Who built the kaaba that is in Mecca?
-
AOA
Alas, you thought that the messenger and the believers would not return to their families, and this was deemed pleasant in your hearts, and you thought the worst thoughts; you were a wicked people.
4813 Anyone who does not believe in God and His messenger, then We have prepared for the rejecters a Hellfire.
4814 And to God is the sovereignty of the heavens and the Earth. He forgives whomever He wills, and punishes whomever He wills. God is Forgiver, Merciful.
4815 Those who lagged behind will say, when you venture out to collect the spoils "Let us follow you!" They want to change God's words. Say "You will not follow us; this is what God has decreed beforehand." They will then say "No, you are envious of us." Alas, they rarely understood anything.
4816 Say to those Nomads who lagged behind "You will be called on to fight a people who are very powerful in warfare, unless they surrender. Then if you obey, God will grant you a good reward, but if you turn away as you turned away before, He will punish you with a painful retribution."
4817 There is no burden on the blind, nor is there any burden on the cripple, nor is there on the sick any burden. And whosoever obeys God and His messenger, He will admit them into paradises with rivers flowing beneath; and whosoever turns away, He will punish him with a painful retribution.
4818 God is pleased with the believers who pledged allegiance to you under the tree. He thus knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility upon them, and rewarded them with a near victory.
4819 And abundant spoils that they will take. God is Noble, Wise.
4820 God has promised you abundant spoils that you will take. Thus He has hastened this for you, and He has withheld the people's hands against you; that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a straight path.
4821 And the other group which you could not vanquish, God took care of them. And God was capable of all things.
4822 And if the rejecters had fought you, they would have turned and ran, then they would have found neither an ally nor a victor.
4823 Such is God's way with those who have passed away before, and you will not find any change in God's way.
4824 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.
4825 They are the ones who rejected and barred you from the Restricted Temple, and barred your donations from reaching their destination. And there had been believing men and women whom you did not know, and you may have hurt them, and on whose account you would have committed a sin unknowingly. God will admit into His mercy whomever He wills. Had they become separated, We would then have punished those of them who rejected with a painful retribution.The preceding and afterr verses, to me it appears that Mecca here is referring to Mecca.
AOA samia
The rediculous is to put a meaning and a usage that does not exist, just to make it fit with a preconception
I am sorry I did not put any meaning to the word Mecca, I thought you and the others did. I actually left it as Mecca i.e the Quran here is referring to a place known as Mecca and it is interesting that the founders of this new sect (who do not believe Mohd and Mecca have any connection) happily translated Mecca = Mecca. However as it now does not quite fit in with their new found faith it has suddenly acquired a meaninig rather than being a place.
AOA Elke.
I am sure because it is the truth. It is written in the Quran as Mecca & every one for over 1400yrs has accepted it as such, even by those who have just discovered that their whole wishy washy theories go of in a puff of smoke if they now accept Mecca as being Mecca.
regards -
AOA samia
I am sorry I did not put any meaning to the word Mecca, I thought you and the others did. I actually left it as Mecca i.e the Quran here is referring to a place known as Mecca and it is interesting that the founders of this new sect (who do not believe Mohd and Mecca have any connection) happily translated Mecca = Mecca. However as it now does not quite fit in with their new found faith it has suddenly acquired a meaninig rather than being a place.
Salaam SL
I think you did not get what I was talking about. If we are not sure of the meaning of a word, we should, from the context, understand what it is in general. If the context is " you are before X or confronting X or amidst X", X is definitely not a town. If we want to force X to be a town, we can then manpiulate the context and claim that "before, confront, amidst" actually mean (in the interior of), then we can falsely classify Mecca as a town. Fortunately we have the original in a labguage is still alive, and the word "ba6n" still in usage. No one writes "biba6n Cairo), for example, and claims that he is writing Arabic to mean (in the interior of Cairo).
What does (in the interior of Mecca) mean anyway? If this is bad English, it is also bad Arabic. Why not just (in Mecca)?
-
Peace all,
Thank you brother Zeljko for the explanation.
In Arabic language, proper names are not capitalized. So how can one differentiate a common noun from a proper name ? If the meaning of the word fits in the context, then it cannot be a proper name.
Any word whose meaning makes sense in the context MUST be understood as a common noun. On the other hand, proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the truth about what is being described. For example, when talking about the administrator of this website, Layth is a proper name. However, if I say ""lyth" is the king of the jungle and he preys on weaker animals" then this is most likely a common noun meaning "lion".
The common NOUN meaning of "makka" as "destruction/wearing down/insistence on the adversary" fits perfectly in the context of 4824. Hence it cannot be a proper name. The pagan hypocrites hijacked this common noun from al-qur'aan and renamed one of their towns containing their pagan shrine to match this common noun some time after the death of the Prophet. The fact that the common noun "makka" fits in the passage in al-qur'aan is enough proof that present day Mecca is a fraud.
Does this apply to the reference to Muhammad in the Torah?
Specifically
In the song of songs, chapter 5,Verse 16,we read
...
Which means ? His speech is the most pleasant. He is the Great Muhammad, this is my beloved, and this my friend.? -
AOA Samia
I am sure you have an excellent grasp of Arabic grammar etc, Just curious why the obvious grammatic error has escaped all previous translators.
What does (in the interior of Mecca) mean anyway? If this is bad English, it is also bad Arabic. Why not just (in Mecca)?
Interior of Mecca to me means inside of Mecca. Interior of Destruction does that make more sense than Interior of Mecca.
