips, many trips the make I would say, some on the day and others on the night, here is the verses just in case I missed that it means the SAME people will see it twice on the the day and on the night
137- And most surely you pass by them in the morning,
138- And by night will ye not understand?
(137)
(13-> Sorry I can't see anything above that indicate the travellers who will see the ruins in the morning are the same who will see it at night
No problem. You skipped most of the article since you had decided it was wrong and could not see the arguments that were made for or against.
I am glad you agree at least that Mohammed was at one point near the area where Lot
s people were destroyed...The finding where people of the city can see the town of Lot day and night is if we take the town of Lot to have been located at the Dead sea (also known till today as thesea of Lot`), from the location of Jeerusalem, the Dead Sea can be seen from the mounts as it is only 40 km away. This could be understood that people who left in the morning to work or were returning would always see the Dead Sea and thus be reminded of the people of Lot.Quote from Layth
6. Muslims fought a war with Rome, and lost, around the Dead Sea (lowest part of the earth).
7. Rome would be fought again in a few years and defeated.
8. Rome is known by its records to have occupied the area of Syria/Lebanon/Palestine, but not the area as far south as Medina or Mecca.I?m not really sure how the above is relating to the Qiblah issue? however I will need to do further researches before I can respond to this Rome issue you raised
This is merely showing from the Quran that there was proven activity going on with the prophet Mohammed and the area of/around Jerusalem. I say this because most sunni hsitorians deny that the prophet had anything to do with that area and that the furthest he went was to Tabuk in the north of Arabia.
Two points remain from your other posts
-> Obviously Ibrahim asked Allah ? My Lord, make it a secure town and provide its people with fruits, such of them as believe in Allah and the last day?, then clealy Allah granted Ibrahim wish regarding that (Balad) town to be a secure place ? He said And whoever disbelieves, I will grant him enjoyment for a short while, then I will drive him to the chastisement of the fire; and it is an evil destination.?
Now would you consider Jerusalem a secure and city of of peace despite of the followings
- Jerusalem has known nearly two dozen wars and destructions since its existence.
- Jerusalem has been besieged about forty different times and destroyed (at least partially) on thirty-two different occasions.
- The rulership of Jerusalem has changed hands some twenty-six times.
- Since 1948 Jerusalem has experienced four wars.
Would Jerusalem be a secured Balad (City) as Allah made it to be after granting Ibrahim wish (2126)
Your argument is that Jerusalem (literal meaning city of peace) cannot be a city of peace since it had wars and occupations...Thus, it is automatically rejected since any bloodshed cancels the prayer of Abraham for it to be a city of peace?
My answer to you is simply
"And kill them wherever you find them, and expel them from where they expelled you, and know that persecution is worse than being killed. And do not fight them at the Restricted Temple unless they fight you in it; if they fight you then kill them, thus is the reward of the disbelievers." (2191)
"They ask you about the restricted month 'Is there fighting in it?' Say 'Much fighting is in it, and to repel from the path of God and to disbelieve in Him, and at the Restricted Temple, to drive its inhabitants out is far greater with God, and persecution is worse than being killed.' And they still will fight you until they turn you back from your system if they are able. And whoever of you turns back from his system, and he dies while disbelieving, then these have nullified their work in this life and the next; these are the people of the Fire, in it they will abide eternally!" (2217)
Clearly there was fighting, persecusion, and even killing done at the Restricted Temple according to God...Does that mean that the Restricted Temple is no longer in a
city of peaceand we should turn away from it? Or, does it mean that Abraham prayed for the city to be peacful, but that it is upto to the people to make it so by restraining thmeselves and upholding its sanctuary?- continue to show how the temple mount is the religious focus of the jews
- show that it is also the focus of the christian faith
Brother, please read the words Qibla is Restricted Temple
Not, area of Jerusalem, not hills of Jerusalem, not area around the Temple. Do the Jews accept the Dome of the Rock as the Temple? Do the Christians? Do the Sunnis/Shia?
None of these groups accept the Dome as the Qibla (in-fact, the Jews don`t even know where the Temple is anymore as they have various locations around Jerusalem where they believe the Temple should be errected - meaning it is not currently standing in their eyes).
Also, you refer to Jews or others by chance facing the Dome to mean that they are taking it as their Qibla and therefore it can`t be the Qibla! When the Sunni idolitars who live in Jerusalem north of the Temple face Mecca, they are by your logic facing the Temple in Jerusalem, and therefore it has also become their Qibla!
A Qibla is what you intend to face and focus on, not the geographic direction you
happento be facing (else we can argue that anyone north of Jerusalem is facing the Temple of Jerusalem while they are in-fact focussing on Mecca, or that people even south of Jerusalem are facing Mecca if we draw a straight line around the Earth!). -
(else we can argue that anyone north of Jerusalem is facing the Temple of Jerusalem while they are in-fact focussing on Mecca, or that people even south of Jerusalem are facing Mecca if we draw a straight line around the Earth!).
peace
please go there! ;D
