Who built the kaaba that is in Mecca?
-
Warner
Since you accept there are idol worshipping happening in modern day mecca can you name them.
Kissing of the Black stone! i have repeated this many times, you don't read a lot young boy!
After Abraham there were quite a number of Messengers were they not interested in correcting these idol worship or at least visit the place.
They were not bounded to, they had there Area of preaching, as did Lot had, as, Isaac had, and as Iamail Had, different Areas for preaching.
According to you hadeeth is well researched and has got scholars and masses approval and also got the approval from Britannica. For those who are blind and led astray by the shaitan they can not see or understand the book of Allah. They will defend their falsehood using Britannica or any source. And devil will help them and protect their sources and Allah will protect His message. I do not see the nonsense you propagate as studying a lot but as a waste of time. The viewers here give importance to research work than any tradition follower would ever.
Don't lie young boy, Allah doesnot like persons who lie! Show me where I said that "Hadeeth is well researched and has got Scholars and Masses approval" if you cannot show it to the forum then acknowldge you are a liar. peace
Get your temper under control, stop calling me Shaitan, and devil my helper. rotfl
So long then boy! I will be waiting you present the evidence for what you said! otherwise you will be on ignore.
-
Ayman
Based on the weakness of your current response, I doubt that you can answer the rest of my previous post that you left out.
Peace,
AymanLet us see where the weakness is. Before I start responding let me repost my last response to you on which you have not yet commented, because lots of posts have been in between them
ayman
Quote
Are you implying that the god is lying when he told us the location of the house in 2226?Allah told us the location very clearly, and surely it is not ANYWHERE.
If you want to close your eyes to it then it is up to you!Quote
Are you implying that the god neglected to tell us the name of the town in passages such as 902 and 953?Allah in the verse is talking to Muhammad; and Swears to the city in which Muhammad dwells, and Muhammad Lived in MEcca and therefore Allah tells us that the city where Muhammad lives is of importance.
The city is Makka, the sacred House of Allah which was the first temple ever to be erected on this earth as a place of peace where people put down their weapons and forget their quarrels. They meet inside in peace; each is sacred to all. Even the plants, the birds and all creatures that happen to be in this House enjoy full and complete security. It is the House built by Abraham, the father of Ishmail, who is the grandfather of all the Arabs and the Muslims.
The classical commentators give to the term balad the connotation of "city", and maintain that the phrase hadha 'l-balad ("this city" signifies Mecca, and that the pronoun "thou" in the second verse refers to Muhammad.Now only way you can take in other sense is hadha 'l-balad denote "this land of man", i.e., the earth Consequently, the "thou" in verse 2 relating to man in general, and that which is "called to witness" is his earthly environment.
Now this again is METAPHORICAL reading of Quran.AND I WILL NOT TAKE THIS EXPLANATION BY YOU, unless and until YOU draw a CLEAR CUT line between METPHORIC AND LITERAL QURAN, that's just too much, whenever you like the CULTIVATION becomes Physical and whenever you like haha 'i-balad becomes "this land of MAN" from "This CITY".
Before I continue let me clear some points
The Kaba or Kaaba (the black cube building in Saudi Arabia) is basically the symbolic point on earth (His House) that GOD Almighty Chose to have all of His True Believers meet Him through bowing down their faces in humility down to the ground before Him, The actual bricks and cement that make up the Kaaba are not holy.
While it is true that many ignorant and illiterate Muslims might incline toward idol worship and do consider the actual Kaaba as a very sacred thing to a point where they would go as far as rubbing their bodies against it to get "blessings", but these people are not representing the True picture of Islam. If a person worships the Kaaba itself, then he/she becomes an idol worshiperThe direction of the Kaaba unifies the Muslims as if they were ONE CLOSE COMMUNITY.
If every one starts making his own KAABA at every place then this will be situation may be only YOU brother ayman can enjoy.
Ayman
I think that the fact that the earliest evidence that you have for the pagan ritual that you call Hajj comes from a period that is over 400 years after the prophet's time speaks volumes. How come none of the people of the book did this ritual in the many thousands of years prior? In fact, the only time we hear about this ritual is from 4th century CE manuscripts where the people of the book describe pagan Nabataean rituals for the idol Allat.
The problem with you and your friends seems uncureable, YOU donot believe in History narrated by Muslims, Ok we have no problem with it, YOu donot believe in Encyclopedias, WOW but love to quote references from the writers who are in agreement with your theory, well infact I have'nt seen any considerable one yet.
(The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)
states
Only three cities of importance were to be found in Hejaz. These were Taif, Mecca and Medina. Taif enjoyed a picturesque and fertile location in the mountains and Medina (then known as Yathrib ) was in a Well-watered plain, but Mecca" stood in a barren, rocky valley. Despite the sterility and extreme heat of the place, Mecca enjoyed the possession of a famous well called Zamzam and an ancient sanctuary known as the Ka'bah, and was also where important commercial routes intersected.Homes of Old Makkah
Written by B?lent Uluengin and Nihal UluenginWith the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the pilgrimage, or hajj, took on an entirely new meaning, and the flow of pilgrims to Makkah expanded. Some pilgrims decided to settle permanently in the Holy City, building their houses in the valley surrounding the Ka?bah. The residential area of Makkah continued to grow, fueled by newcomers every year. Later immigrants built their houses on slopes and hilltops, due to a shortage of land in the valley and the problem of seasonal flooding, in those days, the height of buildings did not exceed two stories.
Edward Gibbon (Introduction by Christopher Dawson), Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Volume V, Everyman's Library, London, pp. 223-224.
..... of blind mythology of barbarians - of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination. Each tribe, each family, each independent warrier, created and changed the rites and the object of this fantastic worship; but the nation, in every age, has bowed to the religion as well as to the language of Mecca. The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad.
Mecca is mentioned by great Ptolemy way way before Muhammad, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.
He calls it Macoraba, this could have two meaningsMacoraba meaning Sanctuary and second
Maco for Makkah and raba for great
Thus Makkah the Great city; both can be taken as the meanings of Macoraba.Will they not then believe.
And you AYman have not given us a single reference regarding MAKKAH not existing before Muhammad's time, besides hearsay.
These are references which donot include many Islamic "Rawayats" because you and your friends are allergic to them.
Ayman you are commiting the same mistake your other friends are commiting, here we are deciding the location of House of Allah and rituals come in secondary, that is a seperate topic.
Ayman
Quote from Raj-ah on Yesterday at 051920 AM
A part of your post was responded in respnse to Warner's post. For the restNothing in your response to Warner addresses any of the points in my post.
Then read it again brother one more time. If still unable I will explain.
Quote from Raj-ah on Yesterday at 051920 AM
I have 7 translations Urdu/English before me of the Scholars who have been recognized, and none of them supports you.
If you translate it as "Uncultivated Valley" (so at those times lot of the land was uncultivated which was later cultivated) then there is no NEED to mention that Abraham settled part of his family in an uncultivated valley, near thy house, specifically in that verse, it is of no importance. The only importance comes in when we are talking about some thing distinict like settling in a valley that is uncultivable.There are also many vast areas all around the world that are uncultivable. The god decides what is important and what is not. I am sure that the god knew that you and I would be having this conversation. He gave us enough info to discredit your pagan shrine in Mecca but no info to find a specific location because the location is not important
.There you are bingo! Yes there are many vast areas all around the world that may be uncultivable BUT it is not just any where
Allah tells us that ABRAHAM and ISMAIL prayed "BRING UP A PROPHET AMONG THEMSELVES" the Prophet was an ARAB and "AMONG THEM" so THEY WERE ARABS, NATRUALLY that Uncultivable VAlley should be in ARAB.Ayman
The great reading was descended in Arabia.
Mecca is in Arabia.
So the great reading was descended in Mecca.This is the same like saying
All the people who spoke French lived in France.
Paris is in France.
So all the people who spoke French lived in ParisAyman; Your words donot seem to be coordinating with your mind
The great reading was descended in Arabia
Makkah is in Arabia
So the great reading descended in Makkah (Yes because according to Quran Abraham settled his family in an Uncultivable Valley, and best fitting the description of Uncultivable valley in Arabia is MAKKAH as proofs were provided).Ayman
Also, there are many locations in Arabia why select the city called Mecca?
Because it best fits the description of Uncultivable Valley.
Because from last fifteen hundred years it prospering and despite being a barren valley all the SAmarat of Allah are available there according to Abrahams prayer.
Because it is theonly place in the World where Muslims from the furthest places on different transports come for piligrimage as per prayers of Abraham.
Because it is the only place where according to Allah's order sacrifice of animals is done in given days.Ayman
At some point, the house was in Arabia. It doesn't mean that it must always be there even when the location violates 2226.
ALLAH Ho AKBAR! Yes indeed it was in Arabia YOU HAVE COME HALF WAY THROUGH brother.
It still is in Arabia, is the other HALF.
Though there are some idol worshipping going on in present day and we all should try to eliminate these practices.
Allah says a Muslim speaks truth, so if a Muslim doesnot speak truth is he No more a Muslim? offcourse to spaek truth is just one quality, similarly If people violate the qualities mentioned in 2226 will that mean we have to change the House of Allah? No nor we appointed it Nor can we change it.
Allah appointed Jerusalem for Bani Israel and When Allah took it back and appointed it to Muslims, since that time it is the focal point for Muslims.
