Criticism of Mecca and Kaaba
-
Peace Aymen,
If I read correctly, the term kaaba is found in the quran (5-97), why do you attribute it to the Saudis?
I may be wrong, but at this point I do not believe you and I have the same kibla. Thus my answers will never be as good as yours, for you that is. I am at peace with what the kaaba means to me and you can spin as you wish, wherever you wish, and not at all for that matter, but the kaaba has more to it than spinning so let's not get dizzy.
I'll let this rest for now.
peacefully
adjwi
-
Peace and greetings,
Chapter 3
- The first Sanctuary/House established for the people is the one in Bakk?a, blessed, and a guidance for the worlds.
Chapter 48
- And He is the One who withheld their hands against you, and your hands against them in the interior of Mecca, after He had made you victorious over them. God is Seer of what you do.
The arabic word "be" is a preposition or
" in arabic and it means "in", "at", "on", "with", "by", "for". In the above context "in" meaning is applicable which clearly proves that "Bakka", " interior Mecca" are nouns. In classical arabic language "mecca" and "bekka" do not have a plural which clearly proves that why terms "al mecca" and "al bakka" are not used in Quran which would have made mecca and bakka as common nouns or
in arabic So they are proper nouns or in arabic. There is no more room for pseudolinguistic arguments to invent new arabic language for challenging these facts. They are referring to the names of unique physical places.proper noun
the name of something particular, normally beginning with a capital letter and not used with the indefinite article or a modifier, for example, ?York,? ?Sally,? or ?Henderson?
Microsoft? Encarta? Reference Library 2005. ? 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.common noun
a noun that refers to any of a class of people or things, for example, ?singer? and ?place,? as distinct from a proper noun, for example, ?Lennon? or ?Washington.?
Common nouns can be preceded by words that modify their meaning, such as ?some? and ?any.?
Microsoft? Encarta? Reference Library 2005. ? 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.preposition
word used before noun
Microsoft? Encarta? Reference Library 2005. ? 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.I advise all people to develop their knowledge in classical arabic before impatiently constructing their great theories about subjects they have little knowledge.
-
Peace and greetings,
The ta marbuta , in and reveals that they are nouns as well.
Grammar Rules
| Nouns
Arabic nouns are either masculine or feminine. Usually when referring to a male, a masculine noun is usually used and when referring to a female, a feminine noun is used. In most cases the feminine noun is formed by adding a special character, the ta marbuta , to the end of the masculine noun.
Feminine Singular Masculine Singular
teacher
professor/teacher
student
friend
colleague
muslim
thinker
translator
beginner
expert
writer, authorSometimes the noun used to refer to a male and the noun used for a female are completely different.
woman man
It's not just nouns referring to people that have gender. Inanimate objects (doors, houses, cars, etc.) is either masculine or feminine. Whether an inanimate noun is masculine or feminine is mostly arbitrary. A lot of inanimate nouns end in ta marbuta.
table city
Unfortunately, not all feminine nouns end in ta marbuta. Whenever you learn a new word, and that word is a noun, it's best if you learn it's gender too. Here are some masculine nouns..
book nose
and here are some feminine nouns..
wind desert
Arabic has two genders, expressed by pronominal as well as by verbal agreement. Agreement with numerals shows a peculiar 'polarity'. The genders are usually referred to as masculine and feminine, but the situation is more complicated than that. The 'feminine' gender is also used to express 'singulatives'.