Anyhow Samia if you feel that Mecca never existed and that the entire Muslim history is a myth then that is your progative.
regards -
AOA Samia
I am sure you have an excellent grasp of Arabic grammar etc, Just curious why the obvious grammatic error has escaped all previous translators.
Interior of Mecca to me means inside of Mecca. Interior of Destruction does that make more sense than Interior of Mecca.
Anyhow Samia if you feel that Mecca never existed and that the entire Muslim history is a myth then that is your progative.
regardsSalaam SL
Is my English that bad you do not understand me? I am contesting the translation of bi-ba6ni makka, because BI-BA6N DOES NOT MEAN INTERIOR OF. And it is not grammar. It is semantics; that's why I asked you to use a dictionary.
You ask me how such error escaped all scholars? How do you know it did not escape others? Even today, do you think I can correct this, publish it and get away with it? Look at the many thinkers (just in Egypt, in the 20th century untill now) who have been declared kafirs, or even murdered, for much more trivial things. Fear is, and was used to silence people. If not for the internet, I swear many of those who are reading this thread would never have heard of many mistakes and errors in the interpretation of the qur'aan. Other than fear, following blindly, which is, unfortunately, a characteristics of people ruled by tyranny and oppression. And the mother of factors is ignorance.
Take a simple case of the interpretation of "nasakha" to mean "abrogate". If I hand a document to someone who believes inthis interpretation and ask him/her to (nasakha) this document, they will go copy it without hesitation. Yet, when a mulla tells them that it mearns abrogate, they will accept blindly. In spite of that, the scholar , Muslim, opposed categorically this interpretation. Have you heard of that? So, wrong understandings do not escape the intelligent ones. It is just the public are not informed.
Why, then, was the door of "ijtihad" closed for 1000 years if there were no scholars who do not accept everything and question everything?
-
Salaam SL
Is my English that bad you do not understand me? I am contesting the translation of bi-ba6ni makka, because BI-BA6N DOES NOT MEAN INTERIOR OF. And it is not grammar. It is semantics; that's why I asked you to use a dictionary.
You ask me how such error escaped all scholars? How do you know it did not escape others? Even today, do you think I can correct this, publish it and get away with it? Look at the many thinkers (just in Egypt, in the 20th century untill now) who have been declared kafirs, or even murdered, for much more trivial things. Fear is, and was used to silence people. If not for the internet, I swear many of those who are reading this thread would never have heard of many mistakes and errors in the interpretation of the qur'aan. Other than fear, following blindly, which is, unfortunately, a characteristics of people ruled by tyranny and oppression. And the mother of factors is ignorance.
Take a simple case of the interpretation of "nasakha" to mean "abrogate". If I hand a document to someone who believes inthis interpretation and ask him/her to (nasakha) this document, they will go copy it without hesitation. Yet, when a mulla tells them that it mearns abrogate, they will accept blindly. In spite of that, the scholar , Muslim, opposed categorically this interpretation. Have you heard of that? So, wrong understandings do not escape the intelligent ones. It is just the public are not informed.
Why, then, was the door of "ijtihad" closed for 1000 years if there were no scholars who do not accept everything and question everything?
Very true and enlightening indeed. I my self have learned a lots of new things about the quran from this forum. May God help us all.
Thanks
-
Peace all,
Those who love the filthy pagan idols will make any excuse to continue to worship them, even if it involves twisting and mistranslating the words of The God. For example, some translate "biba6n" as "in the interior of" when it CANNOT mean that as sister Samia has shown. In the context of 4824, "biba6ni makkat" clearly means IN THE MIDST OF DESTRUCTION/WEARING DOWN.
My previous post in which I also provided the translation of 4824 along with the Classical Arabic dictionary references for the meaning of "makka" has been conveniently ignored. I will post it again
In Arabic language, proper names are not capitalized. So how can one differentiate a common noun from a proper name ? If the meaning of the word fits in the context, then it cannot be a proper name.
Any word whose meaning makes sense in the context MUST be understood as a common noun. On the other hand, proper names are meaningless labels that don't reflect the truth about what is being described. For example, when talking about the administrator of this website, Layth is a proper name. However, if I say ""lyth" is the king of the jungle and he preys on weaker animals" then this is most likely a common noun meaning "lion".
The common NOUN meaning of "makka" as "destruction/wearing down/insistence on the adversary" fits perfectly in the context of 4824. Hence it cannot be a proper name. The pagan hypocrites hijacked this common noun from al-qur'aan and renamed one of their towns containing their pagan shrine to match this common noun some time after the death of the Prophet. The fact that the common noun "makka" fits in the passage in al-qur'aan is enough proof that present day Mecca is a fraud.
Following is the translation of 4824 using Classical Arabic dictionaries and the context of war to translate the word "makkat"
- And it is He who has restrained their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of destruction/wearing down after that He gave you the victory over them. And The God sees all that you do.
Please see the following for Classical Arabic dictionary refernces for the meaning of "makka"
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9281.0
The building named as Masjid Al-Aqsa is a similar example. It was built by the Umayyads at the end of the 7th century, many years after the death of the Prophet and hence even the staunchest of sectarians are forced to admit that it cannot be "al-masjid al-aqsa" mentioned in al-qur'aan.
From archeological evidence, we have many examples of approximate stone cubes whose height is larger than the other dimensions (like the so-called Kaaba) bearing the name Dhu Al-Shaara and not the alleged name Kaaba. This confirms that, like the other stone cubes found elsewhere, the black stone cube in what is presently called Mecca was named Dhu Al-Shaara and not Kaaba.
The name was changed from Dhu Al-Shaara to Kaaba to match the common noun "kaaba" (base) in al-qur'aan. This way, the pagan practice of spinning seven times could be resumed while pretending to be following al-qur'aan.