If Allah says there is punishment for a theif, Allah gets no direct benefit from it, this is forthe betterment of Mankind! Similarly you pray facing east or west it is same for Allah as is in Quran. But for the unification purpose to show the superiority of the Nation "Muslims" Allah has chosed we face towards the focal point appointed by him.Even if you show the followers of the scripture every kind of miracle, they will not follow your Qiblah. Nor shall you follow their Qiblah. They do not even follow each others' Qiblah. If you acquiesce to their wishes, after the knowledge that has come to you, you will belong with the transgressors.
Wherever you go, you shall turn your face (during Salat) towards the Sacred Masjid. This is the truth from your Lord. GOD is never unaware of anything you all do.
Thus, the people will have no argument against you, except the transgressors among them. Do not fear them, and fear Me instead. I will then perfect My blessings upon you, that you may be guided.
As We have sent a messenger to you from amongst yourselves to recite Our revelations to you, and purify you, and teach you the scripture and the wisdom, and teach you what you did not know.O you who believe, seek help through patience and the assembly, God is with the patient ones
-
Peace Rajah,
Quite astonishing to hear it from a person who has based his religous beliefs on illusions.
and Ibrahim built Kaaba is not an illusion confused oh i c...it's a big lie http//i73.photobucket.com/albums/i231/nabpeace/gif%20files/lmfao.gif
ABRAHAM DID NOT BUILT ANY HOUSE
It is so easy to invalidate the claim that Abraham was given the responsibility to build a house for God in Mecca. Firstly, Abraham, and Ishmael had never been to Mecca. Secondly, if the house is the focal point for mankind as a place to serve God, all the prophets after Abraham failed to fulfill their obligation to go there. And lastly, the most important of all, The Supreme God does not need a house, an apartment, a condo, a chalet, a palace or a sanctuary to stay.
The idea of God?s house came from the Arabs after they have manipulated the following passage in Chapter 2 Verse 125. According to them the meaning of the verse is-
We showed to Abraham ?The House? for mankind as the place of assembly and security. Use the station of Abraham as a place of the ?ritual prayers?. We gave instructions to Abraham to clean ?My House? with Ishmael for the people who encircle it, retreat in it and for those who bow and prostrate physically to it.
To keep their story intact, the Arabs now have to tell us that the Quran says,
?God showed Abraham the house?.
It doesn?t take a genius to figure out that they then built this house to complete the illusion and created a new center for their new religion on their desert sands in Mecca. I would have thought that God, should He deemed it necessary, would have provided for a more accessible pilgrimage destination in a more hospitable location, but that is conjecture.
After they have twisted the meaning of the word Bayta, they also insist that the word Maqam and Mu-sol-lan, which clearly indicates Abraham?s status and his commitments, be meant to read as,
?Use the station of Abraham as a place of the ritual prayers?.
To make this more credible, they carved a pair of footprints in a copper block and displayed it in front of the square stone idol to represent the station of Abraham. The footprints become the sign as a place of assembly for performing the ritual prayer. I believe the Hollywood got this idea from the Arabs. I could be wrong about that, but faith and common sense tell me that Abraham?s foot was not immersed in molten copper, nor a relief taken from the sands that he stepped in. Besides, would this copper mould not be another idol of sorts?
They also claim the verse says,
?For mankind to encircle, to devote to it, and to bow and prostrate to it??
So the people follow, they bow, prostrate, and encircle the stone house. Their rituals have seen God and the huge door to ?his? house remains closed. The Arabs call the square stone house Baytul-lah or God?s house. It is ironic that this house has no windows.
It is perplexing that it has a door that the occupant never opens or closes. If the case is that God does not use doors, then why is there one? This can either mean He has never left His house or it could mean HE IS NOT THERE. Even if this premise were to be true, shouldn?t there be a house of God in every mosque in the world, perhaps built from imported Arabian rock?
This is how the Arabs fooled the people to make them worship idols made of rocks, granite, wood, copper, brass black cloth and Arabic calligraphy. They teach the people to cry loudly, ?O God here I come, O God here I come? focusing their full devotion to the idol resembling a house in the center of their mosques as if God was hard of hearing. God has already told us that He hears us in our hearts. They are nothing more than comical pagan rituals. The impact of distorting one verse has turned the whole concept of serving the one God upside down.
The Arabs call the cubical stone house Baytul-lah or God?s house. Somehow millions feel a great exhilaration when they do this today. There are also thousands who do ask themselves privately ?Why are we doing all these?? They will continue to find the answer for as long as they put their trust to the Arabs instead of God.
When we read the passage in Chapter 2 verse 125 according to the intended message it says-
God pointed to Abraham the system as a point of focus and security for mankind. Take (learn) from the status of Abraham who was committed. We contracted Abraham and Ishmael to cleanse My system, for throngs of people, those who devote to it, and those who humble themselves in submission.?
The disillusioned Arabs changed the meaning of eight words from this one verse alone to denigrate Abraham, the chosen man who was supposed to lead all the people on earth to God?s system. Translators were forced to accede to the translations of these words because it is the only verse in the Quran besides Chapter 22 Verse 26 that they can manipulate procreating the Arabic religion. The nett result from the distortion as we see it today millions of people believe that-
(a) The system (Bayta) is now centered on a square shape stone idol made from the mountain rocks standing in the center of their mosque in Mecca, similar to stone idols erected in many of the temples around the world. The stone idol is garlanded with a black cloth decorated with Arabic writings in gold.
(b) The status of Abraham (maqami-ibrohim) has been reduced to that of a smaller idol in a shape of a pair of footprint relief in a copper block mounted in a cage standing ten meters away opposite the door of the stone cube.
(c) The committed man (mu-sol-lan) is instead understood to mean a place of worship. The stone idol is the focus.
(d) Throngs of people (tho-iffin) have come to mean a religious rite or an act of worship by walking around the stone idol anti-clockwise.
(e) To devote to (A'kiffin) has been altered to mean visit and pay homage to the stone cube
(f) To humble in submission (roka'is-sujud) instead became a series of choreographed movements of bowing and prostrating to the stone cube. It has become the center of their universe.
The Trick
They say according to Chapter 2 Verse 125 God showed Abraham the house, and then they advanced two verses ahead to say Abraham and Ishmael built the house of God. Nobody noticed the simple fraud. How did God show the house to Abraham in Chapter 2 Verse 125 and ordered him to cleanse it, then later made Abraham to raise the foundation of the house mentioned in Chapter 2 Verse 127?
This is just another Arabs? trickery. In Chapter 2 Verse 127 it says, ?Abraham established the foundation from the system?, but the Arabs twisted it to mean, ?Abraham raised the foundation of the house?!
They have totally ignored the word ?Minal? appended to the word Bayti, which will change the whole context of the passage. To illustrate the point let us quote Chapter 2 Verse 127 according to the list of terms-
Wa-iz And when
yarfa-?u established
Ibrohimul Abraham
qo-wa?ida the foundation
minal-bayti From the System
wa-ismail with IshmaelLiterally it says. ?And when Abraham established the foundations FROM the system with Ishmael?. This will be more consistent with the flow of the context when the subject is read from Chapter 2 Verse 124. Even if the Arabs insist that the word Bayti to mean the house, Abraham could not be raising the foundation of a house, which was already there. The word ?Minal? means ?From? and when it is prefixed to the word ?Bayti? it means ?From the system?.
These verses when they are read correctly as a subject, it gives a distinct meaning that Abraham and his son Ishmael had nothing to do with the stone house in Mecca, neither had they built it nor do they have any knowledge of a rock structure in God?s name. The concept of God?s house is just the primitive Arab fantasies. The message in these verses simply means Abraham and Ishmael were the first to establish the foundation ?from? God?s system.
peace
-
Here's my vote that the above post deserves its own article!
-
Jaffar
Quite right! because he was not bounded to do so! ignoreThat's Correct...
The Mecca Version Of Hagg is AN INOVATION LATER ON...
possibly INVENTED BY THE PAGAN ARABS..The Mecca WAS (and most probably still is) a center for PAGAN ARABS RELIGION..
Their source of income was through "the pagan pilgrim" visiting the house of their Gods and Godesses...
That's the "basic reason" why they invented new Gods and Godesses anyway, and build a "myth" and "fable stories" around it.
And of course there has to be "some ritual" to be invented too, as an icing on the cake..
I've seen it everywhere, in nearly all parts of this world..Salam
-
Salaam Rajah
Rajah Kissing of the Black stone! i have repeated this many times, you don't read a lot young boy!
So your problem is only with the kissing. You do not have a problem with the whole romance with the stone cube and the pagan rituals?
Rajah Don't lie young boy, Allah doesnot like persons who lie! Show me where I said that "Hadeeth is well researched and has got Scholars and Masses approval" if you cannot show it to the forum then acknowldge you are a liar.
Get your temper under control, stop calling me Shaitan, and devil my helper.
So long then boy! I will be waiting you present the evidence for what you said! otherwise you will be on ignore.
Alright, my mistake but I did not say you said it. I formed an opinion on you based on your posts. I will change my opinion. According to Rajah Hadeeth is not well researched and has not got the approval of scholars and masses. Any way from which source did you get information on rituals in Arafa and Musdalifa and sacrifice in Mina.
I was not angry I was only informing a fact. But I did not call you Shaitan . I only said you are following the Chief Deceiver. It will be safe for you to ignore rather than answer my questions. Also can you kindly not call me young boy.