The marker for the feminine gender is a -t- suffix, but some nouns without this marker also take feminine agreement (e. g. umm 'mother', ard 'earth'. Already in Classical Arabic, the -t marker was not pronounced in pausa. It is written with a special letter (ta marbuta) indicating that a t sound is to be pronounced in sandhi but not in pausa. -
Peace and greetings,
People making arguments should be qualified in modern and classical arabic before making arguments because an uninformed person could mislead other uninformed people as well. A language is scientific and it does not depend merely on subjective arguments of emotional people. Such people who are in the habit of bending and shaping arabic etymology on baseless emotional/judgemental logic should spend quality time on increasing their linguistic skills before making a debate. At free minds sometimes people become so passionate that they turn evrything from false to true and true to false by overthrowing all available evidence. Archaeology, history and even science has become a matter of personal preference. Any evidence can be false and true at the same time, so uniformed people suffer because they do not have that much time to study everything. There is no centralisation at free minds so
a newbie would certainly have a hard time in figuring out the truth. Forget about the authenticity of arachaeology, history and science. I could start saying that man on the moon is one of the biggest hoaxes of history by Graphic artists. I have not witnessed first hand visit to the moon so all outer space pictures and science might be science fiction because there is no independent confirmation other than those sources. What is reality and unrealitry has become an image and so loses any real meaning. people can keep on writing about any authentic subject just like playing with a dice and deciding on assumptions. I do not find free minds debates to provide any Quality information other than personal theories similar to the moon hoax example. A person says 2+2 = 4 on day 1, he says 2+2 = 5 on day 2 and finally says 2+2 = infinity/unknown. An outsider would either have no choice but to choose or would stay away from such spectacular choices.
A person would not really know anything about reality but knows how to use reality to form his own fantasy reality. Long before i visited free minds I never believed in Hadees to be true because the God only protects the Quran as He had clearly mentioned in Quran. Free minds provided a platform to discuss with such logical people. What I find is that people are inventing their own hadees by distorting all reality. -
I am afraid that manuscripts from eye witnesses from the era describe a different story.
The place that is called Temple Mount was used by the residents of Jerusalem as a garbage dump.
It was not a "Restricted/Forbidden Place" and people casually went there to throw their garbage.It was so.. due to Jerusalem back then was "controlled" by the Byzantium Christians.
And they left it in ruins as a "memorial to Jesus prophecy" thus as an insult to the Jews (Judaism people).
That's why the place is called "Restricted/Forbidden Temple" only by the Jews (but not by the Byzantium Christians).It is also said that when the (still Pagan) Romans destroy the temple, they erected statue of their gods such as Jupiter, Mars, Uranus in that area.
And (maybe) that was the event which could explains why the Jews call it "Restricted/Forbidden temple", because the romans has changed it into a temple for their gods.BTW They still call it with that name up until today...
According to the Roman and Jewish writings from the era, the Jews and the Mhagaryee (Muhajirin) who had formed an alliance against the Romans invaded Jerusalem during the reign of the second king of the Saracens (Umar I).
When they captured Jersualem, the Romans were surprised to see them go to the place that was used as a garbage dump and clean it. They then proceded to build two shrines side by side. One for the Jews and one for the Muhajirin. The roman sources then tell us that a few decades later when the relationship between the Jews and the Saracens soured, the Saracens took over the Jewish shrine and the Jews established another shrine elsewhere.It is interesting that you mentions the "Muhajirrin", I wonder what is the fate of the "Anshar" at that moment?
