Criticism of Mecca and Kaaba
-
Peace Abrar
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 ?This is exactly what is wrong today with many people on the Internet. They blindly copy and paste stuff from Wikipedia and then think that they are experts in everything from Classical Arabic all the way to Quantum Mechanics.
Listen Abrar, the fact that the definite article (in Classical or Modern Arabic) has nothing to do with whether something is a common noun or a proper name is indisputable so all you are doing by your mindless stubbornness is further parading your ignorance on the forum.
There are so many clear examples that it is pathetic to see you still arguing about this. For example, take Al-lat and Al-3uza in Chapter 53. Both have the definite article "al" and yet are proper names. So saying that "al" makes something not a proper name and that the lack of "al" makes it a proper name is laughable nonsense. Presenting such nonsense with such arrogance is why you still earn an A in arrogance but and F in substance.
I suggest that you take a hard look at yourself in the mirror and see to what new lows you are willing to sink to justify idolizing some stones.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Abrar,
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.
I already told you to use Classical Arabic dictionaries. Instead of wasting your time arguing against indisputable facts and blindly copying and pasting in order to justify idolization of stones, you should make an effort to check Classical Arabic dictionaries such as Al-Mohit, Lisan Al-3arab, Al-Wasit, and Al-Ghani for the meaning of the word MaKKat.
Al-Mohit lists it under MKK, the meaning given is destruction and wearing down which is consistent with the context of standoff in 4824. It also lists the meaning of TMKK as an adversary's insistence on something, which is also consistent with the standoff in 4824.
Lisan Al-Arab lists it under MK and the meaning is given as "destruction".
Al-Wasit lists it under MK, the meanings given are sucking everything out, insisting on revenge from an adversary, and the thing, which is worn down or destroyed.
Al-Ghani lists it under MKK, the meanings given are sucking, insisting with demands on an adversary.
Here is a translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war from the verses to translate the common description "MaKKat"
- And it is He Who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction after that He gave you the victory over them. And Allah sees well all that ye do.
I used Yusuf Ali's translation but while he left "MaKKat" un-translated I didn't. As everyone can see, the clear Classical Arabic meaning fits perfectly in the context of the military standoff in 4824. This is not a coincidence.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace Stillearning,
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.
There are lots of people opposing Mecca in the same exact way that there are lots of people opposing that Jesus was the son of the god. It is only sectarians who believe that Mecca is a holy city where Ibraham lived in the same way that only Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. There is no difference.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
There are so many clear examples that it is pathetic to see you still arguing about this. For example, take Al-lat and Al-3uza in Chapter 53. Both have the definite article "al" and yet are proper names. So saying that "al" makes something not a proper name and that the lack of "al" makes it a proper name is laughable nonsense.
I am not satisfied with Al-Lat and Al-Uzza as Lat and Uzza might have been common names of pagan gods and their supreme idol might have been called Al Lat and Al uzza which makes the root uzza and lat as common nouns. I believe Quran has to be scientific in grammatical rules or else it loses its literary excellence.
This is exactly what is wrong today with many people on the Internet. They blindly copy and paste stuff from Wikipedia and then think that they are experts in everything from Classical Arabic all the way to Quantum Mechanics.
I give references that does not mean I believe blindly in any hearsay information. All healthy scientists, archaeologists, and linguists do have a taste for criticism and people like you would accept anything that is taught to you at universities like an innocent child. Innovation in technology and science comes with healthy criticism of present day techniques and exposing faults and errors logically and honestly to come up with better techniques but people like you might remain stuck in stone age simply because they believe in what mainstream elders say without even questioning their errors.
There are lots of people opposing Mecca in the same exact way that there are lots of people opposing that Jesus was the son of the god. It is only sectarians who believe that Mecca is a holy city where Ibraham lived in the same way that only Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. There is no difference.
I think people reading your pseudoarchaeological articles could increase day by day to support your claim.
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear Aymen,
I have found further evidence to support Al-
THE QUR'AN EXPLAINS ITSELF!
The issue of the al-?Aziz in the story of Joseph can be resolved by applying the most fundamental principle of Qur'anic exegesis al-Qur'an yufassiru ba?duhu ba?dan, i.e., different parts of the Qur'an explain one another. When Joseph attains a high status in Egypt, his brothers visit him. Joseph is called by his own brothers as al-?Aziz in verse 1288.
