Criticism of Mecca and Kaaba
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
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.
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.
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 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.)
Aymen you should increase your knowledge.
Questions
Can you read, write and speak arabic fluently ?
Do you believe in heresay information about arabic or do you study real classical arabic literature ?
Good post bro
cheers
-
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.
Well said bro
Indeed Allah told us many times that the Quran qualifies the scriptures before it, i.e. using the Quran we can filter the corruption in these scriptures
Salam
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
Can you answer the following Queations
Quran uses Al- very frequently so why do you think Al- is never used before the names of prophets, names of people(pharoah, qaaroon...etc.),names of nations(Aad, Thamood), names of the spirit (Jibreel) and the name of satan (Iblees) ?
Why the sedentary arabic speakers'/modern arabic grammar which you have studied at a presitigious university rule of Al-Qahira does not fit with Quran ?
-
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.One of the best comments I have ever read on this web site
Cheers
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
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.
This is what sendentary arabic speakers and arabic universities do. It is a slang usage of arabic in compare to the pure literary classical arabic of the Quran. You have no evidence to support your base of such mainstream slangs from the Quran alone.
Nowhere Quran ever uses the word "al-rajul" but uses "rajul". Quote an example from Quran to support your claim.
Quran uses Al madeena(definite noun refering to a specific city) for city(madeena) because it is a common noun but never uses AL- for a proper noun anywhere. Quote an example where it does happen.
Your knowledge is based on your learning of arabic at the university and you have not critically analysed the grammatical differences between literary classical arabic of Quran and modern standard arabic used by arabic speakers, newspapers and university books. -
Peace and greetings,
If you were an Arabic student and wrote this in an exam, you would have earned a big F.
I 100% agree with you Aymen because modern standard arabic(slang version) universities cannot accomplish better than that. The funny thing is that those well versed with university arabic cannot themselves speak in pure classical literary arabic of Quran. That's why Quran is equally hard for arabic and non arabic speakers.
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
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
Tell me the name of a dictionary or source where you discovered "mekka" means "destruction" and prove it that you are not using common sense to invent a meaning of your convenience. It is a well known fact that modern standard arabic has added many new words to classical language at Quranic times, so support your claim from classical arabic and not some modern invented meaning.
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
If you want to get a preview of the differences between the arabic which you have learned and Quranic arabic please read the information below to refresh yourself.
Your university arabic is called modern standard arabic MSA and Quranic arabic is the real arabic or classical arabic.Classical arabic
Classical Arabic, also known as Koranic (or Qur'anic) Arabic, is the form of the Arabic language used in the Qur'an as well as in numerous literary texts from Umayyad and Abbasid times (7th to 9th centuries). Modern Standard Arabic is a modern version used in writing and in formal speaking (for example, prepared speeches and radio broadcasts). It differs minimally in morphology but has significant differences in syntax and lexicon, reflecting the influence of the modern spoken dialects.
Classical Arabic is often believed to be the parent language of all the spoken varieties of ArabicModern Standard Arabic
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is the literary standard across the Middle East and North Africa, and one of the official six languages of the United Nations. Most printed matter?including most books, newspapers, magazines, official documents, and reading primers for small children?is written in MSA. "Colloquial" Arabic refers to the many national or regional varieties derived from Arabic spoken daily across the region and learned as a first language. These sometimes differ enough from each other to be mutually incomprehensible. They are not typically written, although a certain amount of literature (particularly plays and poetry) exists in many of them. Literary Arabic or classical Arabic is the official language of all Arab countries and is the only form of Arabic taught in schools at all stages.
-
2143 And as such, We have made you a balanced nation so that you may be witness over the people, and that the messenger may be witness over you. And We did not make the focal point that you became on except to distinguish who follows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. It was a great thing indeed except for those whom God had guided; God was not to waste your belief. God is Merciful and Compassionate over the people.
There is no question in that passage. There is a criteria. Could you tell us how it is that pretending to face a stone cube distinguished who follows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels? Are hypocrites not able to pretend to face a stone cube?
peace
I think the above pretty much settles it (or should settle it). A physical focal point cannot distinguish between believers and non believers.