And who is actually the "Anshar" ?Salam
-
Peace and greetings,
People who use their arguments to approve and disapprove archaeological data are in no better position than a layman because they are not the ones who have seen the evidence first hand and they just rely from one source to another based on their own personal preferences rejecting their opponet's claims by any complex logical jargons. Modern archaeology does not confirm that the Quran is an archaeological marvel , so how do people like Aymen define a criteria for modern archaeology. Aymen has not witnessed any archaeological evidence first hand so how does he tells others whether something is real or forgery or a hoax, when he himself has not even witnessed any archaeology firsthand. He relies on his beautiful mind to confirm whether some archaeologist has really seen an evidence or not. What a fantastic method ! someone like Aymen could start teaching archaeology to archaeologists or simply start controlling what archaeologists could see or not. The world would have believed in the Quran if Archaeologists had really found any arachaeological proofs to support any historical account presented by the Quran. Aymen's archaeology is his personal preference. He must be supernatural as he can witness what every archaeologist on the planet has ever observed. Anyone could blindly trust Aymen on archaeology wheareas the rest of christian, jewish, muslim and modern scientific archaeology is dustbin so he can prove anything to be true or false by his personal instincts. Biblical archaeologists have archaeological proofs to prove their theories, Israeli archeologists have archaeological proofs to support their theories, muslim archaeologists have archaeological proofs to prove themeselves right and modern objective and neutral archaeologists have proofs to prove that none of the scriptures is arachaeologically correct. Aymen evaluates all of them to prove that aymen's instincts are right. I would say that all of the archaeologists are right and wrong but to prove anybody to be wrong or right I would have to see the evidence first hand and not use Aymen's complex logical theories to supplement first hand evidence. How does Aymen know for sure whether an archaeologist saw what he really saw? Aymen has provided good logical expalnations but that does not prove that what an archaeologist has really seen ? Only the God knows. How does Aymen know for sure whether a manuscript is authentic or forgery ? Even an authentict manuscript can be a forgery. If Aymen studies dates of ancient histories so Aymen has no way of confirming the authenticity of dates. He would only rely on heresay western scholarly evidence and of course some personal theories to even reject western scholarly evidence as well if he sees fit. Anyway the God is all knowledgable so all of us should rely on the best of our knowledge of the Quran and established science. Currently Archaeology is in development, a time will come when all world archaeology becomes centralised and well established so there is no place for archaeological fanatics and Quran will be confirmed to all world audience. In the mean time Aymen is no position to either prove himself right or others to be wrong.
I am afraid that manuscripts from eye witnesses from the era describe a different story.
The place that is called Temple Mount was used by the residents of Jerusalem as a garbage dump.
It was not a "Restricted/Forbidden Place" and people casually went there to throw their garbage"Scholars argue that the traditional accounts of fall of jerusalem in 70 AD are not completely accurate, and that the destruction of Jerusalem liberated the Christian church to fulfill its destiny as a universal religion offered to the whole world."
Reference Noll, Mark (1997). "Turning Points Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity." Intervarsity Press.
Questions for Aymen
Were you present at Jerusalem in 70 A.D to prove which witness is supposed to be 100% correct and which witness is supposed to be 100% wrong ?
How do you know that who really saw what took place at Jerusalem in 70 A.D ?
How do you know if someone is forging or not ?
Most of the modern archaeologists are non muslims so why and how do you trust them ?
How do you know if a non muslim (most probably athiest) archaeologist is more honest than a religous archaeologist (Christian, muslim, Jew) ?
-
5 95
Yusuf Ali O ye who believe! kill not game while in the Sacred Precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally the compensation is an offering brought to the Ka'ba of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed as adjudged by two just men among you; or by way of atonement the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past for repetition Allah will exact from him the penalty for Allah is Exalted and Lord of Retribution.
Pickthall O ye who believe! Kill no wild game while ye are on the pilgrimage. Whoso of you killeth it of set purpose he shall pay its forfeit in the equivalent of that which he hath killed, of domestic animals, the judge to be two men among you known for justice; (the forfeit) to be brought as an offering to the Ka'bah; or, for expiation, he shall feed poor persons, or the equivalent thereof in fasting, that he may taste the evil consequences of his deed. Allah forgiveth whatever (of this kind) may have happened in the past, but whoso relapseth, Allah will take retribution from him. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).
As far as I know the offering/sacrifice is not brought to the Kaabah and it does not reach the Kaabah in Mecca ( I guess the sacrifice is done in Mina)
22 33
Yusuf Ali In them ye have benefits for a term appointed in the end their place of sacrifice is near the Ancient House.Pickthall Therein are benefits for you for an appointed term; and afterward they are brought for sacrifice unto the ancient House.