-
Peace Rajah,
Let us see where the weakness is. Before I start responding let me repost my last response to you on which you have not yet commented, because lots of posts have been in between them
I have commented. I told you that you are using logical fallacies. Do you want me to point out each logical fallacy you used? OK fine.
Allah told us the location very clearly, and surely it is not ANYWHERE.
If you want to close your eyes to it then it is up to you!Where in 2226 or anywhere else does he tell us clearly "the location of the house is in Mecca"?
Allah in the verse is talking to Muhammad; and Swears to the city in which Muhammad dwells, and Muhammad Lived in MEcca and therefore Allah tells us that the city where Muhammad lives is of importance.
Circular argument.
A circular argument is any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premises, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premise of one of the earlier arguments in the chain.
You are trying to prove the existence of a pre-quranic Mecca and that Muhammed lived in Mecca but you are including those things in your premises. Your conclusion is the same as your premises. This is circular.
The city is Makka, the sacred House of Allah which was the first temple ever to be erected on this earth as a place of peace where people put down their weapons and forget their quarrels. They meet inside in peace; each is sacred to all. Even the plants, the birds and all creatures that happen to be in this House enjoy full and complete security. It is the House built by Abraham, the father of Ishmail, who is the grandfather of all the Arabs and the Muslims.
Circular argument and appeal to emotions.
Mecca is one of the least peaceful places on earth as I empirically demonstrated in my previous post (which of course you evaded to address).
The classical commentators give to the term balad the connotation of "city", and maintain that the phrase hadha 'l-balad ("this city" signifies Mecca, and that the pronoun "thou" in the second verse refers to Muhammad.
Appeal to authority.
Now only way you can take in other sense is hadha 'l-balad denote "this land of man", i.e., the earth Consequently, the "thou" in verse 2 relating to man in general, and that which is "called to witness" is his earthly environment.
Now this again is METAPHORICAL reading of Quran.
AND I WILL NOT TAKE THIS EXPLANATION BY YOU, unless and until YOU draw a CLEAR CUT line between METPHORIC AND LITERAL QURAN, that's just too much, whenever you like the CULTIVATION becomes Physical and whenever you like haha 'i-balad becomes "this land of MAN" from "This CITY".Straw man.
Before I continue let me clear some points
The Kaba or Kaaba (the black cube building in Saudi Arabia) is basically the symbolic point on earth (His House) that GOD Almighty Chose to have all of His True Believers meet Him through bowing down their faces in humility down to the ground before Him, The actual bricks and cement that make up the Kaaba are not holy.
While it is true that many ignorant and illiterate Muslims might incline toward idol worship and do consider the actual Kaaba as a very sacred thing to a point where they would go as far as rubbing their bodies against it to get "blessings", but these people are not representing the True picture of Islam. If a person worships the Kaaba itself, then he/she becomes an idol worshiperSo you are admitting that idol worship is going on at your pagan shrine in flagrant violation of the only and most important requirement for the location of the house in 2226 and yet you continue to take this shrine as the god's house. This shows that you too idolize this shrine. You give your inert stone cube precedence over obeying the god and his clear command in 2226.
The direction of the Kaaba unifies the Muslims as if they were ONE CLOSE COMMUNITY.
So you admit that it is only for showing off. Showing off is what hypocrites do.
The indisputable truth is that your pagan shrine never united anyone. It doesn't unite or make into "ONE CLOSE COMMUNITY" the Sunnis and Shias who, on the contrary, despise one another and when the occasion presents itself slaughter one another. This is not surprising because falsehood never united anyone. Truth seekers can only be united on the god, the truth.
If every one starts making his own KAABA at every place then this will be situation may be only YOU brother ayman can enjoy.
Logically there is absolutely no difference between a revered stone cube in Mecca or anywhere else. What would you think if you walk down the street in Pakistan (I guess this is where you are from) and see a bunch of half naked guys wearing nothing but towels spinning around a stone cube and kissing a bunch of broken stones glued together in one of its corners? You would surely think that they are some crazy pagan cult. This is the natural god-given instinctive reaction that anyone will have. Those mindless pagan rituals and inert stones are exactly the same as yours. So what makes your stones and you rituals acceptable and make you defy your god-given common sense, while theirs are not? It is that these are YOUR stones and rituals while the others are THEIRS. It is nothing but arrogance.
The problem with you and your friends seems uncureable, YOU donot believe in History narrated by Muslims, Ok we have no problem with it, YOu donot believe in Encyclopedias, WOW but love to quote references from the writers who are in agreement with your theory, well infact I have'nt seen any considerable one yet.
(The Archeology Of World Religions, Jack Finegan, 1952, p482-485, 492)
states
Only three cities of importance were to be found in Hejaz. These were Taif, Mecca and Medina. Taif enjoyed a picturesque and fertile location in the mountains and Medina (then known as Yathrib ) was in a Well-watered plain, but Mecca" stood in a barren, rocky valley. Despite the sterility and extreme heat of the place, Mecca enjoyed the possession of a famous well called Zamzam and an ancient sanctuary known as the Ka'bah, and was also where important commercial routes intersected.Appeal to authority.
I don't see any pre-Abbasid era evidence here. Mr. Finegan wrote this in 1952.
Homes of Old Makkah
Written by B?lent Uluengin and Nihal Uluengin
With the birth of Islam in the seventh century, the pilgrimage, or hajj, took on an entirely new meaning, and the flow of pilgrims to Makkah expanded. Some pilgrims decided to settle permanently in the Holy City, building their houses in the valley surrounding the Ka?bah. The residential area of Makkah continued to grow, fueled by newcomers every year. Later immigrants built their houses on slopes and hilltops, due to a shortage of land in the valley and the problem of seasonal flooding, in those days, the height of buildings did not exceed two stories.Appeal to authority.
Again there is no pre-Abbasid era evidence here. I am certain that Both Ulengins didn't write this in pre-quranic times.
Edward Gibbon (Introduction by Christopher Dawson), Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Volume V, Everyman's Library, London, pp. 223-224.
..... of blind mythology of barbarians - of the local deities, of the stars, the air, and the earth, of their sex or titles, their attributes or subordination. Each tribe, each family, each independent warrier, created and changed the rites and the object of this fantastic worship; but the nation, in every age, has bowed to the religion as well as to the language of Mecca. The genuine antiquity of Caaba ascends beyond the Christian era in describing the coast of the Red sea the Greek historian Diodorus has remarked, between the Thamudites and the Sabeans, a famous temple, whose superior sanctity was revered by all the Arabians; the linen of silken veil, which is annually renewed by the Turkish emperor, was first offered by the Homerites, who reigned seven hundred years before the time of Mohammad.Why does every Sunni who comes here to defend their pagan shrine quote Gibbon's discredited nonsense?
Diodorus Siculus lived in the 1st century BCE so perhaps Rajah can answer the following questions
- How did Diodorus Siculus mention in his remark the Turkish Empire, which didn't even exist until at least 1400 years later!?
- How did Diodorus Siculus mention in his remark Mohammad who lived 700 years later!?
Perhaps you think that Diodorus Siculus had foreknowledge of the future or perhaps you didn't read properly what you blindly copied because you are obsessed with getting any information (true or not) to justify idolizing some stones. This is why the only people who believe such falsehood are people who are equally as eager to justify their blatant idolization of some stones.
The fact is that Diodorus Siculus doesn't mention the name Mecca at all or Kaaba. He only mentions a temple in Arabia. He gives its location as somewhere between the THAMUDITES AND THE SABEANS. This would more likely be the magnificent temple at Teima that was famous all over the ancient world and is well documented in the archeological record.
Mecca is mentioned by great Ptolemy way way before Muhammad, and the name he gives it allows us to identify it as a South Arabian foundation created around a sanctuary.
He calls it Macoraba, this could have two meanings
Macoraba meaning Sanctuary and second
Maco for Makkah and raba for great
Thus Makkah the Great city; both can be taken as the meanings of Macoraba.
Will they not then believe.I believe that this is the logical fallacy of Hiding Information/Half Truth. In this case, you, consciously or unconsciously, established conclusions without stating all of the relevant facts.
The only reason why you hang on to the false straw of Macoraba is that you know very well that there is no evidence for Mecca. It is ironic that you quote Ptolemy's reference to Macroba when in fact this actually further discredits the historicity of Mecca. You neglect to mention the most crucial information. You mention Macoraba but deliberately neglect to mention that Ptolemy identified five towns between Yathrib 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 Yathrib, 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 Yathrib. 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.
And you AYman have not given us a single reference regarding MAKKAH not existing before Muhammad's time, besides hearsay.
This is logical fallacy of negative proof.
It is the same fallacy used by Bush "prove that there are no WMDs". It shifts the burden of proof.
These are references which donot include many Islamic "Rawayats" because you and your friends are allergic to them.
Ayman you are commiting the same mistake your other friends are commiting, here we are deciding the location of House of Allah and rituals come in secondary, that is a seperate topic.We are allergic to any hearsay.
Ayman; Your words donot seem to be coordinating with your mind
The great reading was descended in Arabia
Makkah is in Arabia
So the great reading descended in Makkah (Yes because according to Quran Abraham settled his family in an Uncultivable Valley, and best fitting the description of Uncultivable valley in Arabia is MAKKAH as proofs were provided).Unless you want to suggest that Joseph recommended that people let plants grow naturally and not cultivate them in (1247) then "zar3" involves a human act of cultivation. So the great reading talks about an uncultivated valley (i.e., a valley without human cultivation) not an uncultivable valley. Of course, it is also not surprising that you dance around the fact that 5664, 6136 and 6138 are addressing the people of the prophet and clearly confirm that they were involved in agricultural activities.