It is translated as
Then, when they came (back) into (Joseph's) presence they said "Al-?Aziz! distress has seized us and our family we have (now) brought but scanty capital so pay us full measure, (we pray thee), and treat it as charity to us for Allah doth reward the charitable."
So, we see that Joseph's own brothers called him al-?Aziz (translated as "the exalted one" because he was at that time in charge of the storehouses of Egypt. They called him by the very phrase they would have used in conjunction with any powerful man in the Egyptian administration. This is confirmed by the fact that at that time they had not yet realized that they were speaking to their brother, the very one they once threw down to the bottom of a well and forgot about his fate. Al-Qurtubi says in the tafsir of the verse
Then, when they came (back) into (Joseph's) presence they said al-?Aziz meaning al-Mumtani?, i.e., invulnerable, unapproachable.
Hence al-?Aziz in the story of Joseph is used to denote the high rank of an official in Egypt. It also denotes a powerful highly-placed officer. Clearly, the presence of the definite article "al" before ?Aziz is a strong indication that it is not a name. Even in modern times, Christian and Jewish Arabs might call themselves ?Aziz (e.g., Tariq ?Aziz, the former Iraqi minister) but none calls himself al-?Aziz. In this scope, the claim that ?Aziz was the name of the historical individual in question results from a misreading of the text. Moreover, when we read Islamic literature (see below) on this matter, nowhere can one find that al-?Aziz was believed to be this individual's actual name.
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aziz.html#Comment
Now this is a scholarly claim and not a claim of a person like me.
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear jonny_k,
While the prefix by "al" indicates the the noun used is not a name, the converse is not necessarily true, meaning that nouns not preixed with "al" are NOT NECESSARILY names, and this is an important point. GOD Bless!
Yes I know and I understand it. I have not found any proper name in Quran that has al as its prefix. The examples given by brother Aymen of Al-Lat and Al-uzza are not convincing as the root words laat and uzza were common names for pagan gods and their chief or supreme idols were given the names Al-lat and Al-uzza which do not make them proper nouns as brother Aymen says. I challenge you to give me one proper name from Quran which has al as its prefix.
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear jonny_k,
Yes I know and I understand it. I have not found any proper name in Quran that has al as its prefix. The examples given by brother Aymen of Al-Lat and Al-uzza are not convincing as the root words laat and uzza were common names for pagan gods and their chief or supreme idols were given the names Al-lat and Al-uzza which do not make them proper nouns as brother Aymen says. I challenge you to give me one proper name from Quran which has al as its prefix.
If I may, what about "AlYasa3" ?
-
Peace and greetings,
Dear TAJ,
If I may, what about "AlYasa3" ?
Al-Yasaa is the Arabic name of the prophet Elisha.
But it's not formed of al+yasa, the (al) is not the Arabic article it's a part of the name (like al-zahaeimer for example)
And it's just an Arabic name, like Yousef for Joseph, Zakariyya for Zachary..As for "Elisha," it is a Hebrew name, the Arabic version of which in the Bible is (aliisha3). I am not certain as to the meaning of the Hebrew.
-
Peace Abrar,
Al-Yasaa is the Arabic name of the prophet Elisha.
But it's not formed of al+yasa, the (al) is not the Arabic article it's a part of the name (like al-zahaeimer for example)
And it's just an Arabic name, like Yousef for Joseph, Zakariyya for Zachary..
As for "Elisha," it is a Hebrew name, the Arabic version of which in the Bible is (aliisha3). I am not certain as to the meaning of the Hebrew.You are absolutely right! It has to be part of the name otherwise the "Al" should have been added to the other names in the Ayah, as a basic rule of al 3a6f.
-
Peace tg,
Quote
"Sajada" means prostration/submission/obedience or "hearing and obeying"could u reference a part here...about "hearing and obeying"? -)
Quote
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! -)
According to Lane Lexicon, "sajada" means "being lowly/humble/submissive". Now suppose you are hearing the verses of al-qur'aan being recited in a moderate tone, giving you the commandments of The God. How do you "sajada"/submit to them ? By hearing them and obeying them, right ? Thus "sajada" = hearing and obeying, which has a mental component also.
To give you qur'anic proof of "sajada" being "hearing and obeying" thus having a mental component, let me quote from Ayman's article "What's in the name" which can be referenced at the following link
http//free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm
To understand what "sujud" is, let's look at some of the other verses where it is mentioned. For example, similar to 17107,
verse 3215 talks about "falling sujudan"
- The only people who have faith in Our revelations are those who when they are reminded by them, they "fall sujadan", and they glorify and praise their Lord, and they are not arrogant.