The fact is that we know from archeological evidence that the Nabataeans celebrated the festival of the birth of Dhu Al-Shaara. We have manuscripts of letters written by Epiphanius the bishop of Salamis, Cyprus in the 4th century AD describing cults with mother-gods such as the Egyptian, Greek, and Nabataean cults. It is interesting that he described the birth celebrations of Dhu Al-Shaara as culminating with circumambulation seven times around the inner sanctuary of the pagan temple. For example please see Langdon, S., Semitic Mythology, The Mythology of All Races, Vol. V. Boston Archaeological Institute of America, Marshall Jones Company, 1931.
Pagan is as pagan does.
-
Peace all,
Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian of 1st century BC who wrote Bibliotheca Historica, a book describing various parts of the discovered world. The following lines are the English translation of Greek quoted by Gibbon from the book of Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) describing the 'temple' considered to be the the holiest in the whole of Arabia.
And a temple has been set-up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians
It is interesting to know that Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, mathematician and astronomer, flourishing about a century after Pliny, undertook to make an atlas of the habitable world. He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps. He enumerated some hundred and fourteen cities or villages in Arabia Felix.
For example, Dumaetha, placed by Ptolemy just outside the northern boundary of Arabia Felix, must be the mediaeval Arabian Daumet, which is today the chief village of the great oasis of Jauf. Hejr, famous in the "times of ignorance" as the seat of a kingdom, and now Medayin Salih, is Ptolemy's Egra. His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC. It is the Tema of Job. In Lathrippa, placed inland from Iambia (Yambo), we recognize the Iathrippa of Stephan of Byzantium, the Yathrib of the early Arab traditions, now honoured as El Medina, the City of Cities.
G E von Grunebaum says
Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary
Besides these, Francis Peter Edwards has also mentioned in his writings the existense of Mecca as a holy place before Muhammad's time.
You have been proven wrong!
Similarly in the pre-islamic poetry there is also mention of the city.
Dr. Ahmed Shafaat in his article " Hajj; Piligrimage to Makkah" notes
- In ancient Arabic dialects the sounds "b" and "m" were interchangeable, so that Makkah was also sometimes called Bakkah. The Qur'an uses here the archaic Bakkah instead of the more usual Makkah in order to emphasize the very ancient character of the city.
The interpretation of the valley of Baca as a "the valley of weeping" makes sense because of the distress which Hagar(P) underwent when she was left with Ishmael(P) in the barren desert with no means of living.
The two interpretations of Baca, viz., "lack of stream" and "the valley of weeping" appears to fit in the context of pilgrimage to Bakkah, the older name of Makkah where the Ka'bah is situated. Ka'bah has been a place of reverence by all Arabians before the Christian era as we have seen earlier.
This has been refuted multiple times before but those who love their filthy pagan idols keep bringing up these dead horses over and over again. I have already posted links to refutations of all of the above in my earlier posts but they were conveniently ignored.
Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian of 1st century BC who wrote Bibliotheca Historica, a book describing various parts of the discovered world. The following lines are the English translation of Greek quoted by Gibbon from the book of Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily) describing the 'temple' considered to be the the holiest in the whole of Arabia.
And a temple has been set-up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians
Where is the mention of Mecca or Kaaba in the above ? There is no confirmation of any location above.
As everyone can see Diodorus Siculus's statement does NOT mention Kaaba or Mecca and the temple he is talking about could be any of the very well documented pre-quranic temples found in Arabia in famous pre-quranic towns such as Hegra and Teima.
He gives its location as somewhere between the THAMUDITES AND THE SABEANS. Unlike unheard of Mecca, this region has archeological evidence of magnificent temples that were likely revered by all Arabians. This would include places like Hegra and Teima that WE KNOW had famous temples as well as several hundred other possible places.
The indisputable fact still remains that Diodorus never mentioned a structure called Kaaba or a town named Mecca and neither did anyone else from pre-quranic times. We only start hearing about them in the 8th century CE, long after the revelation of al-qur'aan.
There are other writings from Diodorus and others from that era such as Nonnosus, Photius and Strabo that point to the temple being in Hegra or its vicinity along the northwest coast of Arabia, not even close to present day Mecca.
It is interesting to know that Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, mathematician and astronomer, flourishing about a century after Pliny, undertook to make an atlas of the habitable world. He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps. He enumerated some hundred and fourteen cities or villages in Arabia Felix.
For example, Dumaetha, placed by Ptolemy just outside the northern boundary of Arabia Felix, must be the mediaeval Arabian Daumet, which is today the chief village of the great oasis of Jauf. Hejr, famous in the "times of ignorance" as the seat of a kingdom, and now Medayin Salih, is Ptolemy's Egra. His Thaim is Teima, now known for its inscriptions to have had temples and some sort of civilization as far back as 500 BC. It is the Tema of Job. In Lathrippa, placed inland from Iambia (Yambo), we recognize the Iathrippa of Stephan of Byzantium, the Yathrib of the early Arab traditions, now honoured as El Medina, the City of Cities.
G E von Grunebaum says
Mecca is mentioned by Ptolemy, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary
The above is false and misleading. Mecca is NOT mentioned by Ptolemy; that is Grunebaum's opinion and not what Ptolemy himself is recorded to have said.
A place called Macoraba is mentioned by Ptolemy. The fact is that neither Ptolemy nor any pre-quranic source says anything about Mecca or about a sanctuary. Ptolemy doesn't attach any significance to the place that he referred to as Macoraba and doesn't point to it being in the location of present day Mecca.