Because it best fits the description of Uncultivable Valley.
There are many uncultivable valleys.
Because from last fifteen hundred years it prospering and despite being a barren valley all the SAmarat of Allah are available there according to Abrahams prayer.
There are many places that are far more prosperous. In fact, Saudi Arabia only became rich for a short period after the oil boom. Now they are struggling again with high unemployment and poverty. In fact, if you go to Mecca or any place in Saudi Arabia, you will find plenty of beggars.
Because it is the only place in the World where Muslims from the furthest places on different transports come for piligrimage as per prayers of Abraham.
Appeal to popularity.
Because it is the only place where according to Allah's order sacrifice of animals is done in given days.
Actually sacrifice of animals NEVER happens at the so-called Kaaba. Thus, violating 595 and 2233, even according to biased Sunni translations. Since you like Shakir's translation here it is
005.095 SHAKIR O you who believe! do not kill game while you are on pilgrimage, and whoever among you shall kill it intentionally, the compensation (of it) is the like of what he killed, from the cattle, as two just persons among you shall judge, as an offering to be brought to the Kaaba or the expiation (of it) is the feeding of the poor or the equivalent of it in fasting, that he may taste the unwholesome result of his deed; Allah has pardoned what is gone by; and whoever returns (to it), Allah will inflict retribution on him; and Allah is Mighty, Lord of Retribution.
022.033 SHAKIR You have advantages in them till a fixed time, then their place of sacrifice is the Ancient House.
ALLAH Ho AKBAR! Yes indeed it was in Arabia YOU HAVE COME HALF WAY THROUGH brother.
It still is in Arabia, is the other HALF.The evidence shows that the prophet lived in northern Arabia. See
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm
Though there are some idol worshipping going on in present day and we all should try to eliminate these practices.
Allah says a Muslim speaks truth, so if a Muslim doesnot speak truth is he No more a Muslim? offcourse to spaek truth is just one quality, similarly If people violate the qualities mentioned in 2226 will that mean we have to change the House of Allah? No nor we appointed it Nor can we change it.The god gave the only criteria for the location of the house in 2226. This singular criterion is flagrantly violated at Mecca. So it cannot be the house no matter how much you try to make excuses for idolatry.
Allah appointed Jerusalem for Bani Israel and When Allah took it back and appointed it to Muslims, since that time it is the focal point for Muslims.
If Allah says there is punishment for a theif, Allah gets no direct benefit from it, this is forthe betterment of Mankind! Similarly you pray facing east or west it is same for Allah as is in Quran. But for the unification purpose to show the superiority of the Nation "Muslims" Allah has chosed we face towards the focal point appointed by him.How does imagining to face Mecca show any superiority? Your arguments are clearly not based on reality. They are only based on arrogance.
Even if you show the followers of the scripture every kind of miracle, they will not follow your Qiblah. Nor shall you follow their Qiblah. They do not even follow each others' Qiblah. If you acquiesce to their wishes, after the knowledge that has come to you, you will belong with the transgressors.
You don't know the meaning of "qiblah" and this is why you don't translate it. Why do you expect others to follow you when you ignore even the simplest concepts?
Wherever you go, you shall turn your face (during Salat) towards the Sacred Masjid. This is the truth from your Lord. GOD is never unaware of anything you all do.
There is no "during Salat" in the passage. Why do you expect people to follow you when you alter the god's words to make them match with your preconceptions and to find excuses for idolizing some shrine?
Thus, the people will have no argument against you, except the transgressors among them. Do not fear them, and fear Me instead. I will then perfect My blessings upon you, that you may be guided.
How does facing the shrine in Mecca result in anyone being guided? Facing any physical object has nothing to do with being guided.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Salaam Rajah
Quote
Rajah Kissing of the Black stone! i have repeated this many times, you don't read a lot young boy!
So your problem is only with the kissing. You do not have a problem with the whole romance with the stone cube and the pagan ritualsSalaam Warner;
No! not only with Kissing their are other too, but that is not what we are discussing right now.Warner
Alright, my mistake but I did not say you said it. I formed an opinion on you based on your posts. I will change my opinion. According to Rajah Hadeeth is not well researched and has not got the approval of scholars and masses. Any way from which source did you get information on rituals in Arafa and Musdalifa and sacrifice in Mina.
Alright! you have earned my and I guess from many the respect you deserve after acknowldging your mistake. That is good. My primary source is Quran supported by History, and COMMON SENSE.
Warner;
I was not angry I was only informing a fact. But I did not call you Shaitan . I only said you are following the Chief Deceiver. It will be safe for you to ignore rather than answer my questions. Also can you kindly not call me young boy.
That is not fact which you were informing to us. As you based on my posts wrongly assumed that I said Hadith is a well researh document, I too assumed from your posts you are a young boy.
I am sorry for calling you young boy, Big boy.
Take it as a joke only. -
Agentxxx
ABRAHAM DID NOT BUILT ANY HOUSE
It is so easy to invalidate the claim that Abraham was given the responsibility to build a house for God in Mecca. Firstly, Abraham, and Ishmael had never been to Mecca. Secondly, if the house is the focal point for mankind as a place to serve God, all the prophets after Abraham failed to fulfill their obligation to go there. And lastly, the most important of all, The Supreme God does not need a house, an apartment, a condo, a chalet, a palace or a sanctuary to stay.Agentxxx the article you quoted is a big JOKE.
This will lead us away from the orginal topic if discussed in detail, therefore I will only tackle the portions which are related to our topicQuestion# 1
Who says so?? How can he or you or any one else can claim that Abraham and Ismail were never been to Arabia??
SHOW ME A VERSE FROM QURAN, otherwise your claim is similar to that of AYman, without any base.
You Quran Only Muslim, show me from quran a Singular verse that states ABRAHAM, ISMAIL never were in Mecca or Arabia.Question #2
Where did I said The Supreme God does need a house, an apartment, a condo, a chalet, a palace or a sanctuary to stay?
It means you do not read the posts. Infact what I said was some thing contrary to above. Therefore you bringing in this argument against me is just waste of time.The idea of God?s house came from the Arabs after they have manipulated the following passage in Chapter 2 Verse 125. According to them the meaning of the verse is-
We showed to Abraham ?The House? for mankind as the place of assembly and security. Use the station of Abraham as a place of the ?ritual prayers?. We gave instructions to Abraham to clean ?My House? with Ishmael for the people who encircle it, retreat in it and for those who bow and prostrate physically to it.
This paragraph just reveals the intellectual level of the writer and how a great scholar he is, below I will just quote some of verses
"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. "And your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever."' " (2 Samuel 712-16).
Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the Lord God of Israel. And David said to Solomon, "My son, I had intended to build a house to the name of the Lord my God. "But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood, and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me. 'Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 'He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.' (1 Chronicles 226-10).
dear Agentxxx, I know how do you feel when you see some calling themselves Muslims and then falling for idolatry, but that doesnot mean, we follow those who try to decieve young and simple Muslims in name of different traps.
I know how arrogant the Arabs are, but they are not following the saying of Quran and Muhammad and they will have to answer for it, that doesnot mean we start making our own fable, regarding the House of Allah.It definitly was not the ARABS who invented the idea of House of Allah as shown by the verses above and many other verses in my previous posts. This BUSTS the article you just quoted and makes its final destination towards a DUSTBIN.
There is a advise if you don't mind, if you try it on your own rather playing as an AGENT for others you can do lot better. Hope you will think about it. handshake
-
Ayman
I have commented. I told you that you are using logical fallacies. Do you want me to point out each logical fallacy you used? OK fine.
No you had not! Ah! so you want to play fallecy game now, I remember once I was having a one on one discussion with "Phedippedes" who was supported by "Denis Giron" of free thought Mecca on the topic "NADIR VS GIRON" debate, and then all of sudden "Phedippedes" came up with fallcies trap, and in Respond I noticed down his fallecies and then the usage and meaning of the fallecies and we ended up in a mess. Therefore Ayman not this time.
If you want to have a DEBATE then there should be Moderator and the debate should be One on One without any interferance, that is the time Moderator can point out any fallecy in our debate.Before I take up your post in detail I will just like to point out for the viewers and for yourself once again
Ayman wrote
At some point, the house was in Arabia.So when was that point?? and then if it was, at some point in Arabia? what about your theory of "House can be any where".
-
Peace Rajah,
So when was that point??
During the prophet's time, Northern Arabia was between the Byzantine and the Sassanid empires. Northern Arabia is where the Jews and Christians that were persecuted by the Romans were seeking safety. In Northern Arabia there was a town that was safe for people from all sorts faiths. It was also a market town where people came to trade from all over the ancient world. This was where the house was be established by the prophet. You can see more info here
http//www.free-minds.org/articles/history/ayman1.htm
and then if it was, at some point in Arabia? what about your theory of "House can be any where".
As you said "at some point it was in Arabia". This statement automatically means that it doesn't have to be in Arabia. Again, the only criteria given for the location of the house is that it is a place where no partners are setup with the god. You admit that there is blantant idol worship in Mecca so if you have faith in what the god says, then this automatically eliminates Mecca. If you have faith in what the god says then you should need no firther explanation.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Ayman wrote
At some point, the house was in Arabia.Ayman wrote
It can be Anywhere.You are making me confuse or rather you yourself are confuse.