Those who have faith and are reminded of The God's revelations are also mentioned in verse 2573
- And those who when they are reminded of their Lord?s verses, they do not fall on them deaf and blind.
When we link 3215 and 2573 together, we can clearly understand that "not falling deaf and blind" is equivalent to "falling 'sujadan'".
Now contrast the reaction of "not falling deaf and blind/falling 'sujadan'" of those who have faith with the reaction of those who do not have faith
-
And when Our signs are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he did not hear them, as if there is a deafness in his ears. So announce to him a painful retribution.
-
And who is more wicked than one who is reminded of his Lord's revelations but he turned away from them, and he forgot what his hands had done. We have made veils upon their hearts from understanding it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you invite them to the guidance, they will never then be guided.
Allegorical deafness (not hearing) seems to be a common trait of those who do not fall "sujadan".
The example of the descendants of Israel illustrates that "sujud" is non-physical and clarifies what it really means
258-59. And We said "Enter this town, and eat from it as plentifully as you wish; and enter the door 'sujadan', and say "Our load is removed", We will then forgive your mistakes, and We will increase for the good doers." But the wicked altered what was said to them for a different saying, thus We sent down upon the wicked a punishment from the heaven for what they had transgressed.
7161-162. And they were told "Reside in this town and eat from it as you please, and say "Our load is removed", and enter the gate 'sujadan', We will forgive for you your wrong doings, and We will increase for the good doers." Those who were wicked amongst them altered what was said to them with something different; so We sent to them a plague from the sky because they were wicked.
Notice how the descendents of Israel did the opposite of "sujud" by altering what was said to them instead of hearing it and actually doing it (i.e., obeying it).
Another example of people who alter what is being said is given again in verse 446
- From amongst the Jews there are those who take the words out of context, and they say "We hear and disobey, and listen but not let any listen, and look after us", in a twisting of their tongues and as a mockery of the obligation! And had they said "We hear and obey, and listen, and watch over us," it would have been better for them and more upright; but The God Has cursed them for their rejection, they do not have faith except very little.
We can see from linking 446 with 258-59 and 7161-162 that "sujud" is equivalent to "hearing and obeying".
Verses 4101-103 describe ending the /("salat" with the "sujud". Verses 56-7 also describe the "salat" and its components and end with "hearing and obeying". Once again, we see that "hearing and obeying" seems to be the equivalent to "sujud".
Youssef's dream and its realization confirm that "sujud" is non-physical and indicate that it means "hearing and obeying".
The sun, moon and planets cannot do physical prostration or even show humbleness. However, they could in Youssef's dream hear him and obey him, perhaps by altering their course according to his command. When he raised his parents on the throne, they and his siblings fell "sujadan". How can his parents be "raised" on the throne and at the same time "fall" in physical prostration? Again, the meaning is confirmed to be "hearing and obeying" Youssef and not physically falling to the ground in prostration. Verse 12100 can now be better understood
- And he raised his parents on the throne, and they became in a state of hearing and obeying him. And he said "My father, this is the interpretation of my vision from before. My Lord has made it true, and He Has been good to me that he took me out of prison and brought you out of the wilderness after the devil had placed a rift between me and my brothers. My Lord is kind to whom He wills. He is the Knowledgeable, the Wise."
Quote
The place where one performs "sajada" is a "masjid" which could be mentalreference for this claim! -)
Quote
or a government institutiongovernment institution?....reference from the quran for this assumption! -)
Quote
When one mentally obeys/submits to The God, then the mind becomes the "masjid".verse/reference!
...also, how about the body?
Quote
When an institution is established for hearing and obeying The God then that institution becomes the "masjid".reference! -)
According to Lane Lexicon, "masjid" is any place or a "house" in which one performs the act of "sujood"/submission, or any of the parts of the body that are the places of "sujood"/submission. A PLACE or "house" could be mental or non physical too.
For example
When one hears and obeys a command of The God and mentally submits to it, the mind becomes the part of the body that is the place of submission and thus a "masjid".
According to Dictionaries, a "house" could be non physical too, e.g. House of Commons, House of Representatives, upper house of Congress, lower house of Congress etc.
A "body" could be non physical too, e.g. a law making body of the government, A governing, advisory, or disciplinary body of some colleges and universities
A "place" could be non physical too, e.g.