From the available evidence, we know that Macoraba was somewhere in Arabia other than the location of present day Mecca. The classical geographers who described the area of present day Mecca said that the area was uninhabited. In fact, Ptolemy places Macoraba at approximately 73 East longitude. In terms of latitude, Ptolemy places it south of Carna in Southern Arabia. Present day Mecca on the other hand is West of Yathrib and North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy himself, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca and it was somewhere in Southern Arabia hundreds of miles away to the southeast of Mecca. A likely candidate is a port city called Mochorba on the Hadramawt shore in South Arabia that was described by other geographers (Pliny). Moreover, there is no evidence that the location of present day Mecca fell on any trade route.
Geographically, notice how the most crucial information is eliminated in Mecca's obstinate defender apologetic thesis. He mentions Iathrippa and then Macoraba but deliberately neglects to mention that Ptolemy identified five more towns beween Iathrippa and Macoraba (he was going from north to south)
"Iathrippa 71 40 East 23 20 North
**
Macoraba 73 20 East 22 North"The reason why those defending their emotional attachment to the stone idols in Mecca don't tell us about those "5 more names" is that it exposes their falsehood. Ptolemy described Macoraba, not as the next city south of Iathrippa, but the sixth city to the south. The first of those names is the city of Carna in Southern Arabia. So while Macoraba is the sixth city to the south, the city of Carna is the first city to the south of Iathrippa. Thus, Ptolemy places Macoraba south of Carna. Present day Mecca on the other hand is North of Carna. So according to Ptolemy's work, it is impossible for Macoraba to be present day Mecca.
If one examines the closeness of the words "Macoraba" and "Mecca, Makka" or whatever, then the English comparison is completely useless. In order to compare in terms of closeness, we need to examine the words as they would have been originally written in Arabic. When we do this, we see that in Arabic the Kaf, Raa, and Baa are in fact the strong consonants that form the root. On the other hand, the Mim and presumably a final Taa Marbuta would have been weak letters that are added to the root. So the root would be KRB and this is completely different from the root MKK from which the town name Makka is derived. So linguistically there is no basis for this conjecture either.
Besides these, Francis Peter Edwards has also mentioned in his writings the existense of Mecca as a holy place before Muhammad's time.
This is pathetic. Firstly, the name is wrong; it is Francis Edwards Peters. Secondly, F. E. Peters is a professor at New York University in the present age. How can the opinion of a contemporary professor be taken as proof of existence of Mecca BEFORE Muhammad's time ? What are the references of his current day allegations of existence of Mecca BEFORE Muhammad's time ?
Similarly in the pre-islamic poetry there is also mention of the city.
The so called "pre-islamic poetry" has been proven to be a post-qur'aanic invention. There is ZERO evidence of the existence of Mecca in pre-qur'aanic times.
I already gave the links to discussions proving that the alleged "pre-islamic poetry" is nothing but a post qur'aanic invention, which have been conveniently ignored. I will post them again
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=8182.0
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9527.0
- In ancient Arabic dialects the sounds "b" and "m" were interchangeable, so that Makkah was also sometimes called Bakkah. The Qur'an uses here the archaic Bakkah instead of the more usual Makkah in order to emphasize the very ancient character of the city.
So everywhere there is a "b" sound in al-qur'aan it is actually an "m" sound ? What lows are the people going to fall to justify worshipping their beloved stone idols ? The above is completely false and is just the wishful thinking of those who want to justify their dogmatic beliefs and their pagan practices from al-qur'aan.
If they were the proper names of places (which they are not per the context of usage), then why did The God use separate names to talk about the same place ? Why did He not use the same name everywhere ? This does not make any sense whatsoever. The God does not play games with believers and He does not make typos !
It would have been much easier for the pagan hypocrites to rename their beloved town, containing their beloved pagan shrine, Bakkah instead of Mecca/Makkah. The fact that they were not able to do so indicates that "bakka" was already known to be somewhere else. Hence, they had to pick up a common noun "makka" from al-qur'aan to name the location of their pagan shrine after. This allowed them to deceive people into thinking that the location is supported by al-qur'aan.
The interpretation of the valley of Baca as a "the valley of weeping" makes sense because of the distress which Hagar(P) underwent when she was left with Ishmael(P) in the barren desert with no means of living.
The two interpretations of Baca, viz., "lack of stream" and "the valley of weeping" appears to fit in the context of pilgrimage to Bakkah, the older name of Makkah where the Ka'bah is situated. Ka'bah has been a place of reverence by all Arabians before the Christian era as we have seen earlier.
There is ZERO evidence of existence of Mecca or the so called Kaaba during revelation of al-qur'aan. Mecca was NEVER known as Becca; this is just wishful thinking of those who venerate the black cuboid idol in Mecca. None of the people of the book says that Becca is Mecca.
I already provided the meanings of "BKK" from Lane Lexicon in an earlier post which show that it cannot be interpreted as "lack of stream" or "valley of weeping" in the Arabic language. Those meanings have been conveniently ignored and I will post them again.
Following are the meanings of "BKK" from Lane Lexicon
= Ba-Kaf-Kaf (e.g. bakka) = pounding or crushing (al-&unuqa (on) the neck) (daqqul-&unuqa), distinguishing/ranking above others (farraqahu, kharaqahu), jostling, pressing or crowding(crowdszahm), any crowding(or crowds), competition. (izdihaam) heaping/piling together/amassing (taraakib), super-imposition of things on top of other things (taraakim), a man/male having or the trying to have sex with a female, denial or rejection a thing or person's dignity, to humiliate, cancellation/dissolution/breaking, being in need or being stout, muscular or rough, from activity.
bakkah n. 396
As clear from al-qur'aan, following are the criteria for the house
- First and foremost it is anywhere the people who administer it do not setup any partners with The God (2226).