Transliteration Lakum fiha_ mana_fi'u ila_ ajalim musam man sum ma mahil luha_ ilal baitil 'atiq
This verse suggests that the sacrifice is near the Ancient House which is normally believed to be the Kaabah. But like I said previously, the sacrifice actually does not reach and does not take place at the kaabah in Mecca during present day hajj.
Any explanations for the above ?
-
Peace Warner,
5 95
Yusuf Ali O ye who believe! kill not game while in the Sacred Precincts or in pilgrim garb. If any of you doth so intentionally the compensation is an offering brought to the Ka'ba of a domestic animal equivalent to the one he killed as adjudged by two just men among you; or by way of atonement the feeding of the indigent; or its equivalent in fasts that he may taste of the penalty of his deed. Allah forgives what is past for repetition Allah will exact from him the penalty for Allah is Exalted and Lord of Retribution.
22 33
Yusuf Ali In them ye have benefits for a term appointed in the end their place of sacrifice is near the Ancient House.Any explanations for the above ?
Not sure if this answers your question?
Without prohibition local resources of game animals for food would be depleted quickly by the numerous pilgrims so offerings are from all over to compensate.
-
People making arguments should be qualified in modern and classical arabic before making arguments because an uninformed person could mislead other uninformed people as well. A language is scientific and it does not depend merely on subjective arguments of emotional people.
Emotional people? the people who are clinging to their stone idol in Mecca are the ones who are emotional. see, emotion clouds your judgement. So even though you can see that there is no sense, no benefit in facing a black cube in mecca all day long, you still believe that. You know that your beliefs have no grounds in reason or rationality, so you try to use the quran-says-this-and-the-quran-is-true-so-this-must-be-true argument. And when Ayman tries to debate you on that, you come up with posts like this one. OK. So how do you decide who is a classical arabic scholar? by how much they agree with you?
Such people who are in the habit of bending and shaping arabic etymology on baseless emotional/judgemental logic should spend quality time on increasing their linguistic skills before making a debate. At free minds sometimes people become so passionate that they turn evrything from false to true and true to false by overthrowing all available evidence.
Yes, when debating what the quran says, people should be skilled in linguistics. But we don't need to debate that in this particular case, because facing a black cube in mecca goes against reason and logic, so regardless of what the quran says, we shouldn't believe that.
Archaeology, history and even science has become a matter of personal preference. Any evidence can be false and true at the same time, so uniformed people suffer because they do not have that much time to study everything. There is no centralisation at free minds so
a newbie would certainly have a hard time in figuring out the truth. Forget about the authenticity of arachaeology, history and science. I could start saying that man on the moon is one of the biggest hoaxes of history by Graphic artists. I have not witnessed first hand visit to the moon so all outer space pictures and science might be science fiction because there is no independent confirmation other than those sources.You could start saying that, but then you would be an idiot. You don't have to see everything or hear everything in person to know what happened. We all know that. The moon landings could be a hoax, but we can debate that and come to a conclusion on what actually happened.
And it is people like you who have made science a joke. Only using it when it fits your religious beliefs. Ignoring it completely when it is against them. Either you are a scientific person, who values empirical observations and verification, or you are a person who likes to make leaps of faith. Pick one.
Once you have, and I believe you should pick the latter, you should come to the conclusion that since you have complete faith in the quran, and you are sure that the quran says what you think it says (because there is no way Ayman knows what he's talking about), we should face the kaaba and mecca everyday wherever we go.What is reality and unrealitry has become an image and so loses any real meaning. people can keep on writing about any authentic subject just like playing with a dice and deciding on assumptions. I do not find free minds debates to provide any Quality information other than personal theories similar to the moon hoax example. A person says 2+2 = 4 on day 1, he says 2+2 = 5 on day 2 and finally says 2+2 = infinity/unknown. An outsider would either have no choice but to choose or would stay away from such spectacular choices.
that is untrue about most people here. But that does apply to you. See above.