Person in a high place (job, post, office),
"I would complain if I were in your place" (position, situation, or circumstances),
"It is not your place to offer criticism" (a function or duty),
"My thoughts began to fall into place" (proper sequence or relationship, as of ideas, details, etc...),
"In the first place" (a step or point in order of proceeding),
"There's a place in this town for a man of his talents" (a fitting or promising opportunity),
"This is no place for such an outburst.." (a reasonable ground or occasion) etc.An "institution" can be a place too, e.g. "this college is the best institution of its kind". In this sentence it is obviously not referring to the bricks and walls of the college building as being the best of its kind !! Senate is a model government institution, and a person in Senate is referred to as being in a high place. Here high place does not mean a lofty physical building !! Senate is also the upper house of Congress. Thus we can see how Senate can be a place or a house while being an institution, thus an institution can be a place or a house.
Referencing from Lane Lexicon, "masjid" is any place or a "house" in which one performs the act of "sujood"/submission/hearing and obeying. It can be one's mind, body, a physical building, or an institution as already explained.
One can establish an institution which implements the submission/hearing and obeying of the restrictions according to the God's revelations. This will be like a "house" similar to the upper house of Congress, and a "place" as a believer working for such an institution will be in a high "place". Thus "al-masjid al-haram" can easily be an institution (place, house, masjid) which institutes/implements submission/hearing and obeying (sujood) of the restrictions/forbidden (haram).
Thus we can see that it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for "al-masjid al-haram" to mean a non physical entity. Just like it is possible to have a non physical "house" of Congress, we can have a non physical "house" of al-haram.
As far as the qur'aanic references that justify this meaning, I will quote the relevant portion of Ayman's article "what's in the name"
So now that we have understood "sujud" based on the reading as "hearing and obeying", everything falls into place. The word
"al-masjid" can simply be interpreted as "the institution/implementation of hearing and obeying".
By giving up the human invented proper name "Al-Masjid Al-Haram" and going back to the common "al-masjid al-haram", the meaning suddenly becomes obvious. The word "al-masjid" means "the institution/implementation of hearing and obeying" and "al-haram" means "the forbidden". Putting the two together, we get "the institution/implementation of hearing and obeying the forbidden". In other words, it is a system instituted for implementing hearing the forbidden and actually obeying what is being heard and reflecting it in our actions.
In fact, it is common in the Arabic language to use "masjid" to mean an institution of obedience and not a physical place. Hence, we hear about "al-masjid Al-Azhar" issuing a "fatwa". Of course no one thinks that the physical building of Al-Azhar is capable of issuing a "fatwa" or any edict that is to be obeyed. As we can see, despite all the corruptions of sectarians, the word "masjid" is used still used today to denote an institution of obedience and not a physical building.
Here is another verse that confirms that "masjid" is not the physical building
- And as such, We made them to be found so that they would know that The God?s promise is true and that there is no doubt regarding the hour. They argued amongst themselves regarding their matter, so they said "Construct a building upon them, their Lord is fully aware of them." Those who prevailed in their matter said "We will take an institution of hearing and obeying over them."
Note that in 1821, those who argued said "build a physical building on them". On the other hand, those who prevailed said that they will take a "masjid" in contrast to the physical building.
Verses such as 731 would not make any sense if they were talking about a physical building.
- O descendants of "adam", take your beautiful things at every institution of hearing and obeying, and eat and drink and do not waste; He does not like the wasters.
Do you stop at EVERY Mosque and take some beautiful things? If not and "masjid" means the physical building of a Mosque, then you are disobeying The God according to 731. Verse 731 can be understood in light of 732.
- Say ?Who has forbidden the beautiful things that The God has brought forth for His servants and the good provisions?? Say ?It is for those who had faith in this worldly life, exclusive for them on the day of resurrection?. It is such that We explain the revelations for those who know.
Verse 732 asks a rhetorical question about those who make the beautiful things that The God made forbidden. Of course, we should not obey them and instead we obey The God and our institutions of obedience should promote and allow to prosper the many beautiful things that The God created (take beautiful things at every "masjid".
Now, let us hear some of the verses that tell us about the forbidden
6151-153. Say "Come I will recite what your Lord forbade on you
(1) that do not make anything partner with Him,
(2) and with the parents kindness,
(3) and do not kill your (unborn) children from hardship We provide for you and them,
(4) and do not approach the atrocious deeds, what is visible from it, and what is concealed,
(5) and do not kill the self that The God forbade, except with the truth,
that He directed/commanded you with it, maybe you reason.