- In this location, the people who administer it invite ALL PEOPLE to the "hajj" (2227), not just people from a certain religion.
- They purify it from all forms of idolatry (2226).
- The house is not just a place of assembly but it is a SAFE place of assembly (2125).
How can "bakka" imply Mecca when the so called Kaaba in Mecca does not meet ANY requirements/criteria of "albayt alharaam" laid out in al-qur'aan ?
The word "bakka" as used in 396 is a common noun because its meanings of "ranking above the rest"/"crowding"/"competition" fit perfectly in the context of the sign. The feminine form because of taa marbuta at the end of "bakka(t)" stresses its meanings, for example "much crowding" and "much competition".
Thus 396 would be translated as
396 Truly the best/foremost house placed/established for people is "in a ranking above the rest"/"with much crowding"/"with much competition"/"bibakkata"; blessed and a guidance for the worlds.
ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A TOWN NAMED MECCA BEFORE 8TH CENTURY CE.
The following is an example of an inscription that mentions several towns and valleys in Central Arabia
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm
The inscription commemorates the expedition of Abraha into Central Arabia.
Towns such as Turban (present day Al-Turaba about 100 Kilometers east of present day Mecca) and Halban which is further away northeast of present day Mecca are mentioned. Valleys in Central Arabia such as Zu Markh and Manha are also mentioned. Ironically, Mecca which was supposed to be Abraha's destination is not mentioned at all or even alluded to. In fact, if you trace a line connecting the locations mentioned by the inscription, you can see that Abraha took a northeasterly direction that totally bypasses present day Mecca as if it wasn't there.
As a side note, the date mentioned in the Abraha inscription converts to 552AD, which is approximately 20 years prior to the traditional birth date given to Prophet Muhammad. Other traditions claim that the Prophet was born in the year of Abraha expedition. So either the date of birth and hence when the Prophet lived are wrong, or the storytellers were trying to add drama to the story of the birth of the Prophet, or both.
Even in post-quranic times we hear detailed listing of the towns of the Arabs but nothing about this Mecca. For example, here is what a Chronicler of Khuzistan wrote circa 660 CE
"Hasor, which scripture calls "head of the kingdoms" (Joshua xi. 10), belongs to the Arabs, while Medina is named after Midian, Abraham's fourth son by Qetura; it is also called Yathrib. And Dumat Jandal , and the territory of the Hagaraye, which is rich in water, palm trees and fortified buildings. The territory of Hatta, situated by the sea in the vicinity of the islands of Qatar, is rich in the same way; it is also thickly vegetated with various kinds of plants. The region of Mazon also resembles it; it too lies by the sea and comprises an area of more than 100 parasangs. So too the territory of Yamama, in the middle of the desert, and the territory of Tawf, and the city of Hira, which was the seat of king Mundar, surnamed the "warrior;" he was sixth in the line of the Ishmaelite kings."
What is interesting here is that the final words of the author demonstrate that he viewed the post-quranic Arab kings ruling in his day to be a continuation of pre-quranic Lakhmid rule. The Lakhmid capital was the city of Hira in present day southwest Iraq.
We do not hear any reference to Mecca until the mid 8th century CE. The earliest reference is in Continuatio Byzantia Arabica after 740CE.
Mecca is certainly not on the natural overland trade routes; it is a barren valley requiring a one hundred mile detour. Moreover, there was only maritime Graeco-Roman trade with India after the first century, controlled by the Ethiopian Red Sea port Adulis, not by the Arabs.
No one has been able to provide any reference to a town called Mecca prior to the mid 8th century CE. Had there been any reference to Mecca earlier than that, sectarians would have been boasting about it by now.
All the evidence points to the shrine in Mecca being dedicated to the Nabataean pagan idol Dhu Al-Shaara, which according to the best evidence available was the sun. A "pre-quranic" Greek manuscript describes Dhu Al-Shaara as the child of a mother goddess (Allat). There is also evidence that Dhu Al-Shaara was the sun-god of the Nabataeans. From archeological evidence, we have many examples of approximate stone cubes whose height is larger than the other dimensions (like the so-called Kaaba) bearing the name Dhu Al-Shaara and not the alleged name Kaaba. This confirms that, like the other stone cubes found elsewhere, the black stone cube in what is presently called Makka(t) was named Dhu Al-Shaara and not Kaaba.
The name was changed from Dhu Al-Shaara to Kaaba to match the common noun "kaaba" (base) in al-qur'aan. This way, the pagan practice of spinning seven times could be resumed while pretending to be following al-qur'aan.
The focal point of the shrine of Kaaba is the black stone, which is located in the southeast corner precisely facing the winter sunrise. This stone representing the crown of the newborn god is located in a dilated vulva shaped enclosure symbolising the birth of the sun-god. From archeological evidence, we know that the Nabataean represented their idols with stone cubes exactly like the one in present day Mecca. They celebrated the birth of Dhu Al-Shaara on the winter solstice (the shortest day of the year when the sun is reborn). Those celebrations culminated with the pagans spinning SEVEN times around the inner sanctuary of the Temple.
How could this filthy pagan shrine be the one referred to in al-qur'aan and where the Prophet supposedly performed hajj ? How can these pagan practices be sanctioned by The God ? The location of the house is given in al-qur'aan clearly as where no partners are set up with The God (2226).
