Who built the kaaba that is in Mecca?
-
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
-
AOA Rajah
Like you waiting for an answer whether in N. Arabia or anywhere. I thought Arabia meant Arabia and anywhere meant hmm! anywhere. Also waiting for link of the debate between Mr. Saifullah and Ayman.
It is for each person to decide for themselves as to who is exactly out of their depth here. All I know is that in a discusion when an individual starts to insult his opponent it mean they are usually out of their depth and cannot respond logically or factually and the insults are simply to sidetrack the debate in order to hide a lost argument.
regard -
Peace Rajah,
AymanYou did not dear Ayman, I have answered them all and I will repost them.
Dear Rajah, I am not going to go into a childish "did not and did too" back and forth with you. Just read carefully and check what I posted and then what you quoted and answered. You didn't even quote or answer each of my points from yesterday's post, let alone from June 13.
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.
It is better to be confused and non-confident than confused and confident.
2226 is not a confusing passage. It is very clear. Thus, I am confident in the god when he clearly told us the location of the house in 2226. I am confident that he gave us all the info that we need. You are free to believe 2226 or not. My sincere advice to you is to ponder on it and then decide if you want to put your confidence in the god and let him guide you or if you are going to say "nah, I know better and Mecca is the location".
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.Galileo's theories didn't gain any ground or acceptance either. It won't be long before Sira goes the same natural way as Hadith. The Ahl Al-Hadith Society are already rapidly joining the likes of the Flat Earth Society.
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."The house can be anywhere" and "the house was at one point in Northern Arabia" (one of those "anywhere" locations) are not mutually exclusive statements. This means that one statement being true doesn't make the other false. So, both can be true.
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?The location where the house can be established has never changed and it always has been the same as in 2226 (anywhere partners are not setup with the god). This never changed and never will. The god cares more about this principle than about a piece of real estate.
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?
Clearly, it is not there now and hasn't been there probably since shortly after the prophet's time since all the countries and towns in that area have idol-worship going on and they don't allow all people to safely assemble.
Instead I got your quote from else where
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?If you believe that 2226 is the absolute truth regardless of what humans do then you should know the answer. Corruption makes the place not the house of the god anymore. It is not about someone putting a sign on a building saying "Welcome to the House of Allah" while there are idols inside it. It is about the principle.
Ayman you are playing on a weak wicket.
I don't know what this means.
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)?
AymanI 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.
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.The clear identification of the location of the house by the god in 2226 automatically makes a place "not the house" by virtue of having idolatry. This is, of course, if you have confidence in the god's words in 2226.
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?
Rajah, I don't think that you understand what Adhominem is (by the way, this is not Adhominem since there are many very nice people who don't understand it either).
Judging by all the logical fallacies that you keep using,
This is a fact and I pointed the fallacies to you. I know many very nice people who use fallacious arguments. This is not an attack on the person.
? not mutually exclusive statements" is so hard for you to understand.
This is a fact. Indeed you did not understand what mutually exclusive means. There are many nice people who don't understand what mutually exclusive means. It is not an insult when I said that you don't. Generally, it helps to understand what you are arguing against. So at least what I said, got you interested in looking it up.
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 Sunni
Where is the personal attack? I gave you good advice.
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
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".Rajah, you can easily prove me wrong by telling everyone here what you think is the difference between archeological evidence and hearsay.
Using your nonsensical approach, Saudis can claim that they actually invented pasta and hence it is called "Mecca-roni".
Rajah, you are the one who brought Ptolemy into the discussions. Then you are the one who attacked him when you realized that he actually discredits Mecca. What kind of an approach is this? I didn't attack you personally. I attacked your approach. Again, there are a lot of nice people who don't have a good approach when it comes to certain issues. Also, you have to admit that Mecca-roni is a good analogy.
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.
I admit that calling your attitude arrogant is borderline Adhominem but I also gave you good advice. What is wrong with learning?
It means "target". So now you know the meaning.
Where is the insult here? You asked me to tell you what "qiblah" means and I told you. Did you already know the meaning and hence were you not sincere in your question?
Mr. Saifullah makes ridiculous statements such as the following
One almost feels sorry for Mr. Saifullah making laughable argumentsMany nice people make ridiculous statements and laughable arguments. You have to admit that saying that "Mecca is the only place that has a cube" ranks pretty high amongst such arguments. I am sure that you can find an object somewhere in your house which is more of a cube than the so-called Kaaba in Mecca (which is not even truly a cube).
Present 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.I stated an observation and gave you good advice. You took my advice and now we can both progress instead of being stuck on a misunderstood point.
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.
If you think that hearsay is a dirty Adhominem word then don't base your arguments on it.
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.Did you not copy and paste pretty much all your so-called evidence from others?
I gave you good sincere advice.
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?
I am sure that 2226 is the absolute truth no matter what people do.