This is a public forum, and there are all sorts of people here. You are bound to find junk. But if you really care about what the truth is, you sift through all the information and find the valuable pieces. If you want to have "quality" debates, you are free to debate one-on-one.A person would not really know anything about reality but knows how to use reality to form his own fantasy reality. Long before i visited free minds I never believed in Hadees to be true because the God only protects the Quran as He had clearly mentioned in Quran. Free minds provided a platform to discuss with such logical people. What I find is that people are inventing their own hadees by distorting all reality.
You know what a great example of a fantasy reality is? that God wants us to face a cubic structure in Mecca (which is technically impossible). Why? no one knows. You are free to make up your own reasons like "creates unity" and "because god lives there" etc.
-
Peace Nun de plume
According to you there were no letters, battles fought in early Islam, Mecca didn't exist, people doing Hajj is all fake including The Farewell Sermon and Treaty of Hudaybiyyah...
http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/The_Farewell_SermonHere are the references for the Farewell Sermon from the link that you gave
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Hadith 1623, 1626, 6361
Sahih of Imam Muslim also refers to this sermon in Hadith number 98.
Hadith nos. 1628, 2046, 2085 - Imam al-Tirmidhi.
Hadith no. 19774, Masnud of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal.Hmm...Chapter 110 is not one of the references. I hope that you can see what you are really basing your beliefs on. If you are satisfied with those references then good for you and you have my best wishes. However, don't come on a public forum and claim that your beliefs are based on anything in the great reading without expecting to be corrected. In this case, you would not be just or appreciative of the great reading and I am sorry if it offends you but some people here (including me) would respond to correct you (if not for your benefit, then for the benefits of others who read this forum). So don't take it personally.
http//www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Treaty_of_Hudaybiyyah
None of it happened, there was no victory, a huge fantasy, and all are astray...Similarly, the references for the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah are given in the link that you provided as follows
The Oxford History of Islam by John Esposito (Oxford U. Press, 1999)
Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir
Sirat Rasul Allah
BukhariHmmm... No Chapter 110 there either. You get my point.
AN-NASR (SUCCOUR, DIVINE SUPPORT)
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
110.001
YUSUFALI When comes the Help of Allah, and Victory,
110.002
YUSUFALI And thou dost see the people enter Allah's Religion in crowds,
110.003
YUSUFALI Celebrate the praises of thy Lord, and pray for His Forgiveness For He is Oft-Returning (in Grace and Mercy).See above.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Adjwi,
If I read correctly, the term kaaba is found in the quran (5-97), why do you attribute it to the Saudis?
Do you know what "kaaba" means? If so, why don't you translate it?
It is ironic that you who is so "inspired" by the black cube do not know that the Saudis built the black cube in Mecca in 1996 and named it Kaaba. Just because someone names something Kaaba in New York, Mecca or anywhere, it doesn't mean that it is the real "kaaba" (lower case) talked about is 597.
If Kaaba is the name of a specific object then that object is long gone. The only way that "kaaba" can be existent today is if it is a concept, in other words a common noun and not a proper name. If it is a common noun then it has meaning as a concept and it must be translated. You don't seem to know the meaning. When you learn its meaning perhaps you will see what I am talking about.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Abrar,
People making arguments should be qualified in modern and classical arabic before making arguments because an uninformed person could mislead other uninformed people as well.
That settles it then. I taught Arabic and for a while volunteered as the head of the Arabic language program at a distinguished university. I am pretty sure that at least on paper, I am more qualified than you. However, thankfully I have enough common sense to know that it doesn't work that way. Otherwise, according to you, I would always be right and you would be wrong. ;D
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman,
So don't take it personally.
No offense taken and find all this very informative.
Similarly, the references for the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah are given in the link that you provided as follows
The Oxford History of Islam by John Esposito (Oxford U. Press, 1999)
Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir
Sirat Rasul Allah
BukhariHmmm... No Chapter 110 there either. You get my point.