The original "hajj" during the Prophet's time could have been at Jerusalem or its vicinity, but al-qur'aan does not give any proper name locations for "hajj"; rather it gives us GENERAL CONCEPTS using which a "bayt" can be established for the purpose of "hajj" at any place which fulfills the criteria given by al-qur'aan as shown above.
If all pagan idols including the black cuboidal idol, the black stone in a dilated vulva shaped enclosure, the foot print idol etc. are destroyed and all pagan rituals including mindlessly spinning seven times around the black cuboid idol and kissing the black stone etc. are abolished in Mecca and if Mecca or any other place in the future satisfies the requirements of "albayt alharaam" as laid down in al-qur'aan, then I have no problem going there for hajj.
-
peace rajah,
Agentxxx
Quote
As you can see the YOU in 2846 and the HE in 2847 is not Moses but Mohammad.And the words ?you were not there? is to indicate that the prophet was informed of the past events by Wahi.
rajah-So? What did I wrote?
???? Do you get the impression this refutes what you wrote?
do you even read the post before responding?
Just chill
rajah Therefore Quran correctly says "So you can warn a people who received no warner before you" (to tell them the story of Moses).
agent-According to your interpretation Warning is just telling the story of Moses
rajah-This quote of yours further assures you did not read my post,
Wrong.
rajah-or you did not understand it.
You may be right on this one.. )
rajah-You are just trying to put words in my mouth
Wrong again ;D
First Abraham was not assigned directly for Meccans, second he was before Moses therefore he had no chance to warn Arabs regarding MOSES STORY.
THE STORY OF MOSES AND PHAROH is being explained to the Arabs/Meccans through Muhammad so they may get lessons from this story.
Between time of Ismail and Muhammad no prophet was assigned to these people WHO could tell THE STORY OF MOSES to warn these people.
Muhammad is telling the STORY OF MOSES, Moses was not assigned for these people directly, niether was anyone else between the times of Moses and Muhammad assigned as a warner to these people directly, Muhammad was THE FIRST ONE assigned as A WARNER to THESE PEOPLE who could tell them the story of Moses.
Therefore Quran correctly says "So you can warn a people who received no warner before you" (to tell them the story of Moses).
Rajah-But in this particular Surah Allah is telling the story of Moses through Muhammad to the Meccans, therefore Warning in this particular verse is regarding MOSES and To Meccans.
What I understand from your comments is that,
Mohammed was the first WARNER to these people
He is warning the people by narrating the story of Moses.According to you this verse refers to Muhammad as the first Warner because he was the first to tell these people about the story of MOSES??my understanding according to this verse is that HE WAS THE FIRST WARNER FOR THESE PEOPLE and the logic behind the narration of the story of Moses is to convince the people that he is A WARNER assigned by GOD who knows about the past events through WAHI from his lord, beside the lessons they could learn from this story.
- And you were not on this side of the mountain when We called, but a mercy from your Lord that you may WARN a people TO WHOM NO WARNER CAME BEFORE YOU, that they may be mindful.
A Warner can narrate any story/event to warn the people and the above verse doesn?t say "to whom no Warner came before to tell the story of Moses".
According to the above verse, the story of Moses has nothing to do with his being the first Warner to these people.
Rajah-Abraham rebuilt/rennovated the Kaaba that is in Mecca as ordered by Allah, and was inviting the People of Allah to the house of Allah.
Agent-For what? did god just ordered him to rebuilt and then get out of there for good, never to return again.
rajah- For pilgrimage; and Abraham assinged his Son there and left because he was assigned somewhere else.
For pilgrimage? none of his close family member/decedents i.e. LUT, ISHAQ, YAQOOB, YOUSAF came to Mecca for pilgrimage?
I find it difficult to understand that no messenger for about 2400 years ever tried to come to Mecca to visit the house of lord that was built by Ibrahim?
Ismail lived in the wilderness of Paran, where he became an expert in archery. His mother married him to an Egyptian woman. According to the Bible, Ishmael had 12 sons who became twelve tribal chiefs. The twelve sons of Ishmael, were named Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah
Ishmael's sons settled everywhere from Havilah to Shur, i.e. from Assyria to the border of Egypt.
please tell me where is ismail burried?Also read this by AhmadBahgat
Quote
Also mate, Ibrahim was never caled Rasool in the Quran, he was only called Nabi as far as I remember, i.e. Ibrahim was never sent to any people with a message from God, He was only a Nabi, i.e. He was to tell the people (no specific people) around him about God and the JD, no laws to followPlease tell me
He told people to worship one God and not to commit shirk, IS IT NOT WARNING?If people are not told ?what is right or wrong? then there is no logic in telling them about the JD.
peace
-
Peace all,
I had already refuted AB in the past about this by showing him clear proof from al-qur'aan, but as everyone can see, he persists in his attempts to propagate falsehood to others and this can only be considered deliberate deception because I had already informed him in the past about what al-qur'aan says about this issue.
Here is the previous post where I refuted him on Jan 18, 2007
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.msg112514#msg112514
I will repost for everyone's benefit
Prophets can also be messengers (7157, 7158, 961, 1951, 1954, 3340, 3353) but all messengers are not prophets.
Prophets are warners
2213 The people used to be one nation, then God sent the prophets as bearers of good news and warners, and He sent down with them the Scripture with the facts so that they may judge between the people in what they were disputing. But after receiving the clarity, the people disputed in it due to animosity between them. And God guided those who believed with His permission regarding what they disputed in of the truth. And God guides whoever He wishes to a straight path.