(6) And do not approach the orphan's property except with what is best, until he reaches his maturity,
(7) and fulfill the measure and the scale with the equitable,
We do not burden a self except its capacity,
(8 ) and if you speak, so be just, and even if it was a near person,
(9) and fulfill The God's covenant;
that He advised you with, perhaps you remember.
And that is My straight path, so follow it, and do not follow the paths, so they split you from His path. This He advised you
with it, perhaps you be forethoughtful.
Verses such as 733 provides some additional insights
- Say ?My Lord has forbidden all atrocious deeds, what is obvious from them and what is concealed, and sin, and aggression without cause, and that you set-up partners with The God that which He has never authorized, and that you say about The God what you do not know.?
Other verses such as 53 list the forbidden foods.
Now that we understand that "sujud" means "hearing and obeying", are we going to hear and obey what The God forbade in the above verses of the reading or are we going to reject like the people described in verse 8421
- And when the reading is read to them, they do not hear and obey.
The expression "al-masjid al-aqsa" can similarly be interpreted as "the utmost hearing and obeying". Hence, verse 171 can be interpreted as follows
- Most exalted is the One who transferred His servant, from the institution of hearing and obeying of the forbidden to that of utmost hearing and obeying that we have blessed around, in order to show him from our signs. It is He who is the Hearer, the Seer.
The state of utmost/ultimate hearing and obeying is described in verse 7206 in different terms
- Those who are at your Lord, they are never too proud to serve Him, and they exalt Him, and they hear and obey Him.
Verses 531-18 and 8115-23 talk about the signs in 171. According to those verses, the state of "utmost hearing and obeying" is a state that is outside our narrow perception. To get closer to that state we must first go through hearing and obeying the forbidden ("al-masjid al-haram" and we must never be too proud to serve our Lord and exalt Him. Only then we can hope be close to our Lord in a state of utmost hearing and obeying at the garden
- At it is the shelter's garden/paradise.
Additional evidence that "masjid" can be non physical
- It has been made lawful for you during the night of fasting to approach your women sexually. They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them. The God knows that you used to betray your selves so He Has accepted your repentance, and forgiven you; now you may approach them and seek what The God Has written for you. And you may eat and drink until the white thread is distinct from the black thread of daybreak; then you shall complete the fast until night; and do not approach them WHILE you are committed in the institutions of hearing and obeying/"masajid". These are The God's boundaries, so do not transgress them. It is such that The God makes His revelations clear to the people perhaps they may be forethoughtful.
Verse 2187 actually confirms that "masjid" is an institution of hearing and obeying and not a physical Mosque/Temple. Clearly, no sane person would have sexual relations with his or her spouse WHILE in any public place, let alone the local Mosque/Temple, so this part of the sign would be meaningless if one interprets "masajid" as Mosques/Temples. The sign simply says that we shouldn't have sexual relations with our spouses while we are committed to "the institution of the hearing and obeying" (masajid) of The God (such as while we are reciting the great reading in our homes).
-
Peace tg,
Quote
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'aan
grin
...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! -)
Facing a particular physical direction WHEREVER one is, is impossible, but it is not impossible for a "masjid" to mean a non physical entity in al-qur'aan.
We are supposed to face "al-masjid al-haram" WHEREVER we are. The God has repeated that many times
2144 We see the shifting of your face towards the sky; We will thus set for you a focal point that will be pleasing to you "You shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; and wherever you may be, you shall all set yourselves towards it." Those who have been given the Scripture know it is the truth from their Lord. And God is not unaware of what you do.
2149 And from wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple; it is the truth from your Lord; and God is not unaware of what you do.
2150 And wherever you go out, you shall set yourself towards the Restricted Temple. And wherever you may be you shall set yourselves towards it; that the people will have no room for debate with you, except those of them who are wicked. You shall not fear them, but fear Me; so that I may complete My blessings upon you and that you may be guided.