Hmmm? No Chapter 110 or any Chapter in any of your references either.
How do you know the Qur?an you are reading is not a fake?
Please cite historical evidence without using those ?suspicious? sources.
You get my point.
Peace
Nun, the pen
-
The arabic word "be" is a preposition or " in arabic and it means "in", "at", "on", "with", "by", "for". In the above context "in" meaning is applicable which clearly proves that "Bakka", " interior Mecca" are nouns. In classical arabic language "mecca" and "bekka" do not have a plural which clearly proves that why terms "al mecca" and "al bakka" are not used in Quran which would have made mecca and bakka as common nouns or in arabic So they are proper nouns or in arabic. There is no more room for pseudolinguistic arguments to invent new arabic language for challenging these facts. They are referring to the names of unique physical places.
If you were an Arabic student and wrote this in an exam, you would have earned a big F.
Firstly, the forms MaKKat and BaKKat are fairly common in Arabic and there is nothing special about them. They are of the weight Fa3aLt. Examples include "NaKBat" (disaster), "FaT7at" (opening) and hundreds (if not thousands) more. So your theory demonstrates that you have zero knowledge in the Arabic weight system for words. This is basic info and not knowing it is the first reason why you would get an F.
The second reason is that the plural for the words of the weight Fa3Lat is Fa3LAT (with an Alif and a final open Taa as opposed to the Taa Marbuta). Thus, the plural of MaKKat is MaKKAT and BaKKat is BaKKAT and NaKBat is NaKBAT and FaT7at is Fat7AT, etc., etc.
Thirdly, the "al' definite article has no bearing on whether a noun is common or proper. So saying "al mecca" and "al bakka" are not used in Quran which would have made mecca and bakka as common nouns is clearly false. For example, "rajul" (man) is a common noun and "al-rajul" (the man) is also a common noun. On the other hand, Al-qahira (Cairo) is a proper name despite having the definite article "al". This is clear to even beginning Arabic students.
Fourthly, if you open any Classical Arabic dictionary, you will clearly see that the word MaKKat has common meanings that are not proper names. Failure to use a dictionary when you don't know the meaning of a word is inexcusable and thus is the fourth reason why you would squarely earn an F in even a beginning Arabic course, let alone an advanced one.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Nun de plume,
No offense taken and find all this very informative.
Thank you for your kind understanding.
Hmmm? No Chapter 110 or any Chapter in any of your references either.
Actually, it is one of my references. You can see from chapter 110 that when victory occurs they enter in the "din"/obligation of the god. This is the same vocabulary used to describe entering "al-masjid". So one can see that "entering" something doesn't necessarily mean that it is primarily a physical place.
How do you know the Qur?an you are reading is not a fake?
Because it has empirically verifiable truth for all time and place. If I go tomorrow to a Sunni mosque and do not get obsessed by a physical direction and instead pray in a random direction that is different from everyone else, I will surely be asked by the foolish people the question in 2142. This is empirically verifiable truth that despite all the corruptions that try to hide the ruth in the great reading is there for us to experience (not theoretical). This is "yaqin" (absolute certainty).
I also know that the great reading is not fake by seeing that words like "mecca" (destruction) have been hijacked to justify idolizing a place when one can clearly see that the common meaning fits perfectly in 4824. It would have been much easier for the idolaters to insert the name of whatever "Idolcity" they wanted to insert. To me, the fact that they were unable to do that and instead they had to hijack what is clearly a common noun makes me certain that no falsehood has entered the great reading. Also, I believe that the god knows the future and he knew that a city named Mekka would exist in the future so why would he put this word in a context where the clear common noun meaning fits perfectly? Indeed, he knew that people would hijack this word but they scheme and scheme and the god is the best schemer. The great reading only increases the loss of those who are lost and is a guidance for the forethoughtful. This is why it is not fake. On the other hand, the stone cube and the Black Stone and all this stuff never guides anyone. They are all fake. They give people the fake hope that their sins will be forgiven and they will return like newborns but alas they are committing unforgivable idol worship.