3345 O prophet, We have sent you as a witness, and a bearer of good news, and a warner.
2119 7184 7188 112 1112 137 1589 17105 2249 251 2556 2792 2950 3428 3446 3523 3524 384 3865 3870 469 488 502 5150 5151 6726
Messengers are warners
4165 Messengers who were bearers of good news and warners, so that there will be no excuse for the people with God after the messengers. God is Noble, Wise.
648 And We do not send the messengers except as bearers of good news and warners; whoever believes, and does good, then there is no fear for them nor will they grieve.519 1125 1856 257 469 712
Qur'aan is a warner
411 H.M.
412 A revelation from the Almighty, the Merciful.
413 A Scripture whose verses are detailed, a compilation in Arabic for a people who know.
414 A bearer of good news, and a warner. But most of them turn away; they do not hear.Thus "warner" in the context of the following verses would apply to prophets, messengers, and scriptures and it follows that neither a prophet nor a messenger nor any scripture was sent before Muhammad to the people he was sent to
2846 And nor were you on the side of the mount when We called. But it is a mercy from your Lord, so that you may warn a people who received no warner before you, perhaps they may take heed.
323 Or do they Say "He fabricated it!" No, it is the truth from your Lord, so that you may warn a people who never received a warner before you, in order that they may be guided.
3444 We had not given to them any Scriptures to study, nor did We send to them before you any warner.Now coming to the deliberate deception of AB, this is what he said on Jan 17, 2007
You have to know that Ibrahim was only a Nabi, I can?t recall that he was ever called Rasool in the Quran, therefore Ibrahim was not really sent to any humans as a messenger from God
And this is what he said recently on this thread
Also mate, Ibrahim was never caled Rasool in the Quran, he was only called Nabi as far as I remember, i.e. Ibrahim was never sent to any people with a message from God, He was only a Nabi, i.e. He was to tell the people (no specific people) around him about God and the JD, no laws to follow
EVEN THOUGH I HAD CLEARLY PROVEN TO HIM FROM THE QUR'AAN IN JAN, 2007 THAT ABRAHAM WAS CALLED A MESSENGER
970 Did the news not come to them of those before them, the people of Noah and 'Aad and Thamud. And the people of Abraham, and the dwellers of Median, and those overthrown. Their messengers came to them with clarity; it was not God who wronged them, but it was themselves that they wronged.
This verse clearly shows that Abraham was also a messenger !!
Actually, the usage of the phrase "those before them" refers to ALL PEOPLE before them and thus automatically according to 970, ALL PROPHETS that have been sent in the past were MESSENGERS also according to al-qur'aan.
29 They seek to deceive God and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves without noticing.
-
Peace all,
There are many assumptions that people make and it is about time that such flimsy assumptions are challenged.
Mohds life and his return to Mecca is historically documented by both Muslims and non Muslims alike.
The earliest historical accounts are those of Ibn Hisham (died 834 CE) and Tabari (died 923 CE). Supposedly, Ibn Hisham copied from a mysterious charcter by the name of Ibn Is7aq but we don't have any copy of this supposed biography and many researchers doubt whether Ibn Is7aq even existed. Ibn Hisham and Tabari are the EARLIEST, BEST and ONLY sources that so-called Islamic history has to offer. Stilllearning, do you really want us to idolize a cube and a black stone in flagrant violation of the most important and basic tenets of the god's book based on this!!!?????
As for non-Islamic sources, they paint a different picture. They don't even speak of any entity called Muslims. The Romans speak of being invaded by an alliance of Jews and an entity called Muhagareye. They also speak of pagans continuing to flourish amongst the midst of the new invaders. I advise you to read Holyand's book, Seeing Islam as Others Saw it.
Peace,
Ayman
-
OPF - are you seriously quoting such a biased source for whether the so called torah contains a reference to muhammad? people who translate the quran poorly are sure to translate the torah poorly, as is shown by the reference you cited.
i wish i could remember where i saw a similar reply by a rabbi about if they had actually chosen to translate the same word as muhammad in all occurrences and not just the ones that benefit them
anything that quotes the so called gospel of barnabas as a source is sketchy enough... the gospel of barnabas is a mediaeval forgery
stillearning - you know when someone offers you an alternate translation of a particular word you can't just stick it in the middle of the current translation and use this method to discredit it... you have to go through and retranslate the whole thing with this alternative in mind
you'll be pleased to know that although i have never had dental surgery i have had my nose broken - so i am just as stubborn in real life, it's not an internet persona )
anyways do what you like, i'm sure the brick appreciates your efforts )
-
Tanveer
If all pagan idols including the black cuboidal idol, the black stone in a dilated vulva shaped enclosure, the foot print idol etc. are destroyed and all pagan rituals including mindlessly spinning seven times around the black cuboid idol and kissing the black stone etc. are abolished in Mecca and if Mecca or any other place in the future satisfies the requirements of "albayt alharaam" as laid down in al-qur'aan, then I have no problem going there for hajj.
Surely you will go for Hajj one day and that will be Kaaba in Mecca, as soon you will realize that KAABA is the place in Mecca for HAjj, it was Corrupted at the times of Abraham, and Abraham purified it, It was Corrupted during times of Muhammad and Muhammad purified it by bringing down all the idols, and it is corrupted now by the present Administrators and we have to purify it YES! but that does not mean we start making our own KAABA, which is not visible since last 1400 years and neither do you have any clue for it.
As clear from al-qur'aan, following are the criteria for the house
-
First and foremost it is anywhere the people who administer it do not setup any partners with The God (2226).
-
In this location, the people who administer it invite ALL PEOPLE to the "hajj" (2227), not just people from a certain religion.