The article you have mentioned is in my eyes and will come under attack soon, but for the moment at least one Contender for the house of Allah has been eliminated, in the discussion with Agentxxx we achieved the result that there are three serious contenders for being House of Allah
- Makkah
- Jerusalem
- Anywhere
and the adovacate for Anywhere was brother Ayman, who now comes up with new contender
- There some where in Northeren Arabia where there is a Market.
So we still have three.
Before we take up your article on USING orthography of Quran to find the Place where House of Allah was, let me make some comments on your previous posts.
Ayman wrote
I don't see any pre-Abbasid era evidence here. Mr. Finegan wrote this in 1952.
Again there is no pre-Abbasid era evidence here. I am certain that Both Ulengins didn't write this in pre-quranic times.
Now that is extreme! Some of you people realy donot know what a reference or research work is? You have just acted childishly dear Ayman after writing the above
The article of yours which you are recommending with such a Chest beating, where do you got the contents to fill in it, let us see
from
MCA Macdonald, "Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia." Arabian arch. epig. 2000 11 28?79.The fragment was first published in Violet B. Ein zweisprachiges Psalmfragment aus Damascus and was recently restudied by M.C.A. Macdonald who has demonstrated that it dates to the pre-Islamic period.
For example, see Hoyland, R., Seeing Islam as others saw it, The Darwin Press Princeton, NJ, 2001 105-106, 485-486.
What 2000 and 2001? Come on ayman, I cannot believe what you posted above, by telling me that the book I quoted as a reference is written in 1952. brickwall
That is just too much.
They donot believe in Islamic Historians.
They reject Encyclopedia's and reference books.
They do reject any Authors book Asian or westeren who is against their absurd theory by adding funny remarks that these were written in 1900's or so.But when it comes to their article even the research work done and published in 2000 or 2001 is acceptable. hail
Why does every Sunni who comes here to defend their pagan shrine quote Gibbon's discredited nonsense?
Diodorus Siculus lived in the 1st century BCE so perhaps Rajah can answer the following questions
- How did Diodorus Siculus mention in his remark the Turkish Empire, which didn't even exist until at least 1400 years later!?
- How did Diodorus Siculus mention in his remark Mohammad who lived 700 years later!?
Perhaps you think that Diodorus Siculus had foreknowledge of the future or perhaps you didn't read properly what you blindly copied because you are obsessed with getting any information (true or not) to justify idolizing some stones. This is why the only people who believe such falsehood are people who are equally as eager to justify their blatant idolization of some stones.
The fact is that Diodorus Siculus doesn't mention the name Mecca at all or Kaaba. He only mentions a temple in Arabia. He gives its location as somewhere between the THAMUDITES AND THE SABEANS. This would more likely be the magnificent temple at Teima that was famous all over the ancient world and is well documented in the archeological record.
You are playing Childish again, even a primary student of history and religon knows that Muhammad was 700 years later, and Diodorus could not have mentioned it and GIBON is a big name. The problem is in your obsession with getting any information (true or not) to justify your theory you will not read it carefully.
read it again
Edward Gibbon (Introduction by Christopher Dawson), Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Volume V, Everyman's Library, London, pp. 223-224
and definitly the comments regarding Muhammad and Turkish are of who is making introduction and not that of Diodorus.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. , pp. 217]
Ayman regarding Ptolemy wrote
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 Yathrib, 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 Yathrib. 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
Was Ptolemy so Accurate let us see
He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps.Ptolemy's Map of Asia Minor Method of Construction
H. S. Cronin
The Geographical Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Apr., 1905), pp. 429-441The first condition in studying any of Ptolomy's map is to disabuse our minds completely of the notion that we have in it a map which is ACCURATE........
Well that is offcourse because of may be tools and equipments not available then.
But he surely mention Macoraba.ayman
It is the same fallacy used by Bush "prove that there are no WMDs". It shifts the burden of proof
.Bush was the one who said there are WMD's therefore he had to proof it, similarly you said THE HOUSE OF ALLAH could be ANY where and some of your friends said it is in JErusalem, therefore the burden of proof is on you and not me.
Like you said the House oF ALLAH was in Northeren Arabia.
and presented an article based on some researchers work which was published in 2001, which we are going to discuss shortly.Ayman
You don't know the meaning of "qiblah" and this is why you don't translate it. Why do you expect others to follow you when you ignore even the simplest concepts?
Allah Ho Akbar, Ok then tell me what is the meaning of Kiblah.
Dear Mr. Ayman, may be you missed what i posted in an earlier post,
The Qiblah Of Early Mosques Jerusalem Or Makkah?
M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem, `Abd al-Rahman Robert Squires & Mansur Ahmed
Here in this article they clearly refute your northeren Arabia and Jerusalem concept of qiblah
they write
In this paper, we will discuss a contentious theory on the Muslim Qiblah, or the direction of prayer, of the first mosques in the earliest period of Islamic history. A small, defiant, and largely discredited group of Orientalists have argued that the early mosques were not oriented toward Makkah, but somewhere in northern Arabia or even Jerusalem, a theory that challenges the Muslim belief that the earliest mosques were directed toward the Kabah. The notion that early mosques were oriented toward northern Arabia/Jerusalem insidiously suggests the possibilities that the earliest Muslims did not pray toward Makkah and that the Islamic traditon of a Qiblah facing Kabah was a later development, hidden from history by some sort of a conspiracy. The divisive appeal behind such a theory is rather obvious when we consider that it has been chiefly propagated by such polemical orientalists as Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Dutifully parroting this theory is an amateur Joseph Smith, an assiduous Christian missionary whose anti-Islamic propaganda is largely restricted to the internet.
and from the sayings of Joseph smiths are emerging inspired Muslims such as
you dear brother.Please read whole article and if you have any criticism on it let me know.
-
Peace Rajah,
You are making me confuse or rather you yourself are confuse.
The article you have mentioned is in my eyes and will come under attack soon, but for the moment at least one Contender for the house of Allah has been eliminated, in the discussion with Agentxxx we achieved the result that there are three serious contenders for being House of Allah- Makkah
- Jerusalem
- Anywhere
and the adovacate for Anywhere was brother Ayman, who now comes up with new contender - There some where in Northeren Arabia where there is a Market.
So we still have three.
Judging by all the logical fallacies that you keep using, I can see why the simple fact that "the house can be anywhere and that at one point it was in Arabia are not mutually exclusive statements" is so hard for you to understand.
Let me give you an example. Most people's house will be near where they work. If they change jobs and move to another area or country, they sell their house and buy a new house. Their hands are not tied. They are free to make their house anywhere to achieve their purposes. Don't you think that the god is free to make his house anywhere? If you answer yes then you agree that "the house can be anywhere". If you answer no, then you have bigger problems to worry about then trying to convert people on this forum who used to Sunnis back to Sunnism.
The criteria and purpose of the house of the god are clear from the great reading. Neither Mecca nor Jerusalem fit the criteria or accomplish the purpose. If you can purify Mecca from the idols in it and make it a safe place for all people to assemble then it can be the present house just as Cairo, New York, Dubai, Karachi or anywhere can be if it doesn't have idolatry and provides safe assembly for all people.
Before we take up your article on USING orthography of Quran to find the Place where House of Allah was, let me make some comments on your previous posts.
Judging by all your fallacious arguments so far and you not knowing the difference between physical archeological evidence and hearsay stories, I would say that you are already way out of your depth. My advice to you is to learn the basics objectively before you sink deeper.
Now that is extreme! Some of you people realy donot know what a reference or research work is? You have just acted childishly dear Ayman after writing the above
The article of yours which you are recommending with such a Chest beating, where do you got the contents to fill in it, let us see
from
MCA Macdonald, "Reflections on the linguistic map of pre-Islamic Arabia." Arabian arch. epig. 2000 11 28?79.
The fragment was first published in Violet B. Ein zweisprachiges Psalmfragment aus Damascus and was recently restudied by M.C.A. Macdonald who has demonstrated that it dates to the pre-Islamic period.
For example, see Hoyland, R., Seeing Islam as others saw it, The Darwin Press Princeton, NJ, 2001 105-106, 485-486.
What 2000 and 2001? Come on ayman, I cannot believe what you posted above, by telling me that the book I quoted as a reference is written in 1952.
That is just too much.
They donot believe in Islamic Historians.
They reject Encyclopedia's and reference books.
They do reject any Authors book Asian or westeren who is against their absurd theory by adding funny remarks that these were written in 1900's or so.
But when it comes to their article even the research work done and published in 2000 or 2001 is acceptable.Before parading your ignorance on this forum of the difference between the verifiable physical evidence of inscriptions and manuscripts and the unverifiable hearsay stories of so-called Islamic history, you should study and read carefully. The inscriptions and manuscripts date to PRE-QURANIC TIMES and were studied in 2000 and 2001. As I said, you are way out of your depth.
You are playing Childish again, even a primary student of history and religon knows that Muhammad was 700 years later, and Diodorus could not have mentioned it and GIBON is a big name. The problem is in your obsession with getting any information (true or not) to justify your theory you will not read it carefully.
read it again
Edward Gibbon (Introduction by Christopher Dawson), Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Volume V, Everyman's Library, London, pp. 223-224
and definitly the comments regarding Muhammad and Turkish are of who is making introduction and not that of Diodorus.