Please cite historical evidence without using those ?suspicious? sources.
I always cite archeological evidence without using those suspicious sources. If I did otherwise, then let me know where so that I can correct it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Nun de plume,
Without prohibition local resources of game animals for food would be depleted quickly by the numerous pilgrims so offerings are from all over to compensate.
I don't think that you understood Warner's question. According to your understanding the "kaaba" is the black stone cube. According to the passages that Warner quoted, the sacrifice should reach ("baligh" the "kaaba" and its place "ma7iluha" is the house. If you go to Mecca, you will see that the animal sacrifice NEVER reached the so-called Kaaba. It is done many miles away. Now why is this is not surprising to me?
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Jafar,
It was so.. due to Jerusalem back then was "controlled" by the Byzantium Christians.
And they left it in ruins as a "memorial to Jesus prophecy" thus as an insult to the Jews (Judaism people).
That's why the place is called "Restricted/Forbidden Temple" only by the Jews (but not by the Byzantium Christians).
It is also said that when the (still Pagan) Romans destroy the temple, they erected statue of their gods such as Jupiter, Mars, Uranus in that area.
And (maybe) that was the event which could explains why the Jews call it "Restricted/Forbidden temple", because the romans has changed it into a temple for their gods.
BTW They still call it with that name up until today...They haven't always called it so. The place seem to have fluctuated over history in importance for the Jews. I remember reading from a Jewish source that the latest fad began in the 1600s.
It is interesting that you mentions the "Muhajirrin", I wonder what is the fate of the "Anshar" at that moment?
And who is actually the "Anshar" ?Obviously, from the evidence, the Ansar were the Jews.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Ayman
What is your definition of Umra and the offering/sacrifice ?
The Salat, Haj, Kaaba, sacrifice and Qibla are not new things mentioned first time in the Quraan. Some of this date back to Abraham. These practices were continued possibly by his sons and later Moses and by succeeding prophets?. If these were later corrupted why do you think the Quraan did not correct these practices or misunderstandings coming through generations? Eg. Jews pray towards Jerusalem if we go by your understanding do you think still the explanations are cohesive. I am not saying we have to follow the Torah or the Gopel but we believe those are from Allah (although corrupted by man) but dont you think we can look in to them and use the criterion with us to chose truth from falsehood.
With regard to Mecca (minus the idol worshipping part) and where the Prophet was born, etc is there any contradicting evidence or even stories or even hadeeth mentioned of alternative explanations. We see the same Hadeeth book containing contradictions not to mention contradictions among different hadeeth books. I guess that itself is evidence that they (historians and hadeeth writers) did not work together to distort the truth or hide the truth and also there were varying opinions among many of them. What they did was to collect and record every story true and false and possibly connect it to the prophet or a companion. Also other than the famous 6 there are many sources and books with different and sometimes contradictory stories . Does any of this mention anything different from established explanations of today?
If I am not mistaken the reason you gave for the mecca conspiracy was fantasy. But do you think all of them could have planned together (although they were sometimes completely against each other or hated each other) and erased the truth without any evidence. -
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
Firstly, the forms MaKKat and BaKKat are fairly common in Arabic and there is nothing special about them.
Once again you have demostrated that you are bending the language according to your convenience. If you are truthful give reference of an authentic source.
"bakka" means "to make weep/cry" which is a verb and not a noun and it does not end with ta marbuta. You have no appreciation for the sensitive nature of the arabic language.
" bakteen" means "a soluble chemical substance found mainly in the rinds of citrus fruits that binds cells together and is used to gel foods and various commercial products" a person like you would think it is a plural meaning something two in number.