Let me give practical examples
-
You are driving on I-10 (in USA) going west. You are somewhere, right ? Now WHEREVER you are on I-10, according to your fallacious interpretation, you are supposed to face the physical building of Masjid Alharam, how are you going to do it ? Remember, you are sitting in a car, driving on I-10, and you are supposed to be facing the physical building of Masjid Alharam which is supposedly located in Mecca, how are you going to face it in that situation ? If not then you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are sitting in your friends house watching TV. His furniture is arranged in such a way that when you sit on his sofa, you are facing west. For argument sake, lets say that in that area, the physical building of Majid Alharam is east of you. Now in this situation, you are somewhere right ? How are you going to face the physical building of Masjid Alharam which is to your east, while watching TV facing west ? The only way is by rearranging all the furniture in your friends place so that you can face east. Do you do that when you visit your friends place ? If not you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are sitting in your own home on the toilet facing west, and Masjid Alharam is towards the east. Now remember that according to 2144 you are supposed to face "al-masjid al-haram" WHEREVER you are. When you are sitting on the toilet, you are somewhere, right ? How can you face Majid Alharam on your east whil you are sitting on a toilet which is built in such a way that you are facing west when you are sitting on it ? If not, then you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are standing for the salat in USA in a mosque, supposedly facing Masjid Alharam located in Mecca. The only problem is, Masjid Alharam is beyond the horizon in this particular situation. When you are standing during salat, if we draw an imaginary line straight in the direction you are facing, it will extend to a place in sky, so in actuality you are facing a place in the sky, instead of Masjid Alharam. Thus you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are standing in the so called Kaaba, in Mecca. You have to perform salat in this situation. Which direction do you face ?
-
You are sailing on a ship on the Pacific, and you are at a point which is directly opposite where Majid Alharam is located. Which direction do you face ? Actually, ANY direction you face at that point you will be facing the sky, as Masjid Alharam is beyond the horizon. Thus you will be disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
-
You are on the Moon and the earth is on the opposite side at that particular moment. Which direction do you face while offering salat ? In this situation, if you are not facing the physical Masjid Alharam, then you are disobeying 2144, 2149, 2150.
Thus, if you cannot face the physical Masjid Alharam WHEREVER you are, then is The God asking us to do something that is impossible ? The only way to avoid such a contradiction in al-qur'aan and the only way possible to face "al-masjid al-haram" WHEREVER we are, is if it is a NON PHYSICAL focal point/target/goal.
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.
According to 2143, the "qibla" distinguishes who folows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. Now a hypocrite can also face a physical building along with the believers and thus will be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the believers. A hypocrite is the one who will turn on their heels from following the messenger. How will a physical direction/focal point distinguish a hypocrite from the believers ?
Also, if "masjid" as in "al-masjid al-haram" and "al-masjid al-aqsa" is physical, then there should have been physical buildings by those names during the revelation of al-qur'aan, otherwise the relevant passages will make no sense according to your fallacious interpretations. It is an established fact that the physical building by the name of Masjid Al-Aqsa was built in the Ummayad dynasty long after the revelation of al-qur'aan, thus it cannot be "al-masjid al-aqsa" talked about in Chapter 17. Even the staunchest sectarians admit that. If it is a physical building, then which building is "al-masjid al-aqsa" mentioned in 171 ? Please prove it by authentic archeological and authentic historical evidence.
Also, please prove the existence of a physical building by the name of Masjid Al-haram during the qur'aanic time, by authentic archeological and authentic historical evidence.
Also, while you are at it, please prove the existence of a city by the name of Mecca, and the existence of a "bayt" by the name of Kaaba, during the qur'aanic times, by authentic archeological and authentic historical evidence.
I will not answer any further stuff posted by you unless you first respond to my above questions posed to you which demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for "al-masjid al-haram" to mean a physical building in al-qur'aan according to your fallacious interpretations.
-
-
tanveer wrote
Facing a particular physical direction WHEREVER one is, is impossible, but it is not impossible for a "masjid" to mean a non physical entity in al-qur'aan.if, like u insist, almasjid alharam is a government institution according to the quran, u would have provided atleast something...right? -)
...what u did provide seems to be a misunderstanding...cuz ur "al-masjid al-azhar" issuing fatwas is definitely anything but proof! so i wonder on what basis u still insist?-)
According to 2143, the "qibla" distinguishes who folows the messenger from those who will turn on their heels. Now a hypocrite can also face a physical building along with the believers and thus will be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the believers. A hypocrite is the one who will turn on their heels from following the messenger. How will a physical direction/focal point distinguish a hypocrite from the believers ?
u tried to show that almasjid aharam is a government insitution...but u didnt...and u still insist that the masjid alharam in those verses is a government instituion...