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. , pp. 217]So you admit that when Gibbons mentioned Mohamed, Mecca, and Kaabah, it was his own opinion and it is an indisputable fact that Diodorus didn't mention any of those names.
Was Ptolemy so Accurate let us see
He was not a descriptive geographer, and his book was intended to be no more than a commentary on his maps.
Ptolemy's Map of Asia Minor Method of Construction
H. S. Cronin
The Geographical Journal, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Apr., 1905), pp. 429-441
The first condition in studying any of Ptolomy's map is to disabuse our minds completely of the notion that we have in it a map which is ACCURATE........
Well that is offcourse because of may be tools and equipments not available then.
But he surely mention Macoraba.So now that you realized that Ptolemy actually discredits Mecca because the Macoraba that he mentions is actually in Southern Arabia, South of Carna, you attack Ptolemy.
Yet after all this, you still hang on the Macoraba. Why? Because YOU KNOW that there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of a town named Mecca and that this one reference to a town called Macoraba is the ONLY name that can be juggled to be made to vaguely resemble Mecca (in English transliterations I may add, since their Semitic roots are different). Using your nonsensical approach, Saudis can claim that they actually invented pasta and hence it is called "Mecca-roni".
Bush was the one who said there are WMD's therefore he had to proof it, similarly you said THE HOUSE OF ALLAH could be ANY where and some of your friends said it is in JErusalem, therefore the burden of proof is on you and not me.
Like you said the House oF ALLAH was in Northeren Arabia.
and presented an article based on some researchers work which was published in 2001, which we are going to discuss shortly.Now that you learned what negative proof is, you changed your argument. At least, you are getting a good schooling in logic out of this discussion. As I said, Rajah, you are way out of your depth, especially given your arrogant attitude. I suggest that you take a more humble attitude and try to learn.
The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims based on Ptolemy's reference to a town named Macoraba that was hundreds of kilometers south of present day Mecca.
Allah Ho Akbar, Ok then tell me what is the meaning of Kiblah.
It means "target". So now you know the meaning.
Dear Mr. Ayman, may be you missed what i posted in an earlier post,
The Qiblah Of Early Mosques Jerusalem Or Makkah?
M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem,Abd al-Rahman Robert Squires & Mansur Ahmed Here in this article they clearly refute your northeren Arabia and Jerusalem concept of qiblah they write In this paper, we will discuss a contentious theory on the Muslim Qiblah, or the direction of prayer, of the first mosques in the earliest period of Islamic history. A small, defiant, and largely discredited group of Orientalists have argued that the early mosques were not oriented toward Makkah, but somewhere in northern Arabia or even Jerusalem, a theory that challenges the Muslim belief that the earliest mosques were directed toward the Kabah. The notion that early mosques were oriented toward northern Arabia/Jerusalem insidiously suggests the possibilities that the earliest Muslims did not pray toward Makkah and that the Islamic traditon of a Qiblah facing Ka`bah was a later development, hidden from history by some sort of a conspiracy. The divisive appeal behind such a theory is rather obvious when we consider that it has been chiefly propagated by such polemical orientalists as Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. Dutifully parroting this theory is an amateur Joseph Smith, an assiduous Christian missionary whose anti-Islamic propaganda is largely restricted to the internet. and from the sayings of Joseph smiths are emerging inspired Muslims such as you dear brother.
Please read whole article and if you have any criticism on it let me know.I have debated Mr. Saifullah in the past and I remember reading his fallacious apologetic articles. Like you, Mr. Saifullah ignores the basic fact that "qiblah" means "target" and hence talks about "The target Of Early Mosques" when he actually means "the apse of early mosques". As in the case of Mecca and Macoraba, he also juggles the evidence and hides the parts that he doesn't like in order to prove his preconceptions.
Mr. Saifullah makes ridiculous statements such as the following
"The word Ka
bah in Arabic means "cube" and the only Kabah is that found in Makkah."One almost feels sorry for Mr. Saifullah making laughable arguments such as "a cube can only be found in Mekkah". Maybe he will claim next that Rubik's cube was invented in Mekkah. I am also surprised that Mr. Saifullah doesn't know that "muka'ab" not "ka'bah" means "cube" in Arabic.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Ayman
I feel sorry for you. As you are being cornered, more and more you are becoming Personal.
I have just shown to you, Your two contradictory statements.
You are a confused person is the Conclusion I arrived at, as did the persons at SOC.Religon.Islam arrived at.Quote
Ayman wrote
At some point, the house was in Arabia.Quote
Ayman wrote
It can be Anywhere.Offcourse it needs intellect of the level of brother Ayman to say that these two statements are one and the same.
You just donnot understand simple BLUNDER you commited by issuing the statements.Ayman tells us that ;At some point the house was established by the order of Allah in some town/city of Northern Arabia, of which he himself doesnot know the name of, but mentions there was a market (extra ordinary proof nope).
here is what he said
In Northern Arabia there was a town that was safe for people from all sorts faiths. It was also a market town where people came to trade from all over the ancient world. This was where the house was be established by the prophet
So it means that PROPHET established a PHYSICAL House of Allah in a city of Northren Arabia.
Why did Prophet established House of Allah in that place?
Because Allah ordered him! i do not know if Ayman has anyother reason for this.
So Allah ordered Prophet to establish a PHYSICAL House, therefore IT CAN'T BE JUST "ANY WHERE". There was a specific place for it, as you yourself has also admitted.Then 1500 years later new Messangers came, Messangers like of Muir, Croone, and Smith's telling us that Allah has changed his orders and Now we can establish his House "ANY WHERE" we like.
Ok Switzerland is peaceful land let us establish an house there.
Ok Sweden is Peaceful too let us establish a house there.
Hey listen my town is a very peaceful town, let us establish a House there.
No! Siberia is the most peaceful area I would build a House there.
but wait
Did Allah changed his orders which he gave to prophet regarding building of PHYSICAL house in Northren Arabia?
Did Allah said that if "My house becomes corrupted change it and build it any where you like"?? or did Allah said if there is a corruption try to remove it??
I would like to see the verse in Quran which mentions changing of House from Northren Arabia to ANYWHERE??
This is very Simple?Ayman your following statement is a comical read
Let me give you an example. Most people's house will be near where they work. If they change jobs and move to another area or country, they sell their house and buy a new house. Their hands are not tied. They are free to make their house anywhere to achieve their purposes. Don't you think that the god is free to make his house anywhere?
It is not what i think or you think! Just show me that after ordering Muhammad to build a House of Allah in Arabia, God cancelled his orders and said build it where ever you like it.
Even the example you quoted is senseless
There are million of persons working out of their cities and countries, how many of them sell their houses?? few, on contrary they spend on their older homes to make them look more attractive and beautiful.Ayman
I have debated Mr. Saifullah in the past and I remember reading his fallacious apologetic articles.
Oh! realy? did SAIfullah debated you? and still you stick to your "Base less argument", I doubt what you are saying. May be he just provided you some of the links to his articles in response to your "Non sense". But if there is a debate in actual let us see the link to it
I will be waiting for this dear Ayman.
I just pasted your remarks about me
Judging by all the logical fallacies that you keep using...
Judging by all your fallacious arguments so far and you not knowing the difference between physical archeological evidence and hearsay stories, I would say that you are already way out of your depth. My advice to you is to learn the basics objectively before you sink deeper.
Before parading your ignorance on this forum of the difference between the verifiable physical evidence of inscriptions and manuscripts and the unverifiable hearsay stories of so-called Islamic history, you should study and read carefully....
Using your nonsensical approach
No comments.
Ayman
The inscriptions and manuscripts date to PRE-QURANIC TIMES and were studied in 2000 and 2001. As I said, you are way out of your depth.
We will see when it comes. Right know juggle with "ANY WHERE" and "Northren Arabia".
Oh my God! you are going to proof from PRE-Quranic TIMES the Orthography of quran and not from the first copy available of Quran itself. hailVat. Ar. 1605 A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
Date1st century hijra.
Manuscript Number
Vaticani Arabi 1605. Folio 1v.
Size
28.8 x 20.3 cm.
Contents
Recto Surah Yunus verses 102 to Surah Hud verse 3. Verso Surah Hud verses 4 to 13. See above picture.
Script
Makkan script
Arabic inscriptions are found throughout the lands ruled by the Muslims in our period. Most of the known graffiti are from the arid zones of northern Arabia, the Negev, Jordan and Syria, and most of the epitaphs are from Egypt, but that may simply reflect the extent of work carried out so far.
Ayman you are perfect example of a confused person
According to a you the history of Islam and Muslims is quite possibly a lie. You also claimed that Arabic sources on Islam are inherently unreliable whereas non-Islamic sources and speculative opinions are given an aura of truthfulness by you. -
Peace Rajah,
I feel sorry for you. As you are being cornered, more and more you are becoming Personal.
As far as I can tell, and everyone here can go and verify, I fully addressed all your points. On the other hand, you evaded addressing any of my arguments because you know that you don't have an answer. Who do you think is cornered?
Everyone is still waiting for you to fully respond to my first reply to you on June 13 where you are still evading to address passages such as 397. Instead, you keep nagging on like a child about "two contradictory statements" because you don't know what the term "mutually exclusive" means.
I have just shown to you, Your two contradictory statements.
You are a confused person is the Conclusion I arrived at, as did the persons at SOC.Religon.Islam arrived at.