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 correctlyI admit that I was a little hard on Gibbons. However, he does need to choose his words carefully because as you saw some people have built their entire arguments for the historicity of Mecca on his careless statements. This tells you that they have nothing else.
When 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.
Rajah, you seem to be an over-sensitive person who takes things too personally instead of focusing on the issues.
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.
Rajah, if you are going to ask for something that requires me spending some of my time to do a search on your behalf and get you the info on a golden platter, then you should at least be nice about it.
At any rate, as I said, you have to go about 4 years back
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/75aae4a889a0c494/
In the course of the debate, we discussed Hadiths about "qiblah"/target. As you can see, Mr. Saifullah was defending Hadiths that say that when we defecate or urinate we should not face the so-called Qiblah but face the east or the west. Those Hadiths clearly make fun of the god and of passages such as 2115 that say "to the god belongs the east and the west". Of course, Mr. Saifullah was too busy defending his hearsay with more hearsay and didn't care about the content or validating it against the great reading. It is a waste of time to continue a debate when it is clear that the opponent doesn't even care about what the god is saying.
Peace,
Ayman
-
Peace,
I read that debate way back when I newly joined this forum. I have to say, "Saifullah" was clearly not defending his position well (put tactfully ). That place had some more debates which were quite informative to read btw, strangely most of the good ones involved bro Ayman. Sometimes the debates were downright out for blood I noticed! Fun.
-
009.107
YUSUFALI And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.
PICKTHAL And as for those who chose a place of worship out of opposition and disbelief, and in order to cause dissent among the believers, and as an outpost for those who warred against Allah and His messenger aforetime, they will surely swear We purposed naught save good. Allah beareth witness that they verily are liars.
SHAKIR And those who built a masjid to cause harm and for unbelief and to cause disunion among the believers and an ambush to him who made war against Allah and His Messenger before; and they will certainly swear We did not desire aught but good; and Allah bears witness that they are most surely liars.009.108
YUSUFALI Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth (for prayer) therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.
PICKTHAL Never stand (to pray) there. A place of worship which was found upon duty (to Allah) from the first day is more worthy that thou shouldst stand (to pray) therein, wherein are men who love to purify themselves. Allah loveth the purifiers.
SHAKIR Never stand in it; certainly a masjid founded on piety from the very first day is more deserving that you should stand in it; in it are men who love that they should be purified; and Allah loves those who purify themselves.009.109
YUSUFALI Which then is best? - he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? - or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.
PICKTHAL Is he who founded his building upon duty to Allah and His good pleasure better; or he who founded his building on the brink of a crumbling, overhanging precipice so that it toppled with him into the fire of hell? Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR Is he, therefore, better who lays his foundation on fear of Allah and (His) good pleasure, or he who lays his foundation on the edge of a cracking hollowed bank, so it broke down with him into the fire of hell; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.009.110
YUSUFALI The foundation of those who so build is never free from suspicion and shakiness in their hearts, until their hearts are cut to pieces. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise.
PICKTHAL The building which they built will never cease to be a misgiving in their hearts unless their hearts be torn to pieces. Allah is Knower, Wise.
SHAKIR The building which they have built will ever continue to be a source of disquiet in their hearts, except that their hearts get cut into pieces; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.009.111
YUSUFALI Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise) they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded that is the achievement supreme.
PICKTHAL Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.
SHAKIR Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.Case closed, GG, bye-bye
-
Dear Ayman;
YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION SIR!
Ayman
It is better to be confused and non-confident than confused and confident.
2226 is not a confusing passage. It is very clear. Thus, I am confident in the god when he clearly told us the location of the house in 2226. I am confident that he gave us all the info that we need. You are free to believe 2226 or not. My sincere advice to you is to ponder on it and then decide if you want to put your confidence in the god and let him guide you or if you are going to say "nah, I know better and Mecca is the location".2226 tells us
We appointed Abraham to establish the House "You shall not idolize any other god beside Me, and purify My shrine for those who visit it, those who live near it, and those who bow and prostrate.- Allah appointed Abraham to establish the Shrine, at a specific location (not any where).
- He advised Abraham
a) Do not idolize any other god beside me
b) Purify my shrine for those who visit it, who live near it and those who bow and prostrate/who yield and submit.
This verse tells us that there is a specific location for "BAyt".
Abraham and his Son up to the time they were alive kept on their promise of Not idolizing any other God besides Allah, and kept away all the corruptions from the House.
This verse does not tells us that if idolatry starts at the house go and change it to anywhere. Infact we know that when people started idiolizing other god's besides Allah at the house, Allah send a Prophet as per the prayers of Abraham who destroyed these Idols and stopped other corruptions in "Mansiks" going on at that time, he (prophet did not changed the "Bayt". Why? because he had no authority to do so! Allah has chosed the location itself and has mentioned it in many verses.