...so u see how difficult it is for ppl to obey what god says? -)
Also, if "masjid" as in "al-masjid al-haram" and "al-masjid al-aqsa" is physical, then there should have been physical buildings by those names during the revelation of al-qur'aan, otherwise the relevant passages will make no sense according to your fallacious interpretations. It is an established fact that the physical building by the name of Masjid Al-Aqsa was built in the Ummayad dynasty long after the revelation of al-qur'aan, thus it cannot be "al-masjid al-aqsa" talked about in Chapter 17. Even the staunchest sectarians admit that. If it is a physical building, then which building is "al-masjid al-aqsa" mentioned in 171 ? Please prove it by authentic archeological and authentic historical evidence.
Also, please prove the existence of a physical building by the name of Masjid Al-haram during the qur'aanic time, by authentic archeological and authentic historical evidence.
u urself stated that a masjid can be an empty land...i think...so i m surprised at this demand of urs...r u not forgetting what u urself wrote? -)
Also, while you are at it, please prove the existence of a city by the name of Mecca, and the existence of a "bayt" by the name of Kaaba, during the qur'aanic times, by authentic archeological and authentic historical evidence.
what do u mean by authentic? -)
do provide authentic archeological and historical evidence (whatever that means) as to when, after the quran, was the city rechristened mecca, and the temple named the kaaba! -)
while u r at it bro....tell me what u understand by bayt of allah! -)
I will not answer any further stuff posted by you unless you first respond to my above questions posed to you which demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE for "al-masjid al-haram" to mean a physical building in al-qur'aan according to your fallacious interpretations.
surprising..again...u insist u r right n post something to prove it...i ask u for some references/verses...and show the fallacy of the parallel u draw...but now u dont want to clarify ur proof! -)
if u dont want to clarify ur own posts...cool! -)
peace! -)
-
Peace tg,
surprising..again...u insist u r right n post something to prove it...i ask u for some references/verses...and show the fallacy of the parallel u draw...but now u dont want to clarify ur proof! -)
if u dont want to clarify ur own posts...cool! -)
I already did, but maybe you have "shield" on your eyes ?
But NOT SURPRISINGLY, you haven't answered a single question posed to you
What can I say, I guess its an age-old malady
-
tanveer wrote
I already did, but maybe you have "shield" on your eyes ?But NOT SURPRISINGLY, you haven't answered a single question posed to you
What can I say, I guess its an age-old malady
lolz...u r rite...i dint see ur former post...i ll get back shortly...hopefully! -)
peace tanveer! -)
-
tanveer wrote
According to Lane Lexicon, "sajada" means "being lowly/humble/submissive". Now suppose you are hearing the verses of al-qur'aan being recited in a moderate tone, giving you the commandments of The God. How do you "sajada"/submit to them ? By hearing them and obeying them, right ?which verse tells u to do sajda "to them (the verses)"? -)
Thus "sajada" = hearing and obeying, which has a mental component also.
let us first see which verse u produce! -)
To give you qur'anic proof of "sajada" being "hearing and obeying" thus having a mental component, let me quote from Ayman's article "What's in the name" which can be referenced at the following link
http//free-minds.org/articles/gods_system/name.htm
To understand what "sujud" is, let's look at some of the other verses where it is mentioned. For example, similar to 17107, verse 3215 talks about "falling sujudan"
- The only people who have faith in Our revelations are those who when they are reminded by them, they "fall sujadan", and they glorify and praise their Lord, and they are not arrogant.
Those who have faith and are reminded of The God's revelations are also mentioned in verse 2573
- And those who when they are reminded of their Lords verses, they do not fall on them deaf and blind.
When we link 3215 and 2573 together, we can clearly understand that "not falling deaf and blind" is equivalent to "falling 'sujadan'".
how conveniently "not being arrogant" has been skipped over...they fall sujjadan..glorify and praise their rabb, and are not arrogant...so v can as easily deduce that not being arrogant is being sujjadan!
3215 talks about "sjd" and here it (sjd) seems to relate to not being arrogant...yet this has been ignored!
2573 doesnt even mention "sjd" yet u r somehow trying to relate it to sajada...i hope this was unintentional and not a deliberate attempt to mislead! -)
..so the drawn conclusion that being sujjadan is hearing and obeying is yet another case on manipulation! -)
Now contrast the reaction of "not falling deaf and blind/falling 'sujadan'" of those who have faith with the reaction of those who do not have faith
-
And when Our signs are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he did not hear them, as if there is a deafness in his ears. So announce to him a painful retribution.