Offcourse it needs intellect of the level of brother Ayman to say that these two statements are one and the same.
You just donnot understand simple BLUNDER you commited by issuing the statements.
Ayman tells us that ;At some point the house was established by the order of Allah in some town/city of Northern Arabia, of which he himself doesnot know the name of, but mentions there was a market (extra ordinary proof ).
So it means that PROPHET established a PHYSICAL House of Allah in a city of Northren Arabia.
Why did Prophet established House of Allah in that place?
Because Allah ordered him! i do not know if Ayman has anyother reason for this.
So Allah ordered Prophet to establish a PHYSICAL House, therefore IT CAN'T BE JUST "ANY WHERE". There was a specific place for it, as you yourself has also admitted.
Then 1500 years later new Messangers came, Messangers like of Muir, Croone, and Smith's telling us that Allah has changed his orders and Now we can establish his House "ANY WHERE" we like.
Ok Switzerland is peaceful land let us establish an house there.
Ok Sweden is Peaceful too let us establish a house there.
Hey listen my town is a very peaceful town, let us establish a House there.
No! Siberia is the most peaceful area I would build a House there.
but wait
Did Allah changed his orders which he gave to prophet regarding building of PHYSICAL house in Northren Arabia?
Did Allah said that if "My house becomes corrupted change it and build it any where you like"?? or did Allah said if there is a corruption try to remove it??
I would like to see the verse in Quran which mentions changing of House from Northren Arabia to ANYWHERE??
This is very Simple?
It is not what i think or you think! Just show me that after ordering Muhammad to build a House of Allah in Arabia, God cancelled his orders and said build it where ever you like it.
Even the example you quoted is senseless
There are million of persons working out of their cities and countries, how many of them sell their houses?? few, on contrary they spend on their older homes to make them look more attractive and beautiful.Here is what I said "the house can be anywhere and that at one point it was in Arabia are not mutually exclusive statements". It is not my problem that you don't know what "mutually exclusive" means. Look it up.
Oh! realy? did SAIfullah debated you? and still you stick to your "Base less argument", I doubt what you are saying. May be he just provided you some of the links to his articles in response to your "Non sense". But if there is a debate in actual let us see the link to it
I will be waiting for this dear Ayman.Just do a Google search on SRI to see Mr. Saifullah's nonsensical circular arguments of defending hearsay based on more hearsay. You will have to go about four years back.
We will see when it comes. Right know juggle with "ANY WHERE" and "Northren Arabia".
Oh my God! you are going to proof from PRE-Quranic TIMES the Orthography of quran and not from the first copy available of Quran itself.
Vat. Ar. 1605 A Qur'anic Manuscript From 1st Century Hijra In Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
Date
1st century hijra.
Manuscript Number
Vaticani Arabi 1605. Folio 1v.
Size
28.8 x 20.3 cm.
Contents
Recto Surah Yunus verses 102 to Surah Hud verse 3. Verso Surah Hud verses 4 to 13. See above picture.
Script
Makkan script
Arabic inscriptions are found throughout the lands ruled by the Muslims in our period. Most of the known graffiti are from the arid zones of northern Arabia, the Negev, Jordan and Syria, and most of the epitaphs are from Egypt, but that may simply reflect the extent of work carried out so far.
Ayman you are perfect example of a confused personAs you said
Most of the known graffiti are from the arid zones of northern Arabia, the Negev, Jordan and Syria,
Graffiti is the most basic form of inscriptions but it is very telling about the lives of people who wrote it and where they lived. As you implicitly admit, there are absolutely no inscriptions (graffiti or otherwise) from Mecca (until late into the Abbasid era). As I said, you are way out of your depth and the more you try to pretend to be a knowledgeable person by copying and pasting info from others, the more you inadvertently disprove your own arguments because you don't read intelligently what you are copying and pasting and study the background behind it. We saw this with the pieces that you copied and pasted about Ptolemy, etc. and now we can see the same thing with your copied and pasted paragraph on Arabic inscriptions. It is ironic that people here who don't have faith in Mecca know more about it and the issues around it than you.
My sincere advice to you is that if you are going to have faith in something and defend it then instead of wasting everyone's time, you should be the most knowledgeable about it. So do your own research and do not just blindly copy and paste.
According to a you the history of Islam and Muslims is quite possibly a lie.
The hearsay history of Islam and Muslims is much like their traditions (Hadiths) which are proven to be full of lies. In fact, even sectarians admit that Hadiths are full of lies and thus collectors such as Bukhari trashed the vast majority. Why do you expect them to be completely truthful in one thing and proven liars in another? A liar is a liar in all situations.
You also claimed that Arabic sources on Islam are inherently unreliable whereas non-Islamic sources and speculative opinions are given an aura of truthfulness by you.
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance between physical archeological evidence and hearsay. It is an indisputable fact that Arabic or Non-Arabic and Islamic or Non-Islamic physical archeological evidence is much more reliable than hearsay, no matter how much that hearsay is supposedly "Islamic".
Peace,
Ayman
-
Ayman
As far as I can tell, and everyone here can go and verify, I fully addressed all your points. On the other hand, you evaded addressing any of my arguments because you know that you don't have an answer. Who do you think is cornered?
You did not dear Ayman, I have answered them all and I will repost them.
I think you are being cornered because you had issued two statements which are quite different from each other, which tells us that You are confused and not confident about your Argument.
According to you since requirements of what Allah has said are not fullfilled, CHANGE THE HOUSE.You continously trying to degrade me, depicts your Arrogant attitude and when Arrogancy with Ignorancy combines it produsces a classic like you.
You are well aware that your theory of Prophet being in Northren Arabia is just a fiction and lie, and has not even gained any ground at intial level to say on Scholars level.You said that I donot understand the meaning of "Mutually exclusively" Ok Wiki says this
In logic, two mutually exclusive (or "mutual exclusive" according to some sources) propositions are propositions that logically cannot both be true. To say that more than two propositions are mutually exclusive may, depending on context mean that no two of them can both be true, or only that they cannot all be true. The term pairwise mutually exclusive always means no two of them can both be true.
And you said these two statements are "NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE", now if you can explain it without being Arrogant I will be thank full.Quote
Quote
Ayman wrote
At some point, the house was in Arabia.Quote
Ayman wrote
It can be Anywhere.Therefore I asked you a question, which as usual you did not answered
When did the House was changed from "Northren Arabia"? who ordered its change?
If it is still there then why from last fifteen hundred years no Muslim goes there for Hajj which is duty imposed on every Muslim (capable of) by Allah?
Instead I got your quote from else where
AymanRemember that "hajj" is only decreed if you can find a way to it (397). Thus, if those requirements are not met anywhere then there can be no "hajj".
Ok, even for a while if we take your translation of 397 to be correct, still the question arises WHY CHANGE THE HOUSE? let us say it is not fullfilling the requirements of the House and some corruption has occured, then shall we remove the corruption or change the HOUSE OF ALLAH, which you admitted is in NORTHREN ARABIA, who ordered to change the house of Allah without Allah's permission? If you have any verse which clear cut tells us that "If some corruption arises in the rituals performed at the house, change and place my house ANYWHERE?
Repent; Ayman you are playing on a weak wicket.ayman
First and foremost it is anywhere the people who administer it do not
setup any partners with The God (2226).Again playing out of senses, If it is ANYWHERE then why Allah gave a specific loaction for it to prophet somwhere in the Northren Arabia (where there is a Market;WOW)?
AymanIn this location, the people who administer it invite ALL PEOPLE to
the "hajj" (2227), not just people from a certain religionI have answered it in one of my previous posts in detail. Correct they have to call All the People, but the person intrested and perform it with heart will be only person who "surrenders" and becomes Muslim.
AymanThey purify it from all forms of idolatry (2226).
They do? some functions to you are idolatry and to them not, we should tell them and educate them according to Quran. That does not means necessarily we CHANGE the HOUSE without any Clear order from Allah, as I had mentioned before.
Another example of your being cornered is the type of arguments you are presenting, I would like to for making the record straight; point out from your last two posts only the Fallacy of Adhominem, which tells us who and what you are?
Previous post
Judging by all the logical fallacies that you keep using, I can see why the simple fact that "the house can be anywhere and that at one point it was in Arabia are not mutually exclusive statements" is so hard for you to understand.
Let me give you an example. Most people's house will be near where they work. If they change jobs and move to another area or country, they sell their house and buy a new house. Their hands are not tied. They are free to make their house anywhere to achieve their purposes. Don't you think that the god is free to make his house anywhere? If you answer yes then you agree that "the house can be anywhere". If you answer no, then you have bigger problems to worry about then trying to convert people on this forum who used to Sunnis back to Sunnism.
Judging by all your fallacious arguments so far and you not knowing the difference between physical archeological evidence and hearsay stories, I would say that you are already way out of your depth. My advice to you is to learn the basics objectively before you sink deeper.
Before parading your ignorance on this forum of the difference between the verifiable physical evidence of inscriptions and manuscripts and the unverifiable hearsay stories of so-called Islamic history, you should study and read carefully. The inscriptions and manuscripts date to PRE-QURANIC TIMES and were studied in 2000 and 2001. As I said, you are way out of your depth
Using your nonsensical approach, Saudis can claim that they actually invented pasta and hence it is called "Mecca-roni".
Now that you learned what negative proof is, you changed your argument. At least, you are getting a good schooling in logic out of this discussion. As I said, Rajah, you are way out of your depth, especially given your arrogant attitude. I suggest that you take a more humble attitude and try to learn.