Now if you tell us that because the "Bayt" is not fullfilling the conditions as per 2226, we must establish new "House" wherever these conditions are fullfilled, then your claim must be backed up from Quran and you have FAILED TO DO SO till now! and 2226 doesnot tell us to change the "house".
I would like to give an exampleFor example I live in "Das MArinas Village" in MANILa Phillippines, this is very "peacefull" locality, full "security" is available here in electronic and physical shape, and specifically in my "House" there are no idols. I think this almost fullfils the conditions you think are necessary for "House".
Similarly My friend lives in Switzerland and she thinks her place is the most peaceful and fullfills all the other conditions you mentioned.
and so does Millions others
So who will decide which one is the real "House" of Allah? and will Ayman you come there for performing the "rituals" mentioned in quran? That is the "House" of Allah and Allah has decided it where it has to be!
Now please read this verse
Surely, those who disbelieve and repulse others from the path of GOD, and from the Sacred Masjid that we designated for all the people- be they natives or visitors- and seek to pollute it and corrupt it, we will afflict them with painful retribution.See it is Allah, who will decide for those who pollute it and corrupt it! and not you brother ayman! You are actually trying to repulse others from the path of God and from Sacred Masjid. Allah tells he will afflict pain ful retribution for them and doesnot say CHANGE the LOCATION of my HOUSE.
ALLAH HO AKBAR.
FALSE HOOD IS BOUND TO PERSISH AND HAS PERISHED.
Therfore i ask you the question once again
WHich verse of the Quran tells us that if there is idolatry going on in Allah's House change the House and place it ANYWHERE?NOW when it is almost confirmed that "House" of Allah just can't be ANYWHERE and it has a specific location which Allah has chosed, we move on to your second claim that the "House" was in NORTHREN ARABIA, I guess you said in likhmind province (i am not sure).
WHY THE HOUSE CANNOT BE IN NORTHREN ARABIA
"Our Lord, I have settled part of my family in this uncultivable valley, at Your Sacred House. Our Lord, they are to observe the Salat, so let throngs of people converge upon them, and provide for them all kinds of fruits, that they may be appreciative"
- As the place ayman tries to mention to be the house of Allah, seems to be prosperous land with all sorts of cultivations going on, does not matches with the description of the valley mentioned in this verse.
- Now Abraham specifically prays for all Kinds of fruits, if it seemed to Abraham that this land can be cultivated or was cultivable then he would not pray for all sorts of fruits, he would rather say make this land fertile for my family and the later genrations.
Further proof from Quran that the VAlley was uncultivable
This should be cherished by Quraish.
Their protection during their trading caravans in the winter and the summer --
They shall worship the Lord of this shrine.
For He is the One who fed them after hunger, and provided them with security after fearThese words in this Surah "Raba Haza-al-bayt" the Lord of "this house" tells us that Allah is talking to people of that Particular land where the "BAYT" is and Allah mentions there way of earning and that is "TRADING" and not by cultivation, and then in the last verse it tells us that "HE" is the one who fed them after hunger, giving an indication to the Abraham's prayer where he said "provide them with all kinds of fruits" because this valley is incapbale of growing any.
Will they not then believe.
Quran tells us that
They shall complete their obligations, fulfill their vows, and visit the ancient House.VISIT THE "BAYT-AL-ATIQ.
This further confirms that Hajj can only be to a place where there is "Ancient Bayt" and Not newly proposed houses as planned by ayman.The (livestock) provide you with many benefits for a period, before being donated to the ancient Bayt.
Once again Allah rejects the Plans of ayman and co. This has to be done only where the Ancient Bayt is and not in a place as proposed by ayman.And call out to mankind with the Pilgrimage, they will come to you walking and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure
There is Zero Evidence that any Pilgrimage was made to any point in Northren Arabia by Muslims in last fifteen hundred years or so.
Ayman makes assertion that soon after the death of Prophet the Place which was set up as "House" was full of idolatry again and SURPRISINGLY the MUslims of that time doing nothing to stop that Idolatry instead stoped doing Hajj, it is also to be noted that he doesnot mention how long after Prophet's death the hajj stopped at Northren Arabia? The question arises
WHO SHIFTED the House of Allah from Northren Arabia to present Day MAKKAH? and why there was no opposition to this? Were the Makkans' more stronger, were they more literate, more Knowldgeable? ayman is silent about all these points.
To shift the "Bayt" which was so sacred even before Muhammad, was not an easy task and an event which went unmarked in the History, and even for last fifteen hundred years no one of recognized Scholars, writers or Historians have pointed out this SO called Blunder.
Ayman ISSUES a FATWA that in present circumstances and from last fifteen hundred years the HAjj is being Suspended
But What ALLAH HAS To say in this regard......... And God is owed from mankind to pilgrim to the Bayt, whoever can make a path to it. And whoever rejects, then God has no need of the worlds.