-
Peace abrar,
Most of what you are trying to discuss has already been extensively discussed by brother Ayman on this forum in the past. Perhaps if you would have used the search function you would have found that out yourself. I will let brother Ayman answer all your posts but he and sister Samia have already shown before that the Arabic used in al-qur'aan is not the same as the Medieval Fusha Arabic which is usually referred to as Classical/Qur'aanic Arabic, when it is not.
Thus following are the different kinds of Arabic from pre qur'aanic times to present
- The Arabic of the qur'aan (pre-quranic Arabic).
- Medieval Fusha Arabic (this is what is referred to as Classical/Quranic Arabic, when it is not).
- Regional Arabic colloquials.
- Modern Standard Arabic. This is a formal language that no Arab speaks at home.
Some relevant links to past discussions about the Qur'aanic Arabic on this forum
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9527.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8874.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8182.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10185.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=12988.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11989.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=7530.msg10069#msg10069
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9510.msg39966#msg39966
Please go through brother Ayman's posts in the above threads and you will find that he has already answered most of your questions there.
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Tanveer,
I found that most of the people believe in what Aymen has claimed without even questioning or raising doubts about his superfecial theories about his supposedly well researched archaeological origins of Arabic. He is really good at manipulating information according to his needs but not eveyone is uninformed. I think brother Layth has given the most sane response to Aymen's revolutionary theories about arabic.
Quote by Layth,
Peace Ayman,
Interesting article, but I find the conclusions reached were based on incorrect reasoning.
You 'assumed' that because they were speaking of the people of the book teaching him, and that since the people of the book are refered to as having a different language, that the Arabic language has two forms (religious & common).
This is not a correct understanding of the verse as it only means what it says...That the people who are accused of teaching him the Quran were not of an Arabic toungue.
Arabic has both common and religous aspects to it...The only issue is that their religious aspects were all idolatrous refering to Al-Llat and Uzza and Manat as examples in the Quran.
Hence, since Mohammed was not preaching a new form of idolatry (which they would have welcomed and accepted) they said he was being taught by the 'foreigners' who were knowon to be preaching about the One God.
Finally, your conclusion to the 'initials' being words is unsubstantiated since the example of H.M., ASQ is deliberetly seperated to indicate two sets rather than the same set of initials.
-
Peace abrar,
Ayman never said what Layth misunderstood. You are quick to post Layth's response exactly 23 minutes after my posting the links, which shows that you haven't even gone through 2 pages of a single thread and just wanted to hastily quote something without even bothering to read Ayman's response. This seriously damages your credibility bro. Following is Ayman's response to Layth which you conveniently forgot to read
Peace bother Layth,
Quote from "Layth"
You 'assumed' that because they were speaking of the people of the book teaching him, and that since the people of the book are refered to as having a different language, that the Arabic language has two forms (religious & common).Brother, I apologize if I was not clear but I never suggested that Arabic has two forms (religious and common). I conclude that Arabic only has one form, which is "common". Arabic at the time of the revelation of the great reading was an informal common people language not a formal religious one.
The people of the book did not use Arabic at all in religious teachings. If you disagree then it is very easy to prove me wrong. Please refer me to even ONE pre-quranic formal religious inscription in Arabic or ONE pre-quranic formal religious manuscripts in Arabic.
Quote from "Layth"
This is not a correct understanding of the verse as it only means what it says...That the people who are accused of teaching him the Quran were not of an Arabic toungue.The verse doesn't talk of specific people or accuse specific people. It talks of a "bashar"/human in general that is teaching the prophet. Thus, Arabic was not a human language for teaching religion in general.
I merely pointed out that 16103 is confirmed by the fact that there are no pre-quranic formal religious inscriptions or manuscripts in Arabic.
Quote from "Layth"
Arabic has both common and religous aspects to it...The only issue is that their religious aspects were all idolatrous refering to Al-Llat and Uzza and Manat as examples in the Quran.Those idols are Nabataean idols. Those names are Nabataean proper names that are meaningless labels. They don't reflect the true nature of those idols.