"bakkata" means "scold" "rebuke" which is a verb. You cannot covert it to noun.
Thirdly, the "al' definite article has no bearing on whether a noun is common or proper. So saying "al mecca" and "al bakka" are not used in Quran which would have made mecca and bakka as common nouns is clearly false. For example, "rajul" (man) is a common noun and "al-rajul" (the man) is also a common noun. On the other hand, Al-qahira (Cairo) is a proper name despite having the definite article "al". This is clear to even beginning Arabic students.
As for "al" is concerned so there is a difference in its use in Quranic classical arabic and modern standard arabic. Aymen treats arabic from a non scholarly angle.
Nouns (and their modifying adjectives) are either definite or indefinite (there is an article for the definite state only). A noun is definite if it has the definite article prefix (al-), if it has a suffixed pronoun (kalbu-ha l-kab?r "her big dog", if it is inherently definite by being a proper noun (Mi??ru l-qad?mah, "old Cairo", or if it is in a genitive construction (I?fa) with a definite noun or nouns (bintu l-maliki, "the daughter of the king".
Al- (Arabic , also transliterated as el-) is a prefix in the Arabic language which functions as a definite article, comparable to the English word 'the'. However, al- never stands as a word by itself, but is always joined to the beginning of the word it modifies ? for example, 'the book' is al-kitb, which is written . Like the English word 'the', al- is not a permanent component of words it is attached to; it is only prefixed to a word to make the word definite ? continuing the example, 'a book', or simply 'book', is kitb, which is written , as Arabic does not have an indefinite article. Unlike English usage, Arabic grammar requires al- to be used with adjectives modifying the definite noun. For example, 'the big book' in English requires only one instance of 'the', but in Arabic it is al-kitb al-kabr, written , with two instances of al- (DEF-book-DEF-big, literally, 'the book the big'.
In a similar way, al- can be attached to nouns or adjectives within the name of a person. A major component of Arabic names is the nisba, or place-of-origin identifier. Mar (ر, for instance, is the Arabic word for Egypt. Adding the suffix - produces the nisba Mar, 'Egyptian'. When al- is added, the nisba becomes definite 'the Egyptian'. Definite nisbas are often found at the end of Arabic personal names, following kunyas and other elements, denoting geographical origin. For instance, on second reference ?Ab Mu?ab az-Zarqw ( ي would be referred to as az-Zarqw, meaning 'the man from Zarq?'.
The article (adtu-t-tar?f) al- is indeclinable and expresses definite state of a noun of any gender and number. It is also prefixed to each of that noun's modifying adjectives. The pronunciation is given below
The initial vowel (hamzatu-l-wa??l), is volatile in the sense that it disappears in sandhi, the article becoming mere -l- (although the alif is retained in orthography in any case for clarity).Also, the l is assimilated to a number of consonants (dentals and sibilants), so that in these cases, the article in pronunciation is expressed only by geminating the initial consonant of the noun (while in orthography, the writing alif lam is retained, and the gemination may be expressed by putting adda on the following letter).
The consonants causing assimilation (trivially including l) are t, ??, d, ?, r, z, s, , ??, ?, ??, ?, l, n. These 14 letters are called 'solar letters' (??uruf amsiyyat), while the remaining 14 are called 'lunar letters' (??uruf qamariyyat). The solar letters all have in common that they are dental, alveolar and postalveolar consonants in the classical language, and the lunar consonants are not. (? ??m is pronounced postalveolar in most varieties of Arabic today, but was actually a palatalized voiced velar plosive in the classical language, and is thus considered a lunar letter.)The above information has been obtained from wikipedia. The usage of Al- varies form classical arabic to modern standard arabic.
Aymen you should increase your knowledge.
Questions
Why al ibrahim and al muhammad and al Musa are not used in Quran as you say about Al Qahira ?
Do you think that today's modern standard arabic is the same as literary classical arabic of Quran ?