See ayman what Allah has to say for those who think Hajj is suspended from the time of Prophet Muhammad, whereas Quran on the contrary tells us Muhammad came to reborn the religon of Abraham.
You shall hold fast to the rope of GOD, all of you, and do not be divided. Recall GOD's blessings upon you - you used to be enemies and He reconciled your hearts. By His grace, you became brethren. You were at the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you therefrom. GOD thus explains His revelations for you, that you may be guided.
But on the contrary brother ayman you are telling us each to have his own "Bayt", you are trying to disunite Muslims.
According to a you the history of Islam and Muslims is quite possibly a lie.
Therefore the claim that "Bayt" being in Northren Arabia or any where holds no Air; According to Quran, History and Logic but wait Ayman has an article in his support
about what he thinks that I have not enough depth to tackle it.
But before I comment on such a "Sacred" document of ayman let me first clear out some of his previous supposedly unanswered comments.ayman
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
.Either you donot read your opponents comments; which is more likely to be as "DEnis Giron" and others have pointed out or you just think that calling one a hadith believer can gain you some sympathy in the eyes of Hadith rejectors.
My stance on Hadith is quite clear and if you have a time from your busy schedule please click on following link
this was a debate with AbuL KAsem and HECTOR at APOSTATESOFISLAM web site on the topic titled
"WAS MUHAMMAD A PEDOPHILE"?Abul Kasem(FFI) Vs Rajah
http//www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1131&start=0
This debate is also featured at Infidel Guy web site a famous Atheist web site as intresting debate
Mughal
Joined Feb 02, 2003
Posts 403
Location Islamabad,Pakistan Glasgow,Scotland
Posted Sun Feb 26, 2006 530 am Post subject ISLAM DEBATED by MUSLIMS & NONMUSLIMS
Please add interesting links only.
- Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
Abul Kasem(FFI) Vs Rajah
http//www.apostatesofislam.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1131&start=0
- Is Quran the word of God? Does Arabic have a word for a male BEE?
Rajah's Challenge (one on one debate with Phed)
P1) http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11189&highlight=
P2) http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11189&start=0
- Is the quranic inheritance law perfect?
http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?p=11064
http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2346&start=0
- Some more interesting debates.
http//www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15104
All the best from Mughal at
http//www.religionandsecularism3.gq.nu/favorite_links.html
Last edited by Mughal on Tue Oct 03, 2006 321 am; edited 1 time in total
-
Stilllearning
AOA Rajah
Like you waiting for an answer whether in N. Arabia or anywhere. I thought Arabia meant Arabia and anywhere meant hmm! anywhere. Also waiting for link of the debate between Mr. Saifullah and Ayman.
It is for each person to decide for themselves as to who is exactly out of their depth here. All I know is that in a discusion when an individual starts to insult his opponent it mean they are usually out of their depth and cannot respond logically or factually and the insults are simply to sidetrack the debate in order to hide a lost argument.
regardSalam brother
May be after my last post ayman can give us an answer for N.A or Anywhere and if Anywhere then When, Why and Who allowed it?
Regarding the debate between ayman and Saifullah on the above Issue, I have not seen any direct debate after all the googling.
ayman
Rajah, if you are going to ask for something that requires me spending some of my time to do a search on your behalf and get you the info on a golden platter, then you should at least be nice about it.
At any rate, as I said, you have to go about 4 years back
http//groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/browse_frm/thread/75aae4a889a0c494/
In the course of the debate, we discussed Hadiths about "qiblah"/target. As you can see, Mr. Saifullah was defending Hadiths that say that when we defecate or urinate we should not face the so-called Qiblah but face the east or the west. Those Hadiths clearly make fun of the god and of passages such as 2115 that say "to the god belongs the east and the west". Of course, Mr. Saifullah was too busy defending his hearsay with more hearsay and didn't care about the content or validating it against the great reading. It is a waste of time to continue a debate when it is clear that the opponent doesn't even care about what the god is saying.
I just don't understand why did you posted this link? First of all this debate is regarding HAdith, secondly it clearly tells us your lack of knowldge regarding Hadith stuff.
-
Raj-ah,
I think one of the chief reasons you have difficulties understanding what Ayman is trying to tell you is your poor mastery of the Arabic language.
There are many instances where you base your proofs on a basis of a distorted or wrong translation. One significant example is what you translate as uncultivable valley (ie a land that cannot be cultivated), is in fact uncultivated valley (ie a land that happens not to be cultivated but who might)...
Another more important misconception and wrong interpretation is that the House was built by Abraham, it was not, but its Foundation, raised from the House (which are Monotheism and dedication to Allah alone) was.
As for my position, I believe that the House has to be physical and is in fact in Jerusalem, and that we need to raise the Foundation of Monotheism from it.