Please give an example of even one 100% religious Arabic term in the great reading. By "religious" I mean pertaining to organized religion.
Quote from "Layth"
Hence, since Mohammed was not preaching a new form of idolatry (which they would have welcomed and accepted) they said he was being taught by the 'foreigners' who were knowon to be preaching about the One God.No they didn't say that he was taught by "foreigners". They said he was taught by a human. The God response is that the language of the human teaching that they falsely attribute to is foreign. Thus, it is any human, both foreigners and bilingual Arabs who teach religion exclusively in a foreign language.
Moreover, Christianity is also a form of idolatry (idolizing a trinity) and so are the majority of Judaic sects (idolizing their clergy and the Temple). Why would any idolater welcome a new form of idolatry? Would Sufis who idolize the prophet and their dead saints welcome idolizing the pope instead? It seems that you are reading too much that is not in the verse but is in the traditional understanding.
We know from archeological evidence that there were a large and growing number of Christian and Jewish Arabs at the time of the prophet. For example, the Arab Ghassanids were Christians. In fact, the majority of Arabs living in areas of Northern Arabia around Jerusalem were Christians.
Quote from "Layth"
Finally, your conclusion to the 'initials' being words is unsubstantiated since the example of H.M., ASQ is deliberetly seperated to indicate two sets rather than the same set of initials.They are two words not two sets of initials. Luckily in Arabic separate initials take a completely different shape than letters which are part of a word. Can you see the difference between the following initials and words? Which are words and which are initials?
I hope that this can help you read the difference.
Peace and all best wishes,
Ayman
-
tanvir wrote
This shows how it is IMPOSSIBLE to face a physical building once it is beyond the visible horizon. Oh ..... but I forgot ..... according to tg, God asks us to do impossible things in al-qur'aangrin
...u forgot something else too...if v were to ask some of the members here (including some u agree with over here)...about ur interpretation of some verses of the quran...u will find ur interpretation to be impossible and a corruption of the quran! -)
i ll repeat again i believe that almasjid alharam is a physical place...if u believe something else...cool! -)
i ll give my opinion of ur understanding which u have posted...particularly cuz i find it quite similar to 1 i dealt with a while back...and the person back then could do nothing better than offer (more) assumptions and false analogies..and then disappear from the thread...lets see how this 1 goes! -)
Following is my understanding of "qibla" and "almasjid alharam" as mentioned in al-qur'aan. This is from an earlier thread in the past
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11674.0
For the benefit of the readers, I will re-post the article here with minor revisions
cool! -)
AL-MASJID AL-HARAM AN INSTITUTION
let's see! -)
"Sajada" means prostration/submission/obedience or "hearing and obeying"
could u reference a part here...about "hearing and obeying"? -)
and could be mental or bodily or both according to its usage in the qur'aan and the Arabic language.
what do u mean by "mental"?...again do produce the verse so that v can understand better! -)
The place where one performs "sajada" is a "masjid" which could be mental
reference for this claim! -)
or a government institution
government institution?....reference from the quran for this assumption! -)
or a physical building depending on the context in which the word is used.
When one performs a bodily "sajada" in some place, then that place becomes a physical "masjid" which could be a building or an empty piece of land.
cool! -)
When one mentally obeys/submits to The God, then the mind becomes the "masjid".
verse/reference!
...also, how about the body?