It means "target". So now you know the meaning.
Mr. Saifullah makes ridiculous statements such as the following
One almost feels sorry for Mr. Saifullah making laughable argumentsPresent post
because you don't know what the term "mutually exclusive" means
It is not my problem that you don't know what "mutually exclusive" means. Look it up.
Just do a Google search on SRI to see Mr. Saifullah's nonsensical circular arguments of defending hearsay based on more hearsay. You will have to go about four years back.
As I said, you are way out of your depth and the more you try to pretend to be a knowledgeable person by copying and pasting info from others, the more you inadvertently disprove your own arguments because you don't read intelligently what you are copying and pasting and study the background behind it. We saw this with the pieces that you copied and pasted about Ptolemy, etc. and now we can see the same thing with your copied and pasted paragraph on Arabic inscriptions. It is ironic that people here who don't have faith in Mecca know more about it and the issues around it than you.My sincere advice to you is that if you are going to have faith in something and defend it then instead of wasting everyone's time, you should be the most knowledgeable about it. So do your own research and do not just blindly copy and paste.
Yes as you are the most knowldgeable person who is not sure about what he is talking about? weather it is Anywhere or In Northren Arabia?
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance between physical archeological evidence and hearsay. It is an indisputable fact that Arabic or Non-Arabic and Islamic or Non-Islamic physical archeological evidence is much more reliable than hearsay, no matter how much that hearsay is supposedly "Islamic".another classic from his debate, this tells us he is habitual of making such statements.
If it was taken directly from Edward Gibbons then Gibbons is either a
babbling fool or is a poor writer who is unable to express his ideas
correctlyWhen you start attacking your opponent personally rather by arguments what does it means? remember this is only one kind of Fallacy pointed out in some of your posts.
Quote
I have debated Mr. Saifullah in the past and I remember reading his fallacious apologetic articlesRaj-ah
Oh! realy? did SAIfullah debated you? and still you stick to your "Base less argument", I doubt what you are saying. May be he just provided you some of the links to his articles in response to your "Non sense". But if there is a debate in actual let us see the link to it
I will be waiting for this dear Ayman.Ayman
Just do a Google search on SRI to see Mr. Saifullah's nonsensical circular arguments of defending hearsay based on more hearsay. You will have to go about four years back.
So you are avoiding to provide the link, there is some thing Black in the "DAAL" right Agent XXX? No problem we will google it , Well I see no direct debate between you and Saif on the issue at hand. There is one, but that actually is your bashing by DENIS GIRON and others on the topic and that even is not direct debate.
-
Ayman
As I said, you are way out of your depth and the more you try to pretend to be a knowledgeable person by copying and pasting info from others, the more you inadvertently disprove your own arguments because you don't read intelligently what you are copying and pasting and study the background behind it. We saw this with the pieces that you copied and pasted about Ptolemy, etc. and now we can see the same thing with your copied and pasted paragraph on Arabic inscriptions. It is ironic that people here who don't have faith in Mecca know more about it and the issues around it than you.
I never tried to pretend that I am knowldgeable, but one thing from your posts I came to know is neither are YOU.
This is what I wrote
Arabic inscriptions are found throughout the lands ruled by the Muslims in our period. Most of the known graffiti are from the arid zones of northern Arabia, the Negev, Jordan and Syria, and most of the epitaphs are from Egypt, but that may simply reflect the extent of work carried out so far.
Surely;Ayman you are perfect example of a confused person.
AymanAs you implicitly admit, there are absolutely no inscriptions (graffiti or otherwise) from Mecca (until late into the Abbasid era).
It clearly means that if yet there is little evidence from MAkkah it is because of the extent of work carried out so far, YOU just try to deceive the audience.
The script I mentioned is dated 1 AH and it is in MAKKAN/Hijazi script, are you having trouble reading? and not in Nabatean armaic script.
There are other findings too from Makkah. -
Salaam
After another long discussion on this subject I like to add my humble opinion on this and highlight the contradictions between traditional explanations and the quraan.
Abraham did not build a House. He raised the foundation from the house with Ishmael. According to 396 the house is the first house appointed/raised/established for mankind; the house was already there.
The Quraan does not say Mecca is a city neither does it place the Messenger of Allah in this location 1400 years ago. The makkata in the Quraan is highly disputed.
The Quraan does not say bakkata and makkata are same. Neither there is any evidence for these claims.
There can be so many uncultivable valleys surrounding where Abraham lived. The Quraan does not say the uncultivable valley is modern day mecca, S.A.
Also what we have in Mecca is not a cube but a trapezoid. People have attempted to make it look like a cube but shame on their plans kaaba does not mean cube according to the Quraan. The Quraan does not identify the cubic structure in S.A as the Kaaba or the house.
The traditional explanation says mosque around the cubic structure in mecca S.A. is al masjid al haram and to stand facing this mosque when you do salat. But the Quraan does not mention to do this in the salat. The tradionalist will then change their stance and say face the cubic structure. They do not waste a wink thinking why the Quraan does not say face the Kaaba or house while in Salat.
The Quraan says hajj is to the house. But the tradionalist hajj is actually to the mosque around the cube because no pilgrim enters the cube which they call the house of god except the privileged. The Bible locates the house in Jerusalem, Palestine.
Umra can not mean short pilgrimage or off season pilgrimage.
The tradionalist can not tell us the reason for calling the cubic structure as the forbidden house? Neither can they tell us why the house is called the kaaba ( especially when it is not a cube) or how to raise the foundation from this house.
Safaa and Marwa are not identified as two hills in S.A. and The quaran does not identify a lady running between 2 hills in mecca S.A. 5000 years ago looking for water and does not ask us to imitate her.
Arafat is not identified as a location in S.A. in the Quraan neither is mina, jamrath and musdalifa.
None of the theories and arguments presented in these discussions has offered a plausible solution to the above contradictions or without giving rise to new or further contradictions. So I suggest we pray " Our Lord, Increase us in knowledge" and study the Quraan further
Note
A sample article from the Encyclopaedia of the Qurn at Brill Online. The article deals with some important aspects of the modern day hajj and its contradictions. Find the article at http//www.brillonline.nl/public/pilgrimage#content#content
The article, Normative Communitas and the Struggle for Religious Legitimacy in Pilgrimages to the Second Temple by Dr. Jackie Feldman on the ancient Jewish pilgrimage to the Temple brings out many similarities to the Hajj in the Quraan and the ancient Jewish pilgrimage.
Find the full article at the following link
www.netours.com/jrs/2003/forum/off-track/pilgrimage-2nd-Temple1.htm
-
Salaam
After another long discussion on this subject I like to add my humble opinion on this and highlight the contradictions between traditional explanations and the quraan.
Abraham did not build a House. He raised the foundation from the house with Ishmael. According to 396 the house is the first house appointed/raised/established for mankind; the house was already there.
The Quraan does not say Mecca is a city neither does it place the Messenger of Allah in this location 1400 years ago. The makkata in the Quraan is highly disputed.
The Quraan does not say bakkata and makkata are same. Neither there is any evidence for these claims.
There can be so many uncultivable valleys surrounding where Abraham lived. The Quraan does not say the uncultivable valley is modern day mecca, S.A.
Also what we have in Mecca is not a cube but a trapezoid. People have attempted to make it look like a cube but shame on their plans kaaba does not mean cube according to the Quraan. The Quraan does not identify the cubic structure in S.A as the Kaaba or the house.
The traditional explanation says mosque around the cubic structure in mecca S.A. is al masjid al haram and to stand facing this mosque when you do salat. But the Quraan does not mention to do this in the salat. The tradionalist will then change their stance and say face the cubic structure. They do not waste a wink thinking why the Quraan does not say face the Kaaba or house while in Salat.
The Quraan says hajj is to the house. But the tradionalist hajj is actually to the mosque around the cube because no pilgrim enters the cube which they call the ?house of god? except the privileged. The Bible locates the house in Jerusalem, Palestine.
Umra can not mean short pilgrimage or off season pilgrimage.
The tradionalist can not tell us the reason for calling the cubic structure as the forbidden house? Neither can they tell us why the house is called the kaaba ( especially when it is not a cube) or how to raise the foundation from this house.
Safaa and Marwa are not identified as two hills in S.A. and The quaran does not identify a lady running between 2 hills in mecca S.A. 5000 years ago looking for water and does not ask us to imitate her.
Arafat is not identified as a location in S.A. in the Quraan neither is mina, jamrath and musdalifa.
None of the theories and arguments presented in these discussions has offered a plausible solution to the above contradictions or without giving rise to new or further contradictions. So I suggest we pray " Our Lord, Increase us in knowledge" and study the Quraan further
Note
A sample article from the ?Encyclopaedia of the Qurn? at Brill Online. The article deals with some important aspects of the modern day hajj and its contradictions. Find the article at http//www.brillonline.nl/public/pilgrimage#content#content
The article, Normative Communitas and the Struggle for Religious Legitimacy in Pilgrimages to the Second Temple by Dr. Jackie Feldman on the ancient Jewish pilgrimage to the Temple brings out many similarities to the Hajj in the Quraan and the ancient Jewish pilgrimage.
Find the full article at the following link
www.netours.com/jrs/2003/forum/off-track/pilgrimage-2nd-Temple1.htm
peace warner, Good points.
peace