-
And who is more wicked than one who is reminded of his Lord's revelations but he turned away from them, and he forgot what his hands had done. We have made veils upon their hearts from understanding it, and a deafness in their ears. And if you invite them to the guidance, they will never then be guided.
Allegorical deafness (not hearing) seems to be a common trait of those who do not fall "sujadan".
after a false conclusion that "sajda" is hearing and obeying, u have now made it the pivot of ur write-up....which is exactly what i had stated earlier! -)
i ll go thru the rest of ur essay once u r done coming clean on this 1! -)
...and i have said this before...i am not interested in lies...and manipulation of quran, arabic and english...so i hope this wont be repeated! -)
-
Peace everyone,
I think that it is clear that people who idolize stones will continue to come up with all sorts of silly excuses and justifications. Instead of correcting when their falsehood is exposed, they come up with even more nonsensical excuses and justifications. They are essentially trapped in a vicious cycle of ever more outrageous excuses and justifications.
The latest desperate excuse is that words having the definite article "al" cannot be proper names and because "mecca" doesn't have an "al" in 4824 it must be a proper name. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of words in the great reading without "al" and are not proper names and words in the great reading such as Al-lat and Al-3uzza are indisputable proper names.
- These are but names that you named, you and your forefathers. The God never authorized such. They follow conjecture and what the selves fantasize, while the guidance has come to them from their Lord.
It is clear that common sense and what the great reading says doesn't matter to those who idolize stones. They will continue to defy all of this to justify their preconceptions and their love for stone idols and never consider even the possibility that they might be wrong.
It is no wonder that the same type of people believe that by doing physical prostration they have done "sujud". They fail to see that someone who has done physical prostration but has not obeyed the god has not done the true "sujud". So they want us to idolize a stone cube and a Black Stone because "the definite article "al" cannot be used with proper names" and spin around those objects, imagine to face them, and physically prostrate towards them and voila... you go to heaven.
Fortunately, I don't think that the god is superficial like them. I am sure that he would prefer for us that we obey him (the real "sujud" by not revering a bunch of stones.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Ayman
There are lots of people opposing Mecca in the same exact way that there are lots of people opposing that Jesus was the son of the god. It is only sectarians who believe that Mecca is a holy city where Ibraham lived in the same way that only Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. There is no difference.
Surely you cannot draw comparison between the two. Jesus son of God is based on the language confusion of the word father & Historically many Christians have never accepted this interpertation and one can challange this belief when Holy trinity/Ghost/spirit concept was adopted.
However Kabba/Mecca your interpertation is a completely new concept (at least as far as I am aware)....For what you are suggesting is that a massive corruption in Islam occured (as I have stated before it must have occured post Mohd's death).
Islam is relatively young religion and one can trace back various issues and their different persepctives.
Yet here you are suggesting that Muslims after the death of Mohd suddenly decided Mecca was the Kabba and pilgrimage should be performed and not a soul objected to this. Do you think this is even vaguely believeable scenario. Or perhaps you have some historical evidence of which at present i am ignorant of. Look forward to your replyregards
-
Peace SL,
Surely you cannot draw comparison between the two. Jesus son of God is based on the language confusion of the word father & Historically many Christians have never accepted this interpertation and one can challange this belief when Holy trinity/Ghost/spirit concept was adopted.
However Kabba/Mecca your interpertation is a completely new concept (at least as far as I am aware)....For what you are suggesting is that a massive corruption in Islam occured (as I have stated before it must have occured post Mohd's death).Similarly Kabba/Mecca is based on similar language confusion of those words. People who advocate them don't know their meaning and thus are unable to translate them. All Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god. The primary difference between the various Christian sects is whether Jesus is a human son of god (Nestorians), a divine son of god (Monophysites) or a mixture of both (Trinitarians).
Islam is relatively young religion and one can trace back various issues and their different persepctives.
Yet here you are suggesting that Muslims after the death of Mohd suddenly decided Mecca was the Kabba and pilgrimage should be performed and not a soul objected to this. Do you think this is even vaguely believeable scenario. Or perhaps you have some historical evidence of which at present i am ignorant of. Look forward to your replyThere is plenty of historical evidence. For example, see
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/science/language.htm
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htmPeace,
Ayman
-
Peace SL,
Some additional historical evidence as per Ayman's research is at the following link
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10259.0