When an institution is established for hearing and obeying The God then that institution becomes the "masjid".
reference! -)
It is common in the Arabic language to use "masjid" to mean an institution of obedience and not a physical place.
common? show us the proof(s) for such statements! -)
...and by the way nice that u have faith in what is commonly said in the arabic language...hope this faith is not
selective! -)For example, one hears of "al-masjid al-azhar" issuing a fatwa.
yet another empty claim! -)
....one hears not of "al-masjid al-azhar" issuing a fatwa, but of alazhar issuing a fatwa...or more properly "the alazhar fatwa committee" (issuing a fatwa)! -)
...when khomeini issued the fatwa against rushdie....v heard of khomeini's fatwa...if u heard of masjid al-khomeini's fatwa then let us know! -)
It is not a physical building that issues the fatwa but the people representing the institution of Al-Azhar that issue the fatwa.
this statement is invalidated cuz of ur erroneous premise! -)
in anycase...u r try to draw a false parallel...and fail even at that! -)
...cuz even if there are peepz like u who wrongly say "al-masjid al-azhar" (rather than the fatwa committee) issues
fatwas...u would have to concede that this commitee is related to the physical "almajid alzhar"!...so if u wrongly insist almasjid alharam is a committee...u will still have to concede a physical mosque almasjid alharam to which this committee relates -)
Similarly, in the English language, when the House of Commons makes a decision, or the Senate passes a bill, it is not the physical building that passes the bill, but the people in that institution that do so. Hence it follows that a "masjid" can be one's mind or a government institution also.
u have so far established nothing....but simply continue in assumptions and false analogies..this 1 being yet another example! -)
...for starters..u have to show how masjid has anything to do with making decisions....which u have simply assumed on false and baseless premises! -)
i would ve paid attention to the rest of ur post...but all u have done thus far is what others have already done.....this forum included pivoted ur beliefs on assumptions and false analogies! my experience with most of them has been that they simply keep running in circles...inventing new meanings on the go to suit their disbelief...confusing english grammar along the way...or disappear from the dialog..so i ll wait till u clarify that which u have written thus far! -)
i have seen many non-muslims and other wannabes, who understand neither nouns nor adjectives..and cant differentiate between a thesaurus and a dictionary, write stuff based on the information they are able to obtain from anti-islamic websites and conspiracy theories...but i am not interested in lies...nor in manipulation of quran, arabic and english...so if u have anything to say from the quran...or something u can establish as authentic, not assumptions and false analogies...then do so by all means! -)
-
swedenmajidah wrote
Well think if God created us just to serve him!!!cool! -)
Think if we humans are some bricks in a game that God created
He created us with a free will, only or because we could then choose the path we wanted to take. No matter if the path is good or bad.I feel like this life on earth is some kind og strategy game the kids use to play but much bigger and serious because of the alive people in this game.
...games kids play! -)
..yeah u r rite...a much bigger...serious...perhaps a dangerous game! -)
peace! -)
-
Peace and greetings,
If you people at free minds have invented a free mind arabic language then I think I should not argue because there is no more room left for arguments with people who trust in heresay archaeology more than what they see in reality. Faithfreedom has so many logical criticisms of Quran that I am sure that free minds people cannot defend Quran with their so called modern archaeology. Free minds is becoming more of an archaeological cult than sane logical explorers. Everyone can have his own arabic at free minds and it is a playtime to form meanings. I think people are more arrogant than they are sane. I have no place here to argue about anything because people here are becoming extremists in interpretation of arabic according to their manipulated information. I have lesser knowldedge in arabic but I am not arrogant like people at free minds supporting arab conspiracy theories. If the rest of muslims were to be like free minds, millions of arabic languages would have evolved and the real Quran would have absolutely been forgotten. Free minds people are doing more harm than good. Making a sauce of arabic language. A person would be better off staying away from free minds than finding out why man never went to the moon.
Quote Aymen
Please refer me to even ONE pre-quranic formal religious inscription in Arabic or ONE pre-quranic formal religious manuscripts in Arabic.
Aymen's beliefs are based on archaeology so whenever he loses an argument he attack's his opponent with an archaeological proof. Aymen probably does not believe in modern arachaeology in reality or else he would not have believed in Quran. I ask Aymen to show me one credible archaeological proof that the Quran accurately describes all historical events. This archaeological proof must be internationally recognised according to world archaeological standards and fairly acceptable to all world archaeologists.