-
They purify it from all forms of idolatry (2226).
-
The house is not just a place of assembly but it is a SAFE place of assembly (2125).
-
First of all I don't think so that present administrators are setting up any partners with Allah; and even if they do (that is only if you can provide any solid evidence for it), that is what they are doing and our duty is to convey them the true message of Quran, but changing of KAABA and trying to find a new one just because administrators are doing any thing wrong is not justified at all.
-
Again that is a mistake by the present administartion and what effect does it make on KAABA being the House.
-
They should and if they are not doing the Job properly they are responsible for the consequences and we have to inform the people about it, but this again doesnot allows us to call all the historical and geographical, literary evidences just as hearsay.
a) Kissing of stone A hadith tells us ; when asked by a fellow Umar replied I only kiss the Stone because Muhammad kissed it and Allah did not asked to do it.
Those who believe in Hadith even after reading this HAdith kiss the stone, we should give them awareness rather calling them Idol lovers and MUSHRIKS etc.
b) Foot print If there is any foot print why does it bother you, no one is kissing it, no one is worshipping it, they are just praying two Rakats behind that place known as station of Ibraheem.
c) Cuboidal building So what kind of House do you need? a Square a rectangle or a circle? it is the way it was built and has been rennovated again and again, it has to be of some shape, why your anger is at cuboid?
d) Spinning seven timesTHis is pre-islamic practice carried out by people and if Quran does not mention it no need for it.
- I don't see any body fighting over there.
Ayman
Stilllearning, do you really want us to idolize a cube and a black stone in flagrant violation of the most important and basic tenets of the god's book based on this!!!?
No! and niether are we idolizing any cube or black stones, if some do, we should educate them rather calling them Hippocrites, or idol worshippers and nor shall we try to built our own BaytAllah and in trying to prove it rejecting all other historical evidences.
-
-
OPF - are you seriously quoting such a biased source for whether the so called torah contains a reference to muhammad? people who translate the quran poorly are sure to translate the torah poorly, as is shown by the reference you cited.
i wish i could remember where i saw a similar reply by a rabbi about if they had actually chosen to translate the same word as muhammad in all occurrences and not just the ones that benefit them
anything that quotes the so called gospel of barnabas as a source is sketchy enough... the gospel of barnabas is a mediaeval forgery
stillearning - you know when someone offers you an alternate translation of a particular word you can't just stick it in the middle of the current translation and use this method to discredit it... you have to go through and retranslate the whole thing with this alternative in mind
you'll be pleased to know that although i have never had dental surgery i have had my nose broken - so i am just as stubborn in real life, it's not an internet persona )
anyways do what you like, i'm sure the brick appreciates your efforts )
Actually, it was an example of a common noun taking precedence over a proper noun, so I thought it would fit for comparison. Nothing more...
-
Peace
History is written by the Victors...
After the death of Uthman, the early Muslims and the family of Mohammed (pubh) were massacred.
So the historical evidence we have were written under the patronage of the Umayyad and Abassid dynasties. These were dynasties more interested in power than in accuracy...
I can only accept archaeological and anthropological evidence. Even writings during the days of the Prophet can also be accepted if dating is precise enough.
Unfortunately we have none of the above.
What we have is The Quran, which speaks for Itself.
There is something that is lacking within most of the Muslim groups and tendencies, and that is the honesty and humbleness of the possibility of being wrong... Discussing and criticizing is not blasphemy, on the contrary this is healthy and allowed...
In fact I have come to believe that Allah's interventions have become even more apparent in this day and age than at the time of the Prophet... You just need to fine tune your senses and be open... This is food for thought for you and I can elaborate on this...
God bless
Noble -
Elaborate indeed.
-
What I understand from your comments is that,
Mohammed was the first WARNER to these people
He is warning the people by narrating the story of Moses.YES
Muhammad was first warner to the people of Meccans, who could narrate the story of Moses, otherwise Ismail and Shoib were also assigned to these people or nearby people, but they could have not narrated the story of Moses to them because they were before Moses.According to you this verse refers to Muhammad as the first Warner because he was the first to tell these people about the story of MOSES?
Yes
?my understanding according to this verse is that HE WAS THE FIRST WARNER FOR THESE PEOPLE and the logic behind the narration of the story of Moses is to convince the people that he is A WARNER assigned by GOD who knows about the past events through WAHI from his lord, beside the lessons they could learn from this story.
YES
- And you were not on this side of the mountain when We called, but a mercy from your Lord that you may WARN a people TO WHOM NO WARNER CAME BEFORE YOU, that they may be mindful.
That is the way Allah talks to his prophet in many other verses as I pointed out.
A Warner can narrate any story/event to warn the people and the above verse doesn?t say "to whom no Warner came before to tell the story of Moses".
You have similar problem as of those who take it verse by verse, Just look at first three Ayats of this particular
Surah and it says the story of Moses is being told.
According to the above verse, the story of Moses has nothing to do with his being the first Warner to these people.
It is not a good way at all to take it verse by verse, read whole Surah and then the verses I pointed out.
For pilgrimage? none of his close family member/decedents i.e. LUT, ISHAQ, YAQOOB, YOUSAF came to Mecca for pilgrimage?
I find it difficult to understand that no messenger for about 2400 years ever tried to come to Mecca to visit the house of lord that was built by Ibrahim?
Strange? how did you came to know this, please provide me the Surah and Ayat number.
Please tell me
He told people to worship one God and not to commit shirk, IS IT NOT WARNING?No! it is an advice.
please tell me where is ismail burried?
Hijr Ismail. This was the location of the house of Prophet Ismael He and his mother are buried here