-
Salaam
Having no knowldge of Archaelogy or Arabic
Simple question (apologies if it has been covered & link would be appreciated) simple answer would be appreciated
If this Mecca/Kabba was a conspiracy by the Arabs in the Post Quran era (obviousouly it could not have occured in Mohds lifetime). A corruption or new introduction of this kind would surely have left, at least, some knowldgeable true believers horrified and hence opposition any evidence of when and if this occured.
regards -
peace
(this thread has been created because a certain someone said we shouldn't criticize Mecca and the Kaaba)
I only want to give my thoughts on this, and I just want to see the logical defence of Mecca and kaaba.
Ayman presented an argument against the "holyness" of the city of Mecca and I found it very convincing, but that's not what this post is about.First of all, we don't need face some physical place to serve God. And we don't need to "show" our "love" (how does one love God anyway?) for God by facing Mecca.
And if you think that Mecca is just a symbol for our "unity" then that makes no sense either.
Physical structures mean nothing, piety is not to face ourselves to the east or the west, then why do we need physical places and structures?
I'll say more later. Please offer your thoughts.Leaving physical structure aside, It does not make anysense to to spin around a cubic structure with a black stone.
If someone can help me make sense of this I will then focus on Mecca. Please explain. -
Peace Warner,
I thought muhajeren was used by Christians and possibly Jews to refer to muslims with possible connection to hagerene( from hajer ). What is your opinion on this.
This is a misunderstanding. The early (or late) Muslims never refer to themselves as "Hageriyeen" (those descending from Hager). On the other hand, we see plenty of references both from the great reading and the manuscripts from Roman sources where the term Muhagereen (with an initial M) appears.
The meaning of the term Muhagereen may not have been understood by some Christians and thus they thought it had to do with Hager. The term Hageriyeen was actually meant as a derogatory term since in Judeo Christian mythology Hager was a slave girl. For the Arabs calling someone by his maternal name (e.g., son of Hagar) was done when no one knew who his father was. It was considered as derogatory.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Warner,
What is your definition of Umra and the offering/sacrifice ?
The word "3umra" in Arabic mean to prosper. It is part of the purposes of "hajj"/"the annual fair" for people to witness benefits. Again as for the "offering/sacrifice", we are told that the purpose it to eat from it and feed the needy. Thus, as defined by the purpose it is a means to self sustain and provide food to the needy. It is a way to eliminate hunger. Despite all our technological advances, hunger is still one of the most prevailant problems in the world today.
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?.
Exactly. So since none of the people of the book know of those proper names then they must be common universal concepts and not the proper names of some prescribed rituals or objects.
If these were later corrupted why do you think the Quraan did not correct these practices or misunderstandings coming through generations?
But they were not corrupted. People understood what all those things meant and we can still understand today what those things mean. They are not rituals that require "correction". They are mundane common concepts that are universal. It is by later hijacking such universal concepts and turning them into the names of specific rituals that the meaning was lost.
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.
The great reading confirms previous books so we can only take what is confirmed by the great reading. For example, when we hear in the previous books "blessed are the peacemakers" (we never hear "blessed are the Christians" and we know that the word "muslims" means "peacemaker/peaceful" we can see how muslim/islam was indeed a meaningful concept (not a meaningless label) that dates back to Ibrahim and acknowledged by the people of the book.
As for praying towards a particular object, the god corrected this in 2142-150. When read properly, those passages brilliantly correct any wrong physical direction not just Jerusalem.
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?
There are plenty of things mentioned that are different from what is established today. In fact in the same way that Muslims and Jews do not agree with all Christians that Jesus is the son of god, none of the Chrisitians and Jews agrees or has any record of Mecca having anything to do with Abraham.
Even according the sectarian history the so-called Kaaba was destroyed many times in the course of civil wars and rebellions. Surely had all the parties regarded the so-called Kaaba as sacred then this wouldn't have allegedly happened. We know from manuscripts that there were indeed major civil wars so what we are getting is the point of view of the vicotorious.
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.
Obviously, the truth is there and there is plenty of evidence for it. As in the case of Christians where they are the only poeple who think that Jesus is the son of god, it is the same with sectarians who are the only ones who think that Mecca is a holy city.
Peace,
Ayman